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

[Dannager]

[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?).

This is the sort of thing I was talking about earlier in the thread. What is it about some people that caused them to view that animation short as personally offensive, and what is it that caused others to view it as hilarious?

It's not whether or not they were 3e fans. I was a 3e fan, and so were lots of others who thought the animation was great.

By the way, they weren't targeting fans of previous editions of the game. They were targeting the critics who were repeating, ad nauseum, some of the most pointless/baseless complains about the new edition. It just so happens, however, that anyone in any kind of position to critique a new D&D game is also a fan of some previous edition. Furthermore, for whatever reason you forgot to point out that, throughout that same animation, the pro-4e fanboys were represented as a bunch of blindly worshipful, sycophantic kobolds.

I think what a lot of 3e partisans failed to realize about that animation was that it wasn't making fun of 3e fans or 4e fans. It was making fun of the entire ludicrous nature of the edition wars. Why is it that the 4e players are the ones who always end up pointing this out?

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.

Nope. The first shot was the "Screw you WotC!" outburst that hit the internet as soon as the splash page announcing 4e went up. Unless you're claiming that the splash page was the first shot, which is kind of a silly position to take, don't you think?

Calling that cartoon, or even WotC's attempts at responding to critics by justifying their design choices the "first shot" in the edition war is like calling Hiroshima the first shot of World War II. (Don't read too far into that particular analogy)

 

[El Mahdi]

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

I humbly apologize for offending you. I did read your posts, but for some reason it didn't register what it was you were doing. After re-reading it however, I understand. I still don't understand how 4E is inherently more difficult than any of the other systems you're cannibilizing from, but I understand what you're trying to do. Sounds like fun. Kind of like what I'm doing with my own houserule system, just on a larger scale.

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 can understand how that's more difficult, I just don't understand how it's endemic to 4E itself and not any other edition? What you are describing sounds more like simple relative unfamiliarity with 4E as compared to the other systems you're talking about. I don't see anything inherent in 4E's mechanics that make it any harder, or easier, than any other edition or game system as pertains to converting adventures...

Can you be more specific as to what in 4E causes these difficulties? Perhaps a specific example of what you're describing?

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.

I understand what you're saying here, I don't understand how your gaming style is contrary to gaining an overview of the adventure before using it?

How can one possibly DM an adventure without reading the adventure first? (Unless I'm misunderstaning you and you do read the entire adventure before using it? In which case I again don't understand the difficulty of conversion...)

Of course you can't know what the PC's are going to do, but every adventure still has a premise. I call it a plot, a general plot for the most part, but a plot, if you don't see it that way, that's fine...but thats just a potato/potato thing. But an adventure still boils down to a premise such as "there are bad guys that want to do something evil", or "some item needs to be found/recovered/destroyed", etc., etc. - and there are NPC's written into the adventure for the characters to interact with or oppose that are crucial to the adventures premise. Other than macguffins, or specific events, or specific powers, or specific spells, or specific magic items, etc. - the rest of the adventure is all just window dressing for the journey, and can simply be changed or replaced at will with no real impact on the adventure.

So if converting something from 4E is so difficult (which again I don't understand why), why not just insert something from your preferred mechanical system instead, as it won't matter at all to the adventure or the PC's?

In other words, if it's a 4E adventure, with 4E trolls - and those 4E trolls are different than other edition trolls - but the nature of the trolls in the adventure aren't crucial for the premise of the adventure - then why convert them when they're so difficult and not just use a Troll that you know?

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't know of anyone on these boards who (i) talks seriously about the contrast between simulationist and other forms of mechanics, and (ii) denies that 4e has fewer simulationist mechanics, and is therefore less well suited to simulationist play, than 3E.

But your post seems to equate "involved play" with "simulationist play". It's that apparent equation which is tendentious. Because it appears to deny, by way of implication, that non-simulationist play can be "involved" (or "serious", or "..." ).

 

[Raven Crowking]

EITHER "it's all D&D" and my 30+ years of familiarity with D&D should help me to understand the rules constructs of the module (as it does in all other editions), OR my 30+ years of familiarity with D&D is of no help, and I might conclude that it isn't "all D&D".

Again, I conclude that 4e is D&D -- that 30+ years of familiarity is helpful -- but it is far less helpful here than with any other edition. And there is enough difference that I can easily understand why someone else might not come to the same conclusion (4e is D&D) that I do. Moreover, there is enough similarity that I can easily understand why a third person might come to the conclusion that "It's all D&D" rather forcefully.

And I'll grant you that part of the problem is not generated by the ruleset, but is generated by the format. The assumptions that the Delve format uses -- this will be a skill challenge, that will be a combat encounter, here is where everyone will stand, there is where the PCs will approach from -- create a worse level of railroading than even 2e dared aspire to. IMHO.

I mentioned upthread that I had a longer response that got eaten by Windows 7 ending my Internet Explorer session early....It included a mini-rant about the problems of the delve format, and what it does to adventures, starting with late 3rd edition modules and the work required to fix the Barrow King module.

The adventures put out definitely colour one's impression of an edition, and (again, IMHO) the delve format should have a sudden demise. I would buy a lot more 4e modules if it did, because the conversion work would be cut in half.

......But there would still be a lot more work than "convert in my head", and that point stands.


RC

 

[BryonD]

I don't know of anyone on these boards who (i) talks seriously about the contrast between simulationist and other forms of mechanics, and (ii) denies that 4e has fewer simulationist mechanics, and is therefore less well suited to simulationist play, than 3E.

But your post seems to equate "involved play" with "simulationist play". It's that apparent equation which is tendentious. Because it appears to deny, by way of implication, that non-simulationist play can be "involved" (or "serious", or "..." ).

First, please keep the context of the post I was replying to in mind.
The word "involved" was specifically offered in context of talking about gaming as an excuse to get together with friends and specifically in contrast to "dive[ing] down into the more detailed levels". You are ignoring that context.

Second, if you still think that I am remotely trying to deny anything despite the fact that my second post very directly addresses that claim, then you either are not paying attention or you are trying to change my point into something you have an easier time challenging.

4E was strongly marketed as "for new players", "easy to DM", etc, etc.
I think both the "less involved" (note: "less" does not mean absolute removal) and the "non-simulationist" elements are not themselves cause and effect but, rather, are both effects of this design philosophy cause.

Are you going to try to force absolute terms on me a third time?

(And, though it isn't really relevant, there are absolutely people who very strongly argue that 3E and 4E are equivalent in regards to simulation. As a matter of fact, there are people that insist that they are both equal in being excellent simulation games and people who insist they are equal as not even trying to be simulations. But, again, not really relevant other than as a point of clarification.)

 

[El Mahdi]

...(snip)...

Fair enough...I think I understand what you've been saying. I don't agree with all of it, but I agree 100% on the uniqueness of 4E formatting (as compared to other D&D editions). There are assumptions within that formatting that does take either some working around or a shift in ones paradigm.

 

[Jeffrey]

Hey! How dare you try to quell my internal resentment!!

(For the record, I am not a 3e fan. Never played it. I have played 4e. Not my cup of tea.)

If all WOTC did to denigrate 3e and those who played earlier editions was to draw a cartoon of a dragon crapping on someone's head, I might concede your point.

Unfortunately, for us and them, it was not.

 

[tuxgeo]

Understanding first. Invalidation if necessary. Agreement if possible.
< . . . >
I'm not sold.
< . . . >

< . . . >
Cool, I'm not selling anything. Or rather, I'm offering something and discussing it but not trying to get you to buy it. Any disagreement at this point is with regards to your understanding of what I'm trying to express, and I still feel like you're not getting it. That's fine - I can live with that. I'm not sure what else I can say at this point, other than to reiterate what I've already said. I did frame it slightly different to Jasperak above.

p.s. I am a "he" not a "she," although I hardly take offense for you confusing me with the superior sex
< . . . >

[ sidetracking thread for comment about gender: ]

Mercurius with a "c" from "The center and periphery" has a longer screen name than Merkuri with a "k" from "Eastern Massachusetts."
IIRC, it is the latter of the two who is a she. The similarity of screen names might make it easy to confuse them with each other.

[ /sidetrack ]

 

[RandallS]

I've read the entire thread, but would like to reply to the original "All Roads lead to Rome" analogy....

Yes, all roads lead to Rome -- the Eternal City. However, while Rome may be eternal, it's not unchanging. Early Rome (under the monarchy) is a much different city that Rome under the Republic which is a much different city than Rome under the Empire which is a much different city than Rome under the Popes which which is a much different city than Rome today. We may all be traveling to Rome, but a person from the Roman Rupublic who travels down the road to today would not find the Rome he was expecting. He might or might not like the Rome he finds, but it would be a very different Rome.

The same is true of D&D, IMHO. It's all D&D, but not all editions of D&D are the same -- they can be very different from one another while still being the "same place" on the map. Someone who likes the way 4e plays might not like the way 1e plays at all (and vice-versa, of course.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which means that the meaning of "Rome" itself is so variable that what one experiences there may not be universal...