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

[Jhaelen]

I would have three product lines:

Great idea!

Dungeons and Dragons RPG - this would have been 3.5 or some variation thereof

Bad idea! There's not yet been any edition that would actually be a good basis for a roleplaying game. They'd have to come up with something new that is radically different from any previous edition of D&D. I'd imagine something along the lines of the Burning Wheel.

Dungeons and Dragons: Skirmish/Dungeon Crawl - this would be basically what we see as 4th Edition

Yes and no. Using the 4e rules unchanged would result in a way too complicated skirmish game. You'd have to trim down the rules to something a tiny bit more tactical than the 'Castle Ravenloft' boardgame. OR just use the DDM 2.0 rules

Dungeons and Dragons Classic - this would be a product line for keeping the older editions in-print. This would not be a reprint of any one particular TSR edition, but a cleaned up and concise edition keeping with what older edition players are used to and prefer.

Impossible! You'll have difficulty finding even two D&D players who agree on what should be included and what shouldn't.
EVERYONE will hate it because their favorite rule has been omitted or changed!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Edit: [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION], it's not the "4e isn't D&D" meme. It's the "4e isn't an RPG" meme. Or "Hur hur. 4e is WoW" meme. I don't argue with people who say it's not D&D - I have a lot of sympathy with that view.

Again, whether or not you have sympathy towards "4E isn't D&D" doesn't make the statement less hostile or condescending.

 

[pemerton]

WotC could have just as easily kept D&D 3.5 (as the RPG they already had) while taking the D&D Minis product line and making that their flag ship for the new combat system we see in 4E. Had they done so, they could have possibly reaped the rewards of both the 3.5 fans while at the same time drawing in more players who enjoy less of the RPG side of gaming through the combat system of 4E

<snip>

I never said, though you're inferring, 3.5 is a better RPG than 4th.

I'm confused - you say that 4e as a minis game would have "drawn in more players who enjoy less of the RPG side of gaming", and you think this is not saying that 3.5 is a better RPG than 4th. I don't get that.

you can take the opinion that 4E is a better game for RPing that 3.5 if you like

It's better for the RPG I want to play. It may not be better for you. I'm pretty confident it's not better for BryonD. There are different playstyles out there. 4e suits some of them. (And I'm not talking about the "tactical skirmish" playstyle. Like Neonchameleon says, I'm talking about non-simulationist RPGing, which is supported by 4e's metagame mechanics in action resolution, and it's support for metagaming in encounter design.)

RP has always been disassociated from the rules and mechanics, so the argument is null.

Not everyone agrees with this. I think that mechanics have a big influence on RPing. A simple example: in Runequest a character has separate attack and parry skills - if another character hits your character in melee, you roll you parry skill to block the blow. In Rolemaster, attack and parry come from the same bonus pool, so each round in melee you get to choose how much your PC favours attack over defence, or vice versa. The Rolemaster mechanic opens up the door to playing one's PC as reckless, cautious etc - a mechanical decision that matters to RP.

(This example is also enough to refute the suggestion that combat is at odds with RP. But there are plenty of other examples, including The Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel, that are available if required.)

4e has a lot of these sorts of mechanics. They're what distinguish it's approach to PC build from other editions of D&D and other mainstream fantasy RPGs.

if you want to argue that RP is associated with the rules and mechanics and that 4E does it better than 3.5 or PF, then I'd suggest starting another thread, since that has been the rub of many players who despise 4E and made the claim that it isn't a good RPG due to the fact that it is designed like an MMO video game, is a combat centered game, is designed with RP as an after thought, so on and so forth.

I'm assuming that you're not actually asserting, yourself, that it is a fact that 4e is designed like an MMO video game and is designed with RP as an afterthought. Also, I'm not saying that 4e is a better game than 3E/PF per se. I'm saying that it's better for the sort of game I want to run.

As for how that sort of game works, check out any number of recent threads: "In defence of the theory of dissociated mechanics", "Is D&D about combat", "5e announcement cancelled", "Could WotC please everyone", "5e toolkit", and probably others I can't remember.

 

[pemerton]

There's not yet been any edition that would actually be a good basis for a roleplaying game. They'd have to come up with something new that is radically different from any previous edition of D&D. I'd imagine something along the lines of the Burning Wheel.

I'm in the camp that thinks that they have come up with something a bit like Burning Wheel - namely, 4e!

In defence of my sanity - Luke Crane et al mention 4e in their recommended gaming at the back of the Adventure Burner; and the Adventure Burner is great GMing advice for 4e (and once again reminds me of the many weaknesses and opportunities missed in the 4e DMG).

But anyway, good post!

 

[ahayford]

A lot of these threads have gotten me thinking...and perhaps this isn't an original thought but....I honestly think the primary reason 4E has gotten the reputation of being "not for roleplaying" is that many, and in fact the launch adventure (Keep on the Shadowfell) are all combat heavy, linear slogs. Their adventure format even kind of encourages this (although when you do have an encounter, I actually really like their layout and even tactical advice on how to play the mobs). If 4E had launched with something more akin to the Paizo style adventure path or module (ie something more fiction heavy, investigative, explorative) I honestly believe we would be seeing much less of these type of complaints. If someone's first and only exposure to 4e is an adventure like most of the published WoTC ones, I can totally understand that.

I also believe 4E changed to much too fast. I understand the desire to sell new splat books and campaign content, but I think changing both the lore of a lot of the DnD universe AND changing the mechanics was just to radical for a lot of people.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It's all just rationalization. The real answer to the stink raised over 4E is that in this particular edition change, those who were left behind refused to accept it, and instead chose to fight the adoption of 4E by the D&D community tooth and nail.

 

[billd91]

The implication that 4E is a tactical skirmish game more than a RPG, which you DO imply when you say they should have kept 3E as D&D and released 4E as an expansion of DDM, is a variation of the 4E isn't D&D meme which is basically the heart of the Edition War. The statement that 4E isn't D&D is both hostile and condescending, and it merely being somebody's opinion doesn't make it any less hostile or condescending. The opinion and statement represent a refusal to accept the validity of other people embracing a D&D that doesn't fit your definition of D&D.

So implying that 4e isn't D&D is hostile and condescending and requires a vigorous defense, but people getting pissed that 3e has been declared unfun or worthy of ridicule are overreacting. Good to know, I was wondering at the consistency of the standards being applied here. Now I know.

 

[Pour]

The real nice thing about editions of anything is that they, by their inherent nature, don't invalidate one another. They leave everything from a previous edition intact, then start in on something new, and then eventually leave that edition intact and move on to something new. The only ones invalidating anything are the people who feel the need to elevate one over the other, or defend one by bashing the other, or otherwise play some silly argumentative games for +20 pages.

This boggles my mind, as the only real complaint that could be made against a new edition is that the older edition is no longer receiving support, and at this given time EVERY edition of D&D is being supported, very well in fact, and even forging ahead into new, divergent design. I'm not sure I can even think of an honest complaint a new edition could have of an older edition, save whatever detrimental attention designers might give to it (at a cost of new settings versus endless conversions, or the risk of apologist design moving mechanics backward instead of forward).

Everyone's entitled to their opinions of how and why and what they might have wanted, and certainly everyone will have a preferred edition. There's good discussion in there, but this venom that always froths to the surface is really aggravating.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, that's quite enough edition warring. Time to leave the history of an edition change of three years ago in the past. This thread is not supposed to be about the changeover from 3e to 4e, it is supposed to be about the nature of games, and what they should try to be.

So, please drop that line of discussion. Thank you.

 

[billd91]

The real nice thing about editions of anything is that they, by their inherent nature, don't invalidate one another. They leave everything from a previous edition intact, then start in on something new, and then eventually leave that edition intact and move on to something new. The only ones invalidating anything are the people who feel the need to elevate one over the other, or defend one by bashing the other, or otherwise play some silly argumentative games for +20 pages.

This boggles my mind, as the only real complaint that could be made against a new edition is that the older edition is no longer receiving support, and at this given time EVERY edition of D&D is being supported, very well in fact, and even forging ahead into new, divergent design. I'm not sure I can even think of an honest complaint a new edition could have of an older edition, save whatever detrimental attention designers might give to it (at a cost of new settings versus endless conversions, or the risk of apologist design moving mechanics backward instead of forward).

Everyone's entitled to their opinions of how and why and what they might have wanted, and certainly everyone will have a preferred edition. There's good discussion in there, but this venom that always froths to the surface is really aggravating.

I think you've got some good points but I would quibble a bit over the question of ongoing support. Support by another publisher that can't provide or use all of the materials the parent company could may not be enough for some people. For example, I like Pathfinder and I like Golarion, but I also really like Greyhawk. If Greyhawk were being supported currently, there would be a disconnect between the parent company's support and the company where I get my rules now. Plus, the PF stuff I buy can't incorporate any of the withheld IP from the parent game - no mind flayers, no kuo-toa, no slaad.

To one person's eyes, that may all be small fry. But I'm not particularly comfortable with telling people they shouldn't feel that way. I've encountered far too many gamers, playing all sorts of games, far too hung up on canon and hierarchies of canonical sources to totally dismiss the issue. There's a pretty good feeling to being part of something big that progresses the underlying story of a campaign or game. Just ask fans of Legend of the Five Rings with the card tournaments they had that would affect the metaplot, or fans of Traveller and the real-time Travellers' News Service updates in JTAS or Challenges magazines. In the case of the TNS, metaplot elements of the 5th Frontier War and Shattered Imperium were revealed through that mechanism. And though I know the Shattered Imperium was fairly controversial, watching it unfold was pretty cool. I got a lot of ideas in campaign enrichment from the TNS.