Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e; 4e upgrade or new game??

[rounser]

D&D was always about aping what was popular.

Yes, but it doesn't have to reinvent itself fundamentally once a cohesive theme is established. The Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Batman and James Bond franchises all plundered genres initially (just like D&D), and have themes and cliches they return to again and again. You know what you want from them and what to expect.

Compared to these, 4E makes D&D look confused and pandering with the latest implied setting, like it wants to be WoW, and hip and now, and has lost touch with it's own thematic imagery...the royal blood of the brand, if you like.

If you're not going to do that (offer up the brand's "royal blood" and in my opinion, dragonborn warlords in PHB1 is not doing that), then don't put D&D brand livery on the durned thing.

 

[FireLance]

Yes, but it doesn't have to reinvent itself fundamentally once a cohesive theme is established. The Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Batman and James Bond franchises all plundered genres initially (just like D&D), and have themes and cliches they return to again and again. You know what you want from them and what to expect.

I think whether D&D has actually reinvented itself depends very much on what you expect from it.

What I expect from D&D is not a pre-determined slate of races, classes, or settings. Rather, what I expect from D&D is an adventure game centered around the PCs going into a dangerous place, exploring it, overcoming (or not) the monsters and challenges there, and (if they don't mess up) becoming richer and stronger.

I can certainly see having a preference for the mechanics of one version of D&D over another, or having a preference for the mechanics of a different fantasy role-playing game. I can also see having a preference for a particular type of setting over another. What I don't agree with is the assertion that changing the mechanics or the setting of D&D somehow changes its theme.

 

[Imaro]

I think whether D&D has actually reinvented itself depends very much on what you expect from it.

What I expect from D&D is not a pre-determined slate of races, classes, or settings. Rather, what I expect from D&D is an adventure game centered around the PCs going into a dangerous place, exploring it, overcoming (or not) the monsters and challenges there, and (if they don't mess up) becoming richer and stronger.

I can certainly see having a preference for the mechanics of one version of D&D over another, or having a preference for the mechanics of a different fantasy role-playing game. I can also see having a preference for a particular type of setting over another. What I don't agree with is the assertion that changing the mechanics or the setting of D&D somehow changes its theme.

Emphasis mine. It's hard for me to accept that this is all it takes to be D&D. I mean the above emphasized describes 90-95% of fantasy roleplaying games on the market.

Also, I think I would argue that both the setting and the mechanics have a much larger impact on the theme of a game, and that your theme is perhaps too broad to make a meaningful distinction. As an example, both Exalted and WHFRP fit under your theme... yet, IMO, they are very differently themed games.

Exalted is a game of adventuring demi-gods, who know kung-fu, that are rediscovering the tools, ruins and lives they led in a previous "golden age"...while being hunted by the super powered nobles of the current empire.

WHFRP is a game of grime crusted peasants in pseudo-europe, fighting a grim battle against the forces of chaos that are engulfing their world from the shadows.

Two different games IMO, but both fit under your theme easily. Perhaps that is the difference in oppinions on what is a "new game". Maybe, for some, D&D is just a flavorless or vanilla fantasy game upon which they always created their own world and houseruled vigorously , while to others it is the Great Wheel, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, certain classes and certain monsters (Illithids, Githyanki, etc.) found only in D&D

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can have both of these things while playing GURPS Fantasy so I guess thats D&D as its defined.

He missed something: The terms must also appear in the title.

D&D is special for many D&D players because it's their first taste of role-playing games, and many never play something else. But there is not very much that makes D&D so fundamentally different from other fantasy games that you can point at it and use it is as your universal measuring stick.

The thing that makes D&D D&D for someone is not objective, it's subjective. People focus on different aspects. The brand title is not what they focus on, but it's the only thing that you can say for sure exists in every edition (even if it is adorned with an "Advanced" )

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What happens when fantasy is completely taken over by sci-fi, will D&D become a sci-fi game with lasers, phasers, teleporters, etc?

Not only did D&D contain such elements at least as early as 1Ed, Arthur Clark would say that ultra-high tech is indistinguishable from magic- something that writers like Vance (Dying Earth), Niven (Glory Road), Brooks (Shanarra), the writers of Star Trek and others have played around with for a long time.

Others have played with this idea from the other side- significantly developed magic is indistinguishable from technology- see Turtledove's Darkness books.

What if Star Trek through the years decide to become a western? Would that have been adapting with the audience if the audience started watching more westerns? I think it would have killed Star Trek, as its audience was one that liked the universe Star Trek is in, rather than Star Trek trying to keep up with popular trends.

Star Trek was inspired by a western- Wagon Train- the same one that inspired Firefly, as a matter of fact.

 

[Thasmodious]

I don't think you can say that D&D has kept the same focus over the years, just by saying it is still based in fantasy as that is too broad a category to claim.

So 4th edition is a new game with the D&D name. What is so wrong with it having its own name to eclipse D&D?

Would people be as upset with the total death of D&D and this 4th edition being a new game as with 4th edition changing so much of what had been D&D for several decades?

I don't think the core of D&D has changed at all over the editions. Two editions made bold jumps in mechanics and mechanical philosophy - 3 and 4. Both still maintained core D&D gameplay. D&D is not just fantasy RP, it is a particular niche of fantasy RP, one that assumes the existance of a class of people known as 'adventurers' who pursue wealth, power, divine callings and/or fame by killing monsters and taking their stuff. The core of gameplay really is Dungeons and Dragons. Exploring ruins for treasure, fighting monsters.

The claim that 4e is somehow not D&D (or that 3e wasn't, which many 2e grogs still claim) is just completely illogical to me. It plays, to me, like an irrational, emotional statement, not one based on actual observation and due consideration.

The game hasn't changed. It still has classes, hit points, demi-humans, dragons, iconic monsters, its still about adventuring, stuck doors, trapped chests, evil villains who like to live in illogically constructed vast, but easily mappable, underground complexes. 10' poles are still useful, even if the pole is more metaphor than literal these days.

I can't think of anything that is central to D&D that 3e or 4e took away from the game.

 

[FireLance]

Two different games IMO, but both fit under your theme easily.

That's true, and I guess I should have added that what differentiates D&D from the other fantasy role-playing games for me (and why I prefer it to them) are the mechanics and the support, not the theme.

It's like the difference between Chess and Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). The games have broadly the same theme: two-player games of strategy, in which the players take turns moving pieces with different movement and attack abilities around a board. However, the mechanics of each are different and some players prefer one over the other because of that.

Perhaps that is the difference in oppinions on what is a "new game". Maybe, for some, D&D is just a flavorless or vanilla fantasy game upon which they always created their own world and houseruled vigorously , while to others it is the Great Wheel, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, certain classes and certain monsters (Illithids, Githyanki, etc.) found only in D&D

Since you brought it up, I guess another selling point of D&D for me is not so much that it is flavorless, but that it is possible to flavor it any way you want. You can mess with the cosmology, the setting, and the allowed races and classes without changing the underlying mechanics too much. That's pretty much what happened in 2e, for example.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

I don't think the core of D&D has changed at all over the editions. Two editions made bold jumps in mechanics and mechanical philosophy - 3 and 4. Both still maintained core D&D gameplay. D&D is not just fantasy RP, it is a particular niche of fantasy RP, one that assumes the existance of a class of people known as 'adventurers' who pursue wealth, power, divine callings and/or fame by killing monsters and taking their stuff. The core of gameplay really is Dungeons and Dragons. Exploring ruins for treasure, fighting monsters.

The claim that 4e is somehow not D&D (or that 3e wasn't, which many 2e grogs still claim) is just completely illogical to me. It plays, to me, like an irrational, emotional statement, not one based on actual observation and due consideration.

The game hasn't changed. It still has classes, hit points, demi-humans, dragons, iconic monsters, its still about adventuring, stuck doors, trapped chests, evil villains who like to live in illogically constructed vast, but easily mappable, underground complexes. 10' poles are still useful, even if the pole is more metaphor than literal these days.

I can't think of anything that is central to D&D that 3e or 4e took away from the game.

This says my thoughts better than I feel I could've possibly phrased them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thasmodious
I don't think the core of D&D has changed at all over the editions. Two editions made bold jumps in mechanics and mechanical philosophy - 3 and 4. Both still maintained core D&D gameplay. D&D is not just fantasy RP, it is a particular niche of fantasy RP, one that assumes the existance of a class of people known as 'adventurers' who pursue wealth, power, divine callings and/or fame by killing monsters and taking their stuff. The core of gameplay really is Dungeons and Dragons. Exploring ruins for treasure, fighting monsters.

The claim that 4e is somehow not D&D (or that 3e wasn't, which many 2e grogs still claim) is just completely illogical to me. It plays, to me, like an irrational, emotional statement, not one based on actual observation and due consideration.

The game hasn't changed. It still has classes, hit points, demi-humans, dragons, iconic monsters, its still about adventuring, stuck doors, trapped chests, evil villains who like to live in illogically constructed vast, but easily mappable, underground complexes. 10' poles are still useful, even if the pole is more metaphor than literal these days.

I can't think of anything that is central to D&D that 3e or 4e took away from the game.

Things you may not think are central, others might consider vital to the identity of the game.

For instance, I know I'm not alone in lamenting the loss of Vancian casting- I've seen other posters say as much. It was unique to D&D and, IMHO, part of its essential character.

Despite making some big mechanical alterations, 3Ed still allowed me to translate my PCs from the game's previous editions into a 3Ed form. It was backwards compatible. This was key to me- it allowed me and my primary group play D&D with the most current ruleset (at the time) within our established campaign (started in 1985 or so).

In contrast, 4Ed isn't backwards compatible in any meaningful way. Fully 50% of my older PCs can't be translated into 4Ed without radical revision of the PC or the campaign world or both. Some have no 4Ed version possible (comparing Core to Core). Conclusion: 4Ed is a very different game than 1Ed/2Ed/3Ed/3.XEd.

As for your list of what the game still has? EVERY FRPG has those elements with the possible exception of the first two you list...and there are FRPGs that have those as well. Those don't make D&D D&D. They are non-unique elements that form part of the basis of a campaign world in any given FRPG.

 

[teitan]

Right.

Bob creates X the RPG. X does everything Bob wanted it to do. Bob gets forced out, laid off, retires, &c.

Tom (another game designer at the company) feels X should do different things. Maybe he didn’t understand what Bob wanted it to do. Maybe Bob didn’t communicate his intentions well. Or maybe Tom doesn’t care; he just wants something different from the game. Or maybe the execs told Tom that X should do different things. In any case, Tom sees X as “broken” because it doesn’t do what he wants/needs it to, so he creates X the RPG, 2nd edition. To Tom (and any customers who think like Tom), this is an improvement. It’s an upgrade. To the people who think like Bob, it’s a different game and shouldn’t be called “2nd edition”.

Your summary of 2e is deeply flawed. While some things were handed down from on high like eliminating demons and devils, Cook did an excellent job in reworking the core rules of AD&D while retaining the feel of 1e. Much of 2e was simply bringing many of the most popular optional rules from 1e core books into the core books as options like "specialty priests" which appeared in Dragonlance and Greyhawk Adventures, Non-Weapon Proficiencies from Oriental Adventures and the Survival Guides and did a much needed streamlining of rules that made little sense like grappling. Gygax didn't even use all the rules in 1e, as he stated many times in his threads on ENWorld, and many of his rules were similar to what we saw in 2e, if not the exact same. ABout the only thing that seemed to be "new" in 2e was the reworking of the ranger (which wasn't great) and the Thief reworking (which was excellent). And the great thing was, outside of the streamlining to the combat rules and some spell alterations things like N-WPs, Priests, etc. were all optional rules and the game played exactly as it played in 1e and better in some ways. This coming from a 1e grognard. My beef was how the game was handled after the core and some issues with the core (speciality priests needed more than the loose guidelines) that were minor. I didn't like the Monstrous Compendium design of loose leaf sheets etc. What also makes 2e great was the complete compatibility with 1e and the barely needed work to work with basic D&D monsters & magic items. The game really was the same and had enough options added to adjust the game to suit your needs without becoming another game... excluding the Player's Option stuff.