Defining its own Mythology

[Kevin Brennan]

Y'know, while Rechan may be tact challenged, his point is still valid. RC and others are saying that D&D's strength is in its hodgepodge nature. I agree with this point. But, it appears to me that their idea of hodgepodge is limited to a small list of dead authors. Anything that comes afterward should be ignored in order to preserve the purity of the game.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me at least it's not adding influences that are the problem. Additional options are fine. The problem is that they're changing the game in ways that will make it significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to play a game in the style that all previous editions have supported. It just feels like a new game to me. If that game appeals to you, great, I'm not looking to spoil your fun. And hey, nobody's taking away my game books, so I can continue to play a game that supports what I want to do. I just would have liked 4e to be that game, is all.

 

[neceros]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me at least it's not adding influences that are the problem. Additional options are fine. The problem is that they're changing the game in ways that will make it significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to play a game in the style that all previous editions have supported. It just feels like a new game to me. If that game appeals to you, great, I'm not looking to spoil your fun. And hey, nobody's taking away my game books, so I can continue to play a game that supports what I want to do. I just would have liked 4e to be that game, is all.

Give it time. If they mess up D&D that badly do you think most of us will still play? I don't.

 

[Doug McCrae]

After all, if D&D is truly a hodgepodge of fantasy, then why not use recent fantasy in basic design?

Using whatever is current in fantasy would be very much following in the proud traditions of D&D. Over its 30+ year history it's never stopped doing this. LotR had only recently become popular on US college campuses when OD&D debuted.

Though admittedly most of the pulp fiction Gary ripped off was of an earlier period - 1930s-50s.

 

[Keldryn]

It's okay for some people to say that people who like 4e don't like D&D (and are obviously flawed and inferior) but it's not okay to tell you goodbye?

Come on, dogpiling on Rechan is one thing, but, let's be fair here. Oldahan flat out stated that anyone who likes 4e hates D&D. That's utterly ridiculous. Yet, I don't see any criticisms for him.

I'm in agreement. Rechan might not have expressed his opinion with the utmost tact, but I find the implied "my vision of D&D is more pure and correct than yours because I still play it the same way after 30 years" subtext in a lot of posts far more offensive than anything that he wrote.

 

[resistor]

Come on, dogpiling on Rechan is one thing, but, let's be fair here. Oldahan flat out stated that anyone who likes 4e hates D&D. That's utterly ridiculous. Yet, I don't see any criticisms for him.

I just went back and re-read the entire thread, to make sure I hadn't missed something. I assume you mean when he said: "Seems to me that 4E is marketed to people who actually don't like D&D. This is just wrong."

While I certainly think it could be better phrased to be less incendiary, I don't think it says that "anyone who likes 4e hates D&D." There is no other possible reading of what Rechan wrote than as a direct insult.

That said, I extend a preemptive apology to anyone that might have read such a sentiment in my posts. I don't think my games are better than anyone else's. I just feel that the games I play (which I don't think are anything incredibly abnormal) are not included in the redefined D&D experience for 4e, and thus I won't be buying it.

I sincerely hope that everyone who likes 4e has a great time playing it. I also hope that they'll accept that some of us don't like it, and just telling us to "rename/rewrite it to your taste" isn't an acceptable solution.

 

[resistor]

I'm in agreement. Rechan might not have expressed his opinion with the utmost tact, but I find the implied "my vision of D&D is more pure and correct than yours because I still play it the same way after 30 years" subtext in a lot of posts far more offensive than anything that he wrote.

I have more than one point of contention with this, but I'm only going to address the one that's truly on-topic:

If you think I have been implying that I've been playing the game the same way for the last 30 years, well, you're wrong.

I actually didn't start playing until 3e, as did all of my players. I think to some extent that's why I feel left out by the changes: I'm not bringing lots of baggage from every previous edition, but my game style still seems to be excluded. If I truly were a 30-year-long grognard, I think it would be easier to accept being left behind.

 

[resistor]

Y'know, while Rechan may be tact challenged, his point is still valid. RC and others are saying that D&D's strength is in its hodgepodge nature. I agree with this point. But, it appears to me that their idea of hodgepodge is limited to a small list of dead authors. Anything that comes afterward should be ignored in order to preserve the purity of the game.

That's definitely not what I'm trying to say. I haven't even read a lot of the authors point at as the inspiration of D&D.

The only thing I'm saying is that the kind of game I play right now in 3.5e (BTW, I only started playing with 3e, so it's nothing ultra-grognard-y) seems to be excluded from 4e, without significant renaming/rewriting.

If I were still playing OD&D style, I could understand this. Letting go of REALLY old stuff is understandable.

If I were playing corner-cases, I could understand this. The edge-cases of what D&D can support are always changing, so I wouldn't be surprised for them to move with an edition change.

However, I'm not doing either. I play in both supported and previously-supported settings. I use prewritten modules with some regularity. I buy and use WotC books with decent frequency.

I am surprised and disappointed because, despite being (in my own perception) in the "well-supported" region of 3.5e, I'm apparently not supported at all in 4e.

I have no problem with supporting more new playstyles. I do have a problem with excluding old ones, particularly ones that were well-supported in the previous edition.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, it appears to me that their idea of hodgepodge is limited to a small list of dead authors. Anything that comes afterward should be ignored in order to preserve the purity of the game.

Boo hiss for this idea. I believe that the hodgepodge is strong enough to contain pokemon trainers and giant sword-wielders and, yes, even emo drow children. To include some other modern fantasy, let's say armored bears, daemons, and Dust (I'm stoked for the Golden Compass movie, I CAN'T HELP IT!).

Of course, that doesn't mean D&D should get rid of what has come before -- the wizards and the barbarians and the assasins need to be in the same bucket.

Honestly, it would have excited me more to see a Monster Trainer class in the 4e core than it does to see the Great Wheel eradicated in the 4e core.

Fantasy has its roots in Tolkien and others, but, those roots have grown pretty bloody far from the source. Why shouldn't D&D reflect that?

IMO, it should.

But, also, 4e doesn't seem to be interested in doing that, from some of the tidbits. If the OP is right and D&D is trying to define itself as apart from the fantasy that influences, it will be WEAK SAUCE. I don't want Dave Noonan's homebrew. I want the game to be MY setting for MY group, or my friend Eddie's setting for our group.

Rather, in defining itself as apart from those influences, D&D is trying to be it's own setting for all groups. IMO, that's a project destined for failure, because it flies in the face of something D&D has always done very well.

And I definately appreciate the "buffet style" analogy better than the bread analogy. Pick and choose your favorite foods, pile them on a plate, and call it delicious. 4e seems to be intentionally limiting it's buffet for the core.

 

[Hussar]

A further thought occurs.

3e hardwired its implied setting far more tightly than any edition previously. With the wealth/level guidelines, demographic guidelines and, being able to purchase magic items, if you depart from those three basic concepts, you need to do lots and lots of tapdancing with the rules. The implied setting is pretty solidly embedded in 3e mechanics.

The thing is, the implied setting has very little flavour. They give you all the mechanics of the setting and then assume that the DM will provide the flavour to fit those mechanics. Thus we see post after post about how 3e can't do this or that kind of campaign, primarily campaigns with a lower magic base, but, also other campaigns as well. That's because the implied campaign is hardwired. 3e can't do low magic settings (without lots of tap dancing) because it's not set up that way. It doesn't do a whole lot of settings very well, other than the baseline one. There's a reason that we see all sorts of mechanical changes with other settings. You pretty much have to because of the basic assumptions of 3e.

From what I see, 4e is going to keep the same level of hard wiring in the rules. They aren't going to back off of that because so many people like the idea of baselines to work from. It allows development to be much more cohesive than without a baseline. However, what I think is happening is they are actually going to provide flavour with that baseline as well, which is a change from 3e.

That flavour is going to be based on the core assumptions of the books. 3e could easily have the same thing, but, they shied away from it. They didn't provide much, if any, flavour for the baseline assumptions.

That goes against the stated goals of 4e though, one of which is to provide faster play. If the DM has to start out by detailing out all the whosits in his campaign setting, that's a huge barrier to entry to play. However, if the core 3 manuals contain an entire campaign setting, complete with flavour (we know the DMG will include at least one settlement fully detailed), then the new DM can read the book and start play.

This worked very, very well for Basic and Expert D&D remember. What would later become known as Mystara was plunked right down in the rulebooks. The entire game was wired for play in the Known World. They made no secret of that fact. The campaign outlines are right there in the books and in the modules that were included with the books.

It's not like this idea is totally new. It is actually, IMO, pretty tried and true. Most RPG's have a hard coded setting right in the core books. Thinking about it, other than GURPS, what RPG doesn't have a detailed setting in the core books?

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

It's not like this idea is totally new. It is actually, IMO, pretty tried and true. Most RPG's have a hard coded setting right in the core books. Thinking about it, other than GURPS, what RPG doesn't have a detailed setting in the core books?

HERO is another obvious one. Tri-Stat dX (which is cheating kinda, it's a distillation of the rules) and the cyberpunk book Ex Machina (containing four micro-settings). Burning Wheel likes to say it doesn't, but it's the most LotR game I've ever seen without the word 'Gandalf' in the book, so it's 50/50.

Arguably, Palladium's Heroes Unlimited and Ninjas & Superspies have no setting, taking the "Modern-day Earth but with more (x)" approach (that x might be superheroes or ninjas, respectively) - by lacking canon characters/world explanations, they seem pretty general. You could make the argument for the nWoD core book too, though it's tenuous IMO.

The Silhouette system comes in a single setting-less book, as did (does?) the BRP system (these might, again, be cheating - but they cost money where Tri-Stat dX is free).

It's rather telling four of them are generic point buy and the rest could be argued to have setting flavor included.

EDIT: And would you look at how timely my .sig is.