Game vs Game System

[helium3]

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."

*nod*

In a loose sense, the various aspects of 3.5 sort of seemed to worked like the Objects you find in computer programming. Classes, Feats, Spells and Items all had "properties" and you could make new ones simply by changing them and sticking to the provided "formulas."

Not that you can't do that with 4E. I think what's really going on here is that the design and marketing teams are making a conscious effort to downplay the "formulas" that underly the basic design assumptions. In all likelihood they're still there, but they don't us getting caught up in them.

I'm not entirely sure why they're doing this, but I suspect it has something to do with either making the system seem less intimidating or freeing it from the idea that every single thing that occurs in the game needs to be described by some kind of a mechanic. But really, thats just a guess and probably wrong.

Could someone give me an example of one of these "cascading mods" that happens in 3.5?

 

[Dragonblade]

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.

I was with you in complete agreement through your analysis of 1-3rd edition. but I think your analysis of 4e is completely wrong. Rather I think that 4e will become the new tabletop standard.

Although I agree in some respects that 4e will be more tightly integrated in terms of story and mechanics for some monsters, I think it will actually be easier to change those mechanics than any system before it. In 3rd edition, changing a monster or adding levels to a monster or NPC was a nightmare. It took forever and you were constantly fighting the system to achieve what you wanted. 4e seems to be employing what I call structured freedom. There will be a system that provide a boundary to assist DMs with balance, but as a DM you will have much more freedom to change or create monsters to fit your vision of what they should be.

The baselines they said they will provide in the 4e MM or DMG will tell you what a specific monster level should look like in terms of AC, Attack bonus, Defenses, HP, etc. But within that framework you can do anything you like. This is a radical improvement of 3e where the system constrains you from very beginning. As soon as you decide what type of creature it is, you are locked in to a specific progression of abilities. You practically had to design everything from the ground up and then there was no assurance that what you ended up with was actually a balanced or fun monster even if you did carefully follow the formulas. (Hmm, I seem to remember this sentiment echoed in one of the designer's blogs...)

In fact, 4e reminds me of 1e and 2e when the DM owned the system and could do what they liked with monsters and encounters. But where 4e one ups that is that now we have guide rails to help us craft our creatures and encounters and ensure they are appropriate to the PCs we are DMing for. But we don't have to deal with the 3e straitjacket monster advancement system. I just imagine my monster, decide its power level and role in combat and BAM! all its bonuses and stats are right there. I don't need painstakingly level it up via monster HD or class levels to do what I want.

4e is shaping up to be the D&D game I have always wanted to DM (and play for that matter).

 

[kennew142]

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.

An GM who is creative enough to homebrew in the first place should have no trouble tinkering with the system or changing the flavor. I have always ignored setting specific material in the rules, and it has always been there. Remember the racial animosity table in AD&D PHB? 3e monster manuals included ecology information that didn't work for every GM's game. It would see to me that the inclusion of a little flavor text in the rules shouldn't be a problem unless the GM allows it to be. In many ways, this kind of reasoning is making a mountain out of a mole hill. My upcoming game is different in many respects from the implied flavor of the new edition. I know that the history and background material will be different. There is no doubt in my mind that I will be able to separate the unwanted flavor text and concepts from the rules.

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.

Wow, talk about pessimism. We've seen these sorts of predictions for decades. Video games were going to destroy RPG; then card games were going to destroy RPG; now it's MMOs that are going to destroy RPG. Funny thing is that RPG is still around.

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.

Here we go with the 4e is just like WoW line again. Sorry, but I don't see it. Tabletop RPGs are different from games like WoW, and they always will be. There is no way that any edition of D&D is going to play like WoW.

It seems to me as if 4e D&D will do more to spur GM creativity by including flavorful and evocative language that can inspire world builders. It also looks like they're reversing the trend in 3e of taking power away from the GM and locking it into encyclopedic volumes of rules. In my own gaming group, two GMs who've always used published settings have been inspired to develop their own worlds in response to the 4e preview material.

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!

D&D action figures! Where can I get some? At 42 I would feel pretty silly buying them for myself, but at least I have three children at home who would love them. The oldest, BTW, have started playing SWSE and will start on D&D with 4e. I see this a lot at game days and conventions I run. Not only are new players coming into the game, but they are bringing their parents (mainly dads) back into the hobby with them. Some of these guys have been out of the game for years.

From what I've seen, it looks like the hobby is pretty good shape.

 

[Dausuul]

It seems to me as if 4e D&D will do more to spur GM creativity by including flavorful and evocative language that can inspire world builders. It also looks like they're reversing the trend in 3e of taking power away from the GM and locking it into encyclopedic volumes of rules. In my own gaming group, two GMs who've always used published settings have been inspired to develop their own worlds in response to the 4e preview material.

Heh. Exact opposite for me. I've always homebrewed my cosmology from the ground up, but in 4E I plan to use the default cosmology with only a couple of small tweaks. Sooooo much better than the old Great Wheel...

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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

In my games I always change around the fluff - I had "saints" as some of the pact stuff in 3.x (used the mechanics of some of the vestiges, changes the flavor). So I can easily ignore anything that is included in 4th ed that way...

But as my preferred game is HERO (both in mechanics and approach) I consider this bad news. For me, the less the setting and the mechanics interact the better. I prefer them completely separate myself - you have the mechanics, but no implied setting at all, then a setting book, using those mechanics for that particular setting. But I know I'm in the minority here.

And yeah I've spent a year developing my Fantasy Hero world, spells, etc... but I'm basically a frustrated game designer, I like to tinker that way.

 

[marune]

But as my preferred game is HERO (both in mechanics and approach) I consider this bad news. For me, the less the setting and the mechanics interact the better. I prefer them completely separate myself - you have the mechanics, but no implied setting at all, then a setting book, using those mechanics for that particular setting. But I know I'm in the minority here.

I wasn't talking about the implied setting.

When I said focused, I meant "a game with a more clearly stated goal".

 

[EATherrian]

D&D action figures! Where can I get some? At 42 I would feel pretty silly buying them for myself, but at least I have three children at home who would love them. The oldest, BTW, have started playing SWSE and will start on D&D with 4e. I see this a lot at game days and conventions I run. Not only are new players coming into the game, but they are bringing their parents (mainly dads) back into the hobby with them. Some of these guys have been out of the game for years.

From what I've seen, it looks like the hobby is pretty good shape.

I believe I have a Warduke figure at home, but I'm sure that's not what you meant. I sort of agree about the lack of openness I'm seeing in 4e. As an example, when reading R+C all I could think of was it's too bad these guys wrote so much history, I'm just going to chuck it. I know not everyone home-brews, but since POL isn't going to be a setting at all, I find all the fluff included to be wasted.

 

[kennew142]

Heh. Exact opposite for me. I've always homebrewed my cosmology from the ground up, but in 4E I plan to use the default cosmology with only a couple of small tweaks. Sooooo much better than the old Great Wheel...

I will also be using much of the default cosmology. The differences between my game and the flavor/conceits of the new edition include:

1) Much weaker points of light concept. There are larger nation states than in the implied setting, although they are mostly separated by dangerous territory.

2) No gods. Celestial and infernal beings exist, but they don't know any more about the true nature of the cosmos than anyone else (although they may claim that they do).

3) Racial name changes. I don't allow 'half' races. I kept the mechanics, but assigned them to different races. I also dislike any name for a race that ends in -ling.

4) Different racial backgrounds. Dragonborn were never ruled by Dragons in my campaign. In fact, dragons come from Dragonborn who have advanced fully along the way of the dragon.

5) Other racial changes. Tieflings do not always breed true, but the Atryan Aspect (as it is called) is genetically dominant.

6) No young dragons. See #4 above.

There will likely be others. But I'm keeping Feywild, Shadowfell, Elemental Chaos, Astral Sea and Far Realms (called Outside, the Beyond, and other names).

 

[Scribble]

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.

Well yeah... this was part of their problem, however... Since a lot of the systems weren't built with any consideration for either their effect or connection to already existing systems it was easy to mix and match... But often created unintended poor results.

I'll admit it made for a better Dragon Magazine in my opinion, but the game as a whole kind of suffered. I enjoyed it don't get me wrong, but the amount of arguments around the table was WAY higher in previous editions then it was in 3e for me at least...

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.

Yeah... the idea was to create a system where the rules were created in a way that worked together as a whole. It did it's job. It's still possible to tinker with the system, but to keep it from becoming "unbalanced" you need to understand what you're doing. If you don't care, then tinker all you want, consequences be damned... (if it didn't matter to you in previous editions why should it matter now?)

Still I can see the point that being able to easily tailor certain thing (like monsters and how they work) should be a part of the game... hey low and behold, 4e seems to be working on this!

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.

Not in my opinion at least. It's just opening the game up to a wider audience. Those gamers who enjoy changing the flavor (I don't like the word fluff) and making their own worlds can (and will) still do so. Changing flavor doesn't hurt the game in any way. (look how many people played Vampires as crazy evil superheros as opposed to the angst ridden pretty boys WW pushed in their flavor... ) But it also gives those gamers who don't want to be bothered with developing new worlds and ideas a chance to just sit down and game. Win win in my eyes.

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.

How are they doing this? All I've seen so far are things that in my opinion promote creativity. They've stated over and over that they aren't going to fully flesh out the POL setting. Thats the kind of stuff that always gets MY mind racing... Like the loose half stories they always have in WOD stuff... My mind is always furiously filling in the gaps with adventure and story ideas. 4e I think will get more creative energy flowing then 3e ever did with its (at least in the beginning) emphasis on more crunch less flavor...

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

Awesome!!! Wait, D&D already had action figures... But still gimmie a Mind Flavor action figure. That would be sweet!

 

[Morrus]

I agree; and so do the designers, according to Worlds & Monsters. There's a paragraph that mentions that 3.x was more like a dry textbook, whereas 4E will be more closely tied to evocative fluff text.