Zaruthustran said:
Well, yes. That's true.
I'm sorry, but what is your point?
Ever since 4e was announced, a debate has been going on on these boards as to whether the game will
really be D&D, will finally nerf the role of the GM, etc.
Sometimes it's hard for me to work out what the criteria are for "real D&D" (eg I don't think it makes a great difference whether or not Gnomes are in the PHB). But those (like Reynard, Celebrim, Lanefan etc) who contend that the game won't support AD&D-style play are (IMO) right. My difference from them is that they think this is a bad thing, whereas I think it is (on the whole) an improvement.
To my mind (and I'm not now talking about you or about Hobo, but more generally) I find that D&D players have a far more expansive notion of what it means to "play D&D" than do players of other RPGs. So someone who houserules all the classes, strips out all the races, changes the feats, bans half the spells on the list, drops alignment and jacks on a new XP system is still happy to desribe him or herself as a 3E player. Thus, on another thread someone suggested to me that OGL Conan and D&D are really the same game. Yet no one that I know of suggests RQ and CoC are the same game, although purely mechanically they probably have as much if not more in common that OGL Conan and D&D.
This tendency makes it hard to talk about the playstyles that D&D supports, because "D&D" can be taken to mean so many different things. I'm sure some groups will buy the 4e books, drop half the elements I've identified, use it to play an operationally-based dungeon game, and find the suggestion that it is a very different game from AD&D ludicrous.
But, as written, it looks pretty different to me.
Zaruthustran said:
The product is called "Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition". The entire purpose of the product is that it is a brand new game. That's what it is.
I don't understand what the alternative could be.
Well, with some RPGs (eg RQ, RM, Hero, perhaps even Ars Magica) new editions have not meant major changes in the basic way the game plays, but simply minor tweaks to the mechanics to improve the way in which the game delivers the same play experience that was always intended.
Zaruthustran said:
That's not what WotC has set out to do with this product, and chastising a brand new game for being a brand new game... I mean, wow, that doesn't make any sense.
I'm not chastising. I'm simply arguing with those who deny that it's a brand new game.
Hobo said:
All of those things that you call different: I call extremely minor tweaks to the exact same thing it's always been.
I guess I don't see how 4e really bears any greater resemblance to AD&D than it does to RQ: human stats are in a 3-18 range, and longswords do d8 damage or thereabouts.
Other than that, 4e and AD&D have different rules for character build, action resolution, encounter design, monster build, alignment, rewards (both XP and items) etc. And different expectations about the system-relevant aspects of the gameworld (eg PoL, not just as a trope but as a set of very specific conceits and devices spelled out in W&M, is completely different from the approach sketched in the 1st ed DMG). And diferent expectations about the unit of play (one dungeon expedition vs one encounter) and the success conditions for that unit of play (getting out alive with treasure vs resolving the challenge using one's PC's powers in the optimum fashion). And (and in my view most importantly) very ifferent understandings about the relationship between the mechanics, the other dimensions of the system and gameworld, and the distribution of narrative control between GM and player.
Hobo said:
No, those changes aren't that significant. Getting rid of races and classes? That's significant. Switching to a percentile die system? Significant.
Tweaks to the mechanics of races and classes? Not significant. Renaming of saves from "Breath Weapon" to "Reflex" or whatever? Minor tweak. Tweaking the way XP works? Minor tweak. Getting rid of XP altogether? Significant change.
Renaming save is irrelevant, and not something I mentioned. Shifting between rolling d100 and rolling d20 I also think would be pretty insignificant, if nothing else changes. HARP and HARP d20ified are exactly the same RPG.
Changing race and class mechanics may or may not be significant, depending on the changes. Compare AD&D Fighters (one meaningful action, namely, attack, which one simply repeats each round) to the plethora of choices that will exist in 4e, and we're looking at pretty different play experiences (hence the complaint that Fighters will
really be wizards: from the point of view of flavour, this is false, but mechanically I can see the force of the remark).
Changing the way that XP work is also (potentially) a big change. Compare how improvement points are earned in The Dying Earth (ie by generating amusement at the table by delivering a pre-determined tagline) from how they are earned in AD&D (by the PCs killing and, more importantly, looting). The difference between these is more than just a tweak.
But in fact the XP system wasn't one of the principle things I canvassed.
Hobo said:
Possibly well worded, but not a strong case at all. Unless you don't know much about games other than D&D and the scope of what you can imagine an RPG looking like is extremely narrow, that is.
Well, that's needlessly rude. I've got a reasonable sense of what an RPG can be - and also what it's not. An RPG is not just the same because it has some of the same tropes - if it was then RQ or HeroQuest would just be another "fantasy heartbreaker".
Ruin Explorer said:
I'm afraid Pemerton's case is really very strong and well-worded. 3E and 4E aren't "entirely different games", but AD&D and 4E pretty much are.
Yep.
Ruin Explorer said:
Bad thing? No, not at all, I think 4E will be awesome
I haven't gone to "awesome" yet, but I think it will be a pretty good game, and certainly a very clear improvement on 3E.