What is the essence of D&D

[Maxperson]

Which, more or less is how those other threads I pointed out way up in post 708 went off the rails too.

You get some superficial commonalities: trade dress, sacred cows (stat names, hit points, etc.) that ended up being shared with items that are demonstrably aren't D&D (I'm referring to independent things from other publishers like Heroquest, Runequest, Chivalry & Sorcery -- not any specific edition of D&D).

What we have never achieved is finding enough commonality inside even a few editions of D&D to set it apart from say Earthdawn. That's mainly because there aren't enough commonalities to our methods of playing D&D to come to agreement for what that means.

I think the problem is that no individual idea is unique to D&D. What makes D&D, D&D is how the game takes all of those ideas and presents them. The mix that we know and love is D&D, while a different mix is Call of Cthulhu. Why a lot of people say 4e did not feel like D&D to them is that it altered too much of how D&D traditionally presented its ideas and felt like a new game to a lot of people. To others, it wasn't changed enough to feel like a new game.

 

[Maxperson]

No. I've never heard one anyone who uses the Intelligence Rules playing that way; otherwise, why bother with the chance to learn the spell if you had an infinite number of times?

Chance to Know Each Listed Spell pertains to the percentage chance the character has by reason of his or her intelligence to learn any given spell in the level group. The character may select spells desired in any order heor she wishes. Each spell may be checked only once.

Not sure how much more clear "may be check only once" can be.

I agree with you on what the rule is. However, we did have a house rule that allowed retries if you gained intelligence or a level.

 

[Campbell]

I think for a lot of people what I think of as the poetry layer (the fictional stuff that sit below the game) is the game to them. They only really care about the game in terms of how it makes them feel about the poetry layer. The poetry layer is like critical and essential, but when discussing games I am primarily concerned with how the GM and other players are making their decisions, what their goals are for play, and like the things we actually do at the table.

In my mind a story focused Second Edition DM has a lot more in common with a Vampire Storyteller than they do with a Moldvay B/X referee. Like we can have discussions about some setting stuff, but when we get down to technique if you bring up concerns about meta-gaming, fudging dice, story arcs, and villains my referee brain is going to be like "We're not talking about the same game at all".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Still there are definitely people who are not happy that martial characters just do some things better than spell casters. They basically curated the spell lists to make each type of spell caster a specialist in certain areas, made it so some spells that use to obviate other characters give wizards a chance to replace them, but are better off cast on dedicated specialists, and made some things that were automatic more uncertain. They also defined niches for skills so they could do some things spells can not while spells can do some things skills cannot. They have also made many spells like Scry and Teleport Uncommon, meaning they require GM permission to get or need to be found through play. Basically they have attempted to balance martial classes with spell casters while retaining structural differences.

I'm going to make a prediction.
I want preface it with the up-front admission that every prediction of this nature I have ever made was 100% wrong.
If thats really representative of PF2 design philosophy, its doomed. Languishing in obscurity ain't even in it.

Sounds like a decent game, though.

I do think the fact that Fourth Edition was not very well suited for dungeon crawls or attrition fights does have a lot to do with its reception.... Modern versions of the game have moved away from dungeon crawls, but usually at least will have some short ones.

Thing is, 4e was fine for the story of a dungeon crawl, as it might be told in a book or movie. Some atmospheric description, establishing shots, some tense moments, some pauses for character development, even. Punctuated by some action scenes and important exposition.

What it leaves out? Video-game style pixel bitching. 5 1/2 hrs of an 8hr session consisting of the DM describing the dungeon while one really engaged player (admittedly, often, myself) maps it, and another really engaged player decides which way to turn and what door gets the "door drill" next, while anyone else still at the table (before mobile devices or even game boy)... well, recites Mony Python & the Holy Grail.... (When I finally watched a tape of MP&tHG, years later, I realized I'd heard every line.)

....and, yeah, TBH, I miss that. (Even in 5e, 'cause I'm the DM, now, and the players all have effing phones, and if they do make amusing references, they're from some video game I never heard of). I can actually empathize, a bit, with a hypothetical fellow grognard disappointed with the lack.

(...and, once again, I talk myself out of the very point I set out to make.)

 

[Garthanos]

What it leaves out? Video-game style pixel bitching.

What no pac man like covering all the dots to avoid missing something so you can get bigger eat the ghosts... err kill the monsters and move on the the next ahem level.

 

[Campbell]

@Tony Vargas

In my case I am a neogrog. I came to the OSR via indie games a couple years back. My actual start was late Second Edition railroaded story play. Then Vampire played in the same vein. Third Edition also played in that same vein. Fourth Edition and exposure to indie games saved me from exiting the hobby. So maybe OSR hipster sums it up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Orly?

“Your comments come across as having never given 4e a chance” does either thing you accused me of, how?

The other quoted comment explicitly chooses not to do either thing. I even contradicted someone who was assigning an experience level to you.

Still, since my comments came across in a way that made you feel that way, I apologize.

 

[Garthanos]

There is also a fair bit of hand wringing over this on the Paizo boards. Pathfinder 2 is a game that definitely directly associates everything directly to the fiction, maintains structural differences between casters and martial classes, and has no abstract martial resources. All limited use abilities are either emphatically supernatural or make your character fatigued.

Encounter Exploits are the most utterly explainable of limited use and make more sense than general fatigue (hit points cover general fatigue if you want to use that == simpler fatigue rule to me) ... and the martial exploits are straight forward. You could call exploits Tricks and Strains. Tricks are what they sound like a maneuver which is dependent on deception and surprise once the trick has been seen it can certainly be attempted at-will but it's generally so unlikely to work unless your enemies are well literally dumb as hell zombie types most won't attempt it. There might even be a trick that utterly counters another trick and its called "Well I have seen that one" but this is probably NPC territory (players may get one free use of "Well I have seen that one" against their own allies) A strain may be just like the above. But is more flexible more recovery times are possible it might be a moderate rest, or a daily or even a deep strain which causes an affliction. Strains often apply to more than one exploit in effect you can only use one of those exploits before the recovery, sure I can do a sudden sprint or a mighty leap or full extension (those are three encounter based skill utilities selected from 4e) but I strain a specific muscle/muscle group or the like and that inhibits the repetition this extreme kind of move. 4e lets the player decide why... and leaves improvising repetition up to DM adjudication, while empowering the player to say here I do this awesome thing. Sometimes tricks are also categories of tricks so if someone sees you pull one they are forewarned of the possibility of the others. 4e didnt have that flexibility of categories but it makes sense... and is not exactly like a wizards ability to memorize different powers daily.

 

[Campbell]

@Garthanos

I was a 4th Edition fan for a long time. It is still a game I hold a deep regard for. I have made these arguments you are making now time and time again. I know how to justify it and make a coherent fiction out of it. I just like do not want to anymore. I prefer games where I do not have to make those justifications in my head. Exploits and Tricks served 4th Edition well. I am just not looking for that game. Not like knocking it.

 

[Garthanos]

. I prefer games where I do not have to make those justifications in my head. Exploits and Tricks served 4th Edition well. I am just not looking for that game. Not like knocking it.

I do not see it as justification pr a have to... but rather flexible fiction. And it empowers the players.

Encounter powers in spite of as I said being the most explainable got put aside in 5e in favor of "short rests" that are far narrower. And also leaves for instance battlemasters rather unsatisfying... the lack of level gating on their abilities does too of course.