Game vs Game System

[Lurker37]

Are you suggesting that a book saying "Golden Wyvern Adept" is preventing you from making up your own names? I don't see how an implied setting that is consistent (as opposed to 3e's implied setting that is inconsistent) impinges your "freedom" to do that in any way.

I'm saying that naming a feat after an order in the fluff is going too far. Because it is now linked to the core rules, removing the order now means that I either have to rename the feat so my players can remember what it does, or field questions about what the order is every second or third session.

You think I'm exaggerating, don't you? I wish!

Could we get an explanation for this? I've never seen a single person that claims this actually provide a logical rationale for why this is the case. It always just comes down to the claim, with no evidence to support it.

Others have already answered this better than I can with only a few minutes to spare at work before the next meeting. The problem is that the fluff is being woven into the mechanics, making it harder to change the assumptions made in the fluff.

Or they know how many new people are turned off by having to spend time worldbuilding before they can even start playing the game. Other games make it easy for you to sit down, roll up sone characters, and start having fun, but D&D has always made this more difficult for new players by requiring them to buy more supplements (adventures, settings, etc.).

Huh? Any time I've done worldbuilding for a first session with new players, the work has largely gone to waste.

Sadly, it seems that most first nights need only a tavern, a barmaid, and a plot hook, and enough encounters for them to need to stop and rest, preferably set in some generic location like a dark wood, some ruins or a cave complex.

Once they're victorious, then you need to have a town for them to return to to spend their money. Gee a town, sounds like a lot of work. In fact, all you need is a few shopkeepers, and that tavern again. Oh, and the next plot hook.

I have never felt a need for a fully-mapped out town, let alone the surrounding geography. Having it deliberately vague in fact suits my needs better, as I can insert plot-relevant details as necessary.

 

[pemerton]

<snip good stuff>

Not-quite QFT.

 

[Dausuul]

That's because you selected your list of "premises" (which are actually conventions of the D&D meta-genre, but I won't argue semantics with you) to coincide with your assertion that 4E will still do D&D fine. But if you throw back ina number of D&D conventions -- vancian magic, save-or-die mechanics, insidious "one roll" traps -- you find that 4E is in fact changing a great number of D&D's basic conventions that have worked and kept D&D on top of the industry for 30 years.

Frankly, D&D has held its position on top of the industry mostly by virtue of having been first and biggest. As Ryan Dancey said a few years back:

Here's the logic in a nutshell. We've got a theory that says that D&D is the most popular roleplaying game because it is the game more people know how to play than any other game. (For those of you interested researching the theory, this concept is called "The Theory of Network Externalities.")

[ Note: This is a very painful concept for a lot of people to embrace, including a lot of our own staff, and including myself for many years. The idea that D&D is somehow "better" than the competition is a powerful and entrenched concept. The idea that D&D can be "beaten" by a game that is "better" than D&D is at the heart of every business plan from every company that goes into marketplace battle with D&D game. If you accept the Theory of Network Externalities, you have to admit that the battle is lost before it begins, because the value doesn't reside in the game itself, but in the network of people who know how to play it. ]

Even in the last stages of TSR's decay, Dungeons and Dragons still held much of the RPG market in an iron fist. It would take an extraordinary competitor or some really heinous moves by WotC to loosen its grip now. And the idea that losing Vancian magic and save-or-die mechanics would somehow put D&D at risk... sorry, not buying it. I think D&D's success has been in spite of those elements, not because of them.

 

[The Little Raven]

So the new player doesn't need anything other than rules and examples? I disagree more than I can express in words.

Well, try expressing in worlds that support what you're saying. What does a player need besides the rules and examples to demonstrate how the rules actually function?

Except the new DM doesn't have any idea how the rules work. So he cracks open the book, looks at the players who havent even sussed out what an action is or how to take one, and says, "You are at the entrance to the dungeon." When they ask, "What do we see," he says, "Um... I don't know," and starts flipping through to find the vision rules. No.

It seems like you're being intentionally obtuse. Of course it's expected that a player would read the rules before playing, and a DM would read the rules before playing. However, without example towns and dungeons, the DM has to take the extra step of coming up with those things, which is more difficult for new people just getting a hang of the rules. He also doesn't have an example to measure his own creations against. Prior to 4e, he had to figure out what these random tables mean, see if he can put them to good use, and write up everything they tell him... or buy a setting/adventure which does the work for him. With 4e, he can simply pick up Fallcrest and use it without having to do any world building.

3e
1. Read the rules.
2. Make characters.
3a. Develop the starting locale, dungeons, and first adventure/quest. And this step can last a long time for some DMs, or be nearly impossible for others.
3b. Purchase an existing setting/adventure.
4. Play game.

4e
1. Read rules.
2. Make characters.
3. Play game with examples given.

Without rolling out a teaching/learning tool along with the core rules, they know that the only way to increase their player pool is through the traditional method: having veterans teach newbies and get them hooked.

Here's where your misconception lies: that teaching/learning tools should be separate from the core rules. Again, you're saying that they should write the game to make it difficult for a new player to pick up and get into it unless he has veteran players to teach him. And that is exactly the kind of barrier to entry that needs to be razed into a smoking ruin.

 

[The Little Raven]

You think I'm exaggerating, don't you? I wish!

I'm just shocked that so many "experienced" D&D players seem to be unable to remember relatively simple things, especially in light of the multitude of campaign settings that have been popular through the years because they explicitly tossed basic assumptions of core D&D into the trash. I mean, if people can remember what Mordenkainen's Lucubration does, then Golden Wyvern Adept should be a walk in the park.

Others have already answered this better than I can with only a few minutes to spare at work before the next meeting. The problem is that the fluff is being woven into the mechanics, making it harder to change the assumptions made in the fluff.

And again, this is merely saying "it's harder" without giving a single piece of evidence to support the claim.

I want direct proof that 4e is somehow harder to change than 3e, not just vague assertions and references to "others."

Gee a town, sounds like a lot of work.

This is exactly the attitude that is a problem. You assume that because you've been playing D&D since the dawn of time that the core materials should take that as the baseline, and ignore new players that don't have the luxury of experience. You might think putting together a town is easy, but that's because you're so far removed from being a brand new player that it's hard to relate.

I have never felt a need for a fully-mapped out town, let alone the surrounding geography. Having it deliberately vague in fact suits my needs better, as I can insert plot-relevant details as necessary.

And again, you are not a new player.

 

[pemerton]

in 3E, the skills system, as well as the stuff for winning friends and influencing people among beguilers, bards, and the like made a totally non-combat group a possible option in the game. I'm only hoping 4E can perform the same trick, even if the classes are more geared towards usefulness in combat at all stages.

A possible option, but the mechanical experience is very different from the combat experience - in 3E the "social game" is much closer to the "trap game" than it is to the "combat game", in terms of the mechanical implementation, with little player skill involved in dealing with the relevant action resolution mechanics, and with a fairly low degree of integration between the mechanical resolution and the roleplaying experience (nothing analogous to the loving detail with which I can both build my fighting character and play out the experience of combat, drawing roleplaying pleasure from every round's decision-making).

Thus I really am hoping that 4e will have social challenge rules that are comparable (obviously they won't be equal) in richness to the combat mechanics.

Complete Tangent: The idea of social challenge rules bugs me, mostly from the perspective that role-playing is one of those player-based skills, like tactical acumen, that is best left out of the rules system. I mean, would you let a player roll his character's Tactics skill to know how to better position his mini to avoid a AoO, or let the wizard roll Spellcraft to better choose which spell to prepare and/or cast?

But in fact the player doesn't need real tactical acumen (of the sort that real soldiers need, for example) but rather good mastery of the game rules and their implications. What a social challenge system does is mean that the same sort of mastery can be used to successfully play "talking" characters as well as "fighting" characters. I think this is a good payoff of such a system.

To develop the tangent further, this will be a big difference between 4e and AD&D (I think 3E was somewhere in-between): in AD&D the sort of player who could play a Magic-User well, and enjoy playing such a PC, was very different from the sort of player who could play well, and enjoy, a Fighter. In 4e it seems that all the classes will draw on the same sort of system mastery, and hence all classes of a given role should deliver the same sort of mechanical enjoyment (at least in general terms). The different pleasures that they will provide will more pertain to idiosynchratic preferences as to which fiddly bits of which per-encounter abilities one prefers, or what sort of flavour one wants to explore.

Again, I think this is an improvement. Just because in the gameworld Magic-Users are wiser and more patient than Fighters, it doesn't follow we have to design a game so only the very patient can enjoy playing a Magic-User successfully.

Of course, others might disagree.

the player has to be responsible for something

Yes. The player is responsible for deciding their PC's actions: this means making the relevant mechanical choices within the framework of the game system, and (depending on how the playing group allocates tasks at the table) narrating/explaining those actions within the context of the gameworld.

 

[Lurker37]

OK - I've got a bit more time time so can afford to be less terse. My apologies if it came across as sharp.

I'm just shocked that so many "experienced" D&D players seem to be unable to remember relatively simple things, especially in light of the multitude of campaign settings that have been popular through the years because they explicitly tossed basic assumptions of core D&D into the trash. I mean, if people can remember what Mordenkainen's Lucubration does, then Golden Wyvern Adept should be a walk in the park.

Sorry - I should have made it clear that my regular gaming group are players who don't usually play D&D. They're experienced roleplayers, but most of them are not experienced D&D players. I doubt any of them have even heard of Mordenkainen's Lucubration. In fact, I'm pretty sure most of them have never heard of Mordenkainen.

These are the players I was hoping 4th Ed would appeal to more than 3.x does. (Or, to be more accurate, doesn't. The concept of running out of power for the day did not go down well. In fact, that's one of the main reasons I'm hoping 4E will be better received).

So, anything that gives them reason to complain or nitpick is a worry to me. I don't need additional speedbumps on an already rocky road to acceptance.

There was a whole other thread discussing the Golden Wyvern Adept feat that was in one of the recent previews, so I was hoping to not derail this thread by raising the subject. I'll simply repeat my view on it: using fluff in mechanics names instead of phrases that describe (or can at least act as mnemonics for) what the mechanics do is an unnecessary barrier to newcomers learning the system, especially if said fluff is not actually used prominently in the game.

This is exactly the attitude that is a problem. You assume that because you've been playing D&D since the dawn of time that the core materials should take that as the baseline, and ignore new players that don't have the luxury of experience. You might think putting together a town is easy, but that's because you're so far removed from being a brand new player that it's hard to relate.

I was trying to say (or perhaps it would be fairer to admit that I am saying it explicitly for the first time, now that I have more time to type a reply) that presenting a detailed, fully mapped out town with a paragraph or more describing each building and person of note is overload for a new DM, and makes it daunting for them. The rules need to explain how less is more, and that players' eyes will glaze over if you describe every single building in intricate detail. That would only take a page or so, instead of 20.

But I do agree that there needs to be something to explain how it all works to a completely new gaming group. I wonder if WoTC would consider making a PDF introductory scenario available for free download, specifically to walk a new DM through their first adventure. Lots of notes on everything, including notes on why certain locations and NPCs are only sketchy, and why others have more detail. Not so much a 'here's a first game for you to run' as 'here's an example of how to start out, with explanations as to what (usually) works, and why.' After all, most recently-released computer games start with tutorials - having something similar for an RPG might not be a completely oddball idea.

I'm not quite convinced it should be eating up page count in a core book though. Not only does it displace other information of potential use to all DMs and/or players, not just inexperienced ones, but flipping between it and all the rules an inexperienced DM usually has not yet memorised could become quite cumbersome.

 

[The Little Raven]

There was a whole other thread discussing the Golden Wyvern Adept feat that was in one of the recent previews, so I was hoping to not derail this thread by raising the subject.

Honestly, I don't think it will make it into the game. The amount of negative reaction to Dragon's Tail Cut was at least equal to this, and they changed that.

I was trying to say (or perhaps it would be fairer to admit that I am saying it explicitly for the first time, now that I have more time to type a reply) that presenting a detailed, fully mapped out town with a paragraph or more describing each building and person of note is overload for a new DM, and makes it daunting for them.

How is having a ready-to-use town more daunting than having to come up with all the details themselves? I think that needs to be explained before this line of reasoning holds water. Requiring a new DM to have to learn the rules AND generate all the non-rule details of his first adventure sounds far more daunting than simply learning the rules, and putting them into play using an example provided.

After all, most recently-released computer games start with tutorials - having something similar for an RPG might not be a completely oddball idea.

Exactly. And since those computer games come with their tutorials, rather than requiring you to go and find them somewhere else, it would make sense to include some with D&D. Not everyone goes on the net for everything.

I'm not quite convinced it should be eating up page count in a core book though. Not only does it displace other information of potential use to all DMs and/or players, not just inexperienced ones, but flipping between it and all the rules an inexperienced DM usually has not yet memorised could become quite cumbersome.

Again, you're putting the onus on the new DM/player to seek out extra material just in order to make better sense of the book. The game itself should be able to teach them, and examples are one of the best ways to teach someone.

And if flipping back and forth is a problem, then how is leafing through all kinds of random downloads and extra books going to help?

It's strange... you seem to be saying "The first core books shouldn't contain examples to teach new DMs, since they'll get lost by having to learn the rules and flip pages to examples. Instead, they should have to seek out additional material themselves, which will be somehow easier to use than material included in the core books." And that just makes no sense.

 

[Reynard]

To develop the tangent further, this will be a big difference between 4e and AD&D (I think 3E was somewhere in-between): in AD&D the sort of player who could play a Magic-User well, and enjoy playing such a PC, was very different from the sort of player who could play well, and enjoy, a Fighter. In 4e it seems that all the classes will draw on the same sort of system mastery, and hence all classes of a given role should deliver the same sort of mechanical enjoyment (at least in general terms). The different pleasures that they will provide will more pertain to idiosynchratic preferences as to which fiddly bits of which per-encounter abilities one prefers, or what sort of flavour one wants to explore.

Again, I think this is an improvement. Just because in the gameworld Magic-Users are wiser and more patient than Fighters, it doesn't follow we have to design a game so only the very patient can enjoy playing a Magic-User successfully.

Of course, others might disagree.

And heartily.

Look at it this way -- if the classes are all designed to appeal to the same play preferences, what that means is that they are designed to appeal to a single kind of player. Now, anyone who has been around the table for very long knows that players are a wierd and varied lot, often frustratingly so. But with different play experiences built right in to the core classes of the game -- the 1E fighter vs 1E wizard is perhaps the most striking example, but both the thief and the cleric provided a different play experience, as well -- your appeal to different kinds of people is broader and your get a more "cosmopolitan" pool of players at any given table. The alternative as 4E seems to present it is to have all Butt Kickers or Armchair generals (or whatever Lawsian type we want to call them). This might provide for a more consistent play experience across classes, but doesn't do anything to preserve the, um, "charm" of gathering together a diverse set of your wierest friends for an evening's gaming.

 

[Reynard]

Here's where your misconception lies: that teaching/learning tools should be separate from the core rules. Again, you're saying that they should write the game to make it difficult for a new player to pick up and get into it unless he has veteran players to teach him. And that is exactly the kind of barrier to entry that needs to be razed into a smoking ruin.

I literally have no idea what language you are speaking. know all of those words, but when put together that way, they are meaningless.

If you read what I wrote, I specifically said that the teaching tool should be right there at the very beginning of the core rules and that teaching the game should come before anything else, even "example towns and dungeons". because that works. We know it works. It worked for probably half the people that currently play D&D, in fact. How in the hell did you get that I think you should write the rules to make it difficult for new players out of that?