So what's gold gonna be for?

[Lanefan]

If you mean "instant gratification of the PCs within the gameworld" then, again, there is no reason to believe that to be true. PCs in 4e will suffer from time to time, just as PCs in every other RPG suffer.

If, on the other hand, you mean "instant gratification of the players at the gaming table", then I hope so! When I sit down to play any other game, I get the instant gratification of the pleasure that particular gaming experience delivers. Why should D&D, which is (after all) a game, competing for my time with other possible games, not also be fun to play?

Here we need to define "gratification". The game design over time seems to have originally defined it as a) the fun of killing (and looting) things along with role-playing with the other people at the table - in other words, enjoyment of what your character and party *does* in the game; moving today to a more mechanical definition b) that equates to power-ups and level bumps, in other words enjoyment of the *rewards* from what the character did in the game rather than the actual doing of it. I hope that makes sense; it's awkward, but I can't think of a better way to put it.

From there, how - and how often - does that gratification occur? In definition a) it occurs just about every time you sit down at the table and play, simply via the act of playing...even when bad things happen, you've still got stories to tell afterwards. In definition b) it occurs only on either level-up or on acquiring a new item, and thus the design has made sure those things occur more often via faster advancement through more levels and relatively easy-to-acquire magic.

Of course, many players gain gratification from both a) and b), but the design focus has certainly shifted over time.

Now, if your point is really that you don't enjoy playing a game where much of the play experience is interacting with, and mediated via, the rules, then that is a different thing. For such a person, 4e will not be gratifying, whether instantly or otherwise.

I'd rather have much of the play experience be interacting with the other players and the game world, mediated by the DM, with the rules hovering somewhere over on stage left ready to make their presence known only when required.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

The game design over time seems to have originally defined it as a) the fun of killing (and looting) things along with role-playing with the other people at the table - in other words, enjoyment of what your character and party *does* in the game; moving today to a more mechanical definition b) that equates to power-ups and level bumps, in other words enjoyment of the *rewards* from what the character did in the game rather than the actual doing of it. I hope that makes sense; it's awkward, but I can't think of a better way to put it.

I don't know if I fullly agree with your characterisation of (b) - is the pleasure in the power-up itself, or in the mechanical options (especially wrt character build) that the power-up gives rise to? I've read 4e designers expressly saying they want more of the latter (that is, more meaningful character build with each level).

From there, how - and how often - does that gratification occur? In definition a) it occurs just about every time you sit down at the table and play, simply via the act of playing...even when bad things happen, you've still got stories to tell afterwards. In definition b) it occurs only on either level-up or on acquiring a new item, and thus the design has made sure those things occur more often via faster advancement through more levels and relatively easy-to-acquire magic.

Agreed, even with my suggested revision of gratification type (b) - to get the pleasures of character build, the relevant opportunities - which in D&D are level-up and magic item acquisition - must be granted.

Though with respect to type (a), I would add that sometimes the gratification doesn't come just from sitting down at the table - for example, if my PC is dead or otherwise precluded from participating in the events of the gameworld, then typically I don't get to do much participating at the table. Aspects of the 4e rules - per-encounter abilities, changes to save-or-die, etc - are designed to overcome this problem (whether successfully or not remains to be seen, but I'm moderately optimistic).

Of course, many players gain gratification from both a) and b), but the design focus has certainly shifted over time.

No doubt about that. I'm one of those who think that 3E and 1st ed AD&D are the same game in brand name only.

I'd rather have much of the play experience be interacting with the other players and the game world, mediated by the DM, with the rules hovering somewhere over on stage left ready to make their presence known only when required.

As I think I replied to you on an earlier thread, I think that 4e is not going to support the sort of play you're looking for all that well. But it occurs to me now that I may be wrong: it is possible that the changes to the action resolution rules will be such that you can get more type (a) gratification, and that this will outweigh (for you) the unhappy impact of those parts of the rules designed to offer type (b) gratification.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Hundreds of products, thousands upon thousands of pages dedicated to dungeon delving.

Becasue it's the hard part , doing a good dungeon is time-sink for a DM. One can transplant a dungeon into pretty much any setting.

There should be a reason for all the gold beyond going adventuring some more.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

4e will probably have the best-developed rules of any version of D&D for the design and the resolution of combat challenges.

Bingo.

But if the rumours are true, it will also, probably, have the most sophisticated set of rules both for both the design of, and the resolution of, social and environmental challenges.

What I have been trying to say consistently is that the CORE of D&D is killing things, taking their stuff, and powering up so that you can repeat the process. The challenges and the scenery change, but the core experience is the same. I have never said that that was the TOTALITY of the D&D experience.

Folks, the free market has adequately proven that people want to "Kill things, take their stuff, power up, repeat." It makes sense for D&D to continue to design to its core function, to make it play as smoothly as possible-- approaching but of course never eclipsing the ease and efficiency that World of Warcraft has achieved in that respect.

However, as a starting point for design, D&D needs to serve that core function with ever greater efficiency.

AND THEN...

Design has the luxury to go back and improve the efficiency of the other peripheral promises of D&D.

So I don't think it fair to say that it will be far more about combat.

No, but it's absolutely fair to say that when it IS about combat, the combats will be bigger and more exciting and they'll run a lot smoother than they used to, and you'll be able to do it over and over in the same session without bringing the session to a halt for any one of a number of stumbling blocks.

If killing things, taking their stuff, and levelling up is what you want to do-- and I suspect that's what most people want to do-- then 4e should be the best edition of D&D yet to do it.

If, on the other hand, you mean "instant gratification of the players at the gaming table", then I hope so! When I sit down to play any other game, I get the instant gratification of the pleasure that particular gaming experience delivers. Why should D&D, which is (after all) a game, competing for my time with other possible games, not also be fun to play?

That's a huge issue. 4e is going to run more efficiently...

Supposedly... I have my concerns about 4e, but the design impetus and design philosophy are not on the list.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Is it? I think it is going to be far more about combat

How, exactly, could a game be more about combat than 3.5 is? The overwhelming majority of the rules are about combat, combat scenery, combat equipment, uses of skills in combat, combat spells, places to have combats in, things to have combats with, etc. That it is possible to do something with the system besides run combats is, frankly, amazing. In fact, most of the time, non-combat situations do not interact with the rules in any way. You can get through a whole session without rolling a die as long as you don't fight anyone. But as soon as you roll initiative, you're cracking open the books full of combat rules.

If you wanted to squeeze more about combat into the rules, you'd have to start removing flavour text to fit it in. But there seems to be a bent toward providing extra flavour text, to the chagrin of those who don't really want that much of it.

I think the only realistic way to increase the amount of combat there is would be to just ban roleplaying. No playing in character, no scene description. Just one room full of monsters after another ad infinitum. Kill kill kill.

That isn't going to happen, and therefore 4E isn't going to be more combat focused than 3.5. If the focus on combat changes at all, it will be reduced, since that's the only direction it can really go from here.

 

[Reynard]

I think the only realistic way to increase the amount of combat there is would be to just ban roleplaying. No playing in character, no scene description. Just one room full of monsters after another ad infinitum. Kill kill kill.

That isn't going to happen, and therefore 4E isn't going to be more combat focused than 3.5. If the focus on combat changes at all, it will be reduced, since that's the only direction it can really go from here.

There's actually a couple ways. One is to redefine the dungeon as a gauntlet and an arena instead of a place to be explored, where layout and occupation are designed specifically to flow monsters at the PCs continually, instead of pointing your design at promoting exploration, discovery and other non combat elements.

You could also redefine social interaction as combat without the blood, removing the need to engage in roleplaying and instead making sure the players' focus is on the numbers written down on his character sheet instead of the DM.

You could ensure that there are no effects or dangers that are so deadly that they would make the PCs consider options other than combat when faced with them, choosing instead, perhaps, to flee or parlay or find an alternate route (which would be impossible anyway, since the dungeon wouldn't have alternate routes).

Finally, you could eliminate resource management that directly affects combat so that the players have to make strategic decisions about when, how and under what circumstances they decide to engage in battle when other alternatives might exist.

But you're right -- none of those things would ever happen.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

There's actually a couple ways. One is to redefine the dungeon as a gauntlet and an arena instead of a place to be explored, where layout and occupation are designed specifically to flow monsters at the PCs continually, instead of pointing your design at promoting exploration, discovery and other non combat elements.

You could also redefine social interaction as combat without the blood, removing the need to engage in roleplaying and instead making sure the players' focus is on the numbers written down on his character sheet instead of the DM.

You could ensure that there are no effects or dangers that are so deadly that they would make the PCs consider options other than combat when faced with them, choosing instead, perhaps, to flee or parlay or find an alternate route (which would be impossible anyway, since the dungeon wouldn't have alternate routes).

Finally, you could eliminate resource management that directly affects combat so that the players have to make strategic decisions about when, how and under what circumstances they decide to engage in battle when other alternatives might exist.

But you're right -- none of those things would ever happen.

Good post, Reynard.

I think you're a bit unfair on point #2, since players have been asking for years and years for a system that allows their PCs to be more intelligent, more wise, and more charismatic than the players themselves are.

It's not fair to take a player who is otherwise unequipped and put him on the spot, demanding that he roleplay the encounter where he seduces the elf queen with the butter supple loins.

In this circumstance, "Ok, give me a roll!" is every bit as fair.

We do not require the player to prove that he can bend a 1" thick steel bar before allowing his character to make his escape; so should it rightly be with any other kind of encounter.

(More to the point, 4e will still allow you to roleplay out the encounter if you so choose.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

There's actually a couple ways. One is to redefine the dungeon as a gauntlet and an arena instead of a place to be explored, where layout and occupation are designed specifically to flow monsters at the PCs continually, instead of pointing your design at promoting exploration, discovery and other non combat elements.

The designers have said nothing whatsoever which suggests that this will be the case.

You could ensure that there are no effects or dangers that are so deadly that they would make the PCs consider options other than combat when faced with them, choosing instead, perhaps, to flee or parlay or find an alternate route (which would be impossible anyway, since the dungeon wouldn't have alternate routes).

3e specifically recommends that 5% of encounters be overpowering, with an EL 5 or more above the party level. I see no reason 4e will be different. In fact Mike Mearls mentioned Keep on The Shadowfell would have an overpowering encounter. There's your dangers so deadly other options have to be considered.

And why should a piddling SoD make you reconsider? Get Death Ward up and wade right in.

Finally, you could eliminate resource management that directly affects combat so that the players have to make strategic decisions about when, how and under what circumstances they decide to engage in battle when other alternatives might exist.

We know that Scorch, a powerful attack will be 1/day. So will Second Wind. Vancian casting is still in. Resource management is still in except now it's for all the party, not just the wizard and cleric. Environmental factors are still in.

But you're right -- none of those things would ever happen.

Yep.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

There's actually a couple ways. One is to redefine the dungeon as a gauntlet and an arena instead of a place to be explored, where layout and occupation are designed specifically to flow monsters at the PCs continually, instead of pointing your design at promoting exploration, discovery and other non combat elements.

You seem to be suggesting that this is what they're doing. I can only assume you're referring to Mike Mearls's post on the subject of creatures from adjacent rooms being able to respond to the din of combat without totally hosing the party by throwing off the delicate EL balance. This isn't "flowing monsters at the PCs continually." This is addressing the problem in which the orcs in room 2 don't come to see what all the noise in room 1 is. The dungeon isn't being designed to funnel monsters down onto the PCs' swords. Rather, they're expanding the idea of a combat area to include more than one room at a time. Mind-boggling, I know, but there you have it.

Also, since when have dungeons not been, to some extent, a gauntlet/arena in which fights are set up to occur? You go into the Caves of Chaos. Lizardfolk are there. You fight them. They were put there for you to fight while you explored the Caves of Chaos. If we see this sort of thing in 4E it's not because they're ramping it up, but because we've always been doing it.

You could also redefine social interaction as combat without the blood, removing the need to engage in roleplaying and instead making sure the players' focus is on the numbers written down on his character sheet instead of the DM.

So, are you trying to say that The Burning Wheel is more combat-heavy than D&D 3.5? That's certainly a unique thesis.

You could ensure that there are no effects or dangers that are so deadly that they would make the PCs consider options other than combat when faced with them, choosing instead, perhaps, to flee or parlay or find an alternate route (which would be impossible anyway, since the dungeon wouldn't have alternate routes).

I'm not sure how they would remove the concept of "monsters, traps or other challenges that are too dangerous for you to fight, disarm, or otherwise overcome," but I'll believe it if you can cite it. Are you suggesting that there is going to be something built into the game that prevents a DM from having his players run into a giant and being forced to parlay because they'd never be able to kill him? Or that a DM couldn't place a trap that can kill any of the PCs outright, forcing them to take another route? Traps go up to level 30 now, so I expect finding one will be easy.

And where are you getting this idea that dungeons (or adventures in general, perhaps) are now one long tunnel down which monsters run to their inevitable doom at the hands of the PCs? If you have some evidence that I won't be able to take any existing published adventure, from any source, and convert it to 4E, I'd like to see it.

Finally, you could eliminate resource management that directly affects combat so that the players have to make strategic decisions about when, how and under what circumstances they decide to engage in battle when other alternatives might exist.

3rd edition wizard: Well, we've been adventuring for ten minutes, and now I'm out of spells. We need to rest for 8 hours.
3rd edition cleric: You mean 24. I only get my spells back once per day.
3rd edition fighter: Man, these bloody spellcasters and their "strategic decisions!" I'm still almost at full hit points!
3rd edition cleric: Why do you think I'm out of spells? I had to convert them to heal you, just like I do every single time we go adventuring.

4th edition wizard: Okay, we've been adventuring for a couple of hours, and I'm all out of my big once per day effects.
4th edition fighter: Yeah, and I'm starting to get pretty beat up, since I've used up my second wind already and the cleric is out of healing.
4th edition cleric: So, do we call it quits for now, or do we go for one more combat?

...so yeah. Strategic decisions.

Or are you trying to say that resource attrition is going to be excised entirely from the new edition?

 

[Doug McCrae]

4th edition cleric: So, do we call it quits for now, or do we go for one more combat?

That's an interesting point. With PCs never being below 80% resources the decision over whether to continue or stop becomes much trickier.