Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[Herschel]

D&D in all of its forms since 1974 had always walked a razor's edge on the gameist/simulationist divide. Sure, when it got right down to it, gameist designs won out in every edition. But in prior editions, there was at least a PRETENSION of simulaitonism in the game rules and its settings.

Yeah, I mean really. Last Wednesday that Turbonium Dragon was bearing down on me and I pulled my Orb of Awesome out and Blasted it with Disintigrate but when the DM described that happening to my character Thursday Night it just didn't feel the same.

But at least my shorts were cleaner.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Every edition of D&D (and every RPG I can think of off the top of my head) has the powers system, many just don't have the Encounter Power level.

In preious editions all my characters actions werent powers. If i was playing a fighter i simply attacked, if i was a theif i used my rogue skills, etc. In 4e classes all follow the same power format. Just doesn't appeal to me.The whole daily, encounter, utility thing wasn't my cup of tea.

 

[Herschel]

In preious editions all my characters actions werent powers. If i was playing a fighter i simply attacked, if i was a theif i used my rogue skills, etc. In 4e classes all follow the same power format. Just doesn't appeal to me.The whole daily, encounter, utility thing wasn't my cup of tea.

Powers, exploits, moves, prayers, spells, whatever you want to call them they were there. Fighters and Rogues had basic attack-based at-wills, Wizards had dailies but they were still the same thing. In fact the Essentials Fighter and Rogue are pretty similar. They can still sit there and whack away with their basic attack modes and work fine.

4E gave wizards some stuff to do more than once a day and quantified some things for classes that (generally) had a pretty basic playstyle but it's all still there. Preferring one or the other is fine and dandy but I must say your stated reasoning comes across as rather myopic and disingenuous.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Powers, exploits, moves, prayers, spells, whatever you want to call them they were there. Fighters and Rogues had basic attack-based at-wills, Wizards had dailies but they were still the same thing. In fact the Essentials Fighter and Rogue are pretty similar. They can still sit there and whack away with their basic attack modes and work fine.

4E gave wizards some stuff to do more than once a day and quantified some things for classes that (generally) had a pretty basic playstyle but it's all still there. Preferring one or the other is fine and dandy but I must say your stated reasoning comes across as rather myopic and disingenuous.

What i am saying is the specific set up in 4e where each classes selects dailies, utilities and encounter powers just doesn't appeal to me. The way powers were done in previous editions i enjoyed. This i have a lot of trouble enjoying.

Not saying the basic concepts have been removed or added. I just dont enjoy the shape powers take in 4e. I agree the raw idea of powers exists in other editions but they play very differently. I've tried 3e and i find the power format it uses produces a much different feel than 3e.

If 4e works for you that is great. It is an innovative system that appeals to plenty of gamers. Just doesn't appeal to me. Believe me there is nothing myopic about my dislike of the 4e powers system. It simply doesn't appeal to my taste.

 

[Bedrockgames]

People just have different taste. While it is not for me i do believe 4e achieves what it set out to do, and i would be lying if i said i wasn't impressed with its design innovations.

 

[Sammael]

I'd state that 4e IS a sim game, and a far better one then 3e and 2e were.

4e simulates heroic fantasy.

3e, 2e, and 1e all tried to simulate "a fantasy world" with varrying levels of success, but in both cases, they ultimately fell short. 3e was more gamist then the previous two, but in all three, the game fell apart the more you tried to simulate "a fantasy world."

4e takes more cues from OD&D and Basic, which were open about the weirdness of D&D; giant bees, sentient jelly, and big flying balls with eyes. I linked Rythlondar awhile back and I think it's rather relevant; those guys didn't make or try to simulate "a fantasy world." It's pretty barebones, and everything that exists in the game exists for the sake of adventurers (usually for them to kill).

But I can't imagine anyone reading that and not finding cool and fun.

It's also what makes me chuckle when people talk about how WotC needs to take more cues from older editions. It did! Just not 3e

So, you're essentially saying that 4E simulates a D&D game style that's been pretty much dead for two decades (since neither 3.x nor AD&D 2nd edition embraced that style)? That's certainly possible (although in my AD&D 1st edition games, we strived to make sense of the game world much more than 4E does). But I'm still on the fence as to... why? Why did they feel the need to completely change the gameplay style, other than designers' personal preferences?

 

[Sammael]

Because for many of us, it's better?

I don't understand your question. You seem to be asking "Why are new editions things?"

I'd also add that 3e definately made many concessions to this type of style. It didn't exactly pop out of nowhere.

I don't doubt that there are a lot of people who find this style appealing (I'm certainly not one of them). What I'm questioning is the decision to completely abandon the style that was in use for 20 years in favor of the style that was basically officially discontinued for that same period. Was there market research that told WotC that there are hundreds of thousands of people playing pre-2nd edition games and who despised setting fluff, world continuity, and the simulationist approach to gaming?

Incidentally, 3e's concessions to the style came near the very end, in products such as Book of 9 Swords, which were pretty much 4e playtest material.

 

[Pentius]

I don't doubt that there are a lot of people who find this style appealing (I'm certainly not one of them). What I'm questioning is the decision to completely abandon the style that was in use for 20 years in favor of the style that was basically officially discontinued for that same period. Was there market research that told WotC that there are hundreds of thousands of people playing pre-2nd edition games and who despised setting fluff, world continuity, and the simulationist approach to gaming?

Incidentally, 3e's concessions to the style came near the very end, in products such as Book of 9 Swords, which were pretty much 4e playtest material.

(Disclaimer: I don't know pre-AD&D1e stuff personally. The following assumes Nineball's statements are correct)

Being open about the wierdness of D&D is a cue from older editions' rules, that was less prominent in the middle ones. Simulating heroic fantasy stories, as opposed to simulating a fantasy world, is a playstyle that has not by any stretch of the imagination been dead for decades.

 

[Water Bob]

1977 anachronism ROFL!

What does THACO mean?
Where are these init. numbers above 6 coming from?

1977? Isn't that Three Little Book terrirory? I don't think the 1E AD&D DMG came out until 1979!

THACO is 2E terminolgy. 1E used the combat matricies.

And, under 1E rules, you wouldn't roll initiative for spells. Use used the casting time to find initiative. The d6 initiative was used to somewhat order melee blows in combat. And, yep, it was a straight d6 throw, except for bows, which used the DEX based "reaction" modifier. Melee blows would alternate--so if you won initiative and were allowed two attacks that round, you got in one at the beginning, but the other came at the end of the round after your enemy had a chance to tag you.

 

[catastrophic]

The idea that 3e was similating a heroic fantasy world is simply a rationalisation of knee-jerk 4e bashing.

There's nothing smiulationist about buff stacking, or uberpowerful wizards who's player gets to monopolise the time his group spends playing.

There's nothing simulationist about trip attacks or fighters being boring while barbarians are lsss boring.

There's nothing simulationist about GMs having to do five times the work to make a fun encounter.

There is nothing simulationist about the rope use skill.

The bitching about the powers system comes from a very negative place. Removing the powers system and re-enstating the kind of garbage that preceeded it would not result in a less 'samey' system, quite the opposite:

After all, combat is far, far less versatile in 3e than it is in 4e. By better balancing the classes, the designers are able to do interesting, exciting, versatile things with them. While there are certainly duds and false starts in 4e class design, compare that to the endless mess of traps and OP casters you see in 3e design.

4e combat is defined by the clases and monsters, and the extremly versatile, often unique mechanics they involve. Those mechanics work because they are reasonably balanced. As time goes on, the monster builds are getting better and better- but they work because they exist in a balanced context.

3e combat is defined by buff stacking and the mega-turns of full progression casters. While 4e monsters are incresingly challenging and effective at their roles, in many versatile ways, 3e monsters are a pot luck of arbitary values and sudden death effects that tend to punish again, non-casters and fighter types, further aiding key classes in the monopolisation of time.

You can all gab on about the amazing roleplaying you're doing when the joke-pcs are swinging their swords around, but the truth is that 4e doesn't take anything away from roleplaying, world building, or simulation. It just adds a lot of quality to combat.