Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5744790" data-attributes="member: 27160">That's not too bad an outline. There needs to be some danger of failure, as well - "opportunity for failure" is quite a good way of putting it. It should be such that incompetent play will result in disaster, but a modicum of competence will reduce the probability of that to minimal levels. Unless this last is the case, we hit one of the "impossible things before breakfast2 of the roleplaying hobby - the wish to experience extended campaigns playing longstanding characters who face terrifying prospects of annihilation at every turn. Yeah. Good luck with that...Once past that, however, the fun derives not merely from success but from the optimality, the style of the success. To be able to seize the coups d'oeil, make the inspired moves, pull off the neat combinations of powers (often between two or more characters) is the essence; not simply the success, but the elegance and élan with which success is gained. This, at least, forms a sustainable model for gamist enjoyment, we find.If the aim is simply to "win" - to survive, or whatever - then I agree "competing" with a combat system can be tedious.Around 1981-2 several of the folk I gamed with (and in some cases still game with) drifted away from D&d because this was what we hit. We spent some time with a system designed by Cambridge mathematicians that required a reasonable level of numerical acuity to master. It involved rolls to cast spells that could be modified by adjusting the range, area of effect and saving roll modifier and carried the risk of character insanity upon failure. It involved combat attack systems that allowed aiming at weak spots in armour, dodging to use tough armour to advantage and involved careful "feeling out" of unfamiliar opponents to gauge their quality through an understanding of the maths of the combat moves. The systems were masterpieces of mathematical elegance that make the vaunted "system math" of 4E look crude and clunky by comparison.In the end, though, this system failed to do what 4E has finally achieved. I have gradually come to realise that what was elegant and admirable about this suite of systems was the rules themselves. What 4E achieves is to give the players opportunities to put together the elegant, the 'cool', the praiseworthy moves and combinations that garner kudos from around the table. For me, the focus is finally where it should be: not on the rules, not on the DM's "story" or the extravagant dungeon description - but on what the players actually do while actually playing.I look at this rather differently. I think 4E finally hit the nail of what D&D always had the capacity to be good at, but never really achieved. Older editions of D&D now seem to me to try to mix up several design agendas - and as a result they don't really achieve any of them well. Houseruling to "drift" the rules to support what you want out of them becomes almost mandatory; being fed up with that is what drove me away initially. Not that I'm complaining too much: I got to experience a great many games as a result, several of which are very fine at what they do. Those who have never tried Pendragon, DragonQuest (the RPG, not the boardgame travesty), HârnMaster, Bushido, Daredevils, Traveller and several others are really missing out, I think.After 15 years or so, however, I have returned to D&D because I have found an edition that finally does one thing well, IMO. I still play other games for other 'agendas', but 4E is, for me, finally a D&D that knows what it's trying to do, and is doing it.Personal opinion: comparisons of oWoD and nWoD pretty much have to be on metaplot and setting, because the system sucks for both! Don't get me wrong: I think WoD has a really strong setting. Mage, especially, I love to death. But it's a classic case where I wish the publisher had offered only one element of the System - Setting - Scenario triumvirate, and made it the 'Setting' one.As an aside - if you have or can find the old, diceless "Theatrix" system I find that can be used for WoD with minimal modification and with WoD character generation.This sounds to me much like "exploring the situation" type of "story" - essentially simulationist play. But I could be wrong.Good advice: I always do <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification