Okay, catching up. Good grief, these discussions work up high thread velocity!
Because it definitely isn't clear, I wasn't referring to one tribe's instincts. I was referring to both tribe's instincts. There is some stuff mentioned above up there that was absolutely problematic. There was some needless antagonism and some extremely easy and odd lack of deference to legacy elements (such as several classes not being in the PHB). There is other stuff as well.
I thank you for this clarification and fully agree. I don't think that's an especially 4e issue, though.
Two tribes. Worser natures and all that.
I
don't thank you, however, for putting that Frankie Goes to Hollywood song in my head all day.
I think there is a wide range of conceptions of what D&D is (and was, in the past).
Oh, absolutely. Definitely. Which is why it didn't matter in the big picture.
Good post. But I always got the feeling in 4e that it was mechanically rewarding and spelling out things that were long part of the game. So I dont buy the point that the "indie" elements were alien. Basically it was long held that rouges do sneak attack, but someone asked the question in 4e: what mechanical expression can we give to other classes?
My sense was that a bigger issue was the 4e started PCs at a high level of power (and probably complexity) than what many fantasy tropes articulated. That said the rise to demi-god hood in 4e did remind me strongly of BECMI.
FWIW I agree that barrier to entry to 4e was too high: it was too complex. Mind you, i would have liked to see a free basic version of 4e/ 4e essentials!
4e definitely follows in the 3e tradition of what I call "rule-of-rules", where the point of interaction with the game was primarily the operation of game mechanics by the player and DM. So in as much as there were now rules for how rogues sneak attack, I don't think that was a problem for 3e players. Pre-3e fans, OTOH, probably prefer more of a "rule-of-DM" approach, where interaction with the DM is the primary interaction with the game. So they wouldn't like 4e, but they wouldn't like 3e, either.
However, the indie elements that I think people had a problem with is not necessarily greater mechanical control by the player; that's just a trend that's been increasing throughout D&D's lifetime. Rather it has to do with two related but distinct aspects that provoked parallel negative reactions in TSR-era fans and 3e fans.* The first has to do with allowing, to a certain extent requiring players to exercise
narrative control through their mechanical control, which bothered TSR-era fans for whom it was the DM's job to interpret the results of die rolls. For 3e fans, OTOH, the issue was lack of simulation through the power system. Either you reflavored the causes and results of the powers to fit the context, in which case the mechanic was simulating anything at all, OR you used the same flavor text for powers every time, which broke verisimilitude and was bad simulation. The healing surge system had similar issues. Approach it from the indie game stance of abstract mechanics providing player narrative control, and they work great. As simulation, they are placed in a false position.
*Again, not to obscure my point, in the big picture there are many fans of TSR D&D who went on to enjoy both 3e and 4e. Probably the majority. I am of course concerned here purely with the contingent that did not, and were vocal in their criticisms.
What's missed by @
Manbearcat is that a
lot of those changes are reversion to the roots of D&D - particularly the GMing principles, the opinionation of the advice, the aggressively pushing a playstyle, and the lack of fealty to canon. It was 2E and 3E that got away from D&D being a delightfully focused game that aggressively pushed a playstyle, and that got away from balance. 4E brought it back.
Could you elaborate on what GMing principles you felt hearkened back to D&D's roots?
As for the rest, the negative reaction to 4e being a focused game that aggressively pushed a playstyle and had balance means little to the roots of D&D when the focus, aggressively pushed playstyle and kind of balance is
different. A TSR-era fan may be able to recreate that kind of game with 3e since it isn't focused or aggressively pushing any one playstyle. But they have a much harder time doing so with 4e, when it's focus and aggressively pushed playstyle is cinematic, heroic set-pieces leading to demi-godhood instead of gritty exploration leading to fame and riches.
To the first of those posts, you're saying that KotS sounds like a classic dungeoncrawl.
No, I'm saying that the Penny Arcade podcasts sounded like a classic (read = "very typical of its kind", not "of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind") dungeoncrawl. I say of KotS itself that it's "fine, if uninspired." This is pretty much borne out by its Amazon reviews. 80 reviews, 45 are 5 and 4 stars, 25 are 3, 15 are 2 and 1 stars. For connoisseur, not very good. For the mass consumer, more than adequate.
