Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[Aldarc]

(Had to get SOME sleep last night- today is Dad's 65th birthday party, and I was doing prep work 'till 6AM...)

So Pathfinder has legitimately used brand association. How many other clones have? If they haven't, are they to be included as part of the "D&D Experience?"

If so, how do they qualify?

Again, good questions. Now I'm genuinely interested in brand association.

True20 arguably does as well:

Familiar!

Thanks to something called the Open Game License, True20 is based on the world's most popular roleplaying game system, giving it many elements familiar to fans and players of that and other similar systems.

True20 has heroic roles to help define its characters, and six ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) to describe their capabilities. It uses skill ranks and heroic feats as well as saving throws. If these things sound familiar, you probably already know a great deal about how to play the game!

This familiarity lets you tap into a bigger audience of players. Even if they haven't played True20 before, odds are they already know how! If roleplaying is new to you, that's OK too. True20 gives you everything you need to get started in a rewarding and enjoyable hobby.

d20 Modern does as well. Whether d20 Modern qualifies is questionable, but it's a different system that also influence numerous other systems as well: True20, Grim Tales, Star Wars Saga Edition, etc.

 

[Beginning of the End]

But, when I look at the books, I see the same six attributes, the same attribute bonuses. I see base attack bonuses and AC (Defense) which work essentially the way they did in 3E. I see the same D20 mechanics that underlayed 3E. Some things may have changed names or use slightly different forumulas (i.e.: Defenses vs. Saving Throws), but all in all it simply seems like a simplified, homogenized version of 3E with the "Powers" system tacked on.

For me, it still looks and feels like D&D...just lacking a few bits that are crucial to me.

Couple points:

You say "looks", but have you actually played it? Have you tried playing identical scenarios across multiple rulesets? Because I have.

That aside, I think it's interesting that you focus only on the most rudimentary resolution mechanics when I didn't talk about that at all. And I didn't talk about it for good reason:

If you boil Monopoly down to "roll 2d6 and move around the board", then lots of board games are "just like Monopoly".

D&D, like Monopoly, is more than its central dice mechanics.

 

[Jeffrey]

[Being honest I will have to cop to harboring some internal resentment, all these years later, about the manner in which WOTC initially marketed 4e by denigrating previous editions of the game and those who played it (anyone remember the dragon crapping on the critics comic?).

As far as I can tell the first shot in the "edition war" was fired by WOTC. From that point on everyone was a casualty in one form or another.

I think that if Mr. Mearls et al. truly want to address potential unity, they have more work to do.

They can begin by apologizing.

*sigh*

Sometimes, my "internal resentment" leaks out.

 

[El Mahdi]

Are you sure? Spoiler alert: It's a bunch of caves with trolls in them...

Yeah, I don't get it either. An adventure is an Adventure is an Adventure...

* DCs need to be adjusted to be fiction-first.

I'm not sure what you mean by adjusting for "fiction-first", but whatever reason you're adjusting them for, DC's are incredibly easy to adjust to the feel you want. I'm assuming your using 3.x, and assuming you have a very good grasp of 3.x mechanics and "Feel"...which means I can assume you know how various DC's apply as pertains to your adventures and play group. So I'm just not seeing it - especially when you say you easily convert 1E and 2E adventures on the fly.

1E and 2E adventures don't have DC's in the first place, so if you're playing 3E, you have to come up with them whole cloth - or simply ignoring them when converting 3E to 1E/2E. At least 4E is the same basic D20 mechanic, and has a lot more in common mechanically with 3E than 1E/2E...so how are 4E DC's so much more difficult or different to convert, and if you still feel they are, why can't you just do the same thing as when converting a 1E/2E adventure - make them up whole cloth...? It seems that as far as DC's are concerned, converting 1E, 2E, or 4E adventures to 3E is, at the worst, exactly the same process and difficulty...

And are you actually going to say that you find it harder to apply a suitable DC for a 3.x group, than to convert 1E/2E Thac0's to 3E AC/Defense (or vice/versa)...? That sounds counterintuitive to me...

* Monsters might not mean what they did in previous editions; I need to make sure that I understand what a "troll" is in this context.

Why?!? Unless a monster in the 4E Adventure is a critical part of the adventure's story...in which case I assume you've already read through the adventure in order to have an useable grasp of it's progression/story/plot...then whatever you want the monsters to do, you can have them do. It doesn't matter. As long as they are level appropriate, and don't have abilities that your group can't counter or deal with, I don't see the problem. And you already have to insert 3E math anyway - whether 1E, 2E (so they are a properly leveled threat for your group) - so how is this any different for 4E?

If your meaning is that 4E monsters have different "abilities" than their 1E/2E/3E counterparts, then I don't understand the problem as those pertinent abilities are listed in the 4E stat block. If you already know the monster in 3E, then all you simply have to do is just play it as the 3E version (or 1E, 2E, etc.). And again, if one of the 4E monsters abilities are crucial to the adventures plot/progression, then you already know this from overviewing the adventure, and can simply add it in.

I'm not seeing how this is a problem either...

* Monster abilities have to be rewritten to match ruleset assumptions, and to remove strongly grid-based combat. This can take a long time.

If you're talking about mini-less combat, how is converting a 4E adventure any different from the other editions. They were all set up to be used with miniatures - and if you don't want miniatures, all you have to do is ignore the miniatures combat portions.

As for Ranges or areas, it's all just a matter of simple conversions, as almost all of those editions used a slightly different system. All that's needed is to make a basic conversion, regardless of source edition and edition being played in.

1E used inches (with 1"= 5'), 2E used squares (with 1 square = 5'), 3E used feet (with 5' = 1 square), and 4E went back to squares (the 2e system).

I've played in 1E, 2E, and 3E - and since my very first game, every group I've played with or DM'd has used grid based combat. And all three systems rules supported this. Looking over 4E's rules I don't see any significant change from this...

* Encounters have to be examined to remove rules-first assumptions. This is pervasive in delve-format adventures, and is true for late 3e adventures as well.

Now this part I understand and agree with...but it's the only one. 4E adventures are written with a different encounter design assumption than previous editions, independent of mechanical differences. Such as it's not simply a room by room type thing, as it's more of the entire area type of thing. But, in actual play...whether 1E, 2E, or 3E...every group and DM I've ever played with took this into account anyways. Whether encounters were designed this way or not, we expected our actions to not simply be limited to affecting only the room as written (i.e.: monsters in other rooms might hear you and come looking for you, rather than wait for you to come to them)... YMMV on this, but for me it's a non-issue.

* Treasure assumptions are different, and have to be examined.

Simple - just swap in the other editions equivalent or drop in something level appropriate for the system your using. The same thing you'd have to do if converting a 1E or 2E adventure to 3E, or a 3E adventure to 1E or 2E...

Again, not seeing the problem.

The way encounters play is the D&D experience, to me.

Agreed. But the way encounters play is mostly determined by the mechanics one is using (the system you're playing in), and completely dependent upon how the DM presents the encounter...both factors that are independent of the source system the adventure is from.

So again, not seeing how 4E is any different in this regard.

I use adventures from not just 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E...but I also use adventures from completely different game systems (Palladium, Cortex, Dragonlance SAGA, etc.), and I've found that for the most part - an Adventure is an Adventure is an Adventure. So...

While I agree that 4e is D&D, I don't agree that it provides the experience I associate with D&D.

And since ones opinion is completely and wholly subjective, this observation is 100% valid, and one I also hold (for the most part).

For me, I also agree that 4E is D&D. And I think we're saying basically the same thing when I say that 4E doesn't provide the experience I desire. I still associate it with D&D, it just doesn't play the way I want D&D to play.

...Now we're just waiting for Charlemagne.

Charlemagne was too Frank for my tastes...

 

[El Mahdi]

I wonder if there are really only two types of RPGers out there.
1. Those like on us on a message board, discussing the minutia of game theory and design.
2. Those like my wife that just want to play a game.

Nahhh... I think there are those two types, and infinite array of types in-between them. RPG'ers in the end are just people, and just like no two people are identical, no two RPG'ers are identical.

I am trying to set up a "How to Host a Murder Game". Does anyone think those people give a rat's ass about differences between 3e or 4e? Or what WOTC does with their marketing?

I think these same people would love a game of Dread. These same people loved the Lord of the rings Trilogy. Why do I have the unwavering belief that they would be turned off by the current state of RPGs today if I were to try to introduce them?

You're right, the majority of gamers probably don't care a wit about what we here seem to endlessly discuss and ponder over.

But as to why you have an unwavering belief that they would be turned off by the current state of RPG's today...? I don't know.

Are you differentiating between the games we play in our homes and the "Industry"?

All in all, the games sitting on my shelf, and the experience at my table, are the same today as they were when I first started playing...regardless of the state of todays RPG industry. So as with the other, I don't think the majority of gamers would really care.

 

[El Mahdi]

Couple points:

You say "looks", but have you actually played it? Have you tried playing identical scenarios across multiple rulesets? Because I have.

That aside, I think it's interesting that you focus only on the most rudimentary resolution mechanics when I didn't talk about that at all. And I didn't talk about it for good reason:

If you boil Monopoly down to "roll 2d6 and move around the board", then lots of board games are "just like Monopoly".

D&D, like Monopoly, is more than its central dice mechanics.

I'm not sure the point your'e trying to address, though it seems you may have taken away a different point from my post than what I intended.

So...


No. I haven't played 4E.

I do however, have a very good understanding of game mechanics, and what mechanics I prefer and why. So reading over the 4E rules, I know the feel they will generate in play for me.

I wasn't focusing on rudimentary mechanics. I was only making the comparison that the rudiments of 4E and 3E are mostly the same, and therefore I Feel that both are D&D. It was an example of the subjectiveness of defining a game as D&D or not-D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I don't get it either. An adventure is an Adventure is an Adventure...

So, am I to understand that you don't see the difference between something I can swap in my head, looking at the numbers provided, and something that requires looking up other statistics and/or treasure values to swap? Really? You can't see how that makes one more difficult than another?

I'm not sure what you mean by adjusting for "fiction-first", but whatever reason you're adjusting them for, DC's are incredibly easy to adjust to the feel you want. I'm assuming your using 3.x

Bad assumption, and one you would not have made had you actually read the posts leading to my conclusions.

Unless a monster in the 4E Adventure is a critical part of the adventure's story...in which case I assume you've already read through the adventure in order to have an useable grasp of it's progression/story/plot...then whatever you want the monsters to do, you can have them do. It doesn't matter.

Now, here we have (I think) the real reason you don't understand the difficulty. The game I run is fictional-reality-first, not "narrative-first" or "mechanics-first". I don't know the adventure's story until the PCs have finished the adventure. The story is the interaction of the PCs and the adventure, and I cannot assume that the PCs will follow a chosen progression through events, or that a particular encounter will be a "combat encounter", a "skill challenge", or not somehow bypassed.


RC

 

[pemerton]

I have no doubt that there were plenty of people who are perfectly described this way. And I can readily see how those people would not only be completely content with 4E, but would also strongly prefer 4E to 3E.

But I also find these posts to be extremely short sighted. Basically they are saying that they can't imagine that a very large number of fans do in fact play the game for a much more involved experience.

I can see two ways of reading these paragraphs.

The first: 4e, like 3E, is capable of providing an involved RPG experience, but (unlike 3E) is also capable of providing a simpler game.

The second: 4e, unlike 3E, provides a less-involved RPG experience.

Now I read on through the post:

If you see it that way, then your conclusions make sense. Unfortunately, your conclusions are not based on an accurate description of the fan base that makes the economic engine for the industry. And that is why you can be completely convinced that your thinking is sound and still come to conclusions which do not reflect the market outcomes being observed.

There seems to me only one way of reading this paragraph: that gamers who like an involved RPG experience don't spend money on 4e.

What does this add to the two candidate readings identified above?

Either (i) the second reading is intended, and the reason that those who like an involved RPG experience don't buy 4e is because it doesn't provide one, or (ii) the first reading is intended, and those who like an involved RPG experience don't buy it despite its capcity to produce one.

If I read the post, as a whole, as suggesting (i) above, and together with this as suggesting that 4e doesn't provide an involved RPG experience, am I being unfair?

To put it another way: is it unreasonable to see a post that appears to use "capacity to produce an involved RPG experience" as the touchstone for distinguishing 4e from prior editions of the game as not simply expressing a preference for other editions, but also as somewhat denigrating of 4e play?

EDIT: For maximum clarity: BryonD's post does not state simply that 4e does not provide him with involved play. It is not just a statement of personal preference. Rather, it appears to posit that 4e is unable to provide involved play for the bulk of the serious roleplayers who make up WotC's target market.

 

[BryonD]

Rather, it appears to posit that 4e is unable to provide involved play for the bulk of the serious roleplayers who make up WotC's target market.

Close, but not quite.

A frequent problem with these debates is everything gets forced into absolutes.

When I played 1E and 2E, I loved them and played them as as "involved" "simulationist" games. Now, many people will eagerly jump on this and point out that these games were not particularly simulationist.

I would agree with them. At least, with the perspective I have today I will. And even with the perspective I had for quite a few years before 3E came along I would. Because I found much better games. I did the best I could with the tools I had and then I found better tools. That does nothing to reduce the fun I was able to create in 1E and 2E. It just means that once I found better games there was not reason to stay with games that were still good, but decidedly LESS good. (And, to some extent, my appreciation of what could be achieved was recalibrated as well.)

I make no claim whatsoever that 4E is unable to provide "involved play".
But, there are other games that do a head and shoulders above superior job of it.

The claim of "unable" is ultimately a straw man. It is able. But the people I was referencing find other games so much better that there is no point is choosing a game just because it too is "able". No litmus test, but rather a question of which is best.

 

[Dannager]

But I also find these posts to be extremely short sighted. Basically they are saying that they can't imagine that a very large number of fans do in fact play the game for a much more involved experience.

I don't think anyone is under the impression that there aren't tons of fans out there who play exactly as you describe - with the desire for a more involved experience.

But I was responding to the idea of what made D&D great in the past. I don't think that it was the "involved experience" you describe that propelled D&D to greatness in the past. Certainly that contributed, but plenty of hobbies can claim a very involved experience among their hardcore (in fact, most hobbies could, I imagine). What made D&D different from the other niche hobbies out there was that it was inherently social, the bar for entry was very low, and as long as you can enjoy hanging out with your friends, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a good time.

That's what made D&D great in the past. And, to a large extent, it's one of the reasons D&D isn't what it was in the 80s. There are other forms of entertainment that are accessible, social, and fun (video games, for instance). D&D shouldn't lose the involved experience that all healthy hobbies offer, but if the development team wants to use D&D's past success as a roadmap to future success, those traits I identify above are good things to focus on.