What direction will D&D head in?

[Hussar]

3e and 4e (4e to a greater extent) make it possible to play D&D with a very high percentage of session time devoted to combat - 60%, 70%, 80%. You couldn't do that in 1e and 2e, at least not with non-casters, because for non-casters combat was so uninteresting.

So d20 makes a new style of gameplay possible. Ofc you could still play it with much less combat, but you're no longer forced to by the system. In that sense one could say 4e encourages combat.

Umm, what?

Considering that the first decade or so of D&D was pretty much nothing but dungeon crawls and killing stuff, I think you're playing pretty fast and loose with your definitions there.

Heck, expanding what I said, OD&D, and Basic D&D did not reward roleplay in any form. There are no rules that reward any roleplay in there at all.

Looking at the old Dragon magazine articles, you'll see examples of campaigns where people had gone through literally dozens and dozens of characters. The idea that older versions of D&D were more heavily invested in role play certainly is a very strange claim.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Hussar - as I stated earlier, I think 4e is worse off for RPing because of the very large "don't ask don't tell" policy with anything remotely "simulationism" or coherent world building. There's simply too many cases off "just stop thinking about it" for me to really get into.

It'll be great for one shots, of this I have no doubt; games where you don't WANT to get in depth, you just wanna be ACTION HEROS who chug Powerthirst and ride off to save the day - and I'm not trying to be insulting about that, because hell, I'd be willing to bet everyone, sooner or later, wants to play that kind of game. I know I do on occasion. But for something deep and world-changing, I don't think 4e really gives what you need.

 

[RFisher]

Considering that the first decade or so of D&D was pretty much nothing but dungeon crawls and killing stuff, I think you're playing pretty fast and loose with your definitions there.

Two points:

A dungeon crawl is much more than combat.

Just about every story about B2 I’ve heard anyone tell was about what happened in the keep, not what happened in the Caves of Chaos.

 

[Tewligan]

You mean the same ScottR who was saying the OGL would be kept intact? That's his job to say whatever soothes the fans, even if that means half-truths and demi-lies, people. Open your eyes.

This. Scott seems like a pretty good guy, but I don't envy him his job these days - I don't really put much stock at all in any official WotC reassurances or claims anymore.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar - as I stated earlier, I think 4e is worse off for RPing because of the very large "don't ask don't tell" policy with anything remotely "simulationism" or coherent world building. There's simply too many cases off "just stop thinking about it" for me to really get into.

It'll be great for one shots, of this I have no doubt; games where you don't WANT to get in depth, you just wanna be ACTION HEROS who chug Powerthirst and ride off to save the day - and I'm not trying to be insulting about that, because hell, I'd be willing to bet everyone, sooner or later, wants to play that kind of game. I know I do on occasion. But for something deep and world-changing, I don't think 4e really gives what you need.

Since when does simulationism=role playing?

Basically, you're saying that D&D, until 3e, had little or no role playing since, prior to 3e, simulationism was not a major element of the game.

Say it with me, simulationism does not equal role play. You can role play a non-sim game to exactly the same amount and depth as a sim game. If not, then GURPS is a far better role playing game than Vampire, as far as being able to have depth of play.

Since this is obviously false, I'm going to say that you are projecting your own personal issues onto this.

RFisher - do you honestly believe that we role played MORE in the early 80's than we do now? Considering that the average age of the gamer has advanced about a decade since that time, do you really believe that we had a pinacle of role play back then and everything else since has been down hill?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Well, I'm wondering how you're using "simulationism?"

My problem with 4e is all the hand waving, "Don't think about it" moments. You mention Vampire, but it doesn't really have all that; things are explained as to how and why they work, and the game was made to the setting, not the other way around.

You say "simulationism isn't roleplaying," but I'd disagree. I find it much more difficult to roleplay in a world or setting that doesn't even try to make sense in many aspects because "it's just a game" or "don't think about fantasy too hard."

I would also disagree that pre-3e was not simulationist, as even then the idea behind mechanics was "How does a fantasy wizard act? How does a fantasy warrior act?" Instead, in 4e, we have VERY abstracted "How can we balance all this?" with disapearing ink in spell books and the idea of "You can't craft new magical items, they have to come from old magical items, which...just apparently spontaniously appeared. It lacks consistency.

 

[haakon1]

You say "simulationism isn't roleplaying," but I'd disagree. I find it much more difficult to roleplay in a world or setting that doesn't even try to make sense in many aspects because "it's just a game" or "don't think about fantasy too hard."

I would also disagree that pre-3e was not simulationist, as even then the idea behind mechanics was "How does a fantasy wizard act? How does a fantasy warrior act?" Instead, in 4e, we have VERY abstracted "How can we balance all this?" with disapearing ink in spell books and the idea of "You can't craft new magical items, they have to come from old magical items, which...just apparently spontaniously appeared. It lacks consistency.

Agreed. This seems to be a fundamental point of disagreement. 4e fans seem to think the anti-4e crowds mean we want a "simulation", as in a detailed model of reality, in the game.

What we actually want (what I want and what I think others also want) is a game that has reference to the real world and history as a key element of the milleau. That is, basing the difference in damage and crit for longsword v. battle axe on thinking about what the weapons actually do, rather than JUST thinking about a good game trade-off.

Perhaps it's subtle point, but it's an important one to why 4e feels "off" to many grognards, including myself. This where a lot of the "simulation" v. "video game" conflict stems from, I think.

 

[Oblique]

Hussar - as I stated earlier, I think 4e is worse off for RPing because of the very large "don't ask don't tell" policy with anything remotely "simulationism" or coherent world building. There's simply too many cases off "just stop thinking about it" for me to really get into.

Those who disagree that a simulationist rules system is the only one which allows for or even encourages roleplaying are legion. In fact, I would guess that there are nearly as many who not only disagree, but who would argue exactly the opposite - that rules which are meant to reflect the physical reality of the game world can hamper roleplaying.

It's perfectly fine as a personal opinion, but I don't see how it has any bearing on an objective evaluation of 4th edition.

 

[CountPopeula]

Two points:

A dungeon crawl is much more than combat.

Just about every story about B2 I’ve heard anyone tell was about what happened in the keep, not what happened in the Caves of Chaos.

You know, that's a very good point. The keep was much more interesting than the caves of chaos....

For some reason, though, I can't remember the name of even one NPC in the keep. It's almost as if the only thing the module actually said about the keep was the names of the buildings, what could be bought and sold, and what loot could be obtained if the PCs decided to slaughter the entire town.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Those who disagree that a simulationist rules system is the only one which allows for or even encourages roleplaying are legion. In fact, I would guess that there are nearly as many who not only disagree, but who would argue exactly the opposite - that rules which are meant to reflect the physical reality of the game world can hamper roleplaying.

It's perfectly fine as a personal opinion, but I don't see how it has any bearing on an objective evaluation of 4th edition.

Honestly, at least the "rules which are meant to reflect the physical reality of the game world can hamper roleplaying" bit, I'd like to see that argued out. Perhaps my brain just doesn't work well, but I honestly can't see how that works.