Gaming Pornography: Will 4th Edition lead to a more Realistic and Useful Game?

[Fifth Element]

In AD&D, there were ghosts and vampires and wolves and harpies and dragons orcs to fight. Now, there's warforged and morhg and lots of other stuff that's not derived from the real world, the mythology of the real world, or Tolkienesque fantasy (most of which is derived from the real world).

1E also had intellect devourers, and beholders, and brain moles, and gelatinous cubes, and ropers, and carrion crawlers. EGG derived several monsters from small plastic toys, and many others from his own imagination. Where is the mythological basis for these creatures?

And then on the other side of the equation, 3E still has ghosts, and vampires, and wolves, and harpies, and dragons, and orcs.

Where is the difference again?

 

[Fifth Element]

I have to honestly wonder - if people are genuinely upset or offended by the OPs posts, why continue replying? Surely the addage of "don't feed the trolls" applies?

I honestly don't think he's a troll. A troll is someone who posts simply to start an argument. The OP seems to be looking for actual discussion. Therefore, those who disagree with him provide their points of view.

If he honestly believes that his way of playing is the best way of playing, we owe it to him to try and shake that belief. It can only increase his enjoyment of the game.

 

[Numion]

Which makes this post what...a money shot?

White Pudding in ya face, beeyotch! Roll for save!

 

[pemerton]

Calling the game style I play "pornography" is insulting enough, but what ticks me off is that the OP and his supporters need to tell me that their fun is more-better than my fun because their fun provides them with an educational, self-acutalizing experience and mine is just simpleminded butt-kicking.

It's an elitist attitude and I don't buy into its quiet sense of superiority. I want to teach my children how to NOT treat others this way.

IBut so what? If people enjoy discussing feat progression and rules clarification, and it stimulates their critical thinking, strategic planning and other similar brain functions, that's good too. Just because the humanities are discussed doesn't make the game "pornographic".

Really, do you think that your fun is more fulfilling that other people's fun?

I don't understand what is objectionable about expressing an aesthetic preference. It happens in art, in literature, in cinema. Why not in gaming?

Well, if 3E is RPG porn, this thread surely rates as mental masturbation.

I don't understand this either. This website and others like it are full of threads debating the merits of different rules, the history of fictional worlds, the tactics of fictional combats. Why is all that acceptable, but a discussion of the aesthetic and moral merits of the activity of RPGing not?

 

[Shadeydm]

White Pudding in ya face, beeyotch! Roll for save!

Eeeww

 

[BryonD]

Nod. I started 25 years ago, but I also see the point.

In AD&D, there were ghosts and vampires and wolves and harpies and dragons orcs to fight. Now, there's warforged and morhg and lots of other stuff that's not derived from the real world, the mythology of the real world, or Tolkienesque fantasy (most of which is derived from the real world).

I hate spikey armor is usually how I express this discontent with 3e. I manage to avoid it in my game, but I suspect 4e will promote spikey armor over chainmail that looks like chainmail to an even greater degree than 3e did.

meh, I think you are overstating the case here, by cherry picking your examples.
In 3X there are ghosts and vampires and wolves and harpies and dragons orcs to fight.
In AD&D you had flumphs and modrons.

I'm not claiming 3X is better on this point. I'm just saying that your arugument can be turned on its head just by changing the cherry picking.

I've been playing 3X since it came out. I've seen plenty of spikey armor in books, but it has never once been a feature at the table. Certainly no more than my AD&D games were dominated by wandering prostitute checks.

I don't like warforged, but I just don't play in Eberron.

I don't believe that the changes you claim are in any way forced on you.

 

[catsclaw227]

I don't understand what is objectionable about expressing an aesthetic preference. It happens in art, in literature, in cinema. Why not in gaming?

There isn't anything objectionable about stating a preference.

It would be fine if he was simply saying that he pines for the halcyon days of 1E gaming as a youth and the long intellectual discussions that sprung from those gaming sessions, but he finds that his can't share that experience with his kids. This I would understand and empathize.

But it sounds like he is blaming a game system for something that is the fault of modern gaming culture in general, not 3.x mechanics.

Also, if you show your preferences by labeling another mans art, literature or cinema as pornographic, you should expect an objection. This is an RPG message board with a high 3.x concentration.

 

[Nebulous]

Nod. I started 25 years ago, but I also see the point.

I hate spikey armor is usually how I express this discontent with 3e. I manage to avoid it in my game, but I suspect 4e will promote spikey armor over chainmail that looks like chainmail to an even greater degree than 3e did.

I loathe spikey armor too, but i see why they did it; the concept appeals to the current younger generation that probably form the majority of their fans. If the cover art is any indication of what the interiors of the 4e look like, i'm already sort of turned off. If not for the rules sounding so good, that is. Same with the new SWSE; i really didn't like the graphical layout, but the rules were solid.

One saving grace we have is that there are plenty of third party publishers (like Necromancer) that want to keep the feel of the old style games that we love, while adhering to the current ruleset.

 

[comrade raoul]

You know, in the real world, sympathetic characters don't wander into the wilderness, kill things that look scary, and take their stuff. They don't get into interesting tactical combat situations: instead, when they fight, the results are swift, brutal, and pretty random. In fact, that's why they don't fight much--they try to resolve their disagreements in much more complicated and subtle ways. They appreciate complexity and nuanced, and their lives are often, narratively, really interesting.

If thirty years of RPG development have taught us anything, they've taught us that you have to fit your rules and setting to the tone of the experience you're trying to provide. There's nothing wrong with people wanting adventure, danger, and engaging tactical situations--but the rules you need to model those situations, along with the setting you need to keep the focus on those situations and make them easily available, are going to be pretty silly looked at from a "realistic" perspective.

Try something more freeform. Heck, try novels!

 

[(contact)]

I'm hoping that, with changes in the reward mechanics, they might become more possible.

Meaning a reduction of the importance of magic items? Me too. Although, I don't expect the PCs to be less fantastic-- they might even be more fantastic/superhero-ish, but less derived from +n trinkets of special ability special ability.