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

[Nebulous]

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.

I agree with Hairfoot. As much as I do like 3.x, and D&D in general, i don't like the slant toward oodles of strange magic items dangling from every part of your body, offering a plethora of minor and major bonuses. The equipment and class abilities ARE the characters now, with little emphasis on anything else. Of course, this is controllable by the DM and player, but it takes practice and patience, especially when trying to wrangle disparate people who have different character goals, one roleplaying, the other pimping himself out with magic dingleberries.

In relation to the "porn" aspect, i see how D&D needed to change from it's early days (at least from a business standpoint, they needed to sell books), and this explosion of power creep was just a natural evolution of the game. It's not the preferred way i like to play (or run) D&D, but it IS workable.

 

[Thurbane]

Anyway. Jack7, Fourth Edition has classes with abilities that come from three sources: Arcane, Divine, and Martial. If you want to play as realistic game as possible, just cut any class that relies on Arcane or Divine.

From what I read, though, Martial may not be any less "supernatural" than Arcane or Divine. I believe that the Martial classes will be taking a leaf from the Bo9S - meaning that even the basic "fighter" may be going to have more in common with Riddick, Gohan and Ryu than with Conan, Gimli or El Cid.

I know I'll get howled down as a grognard (complete with Anime and videogame references), but this isn't meant as a criticism - merely that the game is taking a direction flavorwise that doesn't appeal to some, including myself. I don't use Bo9S in my game for this reason, and if 4E takes the same approach, I won't be using that, either.

 

[Numion]

3. A less obvious element of "realism" in the game is exercizing our intellectual and moral capacity. The game is more enjoyable when power is not gained for its own sake, but when
the PCs have humanist goals and gain power to attain those goals.
.
snip
.
I agree wholeheartedly with point 2. I think point 3 is very group-dependent, however. I disagree with the OP on this point; this style of game is just as possible with 3e as with 1e. I agree, however, that 3e de-emphasizes the idea of PCs with long-term, humanist goals.

About long term goals: 3E is the first edition where Adventure Paths from 1-20 levels became somewhat standard form for long campaigns (the first AP wasn't really an AP, but disjointed adventures). Long campaigns did exist before, of course, but the slow advancement meant that gaining power for even long-term goals was almost impossible.

In 3E it is possible to set sights for some really powerful bad guy that needs defeating, for which the PCs need similar power to defeat, and play it out. 1 to 20 levels is possible in one campaign with 3E, and with the adventure path framework the gaining of power has some predetermined purpose, not just power for its own sake.

So in this regard I think 3E supports long term planning and gaining powers for a purpose better than previous editions. And I also think this has been demonstrated with the APs, vs. the piecemeal modules that were released for previous editions (some exceptions like night below and some 1e joined modules).

 

[fuindordm]

Well said. One can't simply ignore the tone of the OP and "address the issues", so to speak. While there may be a point buried in all the inflammatory piffle, it gets lost in all the...well, inflammatory piffle.

It's only inflammatory if you take it personally. I probably wouldn't have used the word 'pornography', but the post itself was quite clear I thought.

 

[fuindordm]

In 3E it is possible to set sights for some really powerful bad guy that needs defeating, for which the PCs need similar power to defeat, and play it out. 1 to 20 levels is possible in one campaign with 3E, and with the adventure path framework the gaining of power has some predetermined purpose, not just power for its own sake.

True, but that style of campaign leaves me cold. In my mind, a campaign's final challenge shouldn't be a bigger monster. What about overthrowing a kingdom, or crashing the Matrix? Once the PCs get much more powerful than all the NPCs around them, they will probably be looked to as leaders. If not, they just become another kind of monster themselves.

 

[Nebulous]

I actually agree with a lot of what Jack7 said. Let me try to rephrase what I understand him to be saying:

1. Any game which consumes a significant fraction of your life should add some value to your life other than "gosh, this is cool fun".

RPG's, other than "gosh cool this is fun" have greatly added to my life by educating me about topics i never would have known existed, both culturally, metaphysically and spiritually. Much of the occult backdrop of these games has very fascinating real world roots.

3. A less obvious element of "realism" in the game is exercising our intellectual and moral capacity. The game is more enjoyable when power is not gained for its own sake, but when
the PCs have humanist goals and gain power to attain those goals.

I agree, but also think that this level of maturity is anchored with the DM. If that is the kind of story he has decided to share with the players, ideally they are the kind of players interested in humanistic goals. And not just the next +5 keen flameburst longsword.

4. Later editions moved away from history, literature and humanism--and more and more towards the overtly fantastic. 3e is a mechanically intricate game which emphasizes the adventures of rather inhuman and unrealistic characters who advance in power for no discernable reason.

Agreed. 3rd edition characters advance at an astronomical rate (per the rules if you stick with them) with the seeming goal of collecting more goodies. Again, this can be controlled by the DM. I would like to see in 4th edition (in the DMG) a set of rules that describes for the DM how level advancement can be scaled to keep it either "realistic" or "powergamer".

I very much doubt that 4e will return to a literary/historical/realistic style--the designers have admitted that they're handing out more power, and that the point of the revision is to improve the 'fun' factor by streamlining the mechanics and elilminating dead time. I think it will be a vast improvement over 3e, and the ideas proposed seem to address many of my complaints with the current edition.

However, 4e nonwithstanding, my next campaign is going to be AD&D-based for reasons similar to the OP's. After running in Eberron for a while (a setting I adore, precisely for its humanist elements), I find myself hankering for a campaign with a more historical atmosphere.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post.

I'm a little worried about the whole "handing out more power" aspect of 4th edition. I think that 3rd edition is ridiculously overpowered now by 15th level, and i'd go one step further and call it "broken." I won't even go into Epic level play. If 4th edition can bring back some semblance of balance, i'll be happy.

 

[Shadeydm]

When I was 12, and had thought about such things less, the game seemed more wondrous and more realistic.

Strangely, the more I learn about reality, the less "realism" I see -- or want -- in any of my games.

Cheers, -- N

Strange I find much of what has been added to the game in terms of warforged etc would have been more appealing when I was 12, not so much now that I am nearly 40.

 

[Azgulor]

I didn't think the OP's post was that bad. <shrug>

Anyway. Jack7, Fourth Edition has classes with abilities that come from three sources: Arcane, Divine, and Martial. If you want to play as realistic game as possible, just cut any class that relies on Arcane or Divine.

But still... this is a game of heroic fantasy. Big heroes fighting big monsters for big rewards. Conan. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. That's what D&D *is*. If you're looking for a game with only mundane/real world abilities, you should probably just find a different system.

-z

What we're talking about is the style and themes of the game moreso than the game itself. However, as the OP pointed out, the style and themes have had a huge impact on the development of the game. It's the difference between the fantasy of swords-n-sorcery ala Conan or Thieves' World vs. just about any of the Forgotten Realms series of novels (I'm sure there are exceptions but I stopped reading them years ago for much the same reasons for the criticisms leveled in the OP's origninal post). Conan fought primarily mortal foes - monsters were rare, a source of terror, and often the culminating fight of a story. Nations warred, the world was gritty, dangerous, and often unjust. And while Conan fought against supernatural forces, he did it without a wand of fireballs, vorpal swords, or rings of protection. The fantastic was just that - fantastic - a departure from the norm.

Now D&D was always more fantastic than that 'level of Fantasy', there's no arguing D&D doesn't strike anywhere near the mark of swords-n-sorcery anymore. I've heard arguments that D&D should only be used to simulate "it's own brand of fantasy". It's the typical counter argument when people state D&D can't emulate their favorite fictional setting (i.e. novels). When 4e tidbits talk about having to remove the "Christmas tree effect" of magic items, have characters walking around with more gold than a kingdom's treasury, and traversing the planes, you're talking (very) High-Fantasy.

And the "D&D is fantasy - don't expect any degree of realism" argument doesn't hold water. There are numerous RPGs that either emulate the swords-n-sorcery genre (and thereby provide a grittier, more "realistic" experience) that prove that you can have your cake and eat it too. Many of these are D20 or OGL games: Conan, Black Company, Thieves' World, etc. - all built from the same base as D&D.

If high fantasy is your thing, more power to you. If swords-n-sorcery isn't your style, that's cool also - but don't knock those of us who prefer it to high fantasy. We can hope that D&D will one day again provide in-house support for that style of play but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think there is any question that when Tiefling is being added as a core race and magic is "being increased across the board", you're staying in the High Fantasy camp. Those are design choices. They're not hard-wired into the very broad genre of Fantasy.

 

[Eridanis]

Please do not ascribe motives to other posters. The next person to call someone else a troll will receive a three-day ban.

 

[Shadeydm]

I don't think there is any question that when Tiefling is being added as a core race and magic is "being increased across the board", you're staying in the High Fantasy camp. Those are design choices. They're not hard-wired into the very broad genre of Fantasy.

Great point.

I think the OP made some excellent points, however, I think there must be a better descriptor available than gaming porn.