Screw Nostalgia

[Ahnehnois]

This bears repeating because it cannot be understated.

Nostalgia and the appeal of classic D&D tradition and "feel" is a more powerful force than the people who hold the game's traditions in contempt want to admit...

I actually don't think that's true. I haven't played or even seen the early editions of D&D; 3e is the only one I've ever owned books for. And I'm quite critical of its mechanics and have extensively rewritten them. I don't play in Grayhawk or FR. I don't use dungeons. I wouldn't touch a published adventure. Classic D&D "feel" is totally irrelevant to me. I don't like Vancian spellcasters and I would be quite happy to get rid of hit points. I'm all for innovation. I use PF and TB and some non-d20 ideas because there's some legitimate innovation there.

And yet I'm still playing 3.X D&D, because it lets me do what I do. I'm not the only one.

The unfortunate idea in play here is that various new mechanics were rejected by the market simply because they were different, but I think the market is more intelligent than that, and there is a good reason why we are where we are.

5e has to innovate mechanically, it just needs some better ideas.

 

[ExploderWizard]

True awesome just happens during play. It cannot be designed for or predicted in any way and it always comes from the player. What edition is being played or whats on the character sheet does not affect the awesome.

Awesome is itself a power, but not one any character can choose. The appearance of awesome is unpredictable. It is something that cannot be looked at directly, but must be glimpsed briefly out of the corner of your eye lest it vanish.

Every player has access to this rare and special power but can never know when it will manifest itself. Such is the nature of awesome. When such a power is activated, everyone will realize it immediately.

 

[Steely_Dan]

While I agree with Woody Allen on "...tradition is the illusion of permanence...", I do feel nostalgia/heritage/vibe etc has a place in D&D (and we have the mechanics and lore divide), that's why I am sitting down with the Basic Rulebook (1981, Moldvay), 1st Ed PHB, 2nd Ed PHB, 3r Ed PHB, 4th Ed Rules Compendium and Heroes of books and seeing what I can come up with.

So for 5th Ed (not calling it Next, that's too Pepsi Zero or what-have-you, D&D Extreme etc), as of now, it just might give me more spices to work with, or be a self-contained version that I enjoy.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Let's say the DM lets you play a high-level wizard in a newbie campaign. Everyone goes to raid a kobold nest. You cast meteor swarm and burn it to the ground. Is that awesome?

Yes.

It's awesome to the onlooker. And the players are, to some degree, onlookers. They are audience as well as participant. From the wizard, from Superman, from the ice skater's perspective, the incredible things they do are mundane, everyday. But from the point of view of the comic reader, the member of the audience, yes, what they do is awesome.

We don't play roleplaying games every day. At least I don't. We get to play high power characters even less frequently. So as players, our experience is unlike that of the high-level wizard. And that's what makes meteor swarm awesome.

I'll give you an example which makes meteor swarm look pretty pathetic by comparison, it's the most awesome thing I've ever done in a rpg. It was a oneoff game. My PC was a Norse god by marriage, a superhero who wielded Thor's hammer, Mjolnir. In this world the pope was a villainous Satanic occultist, and the PCs were a UN superhero team outside the Vatican, demanding his surrender, but fearing a diplomatic incident as the Vatican is a sovereign nation. We decided we must act. I located the pope with my X-Ray vision and hurled Mjolnir at him. The GM described Thor's hammer blasting thru physical walls and layers of magical wards, destroying both as it sped towards its target. Just at the last moment, the pope stepped thru the portal to Hell he had been setting up and escaped. To me that was cool and awesome, and AWESOME. No dice were rolled, it wasn't a critical hit, everything was pure description. We were using a totally freeform GM fiat system, so you pretty much get to be awesome if you and the GM think you are. That, and a later incident where I destroyed a sort of gigantic World-Serpent/Lloigor type bad guy with one hurl of Mjolnir, were the two most awesome moments I've experienced in roleplaying.

Moments of lucky crits and the like mean very little to me, I'm honestly struggling to recall any.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Awesome is when everyone is dying while the fighter is staring down a dragon's maw with 3 HP left, and he swings his sword and crits and brings it straight to -10. AWESOME is when the rogue uses his daily power to trick the bad guys into attacking themselves and it's supposed to be really awesome but then you realize that the rogue is just going to use the same power tomorrow and probably the next day and the day after that until he gets a new one, and by the third time you've seen it, you're feeling that it's not really that cool anymore.

You're not comparing like with like. Daily powers, in any edition, while more exciting than any edition's at-will powers, aren't intended to be awesome. Likewise, critical hits, in any edition, happen often enough that by themselves they aren't *that* thrilling. They are quite exciting, but not hugely so.

The 4e equivalent would be, say, a campaign ending fight with Orcus, that ends up being really close and it looks like the PCs are going to lose, and then a lucky critical on a daily power wins it. Close fights are entirely possible in 4e. In fact the system is constructed so as to make them more likely.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Third post, but I think something about the bold all-caps keeps bringing me back to this topic.

I think I can go along with the definition that succeeding when there is no challenge is not awesome.

However, barring the possibly straw man examples of obviously unbalanced abilities, nothing that has been raised so far seems to guarantee success.

Yeah, I don't really understand B.T.'s objections. 4e produces challenging fights as is, and gives you all the tools you need to easily make fights more challenging, if that's what you want.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Nostalgia and the appeal of classic D&D tradition and "feel" is a more powerful force than the people who hold the game's traditions in contempt want to admit...

I hold all traditions in contempt, not just those of D&D. It's how I roll. But I'm perfectly happy to admit that nostalgia and classic feel are powerful forces. There's no other way to explain D&DNext's design approach, for one thing.

 

[Steely_Dan]

4e produces challenging fights as is, and gives you all the tools you need to easily make fights more challenging, if that's what you want.

To me they often seem a grinding, foregone conclusion.

Do love the monsters, though.

 

[Tortoise]

So you're saying you want Baydragons!?

Actually if there's one thing Bay should be in charge of in D&D it's dragons. Can't have fire-breathing death-monsters without BAYSPLOSIONS!

Wait, so if Michael Bay did a remake of Watchmen would it be Baywatchmen?

owowowowow! I think my soul just imploded.

 

[Storminator]

To me they often seem a grinding, foregone conclusion.

Do love the monsters, though.

Whereas I've been playing 4e since it came out, and haven't seen a single fight like that yet. They've all been either quick or possible-TPK-nailbiters.

PS