Implicit in the Presentation

[Snoweel]

I play the game for game world interactions, role-playing opportunities and aas close to a total immersion as I can get.

You get immersion from rules systems? Or rather, thye've never gotten in the way in the past?

You've never had a problem with classes and levels, Vancian magic, Armour Class or hit points?

Which is fine but I wouldn't call those people who aren't combat heavy snobbish or anti-combat.

Except they throw "It's combat focused!" out there as if it stands alone as a criticism of the system.

 

[Pig Champion]

=Snoweel;5058755]You get immersion from rules systems? Or rather, thye've never gotten in the way in the past?

You've never had a problem with classes and levels, Vancian magic, Armour Class or hit points?

No but a rule-system that supports the chaotic feel of life (I.E a chance my character might screw up his horseshoes) does help with immersion.

And no, I've never had problems with classes and levels etc etc I've alway played rules-lite and made logical on-the-spot decisions for things I can't be bothered to look up. So a heavy combat based rule-system isn't something I'm interested in.

I'm not alone with that either.

Except they throw "It's combat focused!" out there as if it stands alone as a criticism of the system.

If combat isn't their main focus when playing then I'd say it's a pretty vaild criticism, wouldn't you? It doesn't mean they are snobbing combat or anti-combat. If they like a balance or the balance to be tipped the other way then it would be the primary criticism for them.

 

[Chrono22]

One would think people would gravitate toward the rulesets that support their favoured playstyles.

Yeah. You would also think that a developer would design a game that would support as many playstyles as possible- to maximize the number of players. Unfortunately, it seems that neither designers or players make purely rational decisions.

Plus there are some incredibly generic systems out there.

Yeah...? We were talking about the subtle differences between 4e and previous editions. Other systems are irrelevant.

I guess years of experience showed them that combat is the part of the game most in need of detailed rules.

Probably due to how player investment can be botched by character death. If you played in a system where fame, infamy and social standing were how your character advanced, the functional equivalent of death would be defamation or dishonor. Combat rules are central to the function of D&D because combat statistics are central to how progress is determined.

Do you call this subtlety?

That was never my argument, but thanks for pointing this out. Using nonstandard definitions for a word can still be subtle- if you only define the word once in a remote block of text and never mention the colloquialism again.

If that's all you want it to be, then go ahead. Nobody's forcing you to handwave anything.

4e is what it is. What it is, is a pretty good combat engine.

Your logic is poor:

1. Adventures contain encounters.

No. That's not what the PHB says. It says adventures are a series of encounters. Please don't try to pass off your own position as the default.

2. Exploration is not a type of encounter.

Therefore, exploration is not a type of adventure.

Yes, this is my logic. It's logically sound. 4e defines adventure explicitly- as being a series of encounters. The other stuff is irrelevant.

Your conclusion only holds if 'adventures only contain encounters'. But they don't.

Although they can, if that's how you want to play.

But for most of us, adventures consists of encounters as well as the non-encounter elements that link them together.

No. I'm saying that "exploration" is not a subset of adventure. It's not even considered a technical form of adventure- just a side activity between. Just like cooking, eating, or sleeping are activities between encounters.

And thank God for that.

Yeah. I mean, if he hadn't invented D&D I can't imagine what I'd be doing with my time.

Why should my PC need a profession (blacksmith) skill? If I want my PC to make a set of horseshoes I'll just narrate it with the DM. Do I really need a chance of failure for something so banal?

It's banal to you. Are other people you? No? Then your reasons for playing may not be the same. Whether or not profession is a reasonable or interesting addition to your character that you want to represent mechanically, is decision that players make for themselves. It should not be passively dictated to you.

 

[Chrono22]

Except they throw "It's combat focused!" out there as if it stands alone as a criticism of the system.

Ah... the infamous They.

It's not a criticism unless you think combat is bad. I like combat. I think it's fun, and can add to the play experience. Personally, though, it's not the underlying reason why I game.

My saying 4e is combat focused is not a criticism, it's an observation.

Are you insulted by 4e being combat focused? Or does my saying so somehow insult you personally? Why are you defending 4e from things that only you perceive as an attack? I think you are taking this far too seriously- just try to get out of the tribal mindset of "us vs. them". We are all individuals, with individual ideas, opinions, and reasons. I am not a "snob". I am not the Enemy.

 

[Snoweel]

My saying 4e is combat focused is not a criticism, it's an observation.

Then why are you so unhappy about it?

You have quite an investment in other people accepting your observation.

Surely you can accept that other people can have all the pointless conversation and poking around in dungeons they want without needing rules for it?

If you only want to challenge the players (or titillate them with setting detail) you don't need to roll dice. The dice are for challenging the characters.

 

[Chrono22]

Nobody's forcing you to play 4e.

4e won't die if you stop defending it from criticism.
...and WotC tried it's damnedest to make it so. Preventing legal sales of previous editions material means that the only (official and legal) digital support for D&D is available through DDI. The GSL prevents marketing your material as "D&D compatible". So expect no 4e alternate systems from 3rd parties.

Anyway... certain things about 4e play are determined by their costs. The opportunity costs of using rituals as opposed to using alternate methods can be very high, and it can stack up. Good example being, lockpicking vs. punching down a door. One method is faster, easier and requires no specialized training. And it's free. I'd go as far to say many of 4e's noncombat mechanics are just like 3e's numerous false feat choices. There are two choices to make when you choose to advance your characters- your way (the expensive, inneficient and "unique" way), and the right way (the way that is supported mechanically).

Then why are you so unhappy about it?

I'm not. I'm at peace with 4e. It's D&D's brand identity that I care about.

You have quite an investment in other people accepting your observation.

Not really. I could care less about people accepting it, so much as not misrepresenting or misunderstanding it. I find most people come around to my way of thinking anyway.

Surely you can accept that other people can have all the pointless conversation and poking around in dungeons they want without needing rules for it?

Sure. But why make dungeons so central to the game? There is a whole world of possibilities left unexplored by that approach.

If you only want to challenge the players (or titillate them with setting detail) you don't need to roll dice. The dice are for challenging the characters.

But at some level the PC is the player. The player makes all the choices, does all the speaking- the time he invests in advancing the character, supplying him, and creating him makes that character his.
So, to me just rolling dice is never a challenge for anyone.

 

[Gimby]

Sure. But why make dungeons so central to the game? There is a whole world of possibilities left unexplored by that approach.

Why make dungeons central to the game in a game called Dungeons and Dragons?

 

[Chrono22]

Why make dungeons central to the game in a game called Dungeons and Dragons?

Why call it that in the first place? I've played in games where we never entered a dungeon, and never saw a dragon.
A better name might be "Deathtraps and Destinies".

 

[Snoweel]

4e won't die if you stop defending it from criticism.

No, but haters might continue to sprout from the corpse of the previous edition.

And I don't come here to listen to haters whine.

...and WotC tried it's damnedest to make it so. Preventing legal sales of previous editions material means that the only (official and legal) digital support for D&D is available through DDI.

And the internet is full of amateur economists trying to justify why they think that is anything other than a good business decision.

WotC is in business to make money. It's hard enough that players have all we need to play for the rest of our lives in just the three core books, why should they have to compete with previous editions on top of that?

I don't like the fact that they're pimp minis and Dungeon Tiles so hard either, but they're about the only thing that can't be scanned and uploaded to the internet. That and DDI.

And I think the DDI is a great way to make sure that at least some D&D fans pay for the product they're using. It's also nice that WotC can keep paying the bills.

I'd say it's win-win. Obviously your mileage varies.

 

[Snoweel]

But why make dungeons so central to the game? There is a whole world of possibilities left unexplored by that approach.

I don't actually like dungeons and hardly use them. Maybe a small complex of caves, crypts or ruins, but even then it's usually a single fight (often just inside the front door when the inhabitants first become aware of the PCs - and then the rest of them arrive as reinforcements during the fight). I just don't find big dungeons make much sense and they tend to bog the story down (as do most instances of exploration).

But I do like combat so my games are generally mysteries interspersed with fights; like Scooby Doo on PCP. Because when the PCs figure out whodunnit, they have to kill somebody. Because it's D&D. It's a game about killing things and taking their stuff. The only difference from one game to another is the justification.

If people want a lot of exploration then nothing in 4e is stopping them. But the default (at least in this edition) is to make sure your players are aware when they're at a crossroads and what their choices are. Exploration isn't generally needed. That doesn't mean it's been omitted.

So, to me just rolling dice is never a challenge for anyone.

That's why you should challenge both the players and the characters.