Edition Fatigue

[shadzar]

In BECMI, they first appeared in the Gazetteers, many of which came out before the Rules Cyclopedia. And 1E's UA was out well before either.

We will just have to wait for Wiseblood to say when they were talking about, but the other things I think hold true to the point. While there are lots and lots of rules for combat, the reason was the rest wasnt about looking for the answer in the book, but making up you own solutions to problems rather than looking for a skill even in editions that had skills for outside of combat.

Combat doesnt give you the answer as to how to overcome your opponent, but rules for types of attack modes and such, you must still use those attack modes, but outside of combat there is now a leaning towards just rolling a skill check rather than put the same effort towards deciding how to "use" the things provided.

It is like saying before the firebuilding NWP people weren't able to build fires as there were no rules for it. People didnt need rules for it because, to use his phrase, they were fantasy MacGuyvers.

Basically another there was no "non-combat rules in the game" war. Where some say the hard rules are needed, and others say there isnt a need for a rule for everything (see building a fire before NWPs example above.)

The absence of a rule for it, does not make it impossible as a rule for everything cannot be made.

Its confusing you seem to be taking the opposite approach to your original stance now about being that 4e focuses heavily on combat in this post by trying to show where earlier edition didnt have noncombat rules...

You can choose to be offended if it makes you happy. I'm talking about the focus of the product, not what *you* are doing in your game.

The empirical evidence (particularly when comparing 4E with early editions, esp 1E/2E/BECM) is overwhelming. When you read the books being made, 4E skips over non-combat events. It would be ridiculous to claim that 4E treats out-of-combat the same as it treats in-combat. If 1E had a ratio of 2-to-1 (in to out), then 4E has a ratio of 100-to-1, if not more than that.

Show me the mechanics dealing with out-of-combat activity in 4E. Then compare it to 1E/2E/BECM. No comparison.

WOTC has shifted almost entirely towards combat. Simple fact.

 

[Nagol]

Um... except for Conan's northern origin, Conan' world was pretty much based on Africa and the Middle East.

It has castles, kings, priests, strong fighting men, mail armour, heavy swords, horses, man-at-arms, and gold and silver coins.

Which is pretty much all D&D took for its medieval trappings. Other sections of the world have similar trappings it's true.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Your interpretation isn't exactly the determining factor.

OD&D, Basic, and 1E were clearly and unequivocably built upon Western European society and Western European culture--including their myths and legends. And the last part is key. To use a culture's myths and fantasies is just as direct as using their coinage and fashions.

No, DnD doesn't dwell much on feudalism or manoralism (although the BECMI Companion set did at great length). But there are no Knights in Asia, no Druids from Africa, no Rangers from Arabia, and no DnD-type Wizards from anywhere but the Arthurian Legends and Lord of the Rings.

And you surely cannot contest the direct relationship between DnD and LOTR--since TSR itself had to concede that point.

Japan and Saladin would like to discus the concept of knighthood with you.

Druids existed no where like D&D. Rangers either.

China and Africa would like to discuss their respective sorcery myths with you.

D&D is a game written by Americans of European descent that is loosely based on a bunch of fantasy works written by authors of Europeon descent. The mash-up is fairly generic and has rarely had anything you can point to and say "There! That thing there! It corresponds to/emulates this practice/medieval expectation/social relationship!" in the same way games patterned on medieval settings do. It can just as easily be Newhon-based as based upon the European medieval setting. Are there commonalities with medieval period? Sure! Are those commonalities enough to get a feel of the period and the social mindset? Not for me. Are there anachronisms that drift quite a distance from the medieval period? Yep.

 

[pemerton]

An experienced player or DM might readily see that powers can be used in noncombat situations (which might require some house-ruling on the specifics). But what will this look like to a new player or DM who doesn't have veterans around to point these things out?

The new GM would need DMG2 for some (very limited) advice on integrating encounter and daily powers into skill challenges.

As I detailed at some length here, in my most recent session Twist of Space (wizard 7th encounter power that teleports on a hit) was used by a PC to free a woman magically trapped in a mirror. More generally, I discovered through experiment that 4e can handle an exploration-based (ie non-combat) scenario very well.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

Back to noncombat stuff...

I HAVE FOUND IT!!!

I finally found a spell that was not just another combat spell. In the Heroes of the Fallen Lands, page 239, is the spell "Otto's Song of Fidelity." It has the description line:

"Requirement: You must be outside a combat encounter."

And the duration is explained in fixed time: 6 hours.

Interesting that it wasn't just made into a ritual. Makes me wonder if 4EE isn't going to continue this route and keep rituals out of the picture indefinitely...

Keep looking and you will find more - they're called Utility Powers. At any given level many of them are related to combat in some way but there's almost always one that isn't. They're usually something like darkvision for 5 minutes or a bonus to a certain skill for one roll or a movement boost like feather fall, jump, spider climb, etc.

In fact if you want out of combat mechanics then I would say between rituals, the skill system, skill challenges, and the various class features & racial features that affect those things, there is more mechanical support for non-combat activity in 4E than in any edition, and they are more widely available than in older editions.

I will grant that 3E had some pretty detailed crafting rules that may have been more to some players' tastes than 4E. Other than wands and potions I only saw them used twice in 10 years of playing and DM'ing so I tend to see them as a minor thing.

However if the comparison is to 1E then there is very little mechanical support in the PHB for anything outside of combat - storongholds and followers is about it and even then it's more along the lines of "a linkboy costs 1cp per day" than how to actually get stuff done. Sure, we did all kinds of crazy stuff back then but there weren't any rules for it. It's no more of a barrier to play or a failing of the system for 4E than it was for 1E.

I've been running a Basic D&D game and a D&D 4E game for different groups over the last year and it's surprising how similar they are at a high level - in short, combat is where all the detail is, then out of combat it's a lot of free-form DM interpretation. The details (especially in combat) are very different but the overall design approaches are interestingly similar.

 

[fumetti]

Well, with the obvious exception of the 1Ed Monk, which bears ZERO resemblance to any European monastic tradition. The martial artist stuff in that class is clearly pseudo-Asian in inspiration.

Oh yeah- the composite bow was also primarily an Asian thing as well.

True, there are bits here and there. But when looking at the whole, the design is European.

 

[fumetti]

Japan and Saladin would like to discus the concept of knighthood with you.

Druids existed no where like D&D. Rangers either.

China and Africa would like to discuss their respective sorcery myths with you.

Fine, but they will find they have no significance to speak of regarding the creation of DnD.

Japan and Saladin did not have "knights." Knights are European, particularly (but not limited to) French and English.

Where are ANY druids? Europe.
Where are any rangers? LOTR. What's LOTR? England, for the most part.

China did not have Merlin or Gandalf or Saruman.



Arneson specifically said his Blackmoor was based on Europe. And that's as close to a comment by Gygax or Arneson I can find at the moment regarding specifics.

 

[Mallus]

The Magic-User is pure Merlin and Gandalf.

The traditional D&D Magic-User dresses like Merlin and Gandalf, so from a sartorial perspective, you've got a point.

But the Magic-User also has a big dollop of characters like Turjan of Miir from Vance's Dying Earth in them --ie magicians from a post-everything-on-our-Earth science-fantasy setting-- as well as obvious influences from comic books, of all things --what do the various Bigby's Hands spells resemble if not a Green Lantern using their power ring?

The one thing D&D spell casters aren't is pure. It's part of their charm...

 

[Minicol]

No, DnD doesn't dwell much on feudalism or manoralism (although the BECMI Companion set did at great length). But there are no Knights in Asia, no Druids from Africa, no Rangers from Arabia, and no DnD-type Wizards from anywhere but the Arthurian Legends and Lord of the Rings.

.

I see where you're coming from, but actually, was there any need for a different ruleset for that at the time ? No. It was a matter of roleplaying your character. And coming from "Africa" was no worse than any other choice.

Besides, in the old D&d basic gazetteers line, I seem to remember analogs for Africa and other places ...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

True, there are bits here and there. But when looking at the whole, the design is European.

You need to look closer. As others have pointed out, you'll find plenty of non-European elements in the spells (not just the Green Lanternesque Bigby's spells), especially in the early versions of the game.

There are spells like Shocking Grasp- based on a practical joke from a magic shop (the Joy Buzzer).

Or ones like Sticks to Snakes, which comes from the pre-Christian Bible (namely, the story of Moses), which is, essentially, part of Middle Eastern culture.

Some of the magic items also came from non-European, non-Medieval cultures, like the Ioun Stones of Jack Vance's sci-fi classic Tales of Dying Earth. And famously, some creatures came from Japanese toys and other sources (Rust Monster).

Scimitars? Brigandine armor? Middle eastern and Asian in origins.

The game is a pastiche of Europe and other cultures, Medieval and other times, fantasy, horror, sci-fi myth religions and comics.