How do you like your game?

[der_kluge]

In general, the trend in D&D seems to be away from "generic" descriptions into a more codified mechanic.

For example, I found a description of an NPC in an old Judge's Guild product (circ 1976) that described him as "having the curse of a thousand cuts".

The same NPC, in the Wilderlands boxed set was described as "being cursed". The former is more evocative, but lacking in any sort of codification (i.e., what is the curse of a thousand cuts??), versus, the 3rd edition version which is quantifiable "Ah, bestow curse. That's a 3rd level cleric, 4th level wizard spell".

4th edition seems to be continuing the trend, which really ramped up with 3rd edition; that is, moving away from vague descriptions into very quantifiable, concrete things that can be explained.

Sort of like putting "Snow White" into a D&D scenario.

Players: "What do you mean she's been asleep for 100 years?"
GM: "That's what I said."
Players: "There's no rules for that!"
GM: *rolls his eyes*

Well, you get the idea.

In general, I'm wondering where you skew. Do you tend to favor one way or the other? Something in between? Where do your players fall?

 

[WhatGravitas]

4th edition seems to be continuing the trend, which really ramped up with 3rd edition; that is, moving away from vague descriptions into very quantifiable, concrete things that can be explained.

Really? I rather have the feeling that in 4E, with more freedom for NPCs, it's much more viable to do that. I think a "Curse of Thousand Cuts" would go well in 4E, with a specific plot-o-riffic ritual to stop it (which has to be found, of course), whereas in 3E, you'd use Remove Curse.

If anything, the combat abilities of the PCs are more quantifiable, if you ignore the stunt system.

Cheers, LT.

 

[der_kluge]

Really? I rather have the feeling that in 4E, with more freedom for NPCs, it's much more viable to do that. I think a "Curse of Thousand Cuts" would go well in 4E, with a specific plot-o-riffic ritual to stop it (which has to be found, of course), whereas in 3E, you'd use Remove Curse.

If anything, the combat abilities of the PCs are more quantifiable, if you ignore the stunt system.

Cheers, LT.

Except that there aren't actual rules in 4th edition to create new rituals (from a PC standpoint). At least not that I can find.

 

[thatdarnedbob]

really ramped up with 3rd edition; that is, moving away from vague descriptions into very quantifiable, concrete things that can be explained.

Sort of like putting "Snow White" into a D&D scenario.

Players: "What do you mean she's been asleep for 100 years?"
GM: "That's what I said."
Players: "There's no rules for that!"
GM: *rolls his eyes*

Well, you get the idea.

Binding. Introduced in 1E, continues into 3.5E. It'll probably show up soon in 4E too. But at the moment, you chose an effect that has a game mechanical description in every edition but the one you're accusing of this fault. Not trying to be a douche, just sayin'.

 

[lutecius]

In general, the trend in D&D seems to be away from "generic" descriptions into a more codified mechanic. [...]
4th edition seems to be continuing the trend, which really ramped up with 3rd edition; that is, moving away from vague descriptions into very quantifiable, concrete things that can be explained.

I'd say 4e has reached the point where only the quantifiable, codified mechanics are relevant and the descriptions are even more vague and generic.

The powers remind me of MtG cards: A vague theme and description, only remotely connected to the mechanical effects. The powers' explanations and pretty much anything that happens outside of combat look like an afterthought or interchangeable fluff.

Not my taste

 

[thedungeondelver]

The players don't need to know how some stuff works. IOW, I don't care if there's "no rules" for it. I won't screw them - Ha ha ha, that Kobold casts 103 magic missile spells at the party! - but by the same token, if I say "the jade statue is resistant to all magic" then goddamnit it's resistant to all magic. Period.

 

[Verdande]

4th edition seems to be continuing the trend, which really ramped up with 3rd edition; that is, moving away from vague descriptions into very quantifiable, concrete things that can be explained.

I don't see how 4e has more concrete things that can be explained. They put the nifty, cinematic handwaving back into 4e, after 3e took it away.

You can have a "curse of a thousand cuts" on an NPC again, and have it do whatever you want. In 3e, your players would Remove Curse it and expect some XP. In 4e, your players will have to interact with the NPC, rediscover an ancient ritual/seek an ancient artifact/slay dire foe/whatever. Notice how there's a whatever at the end of that.

Isn't that the exact opposite of the point you were trying to make?

 

[der_kluge]

I don't see how 4e has more concrete things that can be explained. They put the nifty, cinematic handwaving back into 4e, after 3e took it away.

You can have a "curse of a thousand cuts" on an NPC again, and have it do whatever you want. In 3e, your players would Remove Curse it and expect some XP. In 4e, your players will have to interact with the NPC, rediscover an ancient ritual/seek an ancient artifact/slay dire foe/whatever. Notice how there's a whatever at the end of that.

Isn't that the exact opposite of the point you were trying to make?

I'm not trying to make any point.

I'm asking people what kind of game people prefer? Hence, the name of the thread.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Unless that Judges' Guild product actually said what the "curse of a thousand cuts" did to the guy, that's not part of the game - it's part of the setting.

I love that sort of thing in setting detail, but personally I'm indifferent as to whether or not it's written up in the rules.

So it really doesn't say anything about the kind of game I prefer.

 

[fba827]

In general, I'm wondering where you skew. Do you tend to favor one way or the other? Something in between? Where do your players fall?

I actually prefer codified things for player actions, and abstract things (or at least abstract tendencies) for NPC actions/effects/etc.
It keeps things with more mystery -- I don't care how they're doing it, I want to have fun trying to figure out how to interact and deal with it, not thumb through my PHB trying to find the recipe-dictated counter-action....

Having said that, my opinion may be a little skewed since I also used to mainly DM so I had a habit of houseruling lots of specific things to make it work for the campaign.