D&D 4E So all these wacky arguments are still about 4e, right?

[Umbran]

Railroad was a poor choice of words on my part. In my group, the term doesn't have the same negative connotation it does in the wider community. When we play an AP, we know that the story is on rails, and while there may be some deviation by the PCs here and there, ultimately you're going to hit all the major plot points and fight all the villains as laid out in the story of the AP.

As if this was somehow rare in Classic? Given that 1e had the Slavers-Giants-Drow series that is the basis for the modern AP form, I'm not so sure it's a solid line to draw, or a solid statement to make that the classic play didn't have this going on. Thus, the dichotomy does not seem at all strong, to me.

Be that as it may, though, I'm not worried about the negative connotations of "railroad". I'm saying that where I come from, "story focused" does not equate to "focused on pre-written story".

In fact, I'd say quite the opposite. If the game relies on pre-writing to get a good story, then the *game* is not itself story focused. A game that has mechanics that reward making choices for good story or dramatic reasons (rather than for either good tactical or strategic reasons) would be story-focused.

 

[Emerikol]

I do not believe that everything has to be in a module. I do believe though that on the most bitter of issues like the nature of hit points the game should not have a default. The game should give us two or three modules and tell us to pick one based on the nature of our campaign. DMs should be advised in the DMG about playstyles and why they might want one or the other.

I think DoaM is a hit point definition issue more than it is a simulation issue. While many who want traditional hit points are also sim advocates I do not think it is necessary or true all the time.

There are a lot of things in the game that I do not like or would have done differently. For example, I'd like a wizard with daily only powers and no at-will cantrips. I know I won't get that and I'll probably live with it. I can also recognize that a clear majority likely want the cantrips. So if I do ban cantrips I won't feel like I'm being ignored as a customer.

I do though draw a line in the sand on hit point definition. I know that there are as many or nearly as many or more people who view hit points in my way as the other way. So I need a module. I'd prefer no default because the playerbase is very split. If the game was released as the last packet without any modules then I wouldn't buy it. I can't in good conscience support a game that is trying to put out of business other games that actually do consider my preferences. I want to support D&D but if WOTC completely ignores me then I can't support them anyway. I did that with 4e for a while out of ignorance but I won't do it again.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I can't in good conscience support a game that is trying to put out of business other games that actually do consider my preferences. I want to support D&D but if WOTC completely ignores me then I can't support them anyway. I did that with 4e for a while out of ignorance but I won't do it again.

I don't think WotCs goals are this nefarious. I expect that they simply want to revitalize their classic brand and sell some books.

They're not out to kill your favorite game, they're not trying to completely ignore you, they don't want to poison your dog or put sugar in your gas tank.

 

[Umbran]

I think DoaM is a hit point definition issue more than it is a simulation issue.

I think that as soon as you define what a hit point is, you're defining what you're simulating, so that the two are not extricable. As soon as you are strict about what a hit point is, you have to be strict about what armor is, and then you have to be strict about what a "hit" is. These are connected.

I don't think "no definition" is a reasonable expectation. To get strictly no definition, you need all things dealing with hit points to have no fluff description - as pretty much any fluff description (even "I hit you with a sword") implies a definition to the reader.

I actually hope they continue as they have, not with "no definition" but instead with vague, inconsistent definition. Nobody gets it exactly their own way, and everybody is inconvenienced, rather than outright eliminating one group from consideration.

I can't in good conscience support a game that is trying to put out of business other games that actually do consider my preferences.

As I have said in other threads, I'm pretty sure the goal is not "put another game out of business". If you have a direct quote otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Why do I say that? Because the developers can be expected to have a certain amount of enlightened self-interest. They will be aware of WotC staffing practices. WotC lets people go every year. If other games go out of business, those game developers will probably have to go get real jobs jobs in completely different industries, and most of them probably don't want that.

 

[Obryn]

Hit point definition is one of those overly theoretical and philosophical bits I'm intentionally staying out of. It's a game mechanic and a pacing mechanism, and it's incredibly incoherent if you attempt to pin it down.

So I mostly want to know how many you have compared to other stuff, how you gain or lose them, and what that means for gameplay.

 

[dmgorgon]

I don't think WotCs goals are this nefarious. I expect that they simply want to revitalize their classic brand and sell some books.

They're not out to kill your favorite game, they're not trying to completely ignore you, they don't want to poison your dog or put sugar in your gas tank.

I agree, they certainly won't try that again.

 

[dmgorgon]

I do not believe that everything has to be in a module. I do believe though that on the most bitter of issues like the nature of hit points the game should not have a default. The game should give us two or three modules and tell us to pick one based on the nature of our campaign. DMs should be advised in the DMG about playstyles and why they might want one or the other.

I've always understood hit points to have no default definition until they are used in the game. At that point they must remain what they are defined to be for the situation at hand. For example, if the DM says a goblin you didn't see hit you from behind with a poisoned crossbow bolt. Well I'd expect that to be real damage (meat) and for the poison to enter your body. I'd expect such damage to be incurable by morale based verbage.

IMO, the moment hit points are defined before they are subtracted is the moment they no longer remain an abstract pool to be freely used and defined as needed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ultimately, that will decide Next for me - what is it good at, how hard do I have to work for fun, and how all the pieces fit together as a complete game. Instead of, say, fretting about the meanings behind game mechanics, author vs. actor stance, etc. And from this perspective, most of these debates just look irrelevant, now. And I'm good with that.

Yeah, I think that a big risk of a lot of jargon and philosophy is that it might obfuscate and encourage tribalism where none need exist. Like, it's awesome to not want at-will cantrips, and it's great if you want to play D&D without it, but to dismiss 5e entirely because it includes it as a default, as if this speaks to some sort of philosophical opposition to everything you love in "classic" D&D and is some sort of concession to some unworthy party (like "new players who just want everything handed to them on a silver platter") is to cling to a sort of "purity test" for your game more than to use the thing in practice. In practice, it may or may not matter to you that the 5e core has at-will cantrips. It's kind of hard to tell from here. Talk to me this time next year.

 

[Reyemile]

But then you name the other one "classic", rather than "strategic". Mind you, I don't really buy that it is a solid dichotomy...

*I* did no such thing. You're getting posters confused

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, I think that a big risk of a lot of jargon and philosophy is that it might obfuscate and encourage tribalism where none need exist. Like, it's awesome to not want at-will cantrips, and it's great if you want to play D&D without it, but to dismiss 5e entirely because it includes it as a default, as if this speaks to some sort of philosophical opposition to everything you love in "classic" D&D and is some sort of concession to some unworthy party (like "new players who just want everything handed to them on a silver platter") is to cling to a sort of "purity test" for your game more than to use the thing in practice. In practice, it may or may not matter to you that the 5e core has at-will cantrips. It's kind of hard to tell from here. Talk to me this time next year.

Yeah, I think this is almost exactly what I've been trying to pin down.

If we talk about how they change pacing, if at all, that's an interesting topic to me. Likewise, their ramifications for settings with lower magic than D&D's default. We may not agree on what suits each of our needs best, but we can at least have an actual conversation with a common starting point.