Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3760240" data-attributes="member: 42582">Thanks. And thanks for your response. I should say upfront that I'm not necessarily a 4e advocate, in the sense that I'm not sure it's the game for me. But I do think that it reflects a reasonably considered approach to design. It's just that that approach is quite different from the more traditional D&D approach.  I don't dispute your characterisation of modern soldiers. But it's not true of all armed interpersonal conflict - for example, the duelling culture of early modern Europe was driven by non-rational considerations, such as honour.I agree that 1st ed essentially rewards play that emulates a military operational approach. But there are other possible approaches to RPGing. What I am interested in is what mechanics will be introduced in 4e (if any) to support those other approaches (eg will there be anything like TRoS's Spiritual Attributes). Without those sorts of mechanics it will be hard to avoid the game reverting to rational resource management.The open-endedness that I had in mind was (i) the sequence of events prior to the climax is not pre-determined (unlike, for example, the typical 1st ed module, in which the dungeon is fairly linear) and (ii) the thematic signifcance of the climax may not be pre-determined (an example of this would be Keith Baker's Penumbra module "The Ebon Mirror").As Hong has pointed out, open-endedness type (i) is supported by a move to per-encounter and a dropping of operational considerations. And open-endedness type (ii) is the answer to your question "What does the game have to offer?" It offers the potential for the exploration of themes. In that sense, the outcome is not pre-deterined.Unfortunately, I suspect that 4e won't emphasise thematic exploration (and I suspect that it may not have mechanics like Spiritual Attributes). Rather, I think it will emphasise "playing my guy and his/her cool powers". And I think you're right that that may not stay interesting for very long; and the game probably won't support resource-management play in the way earlier editions have. But then 5e will arrive to keep the game alive!Like I said, I'm not necessarily defending 4e. I'm just trying to explain it as somewhat rational, on its own terms.The link is the one I gave in my post, namely, his <a href="http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Spellcasters" target="_blank">column on spellcasters</a>.Sure, but ever since 2E it's been changing. 2E emphasised "grand narrative" much more (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun) but didn't really provide the mechanics to support it. 3E changed direction more, and 4e is continuing the transition.I think WoTC feel that there is simply not the demand, any more, for wargaming-style operational play. Like Hong, I think they're probably right. Whether this will lead to the death of the hobby I don't know. I'm not sure I agree with you that wargamer-types are the indispensible core of the hobby. I think that the world may have moved on. But that's realy just speculation on my part.</blockquote>

Verification