D&D 4E Rant on the 4E "Presentation"

[Nifft]

I think you can do it forever. Perfection is unattainable. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't set this as a goal.

Having a system for 4-10 years, then using our experience with it to improve it sounds like a good plan. Certainly from a business perspective, but I think also from my perspective as a player.
I enjoy systems well done, and I also enjoy trying out new game systems. Maybe I am in danger of being to much on the gamist side of things, and concentrate too little on the pure cooperative storytelling aspect of the RPG. But I have the impression that I wouldn't be the only one.

Streamlining doesn't necessarily mean reducing options. It think it means more predictability for the game, eliminating unforeseen (and more important: unwanted) side effects of rules applications.

Word.

I've been saying this forever: progress is good.

4e will fix the flaws in 3.5e and introduce or expose new flaws.

5e will fix the flaws in 4e and introduce or expose new flaws.

Etc. Things will get better, but won't ever be perfect, because nothing is perfect.

Cheers, -- N

 

[gizmo33]

I've been saying this forever: progress is good.

Isn't there a difference between progress and change? I would think progress would be defined as "good change" and so the statement "progress is good" is somewhat circular. It seems like on many of the threads on this board it's tempting to conclude that just because something is a proposed rule for 4E, it automatically makes it an improvement over what's come before. I happen to like most of the changes I see for 4E, as far as I understand the details they've given. But I don't think that, even if you don't like a rule, another rule picked out of the air will be an automatic improvement. In these cases, invoking "it's different so therefore it must be better" isn't convincing to me.

 

[Vigilance]

I'd agree with this. The Time of Troubles seemed like needless world-shaking for a rules change. For me, it wasn't that epic world-changing events were occurring, it was that they seemed so... pedestrian. Even at the time I was underwhelmed.

Mind you, my major impression was from the novels, so my viewpoint may be skewed.

In other words, if FR is "Michael Bay", it's been that way for 20 years or so.

And you know what? It's pretty apparent that not all people associate Michael Bay with bad movies, given the way Transformers DVDs seem to be flying off store shelves.

Cue the swelling orchestral music with American flags waving in the background on a lovely street in middle America.

 

[Nifft]

Isn't there a difference between progress and change? [...] In these cases, invoking "it's different so therefore it must be better" isn't convincing to me.

Obviously, change without improvement isn't an improvement. As you yourself mention, change and progress are not identical.

I do think 4e is progress, because the stated design philosophy takes into account a lot of what I saw as problems in 3e. They may utterly fail to adhere to this philosophy and deliver crap, but I don't think that's as likely as them sticking with it and producing something good.

Looking at 2d -> 3e -> 3.5e -> PHB-II + ToB, I do see progress. So I expect that to continue. It's not an unreasoned assumption.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

And you know what? It's pretty apparent that not all people associate Michael Bay with bad movies, given the way Transformers DVDs seem to be flying off store shelves.

Could also be they're watching for something other than the acting.

Just like I'd re-play Baldur's Gate II or Planescape: Torment for something other than the wonky game mechanics.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Odhanan]

Word.

I've been saying this forever: progress is good.

4e will fix the flaws in 3.5e and introduce or expose new flaws.

5e will fix the flaws in 4e and introduce or expose new flaws.

Etc. Things will get better, but won't ever be perfect, because nothing is perfect.

Cheers, -- N

I don't even know that things get that much "better" with "progress". To me, that's a human illusion. Progress, change... these things just "happen". No better. No worse. It's just different. Is 3.X that much better than 1E ? I don't even think so. They provide different types of pleasures. Will 4E be "better" than 3.X ? I don't think so. Nor will it be worse.

Now the real question is... do I want the change?

*looks at his Ptolus, Rappan Athuk, Wilderlands, Aereth, City of Brass materials*

Not really, no. Not at this point in time anyway.

One would have to convince me beyond a doubt that the change is good to make me switch right now.

Spending gazillions of dollars on the same type of books and supplements again? Nah, not really appealing.

Virtual stuff and online magazines? Nope.

Streamlining stuff and so on? That sounds better.

Changing the rules as much as to say "don't bother converting, just do it over from scratch" ? Doesn't sound good to my ears nor the books I want to keep on using.

I don't believe in the 19th century concept of "progress is always good". I just look at my situation and decide whether progress is worth it for me. So far, nothing screams "buy me!" coming from the 4E front.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't believe in the 19th century concept of "progress is always good". I just look at my situation and decide whether progress is worth it for me. So far, nothing screams "buy me!" coming from the 4E front.

Welcome to the Dark Side.

RC

 

[Odhanan]

Welcome to the Dark Side.

RC

Same reason why I still don't have a cell phone or an iPod, by the way.

 

[JoeGKushner]

From my perspective, the Time of Troubles gave me an excuse to trash the city of Saradush (along with my fellow Bhaalspawn), so it wasn't all bad.

And this is another major difference.

Not only could you play through a series of adventures (which were rail road to the max) but it provided you as a GM with the event to run as opposed to a Star Flash and 100 Years latter.

 

[hong]

And this is another major difference.

Not only could you play through a series of adventures (which were rail road to the max) but it provided you as a GM with the event to run as opposed to a Star Flash and 100 Years latter.

If you just want to trash Saradush, it's a feature. If you also want the possibility of saving Saradush, it's a bug. In the latter case, you might as well just fast forward to 100 years later to avoid dashing expectations.