Game vs Game System

[Reynard]

There is a price exacted for spreading around the mechanical complexity in this manner, espicially if the degree of mechanical complexity in each class doesn't strike the right balance. You could possibly alienate some players who prefer a higher or lower degree of mechanical complexity than 4e offers.

I am not sure that it was intentional design in AD&D to make wizards an "advanced" player class -- it just happened to work out that way. I can certainly see the appeal of being able to ensure that a player can choose both the character concept her/she wants to play, and the level of mechanical/tactical complexity with which he/she is comfortable. The key to that, I think, would then to offer clearly labelled alternatives within any given class. For example, in 3E the "power attack" fighter is a relatively simple concept, straightforward in execution, while the "tactically versatile fighter" offers more depth and options. Same with the "blaster sorcerer" versus the "generalist mage". What this requires, though, is for the PHB to clearly illustrate the differences between the two extremes in both "build" and play, and make sure both ends of the spectrum are both viable and accessible.

4E's talent system provides the potential to do this, certainly, and there's no reason to believe it won't be possible, but will it be explicit?

 

[Khairn]

One of my more recent (and satisfying) purchases has been Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, which is an RPG based on the fantastic comic books by Mark Smylie. The system used in the RPG is Fuzion, which works surprisingly well much to my surprise.

You see, I really don't like Fuzion as a system on its own. But the way its been tweaked and meshed with the setting really enhances it and the game. The 2 (setting and system) work really well with each other, and I wouldn't consider playing Artesia without using Fuzion.

This is the same dilemma that many players are facing when they consider 4E. Will the PoL setting be so ingrained in the rules that tweaking, twisting, hacking apart or moving it to a completely separate setting will (by default) bring too many of the PoL elements and flavoring with it?

3E was very much a tool kit. There were a few classic D&D or Grayhawk references, but for the most part it was a set of rules, divorced from any setting. How much of that flexibility will 4E have? Or will the extent of meshing between PoL and rules be such that 4E is viewed as more of a 1 style system?

I don't think we'll know until after the books are finally published but this thread has been an interesting read.

 

[pemerton]

3E was very much a tool kit. There were a few classic D&D or Grayhawk references, but for the most part it was a set of rules, divorced from any setting.

Not wanting to rehash too much of the discussion upthread, but this is a controversial claim. For example, 3E presupposes a world in which Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halfllings and Orcs exist, in which meditative martial artists exist in monastic orders, in which nature worshippping shapechangers exist, in which magic-using musicians exist, in which holy warriors exist (and in greater numbers than their anti-paladin opponents), and in which priests tend also to be warriors.

This is not generic fantasy. It is a pre-supposed setting.

Of course, you can house rule bits in and out. But then the same will be true for 4e (as is noted in W&M).

 

[KrazyHades]

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.

You can't impose sanity on H.P. Lovecraft!

 

[Hussar]

3E was very much a tool kit. There were a few classic D&D or Grayhawk references, but for the most part it was a set of rules, divorced from any setting. How much of that flexibility will 4E have? Or will the extent of meshing between PoL and rules be such that 4E is viewed as more of a 1 style system?

Just to add to Pemerton's point.

Never mind the flavor inherent in the implied setting of 3e, take a look on the general board at the rather large number of threads talking about how to change the basic assumptions of 3e - wealth by level, demographics, "magic walmart" ( ). Those setting elements are hard wired into the system. Change the wealth by level assumptions and CR goes wonky. Take away magic item trade and a whole number of assumptions inherent in the system get tipped over.

While I don't say that 3e defaults to high magic; I believe that's a mistaken assumption, it does default to a very specific level of magic. It also defaults to having the Core 4 roles- tank, blaster, healer, scout, existent in every party.

I think it's a mistake to say that 3e was this wide open toolkit. The vast number of games out there that tweak the d20 mechanics in order to fit a particular genre shows that it won't do it out of the box.

 

[Rallek]

The following is an amalgam of guesswork and some of my general feelings/opinions, nothing more;


I agree that 4e seems (to me) to be more of a defined game, and less of a system that can be used to construct games for use by a gaming group. I also think that 3e was a step closer to “defined game” than 2e.

I disagree that this is being done as a primary design goal of the 4e design team. I think, rather, that it is being done because they recognize it as what they can best realize under their actual primary goal, namely the consolidation of as much IP as possible under the D&D brand, and making the DDI subscription as required as possible without slapping a “required” label on it.

My guess, and please be advised that it is only a guess, is that The Word came down from corporate that the main goal (relating to the consolidation of IP and pushing DDI) was carved in stone from day 1, and having accepted that, the design team then looked for the best ideas that could be fully executed under that stricture. 4e will be the result.


Will it be a terrible game which is immediately guilty of wrongbadfun? Time will tell, I suppose. I for one think that it will not be the game for me/my group, but that’s not to say that it won’t be exactly the right game for everyone who is not me/my group. Hell, it may even end up being the game for me/my group too, I'm just not seeing that as things stand now. Again, time will tell.


Just my “feeling” of what is driving 4e, and my 2 cp on the game vs. game system debate.

 

[The Little Raven]

I agree that 4e seems (to me) to be more of a defined game, and less of a system that can be used to construct games for use by a gaming group. I also think that 3e was a step closer to “defined game” than 2e.

I think it will be just as much a "system that can be used to construct games" as it was previously, but instead of the "implied setting" being an ill-matching patchwork quilt, it will be consistent.

 

[pemerton]

Never mind the flavor inherent in the implied setting of 3e, take a look on the general board at the rather large number of threads talking about how to change the basic assumptions of 3e - wealth by level, demographics, "magic walmart" ( ). Those setting elements are hard wired into the system.

Good points.

I think it's a mistake to say that 3e was this wide open toolkit. The vast number of games out there that tweak the d20 mechanics in order to fit a particular genre shows that it won't do it out of the box.

Entirely agreed.

While I don't say that 3e defaults to high magic; I believe that's a mistaken assumption, it does default to a very specific level of magic.

Sorry if you get asked this often on other threads/boards, but could you say a bit more about this?

 

[pemerton]

I agree that 4e seems (to me) to be more of a defined game, and less of a system that can be used to construct games for use by a gaming group. I also think that 3e was a step closer to “defined game” than 2e.

I agree to this extent: 3E was definitely more defined than 2e, which was incoherent from the get-go (promising a game experience that the rules as written couldn't deliver for any number of reasons, ranging from the action resolution system to the alignment mechanics) and only dug itself into a deeper pit over time.

I disagree that this is being done as a primary design goal of the 4e design team. I think, rather, that it is being done because they recognize it as what they can best realize under their actual primary goal, namely the consolidation of as much IP as possible under the D&D brand, and making the DDI subscription as required as possible without slapping a “required” label on it.

My guess, and please be advised that it is only a guess, is that The Word came down from corporate that the main goal (relating to the consolidation of IP and pushing DDI) was carved in stone.

I don't know if you have concrete evidence for this, or are inferring it from what is being said and done.

If the former, I have to defer to your evidence in the absence of any familiarity with it on my part.

If the latter (which I gather, from your reference to a guess) then I'm not sure I agree. My main reason for not agreeing is that there is very little in Worlds and Monsters (I can't talk about R&C as I don't own it and have only skimmed it) that (IMO) would attract any sort of IP protection other than copyright (which by default inheres in any text). Although particular names like Feywild and Shadowfell might enjoy trademark protection (I'll leave that to better IP lawyers than me to judge) I don't see anything in any of the actual game concepts in there that couldn't be reproduced by other authors and publishers provided that they used their own words (and thus avoided copyright infringement).

Now it may be that WoTC has decided to label some of its key concepts with trademark-able names. But this is really quite orthogonal to their use in building the backstory/implied setting. After all, Planescape already did a lot of that for the Great Wheel cosmology (Seven Heavens becomes Mount Celestia, etc) - you can make up fancy/silly names for the backstory elements and leave the backstory unchanged, or you can change the backstory whether or not you decide to use trademark-able names to label it. And whatever sort of IP protection the world of 4th edition might enjoy, the prior worlds of Planescape, Greyhawk etc would enjoy equally (in that they consist of just as much original text with just as many cooked up fantasy names).

IMO, the explanations given in W&M really suggest an attempt to build a decent game.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry if you get asked this often on other threads/boards, but could you say a bit more about this?

Before I do, let's define a couple of things. High magic, to me, means magic that is easily available and powerful. While Eberron has easily available magic, it's not all that powerful. Essentially, it's higher magic than say, Greyhawk, but, OTOH, Greyhawk has all sorts of extremely powerful magic.

Which is a higher magic setting? I'm not sure.

3e in core, defaults to more the Eberron style at low level and the Greyhawk style at high level. By the Wealth by Level guidelines, a 7th level PC has 19k worth of equipment. That's actually not a whole lot. +1 weapon, +1 armor (or equivalent), +2 stat boost item and some odds and sods. The difference between a fully loaded 7th level PC and a 7th level PC with no magic is probably less than the difference between a 7th and 8th level PC.

So, 3e at single digit levels defaults to a specific level of magic - widespread, not very powerful magic. Things change around 10th level or so. The difference between a magic carrying PC and a non-magic carrying PC becomes more and more marked. By about 14th level, it's easily one level difference, if not two. At very high levels (17+) it's easily 3 or even 4 levels. The range changes very rapidly in the double digits.

But, again, it's defaulting to a specific baseline of magic in the setting based on level. It's not based on setting. You expect a 17th level paladin to have a holy avenger. You don't expect a 7th level paladin to have one. That has nothing to do with setting.

That's the problem whenever this topic comes up. People conflate setting with level. They look at Eberron and say, "Wow, that's a high magic setting." But, really, it's not. You don't have high powered magic in the setting. Or, if you do, it's very hard to come by. Conversely, they say, "Greyhawk is a low magic setting." But, again, it's not. High level NPC's are loaded with magic items. PC's at 16th level in Greyhawk have exactly the same numbers and powers of magic items as 16th level PC's in Forgotten Realms.

Why? Because the baseline of magic items in D&D isn't tied to setting at all. It's tied to level. That's why it's such a problem to deviate from that baseline in 3e. You screw with the levels system. It has nothing to do at all with the setting. The baseline doesn't care what your setting is. The baseline is there to bring parity between the classes and their expected challenges based on level.

Saying that D&D worlds are high or low magic depends entirely at what level your PC's are.