Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[thecasualoblivion]

Overpowered spellcasters was pretty close to a systemic problem in 3E. You either were ignorant of how to do it and that it could be done, you knew the problem existed and consciously avoided it, or were troubled by it.

 

[pemerton]

However, what we see a lot nowadays is people not using experience points like that. Instead they use it as "campaign pacing" mechanic; they only hand out XP in a hand wave fashion so that it levels up the characters "after so many sessions" or "when it feels right" or "when the story requires it".

That is NOT gamism. That's simulationism at its best. It "feels like the heroes should get stronger, to fight these stronger enemies" so they do.

<snip>

Like I said, it may be largely my observation, but I feel like more people do the "set piece encounters", linear storylines from one to the other, and trash traditional experience accumulation for more of a "campaign pacing" mechanic.

I wanted to XP this post, but couldn't.

My own view of the 4e XP rules is that they are inherently a pacing mechanic rather than a reward - because they are earned per combat encounter (which the game presupposes the PCs will succeed at most of the time), per skill challenge (whether passed or faild, as per the RC), per 15 minute of free roleplaying (per DMG2) and per quest achieved.

I think this can be used to create a sort of "background context" for fairly relaxed narrativist play. As [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has explained, it can also create a context for gamism - but the gamism won't be of the "more XP/more treasure" variety (a la classic D&D or T&T), at least without drifting from the core 4e rules, but will be of the "Check out my cool build and its moves!" variety.

I think you're right that 4e could also be played as a type of high-concept simulationism, again with the advancement working as a type of genre-preserving background context. I think 4e has features that might push against that, because tending to encourage too much player "activism" (the build rules, the metagame mechanics) but a strong group consensus and/or habits of play could keep them in check, I'm sure (much as BryonD is describing for how his 3E group keep CoDzilla etc in check).

 

[LostSoul]

Oh, I absolutely admit that people have this problem. It would be silly to argue otherwise. But it is not a symetric issue. If it was a systemic problem it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.

I don't know. I never saw a PC die in the 13 years I played in AD&D. Does that mean that AD&D's system doesn't include PC death? ("If PC death were a systemic problem - considering that we didn't want our PCs to die - it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.") Or does it mean that our personal system, using AD&D as a base, didn't include PC death?

What I would suggest is that you've moved away from the parts of 3E that you don't like and have created your own system.

 

[BryonD]

My case in particular: My group likes supplements. We do not wish to limit new classes or feats, etc. We love splatbooks!

I LOVE splatbooks. I don't have the problem.
I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[BryonD]

I don't know. I never saw a PC die in the 13 years I played in AD&D. Does that mean that AD&D's system doesn't include PC death? ("If PC death were a systemic problem - considering that we didn't want our PCs to die - it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.") Or does it mean that our personal system, using AD&D as a base, didn't include PC death?

What I would suggest is that you've moved away from the parts of 3E that you don't like and have created your own system.

I'm sorry, but your reply doesn't make much sense.

If PC death was systemic it would be impossible for you to not see it.
If lack of PC death was systemic it would be impossible for you to see it.

Neither are true and neither compare to the claim that the power gap MUST exist.

I'm NOT saying people don't see it. I'm sayignt he claims that it MUST be seen by all who play are closed minded and flatly absurd.

 

[BryonD]

Overpowered spellcasters was pretty close to a systemic problem in 3E. You either were ignorant of how to do it and that it could be done, you knew the problem existed and consciously avoided it, or were troubled by it.

Board-gamey play and homogenous PCs are pretty close to systemic in 4E. You're either oblivious of it, or troubled by it.

Gee, simple declarations sure are easy.

And I absolutely accept that there are tons of people for which my statement is false.

Of course, I'd also say that there are a lot more people who see the flaw in your statement and also the issues I identified pushes more people away from 4E than your issues push away from 3E.

The point being, if all you got is "3E sucks because your personal experience constitutes 'pretty close to systemtic' ", then you really don't have much to offer.

 

[BryonD]

And yes you can force it to be a fun experience but then you are basically admitting that you have to kludge the system to make it work.

"Force"? "Kludge"? Where do you get these words from my quotes?

I do neither.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Overpowered spellcasters was pretty close to a systemic problem in 3E. You either were ignorant of how to do it and that it could be done, you knew the problem existed and consciously avoided it, or were troubled by it.

...or you accepted that magic this powerful could never be balanced with any nonmagical ability, because it's magic.

Many people don't see it as a "problem" that wizards can teleport, polymorph, and grant wishes while rogues and fighters can't. That just makes sense.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm sorry, but your reply doesn't make much sense.

If PC death was systemic it would be impossible for you to not see it.
If lack of PC death was systemic it would be impossible for you to see it.

Neither are true and neither compare to the claim that the power gap MUST exist.

I'm NOT saying people don't see it. I'm sayignt he claims that it MUST be seen by all who play are closed minded and flatly absurd.

The bolded section was true for me - it was impossible for me to see PC death. It never happened and was never going to happen. It was part of the system we made for ourselves.

I'm not saying that everyone must see the power gap; I'm saying that it's simply an artifact of the system, and one must take steps to change the system in order to get rid of it. That's how it's similar to PC death for me in AD&D - it's part of the system, but we changed the system to get rid of it.

I could be wrong. The power gap is true in my experiences, but I'm aware that my experiences aren't that broad. If you have some examples of your play that show how it's not the case, I'll accept it.

[sblock=My current 3.5 game]I'm playing in a 3.5 game right now, and my main foe - though luckily he doesn't care much about me - is an ancient green dragon vampire (CR 20+). I'm 12th level*, a fighter-2/wizard-4/spellsword-1/abjurant champion-5. I am plotting against the vampire - and the young adult red dragon that he sent us against, whom my githyanki companion thinks will serve us willingly - and I have no idea how I'd do that if I wasn't a 10th-level wizard caster. If I were a fighter, rogue, ranger, barbarian, monk - I'd have no way to deal with him.

* - I wouldn't be if we didn't have access to Plane Shift - I used Lesser Planar Binding to call a Janni as my vizier, and the other PC is a githyanki psychic warrior. That saved me from five! DC ~23 negative levels as we Plane Shifted to Sigil where I could get access to a Restoration spell. My Overland Flight couldn't reach to the nearest city before I'd have to start making Fortitude saves.

Cool story, though - since we had two Plane Shifts, I wanted to get back into the dungeon before the NPCs there took the loot and ran off. We Plane Shifted back to Faerun and I attempted to Teleport back to our previous location - a necromantic circle of great power - and messed it up. Now we're in a "Similar Area: You wind up in an area that’s visually or thematically similar to the target area." Pretty awesome![/sblock]

 

[prosfilaes]

I don't know. I never saw a PC die in the 13 years I played in AD&D. Does that mean that AD&D's system doesn't include PC death? ("If PC death were a systemic problem - considering that we didn't want our PCs to die - it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.") Or does it mean that our personal system, using AD&D as a base, didn't include PC death?

That would mean that PC death is not a systemic problem in AD&D; that characters only die because how the players handle the system. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion.