The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[Janx]

The rules are not the same for npcs as they are for pcs.
The difficulty of a task is based not on the task but on the character level.
All wizards get better at climbing.
The black knights and pirate captains ACs are both based first on challenge level, not what they are.
Square fireballs and 1-1-1 diagonals.
The list goes on and on.
And I understand the point of the changes.
And it really isn't the changes themselves so much as the driving philosophy that led to them and colors the entire game experience.
And I don't claim they ruin anything, but they detract a bit at a time. In the end it is B-.

I haven't read 4e rules. What BryonD mentions as a short list of faults, some I agree with, some are meh.

Each edition had people in the prior edition thinking it was crap, 4e had the most dramatic changes to my eye. I could have taken the spirit of the 4e ideas, and not as dramatically changed the game. I think that bugs a lot of people. Moreso than the "they changed my game" reaction we normally get at each edition.

Since I can have and have told a variety of kinds of stories in 2e and in 3e, I'm certain I could do those same stories in 4e, or some other RPG.

To the OT then, the 4e experience may be the most dramatically different than the others. The prior editions had mostly the same classes, same races, same spells, same combat handling. 4e took out a bunch of classes (Bard?) added new ones, and changed what everybody could do, and when people talk about it, and "roles" and "Job" it just doesn't sound like the same game. Character ideas that would have worked in 1-3e just don't work in 4e (barring the new books adding stuff).


I think the complaint is, the differences in this revision are greater than the differences in all the other versions. In a way, all the people who complained about the changes in prior editions look like whiny nit-pickers. Because 4e made more changes in total to the game, than the others did.

I'm not gonna say 4e isn't D&D. It's got it printed on the cover by the owner of the copyright. I guess it is.

 

[BryonD]

What BryonD mentions as a short list of faults, some I agree with, some are meh.

Well, just to be clear, some people think my list are all awesome things about 4E, and that's cool. I'm not saying everyone should agree that they are problematic to fun play. But some people find them distinctly problematic to certain playstyles.

I think the complaint is, the differences in this revision are greater than the differences in all the other versions. In a way, all the people who complained about the changes in prior editions look like whiny nit-pickers. Because 4e made more changes in total to the game, than the others did.

IMO this is not it. I don't think the changes in 4E are any greater magnitude or in quality than the 3E changes were.

I'm not gonna say 4e isn't D&D. It's got it printed on the cover by the owner of the copyright. I guess it is.

Well, this quibble has gone back and forth.

4E is D&D.
A baseball is a ball.

If you want to play pre-4E D&D using 4E, you may find your experience is comparable to trying to play basketball with a baseball.

 

[Janx]

4E is D&D.
A baseball is a ball.

If you want to play pre-4E D&D using 4E, you may find your experience is comparable to trying to play basketball with a baseball.

lol.

I remember pre-4e, explaining to a friend's friend about D&D when he was thinking about joining the group. He had played WoW and asked a lot of questions along the line of role in the party, ala tank, defender, etc.

I remember being a bit thrown off. In all the editions I played (2x-3x) we usually started newbs off on what class we thought they could handle (figher being the baseline), and from there, asked them:
do you want to be like a swashbuckling erol flynn
an archer dude, maybe like Legolas from LotR
a big burly heavy armor wearing guy with a big weapon
or like some other fighting guy you've seen in a movie

That basically told us where to put his stats, and what equipment to buy. No talk of role. he was the fighter. Do what yer good at when the game starts.

And so it would be with the other classes.

Whereas in 4e, that WoW player's talk sounds like it would mesh right into 4e concepts.

 

[shadzar]

Some people ARE saying that. The trick is discerning who is saying it when.

Because, again, calling a game "bad" is a POV construct, that, while it may contain objective metrics, is ultimately a subjective opinion being expressed through the imperfect conduit of language.

Yup. to some it is that simple, when a subjective word is used such as "good" or "bad" it is always the view or the speaker.

As to this part...

they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games"

"4e is a bad game" =/= "non-simulationist games are bad games"
"4e is a bad game" =/= "I don't like non-simulationist games"

Someone can think 4e is a bad game and think non-simulationist games are good games, even if they feel 4e is a non-simulationist game.

That is one of the problems with the Rome analogy and trying to be all inclusive.

Not everyone will think ALL non-simulationist games are bad or good, even if they consider 4e to be one.

When people mention the minis that you replied that too, you need to look at some minis games to get the idea.


DDM sets up a combat where you pick a small group of figures and play on a limited selection of maps. This is like other CMG such as Clix games.

Warhammer setups up a combat where you pick your group, then pick you abilities for members of that group (such as attack power, defense power, weapons, armor, feats, skills, etc), and each combat can be had it a newly designed arena. 4th edition is a step closer to a full blown minis wargame than DDM because the focus.

Warhammer even lets you connect those combats with story, and decide, before combat, story that gets you there. Once you are in that combat box, the rules exist for that lengthy simulated combat. Warhammer and 4th edition offer some pretty strong rules based on movement parameters, flanking, moving other pieces, ranged and CQ combat, etc.

Likewise BOTH can easily ignore any interconnected story to get you there. Yes previous editions could be just strings of combat, but in comparison to 4th they weren't as developed on the combat front. So it is that direct mention of minis in the games mechanics, coupled with the direct focus on the combat, that makes 4th edition scream miniatures game to many.

The fact you can add "story"/"narrative" to them, doesn't make it a stronger resemblance to something else. Monopoly can have story added, but it doesn't make it an RPG. You do play a "role" in Monopoly, but it is the role of yourself in a combined real world and monopoly mini world contained within the board. The games where you play the role of yourself, are the ones where you are an armchair general.

Again it is all about perspective. One person says "4e isnt' D&D to me", "4e is a tactical miniatures game", and someone else feels they have to defend it.

Just accept what the other person is saying as their view, even if you dont have the same view. It doesn't affect your ability to play.

If you fear that a furthering of that view by many others may change the game and move it away from a version you like to use to one you don't like to use then, Welcome to D&D. You have now finally had the "D&D Experience". Where what you play is nullified as valid and changed by the masses to something else. Continue to use your edition of choice, with those others you can find to do so, as others have done for nearly 40 years.

4th edition is to D&D, what X-2 is to Final Fantasy.

 

[pemerton]

I absolutely find myself focused more on seeing how it plays out, and how that impacts the larger story.

In my experience 4e is not different in this regard from other FRPGs I've played. The diagonals and square fireballs stuff doesn't effect this, for me, because these sorts of issues are very rarely important to the larger story going on in my games. (I've noticed many differences from Rolemaster that have an effect on overall play, for example, but the movement and fireball issues aren't among them.)

Obviousy, for others this is not so.

The rules are not the same for npcs as they are for pcs.

This is true and false. In combat, the resolution rules are the same for NPCs. Out of combat, they may or may not be, depending on what resolution method is in play (generally, in a skill challenge there is no roll for an NPC - the NPC's contribution is reflected by the DC for the skill challenge). The build rules obviously are different.

The difficulty of a task is based not on the task but on the character level.

<snip>

The black knights and pirate captains ACs are both based first on challenge level, not what they are.

I'd put it this way - what the task is, and who the knight and captaion are, isn't known until a level is assigned. This is why I make the comparison to HeroQuest's pass/fail cycle - in HQ, difficulties are set based on the number of previous successes or failures (the higher the ration of success to failure, the greater the difficulty). The GM is then obliged to narrate the situation so as to ground that difficulty in the gameworld.

You can say I'm not describing your game.

The above do describe my game (although I've offered some glosses).

I think it's (in part) about whether the experience at the game table is closer to discovery or closer to authorship. I think these non-simulationist features push the game experience in the direction of authorship. They make the metagame overt at the table.

 

[pemerton]

Warhammer even lets you connect those combats with story, and decide, before combat, story that gets you there. Once you are in that combat box, the rules exist for that lengthy simulated combat. Warhammer and 4th edition offer some pretty strong rules based on movement parameters, flanking, moving other pieces, ranged and CQ combat, etc.

Likewise BOTH can easily ignore any interconnected story to get you there.

<snip>

The fact you can add "story"/"narrative" to them, doesn't make it a stronger resemblance to something else. Monopoly can have story added, but it doesn't make it an RPG. You do play a "role" in Monopoly, but it is the role of yourself in a combined real world and monopoly mini world contained within the board. The games where you play the role of yourself, are the ones where you are an armchair general.

Newsflash! Some people play FRPGs as series of narratively unconnected combats. Almost as if they roled up high level PCs and took on the various gods in DDG!

I guess that never happened before 4e.

Also: another use of Monopoly to shed light on the nature of 4e as an RPG.

Keep it coming!

 

[Hussar]

I actually quite agree with you that there is a key difference between MMOs and Tabletop RPGs. That is a big part of my fundamental theory on "why 4E isn't as popular", they tried to focus more on getting MMO players than they did on retaining tabletop players. (Stand disclaimer, if you don't know it, just ask)

But, you need to be a bit careful with this particular reasoning.

I've had it explained to me that "beer and pretzels", getting together with friends is more important than system, is a big piece of the marketplace that I don't take sufficiently into account. There are more than one way to "role play" and, as much as I personally like "in character" stuff, I know that there are people who simply like to experience an empowerment by proxy kind of exercise. (No value judgment implied, just noting difference). I'd say that this kind of play is much more focused on the exact same "I"m a cool powerful dude", that is key for the great majority of WOW players then it is on role or persona.

Yes, the distribution is different, I think vastly more table top gamers role play. But the expectation isn't mandatory and rather than being a discrete differences between MMOs and tabletop, you have just identified different positions on the same spectrum.

And, I think in the same way that you can role play during any game, you are able to not roleplay in a game as well.

I'm talking about the presumptions that THE GAME makes. And this is mostly directed at those who are pointing to things like guilds and the like. You certainly can role play during an MMO. But, the MMO itself does not presume that you will. You gain nothing from the MMO itself by joining a guild. You might gain things from your guild mates, but, that's beyond the scope of the MMO.

In the same way, you can certainly play D&D or any rpg without role playing. Heck, pick up a module, run a group of characters through it with 1 person playing both the DM and the characters. Not a whole lot of roleplaying going on there.

But, rpg's presume that you will take on some (excellent phrasing btw) emotional investment in the persona you take on. And, not only do they presume this, they actively enforce it as well. Playing your character "out of character" is seen as a big, big no no in RPG's, to the point where you may even be penalized by the mechanics for doing so.

MMO's do not do this.

 

[Hussar]

/snippage


From you guys, though, I'm more interested in the least extreme example of what you might consider "doesn't feel like" and "isn't".

Heh, the "least extreme example", I like that.

For me, you'd have to lose the level based stuff and the classes, I guess would be my first, knee jerk reaction. I mean, I could play a fantasy game with Savage Worlds, but, it really wouldn't feel much like D&D.

Any time the presumption of taking on a persona was removed, that would definitely be a deal breaker for me. But then, I wouldn't even see the new game as an RPG, let alone D&D.

The basic assumed structure of D&D as well - that you start off relatively weak and then build up to amazing cosmic power (and, yes, believe it or not, even in 4e, you do start off relatively weak) by the end.

------------

Just a thought. DannyA, because you know a lot more about this than I do. How is a HERO emulation of D&D different than a retro-clone?

 

[BryonD]

In my experience 4e is not different in this regard from other FRPGs I've played.

I've readily agreed on multiple occasions that people take different things from different games and have different expectations.

And, IMO, (though a very strong opinion) 3E provides a much better platform for the kind of experience that 4E fans like than 4E provides for 3E fans. That isn't to say that 4E isn't vastly better for 4E fans, it certainly is. But I see 3E as having much more of a blank slate, whereas 4E has a sort of grain to it. Obviously, if that grain matches the way you were already playing other games, then that is bonus value added.

This is true and false. In combat, the resolution rules are the same for NPCs. Out of combat, they may or may not be, depending on what resolution method is in play (generally, in a skill challenge there is no roll for an NPC - the NPC's contribution is reflected by the DC for the skill challenge). The build rules obviously are different.

I prefer it to be false and false.

I'd put it this way - what the task is, and who the knight and captaion are, isn't known until a level is assigned. This is why I make the comparison to HeroQuest's pass/fail cycle - in HQ, difficulties are set based on the number of previous successes or failures (the higher the ration of success to failure, the greater the difficulty). The GM is then obliged to narrate the situation so as to ground that difficulty in the gameworld.

Again, don't know Heroquest, so no comment there.

But I reject your statement about "isn't known" for anything that I'm looking for in a game. I picture WHO he is and the level comes from that, not the other way around.

Edit: and second to that, and more importantly, even once a level is selected, while a higher level opens doors to better AC, it in no way directly influences, much less establishes a "math works" "right/wrong" baseline for what that AC should be. The spectrum between 4E and 3E here is
A) Level locks in AC
B) Level directly establishes a baseline that can be tweaked
C) Level directly moves AC some degree
D) Level has no direct impact, but allows increasing indirect options
E) Level is completely unrelated in any way

4E is at B. I am disinterested in anything above D.

The above do describe my game (although I've offered some glosses).

I think it's (in part) about whether the experience at the game table is closer to discovery or closer to authorship. I think these non-simulationist features push the game experience in the direction of authorship. They make the metagame overt at the table.

Well, now we are back to the beginning.
And as I said before, I don't accept that the gamist things would add to the "authorship", as you put it relative to how my games already are. Maybe 4E brings your game to where my 3E game already is. No offense intended. but if you are praising the addition of something and I already have it, then there is a major difference right there.

 

[BryonD]

MMO's do not do this.

Other than this declaration, I don't think we are disagreeing.

And I'm kinda torn on that.

I have no doubt that you can play table top RPGs with no investment.
I have no doubt that you can play MMOs with great levels of investment.

I think we both agree that the odds of finding great investment are much higher if you pick a random table top group.
But both platform certainly allow for both styles.

But maybe your word "presume" is good. Maybe tabletops presume investment, but you can get by without it, while MMOs don't presume it and simply leave room for it if you want to bring it along.

That certainly fits back to my premise about why MMO players did not end up flocking to 4E.