Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 4523156" data-attributes="member: 60075">I've heard that many times before, and I agree with those who don't think this observation is ultimately telling. Mind you, we had this debate when 3.5 came out and the chapter on combat in the revised 3.5 precisely had this switch from feet to squares. What bothers me is less the specification of in-game distance in terms of out-of-game distance than the quantities that go with those distances. They all are arbitrarily nerfed to fit a skirmish game and don't give a hoot about in-game plausibility. Take teleport. A seriously high-level "monster", like Graz'zt, <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20081003" target="_blank"> can only teleport 6 squares </a>. How ridiculous is that? Completely. Because, you know, it would really suck in a skirmish game if the DM who controls Graz'zt, upon facing defeat, simply teleports away. And many 4E fans would chime in here and say "exactly! we want to avoid that!".And here I don't follow. 4E seems written as if the rules need to tell the DM that he shouldn't teleport Graz'zt away since that takes away from the fun of the (skirmish aspect of) the game when1. this is precisely the sort of thing a self-respecting RPG should leave to a self-respecting DM, and 2. the reason for not teleporting Graz'zt away shouldn't be rationalized by recourse to a consideration that only concerns the skirmish game perspective.But it's not just the DM who's now restricted in his mechanical choices by considerations that only pertain to skirmish games. It's the players too. I just watched "The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising", which has gone onto Youtube 5 days ago. At the end of the film, one of the players is granted an Unlimited Wish. The players go extactic because it's (quote) "the single most powerful element in the whole game". They also berate the player who was granted the Wish (her PC is level 8) for spending it on something (way) short of wishing herself to become an immortal.And that's the very thing that couldn't even happen in 4E. I'm not saying how 4E is bad since it doesn't cater for players wishing to become deities at level 8. It's rather that 4E doesn't want the player to have such a choice at her disposal. The game openly distrusts players to have resources that would take the skirmish game out of control. And that's where the RPGA influence comes in. RPGA needs to restrict the options mechanically available to players lest each game deteriorates into absolute chaos. And that would be because the most important factor which otherwise avoids these deteriorations is missing in any RPGA setup: the respect players and DM have for one another at a social level, their desire to have a good enough time at the table for this group to meet again the week after. The RPGA is all about being a place where players do not have to deal with (and hence can legitimately forego) those social constraints and consideration. <a href="http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=258432&postcount=48" target="_blank"> As I wrote elsewhere, the designers of 4E are very, very outspoken in their downplaying the fact that D&D at its core - this being the home table - is a primarily social game with social responsibilities</a> where "the game" understood purely mechanically takes a back seat. (Contrast chess: I don't play chess with someone to enjoy his company, but to enjoy the challenge of the game.) This is really built into the mechanics, and no amount of assertion to the contrary in the DMG - the book which least impacts RPGA play - can argue that away. Because we're talking about things that need support in the mechanics, and not just be paid lip-service. In particular, a ruleset shouldn't be written with the aim to pre-empt the regulatory (and otherwise contributing) role of social considerations.So yes, 4E very clearly limits the options on both sides of the screen, and it has its good reasons to do so. On some days, I share those reasons and play 4E; because, to be honest, it takes away of the whole aspect of continually having to play more cleverly as a DM than your players to outstrip their ways to break your game by recourse to elements the (3.5.) game allows. (The film I mentioned, The Gamers II, does a fantastic job at documenting this facet of 3rd edition play, as did its prequel.)On other days I wince at the restrictions 4E places on my behalf, and happily go with playing 3E. WotC produced two very good games, and I treasure the fact that I'm not bound by time to play only one of them.Hey, and now I'm off this board for the rest of the day because I'm heading over to the Weekend in the Realms event, where I DM 4E RPGA play 9 hours non-stop. Wish me luck!</blockquote>

Verification