When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Greg K]

Sure, you could just do what you wanted - but I think it hard to deny that 3.5 encouraged an equalizing of power between the DM and the players, and encouraged having the DMing following closely to the same rules players are bound by. Traps and encounters and monsters are supposed to be carefully constructed using the various formula for doing so, not thrown out or improvised on the spot. .

If we are going to limit it 3.5 equalizing power, maybe. They removed Rule 0. However, I haven't seen the 3.5 DMG. Now, on the website, yes, WOTC seemed to feed the idea that DMs should allow everything with designers contradicting earlier stances about the DM tailoring the rules and reeked of cross marketing to the detriment of the game.

However, WOTC is not the DM and does not control what goes on at the game table. Many DMs, out of fear of losing players, simply handed over power they had and let selfish players ruin their campaigns and make the game unfun to run. And, from what I can tell from message boards, it began in 3.0 (well, not really, there have always been players like this in previous editions. I just think the internet has put a magnifying glass to the situation).

 

[Benimoto]

This is another of those "don't speak the same language" things -- I saw the 3E PC/monster/NPC sameness experiment as a spectacular success.

I saw it as a partial success. The system gave PCs class levels while monsters had hit dice, which were sort of like levels, but worse. Monsters made up for how bad their hit dice were by getting a lot of them, and by getting powerful racial modifiers to ability scores and AC. The systems interacted together in sometimes unintuitive and non-transparent ways, and when combined, produced unpredictable CR results. And then you added templates on top of it, which generally bypassed the whole hit dice/level system, and just added a bunch of bonuses and abilities instead of levels.

It meant that while you could make almost any monster function like a PC, it was troublesome to have PCs who were monsters. Templates, similarly, worked okay on monsters, but were often terrible for PCs. It meant that to have powerful humanoid NPCs, you had to give them class levels, which meant equipping them like PCs. And since the whole concept of adding PC levels to monsters worked in with the multiclass system, improving monsters with levels meant that they started at the beginning of the level system, no matter how tough they were overall. So adding fighter levels worked well and adding spellcaster levels usually didn't.

A 4th level fighter is a guy who's taken 4 levels of fighter. A minotaur 4th level fighter is a minotaur who's taken 4 levels of fighter. That worked. But in a lot of ways, the game tried to say that a minotaur was something (what exactly?) that's taken 6 (or 4 or 8, depending on if you look at HD, CR or EL) levels of minotaur. That didn't work. Can a fighter start taking levels of minotaur? Can an orc?

So it wasn't a success. PCs and monsters were still very different things, despite their similarities. And, as people have mentioned, it made generating or improving monsters a big, overly-complicated mess.

 

[Cadfan]

As I said, there are differences between 3.5 and 4E. For me those differences are deal breakers. 4E "fixed" things that I didn't think needed to be "fixed". It made changes to the game that take the system in directions that I do not think it should go in. In addition I think many of those changes were made so that the two versions would not be backwards compatible. Designed to specifically drive sales of 4E at the cost of the game and the hobby.

If you enjoy tactical miniature games with a fantasy element, 4E seems to be the system for you.

It simply doesn't suit my idea of what a role-playing game is.

I'll agree that someone who enjoys tactical miniature games is more likely than not to enjoy 4e, and that someone who dislikes tactical miniature games is more likely than not to dislike 4e. I do believe that an intentional decision was made to make combat more like a tactical miniatures game. I've written elsewhere on this decision, but the short version of my longer rant is that I believe that all RPGs have to make a serious decision about what their combat will be. RPGs that fail to do so are like automobiles powered by gerbils on a wheel. It doesn't matter how snazzy the exterior, because the interior won't make the thing move.

Where I get off the bus is all the rest of the stuff people add to the "combat is like a boardgame" line, stuff about 4e not having roleplaying anymore, or any of the other alarmist junk that floats around this place.

Suppose I made an RPG where all combat was handled through a card game. I could do it in about half an hour, I bet- I'd make it a western and have combat resolution work through a poker-like game, themed in-game as a gunfighter duel. The bluffing element of a gunfighter's duel would be built right into the game. And maybe, as your character leveled up, your deck could customize- replace all your 2s with Aces or something when you learn the Quickdraw power or whatever.

That would be a legitimate way to handle combat in an RPG. All it needs now is some fine tuning, a setting, character building rules, and some plot hooks, and I've got an Indie release already designed. Never thought it would be that easy!

Now, if you hate poker, I would not expect you to like this hypothetical RPG. I would not feel offended if you said, "I do not like Poker, therefore, Cadfan's Poker-engine-based RPG is not appealing to me." If, however, you said "Cadfan's so-called RPG is really just Poker, and not a real RPG at all," I would be angry, and I think justifiably so. And I wouldn't really care if you later change that to "its not a real RPG to me," because I don't think you get to make up personal definitions of words.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If we are going to limit it 3.5 equalizing power, maybe. They removed Rule 0. However, I haven't seen the 3.5 DMG. Now, on the website, yes, WOTC seemed to feed the idea that DMs should allow everything with designers contradicting earlier stances about the DM tailoring the rules and reeked of cross marketing to the detriment of the game.

However, WOTC is not the DM and does not control what goes on at the game table. Many DMs, out of fear of losing players, simply handed over power they had and let selfish players ruin their campaigns and make the game unfun to run. And, from what I can tell from message boards, it began in 3.0 (well, not really, there have always been players like this in previous editions. I just think the internet has put a magnifying glass to the situation).

What I am trying to say is that a DM should feel secure in adding rules supplements designed by the company that makes the game without having to worry about them breaking the game. I believe 4E has been designed in a way that supplements can be added with less of a worry that it will break the game for four reasons:

1) Multiclassing is limited. You can no longer cherry-pick abilities from 100's of different prestige and base classes.
2) Limited stacking.
3) Power structure equalized. Every character has the same number of power options available. New supplements and more options to choose from, not more powers to stack on your uber-combo.
4) Feats have been diminished in power. They now provide small bonuses instead of granting you entirely new powers as they could in 3E.

 

[MrMyth]

If we are going to limit it 3.5 equalizing power, maybe. They removed Rule 0. However, I haven't seen the 3.5 DMG. Now, on the website, yes, WOTC seemed to feed the idea that DMs should allow everything with designers contradicting earlier stances about the DM tailoring the rules and reeked of cross marketing to the detriment of the game.

However, WOTC is not the DM and does not control what goes on at the game table. Many DMs, out of fear of losing players, simply handed over power they had and let selfish players ruin their campaigns and make the game unfun to run. And, from what I can tell from message boards, it began in 3.0 (well, not really, there have always been players like this in previous editions. I just think the internet has put a magnifying glass to the situation).

Yeah, I should have been clearer, but I do think it was alll of 3rd Edition that really had this emphasis. And yes, no one was specifically bound by it, and a DM could stick with Rule 0 as desired - I just think there was a much stronger emphasis on abiding by a closed, joint system for the players and DM, while 4E has a stronger emphasis on a more free-form guidance by the DM and more encouragement of non-standard actions that the rules might not strictly define.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Suppose I made an RPG where all combat was handled through a card game. I could do it in about half an hour, I bet- I'd make it a western and have combat resolution work through a poker-like game, themed in-game as a gunfighter duel. The bluffing element of a gunfighter's duel would be built right into the game. And maybe, as your character leveled up, your deck could customize- replace all your 2s with Aces or something when you learn the Quickdraw power or whatever.

All I'd like to say to the above is: When and where can I buy your game?

Now, if you hate poker, I would not expect you to like this hypothetical RPG. I would not feel offended if you said, "I do not like Poker, therefore, Cadfan's Poker-engine-based RPG is not appealing to me." If, however, you said "Cadfan's so-called RPG is really just Poker, and not a real RPG at all," I would be angry, and I think justifiably so. And I wouldn't really care if you later change that to "its not a real RPG to me," because I don't think you get to make up personal definitions of words.

I think you've got it here. This is what sticks in my craw the most, that others are inferring (or outright saying) that the RPG I enjoy is not an RPG, not a real RPG, or even just not an RPG to them.

 

[Cadfan]

Dude, I'm seriously going to have to develop that idea some more.

I don't think I can do actual poker if I want everyone to have their own deck. But what's the core of poker? Looking at your hand, estimating how good it is, deciding whether to be in or out, and having to give up information if you choose to ask for more cards? I think I could make this work.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think you've got it here. This is what sticks in my craw the most, that others are inferring (or outright saying) that the RPG I enjoy is not an RPG, not a real RPG, or even just not an RPG to them.

There is a word for this, and it is badwrongfun. Saying this sort of thing is very self-centered, as if your opinion of what an RPG is is more important than others. Saying that 3E is better than 4E is one thing, I personally say the reverse. Saying that 4E isn't worthy of consideration as an RPG is something else.

 

[Lacyon]

I saw it as a partial success. The system gave PCs class levels while monsters had hit dice, which were sort of like levels, but worse.

...

And then you added templates on top of it, which generally bypassed the whole hit dice/level system, and just added a bunch of bonuses and abilities instead of levels.

I think these two points are at the heart of the Monsters as PCs issue. Regardless of the fact that they were supposed to be similar, monster abilities were in practice almost completely decoupled from Hit Dice (levels) except for attack bonus, hp, skill ranks, and saves (all of which could be adjusted by racial bonuses anyway). If you did build them to be just like PCs, they became just as equipment-dependent as PCs. In reality, none of them were.

(This was also the root of the problem with 3E polymorph, IMO. The spell was limited by the base HD of the creature you were emulating, but granted you none of the characteristics that actually were coupled with monster HD and (nearly) all of the characteristics that weren't.)

 

[Fifth Element]

Now, if you hate poker, I would not expect you to like this hypothetical RPG. I would not feel offended if you said, "I do not like Poker, therefore, Cadfan's Poker-engine-based RPG is not appealing to me." If, however, you said "Cadfan's so-called RPG is really just Poker, and not a real RPG at all," I would be angry, and I think justifiably so. And I wouldn't really care if you later change that to "its not a real RPG to me," because I don't think you get to make up personal definitions of words.

You hit the nail on the head in a nice, concise way here. The method of, or rules-focus of, encounter resolution has nothing to do with whether something is an RPG.

And no, people don't get to make up their own definition of an RPG, especially if they're going to be using the term in a public discussion forum.