Game vs Game System

[tomBitonti]

As I get more information about the new 4th Edition, I've been noticing a difference between it and the prior edition. After a bit of puzzling, I'm finding that 4E is turning into a very specific game, whereas prior editions were more game systems. I'm still refining the idea, but 4E seems to have taken bits from 3.5E, locked those down, and added a bit of new mechanics.

No time to flesh this out, but does this match other's impressions of the new edition? I'll try to put in more detail when I have time.

Thx!

 

[marune]

As I get more information about the new 4th Edition, I've been noticing a difference between it and the prior edition. After a bit of puzzling, I'm finding that 4E is turning into a very specific game, whereas prior editions were more game systems. I'm still refining the idea, but 4E seems to have taken bits from 3.5E, locked those down, and added a bit of new mechanics.

4E is clearly a more focused game, IMHO that's a good news.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "game system", to me, past editions D&D were only somewhat incoherent games.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

4E is clearly a more focused game, IMHO that's a good news.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "game system", to me, past editions D&D were only somewhat incoherent games.

I think what he's getting at was that there was less implied setting previously. Before D&D was a shell for other people to make games in. It said, "People who fight are fighters and these are the powers they have." and "Here is a magic item, it has these powers."

The new way of doing things is more like, "Here are the abilities of fighters like the ones used by the King of Cormyr in his personal guard and like caravan guards." and "These magic items have these powers because they were created by an ancient Emperor called Joe who wanted to be really fast and he had them made for all his troops."

I think that 4e appears to be more concerned with how everything works together as a cohesive whole than previous editions and works more on the assumption that DMs will be using everything from every book and using them without changes.

 

[Derren]

I don't think so. 3rd Edition did also imply a certain setting (Spell names, Deities, etc.) and I don't see how 4E will be different. Certain things are spelled out but most are left generic.
You could even say that 4E is more generic than 3E because 3E was based on greyhawk, an entire campaign setting, where 4E will be based on PoL which is just an idea with some names but not a concrete campaign setting.

Anyway, D&D 4E is still far away from games like Shadowrun which support one specific world.

 

[Lackhand]

I don't think so. 3rd Edition did also imply a certain setting (Spell names, Deities, etc.) and I don't see how 4E will be different. Certain things are spelled out but most are left generic.
You could even say that 4E is more generic than 3E because 3E was based on greyhawk, an entire campaign setting, where 4E will be based on PoL which is just an idea with some names but not a concrete campaign setting.

Anyway, D&D 4E is still far away from games like Shadowrun which support one specific world.

This.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think so. 3rd Edition did also imply a certain setting (Spell names, Deities, etc.) and I don't see how 4E will be different. Certain things are spelled out but most are left generic.
You could even say that 4E is more generic than 3E because 3E was based on greyhawk, an entire campaign setting, where 4E will be based on PoL which is just an idea with some names but not a concrete campaign setting.

Anyway, D&D 4E is still far away from games like Shadowrun which support one specific world.

Hmm... 4E is definitely built with a more coherent cosmology and "ecosystem" in mind, and the fluff and crunch appear to be tied together much more tightly than in 3E.

Previous editions were a hodgepodge of elements from classical myth, sword-and-sorcery fantasy, Tolkien, and H.P. Lovecraft, all kludged together. 3E tried to impose a little sanity on the whole thing, but it was mostly cosmetic.

4E is redoing everything, adopting elements from previous editions but jettisoning stuff that doesn't fit the overall design. Looking at the cosmology, for instance, every plane in 4E has a well-defined place and reason for existing. The Feywild, the Shadowfell, the Elemental Chaos, the Astral Sea, the Abyss... they all fit neatly together. (The Far Realm still looks bolted-on to me, but that's okay, I never liked it anyhow.)

Likewise, the creatures of 4E are built to fit in this new world. Demons, for example, are no longer just generic outsiders with chaotic-evil fluff; their mechanics are built to reflect their status as incarnations of chaos and destruction (get stronger when injured, lots of hit points but poor defenses, et cetera).

It does mean some sacrifices in terms of DM flexibility. If you want to build a world that goes against the core assumptions of 4E, the system will fight you harder than it did in 3E. On the other hand, when you go with the core assumptions, the game will be much enhanced.

I think the real trick that 4E homebrewers will need to learn is how to re-purpose stuff. Say you feel that the Abyss ought to be a place of intrigue, illusion, and subtle plots rather than rampaging destruction, while the Nine Hells ought to be a warlike realm of marching legions and constant battle on the open field. In 3E, you'd just declare it so. In 4E, you might find it necessary to switch demons with devils; use the "engine of destruction" stats for the warrior devils, and the "subtle manipulator" stats for the treacherous, scheming demons. More work for the DM, but the end result is demons that feel like manipulators and devils that feel like warlords, instead of both being just names slapped on a collection of random special abilities.

 

[Derren]

Likewise, the creatures of 4E are built to fit in this new world. Demons, for example, are no longer just generic outsiders with chaotic-evil fluff; their mechanics are built to reflect their status as incarnations of chaos and destruction (get stronger when injured, lots of hit points but poor defenses, et cetera).

I will wait till I have the 4E MM till I comment on that. From all the talk about encounter design and removing stuff which isn't needed for combat I got the impression that monsters will be reduced to combat encounters only.

 

[Clavis]

OD&D and BECMI D&D were rule guidelines to be used by DM in creating their own fantasy adventure games. Any part of the rules could be tinkered with, and whole new systems substituted for the ones given, all without fear of "breaking" the game. There was no campaign world integrated into the rules, and even later when the "Known World" of Mystara came along, it was easy to ignore.

AD&D essentially grew out of Gygax's own OD&D games. Despite his largely ignored call for a certain amount of orthodoxy (done to promote the RPGA), and his inclusion of a very small amount of material from the Greyhawk campaign (some spell names and artifacts in the DMG), AD&D was not only easy to house rule, it pretty much required house ruling to run! The DM really "owned" the system, and the game could vary wildly from table to table.

2nd Edition was just AD&D with all the Gygaxian charm and quirkiness taken out. It played pretty much the same way, and was still very easy to tinker with.

3rd Edition promised to be a faster, more streamlined system. The problem was that almost every rule in 3rd edition references every other rule. While the intent seems to have been to make the game more "logical", the effect has been to make it a total system, much like Marxism; either you accept it all, or you don't accept it at all. Tinkering with 3rd edition quickly becomes an exercise in frustration, as any minor change cascades through game play to create numerous unforeseeable problems. Despite its post-Gygax Greyhawkisms, however, 3rd edition is still essentially a generic game.

4th Edition does seem like it is a complete package, of rules and implied setting wielded together into a singular entity. From what I've seen, it doesn't look like the new game will have any place for DM who like to tinker with the game system, or run games with a different "flavor" than that implied in the rule book. By moving flavor and campaign setting into the Players Handbook, it looks to discourage DM creativity in favor of uniformity from game table to game table. For instance, it looks like specific places will be referenced in the Player's Handbook, monster will be given specific default histories tied to the implied setting, etc. 4th Edition might be a good game, although it doesn't look very much like D&D to me. What WOTC seems to have done is created a new fantasy roleplaying game, and slapped the D&D label on it in order to leverage their brand. In the process, it looks like they've destroyed some of the fun of the older game; DM's exercising their creativity and imaginations.

The D&D branding is so strong that WOTC probably will initially make a profit on the game. Ultimately, however, I think 4th Edition will be considered a failure, and will probably be the last tabletop version of D&D before MMORPGs completely destroy the hobby. If WOTC had chosen to emphasize the unique characteristics of tabletop RPGs, such as the creative factor, then there would be hope. However, they've chosen to make a game that looks like it will play like World of Warcraft, except without the convenience and graphics that make WOW fun. I think the game will fail because it will try to do what computers do better, and will simultaneously fail to attract new players and lose its older player base. I don't think Hasbro cares either way, because D&D is such a minuscule part of their total sales, and I think what they really want is to turn it into a brand of toys anyway.

Coming next decade, articulated plastic Mind Flayers and Drow, part of the exciting Dungeons and Dragons line of action figures!

 

[BeauNiddle]

4th Edition does seem like it is a complete package, of rules and implied setting wielded together into a singular entity. From what I've seen, it doesn't look like the new game will have any place for DM who like to tinker with the game system, or run games with a different "flavor" than that implied in the rule book. By moving flavor and campaign setting into the Players Handbook, it looks to discourage DM creativity in favor of uniformity from game table to game table. For instance, it looks like specific places will be referenced in the Player's Handbook, monster will be given specific default histories tied to the implied setting, etc. 4th Edition might be a good game, although it doesn't look very much like D&D to me. What WOTC seems to have done is created a new fantasy roleplaying game, and slapped the D&D label on it in order to leverage their brand. In the process, it looks like they've destroyed some of the fun of the older game; DM's exercising their creativity and imaginations.

It depends on what you mean by flavor.

GOOD: Golden Wyvern Adepts exist
BAD: the Golden Wyvern Adept is a member of the GW school started by 7 mages named ... in the town of ... after the battle of ...

In one example the flavor is a spice that adds possibility and richness to the world. In the other the flavor is an anchor that ties the game down to open specific world. It would appear the designers of 4th ed know this which is why they have the PoL idea and not the PoL setting. Everything is designed to spark the imagination but not to constrain it.

Tinkering - as always - is dependent on exactly what it is you are trying to tinker with and why.

 

[Propheous_D]

I think I have to disagree with the mentality that 4th will be harder to mod/own then previous editions. I think 3rd was the hardest to own due to the layering of rules as spoken about previously. However I don't see why or how 4th will make it any harder to create our own workings then 2E was. I mean when it comes down to changing the core of how things work it will all ways be difficult. Demons to Devils will have more problems because people are familiar with thier aligned rolls from 3rd then anything to do with 4th. Change their names and your basically done.

I am reserving my final judgement till I see the core. As with all edition changes there is too much speculation and rampant assumptions going around.