The Impasse

[xechnao]

I would very much be in favor of starting over with theorycraft.

A vote from me too for starting over

 

[xechnao]

3e fails at what exactly, because I haven't run across a roleplaying game yet that perfectly simulates anything to everyone's satisfaction. I think it succeeds for many (not all) in giving enough simulation that it is satisfying to many... and really that is all a roleplaying game can strive for.

As far as 4e "succeeding"... again at what exactly? I see this thrown about but really what are it's goals and how are the level of success in which they have been achieved not as subjective or even moreso than 3e? You're telling me there aren't roleplaying games that do tactical combat better than 4e? Or have players solve problems through the interaction of mechanics better then 4e? Not so sure it's any different than 3e in that respect.

4e succeeds in using the D20 system at its best. The structure it has build of the D20 system is more focused toward playability. It is "boardy" but theoretically it could not represent fantasy melee at all but a totally different thing -and if you wish it is not a perfect simulation of realistic melee combat -it might not even be a good one -it certainly is not towards certain instances/situations/conditions that make part of it.

But it succeeds more modeling what it models than 3e -this depends on the use of the D20 system.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I didn't assume that, I actually asked and then threw that and another example out (both broadly based on "gamist" conceits). I honestly don't know what this goal is that by most fans accounts 4e succeeded at so well... but I'm willing to hear what others believe it to be.

Without claiming this to be an exhaustive list:

- Playability at the table.

- "Challenging" the player when making "mechanical" decisions, e.g. when to use powers and abilities. Tactical Combat and the resource management are the means to this end, but not the goal itself.

- Easier to DM.

 

[rounser]

Hasn't it been confirmed that compromises for CRPG compatibility (e.g. ease of powering up) and selling miniatures are part of why 4E has turned out the way it has? And the exceptions based design and "everything is core" seems a clear effort to emulate M:tG's infinite expandibility. The admitted deliberate omission of iconic D&D features like frost giants to sell books down the track could be interpreted cynically, as could branding exercises like tieflings and dragonborn on the cover to establish new brand identity. Handing magical items to a player audience to sell more books could also be interpreted cynically.

Or is that all just rumour?

But I'm probably being too cynical. WOTC is a business, after all, and lives in the shadow of Hasbro's demands for performance. I just suspect that creating a good D&D for purposes of being a good D&D for it's own sake - rather than as a proxy for selling miniatures, books and CRPGS - is at cross purposes to a lot of these goals - if they are goals.

 

[xechnao]

- "Challenging" the player when making "mechanical" decisions, e.g. when to use powers and abilities. Tactical Combat and the resource management are the means to this end, but not the goal itself.

In fact 4e would be to my very very taste if the challenge means was the natural social "challenge" of "socialzing" that happens to be our real inherent goal too on tabletop-as social beings we are. This is what I was talking about before, some pages ago.

Of course for the sake of not ruining the discussion here I want to repeat that no edition covers this ground.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In fact 4e would be to my very very taste if the challenge means was the natural social "challenge" of "socialzing" that happens to be our real inherent goal too on tabletop-as social beings we are. This is what I was talking about before, some pages ago.

Of course for the sake of not ruining the discussion here I want to repeat that no edition covers this ground.

If you mean by "real inherent goal" that this is what we all want most, then I think you would be wrong. It is one of many things people gain from playing RPGs. But I like combat and wouldn't want my RPGs without it. But I don't want to miss the story motivations behind them, either, which can - but does not have to - include "socializing".

 

[xechnao]

And the exceptions based design and "everything is core" seems a clear effort to emulate M:tG's infinite expandibility.

How 3e was not the same thing? This is the D20 system. It is a standard system -a relativistic system (one of relative values) for example would work differently towards this end.

Or is that all just rumour?

But I'm probably being too cynical. WOTC is a business, after all, and lives in the shadow of Hasbro's demands for performance. I just suspect that creating a good D&D for purposes of being a good D&D for it's own sake - rather than as a proxy for selling miniatures, books and CRPGS - is at cross purposes to a lot of these goals - if they are goals.

This is true. But what is a good D&D? I mean even these things have their merits towards the end consumer. Perhaps you do not have or agree with the money and/or the time they require from you for the value they offer but this is a subjective thing. Many people may agree with you here. Many others may not.

 

[xechnao]

If you mean by "real inherent goal" that this is what we all want most, then I think you would be wrong. It is one of many things people gain from playing RPGs. But I like combat and wouldn't want my RPGs without it. But I don't want to miss the story motivations behind them, either, which can - but does not have to - include "socializing".

By real inherent goal I mean that it is something within us, something that makes part of our nature. Think of the process that happens on the table among the people that participate -we are social beings. And we can be in-game too: it is inevitable. Even combat, risks, facing threats could be seen through this "real" perspective. I do not know if you still get the meaning of what I want to say here. When what happens on tabletop-regarding our relationships as players is reflected in-game and vice versa, well I find it awesome to play it out. It feels more "real" because it is reflected on and reflects a real situation.

 

[Imaro]

Without claiming this to be an exhaustive list:

- Playability at the table.

- "Challenging" the player when making "mechanical" decisions, e.g. when to use powers and abilities. Tactical Combat and the resource management are the means to this end, but not the goal itself.

- Easier to DM.

And yet I have to ask... how are these things not subjective? When fans of 4e can trot out "there are better rpg's out there that do simulationism better than 3e...". Why can't the same be said for any of these goals.

I certainly have played games that have, IMO, better playability at the table (much less to track on a round by round basis), no use to pull out grided representation of the battlefield and positional markers, etc.

I have played games I would argue "challenge" the player more/better when they are making a mechanical decision, especially since 4e's balance mitigates some of the inherent risk in certain choices thus reducing the actual "challenge".

Finally, easier to DM... I love 4e compared to 3e as far as this aspect of it, but again there are other games that are still easier to prep for than 4e.

I gues what I'm saying is it's still all subjective and based around personal likes and dislikes, not some objective measurement where 3e "failed" and 4e "succeded".

 

[xechnao]

And yet I have to ask... how are these things not subjective? When fans of 4e can trot out "there are better rpg's out there that do simulationism better than 3e...". Why can't the same be said for any of these goals.

I certainly have played games that have, IMO, better playability at the table (much less to track on a round by round basis), no use to pull out grided representation of the battlefield and positional markers, etc.

I have played games I would argue "challenge" the player more/better when they are making a mechanical decision, especially since 4e's balance mitigates some of the inherent risk in certain choices thus reducing the actual "challenge".

Finally, easier to DM... I love 4e compared to 3e as far as this aspect of it, but again there are other games that are still easier to prep for than 4e.

I gues what I'm saying is it's still all subjective and based around personal likes and dislikes, not some objective measurement where 3e "failed" and 4e "succeded".

It is subjective. And it can be said the same -that is, for the goals that Mustrum said. If you are aware of games you like and consider good enough to recommend for certain goals as you are talking about you should recommend them.