Game vs Game System

[Clavis]

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

I know. I had a collection of them when I was a kid.
Actually, if new action figures were done McFarlane-style, it would be kinda cool. Especially a Gelatinous Cube with corpses and treasure inside!

I still generally pessimistic about 4th Edition, however. Although I do like that they're backing away from 3rd Edition-style monster design, which was a nightmare from the lowest depths of the Abyss.

 

[Reynard]

I wasn't talking about the implied setting.

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

This, I think, is a bad idea for D&D. The best part about TTRPGs in general is that we can do anything with them we want. D&D doesn't need stated goals -- all it needs to do is provide enough tools, with as few restrictions as possible, to allow players and DMs to use it in whatever manner they deem most fun. The more specific a playstyle a game's system is geared toward, the more specific a setting or milieu it is wrapped up in, the less useful it is to a larger number of users.

The 4E team seems to want us to play their game in their homebrew, their way, instead of helping us play our game in our homebrews, our way.

 

[Reynard]

I know. I had a collection of them when I was a kid.
Actually, if new action figures were done McFarlane-style, it would be kinda cool. Especially a Gelatinous Cube with corpses and treasure inside!

Why this hasn't happened yet, I can't even fathom. D&D branding is more powerful than the game and WotC/Hasbro hasn't made move one to cash in on it. Which sucks, because for us gamers it would be a boon: not only would we get neat toys to play wi... er, collect, it might actually broaden the potential player base.

 

[jdrakeh]

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

A game has a default setting, premise, and theme. To paraphrase Steve Jackson, a game is something you do, a system is something that you use to do things. For example, when Joe applies the AD&D rules to a setting, premise, and theme he creates a campaign. This is what people are actually playing. They're playing Joe's D&D Campaign, not D&D as-written.

As written, you can't play the D&D rules -- you have to add a setting, premise, and theme of some type before they become a game. Much as you don't play GURPS. You play X using the GURPS rules. You play an FR campaign using the D&D rules. Etc, etc, etc.

Traditionally, D&D as-written is a set of rules that lets you play games, but it isn't a game in and of itself. The new edition seems to be introducing an explicit setting, premise, and theme into the core package -- something that all earlier editions of D&D lack. In this regard, D&D 4e is shaping up to be much more "game" than simple "rules".

 

[Warbringer]

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...

Gotta say, I like were 4e is heading... the changes in my setting ..

1) Cosmology this pretty much has been my cosmology for the last 5 years... except the Gray Wastes is my Astral Sea/Shadowfell, in which islands of primal 'stuff' are the homes of 'lesser powers' .. devils etc. Souls travel the wastes to theor 'heaven' but often get waylaid along the way on these islands. I will be incorporating the 'Constanine' concept used for Feywild and Primal Chaos (already in play as the 'dark')...

2) Dragonborn - will replace half-elves as the 'dragonlords', but will be more human looking...may be a space for the dragonborn as written for those dragonriders that fled following the first Lich War

3) Tieflings - I already have the 'tainted' as a subrace... May completely replace with tiefs

4) Points of Light - Already is. City States are the norm with 'dark' roaming between. The Paladins of Qhrin and trying to change that, but they have their own problems. Deep water is particulary susceptable to the dark, so open water sailing is a challenge

5) Fey are a counterpoint to 'tainte', referred to as fey-touched and tainted. This will stay, which means no half-races

6) Magic already scattered..my equivalent of spellplague never implemneted as a different mechanic.. I had simply removed the ability to write scrolls...I'll use 4e spell system for this

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I wasn't talking about the implied setting.

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

Ah - I prefer games with no stated goal. I prefer the goal of the game I play to be up to me and the group - part of the reason I dislike most "Indie" games (DitV, Sorcerer, and whatnot).

 

[Simon Marks]

Traditionally, D&D as-written is a set of rules that lets you play games, but it isn't a game in and of itself. The new edition seems to be introducing an explicit setting, premise, and theme into the core package -- something that all earlier editions of D&D lack. In this regard, D&D 4e is shaping up to be much more "game" than simple "rules".

You neglect to say if you think this is a good thing. Posting on a fora without a bias?

To me, the interesting thing is if the explicit setting, theme and premise are easily 'hacked' into a new setting, theme or premise.

I don't think, by the way, that D&D ever was 'generic'. It always had (to me) an implied Premise and Theme. No setting, maybe, but there was some very, very well defined premises.

So, 4e. D&D with a inherent setting and better ... thought out? ... premise and theme. Altering D&D's premise was never easy. And theme is theme.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Reynard]

Altering D&D's premise was never easy.

How so? Well, I am getting ahead of myself. First, what premise? D&D has never had a singular play premise (well, maybe OD&D, but I wouldn't know). They have all run the gamut from dungeon crawling to sword and sorcery pulp adventure to high fantasy questing to planespanning cosmic wierdness.

 

[marune]

Ah - I prefer games with no stated goal. I prefer the goal of the game I play to be up to me and the group - part of the reason I dislike most "Indie" games (DitV, Sorcerer, and whatnot).

Problem is, when the goal is implicit/incoherent, people expect very different things from the same game.

In the typical basement where D&D is played, not so much to worry about.

On D&D forums, lots of debates are about the same basic issues (what's the goal of the game) but peoples argues about the details, not the fundamentals*.

It's on the "D&D Insider" where you want to have people creating play group online, that you really get your problem. That's why WoTC needs a well designed clearly focused game.

*How many gamist/sim debates we really needs on these boards !?

 

[marune]

A game has a default setting, premise, and theme. To paraphrase Steve Jackson, a game is something you do, a system is something that you use to do things. For example, when Joe applies the AD&D rules to a setting, premise, and theme he creates a campaign. This is what people are actually playing. They're playing Joe's D&D Campaign, not D&D as-written.

As written, you can't play the D&D rules -- you have to add a setting, premise, and theme of some type before they become a game. Much as you don't play GURPS. You play X using the GURPS rules. You play an FR campaign using the D&D rules. Etc, etc, etc.

Traditionally, D&D as-written is a set of rules that lets you play games, but it isn't a game in and of itself. The new edition seems to be introducing an explicit setting, premise, and theme into the core package -- something that all earlier editions of D&D lack. In this regard, D&D 4e is shaping up to be much more "game" than simple "rules".

I don't like your usage of "game" and "rules" here, but that's not the point.

Even without a proper theme, D&D (past editions included) rules (that are part of the System used to play) implicity support a playstyle. Because it is implicit, and somewhat incoherent (gamist/sim) lots of group used the rules to have very different playstyle.

4E being more clearly gamist is probably an attempt to define a more focused D&D.

IMHO, 4E can be a really good "high-exploration" gamist RPG, but... they can fail again to admit it.