What direction will D&D head in?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And a system that is fun in an abstract sense doesn't necessarily create a fun or believable immersive experience.

It's not about arguing for one or the other, but rather that the balance has swung too far towards one extreme. Too much flavour is being sacrificed on the altar of convenient game design of crunch, when much more of a compromise between the two should be shot for.

If the rules can't suspend disbelief for D&D's world, there is patently little point in playing D&D. Without that immersiveness, you'd be better off with something like M:tG, and get a concentrated hit of that type of fun. D&D shouldn't be forced into that niche, because when it stops representing a fantasy world, a large chunk of the point in playing it simply evaporates.

If you think that immersion is an important point of a role-playing game. I am not sure it is. Because I can also immerse myself deeply into books or movies. I was pretty immersed when I played with my toy cars and legos as a child, too.

Or maybe I don't really know what immersion means.

Acting according to my characters personality and knowledge and using his abilities to solve "problems" (ranging from killing monsters and taking their stuff over mystery-solving to political intrigue) to me is role-playing. I don't know if that is already immersion or something else.

I certainly won't spend much thought on what "Brute Strike" or "Furious Smash" means to my character, but I will narrate it to fit my character style.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is not so consistent with your message above. Your argument was that what is most important is to have "fun" and fun can be found in many mediums such as playing, read books, and watch movies. So I am saying that I have fun with 4e as a boardgame gameplay experience but not as a roleplaying game. You should have no problem with this or think is ridiculous or insulting if you believe what you wrote above first place.

It is a separate to my message. You added the not-role-playing "disclaimer", and I felt obliged to react to that too.

 

[xechnao]

I felt obliged to react to that too.

Why?

 

[ThirdWizard]

When I played 3e people said it was badwrongfun non-roleplaying because Crafting/Profession were a constraint to my imagination and you could just roll a Diplomacy check instead of speaking in character.

When I play 4e people tell me it is badwrongfun non-roleplaying because it doesn't have Craft/Profession and classes have mostly combat abilities in their Powers.

Lesson: Don't listen to people.

 

[rounser]

If you think that immersion is an important point of a role-playing game. I am not sure it is.

Oh for goodness sake...of course it is! I can't really believe I'm reading this, except maybe from someone who's reaaaaally desperate to play devil's advocate!

If it weren't, we wouldn't bother with genre, and just break out the wahoo and the extreeeeeme physics. We'd play in zero-G, because clearly that's more fun than a game with gravity. Mayor Dragan who the PCs were talking to would suddenly grow three heads when they talked to him, because it's more fun for all the PCs being able to talk to him at once, and for him to respond to them all at once. All travel would be via teleport. Greys would be in the PHB next to Mutant Ninja Turtles and Sonic Hedgehogs (hey, they're all fun).

There's room for a game like that, but it has a tiny audience, and it's not D&D.

Because I can also immerse myself deeply into books or movies. I was pretty immersed when I played with my toy cars and legos as a child, too.

That's nice.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why?

You asked yourself it would change anything?

Or, to be honest, because I always get a little angry inside if people say what you said? Because I hate people it when people seem to imply that there roleplaying is better then mine, because I am playing the game, I am having fun, and I believe myself to be a role-player, not a board-gamer, card player, dice roller or whatever one might call someone.

That's the general problem with all these edition war topics. It's not that some people say: "I like X, because of Y", but they say "I like X, because of Y, and since you like Z, with doesn't have Y, you aren't really role-playing". It is childish to offend this way, though of course it's also childish to be offended by it. But hey, we're role-players, I suppose there is still a lot of childishness in us...

I just have to think of a variant "infinite oregano" article:
"You're drinking tea with normal milk, not cream? You're not really following East-Frisian tea-drinking tradition, you know that? You should be ashamed of yourself!"

 

[ExploderWizard]

Just answer the question.

The qualifier is a nice way to say "yes, but I have higher ideals of role-playing" which I find ridiculous and sometimes borderline insulting - If it could be insulting to imply that someone else is enjoying a game that just pretends to be a role-playing game. Am I now just pretending to pretend to be a Elf Dragonborn Warlord now, or what?

Think about these things:
- How can I get to a situation where I need to use the Diplomacy skill just using the game rules, and never role-playing? Heck, how do you even get into a fight with Goblins without role-playing? How is the answer different from any "accepted" role-playing game?
- What if I gave you a rule system for character virtues aka the Exalted system? Would these rule turn 4E into a role-playing game?

Roleplaying is completely possible with any edition of the game and always has been. Within any given game session you can roleplay effectively with 4E. Long running campaigns are where 4E falls flat on its face unless you can accept major handwaving. 4E characters exist in a game balance vacuum with no care or thought given ( mechanically) to thier existence beyond being balanced for the combat grid. Does this prevent you from roleplaying one? Absolutely not, but it does completely kill immersion in the game world over the course of a campaign.

You could add virtues or whatever you wanted to a 4E character but that would not help with the chronic amnesia that afflicts them. This is why I will play 4E but won't run a campaign with it. The gamist design lends itself to single adventure focus and fails in any effort that requires continuity.

A 4E character has the substance of a puff of air. Consistent identity lasts only as long as your current level. Overly gamist mechanics do have an influence on the players' approach to the game. There is nothing wrong with game RULES being treated in a gamist fashion but when those rules become too inconsistent then the GAME WORLD gets the same treatment. If a player cannot identify with a character beyond it being a playing piece then roleplaying may be affected.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Roleplaying is completely possible with any edition of the game and always has been. Within any given game session you can roleplay effectively with 4E. Long running campaigns are where 4E falls flat on its face unless you can accept major handwaving. 4E characters exist in a game balance vacuum with no care or thought given ( mechanically) to thier existence beyond being balanced for the combat grid. Does this prevent you from roleplaying one? Absolutely not, but it does completely kill immersion in the game world over the course of a campaign.

Sorry, but I can only say that I find it ridiculous to assume that my ability to create a campaign will be hampered by 4E. In fact, I already have a long-running campaign idea and I do not see a point where it could be hindered by daily powers or healing surges.

Maybe I am just thinking totally different from you, but I really absolutely honestly don't get how you can come to this conclusion. You can talk about hand-waving and internal balance or the combat grid all you want, it doesn't seem to get me closer to understanding how the hell this gets in the way of creating a campaign.

Here's my scenario:
Point of Lights is the base assumption. But, even the small points of lights are being threatened. Various groups try to amass power, one (yet not clearly defined, though I an envisioning an undead army) in particular. But as the heroes become aware of the first signs of evil threatening the Points of Lights, they begin to travel the world to create new alliances between the points of lights to eventually create something that can stand up against the looming threats.

Pretty simple, actually. Could be Lord of the Rings, I must admit, but with less focus on magical rings that need to be dropped into Volcanoes.

Where does 4E inhibit this campaign idea?

 

[redcard]

My opinion is thus:

First off, 4e is not going anywhere. It's a solidly (for the most part) designed system that has gotten a large number of people back into the game. The first print run supposedly sold more than 3.0s first print run, and we're now in a second print run that is doing equally bang up. I think the first thing people need to do is take a deep breath and relax. More people in our hobby is NOT a bad thing.

Second off, I think people seriously need to order OD&D from Wizards and play through it a few times. It's available in PDF form for about $6. Play it for a few sessions. It'll teach you something about what D&D "is supposed to be about." I see a lot of people using Gygax's name in some kind of appeal to authority here, and while that's a logical fallacy, if you want to know what D&D is about to the creator, look at the last version he considered "D&D." I think you'll find out what I'm about to say in point three.

Third, despite having intricate surroundings and deep campaign settings, D&D was originally about a dungeon crawl. It was about , as someone else stated, "kill the orc and take his pie." We all know the history here. What is obvious to me is that a number of people / players grew up in more narrativist campaigns than what OD&D supported. A lot of people added stuff on to make the game fit their play style. Hey, cool. That's great.. but remember, OD&D was about killing the orc and taking his pie.

And finally, this type of bickering has occurred at every single game release since the beginning of D&D. I remember one of my GMs from long ago complaining about one of the TSR campaign settings "not being D&D." It happened at 2, 2r, 3, 3.5 ,etc. It'll happen at 4.. it'll happen at 5.. and it'll happen on and on and on. That won't change.

But if you want to play the older versions of D&D , go right ahead In this day of PDFs (and I mean legit ones), I see a future not far down the road where any D&D or any RPG.. at any point in its revision history, is able to be purchased and used.

The long and short of it is, we should embrace people coming into this hobby. Not discourage them because they don't like our particular flavor of soft drink.

 

[Bump2daWiza]

And finally, this type of bickering has occurred at every single game release since the beginning of D&D. I remember one of my GMs from long ago complaining about one of the TSR campaign settings "not being D&D." It happened at 2, 2r, 3, 3.5 ,etc. It'll happen at 4.. it'll happen at 5.. and it'll happen on and on and on. That won't change.

.

I think this time there is big difference. All other editions of the game, even though the transitions generated some controversy, were somwhat similar (with 3E probably being the most radical break prior to 4E). 4th edition is a completely different game. It is a well put together game, but it is by far the largest change between editions. In some ways it resembles 3E (actually they brought in a bunch of stuff from d20 starwars), but most of the similiarities to 2e, 1e and basic are now gone. Plus the most popular aspect of 3E, is now completely changed: multiclassing.