Flavour matters

[Imaro]

It often cannot handle the ideas without house rules.

If you want Rangers without spells, you have to houserule it.

If you want magic items created by Wizards without a feat, you have to houserule it.

His point that seems to be lost in the shuffle is that DND is a specific flavor based partially on fluff and partially on crunch.

That flavor does not translate to GURPS or HEROES or even HARP (which is a Rolemaster/DND blend) at all.

And with the number of changes in 4E, it might not translate well to 4E either. Sure, there were changes in 3E, but most of them were mechanical (e.g. the introduction of AoOs, a circular initiative system, etc.).

However, there were some 3E flavor changes. All Wizards got familiars (if they want). Rangers got species enemies and lost magic user spells. Although there are rules controlling this, these are mostly flavor changes. In the large scheme of things, they are relatively minor. A player can play a Wizard without a familiar and feel like 2E. A player can play a Ranger PC without having him try to track down species enemies and the additional divine spells make up for the klunkiness of losing a few magic user spells.


But, Rangers could still cast spells in 3E (as they could in 1E and 2E). If, for example, Rangers cannot cast spells at all in 4E, that is both a crunch and fluff change where it will not feel like a DND Ranger anymore. At least for some people.

There's a major difference between modifying which spells can be cast a little and preventing spells from being cast at all.

The designers could come up with a non-divine Ranger (i.e. stealth, scouting, etc.) and it wouldn't be a DND Ranger anymore, at least IMO.


I do think that if the designers cross certain lines, the game will not feel like DND as much or maybe hardly at all. Granted, we will all get used to it, but that's not exactly the point.

First let me say...I totally agree with this sentiment.

Flavor is important, and the flavor I see now is not what D&D(not your homebrew or a d20 variant) has really been in the past. I see alot of people comparing the new fluff in D&D with mythology but I see a big problem with this flavor change. The assumptions that D&D gameplay are based on don't blend very well with mythology. Let me explain a little.

At it's core, IMHO, D&D has way more in common with Swords and Sorcery, or even games such as Final Fantasy than it ever had in common with mythology. Killing things and taking their stuff has never been something I associate with myths, it is a S&S genre trope and I really think it's jarring to mix the two. The funny thing about heroes in myths is that it's not just a power thing, they don't just have more hp's, magic, resilience than the protagonists of S&S fiction...they're mindset is different.

A hero in a myth does things because it's his destiny...or because it's the right thing to do...or even because he is the only one who can. Heroes in myths usually have enormous (pre-ordained)power but also great (ordained)flaws that temper or balance this power. Killing things to acquire more and more wealth is...well is almost beneath most mythological heroes. They have a destiny and their actions are a course towards that. I can't see D&D representing this very well unless it's basic assumptions change.

Heroes in S&S on the other hand go adventuring because they want loot or because they crave adventure and are not content with their lot in life. They are self made heroes, not the son of gods or those ordained by fate to fulfill a particular deed. They live in the here and now and are driven by mortal passions and desires, not destiny or fate. This IMHO is what D&D does best.

This is all of course just my oppinion.

 

[Mallus]

I think 4e will be a different game with the same name, just like 3e was to 2e. But it'll still be D&D...