So what's gold gonna be for?

[Mallus]

I've provided evidence that the empire builer campaign was a worse sdeller than OTHER types of campaigns.

Sales evidence can be inconclusive given the do-it-yourself nature of the hobby. The fact that a pirate-themed campaign book sold poorly doesn't prove that D&D players don't like playing pirates. It proves that they didn't buy/like the pirate book.

 

[Irda Ranger]

the Masters of Orion genre (what _IS_ the name for that genre?).

"Awesome."

Sometimes known as Chiang-Quai, meaning "the genre that is better than all the others."

Less commonly referred to, by infidels, as "4X" - Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate.

 

[Mallus]

Less commonly referred to, by infidels, as "4X" - Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate.

Thanks... for the life of me I couldn't remember "exploit".

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If in game justification means nothing to him, the groups that I know would remove him. Problem solved and the butt kicker is free to find a group that caters to his style.

That doesn't make any sense in the context of the thread. The issue is not whether a given group does or does not cater to the butt-kicker style. The issue is whether the edition does, and whether it also caters to other styles. The problem with 3.x--perhaps a tacit assumption of the thread--is that it caters too strongly to butt-kickers at the expense of other styles. However, some posters are advocating a complete abandonment of butt-kicking in favour of lumber counting, court intriguing, or doily purchasing. Some of us, myself included, are arguing that doing so would be taking things too far in the other direction. Certainly, various play styles should be supported by the mechanics, but butt-kicking should be one of those styles (and it is inconceivable to me that it might be evicted from D&D, so I don't think the butt-kickers have much to fear).

This all revolves around the question of what gold is for; for the butt-kicker, the answer is "buying things that let me kick more butt." Butt-kicking is a perfectly valid playstyle, and whether your own group is interested in it is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Kraydak]

"Awesome."

Sometimes known as Chiang-Quai, meaning "the genre that is better than all the others."

Amen.

 

[Nifft]

Butt kickers [...] It's a style of play, and one that 3.x supports very, very well. However, if we want 4E to support other styles, it should not just abandon this style in order to do so.

Very much agree.

Butt-kicking has been one of the few central attributes of D&D in all its incarnations, and indeed in pretty much all RPGs that I've enjoyed ever (including Mage). D&D needs to keep its support for this play style.

And grow support for other play-styles, too. Butt-kicking is necessary, but not sufficient.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mallus]

Butt-kicking is necessary, but not sufficient.

True + succinct = win!

 

[Reynard]

QFT. I don't know why this point seems to get missed so often.

So if the PCs don't win, the DM isn't doing his job? I have to vehemently disagree. First of all, the DM is not solely responsible for everyone's fun -- everyone is responsible for everyone's fun; it just so happens that the DM gets the bigger part of that responsibility, commesurate with his responsibility over the game and his power over it. Second of all, PCs losing a fight, having to run or otherwise "not winning" does not equal "not fun" all the time. And third, the players are responsible for running their characters and interacting with the world and situations. They make choices at every level of interaction with the game. Assuming those are informed choices, the results are as much the responsibilities of the players as they are the rules, the dice and the DM.

 

[Clavis]

Look at what books sell: character power up books. Oh, and a little something called the magic item compendium... chalk full of those things "real RP'ers" supposedly dont care about. While I'm sure many would drool over a book of fluff only feats like "Never have a bad hair day", I think WOTC should cater to their player base.

Of course, heroin sells pretty well too, but I don't think anyone thinks its a good idea to promote that.

Just because something sells doesn't mean it's actually good for the players, or the hobby. In my experience the overdone PCs who are dripping with powers and magic items get seriously boring very quickly. Players think they want to play those characters, but if they have any maturity at all they'll get bored at the lack of challenge. Extreme super-powers are addictive, but ultimately game-destroying.

 

[Greg K]

So if the PCs don't win, the DM isn't doing his job?

No. A DM that fails to take into the capabilities of the characters when designing challenges is not doing their job. If necessary, the DM should be making adjustments to fit their game. One wouldn't expect a DM of a low magic campaign to be throwing in monsters only capable of being hit only by +5 weapons if the best item in the party is +1 unless either there is some other way to defeat the monster or the monster serves some purpose other than to fight. So, why shouldn't the DM be adjusting the challenges for a party in which all or some of the characters are not optimized to the default assumption of core?