Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5635556" data-attributes="member: 42582">We do have some published evidence of what motivates the 4e design team in their approach to story elements: Worlds and Monsters.I think that their inspiration is an idealised conception of the sort of fantasy that D&D seems typically to have aspired to - a fantastic world, with a long, rich and (at its base) mythical history. With many fallen empires, and prior to those, fallen gods, leading up to the present. This is a mix of Conan, The Dying Earth, Tolkein and classical mythology. The core elements of this conception of the gameworld are stated in W&M, and reiterated in the DMG (and more recent Essentials books that replicate that DMG material).Sourcebooks like The Plane Above, The Demonomicon and Underdark (and to a noticeably lesser extent, The Plane Below and Open Grave) reinforce this conception.It is a key feature of this conception that the gameworld support what are regarded as classic D&D-isms - ancient ruins to explore (this is 4e's take on "dungeons"), and conflicts with many sort of beings (not just humans), which conflicts are in many cases apt to be resolved by combat (this is 4e's take on "dragons").The only relevance this has to mechanics, that I can see, is that it prioritises both PC build and action resolution mechanics that allow these conflicts to be expressed and explored in satisfying ways. Contrary to the claim, then, that "the foundation of worldbuilding in 4e . . . is a combat paradigm that informs out-of-combat experience", I think that the foundation of 4e's combat paradigm is a desire to have action resolution mechanics that are well-suited to expressing the conflicts that are at the centre of 4e's gameworld.No doubt some PC powers, and some monster designs, do this better than others. The deathlock wight, which was mentioned upthread, I think is a good example of a monster that does this. I know (from a lot of use) that hobgoblins are another good example, as are the MM wraiths, in my experience (and somewhat bizarrely, given the criticism they receive from those who analyse them purely mechanically). The only monster I can think of at present which really feels like it's fallen short is the humble skeleton - it doesn't feel very skeletal.As to whether or not 4e's design has a lot or a little to do with good non-combat fiction, I'm not sure that this can easily be judged in the absence of actual examples (even if we put to one side the fact that good fiction is at least in part a matter of taste).</blockquote>

Verification