I agree with you that these elements don't have to be the focus of D&D, whether in the form of 4E or not, let alone all RPGs. However, I think D&D should at least be able to accommodate multiple styles and foci. The d20 engine is certainly flexible enough to handle just about anything one can imagine.
Well, you can never prove an absolute, I know, but I have come to the belief that designing a good RPG that supports multiple foci is impossible. I can't prove it, of course - but I have yet to see one, and I have seen (and, more importantly, played) many RPG systems. Too many key system elements drive the focus one way or another, and the features that support these foci typically either break or compromise the very features needed for their fellows. My honest opinion is that, in order to get a system that supports one focus of play really well, you have to sacrifice the things that support alternative foci.
Another view is that the approach that I'm advocating--which theoretically produces an experience of greater immersion and connection to the imagination space environment--leads to a more satisfactory experience that one would want to come back to, versus one that is less immersing, more focused on "being fun," because it offers something (immersion within a shared imagination space) that no other related activity can quite manage, certainly no competing activities such MMOs and board games.
I play, as preferred RPGs, HârnMaster (set in HârnWorld) and D&D 4E (set in the Nentir vale). Hârn is about as immersive and simulationist as you can get. It has a (mostly) working economy. It has characters who are born to higher rank. It has detailed and rational explanations for its magic system and its 'monsters'. I would not call it any more (or less) a roleplaying game than D&D 4E. It's different, sure! The focus of play is utterly different, partly as a result of the rule system being utterly different. But both are very definitely roleplaying games, far beyond what any computer "roleplaying game" will ever achieve.
Ideally we can have our cake and eat it too, right? We can have a game that appeals to as many people as possible yet also is able to focus in on specific styles and different play experiences, all while capitalizing on the strengths and unique qualities of the medium.
No, I honestly don't think we can. the result will, inevitably, in my opinion, be a kludged compromise that pleases neither those seeking one type of game nor those seeking another. The evidence of this will be extensive house rules (including selecting subsystems from among options offered in the game and selectively ignoring some game rules) that will mean that each table of such a game is, in effect, a totally different game. The fact that we have had this with (all) previous editions does not mean that I think it's a good thing. Some game elements are so well embedded (xp and level, hit points) that it's very hard indeed to remove them, resulting in them just getting in the way for games they really don't suit.
And of course the caveat should be, imo, that the primary "game table" is the imagination space, never something tangible with the senses. As soon as the sensory becomes the primary game space, it stops being an RPG in the traditional sense.
I can't say much to this except that I don't find it to be the case at all. I have run Hârn using a board and figures (albeit rather differently than I do for D&D 4E), and the immersion was just fine - better, I think, than it would have been without the board and figures (and mini trees and rocks, but that's another story...).
Now one could argue that most cutting edge RPGs have a rather tight focus; that the most aesthetically pleasing and sophisticated RPGs tend to be either tightly designed mechanically (with the common word being "elegant") and/or fused to a particular theme or setting. But D&D is meant to be played, not read, appreciated, and maybe tried out a few times before one moves onto the next Forge-born creation.
Most "Forge-born creations" are explicitly aimed at instant-story focussed games, so they are really expected to support single or few-session games; there is no surprise, there. Sorceror, Ron Edwards' first game, can support something longer, as can Primetime Adventures - but that second one sets out to emulate TV series', so it would be expected to last "a season or two", just like the thing it emulates.
I think the possibility for a long-term campaign have nothing to do with tightness of focus or the other stuff you mention. It starts with whether the players (including the GM) are all really 'on message' with the game focus and theme, and requires a system that retains the type of cohesion required for that focus. D&D 4E, for instance, is doing well for my group so far because it remains balanced - both between the characters and between the party and the encounters - through all levels of play. It's not perfect, but it knocks previous editions, where we had to abandon games after level 8 or so as they just became silly, for six. HârnMaster, on the other hand, also does exceedingly well because it has a well-balanced economy and society in the game world; a group of half-a-dozen ne'er-do-wells have a rough time ripping it to shreds in the way they used to in 3.5E, for example. In their different ways, both work beautifully - but a mixture of the two would just be horrible!
Why does it have to be either/or? Why couldn't the grid/miniature aspect of the game be optional?
Because then you would have two different games. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, except that you would lose the cross-compatibility that 4E, for instance, has - but the issues would not end there. To get a functional "immersive" game there are other obstacles. Character level, for instance. I have many times, in the past, tried to build a convincing fantasy city with D&D. I have always failed, in the final analysis, because either the city is stuffed full of mysteriously beneficient ex-adventurers, or it it so fragile that any reasonably high level PC party can trash the place in a few combat rounds. Level (and, to a lesser degree, hit points - not so much due to lack of "realism" as due to the PC behaviour they encourage) really can't peacefully coexist with a strong simulationist focus. Then the "continuity ideas" arise. I think this is because the xp -> level up paradigm encourages cometitiveness, and this then find expression in players saying "if this and this are true in this world, then surely, logically, I can do
this!"...
tldr version - I don't think it works, even as "options", unless you essentially make entire halves of the game 'optional'. Even then, this 'optional' really isn't. For those wishing to play with a specific focus, around half the rules will actually be "don't touch this with a bargepole if you want a cohesive game".
If the game supports multiple styles of play then different groups can make their own choices. If it only supports one, then anyone that doesn't like it is SOL.
Not SOL, no - just needing to play a different game. That is something I have been doing for nearly thirty years, so I guess it's something that doesn't phase me. The difference being, really, I was playing a load of different games because D&D didn't coherently support
any real focus, and I wasn't prepared to spend as much effort houseruling as some folk were.
You're ducking the question. If we're to understand what a "level 1 Fighter" or a "level 30 Fighter" looks like, we can only do that in relation to either the real world or to our existing fictions. That means assigning (approximate) levels to the heroes of those fictions. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes meaningless.
There are many valid answers to the question, ranging from 1 to 30 (or even beyond). But you haven't given one.
No, I'm giving an honest answer, as I see it. It's like the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" - there is no direct answer I can give that is not misleading and/or inaccurate. I really, strongly, do not think that character levels reflects any sort of real or fictional phenomenon. It's a game mechanism, pure and simple. I could say that level 1 = Rocky or Sam Spade and level 30 = Atlas or Merlin, but Rocky will never become Atlas, and Merlin never was Sam Spade - the comparison is misleading. The idea of escalating in power as a character "ages" is purely a game device, in my view.
It seems to me that the purpose of the N levels (N = 30 or whatever) is to keep play varied and (more) interesting over a long campaign of challenge-based play. It also gives players some feeling of "reward" for challenges beaten. That's it. No more to see.
Because none of those editions are perfect either. And the more balanced math gives the 4e engine some significant advantages over older editions. By recalibrating that engine, and by blending in some parts of older editions (and some parts of other games entirely), I believe we really could get something very special indeed.
You are welcome to dream on
I think combining them will just take us (back) to a compromised, confused, unfocussed mess.
Like it or not, I have to deal with players who won't play anything but the current edition of D&D. Offer them 3e, Pathfinder, WFRP, or anything else, and they're just not interested. Arguing that there are (or could be) other games out there is useless - if I can't find players for anything else, then there might as well not be.
You have my sympathy. That has to be the most bizarre, ill-considered outlook I have heard of. Mind you, I
have read stuff around here of folk refusing even to read and try 4E, so I guess it's not
totally unique. I hear it takes all sorts - but I do sometimes wonder "Including those? Really??"
And if I'm stuck with "the current edition of D&D", and if WotC are starting the process of changing that current edition, then I most certainly am going to argue for changing to suit myself. To do otherwise would be insane.
Yeah, that is logical under your (curious) circumstances. If it helps any, I'd be happy if 4E had the name changed to "DragonQuest" if it continued to be developed
