Opinion: But It's So Gamist!!

[med stud]

As long as people can wear the rings I don't care if they only start working at lvl 11. Those kinds of magic items are like really high level monsters. Realistically speaking, your lvl 2 3.5 characters could encounter an old red dragon but from a DMing POV that equals "rock falls, everyone dies". So most adventures don't feature that kind of encounters.

If I as a DM know that magic rings don't work until lvl 11, I wont introduce them at lvl 4. If I introduce them it is easy to do a LotR-move: The ring gives some minor power until it is worn by someone with the power to wake it's real potential.

IMO many people have lots of problems with things that most likely will never come up in the game. Sort of like the discussions about the gender of angels in medieval times.

 

[rounser]

Would you really want to lose that by being 'suspended' from the boards?

Are you a mod, or is that the pro-4E mafia suggesting: "Nice argument you got here. It'd be a pity to see you get banned."

Please. Give up on offering me advice, I'm not asking for it and you're in no position to give it. You lot are just as abrasive as I am.

the tolerance level among the moderators for abrasive responsive in favor of 4E paradigms and those against 4E paradigms probably differs...

Oh, it is the pro-4E mafia. What a joke.

Heck, I like more of what 4E promises than I dislike.

 

[Talislan]

Ok, I will try one last time.

rouncer, I read your argument (again) and I really do not understand why you feel my comment is aimed at you directly. I am sorry that you don't like my tone and will endeavour to improve it.

My issue was with the argument itself, not your side. The reason that I stated it as rubbish is because people arguing over the new rule being un-tolkienesque and therefore against the genre foundation is absurd. Ruling that rings take more personal power (xp) to master is more tolkienesque than anything else! It doesn't mean a ring at low level has no use either. Frodo was arguably the ideal bearer of the ring because of his Hobbit 'innocense' (lack of xp) This meant he couldn't attempt to use its vast power but was also less corruptible than most by said power. What corruption he did recieve was a result of gaining the attention of the Rings real user (the ultra powereful bad-guy with lots and lots of xp) when he benefitted from the side effect of being turned invisible to everyone else.

This aside stating that un-tolkien equals un-genre is again absurd. D&D holds most of the pulling power on what have been genre norms and has held it for years. Not Tolkien.

An easier way to look at it may be Tolkien = idea/Fluff, D&D = Rules/mechanics

And then, Even after all this opinion from myself the ring argument, it still doesn't matter. Genre 'excepted standards' - whether I agree or disagree with them - do not matter.
It has no relevance in a new game. I emphasized the 'New' throughout my previous post because, as I stated, IMO this argument matters not one bit in what is going to be a NEW way of playing D&D. It is going to be exactly that - NEW. Old rules don't matter in the new game. The new rules don't matter in the old game.
Because the NEW game needs to be played and NEW rules learnt, simmulation comes second, narration comes second, conversion of old games comes second. Gamist Gaming will inevitably come first. Whether this is to everyones tastes I do not know because I am not everyone.

Play on.

T

 

[rounser]

This aside stating that un-tolkien equals un-genre is again absurd.

You still haven't read the thread like I've asked you to.

I've never stated "un-Tolkien equals un-genre", that was you guys in an attempt to defend the ring thing, and now it's a dead duck that I shot...and now you're pretending that it's mine. Craziness.

 

[Roman]

Are you a mod, or is that the pro-4E mafia suggesting: "Nice argument you got here. It'd be a pity to see you get banned."

Actually, I probably dislike the extirpation of non-gamist elements from 4E as much as you do. We are on the same page - that's a major reason why I would hate to see you go.

Please. Give up on offering me advice, I'm not asking for it and you're in no position to give it. You lot are just as abrasive as I am.

Alright - this is my last post on the matter. I did not mean to offer advice in some conceited or condescending matter and am sorry if it came accross as such. I would merely hate to lose a fellow who argues the case for simulationism so eloquently.

 

[Roman]

I've never stated "un-Tolkien equals un-genre", that was you guys in an attempt to defend the ring thing, and now it's a dead duck that I shot...and now you're pretending that it's mine. Craziness.

That's actually a good point - rounser was not the one to bring Tolkien up with respect to the rings.

 

[Talislan]

I have never stated anything to indicate that rouncer brought up the Tolkien thing. I have read his discussion points and he makes valid arguments. That rouncer uses tolkien references does not mean my comments are aimed at him. In fact he is one of the people making the point that 4e does not follow the preconception of Tolkienesqu trope (however inaccurate other people may have made them) I thought I had made this clear.

My points, however badly put, are about the gamist discussion which I feel this ring business has nothing to do with. This is only my personal opinion.

 

[JahellTheBard]

Really, i do not care too much about rings rules being tolkienesque or no .. after all Tolkien is important, but not the only reference in fantasy words and D&D ... is not a question of a different rule or two that upsets me .. what i really dislike is the subject of this thread, D&D4 turning too much towards gamist conception ... i feel this is no more the game i like ... no real problem anyhow, i will stay with 3.5 ed. as long as a new D&D edition will turn again towards simulation ...

Is not a matter of saying 'New is better' 'New is worse' ... 3.5 was turning gamist, but not to the extension of killing simulation , i felt improvement where more than losses, and i switched to 3.0 as soon as books where printed ... now i just feel that the losses in adopting 4.0, as far as i know, are too many compared with the improvements, and in the end the point can easily be summed in the gamist conception ...

I'm not saying 'better' 'worse' ( besides, anyone who wants to sell something new will always tell his new version is a better one and more fun ... can you expect anything different? ) .. my feelings are that 4.0 will be D&D only because someone who owns the trademark will put it on the new rules ... but i cannot recognise it the game i like to play ... seems to me rules are done by someone who has miniatures games or pc games in mind, more than someone who like to play and have fun with friends ... at least not as i consider it ... hope in future releases they will made me rethink about it ...

 

[jdrakeh]

For D&D, I prefer a gamist approach because that is how D&D has always worked. It has always been gamist. There's an interesting passage in the AD&D 1e DMG where Gary Gygax explains that if simulation ever collided with gamism (I believe that "fun" is what he called it), gamism won out. D&D was designed as a game first, a genre simulation a distant second, and a shared story creation exercise and reality simulation not at all. If this established design philosophy is deviated from too much, then you'll have something that fails to be D&D.

 

[JahellTheBard]

You assume that 'fun' can be substituted with 'gamism' ... i believe this is an arbitrary interpretation ... in my opinion too much 'gamism' is very, very far from 'fun' concept ... and this is not the way D&D has always worked ... absolutely not.

Of course it the assumption 'gamism = fun' is true for you, you will be very happy with the new edition ... and i'm happy for you ...