I think I have finally "put my finger on it"

[Dacileva]

Whoops, first try in this thread got trumped by Rechan.

Second try: The main issue with the believability of hit points isn't the "getting hit in the chest" issue, since the abstraction takes care of that. The main issue with the believability of hit points is merely that more "guaranteed damage" effects aren't proportional. If healing and environmental damage (and yes, I include falling here) were proportional, then any effective arguments against the abstract nature of hit points vanish.

Unfortunately, proportional healing at low levels sucks. Hard. And proportional environmental damage makes pits deadly at every level.

 

[WayneLigon]

In my opinion, although I don't like Wound/Vitality systems or anything like that, D&D seriously needs a new damage type-- perhaps environmental damage-- that has a much lower Massive Damage Threshold.

I was thinking about this the other day. (And I have seen campaigns mentioned where the Massive Damage Threshold was considered a slider bar you'd adjust). I think a lot of it simply come down to 'playability', ie, the difference between a game and a simulation. Poison is a good example of this. Very seldom do people ever survive a poisoning when something doesn't go wrong with the delivery system or dosage. You get bit by a bushmaster, then you're a dead man, simple as that. Realistic, but not very fun.

 

[Rechan]

I think a lot of it simply come down to 'playability', ie, the difference between a game and a simulation. Poison is a good example of this. Very seldom do people ever survive a poisoning when something doesn't go wrong with the delivery system or dosage. You get bit by a bushmaster, then you're a dead man, simple as that. Realistic, but not very fun.

(Emphasis mine).

Could this not apply to many parts of play? That the game emphasizes playability and fun over Realism? Because realistically, there's little a fighter could do to a 30' giant except hack at its toes.

While I am not proposing "Bill, your fighter leaps eighty feet into the air and brings his sword down on the troll's head, causing a massive crater in the earth and dislodging trees on the other side of the planet" (because I think this is so fantastical that it's ludicrous), I don't think that the Realism camp wants "Okay everybody, you're all soldiers in the Roman army. You can't see the front ranks because you're in the middle of the formation, and so all you can really do is hold your spear and wait. Everybody, fort check. Bob, you have syphilis."

 

[SteveC]

As opposed to Shakespeare, remember, which of course was written as "serious" literature, and not to entertain the vulgar masses. No sir!

Okay, so we've stepped into a major tangent here, but I think I can possibly relate it to 4E.

Shakespeare was written as "serious" literature (in as much as it was written at all), but it was also written with jokes that Eric's Grandmother wouldn't approve of. It had multiple levels of appeal. The thing was that it was intended to appeal to an amazingly diverse group of people, from drunken day laborers to the royal family. That's why we're still reading it today.

Now I would contend that for 4E to be truly successful, it will have to have both grognard and newbie appeal. Much like you have a scene about bloody murder followed up by bawdy sexual comedy. Given who the authors are, I expect that it is likely to accomplish this fairly well.

--Steve

 

[Vigilance]

It pains me to have to disagree with this, but I have to. Before I do that, I have to say that I am a fan of Howard's writing (less so, the person) and I would never attempt to argue personal taste with anyone.

Agreed.

Now, on to the niggling!

The official RE Howard website compares him to Edgar Allan Poe, Lovecraft and Dashiell Hammett, and I can hardly see the comparison. The fact that you have books in print doesn't make you a great writer 70 years after your death these days, I'm afraid.

That may be true.

However, being more popular 70 years after your death than you were 40 years after your death, when you were more popular than you were 20 years after your death, when you were more popular than when you were alive, says something.

Get what I'm saying? Howard's popularity is increasing over time.

That's a sign that his work is not a product of its time, which is what separates great literature from the rest.

More to the point, Howard isn't someone that very many high school and college aged nerds are reading these days. Writing D&D based on Howard just doesn't make sense for today's audience.

Again, the trend I illustrated above explains why this isn't necessarily true.

If you expose people to good work, they just might like it!

Also, when talking about designing a game, a lot of these people have been exposed to Howardian sensibilities whether they know it or not.

It's embedded in D&D's DNA every bit as much, if not more, than Tolkien.

In fact, I'd argue that removing Tolkien would be easier than removing the influences of Howard, Leiber or Vance.

There was a LOT of killing people and taking their stuff in Conan. In Tolkien? Not so much.

Again, I like Howard's books, but great literature he ain't. There are examples of great literature involved in the history of D&D: The Chanson De Roland, Malory, Tennyson, and yes, Tolkien as well.

Again, I disagree. Conan has much more in common with many of D&D's most popular playstyles than any of the ones you mentioned.

Conan didn't want to save the world. He wanted to die rich and famous.

That's much more in line with the basic "loot tombs" aspect of D&D than taking your most powerful magic item off to be destroyed and inheriting most of your other items from your famous uncle.

The most important part of all of this is that those "great works" don't make the quirky parts of D&D that it seems like everyone wants to emulate and keep.

Exactly. Whether you think Howard is great literature or not, you can't argue that the dungeon crawls and city adventures in D&D seem very much like Howard, and the wilderness adventuring and epic questing seem very Tolkien-esque (and, I'd argue, Arthurian).

This argues for its continued inclusion as an influence to D&D, whether high school kids necessarily know where the influences came from or not.

 

[AllisterH]

However, being more popular 70 years after your death than you were 40 years after your death, when you were more popular than you were 20 years after your death, when you were more popular than when you were alive, says something.

Get what I'm saying? Howard's popularity is increasing over time.

That's a sign that his work is not a product of its time, which is what separates great literature from the rest.
.

I've found this discussion fascinating but I tend to disagree with this.

On the WoW boards, people have asked "What fantasy fiction have you read/seen" and Conan, unfortunately only shows in the over 30 crowd. Even though Conan has a comic again, the fact is comics are nowhere as big as they were during Conan's heyday with Marvel.

The Conan comic in the 70s/80s could easily have monthly circulation figures of over 500,000. Now? Looking at the last listing of comics, if it breaks past issue 1, 20,000, this is considered a HUGE success.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I think it is pretty obvious I have reached no "conclusions", I have only achieved a state of anxiety about the unknown. When clear concise elaboration arrives, then I'll make my conclusions.

Then I'm unsure why you would be "anxious" about them scaling back the inner group dependance dynamic when they have been going on and on about carved out and defined gruop roles. That reads to me like a stronger emphasis on niche protection (moreso than any previous edition in fact).

 

[Raven Crowking]

The Conan comic in the 70s/80s could easily have monthly circulation figures of over 500,000. Now? Looking at the last listing of comics, if it breaks past issue 1, 20,000, this is considered a HUGE success.

Comics cost more, and wise money sometimes goes the trade paperback route.

RC

 

[Treebore]

Then I'm unsure why you would be "anxious" about them scaling back the inner group dependance dynamic when they have been going on and on about carved out and defined gruop roles. That reads to me like a stronger emphasis on niche protection (moreso than any previous edition in fact).

You know those times when you have clues to how a story is going, and your pretty sure you know how its going to end?

Well, I don't know how the "4E story" is going to end. I don't like what the "clues" could mean, and wonder what exactly do they mean? So I am in a state of anxiety until the clues are fully eplained.

 

[malladin]

Except the people being negative are ignoring the comments of the designers saying that it is the D&D we love only better.

Thats a sweeping statement in no way true of all posts criticising the changes

Most of WOTC's team right now really gets it and knows what D&D needs. They have a better handle on its mechanics, the issues DM and players face and the direction 3.5 was headed with locking new players out of the game.

Again this is only a perspective, yours, others peoples are perfectly valid just because they disagree and have different attitudes to why the game is beibng changed.

The signs of needing a 4th edition were clealry there if you step back and look at the game's issues with new players learning to play, multiclassing, DMs building encounters, out of control power levels and adventure design at highlevels, messed up epic level rules, the "sweet spot" lacking in early and late level game play. These are the reasons 4e is getting made, not because they want to just make a new editon to make a new edition. Anyone who plays this game and either DMs it, plays with new players or works in a game store that creates new D&D players would see these things and know they're true.

Again not everybody agrees on this, though it's blinkered to deny any problems in 3rd ed-grappling anyone . Because you think the above is true and choose to interpret the information being released in relation to this perspective does not make it an exclusively valid position, therefore allowing the dismissal of other peoples interpretations. 4th ed may be great or stink, we won't know until we see it. Peoples opinions cannot be dismissed just because of your interpretative framework, when you have no more facts than others. Its all opinion and subjective, one subjective opinion is no more valid than another based on the same facts. Some interpretations are better supported or argued, but it cannot be argued that someones opinion is wrong just because its not yours, when neither group knows more than the other. I can see how Dr Awkward defines where ther's opinion as opposed to reactionism and recognises the difference in how to treat both. Blanket statements of how it is and why it's great however are just as bad as reactionary negativism.