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

[Imaro]

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

Yeah, I was aware of the UA complex skill checks, and agree they are very similar to skill challenges... however I've brought stuff up before from UA to make points and there's always cries of "That's not core rules though... it's optional". Just didn't feel like going down that particular road again. In the end though, I just don't think 4e's skill challenges really do anything for the game that can't be done with normal skills.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I was aware of the UA complex skill checks, and agree they are very similar to skill challenges... however I've brought stuff up before from UA to make points and there's always cries of "That's not core rules though... it's optional". Just didn't feel like going down that particular road again. In the end though, I just don't think 4e's skill challenges really do anything for the game that can't be done with normal skills.

I would agree, with the sole exception that I have seen some examples from the Jester where the SC mechanic was used to organize the skill information well. I am not sure whether or not that organization would have occured without the mechanic to suggest it.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Smaller Tent = Better?

I was thinking about this, and I am not certain that a bigger tent is actually better for a role-playing game. A tighter focus may mean a smaller tent, but it may also mean that the desired feel of the game is better delivered.

For example, in working on my own system, I have had to consider what I did not want to include at least as much as I have had to consider what I do want to include. The same thing happens when devising a campaign setting -- exclusion is as important as inclusion when attempting to create a cohesive whole.

Big Tent = Good for profits, but does Big Tent = Good for games?

I'm not at all sure that it does.


RC

 

[Lalato]

"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.

I don't think people have said they always played exactly the same way. I think what people are saying is that they've always played D&D, albeit in different incarnations of the same game.

What's pretty clear to me is that some people feel the need to compare the way they play D&D to others... and when they find that it varies, even slightly, that it somehow invalidates their way or that it invalidates the other way.

So... when someone says they've been kicked out of the tent, they're saying that their way of playing has somehow been invalidated. That's not the case... and to say that it is requires one to construct all sorts of stuff to support that idea. The tent has nothing to do with this mechanic or that mechanic. It has to do with playing D&D. If you say you're playing D&D, then you're in the tent... no matter what version of D&D you play.

To say that some version of D&D doesn't allow you to play the way you want leaves out the fact that there are other versions of D&D that do allow you to play the way you want. Does it really matter which version you play so long as you're having fun?

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Exactly the same way" (emphasis on what you added) is a straw man.

I suspect that, if you don't see the difference, you aren't really an authority on what the difference is.

 

[Imaro]

I would agree, with the sole exception that I have seen some examples from the Jester where the SC mechanic was used to organize the skill information well. I am not sure whether or not that organization would have occured without the mechanic to suggest it.


RC

Interesting, I wouldn't mind taking a look at whatever convinced you of this. IMO, the 4e skill challenges that I have read about and seen seem to sacrifice too much of the organic and spontaneous nature of free-form skill checks for quantification and definition. The ones that don't do this...seem to have discarded so much of the form and rules of the SC that they might as well be free-form skill checks. But hey I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I was thinking about this, and I am not certain that a bigger tent is actually better for a role-playing game. A tighter focus may mean a smaller tent, but it may also mean that the desired feel of the game is better delivered.

I think this can be argued either way.

But insofar as D&D remains the only gateway product of the RPG industry, narrowing the range of people it can potentially cater to is probably bad for the industry.

Now, if some other game could seriously challenge D&D's role as the gateway to the industry that would be great. But other than a handful of years where Vampire was providing an on ramp for goths that's never happened.

On a purely personal level, I've found classic D&D to be one of the most effective RPGs at catering to multiple tastes at the same table. While I can also enjoy more focused experiences, I credit classic D&D's ability to fluidly shift between multiple styles of play to its great success.

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:

I'm afraid none of that made any sense to me. You clearly have some definition of the words "heroic" and "protagonism" which are idiosyncratic to the point of exiting the English language and no desire to actually define how you're using them.

I mean, I could talk about all the different ways that high level fighters can, in fact, wrestle giants in 3E. But that would just distract us from the core of the issue here.

 

[Lalato]

"Exactly the same way" (emphasis on what you added) is a straw man.

I suspect that, if you don't see the difference, you aren't really an authority on what the difference is.

OK then... what do you mean by your statement that people played the same way in older editions as they do in 4e? If you don't mean that they played exactly the same way... then you must mean that they played at least a very similar game. I'm only pointing out what you said... and now you want to throw it back at my face as if I invented this strawman.

Seriously... this is why these threads are so stupid.

I get it. Some people don't like 4e. Now that we have that understanding... can you tell me something useful.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Interesting, I wouldn't mind taking a look at whatever convinced you of this.

[MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION]: Do you have an easy link to your lake with ghouls SC?

I think this can be argued either way.

I'm just throwing it out for conversation.

I try to avoid having more than one good idea in a 60-day period, and I've had two already here at work, so I am over quota. Expect mostly general ignorance and unispired notions until I get that back in line!



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

OK then... what do you mean by your statement that people played the same way in older editions as they do in 4e?

"Using the same general playstyle."

Now that we have that understanding... can you tell me something useful.

Sorry, see my response to Beginning of the End. I am over quota.

EDIT: IMHO, 3e made the tent bigger, in some ways for good (IMHO) and in some ways for ill (again, IMHO). For instance, I believe that 3e was the first D&D where the "people from modern era enter the fantasy world" trope actually works (like!) but it is also the first D&D where half-dragon half-ooze monks make their appearance....and they make their appearance as player characters (dislike)! It's hard to do a "normal folks deal with the strange and unknown" trope when the party consists of a half-dragon, a warforged ninja, a humanoid turtle, and a talking rat! ( )

Personally, I would prefer a modular tent. A core experience, with additions that modify that core experience (but are not considered core). AFAICT, 4e has got the first part (a strong core experience), but the GSL specifically restricts the production of the other. I think that hewing close to a core experience may well be a good thing for a game, even if it is not a core experience that I am particularly interested in. I am interested in attempts to modify that core experience, though (for example, LostSoul's fiction-first hack) and attempts to fully embrace it (Mallus' surreal but really cool campaign setting).


RC