What is missing from 4E

[RefinedBean]

Concede defeat on the flavour front, so let's retreat into gamisms as a way to "win" the argument.

I agree, 4E sacrifices flavour and simulation for gamist needs. That's what I'm arguing.

Ooo, snappish. I didn't see him conceding anything.

I kinda-sorta see where you're coming from, rounser, and I'm sure some others have made concessions as well. I however, don't think 4E sacrifices flavor at all. AT ALL. If you're going to do a solo campaign in 4E, your hero will be just as much as a Crazy Awesome Loner as it would have been in ANY OTHER EDITION. How could it be any other way? You're the sole focus of the game.

 

[FireLance]

Concede defeat on the flavour front, so let's retreat into gamisms as a way to "win" the argument.

The arguments do follow the quip, you know. Why focus on the quip and ignore the arguments? Let me repeat them:

One, to address the point that co-operative powers in 4e are "gamist", there is the argument that they are due more to the difference in the number of protagonists in most fantasy fiction (one) and most fantasy role-playing games (more than one). Games that feature a single protagonist have little need of such powers. Fiction that has an ensemble cast (not a single hero plus sidekicks) usually emphasize the power of co-operation and the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Two, to addresses the implication that 4e PCs can't fight well alone, there is the argument that despite the existence of such powers, PCs are not required to choose them for the most part, and are still reasonably competent when alone even if they are more effective as part of a group.

What are you comments on the above?

 

[rounser]

If you're going to do a solo campaign in 4E, your hero will be just as much as a Crazy Awesome Loner as it would have been in ANY OTHER EDITION. How could it be any other way? You're the sole focus of the game.

Not really what I mean. The existence of the warlord implies things about adventuring parties that perhaps aren't welcome...that someone is giving orders, and someone is taking them...that there's a military-like hierarchy, that the heroes aren't independent forces of nature.

D&D shouldn't involve that sort of thing beyond "Legolas, we need your bow!", let alone the idea of Legolas being so inspired by where Aragorn's finger is pointing and the tone of his voice and the overwhelming tacticalness of his friend that he suddenly attains better bowmanship (or bowelfship, if you like). That, IMO is gamist bollocks, and not welcome in terms of fantasy flavour unless you're simulating Black Company or something.

 

[rounser]

One, to address the point that co-operative powers in 4e are "gamist", there is the argument that they are due more to the difference in the number of protagonists in most fantasy fiction (one) and most fantasy role-playing games (more than one). Games that feature a single protagonist have little need of such powers. Fiction that has an ensemble cast (not a single hero plus sidekicks) usually emphasize the power of co-operation and the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I disagree with this premise. To continue the example of the fellowship, the members are formidable sword, axe and bow wielders when split up, just as they are together. Sure, they fight better with flanks protected and when calling to one another, but they are not a military unit, nor is anyone devoted to "you can do eet"-ing the others. That's a load of gamist tripe IMO.

Two, to addresses the implication that 4e PCs can't fight well alone, there is the argument that despite the existence of such powers, PCs are not required to choose them for the most part, and are still reasonably competent when alone even if they are more effective as part of a group.

That happens automatically when you get allies defending your flank, and putting heads together to form a plan of attack. You don't need suspension-of-disbelief challenging powers to represent it, nor archetype-less character classes. That's just game design hubris without a cause, "just because we can" stuff, IMO.

 

[jensun]

D&D shouldn't involve that sort of thing beyond "Legolas, we need your bow!", let alone the idea of Legolas being so inspired by where Aragorn's finger is pointing and the tone of his voice and the overwhelming tacticalness of his friend that he suddenly attains better bowmanship (or bowelfship, if you like). That, IMO is gamist bollocks, and not welcome in terms of fantasy flavour unless you're simulating Black Company or something.

So, not a fan of Bards then?

 

[rounser]

So, not a fan of Bards then?

Bards don't give orders. They also aren't presented as magically being more expert in every arena than the actual experts. They're not an imposition, nor do they imply hierarchies or change the nature of adventuring parties.

Besides, the mythological celtic bard is clearly semi-magical, from origin to effect. Just because 2E changed that to something more resembling minstrels with spells doesn't mean there's no solid archetype there, unlike the warlord (who belongs on a battlefield of war with inferior soldiers if he belongs anywhere).

 

[jensun]

Bards don't give orders. They also aren't presented as magically being more expert in every arena than the actual experts. They're not an imposition, nor do they imply hierarchies or change the nature of adventuring parties.

Neither do Warlords, except in your own imagination.

 

[FireLance]

I disagree with this premise. To continue the example of the fellowship, the members are formidable sword, axe and bow wielders when split up, just as they are together. Sure, they fight better with flanks protected and when calling to one another, but they are not a military unit, nor is anyone devoted to "you can do eet"-ing the others. That's a load of gamist tripe IMO.

Well, if your main beef is with the warlord, I don't see how fighting better because someone is encouraging you is very different from fighting better because:

1. Someone is singing at you (bard);
2. Someone is praying for you (cleric, paladin);
3. Someone cast a spell on you to raise your morale (bard, wizard)
4. Someone is standing close to you (marshall).

Admittedly, the last is non-core, but if you accept the basic idea that people can be inspired by others to do better, what makes verbal encouragement or direction an unsuitable delivery system for morale and inspiration, while singing, praying or spellcasting are all fine?

 

[rounser]

Neither do Warlords, except in your own imagination.

Oh right, the warlord hits things in a way that sets them up for their buddy's attack. That's so much better. That's no basis for a core class either.

 

[rounser]

what makes verbal encouragement or direction an unsuitable delivery system for morale and inspiration, while singing, praying or spellcasting are all fine?

Because giving orders implies a military hierarchy on the concept of the adventuring party (an unforgivable trespass on the nature of fantasy heroes), and trivialises the expertise of the other heroes by assuming that the warlord is somehow more expert than they are in their chosen field. Singing, praying and spellcasting don't imply this.