What happens when the Defender dies?

[frankthedm]

And there was one crucial area no DM could reasonably account for - spell selection ("What do you mean you didn't prepare Fireball? You ALWAYS prepare Fireball????")

And of course it was the same day the guy with greatcleave is also sick.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not sure that I agree with this, unless you're saying that D&D has never been a good game and really has no hope to be a good game.

D&D has always had classes. The classes have always had certain functions for which they were more suited. Published modules have (almost) always made the assumption that those functions would be covered. A good DM has always had to make judgement calls of some sort when a party is shorthanded at one of those functions...or has created his own adventures, in which case he also takes those functions into consideration.

I think that any iteration of any game that has multiple functions handled by multiple characters and cannot guarantee that each function will be handled, is going to require a DM/GM that is capable of making the proper adjustments in order to maximize everyone's fun.

Well, there are many points that affect quality. Just because a game doesn't work so well in one area doesn't mean it isn't good as a whole.

I have only limited knowledge about pre 3.x D&D, which means I simply can't judge older editions fairly. From what I read or saw on them, I don't like them. But I have started RPG with Shadowrun 3rd edition and D&D 3rd edition. I have different experiences, and can't see older games in their context - they might have been good then, because there was nothing better, and nobody knew yet what works and what doesn't work (and I am sure there is still a lot we don't know today).

And after that, my statement wasn't exactly fair, because it seemed to imply that 4E will work well if you don't cover all the roles. That remains to be seen. I have some hope that it's not the DM that will have to worry, but the players that have to adjust their tactics (and my hope is that such tactics really exist and work).

What I really wanted to "target" was:
- There shouldn't be a class without a role it can fulfill (the Bard example in one of the previous posts)
- I dislike it when people claim that some issues aren't a problem if a good DM can fix them. The rule system should not only work for good DMs. It should also work for bad or mediocre DMs (which hopefully get better with experience).

I am okay with rule systems "preferring" a certain play style and requiring a good DM to adapt stuff to change it (4E seems to need this like any other game, judging from the frequency people respond "If it does't work for you, house-rule it". My assumption here is that people who actually notice they prefer a different play style are experienced enough to change a game (or just switch to a different one). But most people start without preconceived notions. Over time they might learn that the playstyle implied by the game doesn't suite their tastes, but then they are experienced enough to change things.

 

[SSquirrel]

I started w/the red box of D&D, but I'm less nostalgic for the old games for the simple reason that so much in them just doesn't make sense. Random race/class/level restrictions is a good example. Yes, yes I know, houserule it, but there have always been elements of D&D that people have had to wipe out to fix for their game. I picked up the first ed Warhammer FRPG last year for $5 used and went from interested to far less so rather quickly when I saw that the game design was extremely similar to 80's D&D w/similar restrictions for no real good reason. I can look back and see that the design was probably pretty good for the time, but it doesn't mean I want to still play that way.