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

[Dragonblade]

"Railroad" might have been a poor explanation here. I think it's more accurate to call 4e "D&D tactics" because your powers are tactical as opposed to strategic. For me, 4e games were more story-driven in the sense that players are less likely to bypass a story completely just by using elements on their character sheet ("A murder mystery?" Detect Lie, Speak with Dead, Clairsentience, Teleport, Force Cage, "bad guy's in jail, let's go kill Tiamat now!")

Yes, exactly!

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.

 

[TwoSix]

When one sees "D&D Tactics", one is going to think, "Gee, this game must be about tactics!" They are *not* going to think, "Gee, this game is about stories!"

Yes, but how well is "D&D Stories" going to sell? It sounds like a Cinemax anthology.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think two different games, or one game with swap-able parts, like pathfinder character archetypes, can solve the problem. And that is just two extreme's along the spectrum, I think there are more that would clash like this.

I'm a little more optimistic. I think the two extremes exclude a vast middle ground, and that a flexible D&D can serve even most of the extremes, if they're willing to put in a bit of work.

What it can't serve are the fundamentalists who are unwilling to play a game that doesn't adhere to their tribal boundaries. If, say, not having Martial Healing as a core rule is an absolute deal-breaker, I don't think NEXT will serve that person. Or if not having any at-will spellcasting option ever is required, I don't think NEXT will really serve that person, either. But those people aren't as interested in D&D the game as they are in D&D the banner that they can wave to prove that their fun is better than other peoples', and if they don't want to play D&D because of that....that's probably fine.

I think even most of the more passionate message board posters are ultimately not that exclusionary, though. Those folks do exist, and they do post on the boards, but I'm not convinced they're even a significant minority as much as they are a handful of folks with bigger things on their mind than a game of imaginary elves.

 

[dmgorgon]

I played 2e from the day it was released, till the day WotC published 3e. And yes, considering that the rules were basically tweaked 1e rules, you could absolutely play it in the style you talk about it.

But the tone and atmosphere that 2e tried to convey in the fluff with its implied focus on character growth (as opposed to mechanical PC advancement), and stories put it directly at odds with the underlying mechanics. Level drain, save or die mechanics, LFQW (though to a lesser extent than 3e) etc. all of these things are far better suited for running through a dungeon crawl with a PC that is a thinly veiled avatar of the player, and not for extended story-focused campaigns that didn't involve luck, house rules, Raise Dead, or DM fudging.

But now we are circling around the same play-style issues again. You will continue to disagree and present anecdotal evidence that is at odds with my own experience, and that's fine. That's why these differences are irreconcilable. What we want out of the game and how we think the game can get there are fundamentally incompatible.

Well I think SoD, aging, and Level Drain are great mechanics for a horror themed game like Ravenloft, which is anything but a dungeon crawl.

Most of the focus on 2e wasn't based on mechanics it was based on DM adjudication and role playing. 2e Kits for example are mostly role playing based packages they were not mechanical "build" options. That's why some kits are mechanically inferior to others. Some role playing concepts just didn't need many mechanics to support them.

I do agree that there are playstyle differences within the D&D player base that are irreconcilable. There are those folks who want authoring power when they play their characters and there are others who think that authoring by way of the metagame is not role playing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There are those folks who want authoring power when they play their characters and there are others who think that authoring by way of the metagame is not role playing.

To me that seems to be the big dividing line.

 

[dmgorgon]

To me that seems to be the big dividing line.

Yes it certainly is. I often wonder if it's even possible to create a default game for both playstyles.

At best you're looking at one playstyle being mostly defined in a module.

 

[Derren]

I often wonder if it's even possible to create a default game for both playstyles.

Like 2E/3E(before 4E was published)?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yes it certainly is. I often wonder if it's even possible to create a default game for both playstyles.

At best you're looking at one playstyle being mostly defined in a module.

Well, any element of "dissociation" between player and character in the core rules is pretty much a non-starter for the player=character approach. And it is exclusionary even if it's only one character or one ability, because if there is a martial healer or damage on a miss, and so on and so forth, then it's clear that the basic elements those abilities are working off of (hit points, attack rolls, etc.) don't mean what we've always understood them to mean.

Conversely, it's certainly possible to have a set of rules adopt a strict perspective of in-game causality and the player equaling the character, but to have the people playing the game adopt a more detached approach through changes in the social contract. It's also possible to add on dissociated elements in a fairly modular way (say, some kind of action points/plot points/etc., but also many other things that aren't character-specific or integrated into the existing rules).

Now, would the base game satisfy the dissociation crowd in that case, enough for them to stay on board? That would be a challenge. If I were the one writing this thing, that would be my endeavor. At least, within reason.

And yes, as [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] notes, all the previous versions of D&D do this.

 

[Obryn]

I do agree that there are playstyle differences within the D&D player base that are irreconcilable. There are those folks who want authoring power when they play their characters and there are others who think that authoring by way of the metagame is not role playing.

Must they be irreconcilable, though? I'm not so sure.

Stepping back into specifics, I gave up on martial healing and warlords in Next a long time ago. But I'm still interested, now. I got over it, especially once it became clear that D&D Next was no longer trying so hard to be D&D All. I think the designers deserve the chance to make the game they envision, and while a lot of parts still concern me, and it still doesn't look like it will end up as my main game, it'll at least have some parts that are new.

At this point, I'm trying to step back from the weird gaming philosophy stuff that I've focused too much on in the past, and focus more on working mechanics - what works, what doesn't, what's confusing, what makes my life as a DM easier or harder, etc. 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.

 

[Umbran]

"Railroad" might have been a poor explanation here. I think it's more accurate to call 4e "D&D tactics" because your powers are tactical as opposed to strategic.

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