Should D&D (or any other RPG) actually attempt to be "All Things to All People"?

[Crazy Jerome]

I think if you go back and read that guys post, no where does he add the "f I wanted to show my pre-teens how to play" part. I think, perhaps you are inferring it where there was nothing to infer.

Since he was complaining about being taken out of context, I did go back and look (before I responded at all). It was in the 3E/PF section, via comparison. This is exactly how the analogy worked out in the Basic/Advanced arguments.

I'm not saying it was deliberate. I am saying, when you say things like, "Oh yeah, 4E is great for combat! And meanwhile over here on the 3E/PF side..." you invoke all the people who did say things like that with some attitude.

It's perfectly possible to say in passing, "I would use Basic to teach my kids how to play," and it be entirely sincere and complimentary. If you do that in an environment where Advanced fans have been sneering at the childishness of Basic, you will get called on it. Well, if you are lucky, you will. If the environment is too toxic, you'll suddenly just have a bunch of people discounting what you say when all you did was innocently stumble into a prior argument.

 

[ahayford]

I don't know who these people are who think you can't roleplay in 4E -- "I don't have a talk to innkeeper at-will!" -- but there are plenty of people who see well-defined powers unconnected to the "reality" of the in-game world as an impediment to playing a character who lives in that world.

What is the difference between some of the 4e abilities and the way 3e presents magic, impossible archery shots and melee cleaves (3e feats ) as part of fitting in a "world"?

 

[mmadsen]

What is the difference between some of the 4e abilities and the way 3e presents magic, impossible archery shots and melee cleaves (3e feats ) as part of fitting in a "world"?

The player and the character both have the same understanding of 3E spells and feats; their limitations exist in the game world. For instance, to cleave one orc in twain and hit the second with one axe stroke, the barbarian needs two orcs standing next to each other.

The player and the character have very different understandings of 4E powers; their limitations exist primarily within the game mechanics. For many martial exploits, the player needs to allocate daily and per-encounter uses of these flashy moves. He knows when the character can or cannot pull off moves, but the character has no reasonable way to explain how he knows he can or cannot perform his super-move now or later. The character also has no way to explain how he moves opponents around the game board, when the "fluff" description doesn't make sense, like pushing a stone golem around or taunting an ooze, or whatever.

 

[Pilgrim]

Since he was complaining...<snip>

First off what I said was:

This would be the game demoed and introduced at local stores, just like Encounters, for getting new players familiar with D&D on the most basic level.

Now, to my knowledge, the word "new" does not equate to the words "kid" nor "preteen", so I'm not sure why that would be brought up in the first place. New players, more often than not, who are interested in learning a new game are going to be checking it out at a local game shop. This is why WotC pushes Encounters and D&D Game Days, this is where new players get the most out of their experience playing the game.

As a player, I'm all for role-play, but when you have limited time, such as in Encounters and GD events, it tends to get pushed to the side a bit so that the players can get into the adventure, encounter nasty critters, kill things, get the treasure and save the day.

Not to mention that new players aren't always the most forthcoming when it comes to "role-playing", many tend to shy away until they feel comfortable with a group of players, some simply don't know how. When you play a game that is mostly dungeons crawls and combat, you don't have to worry about such things, RP can come later.

It's usually easier for a new player to get a feel for a game that is constrained to a time limit if it is more hack n' slash vs an in-depth RP heavy session. Therefore a skirmish style game would be much easier for a DM to arrange at a local store for demonstration.

To say that pulling out the combat system and applying it to a skirmish game is some how "badwrongfun" or a slight against 4th Edition is ridiculous. Especially considering WotC has already done so; just look at Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon. Both of these are board games where WotC stripped out the combat system and dropped it dead center into a skirmish game. And players seem to love playing them.

 

[JeffB]

I don't know who these people are who think you can't roleplay in 4E -- "I don't have a talk to innkeeper at-will!" --.

Don't give Mearls or Buhlman any ideas, please

 

[ahayford]

The player and the character both have the same understanding of 3E spells and feats; their limitations exist in the game world. For instance, to cleave one orc in twain and hit the second with one axe stroke, the barbarian needs two orcs standing next to each other.

The player and the character have very different understandings of 4E powers; their limitations exist primarily within the game mechanics. For many martial exploits, the player needs to allocate daily and per-encounter uses of these flashy moves. He knows when the character can or cannot pull off moves, but the character has no reasonable way to explain how he knows he can or cannot perform his super-move now or later. The character also has no way to explain how he moves opponents around the game board, when the "fluff" description doesn't make sense, like pushing a stone golem around or taunting an ooze, or whatever.

Maybe its because I play a lot of video games, but I personally have no problem accepting the reality of limited use powers and how they fit into a game world.....and perhaps that is the difference between people that grok 4e and like it, and those that find it off putting.

I guess the way I look at it is an abstraction of concepts like "mana" and "stamina". Rather then having to keep endless bookkeeping of energy, its boiled down into simpler concepts like at use, daily, etc.

I can understand your point of view though. Thank you for clarifying and providing concrete examples.

 

[ahayford]

First off what I said was:

To say that pulling out the combat system and applying it to a skirmish game is some how "badwrongfun" or a slight against 4th Edition is ridiculous. Especially considering WotC has already done so; just look at Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon. Both of these are board games where WotC stripped out the combat system and dropped it dead center into a skirmish game. And players seem to love playing them.

These games are a blast btw. I pulled these out during a visit with some of my old gaming buddies (we live far apart now) and we had a blast. We all missed our dnd days but really didnt' have time in the brief visit we had to play any real RPG. 0 prep time and no DM. Add a little beer and pretzels and fun was had by all.

 

[Bluenose]

I agree that most of the generic systems emphasize the system, and many of them, as an explicit move away from D&D, make combat grim and gritty, but a generic system doesn't have to be heavy, and it certainly doesn't have to be grim and gritty. I do think it has to remain vaguely tethered to reality, but it can drift off in the same ways the most action stories do -- with not-at-all grim combat, for instance.

Heroquest and FATE don't exactly come out as 'grim and gritty', and the former is certainly a generic system - the latter has been adapted to several genres, and I tend to think rather successfully.

The difference in play style doesn't come simply from the game mechanics though. When you decide to play Pendragon, you decide to play as knights in Arthur's semi-mythical England. D&D might fail you in any number of ways -- no one's shield is ever brast asunder, no one's ever unhorsed, etc. -- but plenty of people tried campaigns that weren't JRR Tolkien meets RE Howard back in the old days.

I'm not sure that you could adapt D&D to suit Arthurian Romance without either losing a large amount of what appears to be important in the genre or getting so far from D&D that it would be hard to recognise as the same game. And in some ways, D&D is better suited to Arthurian Romance than a game like GURPS or Runequest, given the remarkable resilience (in the form of hit points in D&D) that high-level characters show in the stories. If you want a game where even the toughest and most experienced warriors are at risk in any combat from normal weaponry, then D&D probably isn't a good choice where GURPS or Heroquest could be - and that is a matter of game mechanics.

 

[amerigoV]

It is much the same with this issue. I can understand having a game you like. But flat refusals to play anything other than one game befuddle me to a certain extent. I guess it is a different set of priorities, but it is hard to true understand that set.

I used to be this way, so I will give my view. I played 1e, left at 2e, did some home brew system, came back whole hog to 3e, left at 4e to Savage Worlds.

During 3e, I really did not want anything to do with anything other than 3e fantasy. For the longest time, I thought it was my pure preference. The reality was that I am a system mastery guy - I like to know the rules both as GM and player. While I thought I did not like other genres, the reality was that I did not like learning new rule sets. D20 did not help bridge this - usually the system had to be redone to "make it work" that very little system mastery carried over.

And speaking of system mastery, whoa did 3e require an investment, both monetarily (splats, supplements, etc) and time. After all the time, money and system mastery, I really did not want to fuss with other systems given my limited gaming time. 4e feel into that catagory - it was going to be another large time and money investment. I am not a 4hater, but it really was not going to give me anything better for my money, just different.

I am more open to systems now, but Savage Worlds is my go-to system as it does a nice job across genres and is Fast Furious and Fun. Its not all things to all people, but it does work very well for the groups I play in. It has opened a ton of new gaming options to me and allows my group to focus on playing their characters and not futzing with the rules.

 

[JeffB]

Heroquest and FATE don't exactly come out as 'grim and gritty', and the former is certainly a generic system - the latter has been adapted to several genres, and I tend to think rather successfully.

HeroQuest ( and I'm assuming you mean the revised HeroWars game by Issaries, and now somebody else, that was written by Robin Laws) was designed explicitly for Glorantha and has been that way for nearly 10 years. Only recently was it repackaged as a generic system in order to drum up some sales.

That said, it should appeal on a generic level as long as one is OK with a VERY different system that emphasizes the cinematic, and eschews pre designed crunch (instead having the GM and players working together to make nearly everything up from whole cloth). Abstract in the extreme, and thus your average D&D player will hate HeroQuest...at least that was my experience. I however LOVE the system.