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

[Lalato]

The tent is smaller. Even if it seems roomier to you because of all the people that got kicked out.

The issue for me is that I fail to see how anyone has been kicked out. I've read a lot of these threads... and for the most part I see a lot of whining about very minor things from both sides of the aisle. And when I say minor... I mean completely trivial gobbledygook that really has very little bearing on whether or not you are having fun when you play D&D.

Nobody got kicked out... and everybody is still playing D&D. OMG... the world will explode because somebody plays the game differently than I do. Seriously... this has to be about the saddest thing I've seen on ENWorld.

I've been on ENWorld for a while. I stopped playing for a couple of years because I couldn't find a group. When I returned to ENWorld I see thread after thread after thread with this inanity. What gives, people. Play the game... and don't forget to smile while you play. If you're not smiling at some point, you're probably doing it wrong... but maybe not. Maybe you* enjoy not having fun.

*the you I refer to in my post is not anyone in particular. The comment I quoted just touched me. I'll be honest... I don't understand what the heck you guys are on about in these seemingly endless threads filled with twaddle and whining.

 

[pemerton]

It should be noted that people inside the 4th Edition tent apparently perceive it to be much larger than it is. After all, it hits their sweet spot! It is made of awesome and all the stuff that no longer exists was minimal and unimportant!

The tent is smaller. Even if it seems roomier to you because of all the people that got kicked out.

I didn't say the stuff that you can't do in 4e is minimal and unimportant. But nor is the stuff you can't do in 3E or in AD&D minimal and unimportant.

Besides demigods, 4e opens up the sort of heroic protagonism that 2nd ed appears to have aspired to but didin't provide the PC build rules, advancement rules, encounter building rules or action resolution rules to support.

I know how small the old D&D tent was. That's why I left it in 1990, and (other than the occasional visit in the mid-90s) didn't fully move back in until 2009.

 

[Beginning of the End]

It should be noted that people inside the 4th Edition tent apparently perceive it to be much larger than it is.

The issue for me is that I fail to see how anyone has been kicked out.

Case in point.

OMG... the world will explode because somebody plays the game differently than I do. Seriously... this has to be about the saddest thing I've seen on ENWorld.

You might want to cut back on the hyperbolic hyperventilating. I'm not sure how you got from "they made a game that doesn't include the reason I play roleplaying games" to "the world will explode", but I suspect you need to cut back on your caffeine intake.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Besides demigods, 4e opens up the sort of heroic protagonism that 2nd ed appears to have aspired to but didin't provide the PC build rules, advancement rules, encounter building rules or action resolution rules to support.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by "heroic protagonism". I cannot come up with any definition of those words which wouldn't be completely supported by 3rd Edition.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I'm playing a 4e campaign right now that looks pretty much the same as every other D&D game I've ever played, so, when I look at the tent, I don't see much of a difference.

Let's take this out of hypotheticals for a second shall we BOTE? What specific scenario can you do in 3e that you can't in 4e?

 

[Lalato]

Case in point

Well, I currently play both 3rd and 4th. And I started playing in 1981. The tent seems plenty roomy to me because I feel like I've basically been playing the same game all these years.

Just because you don't enjoy some aspects of one edition of D&D, I fail to see how that means the tent doesn't include your version of D&D. Or that you have been kicked out of some tent that includes 4th edition.

 

[pemerton]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by "heroic protagonism". I cannot come up with any definition of those words which wouldn't be completely supported by 3rd Edition.

Although my comment was about 2nd ed and not 3E, here are ust a handful of ways in which 3E doesn't support "heroic protagonism" in the same sort of way that 4e does:

*it has no second wind rules, and so doesn't support the same dynamics of combat as does 4e;

*it has apparent inconsistencies in its combat rules, so that a high level fighter is able to survive falls, swipes from dragons, etc that would kill any lesser being (ie hit points aren't a particularly gritty damage mechanic) but has intricate and gritty grapple rules, which make it hard for a high-level fighter to wrestle giants;

*it has no mechanic, other than GM handwaving, for telescoping the exploration elements of play (information gathering, searching, travelling etc) into a challenge that is fairly quick to resolve but still delivers opportunities for player decision making that produce interesting outcomes in the fiction;

*all the stuff currently being discussed on the wizards vs warriors threads on General.

 

[Imaro]

Although my comment was about 2nd ed and not 3E, here are ust a handful of ways in which 3E doesn't support "heroic protagonism" in the same sort of way that 4e does:

For everyone involved in and/or reading this thread could you please define what "heroic protagonism" is? It would really make following you and understanding what you are trying to convey much easier, as well as giving everyone a point of reference to discuss from. Right now, all we have our inferences and ideas of how you are defining this phrase to lead us in our discussion.

*it has no second wind rules, and so doesn't support the same dynamics of combat as does 4e;

And those dynamics are what exactly? I mean a DM who monitors the availability/acquisition of healing magic in his 3e campaign can ultimately arrive at the same result mechanically as every character having healing surges... can't he?

*it has apparent inconsistencies in its combat rules, so that a high level fighter is able to survive falls, swipes from dragons, etc that would kill any lesser being (ie hit points aren't a particularly gritty damage mechanic) but has intricate and gritty grapple rules, which make it hard for a high-level fighter to wrestle giants;

Wait...what? Maybe I'm missing your point, but the grappling rules in 3e aren't really "gritty" (there's no way to snap bones, gouge eyes, force someone to tap out, choke, etc.) or particularly "intricate" (IMO, again different locks, holds, etc. with differing results) compared to other systems rules. I would say they are convulted however and that is where some people's dissatisfaction with them come from. Now granted, compared to 4e which has no actual rules for grappling (only grabbing) outside of specific powers for specific builds... I could see where you might take the view you have... but I just don't see any difference except that it's grapple vs. grab.

*it has no mechanic, other than GM handwaving, for telescoping the exploration elements of play (information gathering, searching, travelling etc) into a challenge that is fairly quick to resolve but still delivers opportunities for player decision making that produce interesting outcomes in the fiction;

Huh? It has skill checks, a combination of which allow one to achieve his goals (There's just no artificial pre-set limit of x successes before Y failures)... how long or slow a challenge is to resolve is based entirely on what one is trying to accomplish and how he/she goes about it. IMO, the way a player chooses to approach problems in 3e in and of itself produces interesting outcomes in the fiction. Again I'm not understanding where 4e is special in this regard.

*all the stuff currently being discussed on the wizards vs warriors threads on General.

Eh, not about to read a long thread to see more examples... but if you have a few that stand out by all means please present them... though again I think heroic protagonism really needs to be defined so we can all be on the same page before proceeding with this line of discussion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Huh? It has skill checks, a combination of which allow one to achieve his goals (There's just no artificial pre-set limit of x successes before Y failures)... how long or slow a challenge is to resolve is based entirely on what one is trying to accomplish and how he/she goes about it. IMO, the way a player chooses to approach problems in 3e in and of itself produces interesting outcomes in the fiction. Again I'm not understanding where 4e is special in this regard.

Actually, the Complex Skill Checks option in the 3.5 UA is very, very similar to the Skill Challenge mechanic in 4e. So much so that, when the inevitable 5e comes along, the 4e retro-clone (should one exist) should be able to use the OGL UA material without any problems whatsoever.

It'll be the classes, powers, and adjectivenoun creatures that are difficult to retrofit without violating IP.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have to admit, I'm playing a 4e campaign right now that looks pretty much the same as every other D&D game I've ever played, so, when I look at the tent, I don't see much of a difference.

Well, I currently play both 3rd and 4th. And I started playing in 1981. The tent seems plenty roomy to me because I feel like I've basically been playing the same game all these years.

This gets back to the core problem with the design of 4th Edition: It picked a very narrow and very specific "sweet spot" of play in terms of power level, types of activity, and class mechanics.

If that sweet spot was, in fact, your sweet spot then you're in luck! 4th Edition is completely awesome for you!

But if it wasn't your sweet spot, or if you enjoyed the broad range of play that 1974-2008 gameplay allowed for, then 4th Edition is badly, badly flawed.

Which, ultimately, brings us full circle back to the top of the thread: D&D used to be a big tent. Now it isn't. And that's a result of deliberate design choices made by the 4th Edition design team.

So when Mearls says "everybody should come back inside our tent!", my response is simple: You're going to have to make your tent bigger first.

So, basically, if you always played D&D the way that 4e plays, then it seems like the same tent to you. BUT if you played D&D in a way that is different than 4e plays, it seems that the current tent is smaller, and, unless you change the way you play, you are outside it.

That seems really, really obvious and clear to me.

"But I always played this way!" doesn't mean that you can't see the change in tent size, IF you are able to see that there are people who play differently. "But I always played this way!" only causes you to see the tent as the same size if you are unable to do so.

And, sure, you can use Chinese Checkers to tell the same stories you can in 4e, RCFG, or 1e AD&D. But Chinese Checkers is not the best system for any of these stories.

Likewise, 4e can be used as a vehicle to tell the same stories as 1e AD&D and vice versa; that does not mean, however, that they are good vehicles for doing so.


RC