Game vs Game System

[Brown Jenkin]

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.

That is one of my greatest fears about 4E. Our group has several types of players that like different kind of things. If all the classes are basically the same with different fluff covering the same basic principles then I don't see it appealing to the diversity we have.

 

[EATherrian]

The biggest difference in the 3e/4e setting is that the 4e setting is internally consistent, while the 3e setting was a hodgepodge of Greyhawk and things from other settings that were then 'cribbed' into Greyhawk, for a very apparent lack of consistency.

But if you read the 3e core books, how much about Greyhawk could you really glean from them? I think almost none. A few names and that's it. This new level of fluff is much more intensive, and for those of us who like our own worlds, intrusive.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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 haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I get the feeling that what he means is that he sees previous editions of D&D as sort of a toolkit: classes, races, equipment, monsters, etc. that allow you to build a fantasy roleplaying game. However, he perceives 4E as being less of a toolkit and more of a finished product. To use a computer analogy, previous editions were C++ and 4E is an executable.

I do get the feeling that there might be less "under the hood" tinkering in 4E, but that it is being replaced with more user-friendly toggles in the rules system for customization. To use another computer analogy, instead of having to tinker with the source to effect customizations, 4E has an "options" section with radio buttons and drop-down menus. At least, that's the impression I'm getting so far. For example, instead of the system mastery required to advance monsters properly in 3.x, in 4E it will be a simple matter of consulting a chart and writing in a few alterations to attack bonuses, defenses, etc.

 

[Dragonblade]

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I get the feeling that what he means is that he sees previous editions of D&D as sort of a toolkit: classes, races, equipment, monsters, etc. that allow you to build a fantasy roleplaying game. However, he perceives 4E as being less of a toolkit and more of a finished product. To use a computer analogy, previous editions were C++ and 4E is an executable.

I do get the feeling that there might be less "under the hood" tinkering in 4E, but that it is being replaced with more user-friendly toggles in the rules system for customization. To use another computer analogy, instead of having to tinker with the source to effect customizations, 4E has an "options" section with radio buttons and drop-down menus. At least, that's the impression I'm getting so far. For example, instead of the system mastery required to advance monsters properly in 3.x, in 4E it will be a simple matter of consulting a chart and writing in a few alterations to attack bonuses, defenses, etc.

The computer analogy is an interesting one. I view it more as a car myself.

In 3e the engine was exposed and although the car was driveable (i.e. playing or DMing it), you constantly had to pull over to tighten a belt, replace a screw or otherwise do some minor maintenance to keep it running smoothly. But given that it did run pretty well.

I view 4e more as a newer and refined luxury model where the engine is no longer exposed and it is designed to be driven as is without needing on the fly maintenance. I think some of the 4e resistance is that people are worried about no longer having easy engine access. I think that is a valid concern and as long as WotC can address that in the DMG, then I think that will be great for everyone.

And of course there are those who feel their current ride runs fine since they spent the last eight years bolting on 3rd party parts and duct tape to get it to run to their satisfaction. But for me, I can't get over the black smoke pouring out of the engine and I'm tired of the maintenance. I'd rather buy a new car that just runs.

 

[Remathilis]

3.5 Player's Handbook: "A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells... and plus three 1st level spells of your choice."

1st edition DMG: "While the intelligence of the player character will dictate how many and which spells can be and are known... each and every spell, except those which 'master' was generous enough to bestow upon the character, must be found somewhere and recorded..." choice of starting 1st level spells was randomly determined, and only allow choice if the DM felt his or her campaign was especially difficult. Spelled out in the rules. The cleric's section goes out of its way to say that any spell over 2nd level means the cleric can be denied them from his god for various reasons.

That's why I say it, at least. The default assumption in earlier editions was that it was DM's prerogative; in 3E, the default choice is that it's player's prerogative. You can still pull "DM's authority, as you say, but the rules make the default assumption a different one.

Which, IMHO, is a GOOD thing.

Personally, I think the core rules of the game (any game, be it an RPG or a board game or whatever) should be set in stone. Then, it is up to the players (and by that, I mean everyone involved in the game, not merely the non-DM members) to decide where and what rules should and need to be changed. Older versions of D&D often lead to DM=God complex, akin to saying "When playing Monopoly, whoever owns the board can set the prices for all the roads and the other players must abide these prices". While that might be interesting for those who find a like to a boardowners particular board (Park Place $5? Sure, why not!) it doesn't create a consistency of game-experience.

 

[Remathilis]

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 weird 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.

Yeah, 1e fighters and thieves were designed for people who liked to have fun in the beginning of a game and be marginalized by level 10, and clerics were designed for people who liked to act as walking medicine chests for the continually more obsolete fighters and thieves to make them moderately viable. Magic-users, otoh, were designed for people who didn't mind being useless at low levels in trade off for domineering the game at higher levels and marginalizing his peers.

By making the classes "even" across all levels, the fighters begin to have equal (but overlapping) ability with the wizard and make them equals rather than Champion/Weakling at level 1 and Meatshield/Ruler of All at level 10...

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.
[snip]
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. [snip] 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.

I was totally with you until these bits about 4E destroying life as we know it.

Looking at what we've actually seen of the game so far, I think 4E will be a critical and commercial success. I understand that there's a reflexive negative reaction to the fact that devs looked at WoW and tried to understand why that game is so compelling, but I think that's a *good* thing--no product exists in a vacuum.

And MMORPGS will never completely destroy "the hobby." People still get together for poker night, even though online poker is better at shuffling the cards and making sure everyone antes up.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, 1e fighters and thieves were designed for people who liked to have fun in the beginning of a game and be marginalized by level 10, and clerics were designed for people who liked to act as walking medicine chests for the continually more obsolete fighters and thieves to make them moderately viable. Magic-users, otoh, were designed for people who didn't mind being useless at low levels in trade off for domineering the game at higher levels and marginalizing his peers.

By making the classes "even" across all levels, the fighters begin to have equal (but overlapping) ability with the wizard and make them equals rather than Champion/Weakling at level 1 and Meatshield/Ruler of All at level 10...

That's certainly one way to look at it.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't want to seem too quibbling or pedantic, but I think the need to change rules to facilitate that play style is evidence in favour of my contention rather than against it.

Rules changes are not necessary. At 1st level, in AD&D, a house cat has a very good chance of killing a mage. And let's not forget the myriad of 'save or die' posions and special creature attacks. It's a fallacy, utterly and wholly, that D&D has never supported high lethality play. You're deliberately ignoring these things in past editions of D&D (and, similarly, ignoring the heroic elements of systems like Rolemaster) to build your strawman. And, I'm sorry to say, but that's exactly what 'AD&D can't do gritty and Rolemaster does nothing but!' is. It's neither an accurate assessment, nor is it topical in the context of this thread.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't understand what you think the fallacy is.

The absence of X does not prove or necessitate the existence of Y, where Y equals the opposite of X.

Perhaps you could refer me to a standard logic text.

Try a High School physics textbook. Look up "gravity" in the index.