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

[Nifft]

I'm thinking what he's saying is "Eberron" is majorly not his cup of tea.

I was hoping he was going to say something about, you know, porn, but I guess he's just being a tease.

Elf needs food love, badly!

, -- N

 

[outsider]

The only "useful" thing you'll ever learn in D&D is that you use flames to kill trolls. It's surprising how often that comes up in day to day life.

 

[Hairfoot]

I agree with a lot of what Jack7 is saying, especially the "porn" part, but I think some respondents have homed in unfairly on individual statements.*

Regardless of its shortcomings as a system, I liked the fact that 1E was about adventures, plots, mysteries, and heroism. It was notably lacking in extensive descriptions of armour made from unique types of rock, shapechanging dragon-born illithid-spawned half-tanarii, acid-bleeding ghost-touch punch-daggers infused with souls of ancient demons, and extensive lists of power-ups which defined where and what your character could do. This is the porn.

I have spent many hours poring over lists of magic items, races, equipment, and feats, wondering how to optimise or "pimp" my character for a game. Entertaining though it was, it wasn't what originally sucked me into the joy of roleplaying. I like D&D 3.5, but like Jack7, I hope there's more adventure and less porn in 4E.



* The same thing happens when people say they want D&D to be more realistic - saying "realistic? Duh! It's got magic and dragons" doesn't mean that rules for, say, jumping or falling can't be more verisimilitudinous.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Jumping on the "realism" statement and applying a very narrow definition of the term is a good way to cut down the argument -- trollish or not -- without actually facing it. i think what the OP is talking about is an issue of tone and playstyle inherent in the system -- one that has changed over the years between and within the various editions. The most obvious cue is the art direction of each edition.

(I am going to leave OD&D and B/XD&D out of the argument. The former because I am not familiar with it; the latter because it is an animal all its own and not part of the 1e-2e-3e-4e continuum.)

1E art, particularly in the early days, was at time crude, and at times joking, but generally speaking had a much grittier, dark ages feel to it. The warriors are wearing hemets and mail and using shields. The wizards, robes and pointed hats. People rode horses, roofs were thatched, and monsters were mean ugly suckers. the art fit the tone of the game very well. 1E was a tough game, as much a test of the player as the PC, with disease and insanity and starvation right there in the DMG next to more fantastical dangers. 1E was "realistic" in the sense that it tried to embrace the dark ages/medieval world (or at least a romanticized version thereof) and challenges. Fantasy elements were assumed to be a little removed from the common populace so that "historical" modes of government and society could reasonably exist in the worlds of D&D -- much in the same way that such elements were fringe in Howard and Tolkien.

By the time 2E came along, the art style had evolved to be generally in line with the covers of your typical high fantasy novels. At least early on, the art was realistic but overly clean and romantic, and the game followed suit. Gone were the rules for starvation, as were the assassin and barbarian. The greys were bled out of the world and high adventure and epic tales were the order of the day. "Real world" threats were pushed aside while monsters and magic became far more powerful and common. Heroism, not mercenary greed, was the assumed motivation behind PC action -- and heroes don't die from rot grubs or disentary (sp), or so we're told. Whitewashed pastiche's of Tolkien and Howard (mostly the former, though Drizzt is well within the sword and sorcery heroic mould) were the order of the day -- many of which were published by TSR itself.

The next shift actually took place before 3E appeared. In the latter half of 2E's life, the "cool" started to take over. There was the Goth-Cool (Ravenloft) and the Punk-Cool (Planescape) and the Grunge-Cool (Dark Sun), but they were all cool. With the possible exception of Ravenloft, the new worlds from TSR -- including, in addition to those mentioned, Spelljammer, Red Steel and Birthright -- took cool to a new level with races, classes, magic and monsters that were an order of magnitude cooler than the previous edition-and-a-half's.

With 3E, we got yet another redesign on the art front, but one that relied heavily on the "cool" of the end of 2E. The rules and implied setting also became "cooler" and less "realistic", finally putting the nail in the coffin of any threats to life and happiness that weren't CR'd. 3.5 and Eberron were the ultimate expression of the state of the art of what D&D had morphed into -- a world so diametrically opposed to the origins of the game that it was barely recognizable as "medieval fantasy" and was often confused with "steam punk".

Now, I have contended in the past -- and will forever, I suppose -- that each edition is in fact a different game, because each one makes different assumptions, suggests a different playstyle and asks different things of the players and DM. And that's fine. the games (and the gamers) can co-exist. I know that i have finally realized that 3.x is not, in fact, the D&D for me, so I will be going back to a previous version. But that I realize that i dont like 3.x, doesn't make it bad or poorly designed (quite the contrary, for its intended purpose, it is very well designed). And I expect 4e to be the pinnacle of game design (seriously; no snark there) by some of the best designers in the industry. But I doubt very much, based on what we've heard so far, that it is going to be D&D to me.

So cut the OP some slack, huh? Even if he was trolling, that doesn't mean he was wrong.

Reynard, a very interesting take on the subject! I think you and the OP are identifying something I have felt as well: there has been a shift in certain premises in the game that may make it a wholly different game than what came before and was known as "Dungeons & Dragons."

 

[Artoomis]

...By realism, given the parameters of a game about mythological and "fantasy subjects," I mean the stories and the game itself are tied to the real world, through myth, religion, culture, language, art, etc.

Not that it replicate the real world, but that it parallel it and draw inspiration from it, rather than try to develop an almost entirely "alien backdrop" as far removed from the real world as possible...

Wholly agree! It was much more fun with a better tie to actual ancient myths, etc.

 

[Wolfspider]

Wholly agree! It was much more fun with a better tie to actual ancient myths, etc.

And when exactly did D&D have a better tie (or any tie) to actual ancient myths?

 

[Odhanan]

Jumping on the "realism" statement and applying a very narrow definition of the term is a good way to cut down the argument -- trollish or not -- without actually facing it. i think what the OP is talking about is an issue of tone and playstyle inherent in the system -- one that has changed over the years between and within the various editions. The most obvious cue is the art direction of each edition.

(I am going to leave OD&D and B/XD&D out of the argument. The former because I am not familiar with it; the latter because it is an animal all its own and not part of the 1e-2e-3e-4e continuum.)

1E art, particularly in the early days, was at time crude, and at times joking, but generally speaking had a much grittier, dark ages feel to it. The warriors are wearing hemets and mail and using shields. The wizards, robes and pointed hats. People rode horses, roofs were thatched, and monsters were mean ugly suckers. the art fit the tone of the game very well. 1E was a tough game, as much a test of the player as the PC, with disease and insanity and starvation right there in the DMG next to more fantastical dangers. 1E was "realistic" in the sense that it tried to embrace the dark ages/medieval world (or at least a romanticized version thereof) and challenges. Fantasy elements were assumed to be a little removed from the common populace so that "historical" modes of government and society could reasonably exist in the worlds of D&D -- much in the same way that such elements were fringe in Howard and Tolkien.

By the time 2E came along, the art style had evolved to be generally in line with the covers of your typical high fantasy novels. At least early on, the art was realistic but overly clean and romantic, and the game followed suit. Gone were the rules for starvation, as were the assassin and barbarian. The greys were bled out of the world and high adventure and epic tales were the order of the day. "Real world" threats were pushed aside while monsters and magic became far more powerful and common. Heroism, not mercenary greed, was the assumed motivation behind PC action -- and heroes don't die from rot grubs or disentary (sp), or so we're told. Whitewashed pastiche's of Tolkien and Howard (mostly the former, though Drizzt is well within the sword and sorcery heroic mould) were the order of the day -- many of which were published by TSR itself.

The next shift actually took place before 3E appeared. In the latter half of 2E's life, the "cool" started to take over. There was the Goth-Cool (Ravenloft) and the Punk-Cool (Planescape) and the Grunge-Cool (Dark Sun), but they were all cool. With the possible exception of Ravenloft, the new worlds from TSR -- including, in addition to those mentioned, Spelljammer, Red Steel and Birthright -- took cool to a new level with races, classes, magic and monsters that were an order of magnitude cooler than the previous edition-and-a-half's.

With 3E, we got yet another redesign on the art front, but one that relied heavily on the "cool" of the end of 2E. The rules and implied setting also became "cooler" and less "realistic", finally putting the nail in the coffin of any threats to life and happiness that weren't CR'd. 3.5 and Eberron were the ultimate expression of the state of the art of what D&D had morphed into -- a world so diametrically opposed to the origins of the game that it was barely recognizable as "medieval fantasy" and was often confused with "steam punk".

Now, I have contended in the past -- and will forever, I suppose -- that each edition is in fact a different game, because each one makes different assumptions, suggests a different playstyle and asks different things of the players and DM. And that's fine. the games (and the gamers) can co-exist. I know that i have finally realized that 3.x is not, in fact, the D&D for me, so I will be going back to a previous version. But that I realize that i dont like 3.x, doesn't make it bad or poorly designed (quite the contrary, for its intended purpose, it is very well designed). And I expect 4e to be the pinnacle of game design (seriously; no snark there) by some of the best designers in the industry. But I doubt very much, based on what we've heard so far, that it is going to be D&D to me.

So cut the OP some slack, huh? Even if he was trolling, that doesn't mean he was wrong.

I think what you are talking about here, Reynard, as well as the OP, regardless of intentions (weren't we asked by the mods to not react based on what we imagine are the intentions of our fellow poster?), is absolutely true. There has been a huge shift in "feel" in the 1e-2e-3e-X paradigm. And further, I think your analysis of this shift is good and relevant.

Now, after, that all comes down to personal tastes. You'll find a lot of people who like the "cool" factor of later editions, and a lot of people who like the gritty medieval feel of 1E. That doesn't mean anybody's "wrong". That's just a matter of taste. I'm lucky enough to like both styles, but frankly, I too would like to see at least "some" products from WotC that would still have this medieval feel. At least once in a while.

 

[William Ronald]

Wholly agree! It was much more fun with a better tie to actual ancient myths, etc.

There is a reference in ashockney's report on the front of the site:

Greyhawk will not be default setting in core. We want to leverage the assets of the assumed parts of a D&D world – Mordenkainen, Bigby, Vecna, Llolth, Tiamat, Asmodeus, etc. However, we also want to call upon the great mythology that is more commonly known such as Thor, etc.

So, I think that they will be room for both. Also, I still think that rule zero will be in effect, so you can always say no 14 templates on a creature. (However, it should be noted that there are many references to heroes and mortals with either demonic, divine, fey, or other blood in their veins in mythology and legend.) An example of this would be a hero from the Elder Eddas who had troll blood in his veins. (Norse trolls would be more akin to ogre magi in terms of strength and magical ability than the regenerating D&D troll.) Other examples are half-divine heroes, or heroes who have the blood of the sidhe in them or of even more unusual creatures. (As I recall, wasn't one of the founders of Athens supposed to be part reptile in nature?)

What I would like are options, so that as a DM and a player I can build the worlds and games that I wish to make. However, we should try to be respectful, and realize that others have their own tastes and perspectives which are not necessarily inferior to one's own tastes.

 

[Blackthorne]

(On modern fantasy literature being vapid)

I'm gonna miss Harry Potter though.

Case closed.

 

[Geoffrey]

I am largely in agreement with Jack7 and Reynard. I prefer for D&D to be inspired by the world's mythologies (Aztec, Egyptian, Vedic, Chinese, etc.) and by the old fantasy masters (George MacDonald, William Morris, H. P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Robert E. Howard, A. Merritt, J. R. R. Tolkien, etc.).

I don't prefer for D&D to be inspired by computer games, comic books, or most fantasy written since Tolkien died.