Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[Matt James]

Then you disagree with a lot of people. This is fine, but I would love to open the debate. Possibly in another thread. Some people won't roleplay, or simply don't want to. They want to run around like Conan and swing a big sword. Anything attached to their character in the form of traits or characteristics, are meaningless to them. Just because they chose to play this way, in no way makes them inferior or unfit for playing tabletop RPGs. It takes a community to cultivate and educate them. No amount of system rules will remedy this--unless you want to just push them away to something else. Hopefully they'll decide to join the crowd. If not, who am I to judge them? They're having fun, I am having fun. That's what playing games is all about.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Exactly.

It almost feels as though the new material is tailored to groups of players who enjoy solving tactical puzzles, optimizing characters, and using rules to their advantage. I prefer a game tailored to groups who enjoy role-playing.

In which case I have one simple question for you. If you find tacticians a problem then why is your RPG of choice a D&D derivative? D&D 1e is about problem solving and tactical puzzle solving to get the most loot with minimal risk. It was tactical puzzle and optimising friendly and always has been at that extreme. Just ask the players of Tomb of Horrors.

I don't see enjoying the tactical element and RPing the sort of people who prepare before handling dangerous situations as a bad thing. But if you do, the Forge is thataway and D&D has IMO never been a game that was a good fit. (I'd also argue that optimisers have much more leverage under any edition of AD&D (see: dual classing, stat minimums, and imbalanced races) than they do under 4e; yes there's more fun to be had optimising, but much less of a requirement to do it defensively because the game is better balanced).

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're saying you haven't experienced a session where only the numbers matter. I get it.

Of course you haven't, because at that point it's not roleplaying right?

My point is: 4E comes as close to this as D&D ever has. We're moving further away from roleplaying and toward a miniatures game. That's FINE for those who love miniatures games! Sweet! And, it's FUN too. I love miniature combat.

Let's turn 4e into something more like minatures combat and a tabletop wargame. We'll start by removing that grid and replacing it with movement speeds measured in inches (and tapemeasures or templates to measure where fireballs go). Then we'll lower the hit points. We want the combats to resolve fast and it shouldn't matter if you die - you can simply take another character. Then we'll take out all the non-combat skills - they aren't needed. But the rogue needs a few, so we'll give him and only a couple of other people some skills. We'll then take out all the powers - we want minatures combat not strong focus on who we are and what we are doing. And then let's compress the defences. It's the class of your armour that matters.

You know what? Every change I am making to make 4e more like the minatures combat games I also enjoy makes it more like 1E AD&D. The very origins of D&D are a hack to minatures combat rules. Because that's what Gygax and Arneson were working with. Given this history of D&D, saying that "4E comes as close to this as D&D ever has" and "We're moving ... toward a miniatures game." is somewhere between saying "it's moving back towards its origins" and a ridiculous assertion.

 

[TwoSix]

To summarize: A game system cannot inherently produce roleplaying.

If you mean immersive roleplaying, I'd probably agree. But there are games out there where it's near impossible to even engage the mechanics without doing some roleplaying.

 

[TwoSix]

You know what? Every change I am making to make 4e more like the minatures combat games I also enjoy makes it more like 1E AD&D. The very origins of D&D are a hack to minatures combat rules. Because that's what Gygax and Arneson were working with. Given this history of D&D, saying that "4E comes as close to this as D&D ever has" and "We're moving ... toward a miniatures game." is somewhere between saying "it's moving back towards its origins" and a ridiculous assertion.

I have to say, I am curious as to what this "more roleplaying, less minis" D&D nirvana would look like. Is it 2e++? 2e certainly seems like the edition that most fetishized "roleplaying", and held the most disdain for playstyles focused on the game's own wargame-based mechanics.

 

[Matt James]

The problem with a lot of trunk-junk that 2e (and 3e) had, was that while a lot of content was created, so much of it was forgotten/lost/ignored due to its horrible interaction with the game. I'm still looking for an example of a D&D mechanic that exemplifies roleplaying (I probably need to rewrite this sentence, I am not trying to be snarky or rude). I have run a very successful and non-combat focused Dark Sun 4e game; one by which my players still ask when it will restart. They can lay down examples where character choses were more potent than character system options, and how it changed the story as they went along.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then you disagree with a lot of people.

Could be. But a lot of people thinking a thing doesn't make it so.

OTOH, the rest of your post makes be believe that you don't understand what I was trying to convey in the slightest. Which is probably my own fault, rather than yours.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In which case I have one simple question for you. If you find tacticians a problem then why is your RPG of choice a D&D derivative?

I think you are misunderstanding me.

Tactics have a place in a role-playing game....just not the primary place.

Just as role-playing can have a place in a tactical game....just not the primary place.

D&D 1e is about problem solving and tactical puzzle solving to get the most loot with minimal risk. It was tactical puzzle and optimising friendly and always has been at that extreme. Just ask the players of Tomb of Horrors.

I think you are misunderstanding 1e.

Tactics have a place in 1e....just not the primary place. Quick -- name the one D&D module where pacifism is explicitly rewarded and combat punished! Quick -- name the edition it was published for.

I don't see enjoying the tactical element and RPing the sort of people who prepare before handling dangerous situations as a bad thing.

Nor do I......But I don't see that it's the only thing, either.

Now I've a question for you: Why didn't you address the rulesplay parts? Optimizing characters, and using rules to their advantage?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know what? Every change I am making to make 4e more like the minatures combat games I also enjoy makes it more like 1E AD&D. The very origins of D&D are a hack to minatures combat rules. Because that's what Gygax and Arneson were working with. Given this history of D&D, saying that "4E comes as close to this as D&D ever has" and "We're moving ... toward a miniatures game." is somewhere between saying "it's moving back towards its origins" and a ridiculous assertion.

The very origins of D&D are a movement away from the minatures combat rules that Gygax and Arneson were working with. Repeatedly, in rulebook after rulebook, the players are admonished that the spirit of the rules takes precedence over the rules themselves. Because "the rules themselves" are kind of like a wargame, and that is not what is desired.

In early D&D, the Game Master is encouraged to take the fiction into account when adjudicating the rules, rather than the other way around, because anything else is moving toward a miniatures game.

To claim otherwise is, indeed, "a ridiculous assertion".

(It convinces no one to answer an objection in a way that fails to show understanding of the objection being answered!)


RC

 

[13garth13]

Tactics have a place in 1e....just not the primary place. Quick -- name the one D&D module where pacifism is explicitly rewarded and combat punished! Quick -- name the edition it was published for.


RC

Just for fun, I believe it had something to do with a Crystal Cavern, it may or may not have been UK1 depending on my memory , and it was most assuredly 1st edition (prior even to the release of MMII, 'cause it had the mudmen and those wierd, lignifying tree creatures in it). Took place largely in some time-stopped demi-plane where the Green Man dwelt and two lovers were hiding out from their families, yeah?

The rest of the topic I'm not approaching with a 10' pole....

Cheers,
Colin

EDIT: Beyond the Crystal Cave? Regardless of the title, it had Tim fricking Truman artwork, and that just isn't seen nearly as often in gaming material as it bloody well ought to be......damn, I loved his stuff!