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

[NoWayJose]

@NoWayJose... I got nothing for you. Thanks for showing your true colors though. Now I know I can ignore you for the rest of this conversation.

You know, that's totally understandable and I regret and apologize that my parody/satire went too far towards satire, and I never actually intended to single you out specifically. It was meant to be more of a wide area bomb. It reflects my frustration with the process, but that's my personal problem.

 

[BryonD]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]..you were saying that the experience of playing with one was better than playing with the other. That's subjective... and that's all I was saying.

Experience is subjective.

Within the specific context that I was speaking, the differences are specific and objectively observable.

That does not mean you don't have a great time and it doesn't mean 4E isn't good at what it set out to do.

 

[Lalato]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]... Actually... no. You said it was better... full stop.

Both 3.x and 4e set out to make a fun D&D experience (whatever that is ). Sure, they may arrive at the experience in slightly different ways, but they set out to do the same thing. It's subjective whether or not one arrives at the "fun" part for sure... and that's where a qualifier of "in my experience" comes in. A qualifier of "at what it set out to do." does not make sense in this context.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am not at all convinced that 3.x and 4e set out to give players the same experience.

I am not at all convinced that 1e and 2e do so, or 2e and 3e.

It seems to me that a driving goal of edition change is also a desire to present a different form of experience. The core strengths of various editions point toward attempting to drive particular experiences, IMHO.

Saying that 3e and 4e are both good games doesn't mean the experience is the same. It might be, if you play(ed) one of them in a way not consistent with its core strengths. I.e., if you played 3e like you play 4e, they provide the same experience. But the core strength of 3e is different than that of 4e, and you probably didn't get (and maybe didn't want) the best of what 3e has to offer.

Likewise, if you play 4e like 3e, you probably aren't getting the best of what 4e has to offer.

IME, people switch editions because they want a new experience, something that isn't fully supported in the game they are currently playing. And no game can fully support everything!


RC

 

[Mallus]

That said, if a given set of mechanics are forcing me to dream up more narrative and-or more detail than I or my group really want, I'm going to end up either ditching those mechanics or bailing on the narrative details.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. FYI... the level of narrative gloss applied to power use varies quite a bit in my group; it all depends on people's mood and energy level. Sometimes we just use straight power names and numbers, other times we dress the raw mechanics up with a good bit of fiction.

Even when we're tired we usually manage something to tie the mechanics to the game's fiction, even if it's little more than a character's catch-phrase, like when our Communist Avenger --who's Avenger powers are powered by something called "Dialectical Materialism"-- declares an opponent "an enemy of the people".

But, if you see "opportunity" in 4E, then that says to me that you were just missing out in whatever game you are comparing it to.

Missing out in what way?

So if you were not doing this in 3E, you ARE now in 4E.

Oh no, we did the same thing in our 3e campaign; attached our own fiction to the official game mechanics. All the time. In great, heaping bushels. Of fiction. The only difference was in our 3e campaign we were usually replacing the fiction which was already attached to the mechanics, whereas in 4e we were usually attaching fiction to mechanics which didn't have any, or at least enough.

In both games we made a lot of our shi stuff up (and ran with it). In neither game was this seen as burdensome.

A good game of 3E is much better than a good game of 4E.

For you, sure. For us, I'd say it's a wash. The truth is our 3e and 4e games are very similar; the focus is on bold, outlandish, and more-or-less morally indefensible characters exploring and working their will on detailed fantasy worlds which sit right on the (disputed) border between homage and parody (and satire and surrealism).

Likewise, if you play 4e like 3e, you probably aren't getting the best of what 4e has to offer.

Like I said to BryonD, my group is playing 4e a lot like the way we played 3e... could you go into a bit more detail? (did I just RC to expound on something??!!??)

 

[Raven Crowking]

From the sounds of it, Mallus, you were trying to get (from 3e) a play experience that 4e offers in spades. So, of course you are going to be happy with 4e. For your playstyle, you get more out of it.

OTOH, would you be surprised if other playstyles get more out of 3e, because 3e is designed with those playstyles in mind? Likewise, I feel sure that you can see how AD&D 1e is designed with different play assumptions than 2e, or 3e, or 4e.

Assuming a successful game design, the closer your playstyle matches the design assumptions of the game, the more you will get out of that particular game. It simply facilitates your needs better.

(Going through the really long, long process of redesigning ground-up from the SRD has, if nothing else, made me think a lot about how expected playstyle informs game design, and how game design can facilitate or hinder particular types of play!)

IOW, that quoted bit is supposed to mean, "If you play 4e using the playstyle expectations designed into 3e......" rather than how you, personally, played the game. I hope that makes sense.

RC

 

[BryonD]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]... Actually... no. You said it was better... full stop.

Both 3.x and 4e set out to make a fun D&D experience (whatever that is ). Sure, they may arrive at the experience in slightly different ways, but they set out to do the same thing. It's subjective whether or not one arrives at the "fun" part for sure... and that's where a qualifier of "in my experience" comes in. A qualifier of "at what it set out to do." does not make sense in this context.

I certainly don't agree with your characterization.

They both set out to make a fun table top fantasy role playing experience and they went about it in VASTLY different ways with vastly different priorities. And as a result they produce significantly different experiences.

They set out to do very different things. They are alike in that they are table top fantasy role playing games. But they remain very different. Just as baseball and basketball are alike in that they are both physical sports, and yet they are very different.

 

[pemerton]

I was referencing the jumping scenario only. I wrote earlier that I thought '3 jumping cards' was a bad example for carrying the entire weight of the argument, but you vouched for it, so I went with it all the way. Now I think it's falling apart over red herrings. Perhaps you should tackle the Beguiling Strands post instead?

Lalato already handled Beguiling Strands - the target is entranced, wanders away and has his/her mental resolve weakened (ie takes psychic damage).

As for the jump cards, they're still a fine example. And Eyebeams handled it upthread - in a game in which a player has 3 jump cards, his/her PC can't overcome challenges in the game by jumping more than 3 times a session. Why would you have such a mechanic in your game? Perhaps to force some diversity (this is part of the rationale of 4e's encounter powers). Assuming the game is one with a lot of chasms, then some time the player with the 3 jump cards is going to have to have his/her PC use a rope, or fly, or something else.

And if you can't come up with ingame reasons why jumping won't work - the chasm's too wide, the wind too strong, the ground too slippery, the PC's legs too tired, etc, etc - then you probably shouldn't be playing that game.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see what the problem is here... or why you bring it up as an example (of what?).

Great reply - sorry I can't XP you again yet.

 

[BryonD]

Missing out in what way?

Creativity without the "narrative burden".

Oh no, we did the same thing in our 3e campaign; attached our own fiction to the official game mechanics. All the time. In great, heaping bushels. Of fiction. The only difference was in our 3e campaign we were usually replacing the fiction which was already attached to the mechanics, whereas in 4e we were usually attaching fiction to mechanics which didn't have any, or at least enough.

In both games we made a lot of our shi stuff up (and ran with it). In neither game was this seen as burdensome.


For you, sure. For us, I'd say it's a wash. The truth is our 3e and 4e games are very similar; the focus is on bold, outlandish, and more-or-less morally indefensible characters exploring and working their will on detailed fantasy worlds which sit right on the (disputed) border between homage and parody (and satire and surrealism).


Like I said to BryonD, my group is playing 4e a lot like the way we played 3e... could you go into a bit more detail? (did I just RC to expound on something??!!??)

I already said I believe you play 4E exactly the way you played 3E. I strongly believe that 3E supports 4E style play, if desired.

I don't know if you truly can't see the difference, or for argumentative purposes you simply refuse to admit it. It really makes no difference.

But you are the one that used the term "creative opportunities". If that is an addition you are receiving from 4E that you did not have in 3E, then in 3E you were missing out.