D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Lanefan]

3E made big changes too - eg changing saving throws from a metagame, "fortune in the middle" mechanic where fighters (at all levels in B/X; from mid-levels in AD&D) were strong, into a simulationist mechanic where fighters were weak.

Another couple of examples: doubling down on simulationist grappling rules, and adopting simulationist "touch attack" rules, that completely changed the way a whole heap of monsters and spells played.

The comcept of touch attacks has informally been around since forever e.g. trying to touch an unwilling recipient with a 'touch' range spell, or any attack from an incorporeal undead. All 3e did was codify some rules around them; one of its better ideas.

As for saving throws, the "fortune in the middle" bit didn't change, just the numbers and means of arriving at said numbers; and the numbers change is what hosed the high-level warrior types.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes



No. But I must caution you - the unified mechanical structure in MTG isn't as samey as 4e's. It not like they said to everyone, you get 1 creature, 1 instant, 1 enchatment, 1 artifact, and you get 1 mana per turn, etc. It's not like they said all your creatures must be 2/2's that do some small additional effect. All your instants must do 2 damage with a small additional effect, etc.

Woah.

By my estimation, MtG has MORE unified mechanical structure than 4e and the analogs between the two match up perfectly.

• Same number of cards in decks.
• Same number of cards in opening hands.
• Same mulligan rules.
• Same turn structure.
• Same limit of cards in hand.
• Same mill mechanics.
• Same graveyard/exile mechanics.
• Same mana mechanics (you can put down one land per turn and tapping a land equals 1 mana).
• Same key-word structure and same format of handling stack-triggers.
• Same mechanics of attacking and defending.

The only things that are different are deck-related (the PC-build analog) which is what you're talking about here:

There's alot more variability in MTG cards and decks than there is in 4e powers. IMO.

There's also different resource rates, different creature rates, different instant rates, different enchantment rates, different needed land rates, along with very different creatures, very different instants, very different enchantments, etc.

...which you're...oddly not attributing to the different deck archetypes...but you're folding it into the general rules?

Huh?

All the stuff you've quoted in that last bit is the analog for PC build in 4e D&D. That dynamic diversity against a unified mechanical framework is actually the point I'm trying to make here.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

Woah.

By my estimation, MtG has MORE unified mechanical structure than 4e and the analogs between the two match up perfectly.

• Same number of cards in decks.
• Same number of cards in opening hands.
• Same mulligan rules.
• Same turn structure.
• Same limit of cards in hand.
• Same mill mechanics.
• Same graveyard/exile mechanics.
• Same mana mechanics (you can put down one land per turn and tapping a land equals 1 mana).
• Same key-word structure and same format of handling stack-triggers.
• Same mechanics of attacking and defending.

I think you are not sitting the unified mechanical structure from the rest of the game in the same place.

In magic you could create an all creature deck, an all instant deck, etc. You could mix those proportions up. That's flexibility in mechanical structure that allows for that.

You cannot do that in 4e. You get exactly the same of everything as everyone else. And to make it worse the stuff you get looks almost identical to the stuff the other guy gets. The mechanical structure of 4e requires that, the mechanical structure of MTG does not.

The only things that are different are deck-related (the PC-build analog) which is what you're talking about here:



...which you're...oddly not attributing to the different deck archetypes...but you're folding it into the general rules?

Huh?

All the stuff you've quoted in that last bit is the analog for PC build in 4e D&D. That dynamic diversity against a unified mechanical framework is actually the point I'm trying to make here.

And the point I'm making is that it's actually the mechanical structure of MTG that allows for less sameyness than 4e. The structure isn't just how the game is played - it's also what kind of "pieces" you are allowed to play the game with.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, things can feel same-y for different reasons.

Or perhaps they feel different for the same reasons?

Maybe, for some people, they feel different for different reasons. And different people think it feels same-y for the same reasons. Yet, the difference is the same between these same different people.

All I know for certain is that all this talk of same-y makes me want a sammy. Mmmm.... Cuban Sandwich.

So, is there anyone commenting on this thread who plays PF2? I hear it has a two in the name.

Just remember, the OP specifically asked that we not get into edition wars!

 

[Lanefan]

And that's fair.

I rank early 4e much lower than late 4e. But it's all D&D.

Which does point out a rather major error in 4e's presentation.

Someone like me - and I'm going to guess I'm not alone - is going to decide what to do with a new edition based entirely on reading through the first round of core books (PH-DMG-MM) and maybe the first few adventures. If those don't give me the whole game and-or don't impress me, I ain't coming back for more later: the chance is blown.

With 4e it seems from all I've read/heard that those who did come back for more later found it worth the wait; which is good for those people but really sounds like an overall smack-my-head marketing strategy.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, it's great. Better than most of the live action Netflix shows.

The characters in Castlevania do a lot of bouncing around the battlefield, and they have big, over the top powers, which is closer to 4e. In 4e, characters can do short teleports, change briefly into beasts, strike multiple opponents in one round, and generally have a lot more supernatural abilities. The wizards are more "power oriented" too, which fits Sypha (sp?) more closely. The ability to more easily spend hd for healing would also be a boon in Castlevania. (no handy chicken legs or roast beef scattered across the terrain in the show. )

I can kind of see it... I guess I was looking at it as most of those doing the big flashy things are... well supernatural in some way... that said I'm not trying to get into a debate about it, I was just interested in your perspective

 

[Imaro]

Did it have to be AEDU for wizards? No. But AEDU I find fits just about any fantasy setting with reliable magic that's not explicitly built round D&D tropes (and even some explicit D&D settings) better than Vancian Casting.

See comments like these throw me... I want to play D&D for D&D tropes there are thousands (probably more) of rpg's that do magic differently, if I don't want the tropes of D&D and/or it's settings... why am I playing D&D??

 

[Manbearcat]

I think you are not sitting the unified mechanical structure from the rest of the game in the same place.

In magic you could create an all creature deck, an all instant deck, etc. You could mix those proportions up. That's flexibility in mechanical structure that allows for that.

You cannot do that in 4e. You get exactly the same of everything as everyone else. And to make it worse the stuff you get looks almost identical to the stuff the other guy gets. The mechanical structure of 4e requires that, the mechanical structure of MTG does not.




And the point I'm making is that it's actually the mechanical structure of MTG that allows for less sameyness than 4e. The structure isn't just how the game is played - it's also what kind of "pieces" you are allowed to play the game with.

Ok. This is actually interesting and I think we're getting somewhere.

Everything we're talking about here screams to me that you're making several category errors (or at least some kind of arbitrary category conflation), both in MtG and in 4e D&D. But you're very confident that you're not. That issue has to have some kind of explanatory power here.

I guess let me ask you this:

What do you think about the bedrock fact that in virtually all non-aggro decks the maths have been done such that you're going to need 23-24 lands to not get your drops but not get mana-flooded/screwed? What do you feel about the "freedom" to have 21 mana in a high-cost mid-range deck...but in reality, its totally dysfunctional and not playable?

How do you perceive that? Is that "freedom" or "sameyness" (even if its emergent sameyness)?