Defining its own Mythology

[neceros]

It does impact play when they decide what races and classes to cut from the core game and to slice alignments up that are used to determine whether the casting of a particular spell is an evil act or not, etc.

They are trying to free up roleplaying.

For isntance, casting an "evil" spell will give you "evil" points in 3e. Instead of forcing it now, they will just allow the players to decide who's evil.

If random peasant saw Good Sorcerer cast "Summon Demon" it won't go over easy, regardless if it's mechanically evil or not. The universe should not push an alignment unto anyone, it should be self derived. Karma is one thing, but Restricted actions due to personal views is entirely against what makes us human: the need for adaptation and redemption.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It does impact play when they decide what races and classes to cut from the core game

Do many people play core only games?

The way to see 4e is as an evolutionary change from late 3e. Just as late 3e is an evolutionary change from early 3e.

If you're already playing with Tome of Battle (per encounter abilities, kung fu names, melee guys can do magic), Complete Arcane/Mage (wizards have at will abilities), Monster Manual 5 (monster powers change on half hit points), Races of the Dragon (dragonmen) and Magic Item Compendium (magic items with cool powers are viable, not just big six), 4e is going to seem like no big deal. Almost no change at all.

To people who use 3e core only, house rule the heck out of it to make it more like 1e and only use modules from Goodman Games and Necromancer, 4e is going to seem like a massive change.

 

[Wormwood]

The way to see 4e is as an evolutionary change from late 3e. Just as late 3e is an evolutionary change from early 3e.

I really, really think you are on to something here.

 

[Brentos]

Wow!

Wow! Great response. I will debate a few points, though...

There are several avenues where I have problems with the 4e releases thus far...At its core, the basic experience of D&D has always been "an assemblage of characters go to mysterious places, encounter mysterious creatures, and seek treasure". This statement certainly isn't changing with 4e. Indeed, in some ways the 4e designers seem to be hearkening back to earlier editions, by making exploration a viable playstyle using the core rules.

Score 1 for 4e

In this sense, D&D's "mythology" (as used earlier, as the trappings of the world, society, races, magic, gods and monsters shameless ripped off from other fantasy sources and filtered through the Gygaxian lens) is part of its core identity. The inclusion of new elements to that core identity can expand and strengthen it. The loss of the strongest elements of that core identity can only weaken it.

This mythology has radically changed and altered since the 70's...this is no different. In fact, the Gygaxian lens has lost focus the farther we go along...evolution. Also, I'm a big Planescape fan, and the changed cosmology sounds really cool!

Here's an easy example: Alignment. One of the primary tenets of fantasy, going back before the term "fantasy" was used, is that moral choices have consequence in the real world. This is as true for The Golden Compass as it is for The Lord of the Rings as it is for King Arthur, as it is for Beowulf, as it is for Gilgamesh. Alignment in D&D has always been used as a tool to bring this into the game.

Yet, this is (arguably) the biggest piece of the game that is ignored, hated, house-ruled away. You can still have evil acts have natural (or supernatural) consequences, that is whay DM fiat is for...its just no longer badwrongfun to ignore it as a game mechanic.

There has also been a nice side benefit to this method of growing the core identity: As players/DMs read more, they encountered echoes of the game they were playing. One could pick up almost any fantasy novel (and still can to this day, including modern fantasy) and discover things that D&D reflects, or that reflect D&D. In this way, the simple act of reading or seeing a movie recharges creative batteries and increases both the range and the depth of what might occur in the game.

I don't see this changing. In fact, 4th edition sounds like it could do a brilliant Harry Potter type adventure!

If, on the other hand, "an assemblage of characters go to mysterious places, encounter mysterious creatures, and seek treasure", is all there is to D&D's core identity, then "an assemblage of scarab beetles go to mysterious dungheaps, encounter mysterious bugs, and seek dung" would be as appealing as any other set-up.

Heh. Sh** the role-playing game! Defend your Sh** from invading beetles! Sounds cool!

Of course, not every DM/player likes alignment, or elves, or race restrictions on class. Each group playing the game alters things to make it more of what they want, and to make the game more rewarding for them. I am no exception to this rule. When playing 2e, my house rule document was 60+ pages (many relating to deities and specialty priests), and my 3e house rule document tops 600 pages.

This is my biggest point to this. 600 pages! I imagine that a DM who has 100's of pages of houserules will not be happy with any addition. What kinds of house-rules are they? Fluff? Crunch? Restriction? New options? I would love to put them through the same lens as 4e is being put through to see if it is "real" D&D... (Not disparaging, just curious...600 pages! Based on reading your postings and such, I imagine it is actually quite good stuff.)

However, I don't think that a DM should have to write that much simply to create diversity from the core. Which means that the names, concepts, and fluff text in the core should be as generic as possible, with expansions that broaden the horizon as much as possible. This is the 2e, and later the 3e, model.

And it is a good model.

I disagree, but I do agree that some of the new names are...too much. In fact, I was sorry to see the names Bigby, Mord-y, etc. dropped, because I found the fluff names to be exciting (even though I didn't have any idea who they were).

Some folks have claimed that making changes to 3e is difficult; i.e., that it is hard to run a low-magic game using the 3e core books. I don't believe this to be true... 3e is a wonderfully open system, as is best demonstrated by examining many of the 3rd-party offerings. It can support an astonishing array of worlds, from the "basic" Gygaxian D&D world to Victorian fantasy, to a Modern setting based of a Gygaxian world. If I wanted to run, say, a game based off of any novel's world, I would find it easier to do so using the basic 3e ruleset than any previous ruleset. Far from "not doing Conan well" (for example), D&D can do Conan by simply placing restrictions on what material is used.

I don't think D&D can model any book very well without massive modification. Plus, making changes can be difficult...600 pages of difficult!

You can definitely make the fluff for any book, but to make the action match what characters can do in a movie or book, and make it internally consistent and fun for all players at the table...very difficult.

But what is best is that it can do Conan in one scenario, and Pirates of the Carribean in another, and King Kong in yet a third, all within the same campaign world, and using the same characters at various levels/points in their adventuring career.

I once participated in a thread about the rust monster, and the Mearls redesign of the same. In my view, coming from earlier versions of the game, the rust monster is a wonderfully adaptable creature that can be used in the game in several ways: used to detect seams of metal by the miner's guild, used to indicate old dwarf works (where it still seeks out mined and unmined ore), and explanation for why dwarfholds use stone doors with recessed hinges, even an intelligent genius of its kind that can be bargained with. Contrasting to this was the view that the rust monster could only be used as a "gotcha" monster that should really be statted as a hazard.

Great thoughts here! I love your thoughts on rust monster uses! I like the redesign, though, and its fluffiness could still do most of that, I think. Outside of combat, the rust monster, if given 30 minutes, maybe can still chew through a metal door.

"Branding" is all about restricting options to a common denominator. As I said earlier, this is generally a bad thing for D&D. Fluff names like "Golden Wyvern Style" require more work to remove from the game than it seems on the surface, as Dr. Awkward pointed out so well. Indeed, it might be easier to stat up gnome PCs for yourself than to extract the common denominator fluff being built into the game's terminology.

I don't buy that argument. Who cares what the feat/PrC, etc is, as long as the player and DM know what mechanics can occur. I imagine you've made up feats, etc., and the name probably isn't very important anyhoo. Note, though, I'm not a fan of the Jungle Tiger Crouch Snap Whip variety name, and I hope they get Dodo'd.

And "tiefling" is a (IMHO) stupid name that doesn't have the same instinctive meaning as even "tainted" would have (i.e., Merlin, tainted human wizard 16).

Weren't we just discussing how ditching the old stuff was bad, so wouldn't have ditching the old-name "tiefling" been bad? I like the name, myself.

Ditching the Great Wheel? Meh. The Great Wheel only existed as an example of how to create your own cosmology, anyway. Trying to force your cosmology down my throat by tying the "new core" PC races into it? No bloody thank you.

It's not forcing the cosmology down your throat at all. They have a sample cosmology in the core books, just like 3e. Change a name, etc., and it is all yours again. The Realms, and other setting won't be tied to the sample "core" cosmology.

D&D at its best is a toolbox of archetypes and options. The core ruleset should contain the means to deal with the most common archetypes/tropes. These are, IMHO, not being spread out because it is better for the game, but because it will induce you to buy later books in order to get, say, druids, or a widely beloved race/monster/whatever that just didn't make it into the "big three" books.

What races/monsters/classes should be in the core books, and why? That, too, has changed over the years. New stuff gets added, old stuff removed, and usually added later. No difference here.

(The big three are the PHB, MM, and DMG, in case you are wondering....the only things you should have to buy to experience D&D's core identity, and the only things you did have to buy before now.)

Same now. The core, though, is slightly different then the prior one, which was slightly different then the prior one...etc.

So to answer your question, the thing that is being removed by 4e that was supported by all the other editions, to varying degrees, and with varying degrees of emphasis, is the core identity of D&D itself: the trappings of the world, society, races, magic, gods and monsters shameless ripped off from other fantasy sources and filtered through the Gygaxian lens.

Drow, Mind Flayers, Tieflings, gods, magic, clerics, fighters, dwarves, gnomes, halfling, the Forgotten Realms, Eberron...the trappings of the world, society, races, magic, gods, etc. are in the new edition. Although, I'm somewhat confused since you didn't seem to want trappings, society, etc., in the core...just a name of a monster and its abilities, or the name of a race and its abilities, which trappings, societies, do you want vs. those you don't?


Thanks for the awesome response, this is a great debate topic and I am not trying to snark, just have some friendly debate from someone who thinks 4e sounds like the bees knees (and I've played since Keep on the Borderlands, in case you are curious).


-Brent

 

[Odhanan]

Well, RC, you summarized some of my concerns pretty well in your brilliant post. Thank you.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

On Marketing: I'm not the only one that thinks so. .

The thing is, 3rd edition was expressly designed after the largest marketing and customer research effort in D&D history (probably including 4E, is my personal guess). My point is that all of the things you're saying you dislike about 4E, were all done extensively for 3E. You say "polls and popularity contests", but I could just as easily come back with "listening to customer feedback and to customer needs."

I think the designers are actually going much more off of what they think will make a good game - I'd actually rather have them listening to us more. And when it boils down to it, aren't you really here because you want WoTC to listen to what you have to say, and hopefully address those issues?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, RC, you summarized some of my concerns pretty well in your brilliant post. Thank you.

Pleased to be of service.

 

[Simon Marks]

D&D at its best is a toolbox of archetypes and options.

RC, may I take this line as the core of your complaint about the proposed D&D 4e?

Because I can simply reverse the line to;

"D&D at it's worst is a toolbox of archetypes and options"

and state my feelings about D&D.

I don't want a generic D&D, I want D&D as it's own game.

I've got Hero for Generic (the only Generic system I've liked). I want D&D to be D&D.

Let's take Al-Qadim as an example. I'm on record for stating that I've played AD&D about 3 times. That doesn't include abortive games that lasted a session - including playing Al-Qadim.

Here's the thing. Although it was a great setting, the mechanics where... well, they didn't fit.

For me, I don't agree that D&D was a good generic fantasy system. I think it's had specific assumptions built right into the system - always has. And these explicit assumptions render it less good at certain things than others.
Like playing pirates. Or Mythic Europe of the Order of Hermes. Or investigating dark cults. D&D is simply less good at dealing with these sort of games than other systems.
Diluting D&D to be able to deal with these type of games makes D&D harder to run at it's core system.

I can play these games with D&D, but it won't be as good as if I use Blue Rose, or Ars Magica or Call of Cthulhu.

I don't agree that 3e strength was it's flexibility - it was it's robustness and consistency. It's weakness was that it took too long to prep and design for.

If they sacrifice Flexibility for ease of Prep, that's fine by me. Because I don't come to D&D for flexibility.

If I want to run a game that doesn't play to D&D's strengths, I won't run D&D. I'll run something better suited to the game.

So, we have a basic difference of concept about what is good in D&D.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

And when it boils down to it, aren't you really here because you want WoTC to listen to what you have to say, and hopefully address those issues?

Excellent question. I'm here to keep my finger on the pulse of my much beloved pastime and maybe find a few like-minded individuals along the way. I'm fairly certain I fall way outside Wizard's target demographic so I have no hope of any issues being addressed. I'll peek at the new SRD, house rule what I like and hang onto the giant wad of cash it would take to "upgrade" to a new edition.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I have always used my own settings and mythology and don't want one built into the game rules anyway. What many people seem to have lost sight of is that D&D is what you make of it. I don't need anyone legislating setting, mythology or even the difference between moral right and wrong in the rules themselves.

But if you use your own settings, mythology, and other fluff anyway, why should you begrudge an implied setting for the beginning (or busy) DMs and players to grasp and build upon? Sure, it's something you will find no use for... but others certainly will.