"Fun"

[Reynard]

This is what comes of interpreting DM advice as game rules, then throwing it to rules lawyers.

-O

The what now?

I think there's something to be said for criticizing the text of a document, particularly when that text runs counter to the overall theme of the text at large.

 

[Reynard]

You were doing so well.

I actually agree with Imaro, or at least the letter of his post -- 4E *can* be run (mostly) as a board game. Now, I don't think that is the design intent, nor do I think that most veteran players will run it that way, but it certainly can be: encounter to encounter (whether that's combat or some other systemic resolution -- that's for you, hong) with little or no concern of the continuity of things beyond short rests and long rests.

One thing I rather like about the new DMG is that, the offending paragraph aside, it does tend to give equal time to different modes of play. In discussions of adventures and campaigns, it provides about the same words and energy to purely episodic, kick the doors in style play as it does epic save the world style play. In the campaign section, it covers (albeit briefly) campaign styles from horror to S&S top anime/wuxia equally.

Really, the problem with 4E and very focused game design for a very specific style of play isn't in the DMG -- it is in the PHB, where PCs' abilities are geared almost exclusively to combat heavy dungeon delving.

On the upside, I realized that I can get the best of both worlds through skill challenges -- a complexity 5 skill challenge makes a great vehicle by which to do a classic "dungeon crawl". With the right amount of player/DM interaction and breaking the skill challenge up with the occassional trap or monster encounter, you could pull off a typical 1E style mega dungeon in a shorter time frame with a soldi rules backing.

 

[Mikeythorn]

This is what comes of interpreting DM advice as game rules, then throwing it to rules lawyers.

-O

Yeah. This has got to be one of the sillier complaints I have heard about 4e. It strikes me as being almost a quote from Wired's mock "if nerds talked about cookbooks" thread. Does the OP really think Wizards are trying to define what "fun" is? Might they not, perhaps, just be providing some tips for newbies to help their game run more smoothly?

 

[hong]

This whole thread feels like an argument for why new D&D players vastly prefer Hong's version of D&D.

"Hong, the taste of a new generation"

Why is everybody talking about me? Everybody please stop talking about me!

Calm down man. There are as many valid reasons to like the new edition as there are to dislike it. You don't have to sideline anyone else's "fun" to validate your own. I think the whole point here is something no one disagrees with. Namely, that the new DMG is very definitive in what it refers to as "Fun".

Actually, it's not. The DMG describes various types of gamers -- from explorers to storytellers to casuals --and what makes them tick. This is AFAIK the first edition of the DMG to do this, rather than just assuming everyone wants to play the same way. This thread stems from one paragraph that happens to be more declamatory than the rest.

 

[hong]

Actually I don't think it's an edition war thread, or anyone jumping on hong's playstyle. What I do think is D&D 4e supports hong's vision of D&D very well, (whether that's the preferred style of a new generation or not has yet to be seen) however whenever someone has a complaint about it not supporting (or supporting poorly) an area or playstyle hong apparently doesn't enjoy (but others do) he often feels the need to show how their playstyle, or area of concern really isn't what D&D is about or how their opinions are wrong.

The only playstyle that 4E does not readily support is "system" simulationist, where mechanics are used for everything including building the game world. Everything else is a zeitgeist thing.

The problem is that for hong this may be true but for others it is not, and they often have a valid concern. I have witnessed this in various threads and just felt like hong should perhaps take a minute to step back and understand not everyone plays or enjoys the style of D&D that can (mostly) be reproduced with a boardgame,

Or perhaps some boardgames can be played like D&D.

some people are looking for more and perhaps the way you argue that it has no place in 4e can actually turn potential gamers off 4e rather than on to it.

Eh. I am WotC's bitch, not WotC's pimp.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Do we know anybody who could arrange this?

I'd buy tickets to see it.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

So far, what I've learned from this thread is:

1) People looking for something to offend them will always succeed.

2) What is fun now for one group may not be fun for the another, and likely isn't always fun for the first one, either.

3) The DMG is telling us "Don't get bogged down in situations that aren't relevant for the story; try to keep things interesting and moving", because overdescribing everything and having the players interact at length with every guardsman, waitress, beggar and apprentice blacksmith is a lot less obvious a mistake (and more appealing to many DMs) than the "empty streets" situation.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I actually agree with Imaro, or at least the letter of his post -- 4E *can* be run (mostly) as a board game. Now, I don't think that is the design intent, nor do I think that most veteran players will run it that way, but it certainly can be: encounter to encounter (whether that's combat or some other systemic resolution -- that's for you, hong) with little or no concern of the continuity of things beyond short rests and long rests.

One thing I rather like about the new DMG is that, the offending paragraph aside, it does tend to give equal time to different modes of play. In discussions of adventures and campaigns, it provides about the same words and energy to purely episodic, kick the doors in style play as it does epic save the world style play. In the campaign section, it covers (albeit briefly) campaign styles from horror to S&S top anime/wuxia equally.

Things I wish from the DMG 2:
Expanding on the different campaign styles and offering good advice and possibly also good optional rules to make them work.

 

[Steely Dan]

4E *can* be run (mostly) as a board game.

Every edition can.

1st Ed was mini/grid/tactical/"board-game" heavy.

Look, D&D has always been two games, amateur dramatics/storytelling (non-combat), and a board game (combat) – get over it.

 

[apoptosis]

The only playstyle that 4E does not readily support is "system" simulationist, where mechanics are used for everything including building the game world. Everything else is a zeitgeist thing.

I agree with this though I would say that 4E actively supports some playstyles better than others though it does not seem to hinder most styles it just doesnt "support" them with the exception of heavy simulationist (RM looking at you)

By support I a mean have rules that actively engage certain styles.

I don't think it has rules to actively support narrative (story). I might be wrong about this though.