# 4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 16, 2008)

Forked from:  Sentimentality And D&D Editions OR Happiness Is The Edition That Brings You Joy 



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> I accept that it's here, but don't see how it's inevitable that it should take the form it has, nor that it should be immune to criticism.
> 
> I also don't consider my objections to it just a result of a "fear of change".  I _wanted_ a lot of change.  Reveille, you should just accept that 4E is just one bunch of guy's take on "improving D&D", and temporary.  Nothing more nor less.  It's "WOTC's Fantasy Heartbreaker", only it won't fail like all the others simply because it has the D&D name on the cover.
> 
> ...





I see it as this way. A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X". People may go into detail about things, but the core meaning of what they say isn't any more than that. That doesn't really qualify as criticism. You are just stating a preference or lack therof and calling it criticism.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 16, 2008)

Concur.

I cut my teeth on 1E many, many moons ago and - as far as the sentimental aspects go - 1E is where it's at for me.

I think the thing I like most about 4E is that it's more like 1E.

I bet you can find a lot of people that started with 2E and find that as their favorite edition. And the same with 3E. Or 3.5E.

Nothing wrong with that. And nothing wrong with offering constructive criticism for whatever ruleset it is that you're using.  

Now, if you're continually picking at a ruleset you're _not_ playing and have no _intention_ of playing...I'd suggest you find a new hobby.

WP


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 16, 2008)

Agreed.

I'm playing 4e right now and its not escaping my criticisms. They're aren't enough powers, the power structure doesn't yet allow for enough "unique" effects (beyond X damage + Y shift/status effect), skill challenges are a mess, their aren't enough traps, rituals & magic items in the core, combat seems to take forever for mundane fights unless you're using minions. 

None of those are direct "X edition is better." Sure, X edition might have handled a few of those better (esp in the more, more, more categories) but none resort to "they gimped wizards" or such.

Of course, there is a third route of 4e criticism, see my sig for that.


----------



## Loonook (Nov 16, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Forked from:  Sentimentality And D&D Editions OR Happiness Is The Edition That Brings You Joy
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Isn't the whole point of critiquing a game system boiling down to 'I like Edition/System/What-have-you X'?   To say that somehow this type of critique is inappropriate against 4e is ignoring every White Wolf vs. WotC, GW vs. WW, Rolemaster v. Nobilis v. FATAL debate which has ever occurred in some dark, dodgy sweat-soaked Gencon hotel room or sleep-addled forum posting.

The valid critique starts with 'I prefer edition X' but in many cases there are reasons which this preference can affect the enjoyment of the game and thus have full rights to be aired so as to possibly find a way to resolve these issues without having to cling to an old edition (or rush to the new).

Cosmology, powers, core races, the wholesale corruption of campaign settings... yeah, that's great.  Some people can enjoy it, and some can really just overlook and rely on separate older materials or homebrews to get them going.  

However, the texture of this ruleset, the mouthfeel when you take a good swallow, seems too mixed up and doesn't have a natural feel.  The system could be used for other things possibly, and used well; however, to say that one group of people has no right to be irritated that a system they find inferior has replaced the system they grew up with and enjoyed, a system which to them seems perfect . . . well, they just lost 1st party support for their favored system. 

Good of you to be the arbiter of tastes while telling others not to do so.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 16, 2008)

I suppose my main problem with 4e criticism isn't that it's loaded with subjectivity, but more that people don't offer any alternatives or solutions. Most "criticism" of 4e is just pointless flame-throwing. Criticism implies suggestion of improvement, most of what I've seen at least is... well, I apologize if this may seem offensive, but whining. Just saying "I don't like _______, D&D is ruined for me, and I want everyone to know that I am displeased and hope to find more who share my thoughts or experience".

I don't mind criticism. I just don't see any.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 16, 2008)

4e is my favorite edition so far. It still has many parts that suck.

Want to know specifics? Check out the bits I'm house ruling. House rules are the sincerest form of critique.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 16, 2008)

Loonook said:


> Isn't the whole point of critiquing a game system boiling down to 'I like Edition/System/What-have-you X'?   To say that somehow this type of critique is inappropriate against 4e is ignoring every White Wolf vs. WotC, GW vs. WW, Rolemaster v. Nobilis v. FATAL debate which has ever occurred in some dark, dodgy sweat-soaked Gencon hotel room or sleep-addled forum posting.




This is an "i hate apples because they aren't oranges" type of argument. And highly irrelevant and very counterproductive.



Loonook said:


> Cosmology, powers, core races, the wholesale corruption of campaign settings... yeah, that's great.  Some people can enjoy it, and some can really just overlook and rely on separate older materials or homebrews to get them going.




These specifics are perfectly acceptable points of contention. Discussion of these points (and HP, milestones, multiclass rules etc.) are reasonable. 
Some proponents of 4e like most of the new changes, others accept the system after adopting houserules and old material from previous editions. Some dislike most or all changes. Fine.
4e is not immune to critique. Just like 3e wasn't immune, 2e wasn't etc.

Discuss points that are relevant and people will listen and debate, or continue with apples vs. oranges and people won't.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 16, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I see it as this way. A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X". People may go into detail about things, but the core meaning of what they say isn't any more than that. That doesn't really qualify as criticism. You are just stating a preference or lack therof and calling it criticism.



That's my observation as well.

Also, I find generally the criticism leveled at 4E also applies to other editions of D&D.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 16, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> I suppose my main problem with 4e criticism isn't that it's loaded with subjectivity, but more that people don't offer any alternatives or solutions. Most "criticism" of 4e is just pointless flame-throwing. Criticism implies suggestion of improvement, most of what I've seen at least is... well, I apologize if this may seem offensive, but whining. Just saying "I don't like _______, D&D is ruined for me, and I want everyone to know that I am displeased and hope to find more who share my thoughts or experience".
> 
> I don't mind criticism. I just don't see any.




Perhaps 4e as a system is so well bounded and consistent that makes it hard to change what they do not like regarding the effects of the system without changing basics of the system. At that point it would be like you ask them to analize you the system they like. But this need be a different discussion and on a different level, no?


----------



## Loonook (Nov 16, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> . . .
> 
> Just saying "I don't like _______, D&D is ruined for me, and I want everyone to know that I am displeased and hope to find more who share my thoughts or experience".
> 
> I don't mind criticism. I just don't see any.




Yeah, but this is a valid thing for someone to say.  If 4e ruins D&D for the individual they have the right to say so... declaration of distaste is a valid criticism, and not all criticism need be positive.  Criticism includes observation, reasoned judgment and value judgment as part and parcel of the definition.  

As I said before, I trust that the system may be fine for others, but there are pieces which make no real sense to me, and to others, and the idea of change for change's sake doesn't sit well with some... and the changes wrought on setting materials seem to hit there.  Perhaps if there was more support rather than distancing from the origins of the stories these setting represent there would be more support on that front...

But you can't please all people.  And it is business.  Certain things I hope for (no Modern 2.0 from Wizards, no attempts to really go after 3.X publishers, a more flexible GSL to allow individuals to come up with interesting takes) . . . but it is business.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> T
> Also, I find generally the criticism leveled at 4E also applies to other editions of D&D.




I find that this is valid criticism however. If a person sees a problem with the last edition or the last several, the hope is always that the upgrade will fix this. If it doesn't that is grounds for criticism.

Of course, whether there was a "problem" in the first place is always a matter of debate

Ultimately I don't mind edition comparisons as long as there is some logic to the comparison. Saying that 4e sucks because its not 3e serves nothing. Saying that 4e sucks because it doesn't have "X" that 3rd edition had, and "X" was great and wonderful, then that's a step towards a good debate.

I will also say I see far too many 4e enthusiasts defend 4e by saying "well 3e had that problem too!". That's not a defense, that's an acknowledgment that there is in fact a problem...one that WOTC didn't address.

Ultimately no edition is perfect, and as long as people have constructive arguments then bring on the love and hate, and lets see what comes about it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 16, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> I find that this is valid criticism however. If a person sees a problem with the last edition or the last several, the hope is always that the upgrade will fix this. If it doesn't that is grounds for criticism.



"This has always been a problem" is a fair criticism. I'm talking about the situations where 4E only is slammed for something, while the problem actually existed in earlier editions as well.

Not "D&D has this problem", but "4E introduced this problem."


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 16, 2008)

Loonook said:


> ... and the idea of change for change's sake doesn't sit well with some...




If that's why they moved to 4th Edition. But I hardly think the development philosophy that launched the design of the entire system was "We need change, whether it's good or bad... let's just... I don't know, let's just _change_".




Loonook said:


> Yeah, but this is a valid thing for someone to say. If 4e ruins D&D for the individual they have the right to say so... declaration of distaste is a valid criticism, and not all criticism need be positive. Criticism includes observation, reasoned judgment and value judgment as part and parcel of the definition.






Loonook said:


> The valid critique starts with 'I prefer edition X' but in many cases there are reasons which this preference can affect the enjoyment of the game and* thus have full rights to be aired* so as to possibly find a way to resolve these issues without having to cling to an old edition (or rush to the new)




Full rights to be aired? Yes, speak out, but for how long? When does it become enough that we have three threads at any given time on the main page of the General forums that are started by people disgruntled by the new system looking for some recognition. It is _very clear to everyone_ that there is a _large party_ that is aggrieved by 4th Edition because it doesn't represent they want in a gaming experience.

But why is this? Call of Cthulhu is an excellent game. It does not fit a gaming style I engage in on a regular basis. You don't see me starting a thread on the forums entitled "Why I don't play Cthulhu". Why? Because, in my opinion, these boards are not here to agnowledge my dislikes. And if I did start such a thread, people would show up and say "It's fine, it's preference, you don't have to play it". Which is the appropriate answer. But for some reason, it's not appropriate for discussion about D&D. Why do I think this is?

Because D&D is popular. And to a lot of people, it's very personal. Which is the point of the thread this thread is forked from. And while yes, they may have full rights to express their opinions, I don't think that many of these posters come looking for solutions, and if they do, I don't see how this community can "resolve" their personal preference. Or has a responsibility to.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> "This has always been a problem" is a fair criticism. I'm talking about the situations where 4E only is slammed for something, while the problem actually existed in earlier editions as well.
> 
> Not "D&D has this problem", but "4E introduced this problem."




Fair enough. In that case, I agree with you, I too have seen this thrown around far too often.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 16, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I see it as this way. A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X". People may go into detail about things, but the core meaning of what they say isn't any more than that. That doesn't really qualify as criticism. You are just stating a preference or lack therof and calling it criticism.




I'm having trouble parsing this statement in regards to the quote, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with you. IMO, people criticize 4e not because it isn't X previous edition, but because they don't like it as much as a previous edition. That isn't simply a preference, but an opinion formed by considering what characteristics 4e has.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 16, 2008)

I've got my list of 4e critiques.  And I don't get mad at people for leveling critiques at 4e.  I just prefer that they be honest.

There are three types of argument I don't find honest.

1. Comparisons between 3e and 4e that don't make sense.  For example, claiming that 4e is the first edition to introduce unrealistic natural healing rates.  In reality, the natural healing rates in 3e and 4e are very similar.  Both are unrealistic, mind you.  There is a legitimate argument to be had about the realism involved, the degree to which that lack of realism is visible, and what could be done about it.  But you'll never get to that discussion if you begin with erroneous accusations, and especially not if you then try to take your erroneous statement and use it as a spring board into a larger critique that you have now firmly rooted in error.

2. Statements which flat out aren't so, and which the speaker knows or should know aren't so.  You can't have a rogue who uses brutal scoundrel and artful dodger powers!  Yes, you can.  All clerics have lasers!  No, they don't.  There are no rules for professions, so you can't have one!  Yes, you can.  The rules don't describe non combat abilities for most monsters, so they haven't got them!  That isn't so.  4e is dumb because minion elder dragons don't make sense!  There aren't any minion elder dragons, and if there were, that would make elder dragon minions dumb, not 4e.  You get the idea.  If some total forum newb says these things, I go easy, but the regulars here know this stuff, and the blatant dishonesty involved in saying some of these things can completely obscure decent points.  For example, if you want to talk about ways that minion rules can generate inconsistent outcomes, be my guest.  But don't open the conversation with a hypothetical Elder Wyrm Minion fighting a first level wizard armed only with a spork.

3. Perhaps most importantly, statements which pretend to be serious, but which heavily suggest that they're just cover for (or flat out expression of) gamer prejudice.  This includes the "4e is like WoW/Magic/a board game/anime/etc" category of critique.  My geek career has included a lot of branches of nerd-dom.  And nothing bothers me more than hearing one type of geek sneer at another as if they were somehow better because of their choice of game, or hearing older gamers sneer at younger gamers as if younger gamers are some kind of lame pack of idiots instead of just younger versions of us.  I don't mean to shut down all thinking along these lines (I personally think that 4e has a lot of tabletop gaming influences built into its combat), but sometimes you can hear the disgust dripping from someone's voice when they start down this line of argument.  And its distasteful.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 16, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I'm having trouble parsing this statement in regards to the quote, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with you. IMO, people criticize 4e not because it isn't X previous edition, but because they don't like it as much as a previous edition. That isn't simply a preference, but an opinion formed by considering what characteristics 4e has.




The quote was asking why people get upset and feel they need to respond to "criticism" of 4E, and my response is that a lot of 4E "criticism" isn't criticism. If you don't like 4E as much as a previous edition, and you dislike it because 4E is different, its a dead end discussion. There's really nothing to say beyond "sucks to be you". The more it is repeatedly said, the more irritating it is to hear, because there isn't anything to discuss. Its not something that can be fixed or addressed, and nothing anybody can say can make it better.


----------



## Loonook (Nov 16, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> If that's why they moved to 4th Edition. But I hardly think the development philosophy that launched the design of the entire system was "We need change, whether it's good or bad... let's just... I don't know, let's just _change_".
> 
> ---
> 
> Because D&D is popular. And to a lot of people, it's very personal. Which is the point of the thread this thread is forked from. And while yes, they may have full rights to express their opinions, I don't think that many of these posters come looking for solutions, and if they do, I don't see how this community can "resolve" their personal preference. Or has a responsibility to.




Okay, first thing: yeah, I do think that it is change, and I never claimed that they were going for willy-nilly change so much as they were going for change for change's sake:  You hate your living room which is painted blue and filled with furniture you find tacky.  Going around making willy-nilly changes would be to throw paint all over the walls and replace all of that furniture with high-concept seating arrangements.  Yeah, aesthetically some of those changes look nice (I like how the splotch works with the bronze statue of Morrus riding a small dog), but most are horrid or disjointed.

Change for change's sake is looking at that same living room and saying 
"hey, you know what... I love all of the colors in this room, but it works better as a kitchen'.  Maybe you have a perfectly functioning kitchen somewhere else... but you just tore out the floors, placed fixtures, etc. to make this new room work.

Maybe you needed that kitchen all along, but that 2e couch was highly comfortable, has a good ass-groove, things are working for it.  And that 1e lamp was beautiful even if less technologically 'advanced' than that nice 3e sound system (a whole lot of noise and OOMPH, but only as good as you put into it).

Wow... I should stop making rants while hungry and jobless.  

My stomach itches from eating wallpaper paste.

________________________

Okay, on D&D's popularity and arguments over editions: What popular product which changes doesn't have holdouts and arguments?  Who here likes classic cars? Who likes to get the new sleek models?  PC Users: Who enjoys using Vista? How about XP? 

Yeah, apparently Cthulu isn't as popular as Dungeons and Dragons.  And on a site which has the heading of ENWorld D&D/RPG News there are people arguing about D&D over other RPGs.  

Popularity breeds a larger player base, which breeds more contempt in change, and makes change more difficult.  You belong to the early adopters of a system which most likely 80% of the gaming population will turn over/be playing a year from now.  So suffer the slings and arrows of ignominy while you step over all of those who still like the old stuff.

If you're able to accept that they may still like it later, there's always a spot on my couch, and we can spin some tunes.  Just don't invite me over to your place... I don't want to have to sit in the kitchen sink .

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 16, 2008)

Oh great..it's come down to arguing about the way people argue about edition X sucks

yay EnWorld


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Oh great..it's come down to arguing about the way people argue about edition X sucks
> 
> yay EnWorld




You win the InterWeb.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 16, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The quote was asking why people get upset and feel they need to respond to "criticism" of 4E, and my response is that a lot of 4E "criticism" isn't criticism. If you don't like 4E as much as a previous edition, and you dislike it because 4E is different, its a dead end discussion. There's really nothing to say beyond "sucks to be you". The more it is repeatedly said, the more irritating it is to hear, because there isn't anything to discuss. Its not something that can be fixed or addressed, and nothing anybody can say can make it better.




I do not think even a substantial sliver of the criticism can be summed up as "4e is different." People criticize changes they don't like because the game has less value for them after the changes. Missing options, changes to milieu, different game mechanics with different weakness and strengths are all more than "differences," they are meaningful differences.

Suggesting that people who don't like 4e simply don't like change is ungracious, almost certainly inaccurate, and in any case likely to offend.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 16, 2008)

I don't understand this thread...

...it starts out with Ronseur's quote as something I think has a very true ring to it.

thecasualoblivion says "No. A lot of it is just stating a preference, and therefore is not criticism" Which I don't think makes a whole lot of sense, because stating a preference *is* criticism.

And then a lot of posters come on board to say "I have some 4e criticisms that somehow avoid the 'just stating a preference' criteria" which don't really avoid stating a preference.

I don't get it. Are we trying to say that some preferences are more valid than others? That some flaws of 4e are "valid" flaws and that other flaws are "invalid" flaws just because the criticizer is a sentimental fool? 

4e isn't immune to criticism. All criticism is, by its very nature, fairly subjective. No critic is above their own emotional likes and dislikes, observering from some hypethetical neutral ground of pure objectivity. There is no such thing.

There can be learned criticism and ignorant criticism, and learned criticism tends to be a better argument for or against something, but that doesn't make ignorant criticism invalid, it just makes it unrefined -- a blunt instrument of gut feeling where a learned criticism is a pointed scalpel of at least rationalization.

But ultimately, it's all about whether or not you like something, which is NEVER a rational, objective choice, no matter what the sophists tell themselves. 

4e can be disliked for specific, narrow reasons ("Ah. The Skill Challenges system is unbalanced!") or for general, broad reasons ("I HATE THE ART RARGLEFARGLE!"), or for a combination ("I prefer classless games, and I love gnomes!").

Valid criticisms are surprisingly easy to make about...well...anything. 4e is no exception. Just because a criticism comes from a position of "OD&D IS THE ONE TRUE GAME" doesn't make it any less valid. It's a fair cop -- 4e is not OD&D, and you won't be happy with 4e if you think OD&D is the one true game. Totally legit. You have every right to complain on ENWorld or the WotC boards or all across the Internet high and low about how 4e would be better if it took more ideas from OD&D. That's entirely fair.

People will disagree with you, and they will be justified, too, but you can scream it all you want without having that be an invalid criticism. It's valid. It's not entirely *relevant* in many respects, but it's still entirely fair to make.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e isn't immune to criticism. All criticism is, by its very nature, fairly subjective. No critic is above their own emotional likes and dislikes, observering from some hypethetical neutral ground of pure objectivity. There is no such thing.





Sorry, KM, but JeffB already won the InterWeb.  Care for a close second?


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Nov 16, 2008)

Loonook said:


> Yeah, apparently Cthulu isn't as popular as Dungeons and Dragons.  And on a site which has the heading of ENWorld D&D/RPG News there are people arguing about D&D over other RPGs.



Oh, I dunno. It's quite popular on my site.  

Regarding favourite editions of D&D, like most things, I simply vote with my time and my wallet. It's quite effective.


----------



## mearls (Nov 16, 2008)

I think there's a subtext to the 4e discussions that effectively makes analyzing the game almost pointless.

Both pro- and anti-4e posters seem to have this belief that there's this war going on, and by arguing on the Internet they're fighting against the other side. It's like, if you're loud enough, and obnoxious enough, and constant enough, the vision you have for how D&D should be played will become a reality for everyone.

Frankly, I'm sick of fanaticism on all sides. It's undermining the entire online RPG community. It's a far angrier, far less welcoming place than it was not too long ago.


----------



## monboesen (Nov 16, 2008)

> Full rights to be aired? Yes, speak out, but for how long?




To me this is for the moment the key point. By now we have had about half a year of the same 4e discussions, praises, criticisms, fanboi positivisms and trollish haters.

Couldn't we just drop the issue. It is not like the discussion can be "won" or lead to anything usable. At least not the way the discussions have gone so far.

Personally I feel that the endless discussions drags me down and makes ENworld less appealing. Logging in to the Genereal forum and once again seeing half the threads being 4e discussions or spin-offs of 4e discussions is just depressing.

I would much rather see threads full of stories about great roleplaying exeperiences, advice for dm's and players, interesting house rule variants and easily stealable material for my game.

Maybe its nostalgia kicking in already, but isn't that how it used to be?


----------



## wolfen fenrison (Nov 16, 2008)

I agree that nothing is beyond criticism, and that all criticism is valid but mabe not relevent.

My biggest kavetch about 4E is that it plays like a video game or MMORPG and books read less like the rule books of old and more game walkthroughs.

Now in general I love video game rpgs and mmorpgs, I play them all the time, hell I even have DDO but that is not the D&D expierience I want at my table.  If a friend wants my to come over and play 4E, kewl I will gladly, I'm a gamer it's what I do.  However I will not spend money on a game I do not believe in.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 16, 2008)

monboesen said:


> I would much rather see threads full of stories about great roleplaying exeperiences, advice for dm's and players, interesting house rule variants and easily stealable material for my game.




Amen.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 16, 2008)

My problem with the 4e "debates";
1) people saying "that's not a valid criticism" when it's a public message board and someone is just venting. If it's not important, then just skip the message and let it die. Attacking the arguement and going multiple pages to "win" the semantic debate doesn't prove anything, you don't get to set the rules for a discussion.
2) Like politics (which I'm not discussing!), you've made up your mind, you're not convincing the other guy. The other guy, he's made up his mind and you're not convincing him. Use the three response rule, if you're repeating yourself for the third time, it's just not worth repeating anymore.
3) "Imagination Rules!". You don't like how 4e uses minions or whatever, then you need to use your imagination to paint the picture... like somehow all other editions, you couldn't use your imagination. Like it's unique now that suddenly you can and should fill in gaps to fit the scene. Somehow, suddenly, 4e is liberated from rules by Scene, but all previous editions the DM and players were bound by granite rules of conduct.
4) Fanaticism, which couples into 3, really. This is where you use your imagination to fill in gaps and then present your solution as if the other person should have known. "There is no grapple" "well, if you use this roll here and that roll there, it's the same as grapple, so that's not a valid complaint!" (off the cuff example, not saying that happened.)
5) Of course, that leads to the "Prove Your Opinion" mentality. I can't prove that the grapple quote is 100% accurate with links, so it's not a valid quote...  again, what debate folks are trying to win.. I don't know anymore.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 16, 2008)

> Frankly, I'm sick of fanaticism on all sides. It's undermining the entire online RPG community. It's a far angrier, far less welcoming place than it was not too long ago.




WAY TO GO GUYS! WE'VE MADE MEARLS CRY! QUICK, WE NEED PICTURES OF ADORABLE KITTENS! HELP ME GOOGLE!







It's gonna be all right, Mike! I promise! In a world with kittens like that, how can it not be?!


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Nov 16, 2008)

I think many of the answers to these issues have been said multiple times on EN World and elsewhere:

Play what you like and live & let live.

As simple as that, I think. The rules of RPGs are not sacred, just change them to your own personal needs. 

More positive topics tend to create more positive atmospheres. I'm just grateful roleplayers (in whatever form) are still around!


----------



## Mark (Nov 16, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In a world with kittens like that, how can it not be?!





That was also the theory behind Ewoks.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 16, 2008)

Mark said:


> That was also the theory behind Ewoks.  Just sayin'.




There is much wisdom in these word. Reflect on them grasshopper.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 16, 2008)

> That was also the theory behind Ewoks. Just sayin'.




Kittens can't talk, though, and they grow up to be evil full-grown cats, so they make up for it.  

Also: Reality isn't written and directed by an increasingly insane George Lucas, as far as I know. Though I suppose that would explain the broad, cartoonish stereotypes inhabiting my immediate vicinity...


----------



## Greg K (Nov 16, 2008)

All that matters to me is the following:

1. I had some issues with 3e that I wanted addresed. 

2. The designers announced 4e and it appeared that they were going to address most of the issues that I had with 3e. It sounded promising until they began discussing their design philosophy for the new game and releasing previews. 

3. I gave 4e a look and, despite finding a few things that I considered improvements, I have many more issues with 4e than I did with 3e. A few of  the issues are carry overs or reintroductions from pre-3e editions (and the list has grown with the release of the Adventurer's Vault and the ranger animal companion material from Martial Power.

4. I chose to stay with 3e using UA, some third party material, and house rules.  However, I adopted the 4e unified saving throw and would like to see someone redesign/balance the 3e races using the 4e approach of removing most of the non-biological aspects of race and making them into racial feats (the removal of the non-biological abilities from the racial description was one of my pre-3e questionaire requests 3e that did not make it into 3e).

5. If WOTC (via a 3e style Unearthed Arcana) and third parties address my issues with 4e,* I may give 4e another look at some point in the future*.  

6. My gaming friends are of the same general opinion.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 17, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> 3) "Imagination Rules!". You don't like how 4e uses minions or whatever, then you need to use your imagination to paint the picture... like somehow all other editions, you couldn't use your imagination. Like it's unique now that suddenly you can and should fill in gaps to fit the scene. Somehow, suddenly, 4e is liberated from rules by Scene, but all previous editions the DM and players were bound by granite rules of conduct.
> 4) Fanaticism, which couples into 3, really. This is where you use your imagination to fill in gaps and then present your solution as if the other person should have known. "There is no grapple" "well, if you use this roll here and that roll there, it's the same as grapple, so that's not a valid complaint!" (off the cuff example, not saying that happened.)




One point about that.

This works both ways. A number of people will be perfectly happy to admit that you can use your imagination in previous editions (or that they house rule the problems and thus it wasn't a problem, etc, etc, etc) but then complain about a literal interpretation of the 4e rules. Or they deliberately use their imagination to make the 4e rules not make sense.

i.e. make wounds be gaping chest wounds so it doesn't make sense that the warlord can heal with a world ... ignoring that a gaping chest wound in any of the editions wouldn't make sense that the person isn't taking any damage on the following turns, not taking any serious side effects, etc, etc, etc ...

And of course not admitting that nothing out of 4e caused the problem, but they deliberately created a problem where 4e wouldn't make sense.

It's one thing for a game to not fit with how a group plays, what a player is looking for. However, it does seem a bit disingenuous to seemingly "go looking for" excuses to complain about the system. It's not "I can't narratively have HP be physical damage anymore" or "I like a gritty game where healing takes a long time" it is presented as "martial healing makes no sense at all".


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> It's undermining the entire online RPG community. It's a far angrier, far less welcoming place than it was not too long ago.




I think that before typing sentences such as this, one should pause for a moment and consider if that is, in fact, at all likely. In general, RPG message boards, like dutch ovens full of frying fat, run hot and occasionally catch on fire.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 17, 2008)

Here speaks the words, of unyeilding wisdom.



pawsplay said:


> I think that before typing sentences such as this, one should pause for a moment and consider if that is, in fact, at all likely. In general, RPG message boards, like dutch ovens full of frying fat, run hot and occasionally catch on fire.


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> I think there's a subtext to the 4e discussions that effectively makes analyzing the game almost pointless.
> 
> Both pro- and anti-4e posters seem to have this belief that there's this war going on, and by arguing on the Internet they're fighting against the other side. It's like, if you're loud enough, and obnoxious enough, and constant enough, the vision you have for how D&D should be played will become a reality for everyone.
> 
> Frankly, I'm sick of fanaticism on all sides. It's undermining the entire online RPG community. It's a far angrier, far less welcoming place than it was not too long ago.




I've discovered your evil plan. The "4E Avenger Hateflamer Squadron" (you know, the guys who show up and try to shout you into submission for daring to criticize the tiniest aspect of 4E) is _secretly in your pay_... by effectively making irrelevant and irritating every discussion of 4E, your design decisions are made proof against rational criticism!

A plan worthy of your supervillain status.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I think that before typing sentences such as this, one should pause for a moment and consider if that is, in fact, at all likely. In general, RPG message boards, like dutch ovens full of frying fat, run hot and occasionally catch on fire.





Actually I agree with him. People on both sides of the argument pretty frequently delve into ad-hominem and hyperbole. I'll even admit that my own comments haven't always been fair to the other side.

The reason I think D&D is like that is because of the very nature of the thing. People don't simply consume it like most media, but they have to have a thorough understanding of it in order to play. People play any given edition for years at a time, and the way they interact with it leads to the way they define their experience with it. It isn't just something you do, it's something people are passionate about. For many in the over-30 crowd, it's something that we feel extremely connected with due to the persecution of the hobby back in the late '70s and '80s. A lot of us knew people who held uninformed negative opinions of it and either managed to straighten them out through reasoned debate, or at least had the courage to tell these people that we weren't going to change the things we enjoy and to keep their opinions to themselves.

For many of us, this isn't just a thing we do every week or so over pizza and Mountain Dew, it's one of the things we use to define ourselves by. It's a subculture. Of course people are going to get bent when something comes along that attempts to make drastic changes. It isn't a matter of just buying a new product, it's a matter of changing the way we interface with this culture we belong to. Some people like the change, other people don't and they feel like they've been abandoned by this thing they've invested so much of themselves into.

It's this feeling of personal investment that leads many, including me, to not like the more gamist nature of 4E while being more than willing to enjoy a strategy game along similar lines as Descent. One is something I've been invested with for over 20 years and the other is a game with some familiar elements that I've recently been introduced to. If 4th edition were released with a name other than D&D, would the reaction of some people be different? Would those who can't accept that this is the new form of D&D be able to enjoy it? Would those who love it and have defended it still pay any more attention to it than they do any other 3rd party release? 

The pro-4E people need to realize that the anti-4E side is just as invested with D&D as they are, that they've been handed something that they can't get behind, and that their opinions are just as valid.

The anti-4E people need to realize that the existence of a new edition of the game doesn't suddenly make the previous editions suddenly cease to exist, nor does it change the fact that there's a lot of excellent companies made up entirely of gamers, just like them, who are still supporting the game they love.

In all honesty, my personal dislike for 4E has led to one very positive thing for me - the rediscovery of old school play. While I love the way 3rd edition was structured, I'm finding myself more free to follow where my imagination wants to lead because it's a less rigid system with fewer constraints. It's easier to design for, it's easier to wing-it, and the simple black and white line art actually stimulates the imagination just as well as full color masterfully crafted paintings. 

I've been compiling notes and coming up with plots, sub-plots, challenges, maps, and all the other fun stuff for my Ancient World: Minoans campaign.  Right now it looks like the system I'll be using will be Castles and Crusades, mainly because its so ridiculously easy to port material from any edition over to it without a lot of headache. In D&D, ideas are king. I also love what they did with OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and Mutant Future, but you can only play one game at a time, so makes sense to pick the one that matches what you want to accomplish for a given game, and so I did.

The bottom line is that looking at this as a war is the wrong approach. It's a choice that each group has to make. I've made my choice, other people have made theirs and no matter where you end up, we still belong to the same subculture. Want to play 4E? Go do it. Want to play 3E? Go do it. Want to play FATAL? Well, you may be one of the most interesting individuals ever, but by all means, go do it.


----------



## mearls (Nov 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I think that before typing sentences such as this, one should pause for a moment and consider if that is, in fact, at all likely. In general, RPG message boards, like dutch ovens full of frying fat, run hot and occasionally catch on fire.




I've actually thought about it several times recently, not just now. I've been on various gaming fora dating back to Usenet. I was with Malhavoc when they went with DRM. I remember the reaction to the end of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon magazines.

The problem I see now is that, while in the past things would heat up and then cool down, we seem to have settled into a higher background temperature. Maybe it's just the economy, maybe there's an underlying sense of panic that one's D&D of choice is going to die, but things just seem more shrill than usual.

Meh. Maybe I'm just too old and jaded for gaming forums! Maybe if everyone claps their hands and just wishes ever so hard, I'll brighten up!


----------



## FireLance (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> Meh. Maybe I'm just too old and jaded for gaming forums! Maybe if everyone claps their hands and just wishes ever so hard, I'll brighten up!



But, you removed _wish_ from 4e!

Kidding.


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> I think there's a subtext to the 4e discussions that effectively makes analyzing the game almost pointless.
> 
> Both pro- and anti-4e posters seem to have this belief that there's this war going on, and by arguing on the Internet they're fighting against the other side. It's like, if you're loud enough, and obnoxious enough, and constant enough, the vision you have for how D&D should be played will become a reality for everyone.
> 
> *Frankly, I'm sick of fanaticism on all sides. It's undermining the entire online RPG community. It's a far angrier, far less welcoming place than it was not too long ago.*




Wow. WOTC redesigns the game in such a way that alienates a  significant portion of the community and expects that significant portion to what? Go away? Keep quiet? Grudgingly buy the books anyway?

This fracture comes directly from WOTC because of the design choices they made and direction they took D&D in.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> Wow. WOTC redesigns the game in such a way that alienates a  significant portion of the community and expects that significant portion to what? Go away? Keep quiet? Grudgingly buy the books anyway?
> 
> This fracture comes directly from WOTC because of the design choices they made and direction they took D&D in.




How long will the whining continue? At what point will people get on with their lives?


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> How long will the whining continue? At what point will people get on with their lives?




When the people doing the whining don't care anymore. I would expect that time to be when they: have returned to previous editions, have accepted 4e for what it is, or have moved on to other systems or hobbies.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 17, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> Wow. WOTC redesigns the game in such a way that alienates a  significant portion of the community and expects that significant portion to what? Go away? Keep quiet? Grudgingly buy the books anyway?




My answer is that they should keep playing the old game or find a new one. Pathfinder works for me.



> This fracture comes directly from WOTC because of the design choices they made and direction they took D&D in.




See, I get the frustration because I also feel it, but the thing to remember is that WotC owns a brand. They do not own your game. And if you don't like the direction they went with 4E, then ignore it. I walked away from the boards for a while, played other games, pretended the ENWorld didn't exist, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the problem wasn't WotC for wanting to reinvent D&D in a way that is more profitable, or with the people who like the new game, but with me because I was too inflexible to just accept that change happened. My friends like to play a variety of games and they'll happily play any game I want to run. I'm not forced to run 4E or play it. Nobody is. There's enough material out there for the version of the game I prefer and it isn't like they need to be continually making more in order for me to keep playing.

On a related nore, I don't like anime either, so should I get upset with the people who like anime? I do like the Star Wars Clone Wars TV series, so should I get upset with the people who don't like Clone Wars? I like Star Trek TNG more than any of the other Trek spinoffs. Does that mean that I should get upset at those who like Voyager best? I like both the new BSG and the old BSG, and readily accept both as good.

I think we all just need to stop trying to "win" this and just play whatever game we like.


----------



## mearls (Nov 17, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's gonna be all right, Mike! I promise! In a world with kittens like that, how can it not be?!




Man, with all due respect, the more I look at those kittens the more they are seriously freaking me the hell out.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 17, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> Wow. WOTC redesigns the game in such a way that alienates a significant portion of the community and expects that significant portion to what? Go away? Keep quiet? Grudgingly buy the books anyway?
> 
> This fracture comes directly from WOTC because of the design choices they made and direction they took D&D in.



Indeed. If WotC had simply designed an edition that everyone hated, opinions about the game wouldn't have been so polarized.

Unfortunately, they've managed to produce an edition that some people can't stop talking about how much they hate, and others can't stop talking about how much they love. 

That said, I doubt that WotC would design a game that is deliberately intended to alienate parts of the gaming community. I think the key driving force behind 4e was appeal, not alienation. It was intended to appeal to people who had felt that certain aspects of 3e negatively impacted their play experience, and (perhaps more importantly) people who are not playing D&D.

In other words, if you didn't have a problem with 3e, keep playing 3e. If you had problems with 3e, but don't like the changes made by 4e, find someone else to fix them for you. If nobody seems interested in fixing them in the way that you want, fix them yourself (thinking carefully about why nobody wants to fix them in the way that you want is an optional step).


----------



## Nifft (Nov 17, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> Wow. WOTC redesigns the game in such a way that alienates a  significant portion of the community and expects that significant portion to what? Go away? Keep quiet? Grudgingly buy the books anyway?



 They just make games. Any alienation you feel is not due to any particular edition of this game.

Play the game you want to play. If it's any kind of D&D, you'll find support for it here, if not many other places on the web.

But if all you want to do is complain about some imagined slight... could you do it elsewhere? Please?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## FireLance (Nov 17, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> On a related nore, I don't like anime either, so should I get upset with the people who like anime? I do like the Star Wars Clone Wars TV series, so should I get upset with the people who don't like Clone Wars? I like Star Trek TNG more than any of the other Trek spinoffs. Does that mean that I should get upset at those who like Voyager best?



Depends on whether you would rather enjoy the stuff you like, or try to make sure that nobody enjoys the stuff you don't like.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

One issue is that some people feel they can contribute to the downfall of 4E and quicken the appearance of a hypothetical 5E more to their liking by making a fuss on message boards. The edition war is real to some people.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 17, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Depends on whether you would rather enjoy the stuff you like, or try to make sure that nobody enjoys the stuff you don't like.




Exactly!


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 17, 2008)

firelance said:


> depends on whether you would rather enjoy the stuff you like, or try to make sure that nobody enjoys the stuff you don't like.




qft.


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

Nifft said:


> They just make games. Any alienation you feel is not due to any particular edition of this game.
> 
> Play the game you want to play. If it's any kind of D&D, you'll find support for it here, if not many other places on the web.
> 
> ...




First, I am going to assume you mean "you" as anybody that is complaining, not specifically directed at me.

Second, the thread title is "4e being immune to criticism." Are you implying that 4e should be immune to criticism? This is Morrus' house. He gets to decide what topics are allowed. If people can follow the rules and have civilized discussions then people should be able to complain about the new edition.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> First, I am going to assume you mean "you" as anybody that is complaining, not specifically directed at me.
> 
> Second, the thread title is "4e being immune to criticism." Are you implying that 4e should be immune to criticism? This is Morrus' house. He gets to decide what topics are allowed. If people can follow the rules and have civilized discussions then people should be able to complain about the new edition.




This thread was in response to a quote from another thread that spoke of people responding as if 4E should be immune to criticism, and my response that a lot of the so called criticisms are statements of preference as opposed to discussion points, and other ways that "criticism" isn't criticism. After recent posts, I would add that a lot of negative 4E comments aren't criticism as much as they are salvos in an "edition war".


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 17, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Depends on whether you would rather enjoy the stuff you like, or try to make sure that nobody enjoys the stuff you don't like.



Very well put. People expend a lot of energy here discussing things they don't even like.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Very well put. People expend a lot of energy here discussing things they don't even like.




There is a saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Positive or negative, 4E dominates all conversation. Maybe all the fervor against 4E is actually a testament to its success?


----------



## JeffB (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> There is a saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Positive or negative, 4E dominates all conversation. Maybe all the fervor against 4E is actually a testament to its success?




Cue vehement rebuttal in 3...2...1...


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> There is a saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Positive or negative, 4E dominates all conversation. Maybe all the fervor against 4E is actually a testament to its success?



Well, there *is* such thing as bad publicity. But yeah, you might be right.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Forked from:  Sentimentality And D&D Editions OR Happiness Is The Edition That Brings You Joy
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I could criticize a lot about 4E. Why should I? Bottom line is it doesn't excite me. So I don't play or run it. Why bother to try and convince anyone to see things my way? Like every other edition of D&D you can play it and have fun. Thats all that matters.


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This thread was in response to a quote from another thread that spoke of people responding as if 4E should be immune to criticism, and my response that a lot of the so called criticisms are statements of preference as opposed to discussion points, and other ways that "criticism" isn't criticism. After recent posts, I would add that a lot of negative 4E comments aren't criticism as much as they are salvos in an "edition war".




Then the question is: Are people allowed to come to EN world and start a thread or join a thread stating their preferences? With the caveat that people from both sides need to follow the posting guidelines here.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> People expend a lot of energy here discussing things they don't even like.




But what your forgetting is...many people simply like discussing! People like to debate and argue things.

I've personally spent a great deal of time discussing the pros and cons of 4e (see my threads that discuss the 4e subsystems) and I greatly enjoy writing every one. I love getting to deconstruct a game system and find out what works and doesn't work. Sometimes I write positive stuff about 4e, and sometimes I write negative things, but I enjoy the discussion and debate no matter which side I'm currently on.

There's nothing wrong with people being passionate about the discussion of a game system, or about any particular "edition war". The only thing wrong is when people are illogical about their discussions or put their discussions in the wrong place.

First, people who rant and rave with no logic do not serve the boards...they just create a hostile image. People who calmly tear down a particular game system they don't like with rational points I never have a problem with, these people are giving others information, information those people are free to do with as they please.

Second, people should place their posts in the right area. If I open up a thread talking about general things about 4e, that's an open field for fiery debate. If I open a thread asking people to tell me about their favorite 4e character, that is not an appropriate place to start tearing down the system, no matter how logical and calm the argument.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 17, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> Second, the thread title is "4e being immune to criticism." Are you implying that 4e should be immune to criticism?



I personally don't have a problem with criticism. What I do have problems with are the following:

*1. Spreading of misinformation.* For example, claiming that encounter abilities refresh at the start of an encounter or after five minutes have elapsed even if you do not rest, when it is stated in the rules that encounter abilities are regained after a short five-minute rest.

*2. Wilful misinterpretation.* For example, claiming that a warlord's _inspiring word_ must be narrated as causing the actual healing of visible wounds, instead of restoring the intangible aspects of hit points or allowing a character to fight on despite his wounds.

*3. Overstated or unsupported arguments.* These usually take the form of "4e introduced this; we never had this in previous editions", when the actuality is more along the lines of "4e does this to a greater or more obvious extent; it was not so prevalent or obvious in earlier editions". For example, encounter abilities, speed of non-magical healing, effects that reduce hit points without dealing physical injuries, etc.​Discuss, argue, and state your opinion all you want, just don't engage in badwrongcriticism.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> Then the question is: Are people allowed to come to EN world and start a thread or join a thread stating their preferences? With the caveat that people from both sides need to follow the posting guidelines here.




Sure people are allowed. Expecting said opinions not to upset people or to draw heated responses is naive. Or to explain why people feel those responses are warranted. That would be more along the lines of my point.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You win the InterWeb.




Thanks. This is gonna look great on my resume.


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> But what your forgetting is...many people simply like discussing! People like to debate and argue things.
> 
> I've personally spent a great deal of time discussing the pros and cons of 4e (see my threads that discuss the 4e subsystems) and I greatly enjoy writing every one. I love getting to deconstruct a game system and find out what works and doesn't work. Sometimes I write positive stuff about 4e, and sometimes I write negative things, but I enjoy the discussion and debate no matter which side I'm currently on.
> 
> ...




What gets me about both sides is how so few know how to engage in debate, nor show the ability of rational thought. D&D seems to sit at the very core of some people and in my opinion sets many to react emotionally and without much logic.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 17, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> I've personally spent a great deal of time discussing the pros and cons of 4e (see my threads that discuss the 4e subsystems) and I greatly enjoy writing every one.



Yes indeed! But I'm talking about those who *only* talk about the cons. They start thread after thread about the cons, they introduce the discussion of these cons into threads that are not about them, etc.



Stalker0 said:


> The only thing wrong is when people are illogical about their discussions or put their discussions in the wrong place.
> 
> First, people who rant and rave with no logic do not serve the boards...they just create a hostile image. People who calmly tear down a particular game system they don't like with rational points I never have a problem with, these people are giving others information, information those people are free to do with as they please.



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

FireLance said:


> I personally don't have a problem with criticism. What I do have problems with are the following:
> 
> /snip
> 
> Discuss, argue, and state your opinion all you want, just don't engage in badwrongcriticism.




I agree.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> But if all you want to do is complain about some imagined slight... could you do it elsewhere? Please?




It'll never happen, and the forums will continue to have the "stuff" they've been displaying for months and months, if not years. Sure, it'll die down - but you'll always have a group (call them 'loyal' or call them 'nuts' or call them whatever you'd like to call such people) that will continue to post and complain about a game that they _do. not. play_. 

Why? Human nature.

Actually, I asked that very question of DaveMage whom, I'm sure we all know, is happy to be a 3.5er. His answer possessed logic: There's a belief among certain crowds that the more negativity they heap on 4e, the sooner 5e will arrive. If they are "silent" now about the things they don't like, then those same things may raise their heads in the _next_ edition.

If we take 8-10 years as an average lifespan of an edition, even if that's shortening over the long haul, we've got what we've got for quite some time.

And - guess what? 5e will just start things anew.

And Michael - you made a game that is fun to play and reinvigorated a handful of old farts that haven't gamed with me since they days of yore in my buddy's basement in the mid-80s. Shake off the griping. Water off a duck's butt and all that. As Nietzsche said, "Madness in individuals is rare; in mobs, it is the rule." This is the internet; we're a mob. It's not _supposed_ to be rational.

By the way, you should have kept half-orcs in the PHB and dropped eladrin. What the hell were you thinking?

Sorry, had to.

So spaketh
Frederich Wilhelm Wisdom Penalty


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 17, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> What gets me about both sides is how so few know how to engage in debate, nor show the ability of rational thought. D&D seems to sit at the very core of some people and in my opinion sets many to react emotionally and without much logic.




I'm actually finishing up my degree right now after not having done so during my first attempt at college. Sad, I know. My major is English - Rhetoric/Professional Writing.

If you were to ask a hundred different college professors what the definition of rhetoric is, you would get 100 different answers. Foss, Foss, and Trapp define rhetoric simply as "communication." One of my professors defines rhetoric as gaslighting. The generally accepted concept behind rhetoric is argument, or trying to persuade people to your way of thinking.

There are three concepts that are central to rhetoric: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Logos is when the rhetor makes an appeal to logic. I could get into deductive and inductive reasoning, but the nuances are really for those who actually want to study it. The point is that logos is the type of argument you make when you're trying to influence people using facts.

Pathos is when the rhetor makes an appeal to emotion. This often has a negative connotation when speaking in the real world. The word "pathetic" is a derivative of pathos, and it is perfectly reasonable to describe an emotional argument as a "pathetic argument" in an academic sense without intending to denigrate it.

Finally, ethos isn't an appeal, but refers to the speaker. A person who is accomplished is said to habe situated ethos. Someone who is knowledgable about a subject but isn't an authority can invent ethos. For example, people listen to Monte Cook when he speaks because he has something like 25 years in the RPG business, wrote the D&D 3.0 DMG, and has contributed or wrote some of the most notable gaming products for as long as I can remember.

Now, the point of this is that most of my professors believe that most people form their opinions based on pathos, but they use logos to justify them and influence others. Sure, you can make as many logical arguments you want about something, but once you've made a decision, committed to that decision, and then start arguing about it, it's because there is something that resonated with you emotionally. It is admirable to want to examine things logically, and in fact, if you can't justify something from a logical point of view, you should probably take another look at why you hold to a certain belief, but a person should also not be ashamed to admit about something that it just doesn't work for them and they don't like it.

Ultimately there is no objective way of determining a better game system from an inferior one, no matter how hard you try. In fact, the concept of an inferior game system in and of itself denies the notion that you don't have to have a better game system to have fun playing it. That is the reason why arguing strongly for or against this is ultimately emotional.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 17, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> WAY TO GO GUYS! WE'VE MADE MEARLS CRY! QUICK, WE NEED PICTURES OF ADORABLE KITTENS! HELP ME GOOGLE!
> 
> It's gonna be all right, Mike! I promise! In a world with kittens like that, how can it not be?!




I don't find those four kittens are doing it for me at all.  Four kittens is a terrible decision.  I really feel like the existence of these four kittens has ruined my ability to even like kittens, at all, for ever and ever.  I guess I have no choice but to stick with three kittens -


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> (snip)
> Now, the point of this is that most of my professors believe that most people form their opinions based on pathos, but they use logos to justify them and influence others. Sure, you can make as many logical arguments you want about something, but once you've made a decision, committed to that decision, and then start arguing about it, it's because there is something that resonated with you emotionally. It is admirable to want to examine things logically, and in fact, if you can't justify something from a logical point of view, you should probably take another look at why you hold to a certain belief, but a person should also not be ashamed to admit about something that it just doesn't work for them and they don't like it.
> (/snip)




Exactly.


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> I don't find those four kittens are doing it for me at all.  Four kittens is a terrible decision.  I really feel like the existence of these four kittens has ruined my ability to even like kittens, at all, for ever and ever.  I guess I have no choice but to stick with three kittens -




Are you seriously choosing 3 over 4?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 17, 2008)

Litter...​


----------



## billd91 (Nov 17, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> It'll never happen, and the forums will continue to have the "stuff" they've been displaying for months and months, if not years. Sure, it'll die down - but you'll always have a group (call them 'loyal' or call them 'nuts' or call them whatever you'd like to call such people) that will continue to post and complain about a game that they _do. not. play_.
> 
> Why? Human nature.




But there are plenty of other reasons to participates in criticisms of a game that people don't play. I came up with these 2 without trying very hard at all.

1) The game said poster does not play replaced the game they _do_ play in a company's product catalog, making it harder to recruit new players for the old game. That's certainly going to fodder for discussion.

2) Complaints, if read and recorded by the company, may help them figure out how to improve the current game or make it more appealing to players of the older version. I find it unfortunate that someone's ideas might be seen as completely dismissible simply because they aren't currently playing the game.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 17, 2008)

billd said:
			
		

> The game said poster does not play replaced the game they _do_ play in a company's product catalog, making it harder to recruit new players for the old game. That's certainly going to fodder for discussion.




For a while, I agree. But at a point 'discussion' (which I'll define as rationale discourse) segues into something...less beneficial. For anyone involved, in any game, of any edition, on any forum.



> 2) Complaints, if read and recorded by the company, may help them figure out how to improve the current game or make it more appealing to players of the older version. I find it unfortunate that someone's ideas might be seen as completely dismissible simply because they aren't currently playing the game.




I stand corrected; that's a good reason and rationale.

WP


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 17, 2008)

Nifft said:


> House rules are the sincerest form of critique.






This.


----------



## mearls (Nov 17, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> By the way, you should have kept half-orcs in the PHB and dropped eladrin. What the hell were you thinking?




Man, everbody's a critic! 

More seriously, the feedback thing is important. We're definitely listening to what people want in the game, stuff they've been excited about, stuff they dislike.

When people get shrill and angry, it's very easy to tune 'em out. The thing is, someone can be really angry and say, "Man, it's freakin' stupid that the half-orc isn't in the PH" and that's actually a useful thing to hear (people are mad about the half-orc; are a lot of them mad? should we do something?). I can react to that, and we do talk about this stuff at WotC.

Stuff that Firelance talked about, that just makes it easy to lose the useful feedback signal amongst all the noise.

And like I've said before, it works both ways. If someone's talking through why 4e doesn't work for them, calling them stupid just shuts down useful discussion. If people out there have an issue with the game, and it's something that can teach us something, we want to hear.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> Man, everbody's a critic!
> 
> More seriously, the feedback thing is important. We're definitely listening to what people want in the game, stuff they've been excited about, stuff they dislike.
> 
> ...






I have no complaints so far, you guys did a tremendous job.  4E is awesome!  However, I've got a complaint prepped and ready for future use, should the need arise.  It's a readied action I suppose, with the trigger being "WotC announces their next campaign setting after Eberron to be anything OTHER than Dark Sun."

That would be stupid.  There IS no "useful discussion" regarding NOT doing Dark Sun next.

I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 17, 2008)

I think that these discussions happen because we all have something at stake here.  Our hobby isn't so big to begin with.  When the community gets split like this, it becomes harder for ALL of us.

I believe both sides believe, at least somewhere in the back of their minds, that they are fighting for the "soul" of D&D.  The people who are sticking with 3.5e feel that if they reach a critical mass of people who reject 4e that they can topple it and force a 5e that is much closer to 3.5e.  The 4e supporters(or at least me, since I can't speak for everyone) simply want more people to accept the new edition so we have more people to play with.

However, I am reaching a wall of emotion the likes of which I haven't seen for anything, ever.  I have had one of my friends not only refuse to look at the new books but threaten to set fire to any books that anyone tries to make him read.  I spent a number of years building a community of D&D players in our city who played Living Greyhawk together and we were split right down the middle due to 4e.  Those of us who switched over to 4e are having fun playing Living Forgotten Realms.  But each and every time we talk to the 3.5e supporters they bombard us with comments like "Oh, you are playing that STUPID game" and "Talk to me when you decide to play a REAL game" and so on.

And I see that echoed here.  I try to avoid the edition war threads whenever possible because it just gives me a headache to see so much negativity all the time.  I enjoy both games and I don't hold any ill will toward 3.5e and am still planning on getting together with some people to play it.  I'm just ready to play something different for a while and am excited about something new.  I just want to get together with my friends again and have fun.  And I'm disappointed that we can't get together and have fun over something as small as some rules for a game.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 17, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> This is an "i hate apples because they aren't oranges" type of argument. And highly irrelevant and very counterproductive.




No, it's an "I asked for an orange and you gave me an apple, yet insist on CALLING it an orange argument."


----------



## RefinedBean (Nov 17, 2008)

Sweet, half-orcs comin' soon!  My thoery is that Eladrin were swapped in for Half-Orcs due to a printing error.  Because seriously, Eladrin?  C'mon.

The discussions on ENworld are no better or worse than pretty much any other Internet forum I've been to, excluding 4Chan.

It's getting delightfully easier to spot threads that devolve into a "My fun is better than yours" or some other massive pile of inanity.    This has been an emotional year for people:  We're having a worldwide economic troubles, an election of a new PotUS, high unemployment rates, and other things that rile people up.  When someone feels insecure about something in their life, they struggle to maintain security somewhere else, like D&D.  4E was just the polarizing force that people latched onto.  Ultimately, I think ENworld (and every other board on earth) will settle down.

But I'm an optimist, and my glasses are decidedly rose-colored, and I definitely think there's room for improvement in how 4E is criticised, as well as defended.  (shrug)  That's the nature of the beast.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 17, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> My thoery is that Eladrin were swapped in for Half-Orcs due to a printing error.  Because seriously, Eladrin?  C'mon.





I dunno, I like Eladrin.  It's funny, actually.  I never cared much for Elves in the earlier incarnations of D&D.  But now, the way they've set up the division between Eladrin and Elves, I suddenly find them (both races) much more interesting and cool.

Half-Orcs do rock, though.  One of my favorite characters EVER was a Half-Orc Monk.  Guess it'll be awhile before he sees the light of 4th edition.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 17, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> No, it's an "I asked for an orange and you gave me an apple, yet insist on CALLING it an orange argument."




This is an "only one true game" type of argument. Slightly more useful, but not much.


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> This is an "only one true game" type of argument. Slightly more useful, but not much.



Disagree.  With 30 years of expectations of what the D&D brand represents, it's not unreasonable to at least expect them to get the core implied setting "right".

If 4E's new implied setting is an attempt at a franchise reboot, ala Batman Begins or Casino Royale, then they've done the opposite of what those did.  Those movies got back to roots when the franchises had gone wahoo.  4E appears to me to be attempting to go wahoo _as_ a franchise reboot.  Not very attractive IMO.*

*: Probably not a good comparison without a very large grain of salt indeed, as D&D is not movies, and movies is not D&D.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This thread was in response to a quote from another thread that spoke of people responding as if 4E should be immune to criticism, and my response that a lot of the so called criticisms are statements of preference as opposed to discussion points, and other ways that "criticism" isn't criticism. After recent posts, I would add that a lot of negative 4E comments aren't criticism as much as they are salvos in an "edition war".




I'd say that it's definitely not "constructive" criticism. There are definitely things that can be fixed that need to be addressed, and some confusions that popped up. Heck, lots of people complained about the skill challenges and it got errata'd. Some of those problems seems to be tied to problems that pop up a lot in any kind of game ... especially when the people designing and the people playtesting are on the same wavelength ... they know what a power is supposed to do, but they may not necessarily know how to word it, so you end up with RAI vs. RAW issues ... or in the case of the skill challenges, there seemed to be some sort of expectations (I think I remember in one of the pre-errata defenses, the intention was a lot of use of aid another being assumed to make it possible). 

Anyway, there is a big difference between pointing out problems in the system, especially ones that can potentially be solved (even some of the "the system lacks X" can translate into "they should have this class in the next edition") and just nitpicking.

4e isn't immune to criticism, heck, criticism helped bring about actual changes in the game, most notably the skill challenges, but some other things like the errata of the ranger power to "one-shot Orcus".

It's just that a lot of what passes for criticism is not only not constructive feedback, it's also a lot of "next verse, same as the verse", some of the same complaints/criticisms made at the game's released and most of the threads end up going over the same ground. So if they are immune to anything, it's to the arguments that have been tossed at it over and over again without much effect.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I believe both sides believe, at least somewhere in the back of their minds, that they are fighting for the "soul" of D&D.  The people who are sticking with 3.5e feel that if they reach a critical mass of people who reject 4e that they can topple it and force a 5e that is much closer to 3.5e.  The 4e supporters(or at least me, since I can't speak for everyone) simply want more people to accept the new edition so we have more people to play with.



I'm generally sympathetic to 4e and post in the defence of its  mechanics, but not out of any desire to fight for the "soul" of D&D. I personally don't think that there is a soul of D&D - the various editions have had quite different orientations (and sometimes multiple conflicting orientations) in terms of the play that they support, and have been put to extremely varied uses by different play groups.

My defence of 4e rests on a fairly simple foundation: it's a pretty coherent set of rules for a narrativist-oriented but thematically mainstream fantasy RPG. Thus it's desirable to me as a game to play. And I get irritated when people criticise 4e's rules as if narrativist gaming was impossible, or made no sense, or didn't exist before 4e was published. Those who simply want a different set of rules (mostly, critics seem to want a more simulationist rules set) I have no quarrel with - fortunately for me, unfortunately for them, WoTC went with  my preferences.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Disagree.  With 30 years of expectations of what the D&D brand represents, it's not unreasonable to at least expect them to get the core implied setting "right".




Your argument is that the core implied setting hasn't changed in 30 years until 4e. IMO this is not remotely close to true. 

But even so, 4e has all of what you'd expect from a dnd game including classes, races, monsters and magic. It has fighters, clerics, thiefs and magic-users (maybe named differently, but they are there). The basic objective of the game is still to kill the monsters and grab their loot, eventually acruing enough xp to advance a level. It still allows you to play more complex games involving politics and diplomacy. It's still a task resolution, highly gamist approach to an rpg. A little less simulationist, and a little more narrativist than 3x, but 3x was by far the most simulationist of any edition of dnd.
There's a reason a lot of people say this edition reminds them of 1e adnd.


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> Your argument is that the core implied setting hasn't changed in 30 years until 4e. IMO this is not remotely close to true.



Bollocks.  Look at the contents of every PHB for every edition.  With the odd addition or subtraction of something that's been there since the first booklets like Blackmoor (e.g. monk/mystic) and some halfbreeds, the core implied setting has changed very little.


> But even so, 4e has all of what you'd expect from a dnd game including classes, races, monsters and magic.



It also has eladrin, warlords, dragonborn, which are like anchovies on pizza - some love them, others hate them.  The books even assume you use them in the "D&D world" and the artwork, and the flavour text.  

This is not generic, not the fodder for a thousand worlds of imagination like mythologically solid races like elves and dwarves are....it seems like a recipe for a very specific world.  Like a recipe, it's as much about what's left out as what's put in.

You can get experimental and wahoo, but the first PHB is NOT the place to do it, IMO.  Not even for cleverpants brand identity purposes.


----------



## Allister (Nov 17, 2008)

Can I nominate Stalker0's as an exemplary poster?

From both his criticisms and praise, he gives explanations (and even at times, solutions!!!Love your skill challenge) that I consider well thought out.

If all 4E discussions were like Stalker0's posts, I doubt 4E discussions would be as it is....


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2008)

Allister said:


> Can I nominate Stalker0's as an exemplary poster?
> 
> From both his criticisms and praise, he gives explanations (and even at times, solutions!!!Love your skill challenge) that I consider well thought out.



You can give him XP and urge others to do the same (especially when you can no longer because you first have to spread around your XP to others...)



> If all 4E discussions were like Stalker0's posts, I doubt 4E discussions would be as it is....



You think if things were different, they would be different! Interesting thought, but I would have to see it in practice to believe it.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Bollocks.  Look at the contents of every PHB for every edition.  With the odd addition or subtraction of something that's been there since the first booklets like Blackmoor (e.g. monk/mystic) and some halfbreeds, the core implied setting has changed very little.




I still don't believe it to be true, that the core setting hasn't changed in 30 years. But even so, it begs the question, why shouldn't it?

People who like the implied setting of a specific previous edition will disallow eladrin, warlords and dragonborn. And still have a good game. Others will use the new shiny stuff and like it. Why is this a problem?

People will always houserule and homebrew the implied setting to smitherines as they have allways done.



rounser said:


> This is not generic, not the fodder for a thousand worlds of imagination like mythologically solid races like elves and dwarves are....it seems like a recipe for a very specific world.  Like a recipe, it's as much about what's left out as what's put in.




Actually, i find eladrin to be a closer approximation to celtish sidhe, than the elf race from earlier editions ever was. Can't get more mythological than this. halflings have moved away from the hobbit, but 3x did this as well. Dwarves are still around and still very dwarvish.



rounser said:


> You can get experimental and wahoo, but the first PHB is NOT the place to do it, IMO.  Not even for cleverpants brand identity purposes.




So you dislike dragonborn. Fair enough. I just wish people would voice their disagreements and discuss solutions, even if it means not switching editions,  instead of using weird ad hominem attacks as these.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> With 30 years of expectations of what the D&D brand represents, it's not unreasonable to at least expect them to get the core implied setting "right".




Could you explain what, exactly, about the core implied setting in 4E is inherently wrong, or a betrayal of the traditional spirit of D&D?  I don't see a serious departure, really, at least not on some deep, fundamental level which would make this version of D&D "less D&D" than the previous versions.  What is it that makes you feel this way?

I don't deny that the feel of the game has _changed_, there are definitely differences.  But I don't understand what, in those changes, makes the core implied setting "wrong" now.  Could you expand on this idea?

I'm not being argumentative, I actually want to know.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 17, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> I dunno, I like Eladrin.  It's funny, actually.  I never cared much for Elves in the earlier incarnations of D&D.  But now, the way they've set up the division between Eladrin and Elves, I suddenly find them (both races) much more interesting and cool.
> 
> Half-Orcs do rock, though.  One of my favorite characters EVER was a Half-Orc Monk.  Guess it'll be awhile before he sees the light of 4th edition.




This, except I've never liked Half-orcs and no-one in my groups ever bothers with them. Down with half orcs!! If WotC produces anything with half-orcs in them I might burn something... Or write an inflamitory post or something...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2008)

Please, for the sake of the discussion, don't bring Dragonborn and Warlords into a discussion with _rounser_! This way leads madness! 

Instead... hey, what's that - look over there, a flying holy bovine! *covers up Dragonborn and Warlord references* 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mustrum "First D&D 4E character was a Dragonborn Warlord, and I _liked_ it" Ridcully


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> But even so, it begs the question, why shouldn't it?



Perhaps it should; perhaps the franchise needs a reboot.  But IMO not in that way.

A core _more_ generic, _more_ mythological might have been appropriate.  Less arbitrary.  Clerics seem pretty arbitrary and specific, much as the newcomers dragonborn and eladrin do.  I wouldn't shed a tear to see "clerics" get a rename and an overhaul, or see Paladins renamed Knight or Crusader or something, or Ranger turned into Scout.

Less D&Disms, not more, would have been the way to go, IMO.

WHY?  

Because so far as I can see, people USE d&d as a sort of fantasy worldbuilding kit.  Specific, D&Dism stuff in the core implied setting just alienates the game from that (and by core implied setting, I mean contents of the PHB everyone is assumed to use).  Down the track, if you want to go Cthulhu with your mind flayers and aboleth and Elder Elemental God, or steampunk with your warforged and artificers and magitech, or all Wire Fu with physics-defying martial arts and ninjas and kappas, then that's a personal decision.  Right next to you is a person who doesn't want that.  The implied setting should cater to both of you, at least out of the gate.  

The default is (or was, or should be) D&D's Tolkienismesque implied setting, because the Professor kind of hit a nerve there, putting all this rich mythology together (yes, I know he wasn't the first but he was the most well known) and D&D profited immensely from copying that (even if it were via a circumspect route, as Gygax swears that Tolkien wasn't the source).  Dragonborn warlords and eladrin blinkathons straight out of the gate, non-optional, compromise that, IMO.  There's more "what the heck" there than rich mythology.

Why don't we have that?  I expect it's related to selling books and miniatures.  If you have an all-inclusive core, continually piling on the splat as non-optional, people will buy everything.  May as well get them used to the idea by putting in arbitrary, random, thematically mixed stuff in the first PHB.

Or maybe they'll become fed up, and buy nothing.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> The default is (or was, or should be) D&D's Tolkienismesque implied setting, because the Professor kind of hit a nerve there, putting all this rich mythology together (yes, I know he wasn't the first but he was the most well known) and D&D profited immensely from copying that (even if it were via a circumspect route, as Gygax swears that Tolkien wasn't the source).  Dragonborn warlords and *eladrin blinkathons* straight out of the gate, non-optional, compromise that, IMO.  There's more "what the heck" there than rich mythology.




What are you talking about? Eladrin are the most mythological of all the PHB races, except maybe Tieflings. And it was high time that DND cut some of the ties with Tolkien. 

Your mixing up Tolkien mythology with real mythology.


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> What are you talking about? Eladrin are the most mythological of all the PHB races, except maybe Tieflings. And it was high time that DND cut some of the ties with Tolkien.
> 
> Your mixing up Tolkien mythology with real mythology.



Ask anyone in the street what an eladrin is.  Then ask them what an elf is.

I rest my case.

And I don't care about your protestations about sidhe and Tuatha de Danaan - your argument is shot down on a name basis alone.  D&D deserves better than this in the core.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Nov 17, 2008)

The day when hyena-people are okay but dragon-people are hands-off is the day i´ll get off the D&D train.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> A core _more_ generic, _more_ mythological might have been appropriate.  Less arbitrary.  Clerics seem pretty arbitrary and specific, much as the newcomers dragonborn and eladrin do.  I wouldn't shed a tear to see them get a rename and an overhaul, or see paladins renamed Knight or Crusader or something, or Ranger turned into Scout.
> 
> Less D&Disms, not more, would have been the way to go, IMO.




A lot of people, even you in your earlier post, complain that 4e departed from what was the core implied dnd setting. And now you want to remove the original parts? Wouldn't that make it even less dnd?

But i agree with you. I'd also like to see a generic version of dnd 4e, with pointbuy race creation rules (for the dm to use in his homebrew campaign), and only four basic classes based on the archetypes or roles. And a pointbuy system for acquiring powers. And rules for new and more skills.

In the meantime until someone makes this for 4e (if ever), i quite like the approach wotc used, with an implied setting in the core ruleset, and not going "generic universal ruleset", like gurps.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Ask anyone in the street what an eladrin is.  Then ask them what an elf is.




Odds are that you aren't likely to play dnd with any of these total strangers, and they likely won't care what your dnd characters race is called. Why is this a problem?



rounser said:


> And I don't care about your protestations about sidhe and Tuatha de Danaan - your argument is shot down on a name basis alone.  D&D deserves better than this in the core.




So if they'd named the race Sidhe or high-elf, it would have been okay? The name is your major concern? well, then i could think of a very easy solution to your problem.

I realize you have problems with the feystep ability, but this also has an easy solution. don't use the race, or change the ability to something you like.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Ask anyone in the street what an eladrin is.  Then ask them what an elf is.
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> And I don't care about your protestations about sidhe and Tuatha de Danaan - your argument is shot down on a name basis alone.  D&D deserves better than this in the core.




You are contracting yourself here. You mention that DND should have either a mythological basis for the races or a strong tie to Tolkien and the elves in previous editions don’t have either. The Elf and Eladrin splint in 4e is exactly what your asking for yet you have a problem with them. I’m confused.

They had to call the Eladrin something, maybe high elves would have been better, but that argument is weak and comes across as mindless venting.


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> A lot of people, even you in your earlier post, complain that 4e departed from what was the core implied dnd setting. And now you want to remove the original parts? Wouldn't that make it even less dnd?



Well, you'd still have the MM to quirk it up with D&Disms...doesn't get much more D&D than drow hanging out with mind flayers, for instance...and the spells for your magic missiles and fireballs, and the magic items for your flying carpets and vorpal swords.  That's one heck of a lot of D&D, right there.

The core classes and races should IMO play "straight man" to the vast weirdness of the optional implied setting on the DM's side of the fence, which gets a lot less screentime, and is much more easily customisable to personal tastes (e.g. don't like a monster, don't use it).  At least begin with a semblance of pseudomedieval heroes, then go berserk with the Eyebrows of Vecna and tapdancing Tarrasques.  And if it's your style, a party packed with warforged, dragonborn, goliaths and other freaks, but keep it optional and out of the core implied setting.

I think Gygax wrote an essay to this effect in the 1E DMG.  He emphasised humans as being the cornerstone of a D&D world as the most populous race and default PC race, because it anchored the game thematically. 

Clerics always struck me as a sort of kludge to make the game go.  Something like "We need priests for healing magic....but um, healing isn't enough of a hook, no-one wants to play them...okay add armour and weapons and make them fight better to make them more appealing....oh wait, they look too much like fighters now....um....okay, restrict them to bludgeoning weapons....oh wait, they don't look like priests anymore....okay, let's call them something esoteric like 'clerics'.  Sorted!"  If they really are priests, or healers, then I think they could benefit from a redesign to make them appear more as that.


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> So if they'd named the race Sidhe or high-elf, it would have been okay?



High elf would have been okay.  People know what an elf is, and can guess that this is a specific type of elf.

Sidhe is no good, the vast majority of people don't even know how to pronounce that one, let alone what it is without explanation.


> I’m confused.



That people in the street have no idea what an eladrin is?

I don't see where this confusion is coming from.  It seems pretty obvious to me.  It's a made-up word with zero mythological resonance.  What's to get confuddled about?

There's a place for eladrin, but it's not in the first PHB which defines the nature of the game and the non-optional makeup of a thousand worlds, IMO.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> That people in the street have no idea what an eladrin is?
> 
> I don't see where this confusion is coming from.  It seems pretty obvious to me.  It's a made-up word with zero mythological resonance.  What's to get confuddled about?




Most people wouldnt know what half the stuff in the PHB is about at first glance in any edition. 

_The word Eldarin means "Elvish" in Quenya, one of the languages of Middle-earth_

So there is one of the ties with Tolkien that you wanted.



> There's a place for eladrin, but it's not in the first PHB which defines the nature of the game and the non-optional makeup of a thousand worlds, IMO.




I disagree, I feel they are much better for the game and I'm happy that gnomes and half-orcs were removed.

But then again half my players group would not exist if you had your way. I've a Dragonborn fighter, a Tiefling rogue and an Eladrin feylock.


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> The day when hyena-people are okay but dragon-people are hands-off is the day i´ll get off the D&D train.



Bring on gnolls as a PC race in the first PHB and we'll talk.

And no, they don't deserve to be there either IMO (unless maybe there are a hundred other monsters in there to keep them company so they don't seem so arbitrary).  The person who did it would show a distinct lack of gnolledge.


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> Most people wouldnt know what half the stuff in the PHB is about at first glance in any edition.



Wizard?
Dwarf?
Thief?  (Okay, I'm cheating a bit there...)

But you do have something of a point.  I've already said that Paladin, Cleric, and Ranger could do with a rename, so I'm consistent with my own thesis, at least.  And they're not made-up words, unlike eladrin and dragonborn.  Because they're real words fallen into disuse ("ranger" excepted, perhaps), they sound less contrived than...well, contrived words.  Maybe that's why we're seeing them pop up elsewhere (e.g. Paladins in the movie Jumpers).


> So there is one of the ties with Tolkien that you wanted.



I don't want "ties with Tolkien".  I think D&D's core implied setting needs ties with fantasy's Universal Myth (or whatever the term was Lucas used to describe what Star Wars tapped into), because Lord of the Rings does a good job of tapping that, and so should D&D.  That's the stuff worlds are built of.

You know, the story everyone feels they know even when they've never heard it before.  Tropes with mythological resonance that fire the imagination.  D&D's thematic lifeblood, cliche all the way.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 17, 2008)

dangit, i have no idea how to multiquote
but anyway..




rounser said:


> That people in the street have no idea what an eladrin is?




This is an example of why these discussions go so badly. You are answering another question than was asked

And also, i'd still like an answer from you as to why it matters that the people on the street know what kind of race your dnd character belongs to? The only one i could come up with, was for marketing purposes of the dnd brand and broad appeal of the game. But names are not notoriously difficult to change. So why has it upset you?


----------



## rounser (Nov 17, 2008)

> And also, i'd still like an answer from you as to why it matters that the people on the street know what kind of race your dnd character belongs to?



Because there are all sorts of associations with the word "wizard", for example.  It's a powerful word.  Like those Power Word spells (remember them?)  Elf is similar - lots of associations and ideas spring to mind unbidden.  The sort which trigger ideas for worldbuilding, adventures, and characters.

Eladrin?  No signal.  Even after you know what they are, it still requires mental translation, at least for me ("oh right, they're sidhe/faeries/magic elves/seelie").  That would change with time, but IMO the implied setting shouldn't require that, and you're still imposing some arbitrary word which might be bad and sound contrived on a thousand worlds, which is bad form.  (Note that this is not an issue with the MM, because monsters get so little screentime compared to core, first PHB PC races.)

We could rename wizards as fizban.  That too would be a bad move.  Or have wizards and fizban in the implied setting, with wizards as magic users who don't heal, and fizban as magic users who do.  That's approximately the situation we have with elves and eladrin.  It's just sort of arbitrary and contrived, and not appropriate beyond a single specific world.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Because there are all sorts of associations with the word "wizard", for example.  It's a powerful word.  Like those Power Word spells (remember them?)  Elf is similar - lots of associations and ideas spring to mind unbidden.  The sort which trigger ideas for worldbuilding, adventures, and characters.
> 
> Eladrin?  No signal.  Even after you know what they are, it still requires mental translation, at least for me ("oh right, they're sidhe/faeries/magic elves/seelie").  That would change with time, but IMO the implied setting shouldn't require that, and you're still imposing some arbitrary word which might be bad and sound contrived on a thousand worlds, which is bad form.  (Note that this is not an issue with the MM, because monsters get so little screentime compared to core, first PHB PC races.)




okay. Thats what i was looking for, an answer. I might not agree with you, but through dialogue, a solution could be found to make the 4e acceptable for your homegame. My suggestion is to change the name of the eladrin race to high-elf or sidhe, when playing your own games.

Your input is online and wotc (represented in this thread by my hero, mr. scott rouse) knows about these objections. They may decide not to change how they do things wrt naming conventions of new races, but then again, they might.



rounser said:


> We could rename wizards as fizban.  That too would be a bad move.  Or have wizards and fizban in the implied setting, with wizards as magic users who don't heal, and fizban as magic users who do.  That's approximately the situation we have with elves and eladrin.  It's just sort of arbitrary and contrived, and not appropriate beyond a single specific world.




hmm. I don't think it is an entirely apropriate example you give, but also earlier you were arguing that a single shared world was a good thing? a shared implied core setting. Now its not? Does it depend on what the shared setting contains? Should it stay hardcore vanilla, and only include fizbans and eladrin in expansions?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Very well put. People expend a lot of energy here discussing things they don't even like.




And, oddly enough, when they do discuss things they don't even like, people who do like those things expend a log of energy trying to convince them that their reasons for not liking it are wrong.



If you don't want to talk about why people don't like moonpies, don't engage in conversations about why people don't like moonpies.  Seriously.  How many conversations about how people _*do*_ like moonpies have you seen me comment in?


RC


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 17, 2008)

I'm not sure why the mythological symbols of a handful of cultures from one rather small and specific part of the world count as "generic".


Also, I understand why the original *D&D* implied setting was based heavily on Tolkien and European mythology, and the few other fantasy writers who existed at that time and who were all drawing from the same creative well, so to speak.

_It's because that's all there was, in the entire genre.

_The fantasy genre was, essentially, just being born.  So the early creators of fantasy roleplaying games had very little source material to draw from.  And it wasn't very diverse, at all.  It spoke to the political, social, and cultural realities and sensibilities of the world _at that time_, but that didn't make it some kind of immutable, eternal, perfect fantasy template to be adhered to for all time, world without end.

Since then, *"fantasy"* as a whole has grown, a _lot_.  It has diversified, a _lot_.  It has evolved, building upon itself, and keeping pace with the shifting mindset of a changing world.  It has gone far, far beyond the limited little window into one possible view of fantasy that Tolkien made so famously accessible to us.  Creativity has bred more creativity, and now, fantasy is a rich and diverse genre which can, in truth, offer those thousands of possible worlds of wonder for us to explore.

In my opinion, the spirit of *D&D* is to represent fantasy as the current generation relates to it, not merely to stick to the small original seed from which an entire forest has subsequently grown.  There is no more "generic" fantasy, nor should there be.  The very idea of _fantasy_, in the modern literary, mythic, and cinematic conception, defies homogeneity and universality.


_In short, there is no longer "one ring to rule them all"._


It's _good_ that *D&D* is stretching its boundaries with each successive iteration.  It's _good_ that *D&D* is challenging the old, encysted ideas of what a fantasy world "should" be.  This, in my view, is what *D&D* is all about, and what it has always wanted to do.  This is, I dare say, the _duty_ of *Dungeons and Dragons*, if it wants to continue to hold the place in fantasy-lovers' hearts that it has for the last three decades.

If *D&D* isn't going to carry forward the torch of true fantasy roleplaying _into the midst of_ the next generation, rather than merely _through it_, why bother with new editions at all?  A new mechanical rules system is not, in itself, sufficient reason to update a cultural icon and means of collective storytelling like *D&D* -- maintaining relevance with changing intellectual and creative values is even more important.

In books, in music, in films and television, and in every other form of interactive narrative-based gaming, the paradigms have shifted.  The memes have changed.  The voice of our storytellers, and the drumbeat to which they dance, is decidedly different than it was thirty years ago.  We continually re-invent our myths, and the tone in which we communicate and play with them.  Why would *D&D* _not_ participate in this process?

Adding new things to what has been does not destroy the old.  Expansion does not equal invalidation.  And refusing to inject anything original into a tightly-defined set of pre-existing specifics does NOT make it more "generic".


Given that there is, or _should be_, a dynamic, living connection between the conceptual framework of an edition of *D&D* and the actual culture and genre in which that incarnation is born, I say that clinging to the dusty shelves of a more limited creative library is, in fact, getting it "wrong".  *D&D*'s implied setting and theme is "right" when it arises from the contemporary pool of fantasy lore and feeling which exists NOW, not some romanticized and enshrined memory of a less-developed age.

So, I think they've gotten it a whole lot more "right" than "wrong" with *4th Edition*.  


We should not be asking our current "keepers of the flame" to merely tend and re-hash the visions of their forebears.  That is a _disservice_ to the great creative talents who stand at the helm of *D&D* today.  Instead, we should embrace and support them in their turn at the wheel, allowing them to weave us _new_ tales and paint us _new_ symbols, just as we did for Mr. Gygax and the other "founding fathers" of the hobby.


The implied setting is surely _changed_, but it is far, far from "wrong".



$


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 17, 2008)

The real truth of the whole issue is that gamers just love to bicker and debate about systems and rules. It was true before the internet became popular but mostly contained within a given group. 

Paper magazine forums such the one in Dragon frequently had hot topic debates about this stuff even before there was a 2E. All of this has been going on a long time and it doesn't take a new edition or anything of the sort to keep it going. 

The only major change has been the speed and convenience of the internet to provide real time response and assistance in getting a much wider audience than was possible in the days of paper. 

If there was still only one edition out there then we would still be debating and arguing about it either here or another place on the net.

New editions and arguments about them are simply different fuel for the same fire. I think its a good thing overall that gamers care enough about the hobby to argue and debate about it, no matter which side of a debate they happen to be on. Arguments equal interest and thats good thing. Since we have never been content to simply choose a game we like and just play it, lets keep the fire burning. If the flame ever does go out, then so will a passionate interest in PnP roleplaying games.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Bring on gnolls as a PC race in the first PHB and we'll talk.
> 
> And no, they don't deserve to be there either IMO (unless maybe there are a hundred other monsters in there to keep them company so they don't seem so arbitrary). The person who did it would show a distinct lack of gnolledge.




Just a question ... wasn't the gnome a bit arbitrary in 3.5?

Also:

People know what elves and dwarves are. But, pre-LOTR movie release though, most would think that a dwarf was someone now preferring to be called little person and elves worked for Santa. Even post-LORT movies, people wouldn't know what a halfling is, they know what hobbits are.

Also, the spellcasting of MOST fantasy falls much more in line with 4e, with some spells being cast constantly without much effort, with different spells ranging from the at-will, to a few times per day, to once per day, to on rare occaisions of the ritual type spell.

EDIT:

As firesnake eluded to ... generic means pertaining to the genre. A generic setting should follow the tropes and trappings of the genre. So unless there is a subversion of the genre involved with the dragonborn or the warlord, etc ... It's hardly not generic. They may not be "cliche", but they are certainly not genre bending. Warforged would be getting into a different genre (steampunk). Monk would be dipping into the oriental setting. 

In fact ... the concept of power sources as they've presented them is a great way to "subdivide" the genres of games.

You have martial ... the Batman/Captain America of the heros, people who are exceptional paragons of humanity ... not actually given any external power source. Then you have arcane and divine... two spheres of magic. Arcane is often a fantasy power source, whereas divine is something that may not exist in all fantasy situations, but shows up in some. You could cut the divine out completely and go with only martial and arcane. Thanks to the warlord in fact  [and soon the bard]. Also, a fighter that leads ... that's something that is in fantasy that wasn't really in the earlier editions. You had stuff like the leadership feat, or earlier, that high level fighters would get followers and man-at-arms and the like. However, the warlord, in core, is something that was lacking for the genre. Perhaps the healing part of the warlord is a bit tacked on to have him fit the role of pseudo-cleric, but most of his power is in leading the other PCs.

With PHBII they'll add some other genre staples, the primal class is another fantasy power source, with it's nature based magic ... not to mention you get Conan the Barbarian and Elan the Bard. Eventually there will be the Oriental Adventures (ki power source), etc.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, oddly enough, when they do discuss things they don't even like, people who do like those things expend a log of energy trying to convince them that their reasons for not liking it are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is, however, implied or explicitly stated in many of the arguments "why should I ..." And thus, people give the answer to that.

Or, there is a chance that either the person complaining, or more likely, someone reading what the person is saying, has not actually played 4e, or played much of it. Giving a dissenting opinion is unlikely to convince the original complainer, but there is likely someone reading it that may be inclined to agree, but that a compelling argument may sway. 

Unless people post topics looking for people to say "me too" ... they are inevitably asking for dissenting opinion either looking for a fight, or more likely, to either convince them otherwise or at least get a better view of the situation. By finding out why people DO like the game, they can use that to better articulate why they don't like it, and ultimately, what it is they are looking for in a game. In many cases the "feature, not a bug" is one of those things. 4E, for example, tries to make the sweet spot be 1-30 ... so it may be that what some don't like about it is that they liked having the tough "slog" at early levels and the godlike power at high levels, they just may not have been able to articulate it. Or maybe if say their DM is switching to 4e and they don't like it, they'll at least be able to understand why a DM would like 4e even if they as a player don't.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 17, 2008)

Yeah.  I don't argue because I want the other fellow to shut up or say, "Oh wow, you're right!"  I argue because I want to learn.

People usually won't tell you the really good stuff that they've thought up unless you disagree with them a bit first.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 17, 2008)

Here's a Kitten picture for Mearls:

Burn 4th Edition or I'll shoot this cat....


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> It is, however, implied or explicitly stated in many of the arguments "why should I ..." And thus, people give the answer to that.





Please note:  I am not saying, "Do not argue about moonpies."  I am saying, "IF you do not want to argue about moonpies, THEN do not argue about moonpies."


RC


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am saying, "IF you do not want to argue about moonpies, THEN do not argue about moonpies."






Crazy talk!


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2008)

The problem with the "person on the street" standard is that Dobby the House Elf is probably every bit as well known as Legolas to that average person.  When you say Elf, the concept that gets brought up isn't necessarily "fairy dude that's better than you in every way" anymore.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 17, 2008)

While the tone leaves something to be desired, Rounser, I don't disagree with your points. Count me as another guy who would have preferred the cosmology adhere more to the same in previous editions, and would have liked half-orcs, gnomes, monks, and barbarians over warlords, eladrin, tieflings, and warlocks.

You understand, of course, this is simply personal preference. Because you and I feel that way doesn't mean WotC has to as well. It certainly doesn't make our way "right". For every guy you find who prefers half-orcs to eladrin, you'll find one who prefers eladrin to half-orcs. Based upon the popularity of the game, you and I are in the minority.

One of the singular benefits of D&D (as it stands now) is that the rules behind the flavor are mechanically sound (at least, thus far it appears that way to me). _You_ (or your DM) can easily change flavor. I know; I've done it. What you can't do (as easily) is change the fundamental mechanics of the game (see _Pathfinder_) without running into issues. Many of them.

To reiterate: The mechanics are the skeleton of the game (facts), and the flavor is fleshy goop layered atop it (opinions). Much easier to change the latter to fit your style than the former.

So while I want my cake (flavor) and eat it too (mechanics), if I had to pick one that WotC established as a foundation in the current version, you can bet your bottom copper it'd be the mechanical aspect.

WP


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Crazy talk!






My speciality.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

As an aside (and as more crazy talk), I really think that WotC set the tone of 4e's reception when the advertising department decided that showing us how bad other editions were was going to go over well with gamers.

There are also some blog posts (such as "Cloudwatching") that I'd have definitely thought twice about posting.  Telling people not to complain is the surest form of doubling the number of complaints there is.




RC


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X".



I think we can agree that _a lot_ of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X" -- maybe even _most_ of it -- but certainly not _all_ of it, and *rounser*'s comments in particular don't seem to match that description.

As a hyper-analytical type who likes to think in design terms, I'm constantly reminded that other people do not want any nuance in their discussions.  They want to win an edition war.  They do not want to look at what worked in each edition -- or what works in other RPGs -- in order to design something better.  They want to look at each edition _in toto_.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 17, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I think we can agree that _a lot_ of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X" -- maybe even _most_ of it -- but certainly not _all_ of it, and *rounser*'s comments in particular don't seem to match that description.




I dont agree, but I'd be going against the rules of the forum to say more and ENworld is a great forum.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> As an aside (and as more crazy talk), I really think that WotC set the tone of 4e's reception when the advertising department decided that showing us how bad other editions were was going to go over well with gamers.
> 
> There are also some blog posts (such as "Cloudwatching") that I'd have definitely thought twice about posting.  Telling people not to complain is the surest form of doubling the number of complaints there is.
> 
> ...




Me, I think it has a HUGE lot more to do with a group of people deciding that they will be insulted regardless of what's been said.  I mean, take RC's Cloudwatching example.  Take a moment to reread the blog post:

David Noonan's Blog - Wizards Community

Where in that is anything, and I mean ANYTHING insulting about earlier editions?  What in that specific blog post, since it's something that's been pointed to, that draws anyone's ire?


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 17, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I think we can agree that _a lot_ of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X" -- maybe even _most_ of it -- but certainly not _all_ of it, and *rounser*'s comments in particular don't seem to match that description.




Actually, in some cases it's not just that, but a case of them seeming to forget, perhaps because of nostalgia, that what they are complaining about is something that was also a problem in the game they prefer, or they try to frame the problem as being 4e deviating from what the earlier editions did ... completely divorced from whether or not the old editions were like that.

In many cases, there is a claim of conservatism when what they are attempting to conserve isn't actually something that was there, or there for long, but simply, their own preference.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> Actually, in some cases it's not just that, but a case of them seeming to forget, perhaps because of nostalgia, that what they are complaining about is something that was also a problem in the game they prefer, or they try to frame the problem as being 4e deviating from what the earlier editions did ... completely divorced from whether or not the old editions were like that.





Regardless, of course, of whether or not they are still playing those older editions, and therefore seeing them more clearly, say, than someone who isn't, but is claiming that their _current experiences_ are the product of nostalgia.


RC


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 17, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> I dont agree, but I'd be going against the rules of the forum to say more and ENworld is a great forum.



You're quite welcome to explain your point of view.  Are you saying that you think rounser's opinions are pure nostalgia?  Or do you think _all_ criticism of 4E _must be_ pure nostalgia?


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 17, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Me, I think it has a HUGE lot more to do with a group of people deciding that they will be insulted regardless of what's been said.



Yes, people want an edition war, and they want to be on the winning side of it.


Hussar said:


> I mean, take RC's Cloudwatching example.  Take a moment to reread the blog post.
> 
> Where in that is anything, and I mean ANYTHING insulting about earlier editions?  What in that specific blog post, since it's something that's been pointed to, that draws anyone's ire?



Here's the text of that blog post: Why 4th Edition Is Like Clouds In The Sky: If you're really excited about 4th edition, it comes out next May. If you're still sitting on the fence, it comes out next May. And if you hate it with fire of a thousand suns, well, it comes out next May.

I'm flattered that some people are going to reinterpret their 3rd edition games for 4th edition, and I'm disappointed that other people are going to stick with 3.5 no matter what. You've got months and months to make what is a pretty important purchasing decision--at least it's important in terms of your hobby game of choice.

(As a side note, I'd sound completely ridiculous if I said something like, "You shouldn't use all those 3.5 books I worked really hard to write." *They're good books. Seriously. We just learned a lot while writing them and playing with them, that's all.*)

So you've got time. We're going to reveal more and more of the game as time goes on, both here on the wizards site, in the preview books, and at D&D Experience (Feb. 28 to March 3 in DC). But all those individual "reveals" are clouds in the sky. You can admire the clouds' beauty or shake your fists at them, but they're just going to keep moving across the sky anyway.

There's nothing wrong with cloud-watching. If you're a farmer, you need to watch the clouds at least a little. (Maybe DMs are like farmers, but that might be straining the metaphor.) But farmers know that no amount of cloudwatching will bring the rain. (And don't mention cloud-seeding; it messes up the metaphor.)

You can shake your fists at the sky. You can do a rain dance. You can ignore the clouds completely. Given the circumstance you're in as a D&D player right now, those responses are all valid. But none of them move the clouds.

You'll be playing D&D with clouds in the sky until May, so just do that. Watch the clouds if you like, but don't let the threat/promise of rain mess with your ongoing games.

The weird thing is that playing D&D is something that might move the clouds. In fact, it's the thing that got the clouds moving in the first place. In other words, play your D&D game with a critical eye--what's working and what isn't? We've seen a lot more of this already in message board traffic since the 4e announcement; an impending new edition makes everyone think a little more deeply about the game they're already playing.

In a way, you've been playtesting 4e all along by playing 3e and sharing your experiences with us and with others. The more you tell us about your game, the more we understand what's going on. And the game is moving along, but it ain't done yet. We can--and will--make it better before May.​The *bold* highlighting is mine.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Then ask them what an elf is.




Jolly little men that live at the North Pole and build toys for Santa Claus.

It's a good thing we don't ask Joe SixPack what should be in D&D, eh?


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 17, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> The *bold* highlighting is mine.




So... saying 3rd Edition was good, and we learned a lot from it... is an insult of some kind?


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> So... saying 3rd Edition was good, and we learned a lot from it... is an insult of some kind?



Apparently it's one step away from a window sticker of Calvin peeing on a 3E logo.


----------



## Halivar (Nov 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> So... saying 3rd Edition was good, and we learned a lot from it... is an insult of some kind?



Yeah... maybe me head full of stupid this morning, but that actually sounded like _praise_. Not only were they good books, they were instructional and informed the next version to be even better. That's what he said.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Regardless, of course, of whether or not they are still playing those older editions, and therefore seeing them more clearly, say, than someone who isn't, but is claiming that their _current experiences_ are the product of nostalgia.
> 
> 
> RC




Did I claim that? I did use the word perhaps ...

Not everyone talking about every previous edition is currently playing all of them.

There are people playing each of the previous editions, but at the same time, no ONE edition is the "true D&D", and that includes 4e. 

There are different issues for games in progress. People currently playing the older editions do so with a lot of time having passed since their inception. Lots of corrections, lots of splat, lots of discussion, lots of thought. Those editions are heavily, if not fully, developed. They very likely had flaws that were fixed overtime in various ways. Unless someone is _currently_ playing the older version the same way it was played unpon release, they may have a mix of nostalgia about how they used to play mixed with how they play now, which benefits from a lot of experience in playing and thus maximizing the parts they like and minimizing the problematic parts. If a game has been going for 30 some years ... people would likely have perfected the way to avoid running into problems. That doesn't get rid of the problems, but a problem you don't encounter is less likely to be a problem on your mind. It seems, however, that while they are willing to work around problems in older editions (to the extent they cease to be noticed as problems), they want to face the 4e problems head on, even if those problems exist in other editions as well, and can just as easily be worked around or hand waved away in some cases.

There are a number of people referring to all older editions, and yet only talking about the one edition they are currently playing, ignoring that, for example, it was something only introduced in 3e, but that taking it out after 1 edition is go against a time honored tradition that only really lasted 1 edition.

There are other situations where people talk about _how_ they play the older edition, and thus ignore/gloss over problems in that edition simply because their party house ruled away the problem, or have a player-DM agreement (spoken or unspoken) to not do certain things that are problematic.

Personally, I've not had many problems with 3.5 ... but I've almost always played in the sweet spot to avoid the problems that occur outside of those levels.

If nothing else, people that are playing 4e must be seeing 4e more clearly than some who have played a only few low levels, or a few encounters, or just read the books and given up ...


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X". People may go into detail about things, but the core meaning of what they say isn't any more than that. That doesn't really qualify as criticism. You are just stating a preference or lack therof and calling it criticism.




First, I think "Edition X did it better" is a fair criticism. It's basically the just a different was of saying "It wasn't broke, so why'd they 'fix' it?"

But on a more meta level, I have seen many fair criticisms of 4E (not just the one thecasualoblivion mentioned) unfairly shot down by 4E's supporters. I think too many people who like 4E see criticism of 4E as a criticism of them (some sort of reasoning that goes "They don't like 4E, and I do, so they think I'm a bad person.").  Well that's just not the case. There's nothing wrong with liking 4E if it's your kind of game. That doesn't mean the rest of us should be mistreated for the crime of discussing 4E's shortcomings.

I think anyone who's actually upset by discussions needs to just breathe and contemplate how nice the weather is, and isn't it wonderful that we have things like computers and microfleece jumpers.

Probably what we need to do is just have a wiki of "Standard criticisms and responses" and link to it whenever someone comes along with a "new" post on how 4E is awful/pure genius. That'll save us all a lot of time. "Oh, another Argument 4a, is it? Well, READ THIS LINK."  Plus, it may cure people of thinking they're clever and original.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 17, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> You're quite welcome to explain your point of view.  Are you saying that you think rounser's opinions are pure nostalgia?  Or do you think _all_ criticism of 4E _must be_ pure nostalgia?




Part of the reason I read Enworld is for criticism of 4e, I need to know the pitfalls before my players fall into them. 

And I didnt want to focus on one particular poster, as I feel that is against the rules of the forum, but a lot of the posts critical of 4e seem to repeat a dislike, or just vague prejudice, ad infinitum. It really distracts from the good posts and the discussed topic.

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express that opinion, but some posters here should really think about what they are trying to accomplish.

In the end I would prefer a more constructive atmosphere here to all versions of DND and respect for those who have made their decision to play whatever edition tickles their fancy. At the moment their seems to be a lot of thread pollution - not just 4e but I’ve seen this in pathfinder threads too.

At this particular point in time I could be tagged as a enthusiastic 4e supporter, but I love all editions of DND, in the end their differences are more minor than we think. There is a lot more that binds us than separates.

EDIT: Just realised I didnt answer the first question, but I think the OP topic is more on my mind..


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> The problem I see now is that, while in the past things would heat up and then cool down, we seem to have settled into a higher background temperature. Maybe it's just the economy, maybe there's an underlying sense of panic that one's D&D of choice is going to die, but things just seem more shrill than usual.




I think it's the OGL. In past wars the losing side reached the Acceptance Stage pretty quickly. Just consider you're average OD&D player - there's lots of acceptance that it's not coming back except as fanzine stuff. But with 3.x you have Pathfinder, True20, the SRD, etc. all keeping the flame alive. It's like WotC and the OGL sources are two engines of matter/anti-matter creation, feeding the fuel towards each other.

Which is why I think it's very important that people "disengage" criticism of the game from criticism of the person. Both games are going to be "alive and well" for at least another 8 years, so we all better learn how to live together or suffer a very sucky almost-decade.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> Man, with all due respect, the more I look at those kittens the more they are seriously freaking me the hell out.




You can be freaked out, but please don't punch them! No matter was the PNW drivers do!


----------



## Obryn (Nov 17, 2008)

I don't really know how to put this, but I'll give it a shot.

I run a regular 4e game, and I'm loving it.  I ran 3e for a long time, and loved it.  (I'm burnt out on it now, but I'm 95% sure I'll eventually pick it up again for a game or two.)  I am currently running a once-per-month 1e game, and loving that, too.

Different editions do different things better than others, and all of them have been quite capable, broad, enjoyable, and adaptable games.  I don't feel any need to squeeze my gaming love into a single edition at the expense of all others.  I mean, I only have so much time, but I game because I love gaming.  I DM because I love DMing.  Different editions are fun in different ways, and I guess I don't see why I should restrict myself to just one kind of fun or waste time worrying about what the heart and soul of D&D is.

-O


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 17, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Apparently it's one step away from a window sticker of Calvin peeing on a 3E logo.




I hate those stickers. They're mean-spirited in intent and entirely against what Bill Watterson is trying to say with Calvin & Hobbes.


----------



## Psion (Nov 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> So... saying 3rd Edition was good, and we learned a lot from it... is an insult of some kind?




Take a look back and RC's post. The "criticisms about prior editions" is in the paragraph before the "telling customers their complaints fall on deaf ears" part.

If you are a doctor and enter a double occupancy room to diagnose the patient with the broken leg, and find that the man in the bed has no cast, you are probably diagnosing the wrong patient.


----------



## cildarith (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Or maybe they'll become fed up, and buy nothing.




That would be me, unfortunately...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Here's the text of that blog post




After the shinola hit the fan, it was edited.  If you go back to the threads about that blog, you can still read references to the editing.  Which was a smart move, but it would have been smarter to have considered the reaction before posting it in the first place.  Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the editted blog post is much, much better than the original.

The thing is, though, WotC knew that it had come up with "evolutionary" spots for 4e, and they knew that a significant number of people hadn't taken that as "mild poking of fun" (as it had, probably, been intended).



WalterKovacs said:


> Did I claim that? I did use the word perhaps ...




Just so we're clear.  



> Unless someone is _currently_ playing the older version the same way it was played unpon release, they may have a mix of nostalgia about how they used to play mixed with how they play now




  If you didn't claim it earlier, I guess you're claiming it now.



> If a game has been going for 30 some years ... people would likely have perfected the way to avoid running into problems. That doesn't get rid of the problems, but a problem you don't encounter is less likely to be a problem on your mind.




That is true.  Of course, if you perfected the way to avoid running into problems after 30 years of work, you'd likely be justifiably peeved to discover that your method has been tossed out the window, returning the problem while simultaneously undoing your work around.  Especially if that work around has worked for such a long time.

Right?


RC


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 17, 2008)

Psion said:


> Take a look back and RC's post.




I wasn't speaking to RC's post. I was speaking to the response to Hussar's post about the blog post being considered an insult (whether Hussar is correct in RC meaning that is beside the point), where mmadsen bolded the part about 3rd Edition in response to Hussar, in order to emphasize it. That suggested to me that some people might be considering that bolded statement an insult of some kind, which strikes me as totally bizarre.


----------



## Andor (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Forked from:  Sentimentality And D&D Editions OR Happiness Is The Edition That Brings You Joy
> 
> I see it as this way. A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X". People may go into detail about things, but the core meaning of what they say isn't any more than that. That doesn't really qualify as criticism. You are just stating a preference or lack therof and calling it criticism.




Rubbish. Complete _ad hominim _garbage. I don't know about you but D&D is merely 1 (or more depending on how you look at it) of many many RPGs I have played. I've played RPGs that used d20s, d6s, percentiles, dwhatevers, custom dice, cards, and nothing at all for system resolution. I've played with and without skills, magic, tech, psi and shticks. I've played fantasy, horror, intrigue, romance, and politics. I've played in modern day earth, greyhawk, and deep space. I've played polished professional products with great art, ringbound works with clip art, and homebrews on stapled xerox.

Do not think I'm not capable of judgeing a system on it's merits and flaws beause I'm too blinded by nostalgia and worship of the only game I've ever played. 

4e has good points, and bad points, just like every other game ever made. To claim that discussion of those bad points (or good points!) is nothing but grouseing about how change is bad is as if to deny the game has any flaws at all. Really? I wonder why Wotc released errata then if 4e is the most holy and perfect of all games...

Try and grasp this truth: To discuss the flaws of a game you like is not an attack on you.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 17, 2008)

Andor said:


> To discuss the flaws of a game you like is not an attack on you.




In theory, yes. In practice, however, it can be quite different. Criticizing a game is one thing, but when your criticism is framed in a way that insults the people who like that game, that is an attack, no matter how you try to spin it.


----------



## Psion (Nov 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I wasn't speaking to RC's post. I was speaking to the response to Hussar's post about the blog post being considered an insult (whether Hussar is correct in RC meaning that is beside the point),




So I should have quoted Hussar rather than (or in addition to) you. Your still guilty of what my college profs would call "error carried forward." The point remains the same: who is saying that particular blog post slammed a prior edition?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 17, 2008)

Treebore said:


> I could criticize a lot about 4E. Why should I? Bottom line is it doesn't excite me. So I don't play or run it. Why bother to try and convince anyone to see things my way? Like every other edition of D&D you can play it and have fun. Thats all that matters.




You're doing it wrong.  You're supposed to come in here and show us how some idiosyncrasy of the 4e rules is actually so contrary to the enjoyment of the game that those of us who play it are actually making you enjoy your life less by continuing to play.

But don't sweat it.  I'm _sure_ that someone will pick up that torch and run with it.

Full disclosure: I'm currently running a 4e campaign that has stalled due to flaky players who don't show up for games, while trying to get into someone's online 3.x game.  OMG edition slut!


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 17, 2008)

Psion said:


> So I should have quoted Hussar rather than (or in addition to) you. Your still guilty of what my college profs would call "error carried forward." The point remains the same: who is saying that particular blog post slammed a prior edition?




Read mmadsen's post, which I quoted. He quotes where Hussar talks about people considering that blog post an insult, and bolds a part of it in reference to that statement. The fact that he would respond to the post and highlight a section of the blog post in reference to Hussar talking about people taking insult from it implies that he is suggesting the bolded section is the part to take insult from.


----------



## Psion (Nov 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Read mmadsen's post, which I quoted. He quotes where Hussar talks about people considering that blog post an insult, and bolds a part of it in reference to that statement.




mmadsen bolds without comment. Did mmadsen _really _take this statement as slamming prior editions? Or did he assume that Hussar's apparently confused statement as evidence that someone was saying this, and narrowed it down to the only statement that talks about prior editions at all?

My point remains. I still see nobody whose point with respect to Noonan's post was "he's slamming prior editions". It appears this assertion was pulled from the aether.


----------



## Allister (Nov 17, 2008)

re: Eladrin and half-orcs

I'm still surprised that people dislike the eladrin. To me, the eladrin were the obvious answer to the almost constant split that occurs in campaign worlds where they split the elf into high and wild versions.

I thought the reason half-orcs weren't in was because you would need to add orcs as well since half-elves depend on having access to both human and elven features such as feats.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Read mmadsen's post, which I quoted. He quotes where Hussar talks about people considering that blog post an insult, and bolds a part of it in reference to that statement. The fact that he would respond to the post and highlight a section of the blog post in reference to Hussar talking about people taking insult from it implies that he is suggesting the bolded section is the part to take insult from.




You know, I thought he was suggesting the same thing.  

Of course, that was part of the revision _*after folks had already taken insult from the original post*_, so I am not sure how relevant it is in any case.


RC


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 17, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> While the tone leaves something to be desired, Rounser, I don't disagree with your points. Count me as another guy who would have preferred the cosmology adhere more to the same in previous editions, and would have liked half-orcs, gnomes, monks, and barbarians over warlords, eladrin, tieflings, and warlocks.




None of those were a part of D&D originally, and only the monk ended up part of OD&D (in Blackmoor).  

Every edition of D&D has been about change and every edition has taken away and added classes and races.  The game was originally three classes and four races.  1e was a complete redesign of OD&D.  Half orcs have only been in two editions PHBs - 1e and 3e.  The cavalier was only ever in one edition.  2e didn't have monks or barbarians in the PHB (or assassins).  Psionics didn't appear in the 2e PHB either.  Barbarians, monks, and half orcs came back to the PHB in 3e, only to leave again in 4e.  Most editions of D&D (with the notable exception of 3e) introduced new races or classes to the core (cavalier, assassin, paladin, half-orc, gnome, etc).  

Claiming any of these elements outside of fighter/wizard/cleric/(thief) as core to 30 years of D&D is, indeed, a case of clouded nostalgia.  Now, I am not accusing you of such a position WP, this is more in response to rounser, by way of your post.  

Each edition of D&D has set its own core set based around the core four classes and the basic four races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling).  Gnomes and half orcs were new to core D&D at one point, too.  None of the new additions to 4e were created out of the blue, but have arisen, like all other new additions, from elements of the previous editions, popular supplements, Dragon articles and the like.  

Point is, there is nothing new about new things in the latest edition.  You want to talk about what is core to D&D, change amongst editions is at the top of that list.


----------



## Imban (Nov 17, 2008)

Allister said:


> re: Eladrin and half-orcs
> 
> I'm still surprised that people dislike the eladrin. To me, the eladrin were the obvious answer to the almost constant split that occurs in campaign worlds where they split the elf into high and wild versions.




I think the majority of the dislike of eladrin stems from their have a racial ability to teleport. I mean, okay, high elves, those are pretty common.

Teleporting high elves?



> I thought the reason half-orcs weren't in was because you would need to add orcs as well since half-elves depend on having access to both human and elven features such as feats.




That would only bear out if we weren't getting Half-Orcs in PHB2 in time for Eberron and Orcs approximately never. (Or in Dragon sometime.)


----------



## Mallus (Nov 17, 2008)

Imban said:


> Teleporting high elves?



The step into Faerie and reappear in the mortal world several feet away. Seems both folkloric and high fantasy to me.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 17, 2008)

rounser said:


> Less D&Disms, not more, would have been the way to go, IMO.




Then what you want is d20 Fantasy, not Dungeons & Dragons {TM}

D&D has had its own brand of fantasy since, about 1e when Gary inserted as many Greyhawk plugs in the DMG as humanly possible. D&D has ALWAYS been about pointy-hat wizards shooting magic missiles, armored mace-wielding priests using divine power to repel the undead, and tricky thieves equally adept at picking a lock, climbing a wall, and deciphering his doctor's handwriting. No where but in D&D (and D&D inspired fantasy) do druids turn into bears, paladins get kick-ass horses, and dragons come color-coded for your convenience. Only in D&D is there a difference between a goblin, hobgoblin, gnome, sprite, bugbear, kobold, and fairy. Only in D&D is there a distinction made between "demon" and "devil". 

You get the idea. 

Now, D&D could chose to drown down a bunch of that distinction and settle on the time tested generic fantasy we've had for a while, or it could begin to play up its own IP and strengths and embrace the quirkiness that D&D is. 

A wonderful side effect of D&D has been its ease of kit-bashing. However, I don't think D&D should be built for that. That's like saying they should build cars with only interchangeable parts because I might want a Ford Mustang engine in my Chevy Camaro. 

D&D is a world, a game, and a brand. The last thing it needs to be diluted to "Generic d20 Fantasy" We have enough generic fantasy systems for that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Psion said:


> My point remains. I still see nobody whose point with respect to Noonan's post was "he's slamming prior editions". It appears this assertion was pulled from the aether.




Hussar is aware that I am not reading his posts, due to private emails, and has been aware of the same for quite a long while.  I very much believe that there is a certain "See, why doesn't RC respond to _*my*_ points?  I must be right!" going on, based on what parts of Hussar's posts I've seen quoted by others.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

That said, when Noonan's blog was first written, it was seen to be suggesting that WotC didn't care what the fan base thought, because of the way it was worded.  Noonan subsequently said that this is not what was meant, and revised the post.

My point was that, knowing what was going on re: 4e on the InterWeb (after all, the blog post was a response to what was happening on the InterWeb), Noonan's revised post should have been his first post.

I don't think WotC had someone lined up whose job was just to control the message they were giving, and as a result, they created some of the problem re: 4e criticism that they are now seeing.

Of course, it could have been worse.  Imagine that Gary Gygax was put back in charge of design when 4e was announced, and he commented freely about 2e and 3e while working on the design process.  There was a man with strong opinions, to say the least!  



Allister said:


> I'm still surprised that people dislike the eladrin. To me, the eladrin were the obvious answer to the almost constant split that occurs in campaign worlds where they split the elf into high and wild versions.




I think that some people are put off by a name that doesn't immediately bring an image to mind.  I like the idea of hooking elves more closely to Faerie, myself.....I had a thread on EN World about the same not too horribly long ago, although what I did was very different from what WotC did.

I think that eladrin called "high elves" would have been very well received.  (Shrug)  Of course, I could be wrong.


RC


----------



## Imban (Nov 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The step into Faerie and reappear in the mortal world several feet away. Seems both folkloric and high fantasy to me.




To you, sure.


----------



## Loonook (Nov 17, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> You're doing it wrong.  You're supposed to come in here and show us how some idiosyncrasy of the 4e rules is actually so contrary to the enjoyment of the game that those of us who play it are actually making you enjoy your life less by continuing to play.
> 
> But don't sweat it.  I'm _sure_ that someone will pick up that torch and run with it.
> 
> Full disclosure: I'm currently running a 4e campaign that has stalled due to flaky players who don't show up for games, while trying to get into someone's online 3.x game.  OMG edition slut!




Yes, how dare people criticize a game... gods, your snark even has smaller snark hanging off of it.  Which is impressive in the way that a facehugger is adorable .

The whole issue which seems to be raised is that there are no valid criticisms and those who critique are not experiencing the deep love which 4e'rs have... yet those same 4e players get to drag out the tired chestnuts which are handwaved via house rules by anyone who runs across them (drowning rules, for example) from 3.X while touting a somewhat similar way in 4e.

What I really hate is the fact that it is also wrong to not enjoy the fluff.  Guys... let's admit the fact that the Great Wheel was sort of... ehh... but that this whole Elemental Chaos/Astral Sea/Domain thing seems just as bad.  However, the Wheel made a little more sense in a planar geography sense (you could 'cross over' to planes which are near, the use of portals) than the idea that the planes have become a Spelljammer's wonderland.

There are plenty of issues around for 4e, and all of them deserved to be criticized.  Hell, typeface is a valid criticism if it is done right... however, saying that it is somehow wrong for critiques because you enjoy something is great.  My dog enjoys eating his own feces... I'm thinking about throwing a shindig*.

** - So as to not be accused of saying 4e = dog feces, I wanted an extreme example which would explain the disgust which people seem to have with the whole thing.  In fact, I can think of games which are far worse than 4e (and at least one where you probably gain a benefit from such coprophagic behavior).*

Also, to Mearls:

In general not a lot of issues with your postings . . . but come on.  Please, can you WotC guys just chill out a bit on the whole spilled milk issue?  Yes, there will be people who hate your product, and some will just hate it because it is new, and some will hate it because it is D&D, and some will hate it because it is Satanic and will corrupt their children.  But part of producing a product is accepting the flak which occurs from the release.  Yes, you may think that this argument is affecting the community in an adverse way, but by allowing the community to stew in its own delicious juices rather than airing grievances, you'll just make it worse.  Accept the hate.

And now... a puppy making an Athletics Check.






Healing the Wounds With Canine Love,

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 17, 2008)

Imban said:


> To you, sure.



Yes I know, that's why I wrote it. What version of elves do you prefer? Again, quick-stepping into Faerie seems tres Elvish... 

edit: there's a great representation of the this in the Russian films Daywatch/Nightwatch. The magician characters can step into an alternate dimension called the Gloom, which allows them to travel more quickly and through solid objects. Also, it looks terribly cool.


----------



## Allister (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that some people are put off by a name that doesn't immediately bring an image to mind.  I like the idea of hooking elves more closely to Faerie, myself.....I had a thread on EN World about the same not too horribly long ago, although what I did was very different from what WotC did.
> 
> I think that eladrin called "high elves" would have been very well received.  (Shrug)  Of course, I could be wrong.
> 
> ...




Hmm?

Eladrin == Eldar

Surely I wasn't the only one that went "Geez, WOTC is still milking the LOTR thing"

Hell, I thought the major "wrong" complaint would've been people saying WOTC is ripping off Warhammer (as many people probably didn't know that Warhammer got it from LOTR).

Not your response of "oh, that name doesn't mean anything".

Really, is the term Eldar THAT unkown?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Allister said:


> Hmm?
> 
> Eladrin == Eldar
> 
> ...




It has been pointed out that the LotR connection is even stronger than that!

But, yes, I think Eldar would have been better.  And I think that "new races" as a replacement for old (as opposed to in addition to old) probably got a few backs up as well.

Like I said, though, I am glad that WotC went with a stronger Faerie connection, even though I don't like combat-dryads or the name "Feywild" (though I admit that, along with Shadowfell, Feywild is a name that grows on one somewhat).


RC


----------



## RefinedBean (Nov 17, 2008)

Allister said:


> Really, is the term Eldar THAT unkown?




Maybe I fail my geek test?  I've never heard of the word before.

I don't mind Eladrin at all, but seriously...a teleporting race of Not-Elves with a stuck up attitude and mystical background?

Doesn't that scream PHB2 to anyone else?!

To stay on topic...I admittedly don't have a good deal of background in rhetoric.  Is saying something like "Eladrin are fun, but half-orcs should have been in the PHB instead" a valid criticism?  Isn't such a statement just an opinion disguised as fact?


----------



## avin (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> It's a far angrier, far less welcoming place than it was not too long ago.




Let's fix it! Redesign, ask Peter for a mini and bring Modrons to 4E.

Is teh winzor!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The step into Faerie and reappear in the mortal world several feet away. Seems both folkloric and high fantasy to me.




I agree with the concept. If thats what happens then they should be able to spend a bit of time there as well. If I am stepping into Faerie I might want to have the option of hanging out for more than a split second. 

If the Eladrin are unable to do so then they are not cool residents of the feywild, they are teleporting elves.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Blink elves?

1e had blink dogs and (via The Dragon) blink mammoths.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 17, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> If thats what happens then they should be able to spend a bit of time there as well.



That's a lot harder to balance in game terms... but in principle, I agree. It's too good a concept to be used only for short-range teleportation.


----------



## Allister (Nov 17, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> Maybe I fail my geek test?  I've never heard of the word before.




But it was even used in the LotR movies and is mentioned multiple times in the books as well as being used extensively in Warhammer. How can you NOT heard of that name?


RefinedBean said:


> I don't mind Eladrin at all, but seriously...a teleporting race of Not-Elves with a stuck up attitude and mystical background?
> 
> Doesn't that scream PHB2 to anyone else?!




Nah. It screams "wait, isn't that the race they ALWAYS split and present in the 3e campagn world books such as Greyhawk, the Realms and Dragonlance? About time they made it official".

I'm not kidding, look at those campaign worlds and they always seem like they have to create a High elf version....During 3e, I firmly believe they should've done it to being with...



RefinedBean said:


> To stay on topic...I admittedly don't have a good deal of background in rhetoric.  Is saying something like "Eladrin are fun, but half-orcs should have been in the PHB instead" a valid criticism?  Isn't such a statement just an opinion disguised as fact?




Good question.

I think this is opinion since even if you try to argue based on history, the fact that 2e didn't have the half-orc meant that the half-orc isn't an essential part of DnD since it wasn't core for 10 years there.

Of course, as a corollary, there's Mary Jane Watson who is considered "core" to the Spiderman franchise and herself was absent from the comic books for about 10 years in the last 70s/early 80s


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> That's a lot harder to balance in game terms... but in principle, I agree. It's too good a concept to be used only for short-range teleportation.




Yeah the range isn't a problem. Its not that much real distance that is travelled, the key is the other plane. Its yet another nice bit of flavor that seems limited to mostly combat use. Heck I could see an Eladrin stepping in, getting a bit of sleep, and returning to the prime material in the morning.


----------



## Andor (Nov 17, 2008)

Whereas I wonder why the feywild is always trouble free. Can't you just see feywild teenagers with a rope strung across a teleportal to trip people? Or feywild antlions waiting for prey to pop through their territory?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I agree with the concept. If thats what happens then they should be able to spend a bit of time there as well. If I am stepping into Faerie I might want to have the option of hanging out for more than a split second.
> 
> If the Eladrin are unable to do so then they are not cool residents of the feywild, they are teleporting elves.




It always inspires in my mind the idea of Eladrin sort of loosing touch with what they once were.

Once they were wild creatures of the fey, but now the mortal realms are begining to take hold, and they're loosing much of their magic.

Once they could step into either realm with but a thought, but now... They exist mostly in the mortal realm, and can only travel to the feywild for a moment or so. 

Makes me see them as a sad race... Unable to really accept the fact that the world is changing all around them.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 17, 2008)

Loonook said:


> Yes, how dare people criticize a game... gods, your snark even has smaller snark hanging off of it.  Which is impressive in the way that a facehugger is adorable .




Don't you talk trash about Lamarr!



> The whole issue which seems to be raised is that there are no valid criticisms and those who critique are not experiencing the deep love which 4e'rs have... yet those same 4e players get to drag out the tired chestnuts which are handwaved via house rules by anyone who runs across them (drowning rules, for example) from 3.X while touting a somewhat similar way in 4e.




4e solved a lot of my problems with 3e, which for the most part focused around ease of use, especially at high level.  There are many legitimate problems with both editions, and I consider myself to be a fairly impartial commentator, given my edition sluttery.  I like both editions, a lot.  I dislike 4e multiclassing, I'm impatient for a lot of 3e stuff to get converted, and I'm also of the opinion that so far they're only just scratching the surface of things that can be done with exception-based design, which frustrates me.  I don't need to talk about what's wrong with 3e, because the Rules Forum archives are still there.

But I don't see a lot of serious criticisms of the edition, in the way that I saw a lot of serious criticisms of 3e while 3e was still the king of the hill.  A lot of the criticisms amount to "I don't like this," which is legitimate, but not something you should expect anyone to take seriously.  As I jokingly suggested, there seems to be a lot of resentment from these people that the edition happens to be something they don't like, not because it's not a good game or anything, but because it does things in a way they don't personally approve of.  And this is presented as some kind of affront, rather than just a different design sensibility.  They post like the changes to the game contain footnotes explaining how those changes were made to annoy them, personally, and come here to be upset about it.  

Back in 2006, people were deconstructing 3e and fixing all the bits they didn't like.  Criticism of the game, when not followed by "and that's why 1st ed/2nd ed/OD&D is better than 3e," was generally constructive...perhaps because fewer people willing to jump ship on 3e in favour of an older edition than seem to be doing just that with 4e.  Now there seems to be far less constructive criticism and more griping.  But I remember the same thing happening in 2000, and I expect that it will pass, especially as more new gamers start playing the new edition, which is also what happened after 2000.



> What I really hate is the fact that it is also wrong to not enjoy the fluff.  Guys... let's admit the fact that the Great Wheel was sort of... ehh... but that this whole Elemental Chaos/Astral Sea/Domain thing seems just as bad.  However, the Wheel made a little more sense in a planar geography sense (you could 'cross over' to planes which are near, the use of portals) than the idea that the planes have become a Spelljammer's wonderland.




Yeah, the standard setting in 4e leaves quite a bit to be desired ("No sir.  I don't like it.").  But that's not really what I'd call a major issue, considering that you can slap a campaign setting on it and your problems are solved.  I've got ten different homebrew cosmologies I could use, and none of them were ever impacted by the Great Wheel, so I doubt they'll be impacted by the new standard cosmology.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Back in 2006, people were deconstructing 3e and fixing all the bits they didn't like.  Criticism of the game, when not followed by "and that's why 1st ed/2nd ed/OD&D is better than 3e," was generally constructive...perhaps because fewer people willing to jump ship on 3e in favour of an older edition than seem to be doing just that with 4e.  Now there seems to be far less constructive criticism and more griping.





I think that the OGL helped foster (correctly or incorrectly) a sense of inclusiveness, and that fan work was valued.  

As far as the base world for 4e, I think that given that the core was going to be doled out in chunks, there is little else WotC could do.  EDIT:  I was thinking you meant POL, etc., instead of the Great Wheel.  Well, in the 1e DMG, the Great Wheel was given as a _sample cosmology_, and I see no problem with seeing 4e's cosmology as another _sample_.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yeah the range isn't a problem. Its not that much real distance that is travelled, the key is the other plane. Its yet another nice bit of flavor that seems limited to mostly combat use. Heck I could see an Eladrin stepping in, getting a bit of sleep, and returning to the prime material in the morning.



There needs to be a ritual that can be used by Eladrin (and maybe High Level Elves or anyone higher level with a teleportation power?) that allows them to cross over to the Feywild. Fey Step is not strong enough to let them stay there, but the ritual would be.

----

In my experience there are some criticismn I am interested in and I can agree or at least argue with, and there is some stuff that I find totally useless.

The "umbrella" under which I mostly find the latter is: 
1) Is this really D&D? (Dragonborn in, Gnome out? AD&D didn't have Warlords in Core! If I can't play a Gnome Barbarian/Bard, the game is wrong!)  
 - This is not a philosophy course or a religion. It's a frigging game and I want to play this game.
2) It doesn't support my play style and that means its bad. 
- It might not support your play style - so play something that does!
3) WotC is evil and just wants my money - Well don't give it to them. 

The kind of criticism and discussion I find typically interesting: 
- Does Rule X work? Why or why not?
- Does mechanic Y support play style A? Why? Was it intended to do so?
- Where do the rules fail? Why? Is this true only for certain goals or play styles, or does it just not work?
- What are the differences between games and editions? Are there any? How did they achieve them? 

Stuff I am not so thrilled about, but can be interesting...
- Did the marketing work?
- Is labeling stuff as Core really just a marketing trick? What are the disadvantages of these discussions
- What are the goals of the GSL? What are its drawbacks?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 17, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> To stay on topic...I admittedly don't have a good deal of background in rhetoric.  Is saying something like "Eladrin are fun, but half-orcs should have been in the PHB instead" a valid criticism?  Isn't such a statement just an opinion disguised as fact?




See, I agree with the statement, and I think it's a valid criticism.  I just don't think it's a very compelling criticism.  The reason that they bumped the half-orcs and added eladrin is IMO a bit spurious, but given that half-orcs will eventually be added (circa March, apparently), it's kind of the same as criticisms regarding gnomes or frost giants or beguilers or [insert a race, class, or monster from 3.x that you didn't get in the first core books].  Some things made the cut, and the rest we have to wait for.  Such is the way things work with a new edition.

I think that it's important to differentiate between valid criticisms and good criticisms.  A personal gripe is valid, so long as it's not factually incorrect.  But it's only good if it's a big deal for more than just you.  The criticisms levelled against the skill challenge system are good criticisms.  That thing is broken, and the DC changes in the errata seem like a half-assed last-ditch patch.  That's something that is worth worrying about, especially given how central to the game the system was supposed to be.  And the response to the problem has been very positive.  Problems were identified, WotC has at least tried to address them, and Stalker0 has come up with two excellent fixes for the system.  But you can't fix issues of personal taste like that.  All you can do is complain and hope that someone else chimes in to complain with you to vindicate your opinion.

You know what?  I think this might have something to do with the 4e previews.  Back in 2007 and early 2008, we had the ear of the designers.  We undermined the implementation of Emerald Frost and Dragon's Tail Cut.  Issues of personal taste were apparently taken seriously by the design team, and we had a situation where we knew very little about the mechanics, so we talked about the fluff instead.  Now that the books are printed, we can't pressure Design & Development to change issues of personal taste, and so we yearn for those heady days in which some people complaining on the internet changed the course of the final draft.  We, as a community, were spoiled rotten, and we're still acting spoiled.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that the OGL helped foster (correctly or incorrectly) a sense of inclusiveness, and that fan work was valued.
> 
> As far as the base world for 4e, I think that given that the core was going to be doled out in chunks, there is little else WotC could do.
> 
> ...




I keep thinking this is the crux of a lot of this, even though people never say it. A lot of people rip 4E while praising 1E/OD&D with no mention of 3E. 3E pooped on 1E/OD&D to the same extent 4E does IMO, and the only explanation I have for the people who rip 4E in this manner is that they felt that the combination of 3E and the OGL provided the inclusiveness of what they really want.

To me then, it isn't an issue of D&D serving people or not, but the removal of mainstream D&D from the OGL community that is the real issue, and people complaining about 4E are just dodging or misstating their true issue.

It also irritating to listen to when they do this, because they aren't complaining about what is truly bothering them.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> In theory, yes. In practice, however, it can be quite different. Criticizing a game is one thing, but when your criticism is framed in a way that insults the people who like that game, that is an attack, no matter how you try to spin it.



QFT. For example, the oft-heard assertion that 4E is "dumbed down". This implies that if you like 4E better than previous editions, your are, for lack of a better term, dumb.

The use of derogatory buzzwords is also a problem. When someone posts "4E is just like WoW", you know they don't mean it in a good way, unless they then go on to clarify that they mean it in a good way. Generally it's just left at that, a jab at anyone who enjoys 4E signifying they're not really playing D&D but a video game.

Just remember that we are not discussing all criticism of 4E. Just a subset of it. The non-constructive stuff. There has been plenty of constructive criticism of 4E here. But loads of garbage as well.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 17, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I agree with the concept. If thats what happens then they should be able to spend a bit of time there as well. If I am stepping into Faerie I might want to have the option of hanging out for more than a split second.
> 
> If the Eladrin are unable to do so then they are not cool residents of the feywild, they are teleporting elves.



Actually, I included this in my homebrew setting.

Stepping completely into the Feywild can only happen at points of great convergence.  Permanent convergence points are the entrances to many of the great Eladrin cities.  You Fey Step, and poof!  You're in the Feywild until you find a way out.

When an Eladrin isn't at one of these gateways, they are just dipping their toe into the Feywild.  They've learned to use this to their benefit as a kind of short-range teleportation.

Poof!  Instant flavor to justify the mechanics.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> QFT. For example, the oft-heard assertion that 4E is "dumbed down". This implies that if you like 4E better than previous editions, your are, for lack of a better term, dumb.




I actually like the amount of vocabulary Gary made me learn.  To my mind, 1e had the steepest learning curve of any edition.  Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing......well, YMMV.  

I think you can also say that one edition is a more "PC friendly" edition than another.  I suspect that 4e is not really a PC friendly edition, despite its healing surges, and that long-term campaigns might either (1) rack up body counts that make oD&D look weak in comparison, or (2) begin to show signs of a resurgence of "smart play" ala oD&D.

I wouldn't call 4e "dumbed down".

EDIT:  Except in the sense of not seeming like homework.  In this particular case, 4e is "dumbed down" in a good way.  I am also trying to ensure that RCFG is dumbed down to remove the homework aspect of 3e.  So, in this context, definitely not an insult!  



Obryn said:


> Actually, I included this in my homebrew setting.
> 
> Stepping completely into the Feywild can only happen at points of great convergence.  Permanent convergence points are the entrances to many of the great Eladrin cities.  You Fey Step, and poof!  You're in the Feywild until you find a way out.
> 
> ...




That sounds way cool.   


RC


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 17, 2008)

I put for the reason why Eladrin can only spend so little time in the Feywild is that the artificial path they have formed between the Feywild and the World can only exist for a brief period of time before it becomes swallowed up by the Feywild.

More permenant entrances can happen through rituals conducted at various doorways, areas where the planes are weak, etc. But even these can sometimes become lost and devoured by the shifting vines and thorns of the Feywild.

My Feywild is very, Changeling: The Lost.

So basically if a PC wished he could stay in the Feywild by Fey Step... But, it wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, what with how vicious the Feywild can be and cut-off from all support and lost without knowing where a exit is. Thus the base mechanics of Fey Step stay the same since well, it is common sense ability in my campaign.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 17, 2008)

Allister said:


> I'm still surprised that people dislike the eladrin. To me, the eladrin were the obvious answer to the almost constant split that occurs in campaign worlds where they split the elf into high and wild versions.




Personally I have no axe to grind in the aldarin debate, but it does puzzle me a bit. I don't really understand why the wild/fey elf split is described as a problem. It seems about the same as saying that there's a problem having humans in both agricultural and industrial roles. It's a cultural difference, not a racial one. At least that was always how I interpreted the different niches elves fill.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Personally I have no axe to grind in the aldarin debate,





Didn't the Death Star destroy alderan?



Seriously, though, even if it was serious griping about what I was doing, I would be thrilled if my own game system generated even a thousandth of what 4e has generated.  Were I Mr. Mearls, I would take it with a pretty big grain of salt.  


RC


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 17, 2008)

Psion said:


> Did mmadsen _really _take this statement as slamming prior editions?



I didn't think it was all that mysterious.  I know that very few people follow links, so I provided the text, and I know very few people read long blocks of text, so I put the key passage in bold.  I wasn't passing judgment.

It looks like that key passage was heavily edited though from the one that drew so much ire.  I suspect the original passage wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest, but it did bother many people -- another example of people wanting an edition war and wanting to win that edition war, rather than wanting to examine how games are designed and how to make them better.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Seriously, though, even if it was serious griping about what I was doing, I would be thrilled if my own game system generated even a thousandth of what 4e has generated.



I'll try to get started ASAP.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I'll try to get started ASAP.




GOOD!

You have correctly interpreted my lonely cry for input as what it is.  


RC


----------



## Obryn (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> That sounds way cool.



Thanks!  I aim to please.

-O


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Didn't the Death Star destroy alderan?




Dude, that happened a long long time ago. Why you bringin up old stuff?


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 17, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> None of those were a part of D&D originally, and only the monk ended up part of OD&D (in Blackmoor).




Oh, I know. The point remains. _My_ edition of "old school" D&D had those things, because the one I associate with as _my_ edition had them. That is to say, AD&D with UA was pretty much what I played most of the time back in the day.

WP


----------



## Jasperak (Nov 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> Man, everbody's a critic!
> 
> More seriously, the feedback thing is important. We're definitely listening to what people want in the game, stuff they've been excited about, stuff they dislike.
> 
> ...




Excellent.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 17, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Personally I have no axe to grind in the aldarin debate, but it does puzzle me a bit. I don't really understand why the wild/fey elf split is described as a problem. It seems about the same as saying that there's a problem having humans in both agricultural and industrial roles. It's a cultural difference, not a racial one. At least that was always how I interpreted the different niches elves fill.




I think it had more to do with how the cultural distinction was represented mechanically then the distinction itself, though having a fantasy race with two very strong, conflicting archetypes is going to cause some problems.  For example, in 3.5e, the elf's favorite class is wizard but they don't receive any boost to Intelligence (or any mental stat for that matter); in fact, they're more mechanically inclined to being a rogue or ranger or something similar


----------



## justanobody (Nov 18, 2008)

The reason you have a preference of one over the other is a criticism of the one you dislike or a part of it.

That is what a criticism is. A subjective look at something from one singular person's perspective.

Nothing is immune to criticism.


----------



## Andor (Nov 18, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> It also irritating to listen to when they do this, because they aren't complaining about what is truly bothering them.




There is a psychology term called 'projection'. You might find it interesting if you look it up.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The reason you have a preference of one over the other is a criticism of the one you dislike or a part of it.
> 
> That is what a criticism is. A subjective look at something from one singular person's perspective.
> 
> Nothing is immune to criticism.




I prefer it when people are straight and say what they mean. Its annoying when they are not. It has nothing to do with what is actually being said.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 18, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I prefer it when people are straight and say what they mean. Its annoying when they are not. It has nothing to do with what is actually being said.




What did I say that you did not understand?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> What did I say that you did not understand?




I wasn't actually talking to you in particular. I thought you were replying to my previous post, and what I said was a reply assuming you were talking to me.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> That is true. Of course, if you perfected the way to avoid running into problems after 30 years of work, you'd likely be justifiably peeved to discover that your method has been tossed out the window, returning the problem while simultaneously undoing your work around. Especially if that work around has worked for such a long time.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...




Has 3.5 stopped people playing 2e? Did 2e stop people playing 1e? If people are still playing older editions, the newer editions doesn't actually have an effect on them.

Basically, a new edition HAS to be different than the previous edition.

Each edition, in part, has to compete against the previous editions. They make a new edition "fixing" parts of the older editions. However most of the "problems" are something that, as the saying goes, may be a "feature not a bug". Some people are happy to have things change, like expanding the sweet spot from 1 to 30. Other people hate it, because they LIKED the way that things worked different at low levels, mid levels and high levels, as it relates to wizards.

So, you can either make a new edition with the same "feature not bugs". You are appealing to the people that like the old edition, are comfortable with the old edition, and aren't really looking for a new edition. OR, you can make a new edition that changes those things, for people that may be getting tired of the old edition and looking for a new one.

If WOTC felt that 3.5 was just about perfect ... and made a few changes and released it again ... they wouldn't attract people that may feel there are problems with 3.5, because most of the same problems would be there. And, a lot of the people that like 3.5 may not see a reason to abandon a "complete" edition with all the splat books, etc ... for a "new" edition. Pathfinder sort of accepts the fact that they can't reboot 3.5, and allow just about anything they didn't explicitly change from 3.5 to stay. Selling it as another expansion of 3.5 is one thing. A total reboot would have a very hard time competing.

So, in general, people that are overall happy with earlier editions may not be happy with newer editions. The new edition isn't necessarily indicating that there is something wrong with the older edition ... just that there are some things the older editions aren't necessarily good at. This edition tries to tackle that from a different angle.

Ultimately, someone who has found their "near perfect system" is likely not going to see WOTC release a new edition of D&D that they'll be happy with, because re-releasing the same game isn't going to happen. It already exists, and there is nothing stopping someone from playing it other than perhaps less players looking to play in a campaign of that edition.

Aside:

Defender/Striker/Controller/Leader isn't something they pulled out of WoW. 2e had Warrior/Rogue/Wizard/Priest. Warrior was a bit more strikerish, and the rogue's role was more of an out of combat role, but the foundations of the four basic roles were there ... following the original "only 4 classes" that came before it. 3e was really the only class to significantly go away from that idea of roles.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 18, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I wasn't actually talking to you in particular. I thought you were replying to my previous post, and what I said was a reply assuming you were talking to me.




I was replying to the whole "4e is immune to criticism" concept. No matter what it is, nothing is immune to criticism.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The step into Faerie and reappear in the mortal world several feet away. Seems both folkloric and high fantasy to me.




... but unfortunately, not present in the Dragonlance trilogy, any of the Forgotten Realms novels, or any previously published D&D product that purports to describe an elven settlement and its defenses.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2008)

mearls said:


> I've actually thought about it several times recently, not just now. I've been on various gaming fora dating back to Usenet. I was with Malhavoc when they went with DRM. I remember the reaction to the end of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon magazines.
> 
> The problem I see now is that, while in the past things would heat up and then cool down, we seem to have settled into a higher background temperature. Maybe it's just the economy, maybe there's an underlying sense of panic that one's D&D of choice is going to die, but things just seem more shrill than usual.




There are probably a lot of factors. But I think the biggest thing to consider is that 3e has no small number of fans. And 4e has inherited them. While D&D has had gone through many changes over the years, I think this is the first time since the Basic/Advanced split that a version has been published while another was still thriving. And in that case, the publishers had something of a demographic difference, with Basic D&D being marketed toward new players and also enjoyed by some OD&D holdouts, with AD&D being marketed to the hobbyists. 

With 3e and 4e, there really is just about zero correlation between any major demographic I'm aware of. Anyone could be a 4e fan or a 3e fan. Both are tightly designed systems with a lot of fans, and the same kinds of people enjoy each. They read the same books, play the same non-D&D games, and ultimately, read the same message boards.

And so here we are.



> Meh. Maybe I'm just too old and jaded for gaming forums! Maybe if everyone claps their hands and just wishes ever so hard, I'll brighten up!




I'm wondering if perhaps being on the 4e design team might make you especially vulnerable to burnout when it comes to stuff like this. 

Things will cool off, but only after 4e has been broken in and the new converts have had a chance to appreciate it for what it is, and what it is not. 

Here's looking forward to a 5e to look forward to.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 18, 2008)

Man, this thread is all over the place....but that's probably a good thing.

For my mileage, I admit I'm a very acidic critic, and that I will defend criticisms over praises most of the time, but that's not really founded in a preference for any edition. I can see a definite logic behind each and every choice in 4e, and I'm more interested in discovering how that logic meets certain goals, and fails to meet others, and how things could have gone differently (such as figuring out the merits of certain goals as opposed to others).

What probably most annoys me about a lot of the Edition Wars is when one side assumes the other is somehow illegitimate. 

When a older-edition fan claims that 4e destroys everything great about D&D, it annoys me because it assumes that the people who love 4e aren't "true fans" of D&D, and are thus unfit to comment on what "D&D" should be. It's more interesting for me to see where playstyles differ, and how 4e may have subtly changed or continued to change the assumed playstyle (cementing a move from "dungeon exploration" to "combat encounters" that was probably begun long ago, for instance). 

When a 4e fan claims that someone's problem with 4e isn't really a problem if you're _creative enough_, it annoys me because it assumes that the person is just being obstinate, rather than have a genuine issue. 

That's what annoyed me about the title of the thread this got forked from. It seems to want to make the argument that a criticism of 4e isn't legit because it's somehow sentimentally rooted. 

I like the discussions, I like figuring out how people play and what they play and the different playstyles and why certain games hit them better than others. This is why I am such an acidic critic at times: so I can make my games (and, ideally, others' games) better. 

What I don't like is when one side or the other tries to pre-emptively get the LAST WORD in by coloring most criticism or most praise as somehow invalid.

There is no last word. 4e will _always_ be criticized, even into 5e, and those criticism will mostly have a point to them -- the critics aren't just sentimental grognards who fear change. And regardless of the criticism, 4e will probably last about 6-10 years, and have a lot of totally logical fans who aren't just rabid fanboys of the fresh new thing.

I say this as a 4e player, and (recently) a 4e DM, and a HUGELY VOCAL 4e critic. This isn't about being RIGHT. This is about discussing what we like, what we don't like, and what might be the best way for WotC to give most of us what we like without alienating most of those that don't like certain parts of it.

That discussion is interesting.

But it's not one that you can win.

Don't try to win. Just try to learn.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 18, 2008)

I was unaware that the original blog posts were edited.  Anyone have the originals?  

I was just going off what was there now.  Raven Crowking (despite repeatedly feeling the need to tell everyone that he's not listening to me ) pointed to that specific blog post and I looked at it.  There's nothing particularly insulting.  Yet Raven Crowking claims that the post was edited.

Yet, I look at This post on En World, which has the whole article quoted, and nothing is different.

And, here we have Raven Crowking taking offense TO THE SAME TEXT THAT'S IN THE ARTICLE NOW.

No consipiracy theory.  No rewriting.  Yet, how far people will go to try to prove how Evil WOTC is.  To the point where they claim that the Dev's go back and edit their own blogs after the fact.  THIS is what drives me crazy.  Completely fabricated points, built up from pet theories and constructive quoting and hazy history.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This isn't about being RIGHT. This is about discussing what we like, what we don't like, and what might be the best way for WotC to give most of us what we like without alienating most of those that don't like certain parts of it.
> 
> That discussion is interesting.
> 
> ...






I agree with this!



$


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> "This has always been a problem" is a fair criticism. I'm talking about the situations where 4E only is slammed for something, while the problem actually existed in earlier editions as well.
> 
> Not "D&D has this problem", but "4E introduced this problem."




And what about if one says that 3E had this problem, and 4E has this problem, but I happened to like the failed manner in which 2nd or 3E tried to fix the problem, over the failed manner in which 4E tried to fix the problem? 

Banshee


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 18, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> And what about if one says that 3E had this problem, and 4E has this problem, but I happened to like the failed manner in which 2nd or 3E tried to fix the problem, over the failed manner in which 4E tried to fix the problem?
> 
> Banshee




Than you prefer those editions. If they went with the same method of solving the same problems again, they would just be going over the same ground, not offering anything new and would be neither be enticing to people who like the older editions, warts and all, nor would it be appealing to people who are looking for something different.

A system that tried to please everyone would ultimately fail. A system that tries to win over people who don't feel there is a great problem, or that the solutions in place are "good enough" are likely not going to convert either. Making something different gives a better chance of getting people who don't want to play other editions, as opposed to not only convincing someone that it's "just like" the older edition so they'll play it ... but also that it's worth buying instead of just using the older edition.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> they went with the same method of solving the same problems again, they would just be going over the same ground, not offering anything new and would be neither be enticing to people who like the older editions, warts and all, nor would it be appealing to people who are looking for something different.
> 
> A system that tried to please everyone would ultimately fail. A system that tries to win over people who don't feel there is a great problem, or that the solutions in place are "good enough" are likely not going to convert either. Making something different gives a better chance of getting people who don't want to play other editions, as opposed to not only convincing someone that it's "just like" the older edition so they'll play it ... but also that it's worth buying instead of just using the older edition.




I think that's part of what fuels some anti-4e bitterness. I personally was looking forward to a fourth edition... but one and a half to two years further down the road, and built on the foundation laid out by 3.5. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally feel disappointed that 3.5 was never "fixed," but rather, the system was essentially replaced with another system with similar aims but an entirely different form and guided by a new philosophy.


----------



## Shadeydm (Nov 18, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I was unaware that the original blog posts were edited.  Anyone have the originals?
> 
> I was just going off what was there now.  Raven Crowking (despite repeatedly feeling the need to tell everyone that he's not listening to me ) pointed to that specific blog post and I looked at it.  There's nothing particularly insulting.  Yet Raven Crowking claims that the post was edited.
> 
> ...




Are you denying that the article was edited from it's originally posted form and seriously toned down? Then again I suppose revisionist history works just fine when the original is lost.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Don't try to win. Just try to learn.




Take a bow mr.midget, cause you've just won the thread 

IMO there is no other reason to have these kinds of discussion threads than to learn of potential problems of the rulesets, of mechanics or fluff, and search for solutions.

If wotc listens in to what we come up with, thats just a bonus. But if we bitch and moan enough, and claim we have circumstantial evidence for them eating kittens, that probably won't happen.

So, lets just all be friends, yes?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 18, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> Are you denying that the article was edited from it's originally posted form and seriously toned down? Then again I suppose revisionist history works just fine when the original is lost.




Look at the En World thread that I linked to.  Look at the quotes, not just the original, but the ones that people brought forward to have a problem with.  They are exactly the same.  

I tried the Wayback Machine, but, came up empty.  

I read through the thread that I linked to and can find nothing to indicate that there were any changes in the original post.  If it was changed, it was done pretty darn stealthily.

From where I'm standing I saw all sorts of people getting all bent out of shape over what other people said WOTC was saying without bothering to read the originals at all.  For months before the release, every single post that came out of WOTC was just throwing chum to sharks.  People would jump up and down screaming at the top of their lungs about how WOTC was bashing 3e and other editions.  Then, when you actually looked at what they wrote, it wasn't all that bad by and large.

Yet, a year later, people are still looking for stuff to get pissed off about.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I think that's part of what fuels some anti-4e bitterness. I personally was looking forward to a fourth edition... but one and a half to two years further down the road, and built on the foundation laid out by 3.5. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally feel disappointed that 3.5 was never "fixed," but rather, the system was essentially replaced with another system with similar aims but an entirely different form and guided by a new philosophy.




At the same time, while it may be a legitimate complaint, it's also a bit unrealistic.

Ultimately, they would want as wide of an audience as possible for a new edition. This means:

(A) Release it earlier enough that people getting "tired" of the older system have not yet stopped playing altogether 

(B) It is different enough from the old system to be an alternative

A fixed version of 3.5 wouldn't be enough change for people that have issues with some of the fundamental elements of 3.5, and it would need to both be a big enough change from 3.5 to encourage players that like 3.5 to update ... but then they risk changing things they actually like about the game.

Ultimately, 4e does not cause 3.5 to stop existing, nor did it get rid of 3, or it get rid of 2, etc, etc, etc ... people have the option to use the older editions, or the newer editions. Another patch of 3.5 wouldn't be a new edition, it would be more rules added to the same thing. Considering one of the complaints levied against 4e is the lack of options ... having more editions to pick from is a good thing. While 4e does prevent, to an extent, further development of 3.5, it does not prevent anyone from playing it. 4e not getting made, on the other hand, would definitely involve people not having been able to play it .


----------



## billd91 (Nov 18, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> Ultimately, 4e does not cause 3.5 to stop existing, nor did it get rid of 3, or it get rid of 2, etc, etc, etc ... people have the option to use the older editions, or the newer editions. Another patch of 3.5 wouldn't be a new edition, it would be more rules added to the same thing. Considering one of the complaints levied against 4e is the lack of options ... having more editions to pick from is a good thing. While 4e does prevent, to an extent, further development of 3.5, it does not prevent anyone from playing it. 4e not getting made, on the other hand, would definitely involve people not having been able to play it .




It doesn't prevent it from existing, but it does prevent current copies from being replaced. And, as with anything that wears out over time or is lost in various disasters, that means its physical existence will dwindle. So, it will continue to exist for some time. No doubt in better shape than predecessors thanks to the OGL, but still in inevitable decline.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> Defender/Striker/Controller/Leader isn't something they pulled out of WoW. 2e had Warrior/Rogue/Wizard/Priest. Warrior was a bit more strikerish, and the rogue's role was more of an out of combat role, but the foundations of the four basic roles were there ... following the original "only 4 classes" that came before it. 3e was really the only class to significantly go away from that idea of roles.




You are correct here. Defender/Striker/Controller/Leader comes from City of Heroes, which is appropriate since 4E is a supers system.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

billd91 said:


> It doesn't prevent it from existing, but it does prevent current copies from being replaced. And, as with anything that wears out over time or is lost in various disasters, that means its physical existence will dwindle. So, it will continue to exist for some time. No doubt in better shape than predecessors thanks to the OGL, but still in inevitable decline.



Maybe it's because I am not playing a declining system, but why should one worry so much? Do people need the knowledge that other people they never meet don't play their game? Do people really expect never to want something else to play? 
My 3.5 rulebooks don't show much tear and wear, so I wouldn't be particularly worried about replacements any time soon... But then, I certainly won't need them, either.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> You are correct here. Defender/Striker/Controller/Leader comes from City of Heroes, which is appropriate since 4E is a supers system.




This is the sort of arrogant comment that makes people angry. You strongly imply that people who feel 4E works great for generic fantasy and don't find it a "supers" system are wrong and shouldn't think that way.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

billd91 said:


> It doesn't prevent it from existing, but it does prevent current copies from being replaced. And, as with anything that wears out over time or is lost in various disasters, that means its physical existence will dwindle. So, it will continue to exist for some time. No doubt in better shape than predecessors thanks to the OGL, but still in inevitable decline.




Picking up older books from a system that sold well, using things like Amazon and eBay, is trivial in this day and age, and you can get books at a good price and in very good condition. While I don't deny that the 3.5E community inevitably declines because of the launch of 4E, I don't see books being a real complaint. If you want them, they're easy to find, and will be so for years.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This is the sort of arrogant comment that makes people angry. You strongly imply that people who feel 4E works great for generic fantasy and don't find it a "supers" system are wrong and shouldn't think that way.




?!?!?!

I thought he was being funny.


RC


----------



## VanRichten (Nov 18, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> If that's why they moved to 4th Edition. But I hardly think the development philosophy that launched the design of the entire system was "We need change, whether it's good or bad... let's just... I don't know, let's just _change_".




_mod edit: no real-world politics, folks_


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This is the sort of arrogant comment that makes people angry. You strongly imply that people who feel 4E works great for generic fantasy and don't find it a "supers" system are wrong and shouldn't think that way.




I stand behind my assertion that 4E is a supers game. Those who play it as a fantasy system are not "wrong" and may think anything that they wish. I could take the Marvel rpg and create fantasy characters and play that as fantasy too and it wouldn't be "wrong" either if I thought that would work for me.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> ?!?!?!
> 
> I thought he was being funny.
> 
> ...




Seems he wasn't:



ExploderWizard said:


> I stand behind my assertion that 4E is a supers game. Those who play it as a fantasy system are not "wrong" and may think anything that they wish. I could take the Marvel rpg and create fantasy characters and play that as fantasy too and it wouldn't be "wrong" either if I thought that would work for me.




Your wrong, it is a fantasy game. BuzzzzT,  thanks for playing.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe it's because I am not playing a declining system, but why should one worry so much? Do people need the knowledge that other people they never meet don't play their game? Do people really expect never to want something else to play?
> My 3.5 rulebooks don't show much tear and wear, so I wouldn't be particularly worried about replacements any time soon... But then, I certainly won't need them, either.




It's more a question about finding new players or players in a new environment with ready access to the materials. It can be hard enough to find decent players for the current edition of D&D (whatever that current edition is), but it gets harder for previous editions as they become less and less current.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I stand behind my assertion that 4E is a supers game. Those who play it as a fantasy system are not "wrong" and may think anything that they wish. I could take the Marvel rpg and create fantasy characters and play that as fantasy too and it wouldn't be "wrong" either if I thought that would work for me.




Nice backtracking. It still stands that there was more than a small taste of agression in the original statement.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

billd91 said:


> It's more a question about finding new players or players in a new environment with ready access to the materials. It can be hard enough to find decent players for the current edition of D&D (whatever that current edition is), but it gets harder for previous editions as they become less and less current.




This is a legitimate concern, and I don't think there is an easy answer to it. I think this is a big part of what makes fans of older editions upset, even though they don't often say it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

billd91 said:


> It's more a question about finding new players or players in a new environment with ready access to the materials. It can be hard enough to find decent players for the current edition of D&D (whatever that current edition is), but it gets harder for previous editions as they become less and less current.



I can see that, to some extent.

But imagine you got me as a gamer in your group? Do you think it's fair that I have to play 3.5 if I'd rather play 4E (except 4E doesn't exist)? 
But maybe you couldn't even get me as a 3.5 player. Maybe you only could get me as a Shadowrun or Iron Heroes player. As a DM, I already switched to IH several months before the 4E announcement. 

There are two aspects here:
1) Just because 3.5 might still be the latest edition of D&D doesn't mean you will find players for it. It might still be a declining game. Many 4E fans got tired of 3E. Then there are others that play 3E and 4E - they would probably play 3E and maybe any other game if 4E didn't exist. Sure, 4E speeds up any potential decline, but wouldn't it still happen - and how far in the future are you planning for the worry of finding a potential player?

2) Some give me the impression that he would be better off if a 4E fan would still be playing 3E and be a potential player in his group. But why should a 4E have to "suffer" playing a system that doesn't match his priorities as well as 4E now does for another players sake? Isn't that wrong and unfair?
Well, I suppose it beats not playing at all, but I could say the same thing for 3E players.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 18, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> Are you denying that the article was edited from it's originally posted form and seriously toned down? Then again I suppose revisionist history works just fine when the original is lost.



Erm, if the quote on ENWorld dated 9/5/07 hasn't been doctored, then it matches what mmadsen posted earlier this thread.

Now, Glyfair's post was edited, but I haven't found anything in the followups that indicates Glyfair would have changed his quote to a new, revised version.  I don't really know why he would.

So yes, I'd say he is saying it hasn't been edited and toned down; and, what's more, I believe it.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Nov 18, 2008)

billd91 said:


> It's more a question about finding new players or players in a new environment with ready access to the materials. It can be hard enough to find decent players for the current edition of D&D (whatever that current edition is), but it gets harder for previous editions as they become less and less current.



As a suggestion?  Find some players and get them into the game by running what they want to play.

After they learn to trust you as a DM, start suggesting other games that you're more interested in running.

It takes some time and work, yeah, but it's rough finding new players for both an unfamiliar DM and an unfamiliar game.  If you can remove one or the other concern, you're in a better spot than you were in before.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Erm, if the quote on ENWorld dated 9/5/07 hasn't been doctored, then it matches what mmadsen posted earlier this thread.
> 
> Now, Glyfair's post was edited, but I haven't found anything in the followups that indicates Glyfair would have changed his quote to a new, revised version.  I don't really know why he would.
> 
> ...





Last edited by Glyfair; 7th September 2007 at 03:48 PM..

Two days after the original post, and after the blog update.


RC


----------



## Obryn (Nov 18, 2008)

raven crowking said:


> last edited by glyfair; 7th september 2007 at 03:48 pm..
> 
> Two days after the original post, and after the blog update.
> 
> ...



...



			
				me said:
			
		

> now, glyfair's post was edited, but i haven't found anything in the followups that indicates glyfair would have changed his quote to a new, revised version. I don't really know why he would.





-o


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 18, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> Are you denying that the article was edited from it's originally posted form and seriously toned down? Then again I suppose revisionist history works just fine when the original is lost.




Are you making the claim that it was edited?  Do you have any evidence?  A forum post from the time at which the article was edited showing the different versions would be fine.  A cached google page would be fine.  Nothing disappears on the internet anymore.  If you want to make a claim, present evidence.  Otherwise, it's just a conspiracy theory.  Personally, I don't remember there having been an edit on anything except the implements article.

I'm sorry, but I don't just take people's word for it when they start up with ungrounded accusations.  Especially given that Hussar's interpretation--that people read the blog, played Chinese whispers, and came up with something more controversial than what was actually posted on the blog--seems reasonable.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Last edited by Glyfair; 7th September 2007 at 03:48 PM..
> 
> Two days after the original post, and after the blog update.
> 
> ...




And what did he change?


----------



## phloog (Nov 18, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> This is an "i hate apples because they aren't oranges" type of argument. And highly irrelevant and very counterproductive.





I think that the proper way to apply any apples/oranges analogy is this:

"I don't like apples, and yet WOTC has begun making apples where before they were making oranges."  

In addition, despite the fact that they are now clearly producing apples, they have chosen to continue to label the crates "Oranges".  

I will agree that specifics are always better than just 'it doesn't feel like X edition', but I guess I'm not sure how you discuss what you don't like about a newer version of a product without at least the possibiity of discussing what you liked about the old version.  To continue to use your fruit analogy but in support of your desire for specifics: perhaps you prefer the color orange, or the lack of a bitter core, or you like the smell of oranges.  So I can see a reason to call for specifics.  I don't like (for example) the ramped up first level power, the combat focus of ALL classes, the increased emphasis on tactical boardplay, etc.

And of course many wouldn't feel so strongly about any of this if WOTC had not tried to force everyone to produce apples and stop providing oranges, using their market share and resources to convince everyone that apples are indeed the only fruit worth having.  If anyone chooses to provide apples, they are legally required to stop producing oranges...that's bound to upset people....

...and can lead to scurvy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> And what did he change?




From the context we can see, and from the fact that the blog entry is the same as the current, I would say it is very likely that he updated the blog entry in his quote, which would be a reasonable thing to do.

I am not saying that there is anything sinister going on here; I am saying that WotC needed better PR people to handle the 4e announcement than it had.  And that not having those PR people has contributed to the current climate of debate around 4e.

Surely it is not such a leap to imagine that the 4e announcement & follow-up could have been handled better?  


RC


----------



## Umbran (Nov 18, 2008)

Andor said:


> There is a psychology term called 'projection'. You might find it interesting if you look it up.




Yeah, and there's another called "passive aggressiveness".

Trying to paint a wide swath of folks with one brush in this manner is dismissive and rude in the extreme.  Please don't do it.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

phloog said:


> I think that the proper way to apply any apples/oranges analogy is this:
> 
> "I don't like apples, and yet WOTC has begun making apples where before they were making oranges."
> 
> ...




I don't think this is a good analogy. Mine would be this:

WotC produces fruit. They produce oranges, pears, peaches, grapes, and whatever, but most people mostly wanted the apples. During previous management, they put a lot of work into offering all varieties of fruit, and even allowed outside contractors to produce varieties of fruit that WotC didn't offer or neglected under the same roof. Still, most people wanted apples, and this prioritizing of bringing all fruit under the same roof lowered the quality of the apples. WotC is now under new management, and they have chosen that this time they will focus the business on the apples, which is what most people(though not all) wanted. Other fruits still are produced, but these are not a priority, and some fruits that were produced before are neglected or altogether missing. In addition, while the outside contractors haven't been run out, WotC isn't allowing them to produce under the same roof anymore, and isn't sharing their apples, though they offer a contract for you to produce apples to be sold with WotCs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Nice backtracking. It still stands that there was more than a small taste of agression in the original statement.




I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.

If we take a supers rpg and replace all the trappings with fantasy, but the PC's all still use superpowers, then its still a supers game.

If we take take a fantasy game, and leave the fantasy trappings in place, but replace magic with superpowers, then we have a supers game.

It takes more than PC's wearing robes and plate armor rather than tights and capes to make a fantasy game.

If using a supers system with fantasy trappings like 4E works then use it.


----------



## phloog (Nov 18, 2008)

rounser said:


> Because there are all sorts of associations with the word "wizard", for example. It's a powerful word. Like those Power Word spells (remember them?) Elf is similar - lots of associations and ideas spring to mind unbidden. The sort which trigger ideas for worldbuilding, adventures, and characters.
> 
> Eladrin? No signal. SNIP.




For me, the biggest problem with Eladrin, and Warforged for that matter, is that I can't just ignore what I know in my heart - that these names are 1) specifying things about the setting that ARE indeed totally different from what I want, but also 2) only in the form that they are so that they can be preserved as IP.

I realize that's likely petty of me, but I don't want to have races with funky names and 'flavor' that disagrees with my campaign in my core gaming books, particularly if it's only taking on the weird form or name so that WOTC can stop anyone they don't like from using it.

It's a bad precedent as well...D&D 6E will likely have the Grelpnor (TM) - who are short, with beards, a tendency to be dour, but they are NOT called dwarves!!!

They live in great jungle cities called Fippypucks (TM)..the good news is that they get the feat Triumph of Seven Puppies (TM) for free at first lavvel (TM), and are immediately thrumficient (TM) in multiple Weppinz (TM), including the Braggonfek (TM). (Playset and figures sold separately - - to use any of these words in casual speech please refer to the GSL v 3.4, noting that using these words constitutes agreement to never use OGL words again).


----------



## Obryn (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> From the context we can see, and from the fact that the blog entry is the same as the current, I would say it is very likely that he updated the blog entry in his quote, which would be a reasonable thing to do.



I find it less likely, but your orange re-quotes, just a few posts below it, also match the article.  I'm going to guess that you quoted the most troubling passages, and would find it strange that Dave Noonan would edit the whole blog _except_ for the most troubling parts.



> I am not saying that there is anything sinister going on here; I am saying that WotC needed better PR people to handle the 4e announcement than it had.  And that not having those PR people has contributed to the current climate of debate around 4e.
> 
> Surely it is not such a leap to imagine that the 4e announcement & follow-up could have been handled better?
> 
> RC



I think that's kind of a topic jump, but no, I don't think the PR campaign was done as well as it could have been.  That's neither here nor there, though.

-O


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.
> 
> If we take a supers rpg and replace all the trappings with fantasy, but the PC's all still use superpowers, then its still a supers game.
> 
> ...




Equating personal opinion with truth I call agression. Its dismissive of other opinions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

I am going through the thread, examining the day Glyfair made his changes.  

Post 199 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/3759367-post199.html) made at 3:46 was right before he made the changes to his OP, and right after visiting Mr. Noonan's blog.

I suppose I could give some effort towards finding other references to Mr. Noonan's blog on other sites, but as I am not suggesting malice on Mr. Noonan's (or Glyfair's) part, is there any real point?


RC


----------



## phloog (Nov 18, 2008)

I do find it perhaps unfortunate that WOTC choose to use terms that are fairly close to MMORPGs...but I guess I'm glad they didn't call any class the 'Tank'...which IS from City of Heroes.  Whether they did it because they are recognizing influences from MMORPGs or not, can't really say, but it does feed the speculation.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.
> 
> If we take a supers rpg and replace all the trappings with fantasy, but the PC's all still use superpowers, then its still a supers game.
> 
> ...




I suppose, if you want to look at it that way. Once you get passed third level all versions of DND start to look like a supers game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I find it less likely, but your orange re-quotes, just a few posts below it, also match the article.  I'm going to guess that you quoted the most troubling passages, and would find it strange that Dave Noonan would edit the whole blog _except_ for the most troubling parts.




Yup.

You and Lonely Tylenol are correct; I am wrong.

What Glyfair changed was the thread title.  _Mea culpa_.



> I think that's kind of a topic jump, but no, I don't think the PR campaign was done as well as it could have been.  That's neither here nor there, though.




I think that a lot of the animosity toward the new edition that we are seeing now is still a run-on from the PR campaign then.

I could be wrong.

As just demonstrated, I've been wrong before, and will be wrong again.


RC


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 18, 2008)

Who cares about the quote? I know us gamers are known for being overly sensitive and righteous types, but hasn't this gone a bit too far?

If Bob says he didn't like 3E and has made a game he likes, then good for Bob. If Bob happened to be a 3E designer and a 4E designer, then maybe that's a way for Bob to express he's - based on his experience - improved the game. Isn't that what we want from designers?

Bob's intent wasn't to say anyone who liked 3E was a dilrod. There are dilrods who like every version of every game. I'm a dilrod.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

phloog said:


> It's a bad precedent as well...D&D 6E will likely have the Grelpnor (TM) - who are short, with beards, a tendency to be dour, but they are NOT called dwarves!!!
> 
> They live in great jungle cities called Fippypucks (TM)..the good news is that they get the feat Triumph of Seven Puppies (TM) for free at first lavvel (TM), and are immediately thrumficient (TM) in multiple Weppinz (TM), including the Braggonfek (TM). (Playset and figures sold separately - - to use any of these words in casual speech please refer to the GSL v 3.4, noting that using these words constitutes agreement to never use OGL words again).




 ROFL.

If you use Grelphor (TM) living in Fippypucks (TM) in your 3pp adventure then it will cost you Fiddybucks


----------



## Obryn (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose I could give some effort towards finding other references to Mr. Noonan's blog on other sites, but as I am not suggesting malice on Mr. Noonan's (or Glyfair's) part, is there any real point



For you?  Not really.  Shadeydm accused Hussar of revisionism, though, and I'd like to figure out the truth of the matter.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Obryn said:


> For you?  Not really.  Shadeydm accused Hussar of revisionism, though, and I'd like to figure out the truth of the matter.
> 
> -O




AFAICT, in this case, the fault is completely mine.  

RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> At the same time, while it may be a legitimate complaint, it's also a bit unrealistic.
> 
> Ultimately, they would want as wide of an audience as possible for a new edition.




It saddens me that to a certain extent. While I understand the drive to produce profits, especially in a narrowly profitable enterprise, I have always felt that RPG design should not simply be about increasing quarterlies, but actually refining and improving the design. "Giving the people what they want" is a laudable goal, and I can sympathize with the design team's goal of addressing certain problems, but overhauling the engine every couple of editions leads to two considerable problems: 

- really good solutions are never found for the majority of issues; instead, each version has simply a different set of flaws, and
- over time, you end up with competing fanbases, and it will ultimately be impossible to please them all

I suppose it might be possible to make a 5e that echoes a lot of 3e, then a 6e than echoes 4e, but I would consider that a cynical strategy. 

From a certain standpoint, it might be nice to continue both families of design, but unfortunately, that takes resources. Further, it puts the games in competition. That is, unfortunately, part of the reason the GSL was created. 

While 3e fans can be faulted for at times being irrational in their criticisms, I think it must be admitted that they are justifiably angry that WotC has actually attempted to stamp out support for their chosen edition. While I can believe someone like Mearls might oppose something like that, it's just not fair to pretend that didn't happen and that an edition war of sorts is not going on.

Fans do face pressure to update; the new digital tools support the new edition, only the new edition is being supported, and sufficient compatibility issues were introduced that many miniatures and sourcebooks are now incompatible with the new D&D world. Further, the third party publishers have been squeezed, in many cases being asked to abandon 3e in order to support 4e with a particular product line. Third edition is under attack.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> I suppose, if you want to look at it that way. Once you get passed third level all versions of DND start to look like a supers game.




Really? I wouldn't say ALL.

A third level AD&D fighter, while better with weapons, is still a fairly mundane soldier.

A fifth level AD&D thief is very much a regular guy with a few special skills.

Clerics and Magic Users perform more spectacular spells as they gain levels but it is MAGIC after all.

Sure once you get to 3E and give rogues and fighters magic-like abilities at higher levels  it starts looking kind of supers like.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

May I point out that any supers game is, almost by definition, also a fantasy game?  And that one could make the argument that the reverse is also true?


RC


----------



## Obryn (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, in this case, the fault is completely mine.
> 
> RC



Yah, sorry, I'm at work and I was working on my post well after you'd made your post, above.  So I apologize if it looks like I was harping - I'm not, I'm just slow on the Reply button. 

-O


----------



## Mallus (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> The truth isn't an aggressive animal.



Apropos of nothing, I love this phrase. Nice job!



> If we take a supers rpg and replace all the trappings with fantasy, but the PC's all still use superpowers, then its still a supers game.



True. But D&D always turns into a fantasy-themed supers game, if your character's level enough (at least in 1e-3.5e).

Oddly enough, while low-level 4e characters resemble superheroes more than their previous edition counterparts do, high-level 4e character resemble them less, thanks to changes in caster classes.

The 13th level PC's in the 3.5e game I run are, beyond the shadow of a doubt, fantasy superheroes. The group has 4 full-progression spellcasters and resemble the Justice League in terms of powers and abilities (though not, it should be said, in their commitment to the idea of _justice_). 

The 21st level PC's in our new epic 4e playtest campaign are far less superheroic. Hell, they still ride things that resemble _horses_ to get from one place to the next...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Equating personal opinion with truth I call agression. Its dismissive of other opinions.




To be fair 4E is not the first edition to include superpowers.

Psionics are an implementation of superpowers that have been around since the early days. 

As a subsystem such powers are ok. When ingrained into the core, the very nature of the game changes.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.



Truth? You don't see the problem when you're referring to your opinion as "truth"?

Your dividing line between a fantasy game and a supers game seems to be arbitrary. Apparently it's based on the mechanics, since you talk about replacing trappings and settings and it remaining the same type of game.

So your personal interpretation of what is a "super power" and what is "heroic ability" (for lack of a better term) is what informs your decision as to whether something is a supers game or a fantasy game.

But please don't call it truth. That's very presumptuous.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> To be fair 4E is not the first edition to include superpowers.
> 
> Psionics are an implementation of superpowers that have been around since the early days.



So psionics are superpowers, but magic is not? In mechanical terms (which you must be referring to), the psionics system is just another way to implement magic.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 18, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Who cares about the quote? I know us gamers are known for being overly sensitive and righteous types, but hasn't this gone a bit too far?



I don't really care so much about the quote itself.  But when people in a debate start accusing others of basically revising history or fabricating details... Well, I think it's good to clear that up as quickly as possible so we can get back to a productive discussion.

Also, fwiw, I think the blog post looks a lot better in the rear-view mirror than it did at first - better enough that at least a few people thought they were reading something different than they originally did.  I think that may be instructive.

-O


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Truth? You don't see the problem when you're referring to your opinion as "truth"?




What kind of opinion would it be if he called it falsehood? I think there is room enough for many truths, and for people to persuade on behalf of the one they trust.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> To be fair 4E is not the first edition to include superpowers.
> 
> Psionics are an implementation of superpowers that have been around since the early days.
> 
> As a subsystem such powers are ok. When ingrained into the core, the very nature of the game changes.




See, what you claim as "truth" is simply your take on things.  Me, I look at, say, a 8th level AD&D party and they are taking on armies of GIANTS.  That's not mundane, that's extremely superheroic.  GODS do that sort of thing in myth.  Normal guys take on one, maybe two giants.  But a couple of dozen at the same time?  

And that's where the big disconnect comes.  People have a particular view of how the game used to be based on their own experiences.  We then try to project those experiences onto a larger whole, as if our own personal experiences were some how universal.  

Heck, I'm certainly not the only one who used the Dieties and Demigods as a high level Monster Manual.  I know that I'm not.  So, when you try to claim "truth" it's really nothing of the sort.  It's simply how you played.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Really? I wouldn't say ALL.
> 
> A third level AD&D fighter, while better with weapons, is still a fairly mundane soldier.
> 
> A fifth level AD&D thief is very much a regular guy with a few special skills.



So we can see your definition narrowing. A "supers game" is one in which *all* characters have superpowers.

But how about moving on. Is a 20th-level AD&D fighter still a mundane soldier? 3rd-level 4E fighters are still pretty mundane really.



ExploderWizard said:


> Clerics and Magic Users perform more spectacular spells as they gain levels but it is MAGIC after all.



What's the difference between magic and psionics, other than the flavour?



ExploderWizard said:


> Sure once you get to 3E and give rogues and fighters magic-like abilities at higher levels  it starts looking kind of supers like.



Looks like you're backtracking. High-level 3E "_starts looking kind of supers like_", whereas 4E, which presumably you equate closely with high-level 3E in terms of how the characters all have superpowers, *is* "_a supers game_".


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> May I point out that any supers game is, almost by definition, also a fantasy game? And that one could make the argument that the reverse is also true?
> 
> 
> RC




While this certainly can happen and I agree that supers games are also fantasy ( or else I believe in real superpowers) there are elements from fantasy that are hard to replicate with a supers oriented system.

A Lankhmar game with fighter and thief PC's who are not exactly heroic would be hard to pull of if every PC gets powers issued by default.

Fantasy can have the magic elements turned up or down to suit the game.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> What kind of opinion would it be if he called it falsehood? I think there is room enough for many truths, and for people to persuade on behalf of the one they trust.




Since when does opinion=truth?  To me truth=fact.  Opinion is simply my best guess at the facts.  Or a believe that X may be fact in lieu of any determining evidence.

Conflating personal preferences with facts is a very bad practice.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2008)

I don't think supers is something you are going to be be able to establish by the presence or absence of some specific elements. It's an overall tone and style. Pointing out that a game does nor does not have a specific element and therefore is/isn't supers is a classic strawman argument.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> What kind of opinion would it be if he called it falsehood? I think there is room enough for many truths, and for people to persuade on behalf of the one they trust.



An opinion, by definition, can be neither true nor false. It can be uninformed or well-informed, but given there is no objective definition of what a "supers game" is, claiming that your interpretation of that term is the only true interpretation is presumptuous.

Here we go with the definitions:

*truth*

1. the true or actual state of a matter: _He tried to find out the truth_.  2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: _the truth of a statement_.  3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: _mathematical truths_. 
What "fact" does the claim that "4E is a supers game" conform to?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I don't think supers is something you are going to be be able to establish by the presence or absence of some specific elements. It's an overall tone and style. Pointing out that a game does nor does not have a specific element and therefore is/isn't supers is a classic strawman argument.



But then, to argue 4E is a supers game, you need to argue that the mechanics and implied setting force a certain tone and style into everyone's game.

Now, I haven't yet played 4E, so I'll ask those that have: does your 4E game feel like a supers game?

The more vague you can make your definitions (it's about how it _feels_, not what it _is_), the more meaningless these definitions are. Terms like "tone" and "style" are subjective. No truth can be derived from them.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> May I point out that any supers game is, almost by definition, also a fantasy game?  And that one could make the argument that the reverse is also true?



Indeed. The dividing line between the genres is blurry to say the least.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2008)

Hussar said:


> To me truth=fact.




Well, that's where you and a large body of philosophic tradition diverge. If truth were just facts, it would just be called facts. Truth is an interpretation of facts.



> Opinion is simply my best guess at the facts.




No, that is a theory. An opinion is a belief not only about what is likely true, but also what will be true in the future. Further, opinions are usually considered to be beliefs that impel one to action, rather than simply fancies or meaningless assertions. 

An opinion would be: It is a bad idea to drink Drano. That's not a guess about the facts, although certain facts are important (Drano can kill you, some people will be sad if you die, the experience is likely to be unpleasant). That opinion presupposes certain values, but it's going to be accessible to most other people, even those with rather different values. As an opinion, it is intellible and based on premises that are likely shared by others.

Truth is, in the end, a matter of interpretation. It is "true" the world is a dangerous and mysterious place where we are the mercy of the fates and few things have clear and unambiguous value, but it is also "true" it is a wonderful and miraculous place and existence is itself a blessing. It really depends. 

Thus, it can be true that The Godfather Part III is a fitting cap to the movie trilogy, while also being true, to someone else, that it was an unnecessary appendix with artistic problems.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I don't think supers is something you are going to be be able to establish by the presence or absence of some specific elements. It's an overall tone and style. Pointing out that a game does nor does not have a specific element and therefore is/isn't supers is a classic strawman argument.




See, now this I agree with.

Can you play 4e as a "Fantasy Super Heroes Game"?  Quite probably.  Then again, you could play pretty much any version of D&D as fantasy super heroes.  It all comes down to your campaign.

Or, better yet, it all comes down to the tone the DM wants to set.

Heck, there's a pretty decent thread right here claiming that you could mold 4e into a pretty decent Tolkein RPG.  If that's true, then 4e doesn't necessarily have to be a fantasy supers game.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> But then, to argue 4E is a supers game, you need to argue that the mechanics and implied setting force a certain tone and style into everyone's game.




Why? Where is that rule written?



> Terms like "tone" and "style" are subjective. No truth can be derived from them.




I'll agree that they are subjective while disagreeing with the second thing. Those are not simply "feelings," those are terms used in literary critique. If subjectively meant something lacked truth, you can begin forgetting about a lot of things, including the law of gravity, which after all is just an incomplete intepretation of nature from the standpoint of human beings. Our understanding of gravity has been altereted in the past and will be again in the future; is there no truth in gravity?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 18, 2008)

phloog said:


> I do find it perhaps unfortunate that WOTC choose to use terms that are fairly close to MMORPGs...but I guess I'm glad they didn't call any class the 'Tank'...which IS from City of Heroes.  Whether they did it because they are recognizing influences from MMORPGs or not, can't really say, but it does feed the speculation.




I was using Tank to refer to my 1e fighter long before they even invented MMORPGs, so perhaps the direction of causality is running in the other direction.  I don't suppose it's unlikely that D&D has itself influenced the language of gaming in general, being the original avatar-based combat game.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> What Glyfair changed was the thread title.  _Mea culpa_.




Well, that settles that.  Good job figuring that out, however you did it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Well, that's where you and a large body of philosophic tradition diverge. If truth were just facts, it would just be called facts. Truth is an interpretation of facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Aren't you then arguing that truth is simply opinion?  That's not something that most people want to agree with.  To be truth, it must square with something objective, or at least transcendental.  "A true belief" differs from "a belief" by its reference to some actual state of affairs, usually one that can be verified.  You can say that it's true that someone believes something, but it's much more difficult to argue that something is true because someone believes it.

In any case, the notion that we must accept ExploderWizard's assertion that his opinions are truth because he says they are is laughable.  He believes they are true, and we disagree.  At this impasse, he--making the positive claim--must offer argument to convince us, or else we have no obligation to give his opinions any consideration.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> So we can see your definition narrowing. A "supers game" is one in which *all* characters have superpowers.
> 
> But how about moving on. Is a 20th-level AD&D fighter still a mundane soldier? 3rd-level 4E fighters are still pretty mundane really




A 20th level AD&D fighter has nothing more than great fighting skill (extra attacks) incredible luck and magical protections (hp) that allow him to outlast many normal men in a fight.


Fifth Element said:


> What's the difference between magic and psionics, other than the flavour?




Of course its flavor.
Spells are studied and learned by wizards or granted by divine power for clerics. You can take an effect and apply it different ways. An effect that a character can simply do is a power which is not the same as a spell.



Fifth Element said:


> Looks like you're backtracking. High-level 3E "_starts looking kind of supers like_", whereas 4E, which presumably you equate closely with high-level 3E in terms of how the characters all have superpowers, *is* "_a supers game_".




With regard to non-magic using classes yes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Well, that settles that.  Good job figuring that out, however you did it.




I looked at the posts, and spot-read through the thread.  Then I shut my InterWeb "mouth" for a second and thought.

(1)  Glyfair had just looked at Noonan's blog.

(2)  He had just added Noonan's new comments in a new post.

(3)  The thread title changed to reflect the new comments.

(4)  You need to edit the OP to change the thread title.

(5)  Ergo, Glyfair changed the thread title, and I am incorrect.


RC


EDIT:  I don't mind admitting that I am wrong when I see that it is clearly the case that I am wrong.

(Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right just because I don't see that it is clearly the case that I am wrong!  )


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Why? Where is that rule written?



It's not written anywhere, it's derived from your earlier post. You said that you cannot say something is a supers game based on specific elements, just on tone and style.

Going from there, in order for 4E specifically to be called a supers game, its tone and style must necessarily be superheroic. It wouldn't be enough that *some* people play 4E like a supers game. Because any edition of D&D can be played that way. Saying a game "_can be played like_ a supers game" is something very different than saying the game "_is_ a supers game".



pawsplay said:


> I'll agree that they are subjective while disagreeing with the second thing. Those are not simply "feelings," those are terms used in literary critique.



True. But we're not critiquing literature. We're discussing a game.



pawsplay said:


> If subjectively meant something lacked truth, you can begin forgetting about a lot of things, including the law of gravity, which after all is just an incomplete intepretation of nature from the standpoint of human beings. Our understanding of gravity has been altereted in the past and will be again in the future; is there no truth in gravity?



Now you're comparing something with observable physical effects to how different people play a game. That's not valid.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Nov 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Now you're comparing something with observable physical effects to how different people play a game. That's not valid.




How different people play a game doesn't have observable physical effects?  How interesting.

Style and tone are certainly observable.  The guy or gal who read your freshmen essays wasn't marking a potential paper or an intuitive problem with your grammar.  The paper was there in a physical sense, with physical writing on it, and you were missing proper citation.

That said, I agree with you that to be playing a Supers game you need to adopt the whole style of the genre.   You don't need to embody it anymore than a freshmen paper needs to get academic style right in order to be academic, but it needs to adopt the tropes as its own.

Otherwise there is no difference between an American superhero comic and a Hong Kong Kung Fu comic when there are, in fact, clear and observable differences of type as well as specifics.

The two may be close enough that they can inform each other particularly as they are cultural phenomena encoded onto physical phenomena, but they subjective interpretation can also demonstrate their objective differences.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> A 20th level AD&D fighter has nothing more than great fighting skill (extra attacks) incredible luck and magical protections (hp) that allow him to outlast many normal men in a fight.



Magical protection and incredible (and I add: reliable) luck? That's not a superpower? Okay, under this constraint, you might be right. Or maybe not, after all, then martial powers could just be magic like anything else...


----------



## billd91 (Nov 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Now you're comparing something with observable physical effects to how different people play a game. That's not valid.




Don't confuse a greater degree of variation in observable effects with lack of observable effects in general. How the rules (with "super" powers for characters) affect play, including tone, is part of a complex system. But that doesn't mean they don't have an observable effect in the end result.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:


> How different people play a game doesn't have observable physical effects?  How interesting.



Given a set of circumstances, gravity works in a particular way. You drop something, it falls to the ground.

Given the same game, different groups of people play it quite differently. Even the same group of people play the same game in a different way sometimes.

So no, it's not comparable to gravity. Gravity doesn't behave differently based on the moods and attitudes of its users.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Don't confuse a greater degree of variation in observable effects with lack of observable effects in general. How the rules (with "super" powers for characters) affect play, including tone, is part of a complex system. But that doesn't mean they don't have an observable effect in the end result.



Sorry, I should have written "predictable" effects. That's much closer to what I mean.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Sorry, I should have written "predictable" effects. That's much closer to what I mean.




But the more additional factors you know, the more you can predict. It's like the weather rather than gravity. Still predictable, but you have to know and account for a lot more...


----------



## Halivar (Nov 18, 2008)

All of my fighter's exploits have to do with swinging a sword or bashing with a shield. I didn't see any superpowers.

Of course, I must nevertheless agree that 4E is a superpowers game: it has magic.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.




However matter of factly claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth and that huge groups of people are wrong in their fundamental assumptions about the game _is_ a bit aggressive. It's one of the reason a lot of people get upset with the apple/orange issues as well. "4e is not D&D, and that's the truth".

The casual "not that there is anything wrong with that" added to the "you are doing it wrong" doesn't help.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> However matter of factly claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth and that huge groups of people are wrong in their fundamental assumptions about the game _is_ a bit aggressive. It's one of the reason a lot of people get upset with the apple/orange issues as well. "4e is not D&D, and that's the truth".
> 
> The casual "not that there is anything wrong with that" added to the "you are doing it wrong" doesn't help.




This sort of thing, to me, reads a lot more like "claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth" than what ExploderWizard wrote.  After all, ExploderWizard is not, so far as I can tell, telling you that he is the sole arbiter of what you think or are claiming.

Certainly, he has never written "I am the sole arbiter of truth", so you are, in fact, claiming that your understanding of what he wrote trumps his understanding of what he wrote.

That, my friend, is arrogant.  


RC


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> This sort of thing, to me, reads a lot more like "claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth" than what ExploderWizard wrote. After all, ExploderWizard is not, so far as I can tell, telling you that he is the sole arbiter of what you think or are claiming.
> 
> Certainly, he has never written "I am the sole arbiter of truth", so you are, in fact, claiming that your understanding of what he wrote trumps his understanding of what he wrote.
> 
> ...




ACTUALLY, I am responding to him.

I am explaining how what he wrote can be seen as aggressive.

I am saying that some people will interpret "It is what it is" as being a "I'm sorry you can't see it, but 4e is a supers game whether you see it or not".

I am not saying he's arrogant. I'm saying that he is coming off that way to some. Nature of the beast when it comes to the internet ... you can't exactly get all the subtlety of someone's tone.

His "I didn't mean to be aggressive" seemed to be asking why people were responding as if he was. I was explaining why people may be interpreting his post that way.

I did not mean to put words in his mouth. But most people on online forums will read a bit more into people's posts than what is there ... that may make people jump to conclusions. Someone claiming they can't see how their post would be interpreted that way deserves to have someone explain why that may be ... it allows them to clarify their opinion and ultimately cut the tension in the long run. YMMV IMHO and other defusing addendums.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> A 20th level AD&D fighter has nothing more than great fighting skill (extra attacks) incredible luck and magical protections (hp) that allow him to outlast many normal men in a fight.




It's more than that. A fighter at that level - and I'm going from a rusty old memory here - most likely has a flaming sword, girdle and other magical items, possibly magic boots.

He would most likely be able to lift and throw large boulders, possibly fly or move very fast, take enormous amount of damage that would kill 20 normal men.

Sounds pretty super to me, now I dont see how 4e really changes this except that the powers are more inherant in the class, rather than the magic items that characters were expected to pick up along their adventuring career.

Moving on to 3e and using the skill system/min-maxing things could  start getting supernatural between levels 3 to 6. Acomplishing feats of strenght or skill that is not possible in our world.

I feel it is unfair to label 4e  as the "super" edition when all editions of the game suffer something similar. Maybe that was not your intention, but it seemed that way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> ACTUALLY, I am responding to him.




Obviously.



> I am explaining how what he wrote can be seen as aggressive.




Pot meet kettle?

I mean, don't you think it is a _*wee, teensy *_bit ironic that you are "explaining how what he wrote can be seen as aggressive" in a way that can so easily be seen as (shall we say) much, much more aggressive?



> I did not mean to put words in his mouth. But most people on online forums will read a bit more into people's posts than what is there ... that may make people jump to conclusions. Someone claiming they can't see how their post would be interpreted that way deserves to have someone explain why that may be




Or, perhaps, they are just asking that their posts be viewed with the gentle eye one would imagine most of us would want our posts viewed with?


RC


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Or, perhaps, they are just asking that their posts be viewed with the gentle eye one would imagine most of us would want our posts viewed with?




I see, I must have just been reading it wrong 

Regardless, there seems to have been quite a few people that had a nerve touched by that post. Pointing out why apparently a number of people may have read it that way can allow people to know how other people may interpret their posts in the future. It's up to anyone else how to use that, whether to make themselves more clear, or not really mind if certain people get irritated by posts worded in that fashion.

I don't claim to be perfect, but I can explain how some can react when they read something like that in a truthful manner.


----------



## Scutisorex (Nov 18, 2008)

I don't think 4e is any better or worse than any other edition of D&D... all had their charms and flaws.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 18, 2008)

Outside of the "everyone uses powers" scope of 4E, there are tone and flavor reasons why 4E is so supers focused. The mechanics behind ability use only accounts for the most obvious reasons.

1) The PC's are special. The world works differently for our heroes than anyone else. Heroism is thus an intrinsic trait rather than a definition based on decisions and actions of the character. 

2) The world "assumes" the PC's are heroes. PC's could be altruistic heroes or merely treasure seekers looking for fortune and glory in editions past. Heroic play was the expected norm but not as heavily presented in the default implied setting. The PC's hero status was determined by thier actions. 

3) The fact that powers can be used to cause non-lethal damage at will even when they are obviously unsuited for it (fireball) is very similar to superpowers doing "stun" damage to villans.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Aren't you then arguing that truth is simply opinion?  That's not something that most people want to agree with.  To be truth, it must square with something objective, or at least transcendental.




No, I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is simply that in addition to something objective, there is a level of interpretation to truth. We simply do not have senses, powers of reason, or any other faculties that allow us to directly apprehend truth. This is the basis of the pragmatism of William James, and it is also a puzzle examined in Plato's analogy of the divided line in _The Republic_. 

Truth should be verifiable and objective, but it is not merely a collection of facts. Truth presupposes the existence of a logical being who can interpret whether something is true or not. Where Plato and James disagree is that James argued we each have our own truth, our own reasonable interpretation of our senses and known facts. Whereas Plato felt we could each arrive at the highest truth through reason alone. For instance, he supposed that one piece of art could be judged as absolutely more beautiful than another. Human history seems to favor James' viewpoint.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 19, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> No, I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is simply that in addition to something objective, there is a level of interpretation to truth. We simply do not have senses, powers of reason, or any other faculties that allow us to directly apprehend truth. This is the basis of the pragmatism of William James, and it is also a puzzle examined in Plato's analogy of the divided line in _The Republic_.
> 
> Truth should be verifiable and objective, but it is not merely a collection of facts. Truth presupposes the existence of a logical being who can interpret whether something is true or not. Where Plato and James disagree is that James argued we each have our own truth, our own reasonable interpretation of our senses and known facts. Whereas Plato felt we could each arrive at the highest truth through reason alone. For instance, he supposed that one piece of art could be judged as absolutely more beautiful than another. Human history seems to favor James' viewpoint.




And yet, the problem here is that someone has come on the forum and basically made the "4e is too anime/videogame/superhero/whatever" argument (which I believe has Godwinned the thread, per Remathilis's criteria), and when challenged on this point, responded with something akin to "don't blame me, it's just the truth!"

This has nothing to do with a philosophical discussion of the nature of truth, and defending the poster's position by trying to turn it into a disagreement over the conception of truth only obfuscates the issue.  The poster in question has claimed that the truth is best represented by his opinions on the subject.  He also suggests that his opinions, by virtue of being the truth, are objective, and not up for debate.  This is transparently false, and I don't suppose that any definition of truth other than "whatever the speaker is claiming to be true" will support his position.

He's subsequently given a few reasons why he thinks that his 4e = supers argument holds water, but as far as I'm concerned they're at best his opinion and at worst spurious.  At any rate, they hardly provide the weight that one might expect from The Truth.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> 1) The PC's are special. The world works differently for our heroes than anyone else. Heroism is thus an intrinsic trait rather than a definition based on decisions and actions of the character.




First off, the "world" doesn't work differently. The *game* works differently.

Secondly, PCs have always been special in D&D. That's why they can take a number of blows from a giant warchief that would kill an equal number of normal men.



> 2) The world "assumes" the PC's are heroes.




Again, the world assumes nothing. The game assumes that the PCs are heroes, yes, but you are using the wrong definition of hero. They're using hero in the classical sense, where heroes are extraordinary people, not the modern sense, where heroes are good guys. Hercules was a hero, but he was also a total douchebag.

Just like previous editions favored good tendencies over evil ones ("Chaotic Evil is the worst alignment because..."), so too does the latest edition.



> 3) The fact that powers can be used to cause non-lethal damage at will even when they are obviously unsuited for it (fireball) is very similar to superpowers doing "stun" damage to villans.




So, a magic user being able to manipulate his magic so that he can prevent from killing a needed hostage immediately turns it into super hero comics? That has to be the weakest attempt at a justification I have seen this entire thread.


----------



## Allister (Nov 19, 2008)

Subdual damage - Again, I thought the auto-nature of subdual damage was because they (WOTC) realized that making it a feat a la 3E meant that it was rarely ever taken unless your concept was the pacifist character.

Better to include it as a standard part of the character rules and thus allow for it to be actually used.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> The poster in question has claimed that the truth is best represented by his opinions on the subject.




That's a non-argument, though. Who would purposefully hold opinions that they feel are not representative of the truth?



> He also suggests that his opinions, by virtue of being the truth, are objective, and not up for debate.




It's not clear to me what is being claimed, but someone is certainly welcome to claim they are speaking the truth. Whether that is "objective" of course depends on how convincing the evidence is. I would rather talk about their position than their right to claim to know the truth, which I believe is a right every person has.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 19, 2008)

phloog said:


> I do find it perhaps unfortunate that WOTC choose to use terms that are fairly close to MMORPGs...but I guess I'm glad they didn't call any class the 'Tank'




Umm, using the word 'tank' to describe a heavily armored damage soaking melee machine has been in use as long as I've been gaming, which was the late 70s.  

Also:


> Now, I haven't yet played 4E, so I'll ask those that have: does your 4E game feel like a supers game?




No.  Not at all.  It feels like a game of D&D.  And that's the TRUTH.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 19, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> That's a non-argument, though. Who would purposefully hold opinions that they feel are not representative of the truth?



Someone who believes that some things are not subject to being true or false, but rather are only a matter of opinion? Subjective things, to put it another way.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Someone who believes that some things are not subject to being true or false, but rather are only a matter of opinion? Subjective things, to put it another way.




Someone who believes everything is subjective still holds an objective opinion: "Everything is subjective." It's not really possible to believe it's only subjective that everything is subjective.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 19, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> First off, the "world" doesn't work differently. The *game* works differently.




You are right, my bad. The problem lies with the *game *interacting with the *world.*



The Little Raven said:


> Secondly, PCs have always been special in D&D. That's why they can take a number of blows from a giant warchief that would kill an equal number of normal men.




Special because they are the main characters and do the important things in the world yes. Special because the laws of the universe give them VIP treatment, no. 

 PC: " dont give me any lip guardsman Joe. I am a PC. I have healing surges!!"

Guardsman Joe: " Big deal so do I. Bring it on!"

PC: " Well I can activate mine!"

Guardsman Joe: " "




The Little Raven said:


> Again, the world assumes nothing. The game assumes that the PCs are heroes, yes, but you are using the wrong definition of hero. They're using hero in the classical sense, where heroes are extraordinary people, not the modern sense, where heroes are good guys. Hercules was a hero, but he was also a total douchebag.
> 
> Just like previous editions favored good tendencies over evil ones ("Chaotic Evil is the worst alignment because..."), so too does the latest edition.




We are using the same definition with regard to hero. Being unique in the world is kind of a superheroic trait. If the PC's are adventurers who get to use different rules from everyone else, how were they trained? Were they sent to the planet like Superman or did the powers manifest overnight like on the TV series Heroes? 




The Little Raven said:


> So, a magic user being able to manipulate his magic so that he can prevent from killing a needed hostage immediately turns it into super hero comics? That has to be the weakest attempt at a justification I have seen this entire thread.




Being able to call any kind of an attack a "stun" IS superhero comics.
It was included in the 4E combat system because nothing can stand in the way of PC's unleashing the full fury of thier combat powers without being labeled as unfun.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 19, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Someone who believes everything is subjective still holds an objective opinion: "Everything is subjective." It's not really possible to believe it's only subjective that everything is subjective.





What about someone who believes, possibly, that everything, or some things, might possibly be subjective, unless those things aren't subjective, but that nothing really _seems_ to be objective as far as he can tell thus far, but any given thing just _might_ be objective after all.  But he's not sold on that idea, in any case.

In short, _"We can't ever know or prove anything.  Unless we can.  But even then, we could still be wrong.  Unless we couldn't.  But how would we know?"_


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> What about someone who believes, possibly, that everything, or some things, might possibly be subjective, unless those things aren't subjective, but that nothing really _seems_ to be objective as far as he can tell thus far, but any given thing just _might_ be objective after all.  But he's not sold on that idea, in any case.
> 
> In short, _"We can't ever know or prove anything.  Unless we can.  But even then, we could still be wrong.  Unless we couldn't.  But how would we know?"_





There is nothing dichotomous about a belief that objective truth exists, but that said objective truth is not objectively knowable.  This happens to be the position that I believe in.  


RC


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is nothing dichotomous about a belief that objective truth exists, but that said objective truth is not objectively knowable.  This happens to be the position that I believe in.
> 
> 
> RC





Ah, but what about the belief that objective reality _doesn't_ exist, but that knowing even _that_, objectively, isn't possible?

Speaking for my own subjective view of reality, all reality is subjective, therefore there really isn't any reality at all.  But since that's my subjective idea, it could very well not be real, which means that objective reality _could_ exist, and I just don't see it.  But I don't think so.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Ah, but what about the belief that objective reality _doesn't_ exist, but that knowing even _that_, objectively, isn't possible?
> 
> Speaking for my own subjective view of reality, all reality is subjective, therefore there really isn't any reality at all.  But since that's my subjective idea, it could very well not be real, which means that objective reality _could_ exist, and I just don't see it.  But I don't think so.





This is the kind of conversation which happens only when i'm not drunk, but it seems i should be


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 19, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> That's a non-argument, though. Who would purposefully hold opinions that they feel are not representative of the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not clear to me what is being claimed, but someone is certainly welcome to claim they are speaking the truth. Whether that is "objective" of course depends on how convincing the evidence is. I would rather talk about their position than their right to claim to know the truth, which I believe is a right every person has.




Again, the poster was presenting his opinions as fact, and acting in a dismissive way toward the possibility that they are not, in fact, fact.  And I continue to maintain that sophistry concerning the nature of truth has rather nothing to do with the issue...the issue being debate etiquette.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Ah, but what about the belief that objective reality _doesn't_ exist, but that knowing even _that_, objectively, isn't possible?
> 
> Speaking for my own subjective view of reality, all reality is subjective, therefore there really isn't any reality at all.  But since that's my subjective idea, it could very well not be real, which means that objective reality _could_ exist, and I just don't see it.  But I don't think so.




In your view, is it possible to objectively know that it is impossible to know that objective reality exists?



cwhs01 said:


> This is the kind of conversation which happens only when i'm not drunk, but it seems i should be






Philosophical ponderings happen when we're drunk, IMHO, because we let our guard down.  Normally, when sober, we don't like admitting that we haven't much of a clue as to what life is all about.


RC


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Y
> Special because they are the main characters and do the important things in the world yes. Special because the laws of the universe give them VIP treatment, no.
> 
> PC: " dont give me any lip guardsman Joe. I am a PC. I have healing surges!!"
> ...




1st edition/2nd edition PC: Don't give me any lip, 0 level NPC.  You don't even have hit dice, and I've got a name level!

3rd edition PC: Don't give me any lip, NPC.  What do you have, Expert levels?  I am a PC, and I have class abilities, good hit dice, higher wealth by level, and probably some bonus feats.


PCs have always been called out as special cases in the rules.  4th edition NPCs can be built using the rules for building PCs, including things like Second Wind.  In most cases, they aren't, because it streamlines play.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In your view, is it possible to objectively know that it is impossible to know that objective reality exists?





It's possibly possible, sure, but probably not.  It's possible, though, that it's certainly possible to be almost sure, but some or all of that just might be wrong.  If wrongness exists.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> It's possibly possible, sure, but probably not.  It's possible, though, that it's certainly possible to be almost sure, but some or all of that just might be wrong.  If wrongness exists.




"You have given out too many Experience Points in the last 24 hours.  Try again later."




RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "You have given out too many Experience Points in the last 24 hours.  Try again later."




I've seen this message before...  Stupid message!


----------



## phloog (Nov 19, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Umm, using the word 'tank' to describe a heavily armored damage soaking melee machine has been in use as long as I've been gaming, which was the late 70s.




My fault for not being clear - - I'm glad that they didn't use the term 'tank' AT THE SAME TIME that they were introducing 'Strikers' and 'Controllers' into the terminology.  I definitely see the parallels to MMORPGs, though I won't claim that it IS an MMORPG.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> You are right, my bad. The problem lies with the *game *interacting with the *world.[/2uote]*
> 
> However, it relies entirely on NPC design and how that interacts with the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "You have given out too many Experience Points in the last 24 hours.  Try again later."







This whole experience points thing slightly (okay, a lot) confuses me.  What does "Your Experience Points Power is 1 Points" mean, exactly?


----------



## phloog (Nov 19, 2008)

I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:

Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset.  Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions.  In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character.  You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> This whole experience points thing slightly (okay, a lot) confuses me.  What does "Your Experience Points Power is 1 Points" mean, exactly?



When you give XP, you give 1 point.

-O


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 19, 2008)

phloog said:


> I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:
> 
> Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset.  Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions.  In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character.  You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.





Yeah, I can see this.  I suppose the abilities of the purely "Martial" characters do seem somewhat more mystical or magical than before.  I, personally, like that.  But I can see how a lot of people wouldn't.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2008)

phloog said:


> I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:
> 
> Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset.  Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions.  In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character.  You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.




Well, to use the specific example of Come and Get It... I always invision a scene like Neo provoking Agent Smith to attack him. There is no doubt for me that this is what should happen. Did Neo really make a "taunt" skill check against Smith Will defense? (Which might be how some games resolve this) - does this make me feel "more immersed" - or am I just worrying to much about game mechanics instead of just having things happen because they seem to make sense? 

I could see a 3E implementation of this power. Roll a Bluff check against 10 + opponents HD, then he rolls a Will Save DC 10 + 1/2 your level + CHA modifier. And I could do this every round. In some round, it will probably work, Why not just say that it works only once per encounter (which means you can't accidentally break it because the PC boosted the DC or the enemy has a sucky Will Save). It's like taking 20 - you do as if you happened to have rolled a 20, but you took 20 times as long for this as if you had really bothered to roll. 

---
I am not sure if I am actually addressing your point. Probably not. I guess I just don't bother often enough to discuss why something happens and more what happens. Because I couldn't do this in the real world, either. If I call someone on the street an  and he hits me in the face for it, did I overcome his Will Defense with my Taunt? Or did I fail my Diplomacy check? Did he really beat my Armor Class and did deal hit point damage? Did I take any wounds? Am I blooded? That's not terms or concepts the real world operates on...


----------



## phloog (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Yeah, I can see this. I suppose the abilities of the purely "Martial" characters do seem somewhat more mystical or magical than before. I, personally, like that. But I can see how a lot of people wouldn't.





Your response is a better expression of my issue than I put in the original post - - the issue IS for me probably limited to martial characters getting freakish stuff...anything you want to give a wizard can be handled with 'It's the World of Illusion!' (sorry, channelled Doug Henning there), but fighters being able to force a genius-level IQ, Supremely Willful wizard with no weapon to move next to him demands the huge narrative stuff.

So I don't know if it's superheroic or not, but the suspension of disbelief, or the narration required to reconcile the effect with a mundane cause, is a big problem for me.  It makes 4e a LOT easier to integrate with your campaign if you tend toward the over-the-top stuff.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 19, 2008)

phloog said:


> I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:
> 
> Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset.  Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions.  In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character.  You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.




No more 'dance of the narrative' then is required to explain people shooting fireballs out of their fingertips or raising people from the dead. The only difference is that in D&D, fireballs and resurrection have tenure.

We are talking about a fantasy world here, with fireballs and dragons and beholders and stuff. I don't see where mundane guy who owns a sword really fits in, or has any business looking for the trouble that exists in that world. Still, the guy with a sword is a fantasy mainstay, and people want to play them. How do we make this mundane guy with the sword logically fit into this world? By letting him do the sort of things action heroes do, thats how. 

I actually find it made less sense before, when your special powers consisted solely of "owns a sword".


----------



## phloog (Nov 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, to use the specific example of Come and Get It... I always invision a scene like Neo provoking Agent Smith to attack him. SNIP...




I think you and I have talked about this before.  I remain fearful that this thread will turn into CAGI Discussion #286, but for a bit:

the problem I have is the admittedly corner-ISH case of villains that have a strong willpower, a great intellect, and no desire to move next to the hero.

The Neo thing doesn't work for me because as is obvious from the rest of the film, Smith is an absolute hothead - he doesn't have a great deal of control.

For me the only fitting resolution would be to say that the power doesn't work on certain people, or grants a save, which then possibly 'nerfs' it to less than useless....I don't know.  

The problem is not that I'm obsessed with mechanics, but that the effect APPEARS to be far from mundane (no save, you become a completely insurmountable force drawing all into you) but is given to a class that for me has in all prior editions been the most mundane.  As Firesnakearies pointed out, for a lot of campaigns this is no biggie...for mine it is.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> This whole experience points thing slightly (okay, a lot) confuses me. What does "Your Experience Points Power is 1 Points" mean, exactly?




I've seen it in play for a while on another forum. Basically, people can give you Xp if they agree with your post. Your post count (depending on the system) and your total xp determines how much xp you can give. The idea being the more "respect" someone has, the more their opinion counts in giving other people "respect". The basic idea is that, over time, someone who makes lots of good points would get lots of XP, and people they feel make good points would get lots of XP, etc ... and thus the various levels can give other users an indication of their post history.

The whole thing breaks down however when there are "rep fests", an equivalent of posting to up your post count which has taken place on other forums, where a group constantly rep each other to increase their reputations ... of course that really only served to undermine the whole system for the most part. It's still useful for the pseudo PM to let someone know you agree with their post without having to reply to it. [especially if it's an "I agree" or "Zing!" type comment.


----------



## phloog (Nov 19, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> No more 'dance of the narrative' then is required to explain people shooting fireballs out of their fingertips or raising people from the dead. The only difference is that in D&D, fireballs and resurrection have tenure.
> 
> We are talking about a fantasy world here, with fireballs and dragons and beholders and stuff. I don't see where mundane guy who owns a sword really fits in, or has any business looking for the trouble that exists in that world. Still, the guy with a sword is a fantasy mainstay, and people want to play them. How do we make this mundane guy with the sword logically fit into this world? By letting him do the sort of things action heroes do, thats how.
> 
> I actually find it made less sense before, when your special powers consisted solely of "owns a sword".




The difference actually is that in this world of magical powers, in MY campaign not everyone has them, and some have to get by just by their wits and weapons.  The mundane guy fits in because he is the most common, and in fact is the Everyman essentially.  I've always found fiction about more normal heroes far more interesting than reading about the angst of the poor teen wizard.

We obviously play a different type of campaign, since you can't see how a mundane guy with just a sword can fit into your campaign.  I consider Aragorn, Conan, et al. to be fairly mundane, just with exceptional skills...but skills that while they might push the human limits, are non-magical and easily described in non-magical terms.

I let this character fit into my world by making sure that from a rules perspective and a storyline/attention perspective, he's on an even footing.  I don't have to give him magical powers to make him 'fit in' - I have to make sure that his mundane talents keep him on par.

We also apparently read different action/fantasy stories, as I have no recollection of Conan or Kull mystically causing all around him to be drawn into striking range and hit.

You appear to have no narrative issues, because you feel free to assign magical/mystical abilities to ALL.  Or did I read that wrong? (a possibility)  If this is true, that is fine for your campaign, but it means you're okay with everyone having some form of mystical powers.

I don't list 'overrides all mental resistances of all targets to force them to move in and be attacked' among the things that typical 'action heroes do'

...and with respect to the fighters in my world having only the special power of 'owns a sword'...no...their special 'powers', if you must have powers for all creatures, are that they own a sword, know how to use it better than any other class, know various techniques and tactics, know how to exploit defenses, etc...all expressed in very graceful mechanics involving hit chances, damage, etc.   No witchiepoo required.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 19, 2008)

phloog said:


> The problem is not that I'm obsessed with mechanics, but that the effect APPEARS to be far from mundane (no save, you become a completely insurmountable force drawing all into you) but is given to a class that for me has in all prior editions been the most mundane. As Firesnakearies pointed out, for a lot of campaigns this is no biggie...for mine it is.




At the same time though ... it's a matter of perspective. For a narrative ... the fighter is able to trick an opponent ONCE into falling for some sort of baiting. It's an encounter power in part because it isn't going to work on the same guy twice.

The main problem is that, in other editions, you have to explain "but why did it happen?" In this case it's just a matter of, whatever save would have been made ... wasn't. The fighter, because he trained in that power, has found ways to trick even the smartest and most willful of foes to temporarily lose their cool.

There is more narrative footwork in part because more people have demanded it ... and because 3.5 was very "this is how the world works" mechanics wise, explaining how everythng works the same for NPCs, monsters, PCs, etc ... 4e's exception based design doesn't fiddle with the internal stuff. It knows about point A and point B ... it doesn't talk about what happens in between.

Instead of having a taunt mechanic that explains how the concept of taunting an opponent works, etc, etc, etc, they just have it. Instead of having powers that work against most enemies, but not against all, they just have it work all the time.

The times where it makes sense should outway the times it doesn't. Also, if a fighter already has the magnet that is the mark ... he can use that same "power" for pulling people towards him.

The thing with the narrative footwork is ... that is all that can be used to explain "what happens during a power". It isn't a case of a number of mechanic effects combined to create a single effect. It's a power that is intentionally "make your own flavor text" and just gives you cause and effect, so to speak, so any flavor you want to put onto it can work.

You can come up with an action movie cliche, or a super hero genre explanation, etc. Ultimately though, the powers work because the PC is invoking plot control on the narrative game. "I want to taunt that guy and have him come at me". Instead of having to make some sort of check, he has a power he can only use once during a fight.

EDIT:

Ultimately, a figher/rogue/ranger (not going to get into warlord healing) doesn't have to be "mystical" or "magical". It is possible, using mundane explanations, to have someone, for example, draw their opponent in and attack them. It may not make sense that it works _every time_, but it is possible that an action hero starts hurling insults and challenges and the bad guys go for it. The game takes narrative shortcuts. Instead of having all the parts of the game built on simulationist framework where they explain how everything works, they just say what happens when you use the power. Unfortunately, if you just say "ths happens" it's probably going to seem like magic. 

The thing is ... sure he can pull a smart guy that shouldn't fall for it towards him ... but then again, that smart guy was awfully close to him in the first place.

The sliding powers of the rogue and fighter involve a combat situation where a martial character is trained in leading the person he's fighing about the battlefield, forcing them to go where they want to go. Many of these powers are not at-will ... it means you CAN pull it off, but it only works once, and then the enemy learns from that mistake. Instead of having a whole system in place to figure out whether or not it works just as a means for explaining how it works in the first place seems like a lot of work just to justify giving them something they can concievably do, but seems odd they can do so frequently and reliably.


----------



## phloog (Nov 19, 2008)

This is why I never criticize people for liking 4e, and why I just can't reconcile it with my own campaign/style, and why 4e and I can just enjoy a cup of coffee, politely say farewell, and then I go off and play True20.

There's nothing wrong with how they're doing it, it just gets way too fiddly for me.  Combat is always imagined as lots of moves and lots of swings summarized in one that hits, but now with all these little slides we've actually gotten a bit quantum.  I know I saw a thread with Erwin Schroedinger mentioned, but I think that this shifting and such really invokes Heisenberg as well.  The fighter collapses waveforms in his favor...the position of the wizard was not certain, but instead a quantum-like superposition of states, from which the fighter chooses one and locks it in.  I'm not able personally (admittedly likely my own failing) to get into the rather skirmish minifigs game-like concepts - again, not saying it's a bad game, but based on the fact that we played True20 for ten hours last weekend, with multiple battles, and used improvised figures to represented the combats exactly ONCE, the rest done in the mind, you can see where I balk at a lot of these things.  CAGI forces you to recognize space and position on some form of grid/board to adjudicate effect, and then immediately in the narrative explains that all those positions weren't actually as they seemed.  Not at all a big deal, just not my style.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> The main problem is that, in other editions, you have to explain "but why did it happen?"




The main problem is that, in other editions, you _*can*_ explain "but why did it happen?"


----------



## phloog (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The main problem is that, in other editions, you _*can*_ explain "but why did it happen?"




Nice.

I think that you CAN explain in 4e, just that there are three things which are issues for me:

1) the degree of 'dancing' required

2) the need for post hoc rationalization - - the wizard actually was right next to me, and never noticed, and was therefore too silly to actually move away in his last action - - the whole players-driving-narrative is not the problem, but for me it becomes an issue when the past changes.

3) the need for (possibly consistent with your own campaign) mystical or magical bases for powers used by classes I wish to remain mundane.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

phloog said:


> Nice.
> 
> I think that you CAN explain in 4e, just that there are three things which are issues for me:
> 
> ...





I agree.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 19, 2008)

phloog said:


> This is why I never criticize people for liking 4e, and why I just can't reconcile it with my own campaign/style, and why 4e and I can just enjoy a cup of coffee, politely say farewell, and then I go off and play True20.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with how they're doing it, it just gets way too fiddly for me. Combat is always imagined as lots of moves and lots of swings summarized in one that hits, but now with all these little slides we've actually gotten a bit quantum. I know I saw a thread with Erwin Schroedinger mentioned, but I think that this shifting and such really invokes Heisenberg as well. The fighter collapses waveforms in his favor...the position of the wizard was not certain, but instead a quantum-like superposition of states, from which the fighter chooses one and locks it in. I'm not able personally (admittedly likely my own failing) to get into the rather skirmish minifigs game-like concepts - again, not saying it's a bad game, but based on the fact that we played True20 for ten hours last weekend, with multiple battles, and used improvised figures to represented the combats exactly ONCE, the rest done in the mind, you can see where I balk at a lot of these things. CAGI forces you to recognize space and position on some form of grid/board to adjudicate effect, and then immediately in the narrative explains that all those positions weren't actually as they seemed. Not at all a big deal, just not my style.




I can definitely see how style comes into play ... my style of play is definitely pro miniature ... even back when I played 2e or 3e, it was always annoying to basically have to constantly ask the DM what my character can actually see and whether I can aim a fireball a certain way, etc... If the DM hadn't actually decided in his head where the various combatants were than it would mostly be decided on the spot meaning that monsters would ussually be in, at best, ok formation for fireballs, etc. In our 4e game, because of the dislike of the "firecubes", we have a stringbased system ... unfortunately the rogue now suffers as getting into flanking position is much more complicated than the system intends ...

It is a matter of taste, some players need to see their options for movement and attacking to be able to make decisions, and come up with fun uses of the interesting terrain, while having a vaguer view of the action has other improvisational tactic benefits in that a DM can allow a player to move around in the space a bit more freely, not being restrained by "that is 4 squares, that is 5".


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The main problem is that, in other editions, you _*can*_ explain "but why did it happen?"




If the main goal of game design is to shut up people that ask "why?" then you may end up having the game be lacking in other areas.

Is it entirely impossible for a mundane reason to have someone to charge at you/run over to you/etc because you taunt them? Ignoring, for the moment, the "no save" element ... does the ONLY way to convince ANYONE to move next to the fighter need to be magical or mystical?

Because specific instances occur when the power doesn't make sense, even if most of the time it will make sense, because the fighter is likely going to be closer to the soldiers and brutes than to the squishier opponents, and most of the monsters fought aren't superintelligent spellcasters with high will saves.

A power that occaisionally doesn't make sense can be handled two ways.

You either create a ton of "special resistances" because of the 10% where things don't make sense, or you just hand wave the few times where it might be a bit odd.

The fighter's training involve it being a good defender, in "marking" people. That is _the_ defining characteristic of the 4e fighter. Through their body language, how they talk, how they fight ... they are constantly giving off the "magic" aura of ignore me at your peril. The fighter's mark [like hit points] is what it is. If a fighter can mark someone ... it is equally likely they can sucker them into getting close to him. 

Either way, it just is a bit odd that people feel the need to paint such a large brush of 4e are superheroes with magic powers because a few of the powers have a few situations where they seem a bit more than what is mundanely possible. I guess if the fighter is only ever fighting either completely mindless automatons or superintelligent creatures with high insight and will and know what the fighter's intentions are ... it would seem odd that the fighter is telling them what to do and it's working. However it seems that, in some cases there is as much tapdancing involved in finding "magic" powers as there is in coming up with narrative solutions for them.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 19, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> At the same time though ... it's a matter of perspective. For a narrative ... the fighter is able to trick an opponent ONCE into falling for some sort of baiting. It's an encounter power in part because it isn't going to work on the same guy twice.
> .




I just find it amusing that one of the designers (I believe it was Mearls) claimed that the designer team learned that an ability like Knight's challenge which forces an opponent to attack was a bad design idea. Then, the design team turns around and gives us an abiliity like  "Come and Get it".


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "You have given out too many Experience Points in the last 24 hours.  Try again later."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I've got you covered.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 19, 2008)

Greg K said:


> I just find it amusing that one of the designers (I believe it was Mearls) claimed that the designer team learned that an ability like Knight's challenge which forces an opponent to attack was a bad design idea. Then, the design team turns around and gives us an abiliity like "Come and Get it".




Wasn't that relating to the marking idea though? I may be thinking of a different time when people were comparing marking to forcing/compelling a monster to attack you instead of just discouraging them from ignoring you.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 19, 2008)

Greg K said:


> I just find it amusing that one of the designers (I believe it was Mearls) claimed that the designer team learned that an ability like Knight's challenge which forces an opponent to attack was a bad design idea. Then, the design team turns around and gives us an abiliity like  "Come and Get it".



"Come and Get it" does not force the opponent to attack. It just moves them 10 feet.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> "Come and Get it" does not force the opponent to attack.



He didn't say it did.

I can't speak for him, but he may be commenting on the conceptual similarity. As phloog mentions, it's kind of like a "power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character".

I can see the similarities. It may be enough of a difference for some people, but not enough for others. *shrug*


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Ah, but what about the belief that objective reality _doesn't_ exist, but that knowing even _that_, objectively, isn't possible?




That's simply impossible. In that case, the reality would be that nothing exists. But that doesn't exist, so nothing doesn't exist... It is entirely possible, of course, that ultimate reality is unknowable, but not for it to be not ultimate.


----------



## phloog (Nov 20, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> He didn't say it did.
> 
> I can't speak for him, but he may be commenting on the conceptual similarity. As phloog mentions, it's kind of like a "power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character".
> 
> I can see the similarities. It may be enough of a difference for some people, but not enough for others. *shrug*




Yeah, I think it has to do with wrist strength and genetic predisposition to repetitive strain injuries like carpal tunnel...some people are content to wave their hands more than others, and that makes us all different and the world wonderful.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 20, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> No more 'dance of the narrative' then is required to explain people shooting fireballs out of their fingertips or raising people from the dead. The only difference is that in D&D, fireballs and resurrection have tenure.
> 
> We are talking about a fantasy world here, with fireballs and dragons and beholders and stuff. I don't see where mundane guy who owns a sword really fits in, or has any business looking for the trouble that exists in that world. Still, the guy with a sword is a fantasy mainstay, and people want to play them. How do we make this mundane guy with the sword logically fit into this world? By letting him do the sort of things action heroes do, thats how.
> 
> I actually find it made less sense before, when your special powers consisted solely of "owns a sword".






Yes!  This is good.  This mirrors my thinking, as well.


Telling stories or running games which are full of mundane guys with swords is fine.  I like low fantasy, too.  I like playing in those sorts of campaigns, sometimes, too.

But how do you "realistically" explain those mundane guys with swords, who we're declaring to be, essentially, "not much different" from any normal fellow here in our own real world who _happens_ to have trained a lot in fighting with a sword, slaying things like _ancient dragons and incorporeal dread wraiths and death titans and hordes of demons and incredibly powerful magic-wielding liches and exarchs of *GODS*_?


If you keep anything which a "normal guy with a stick" couldn't realistically be expected to be able to defeat _out of the game_, then sure, a low-magic game where Fighters and Rogues are highly mundane but skilled folks, essentially on par with Navy Seals or CIA operatives or world-champion martial artists or similar real-world "martial heroes" would make a lot of sense and work great.

But when you say, "I want all of the martial characters to be really mundane, normal, non-magical, non-mystical basic tough guys with great fighting skill, and only able to do the same sorts of things which George S. Patton or Bruce Lee or Miyamoto Musashi or Richard Marcinko or Alexander the Great or Jack Bauer or Jason Bourne or Indiana Jones could do" and then throw them into a campaign full of insanely powerful supernatural threats and mythological monsters . . . I find _that_ to be a greater strain on credulity and verisimilitude than the idea that maybe the guys who are kicking the crap out of demon princes and fire-breathing beasts the size of large houses with nothing but a four-foot-long piece of steel and a bad attitude just _might_ have to have some superheroic capabilities beyond anything that anyone on Earth can muster.


Conan and Aragorn (and Drizzt, and any other martial-type protagonist in a *D&D*-based novel) were _not_ mundane, even if they _didn't_ throw around anything flashy like fireballs, super speed, flight, or the like.  They fought things which no "mundane" man could ever reasonably be expected to fight, and won.  Regularly.  (More so Conan than Aragorn, but show me the normal fighting man on Earth who could realistically scrap with _Nazgul_ and I'll retract my point.)

Being "really skilled" would only take you so far, when you're fighting against magic, myth, colossal beasts and extraplanar immortals of awesome might.  There'd almost _have to be_ some degree of superhuman power going on, logically, for these "mundane" sword-swingers and dagger-chuckers to _survive_ in such encounters, let alone _prevail_.


That's just me, though.  I guess if it makes more sense for people to imagine the _Krav Maga_ instructor who lives down the street from you killing the Tarrasque, go for it.  It's your game, have fun any way you want.


But _if_ *4E D&D* _happens_ to represent a fantasy world in which the non-spellcasting heroes who are expected to overcome these massive, epic, impossible challenges have some degree of personal, internally-derived "magical" or "mystical" or "supernatural" power which allows them to be victorious, I consider that very much a _sensible feature_, not a flaw or something which damages immersion for the sake of gamism.


I can, of course, see how some people wouldn't _like_ that style of game.  Some people just prefer low(er) fantasy, and I get that.  By all means, play what you like.  It's not _"wrongbadfun"_ to prefer a less over-the-top, less magical game setting and less superheroic characters.  I really like that kind of game or fiction, too.  Go go *Lankhmar*!

I _can't_, however, quite get their logic if they're running games which purport to be about protagonist heroes who are as mundane and un-superhuman as normal Earth folks, yet feature the kind of paranormal monsters and magic-using enemies which make up the vast majority of opponents featured in all *D&D* books since day one, as well as _most_ other fantasy stories and roleplaying games, ever.


I tend to view all PC protagonist hero characters in *D&D* as being a whole lot like the concept of "Adepts" from _Earthdawn_.  Everyone had their own kind of "magic", even if that magic was just being able to fight really, really well with a sword, or be an incredible thief.  The point was that Adepts were special and could do things that normal people couldn't, because they fueled even their seemingly-mundane skills with an inborn, internally-generated "magical" power.

That makes _way_ more sense to me than just, _"I'm basically a regular guy, but I've been practicing my sword forms out in the back yard for the last 20 years, so now I can go kill a gargantuan dracolich who could decimate cities and armies . . . with my trusty sharp stick here."_



$


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 20, 2008)

There is, by the way a way to deal with "mundane" heroes and "mystic/magial" monsters in the same setting could be to ... not do this.

Characters start as Fighters, but at some point, they will inevitably learn the secrets of magic or ordain themselves as priests of their god(s). And then the get supernatural power.

But... That's not really D&D, is it? Or can it become D&D, maybe in D&D 5E?

Closer to D&D (at least 3e) would be stock up incredible numbers of magical items that make the character essentially a supernatural hero. He's just a "gadget" hero instead of a hero with innate powers. Sure, his BAB, Saves and HP still increase, but he would still be nothing against Dracolichs and Demons without his +4 Holy Sword and his +4 Belt of Strength and his +4 Ring of Protection and his +4 Full Plate.

But... Is that really satisfactory? How many people _hated_ the magical item "Christmas Tree", the idea that you need magical item shops or easy item creation or loads of magical treasures to make a character work at higher levels against the threats he has to face then?

Ultimately, all models - "pseudo-magical" martial abilities, turning every character into a wizard or cleric at higher levels, loading up magical bling - work.
But each of them has its flaws, too. 
Decide what your priorities are, and pick your preference.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> I've got you covered.




Thanks.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 20, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Conan and Aragorn (and Drizzt, and any other martial-type protagonist in a *D&D*-based novel) were _not_ mundane, even if they _didn't_ throw around anything flashy like fireballs, super speed, flight, or the like.  They fought things which no "mundane" man could ever reasonably be expected to fight, and won.  Regularly.  (More so Conan than Aragorn, but show me the normal fighting man on Earth who could realistically scrap with _Nazgul_ and I'll retract my point.)



*blinks* Chuck Norris, duh.

But really - I can't make any sense of what you're saying. All I can do is chalk it up to "style differences", and move on. Your whole post was - to me - something that someone from the planet Zbornak would say. Needless to say, I couldn't disagree more.


----------



## phloog (Nov 20, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> SNIP
> 
> Conan and Aragorn (and Drizzt, and any other martial-type protagonist in a *D&D*-based novel) were _not_ mundane, even if they _didn't_ throw around anything flashy like fireballs, super speed, flight, or the like.
> 
> $




I think we are using different definitions of 'mundane', or your definition is moving about. When I say 'mundane', I do NOT mean 'run of the mill', 'normal', 'bleh', etc. I mean 'possessing no arcane or mystical abilities' - sort of the Xanth book definition I guess. So Jessica Alba has exceptional beauty, but by my definition she is mundane.

Conan and Aragorn WERE mundane in my opinion, and I feel that it is precisely BECAUSE they didn't throw fireballs around, fly, or mystically suck all enemies within a burst to striking range. 

They were able to defeat great foes because they were vastly superior to the common man, but made from the same matter and in possession of no mystical powers. 

Being able to fight and defeat demons, dragons, Nazgul, etc. does not make you magical or non-mundane in my campaign, it makes you a HERO - an exceptional specimen, whether or not you have the ability to do magic.

If I've missed the REH book where Conan does something that I would consider mystical forgive me. I will grant you that he is not 'normal', and further that perhaps his combination of strength, skill, dexterity, and tactical ability has never before been seen in real life. But all of these attributes are a 'pushing the limits' of what normal folk can do thing, and NOT magic. For my campaign accepting that these abilities can be developed by normal, non-mystical ways to high levels is consistent with the stories I want to tell...in your campaign apparently all fighters who are able to defeat powerful enemies must be magical...it just doesn't work for me.

Saying that my own tubby frame is no match for a Nazgul is diverting the argument (though I've heard you can fight them off by just waving a flaming stick at them). 

The point is that it does not take me a huge amount of 'hand waving' to imagine a human who has no magical abilities, but is just insanely good at combat...so good that they CAN fight these beasts and have a chance to win.

If you want to call them superhuman then fine, but the NATURE of these abilities stems from their normal human attributes built up to high levels.

Again it's a flavor of the campaign thing. My campaign supports a Conan-like figure who has immense strength, immense skill, and based only upon these highly developed (by NON-MAGICAL means) abilities can fight dragons and win. I don't need magical powers for fighters, and a rules system that introduces things that seem like magic to all classes removes this option for players, or at least makes it tougher.

EDIT: Also, you should realize that in my campaign I would most likely never have the Tarrasque...the strongest creatures I tend to use are larger dragons and demons, and my campaign works just peachy with highly advanced Conan types taking down dragons.


----------



## ferratus (Nov 20, 2008)

phloog said:


> EDIT: Also, you should realize that in my campaign I would most likely never have the Tarrasque...the strongest creatures I tend to use are larger dragons and demons, and my campaign works just peachy with highly advanced Conan types taking down dragons.




You realize that this is the heroic tier of 4e right?   Large size and smaller monsters, martial abilities that aren't superheroic, etc.


----------



## phloog (Nov 20, 2008)

ferratus said:


> You realize that this is the heroic tier of 4e right? Large size and smaller monsters, martial abilities that aren't superheroic, etc.




I'm not sure how this is relevant to the mundane/mystical/flavor thing.  The problem is that there are powers and such that seem to provide nearly mystical abilities to classes that (in MY campaign) I want to be more mundane.

Yes, I realize the intent of the heroic tier is lower POWER LEVELS, but the nature/flavor of those powers is an issue even at that tier.  In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the biggest offender I've found is Come and Get It, and I think that's available well before you end the heroic tier (7th level maybe? no books in front  of me)

The argument from another about 'how can a mundane character fight a mighty dragon' has sort of sidetracked the key point I was making - - it's a point not about power level (who can you fight, what can you do), but about the nature of those powers in the campaign.

So imagine if there was a FIRST level power that allowed fighters to throw their melee weapon around a corner once per day at a range of up to nine feet.  This is not a huge amount of power - it won't instantly kill the Tarrasque, but it's giving a power that is seemingly magical to a character class that in MY campaign I want to have no mystical powers.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 20, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> *blinks* Chuck Norris, duh.




Are you saying that Chuck Norris qualifies as a "normal fighting man"?  Really?


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 20, 2008)

mearls said:


> Frankly, I'm sick of fanaticism on all sides. It's undermining the entire online RPG community. It's a far angrier, far less welcoming place than it was not too long ago.




Well, if you'd just designed a better version of D&D, then everyone would be happy.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 20, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Telling stories or running games which are full of mundane guys with swords is fine.  I like low fantasy, too.  I like playing in those sorts of campaigns, sometimes, too.



I think we should qualify our terms:  Do Robert E. Howard's Conan stories and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings stories qualify as "low fantasy" to you?

At any rate, I think that many, many people would like D&D to resemble something along the lines of Conan or Lord of the Rings.  I know I would.


firesnakearies said:


> But how do you "realistically" explain those mundane guys with swords, who we're declaring to be, essentially, "not much different" from any normal fellow here in our own real world who _happens_ to have trained a lot in fighting with a sword, slaying things like _ancient dragons and incorporeal dread wraiths and death titans and hordes of demons and incredibly powerful magic-wielding liches and exarchs of *GODS*_?



If I may cite one REH: "There's nothing in the universe cold steel won't cut," answered Conan. "I threw my ax at the demon, and he took no hurt, but I might have missed in the dusk, or a branch deflected its flight. I'm not going out of my way looking for devils; but I wouldn't step out of my path to let one go by."​And, really, if we look to Tolkien, Smaug was killed by a mortal man with a bow and arrow -- a single arrow, by the way -- and the Witch King of Angmar was killed by a little hobbit and a mortal woman.  These impressive foes didn't fall to the heroes' flashy super-powers.


----------



## phloog (Nov 20, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I think we should qualify our terms: Do Robert E. Howard's Conan stories and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings stories qualify as "low fantasy" to you?
> 
> At any rate, I think that many, many people would like D&D to resemble something along the lines of Conan or Lord of the Rings. I know I would.
> If I may cite one REH:
> "There's nothing in the universe cold steel won't cut," answered Conan. "I threw my ax at the demon, and he took no hurt, but I might have missed in the dusk, or a branch deflected its flight. I'm not going out of my way looking for devils; but I wouldn't step out of my path to let one go by."​And, really, if we look to Tolkien, Smaug was killed by a mortal man with a bow and arrow -- a single arrow, by the way -- and the Witch King of Angmar was killed by a little hobbit and a mortal woman. These impressive foes didn't fall to the heroes' flashy super-powers.




That's one of my favorite stories quoted above, by the way.

Your last paragraph is pretty much a spot-on description of how I want my campaigns to work.  Which leads to my issues with 4e and my world - - the CAGI Effect/Mystical everything, and even things like how 'beefy' and combat-ready all classes are right out of the chute (different issue/thread).


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 20, 2008)

> Witch King of Angmar was killed by a little hobbit and a mortal woman. These impressive foes didn't fall to the heroes' flashy super-powers.




While I mostly agree ... the Witch King was wounded by a hobbit _wielding a blade enchanted specifically to harm him (or maybe his ilk)_.  And, I would say that the mortal woman had prophecy on her side.

Nonetheless, the fatal blow was mundane, was it not?


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 20, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> And, really, if we look to Tolkien, Smaug was killed by a mortal man with a bow and arrow -- a single arrow, by the way -- and the Witch King of Angmar was killed by a little hobbit and a mortal woman.  These impressive foes didn't fall to the heroes' flashy super-powers.




Of course they did.

Merry used Dazing Strike (rogue enc. 1) on the Witch King to set him up and Eowyn used a Brute Strike (fighter daily 1) to kill him, with the added superpower of 'F'.  Bard killed Smaug by firing a magical arrow at the one vulnerable spot on the dragons body, while it was in flight.  Hawkeye couldn't have made a better shot.  Bard used Hawk's Talon (ranger enc 7).  

"_"The dragon swooped once more lower than ever, and as he turned and dived down his_ _belly glittered white with sparkling fires of gems in the moon - but not in one place._ _The great bow twanged. __The black arrow sped straight from the string, straight for the hollow __by the left breast where the foreleg was flung wide. In it smote and vanished, barb, shaft,_ _and feather, so fierce was its flight."

_That sound like a mundane shot from an upjumped farmer to you?  Sounds like a ranger power to me.


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 20, 2008)

Re: Opinion and truth, while we are quoting Conan, I thought this one was a gem:



> Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content. — “Queen of the Black Coast“, Robert E. Howard, Weird Tales, May 1934.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 20, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> And, really, if we look to Tolkien, Smaug was killed by a mortal man with a bow and arrow -- a single arrow, by the way -- and the Witch King of Angmar was killed by a little hobbit and a mortal woman.  These impressive foes didn't fall to the heroes' flashy super-powers.




True, but it's not like Bard was a normal man, nor was his arrow normal. Bard was of the line of Girion, and in Tolkien, family lines matter. And the arrow had never failed him, always returning to him, and handed down through generations. 

No flashy super power, but not truly mundane either. But I would agree that it was pretty magical stuff using the trappings of more mundane behavior.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 20, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Merry used Dazing Strike (rogue enc. 1) on the Witch King to set him up and Eowyn used a Brute Strike (fighter daily 1) to kill him, with the added superpower of 'F'.



(I have no idea what _the added superpower of 'F'_ might entail, but the Witch King of Angmar appears to have around four hit dice -- and a low AC? -- by that interpretation.)

Anyway, your interpretation misses the point.  Some 4E exploits are perfectly reasonable for "mundane" adventurers, while some are not.  There's nothing flashy or borderline magical about doing _3[W]_ damage or _dazing_ a foe -- although it is quite meta-gamey to declare where and when these things happen once per encounter or once per day.


Thasmodious said:


> Bard killed Smaug by firing a magical arrow at the one vulnerable spot on the dragons body, while it was in flight.  Hawkeye couldn't have made a better shot.  Bard used Hawk's Talon (ranger enc 7).



Again,  some 4E exploits are perfectly reasonable for "mundane" adventurers, while some are not.  Using Hawkeye as an example of a _super_hero is pretty silly, considering he's meant to be a mundane human of exceptional skill.  Using Batman would be a similarly bad example.


Thasmodious said:


> That sound like a mundane shot from an upjumped farmer to you?



I don't know what an _upjumped farmer_ is supposed to be, but that passage describes a miraculous shot by an excellent archer.  Real-life archers have demonstrated an ability to shoot coins out of the air, so it's not like it's a magical power with no possible "mundane" explanation.


Thasmodious said:


> Sounds like a ranger power to me.



Again,  some 4E exploits are perfectly reasonable for "mundane" adventurers, while some are not.


----------



## Thirsty (Nov 20, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Of course they did.
> 
> Merry used Dazing Strike (rogue enc. 1) on the Witch King to set him up and Eowyn used a Brute Strike (fighter daily 1) to kill him, with the added superpower of 'F'.  Bard killed Smaug by firing a magical arrow at the one vulnerable spot on the dragons body, while it was in flight.  Hawkeye couldn't have made a better shot.  Bard used Hawk's Talon (ranger enc 7).
> 
> ...




Heh I thought Bard was playing MERP and open ended high


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 20, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> (I have no idea what _the added superpower of 'F'_ might entail, but the Witch King of Angmar appears to have around four hit dice -- and a low AC? -- by that interpretation.)
> 
> Anyway, your interpretation misses the point.  Some 4E exploits are perfectly reasonable for "mundane" adventurers, while some are not.  There's nothing flashy or borderline magical about doing _3[W]_ damage or _dazing_ a foe -- although it is quite meta-gamey to declare where and when these things happen once per encounter or once per day.
> Again,  some 4E exploits are perfectly reasonable for "mundane" adventurers, while some are not.  Using Hawkeye as an example of a _super_hero is pretty silly, considering he's meant to be a mundane human of exceptional skill.  Using Batman would be a similarly bad example.
> ...




F=female.

You chose those examples to illustrate your point that these acts were carried out without the need for "superpowers" which is how you choose to derogatorily describe the 4e power framework.  I coutnered by showing how the examples YOU CHOSE could play out in 4e.  

Yes, there are a couple of powers that, when looked at in a certain way, could be seen as a bit beyond the pale as martial powers.  But there are only a few of them, and you really do have to cock your head sideways and stick out your tongue to see them that way.  Come and Get It only seems like a superpower if you insist on looking at it as some magical compulsion that force pulls opponents into orbit around the fighter.  That, to me, is cocking your head sideways and sticking out your tongue.  Especially when a dozen posters describe two dozen other ways to conceive of that effect.  It's not a stretch, its not scrambling for some kind of justification, it's simply the narrative.  

What you are calling metagame is nothing more than a shift in the narrative.  It's no more metagame for the player to describe the effect than it is for the DM.  It's just a shift, putting some of the immediate narrative in the hands of the players instead of the DM, in a limited fashion.  It's not somehow more metagame-y for the player to say "I stun him" than it is for the DM to say "You stun him."  It's just a sharing of the combat narrative.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 20, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> You chose those examples to illustrate your point that these acts were carried out without the need for "superpowers" which is how you choose to derogatorily describe the 4e power framework.  I coutnered by showing how the examples YOU CHOSE could play out in 4e.



I said "flashy superpowers" for a reason.  I was not derogatorily describing the 4e power framework; I was describing some powers as _not mundane_.


Thasmodious said:


> Yes, there are a couple of powers that, when looked at in a certain way, could be seen as a bit beyond the pale as martial powers.  But there are only a few of them, and you really do have to cock your head sideways and stick out your tongue to see them that way.  Come and Get It only seems like a superpower if you insist on looking at it as some magical compulsion that force pulls opponents into orbit around the fighter.  That, to me, is cocking your head sideways and sticking out your tongue.  Especially when a dozen posters describe two dozen other ways to conceive of that effect.  It's not a stretch, its not scrambling for some kind of justification, it's simply the narrative.



I think we have to agree to disagree, at least on some level.

I don't think anyone has put forward those powers as magical-force-pulls; they just can't come up with an explanation for why a certain individual can consistently get opponents to act as if they were subject to a magical-force-pull, regardless of who or what those opponents might be.


Thasmodious said:


> What you are calling metagame is nothing more than a shift in the narrative.  It's no more metagame for the player to describe the effect than it is for the DM.



The DM is not playing a character; the players are.  It's OK to like the meta-game aspect, but it is definitely a meta-game aspect, where the players are making decisions out-of-character.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Yes, there are a couple of powers that, when looked at in a certain way, could be seen as a bit beyond the pale as martial powers.  But there are only a few of them, and you really do have to cock your head sideways and stick out your tongue to see them that way.





Your Mileage Definitely Varies From Mine.

I have to cock my head sideways and stick my tongue out to _*not*_ see far too many of 4e's powers as even vaguely mundane, and even then if I waver or blink they snap right back into the realm of....something else.

There's nothing wrong with your liking the system, of course, but imagining that some people have to work to have problems with it is.......well, more in the realm of imagination than in the realm of reality.


RC


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 20, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> The DM is not playing a character; the players are.  It's OK to like the meta-game aspect, but it is definitely a meta-game aspect, where the players are making decisions out-of-character.




We're certainly not using the same definition of metagame then.  If that is the definition, then most anything a player does is metagame.  When a fighter decides its a good time to use his power attack feat, that would be metagame according to that.  

How I define metagaming is a player using knowledge that his character would not have, like specific vulnerabilities or monsters or holes in the rules.  A player using an ability is not metagaming.  Even when that ability places some narrative control in his hands.  Its a very limited, very immediate control, but either way, I am familiar with metagaming being defined as the character affecting the narration.  I've always seen that as kind of a goal.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 20, 2008)

I say use the system to game, don't let the system use you to game... 

If you start out feeling the powers are "super power" in nature, then you're probably going to find all of them to be super pwoered, and only find super power being the way to explain them.

If you start out feeling the powers are not super powered, you'll proably see them in a  light that isn't super powered, or need some sort of super power to pull them off.

It's just all in how you've decided to play the game.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 20, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> A player using an ability is not metagaming.



It is not metagaming for a player to use an ability his _character_ understands.  It's not metagaming for a wizard to cast a magic spell, for instance, because the player and the character share the same understanding of what the spell is and does.

It slowly veers into metagaming the further the rules diverge from anything going on in the game world.  Something like Power Attack is mildly metagamey, because the player is going to maximize expected damage by doing a math problem in his head, and that process does not model what the character might be deciding instinctively in the actual game world.  But that's a mild problem, and if to-hit and damage values in D&D made consistent sense, so that Power Attack meant something concrete, it would go away.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Nov 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Your Mileage Definitely Varies From Mine.
> 
> I have to cock my head sideways and stick my tongue out to _*not*_ see far too many of 4e's powers as even vaguely mundane, and even then if I waver or blink they snap right back into the realm of....something else.
> 
> ...




Thankfully, there is nothing in the 4th Edition rule books that call anything "Mundane", because they are called "Martial".  In a world where Dwarves, Dragons, and Halflings, creatures that Do Not Exist without a substantial non-mundane explanation, we can live with Olympic-esque combat maneuvers that occur once and only once in a scene.

"Martial not Mundane" is such an old-hat argument that I've run 36 total hours of game time since I answered it the last time.  And during that time I've never had any experience at the table that shows me I'm wrong.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 20, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> Thankfully, there is nothing in the 4th Edition rule books that call anything "Mundane", because they are called "Martial".  In a world where Dwarves, Dragons, and Halflings, creatures that Do Not Exist without a substantial non-mundane explanation, we can live with Olympic-esque combat maneuvers that occur once and only once in a scene.
> 
> "Martial not Mundane" is such an old-hat argument that I've run 36 total hours of game time since I answered it the last time.  And during that time I've never had any experience at the table that shows me I'm wrong.



So, your point is that you like the game, and you can't understand why anyone would want martial exploits to be non-magical?


----------



## RefinedBean (Nov 20, 2008)

The whole meta-game issue is kind of pointless to argue.  I mean, if I wanted to DM a game completely devoid of meta-game influence, I would calmly pass out sheets of paper to my players describing what's happening, and have a little check-list available to see what they want to do.  Then we'd all cry over how boring it is.

As far as Magical Martial Powers of Mysticism, c'mon.  Really?  Are we really going to argue about what's magic and what isn't?  Of course not.  We're all better than that.  If something feels too "magical" instead of "mundane," and you can't reflavor it, that's a personal problem with a system, not a general flaw.

Not that I'm saying anyone here is engaging in such inefficient discussion!  Aheheh.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 20, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> That makes _way_ more sense to me than just, _"I'm basically a regular guy, but I've been practicing my sword forms out in the back yard for the last 20 years, so now I can go kill a gargantuan dracolich who could decimate cities and armies . . . with my trusty sharp stick here."_




"I'm Batman."


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Your Mileage Definitely Varies From Mine.
> 
> I have to cock my head sideways and stick my tongue out to _*not*_ see far too many of 4e's powers as even vaguely mundane, and even then if I waver or blink they snap right back into the realm of....something else.




No one said anything about mundane.  Conan, Legolas, Aragorn, and their ilk can hardly be called mundane.  Their exploits and abilities and legendary and heroic.  And "far too many", care to list the many 4e powers that aren't even vaguely _martial_, as that's what we're talking about, not mundane.  This isn't Farmhands & Fields with powers like Break Clod, Plow Faster, and Turnip Surprise.  This a game of heroic fantasy.




> There's nothing wrong with your liking the system, of course, but imagining that some people have to work to have problems with it is.......well, more in the realm of imagination than in the realm of reality.




No.  Not when you come here and complain about how you can't possibly see power x as martial and not magical in nature, then a dozen posters give you two dozen answers and you just shake your head and say nope, none of that works, I'll stick with my version which I can't reconcile it with how I want to see martial characters.  It's disigenious and willfully obstinate.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> No one said anything about mundane.  Conan, Legolas, Aragorn, and their ilk can hardly be called mundane.



What do you mean, no one said anything about mundane?  And what are you doing propping this straw man back up again? The people using "mundane" to mean _non-magical_ have been quite explicit about it.  No one asking for "mundane" martial exploits is asking for _humdrum_ martial exploits, just combat maneuvers that make sense and that seem possible without magic or meta-game weirdness.

The argument against powers that seem like magic-force-pulls is not that they're too cool and exciting; it's that they don't make sense.  If I have to make up a different story each time I use it, just what is it that my character is good at that lets him pull off this stunt?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> No one said anything about mundane.  Conan, Legolas, Aragorn, and their ilk can hardly be called mundane.




If we are talking about "mundane" as "non-magical" as opposed to "common", I can certainly call Conan mundane.  Legolas and Aragorn, no.  Gimli, yes.  Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, yes.  Boromir, yes.



> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I'm not sure how to parse your response, so let me ask exactly what you mean.

Is the problem that I "come here"?  Is EN World now a shrine to 4e in your opinion that can hold no dissent?  I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that this is not so.

Is the problem that I can't see Power X as existing without being magical/mystical in nature?  Frankly, it doesn't matter if 2,000 posters give me 4,000,000,000 answers if none of them actually answer my objection.  And this has nothing to do with being "disingenious and willfully obstinante", it has to do with what works for me and what does not.

To give an example not related to D&D, if I was to give you a recipe for chicken that you did not like, and dozens of posters gave you dozens of reasons why they like it, would you suddenly like that chicken recipe?  I guess the answer is "maybe", and the "maybe" would depend very much on whether or not those posters said something that made you reevaluate why you didn't like the recipe.  And even if you did reevalute the recipe, it doesn't mean you'd suddenly like it.  Seeing the recipe from my viewpoint might not change yours.  You might even think (gasp) that your tastes are more important to you than mine are.

Perhaps, for example, you are a vegetarian.  Then, perhaps, a poster might say something that makes you think, "Hmmm, perhaps I am wrong about this whole vegetarian thing."  But not thinking the same isn't disingenous, nor is it obstinant.

Really, in order to successfully answer an objection, you first must understand that objection.  You have to know _*why*_ Frosty doesn't want to stay in Florida over the summer before you have any chance whatsoever of convincing Frosty that he is wrong.  And, sometimes, just because you love the Florida sun, Frosty might be right.  He might not be you.  He might be looking at different things.  He might not think that the word "martial" is enough to make something not feel like it is magical.

If someone is pretty certain that Conan is non-magical, saying Conan is not mundane isn't going to make that person suddenly do a 180 and decide that 4e feels just like a Conan story.  Maybe 4e _*does*_ feel just like a Conan story to you.  If so, your experience isn't universal.


RC


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 21, 2008)

More politeness and respect towards one another, please.

Thanks


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 21, 2008)

The concept of taunting for effect is not new to the game. Roger Moore wrote up such an ability for the jester class back in Dragon Magazine issue # 60.

The ability was designed with a bit of thought and care. Using thier wit  jesters could raise the morale of allies and lower the morale of enemies at the same time. There were limitations on the use of the power which made sense and thus the entire power made more sense.

A creature had to be able to understand the jester's language. Mindless undead and golems were of course immune because insulting a creature without a mind makes no sense. 

This is where 4E powers fail. They simply work in situations where it makes no sense for them to do so. Instead of having to wait for an actual opportunity to use an ability, we just say that joebob can "find an opening" once per day, per fight or whatever. Having to come up with a reason of why it works after the fact is what makes the play seem so board gamey.

The players are in effect saying that what happens on the grid is of the utmost importance and the action taking place in the imagination can be slapped together to fit what happened on the grid. You could play a game of Talisman in such a way and call it a role playing game.


----------



## RefinedBean (Nov 21, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is where 4E powers fail. They simply work in situations where it makes no sense for them to do so. Instead of having to wait for an actual opportunity to use an ability, we just say that joebob can "find an opening" once per day, per fight or whatever. Having to come up with a reason of why it works after the fact is what makes the play seem so board gamey.




Well, where you see failure, I see something fun that can be used to get all the players back into the narrative of a battle.  It's not any different from any other edition, or any RPG in the history of the world ever.

That's all my experience, though.  Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> This isn't Farmhands & Fields with powers like Break Clod, Plow Faster, and Turnip Surprise.  This a game of heroic fantasy.





Ahahaha!  Awesome.  If I was the kind of person who sigs other forum posters, this would definitely be sig-worthy.

Beautiful.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 21, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is where 4E powers fail. They simply work in situations where it makes no sense for them to do so. Instead of having to wait for an actual opportunity to use an ability, we just say that joebob can "find an opening" once per day, per fight or whatever. Having to come up with a reason of why it works after the fact is what makes the play seem so board gamey.




This.

The funny thing is that games like, Exalted and Earthdawn do the exact same kind of thing, but because they take the time to explain why it's possible within the context of their "worlds" (mostly because Talents and Charms are explicitly magical) they are much better, IMHO, games when it comes to this type of disconnect..  I feel like WotC copped out and  really wanted to make "martial" powers mystical, but knew the game would fall into a smaller niche of who it appealed to if this was made explicit...so they just avoided it entirely (which was weaksauce IMO).  Thus we have the giant disconnect in the room, that everyone argues over because it just isn't addressed and it's been made ambiguous by design.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 21, 2008)

I don't see any Martial powers in this game which describe an occurrence happening which could _never_ happen here in normal, mundane Earth, or which _has_ _never_ happened.  I don't see a single Martial power which, when I read it, I think, _"There's just NO WAY that could ever happen in the real world.  What a fake superpower!"_

*Come and Get It*?  Is anyone on this thread _actually_ of the opinion that the scenario described in this power is so impossible, so patently supernatural and contrary to the laws of reality as our science understands them, that this could _never_ happen in the real world?


If you walked into a bar, and saw a big fight breaking out, and some guy in a karate stance looked around at the half-dozen people around him, taunted them, and dared them to "come and get it" and then you subsequently observed all of those people rushing to attack him, would you immediately think, _"HOLY CRAP, OH MY GOD, THAT WAS MAGIC!  There's NO WAY that could ever happen by natural means!  I literally just witnessed a *supernatural* event!  Who IS this *sorcerer* before me?  Am I hallucinating?  Is this some kind of movie scene being filmed?  Is this a hoax?  Am I being *Punk'd*?  HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY HAPPEN?"_

Or, if the guy standing next to you, watching the same scene, started shouting the same things I suggested above, would you nod at him with a look of shared amazement, or roll your eyes at him like he was a moron?

Seriously.


If we're going to use these ideas of mundane versus magical, then it stands to reason that as soon as we can logically concede that such a thing has likely happened at least _once_ in the history of Earth, or that it very well _could_ happen, without all onlookers immediately assuming that _magic_ was occurring, then the power which describes a character doing such a thing is perfectly mundane, and not magical.

Throwing a fireball at someone out of thin air with no apparent technological apparatus?  Yeah, it's safe to say that most anyone would view _that_ as something supernatural or mystical.  But daring some dudes to "come and get it" and then watching them take that dare?  Not exactly _Hogwarts_ curriculum, there.


*
Magic:  *_"an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source  ;  the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature__"


_*Supernatural:* _"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe__        ;  of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil  ;  departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature  ;  attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)"_



Which Martial power(s) in the *PHB*, if you watched a guy do it in a bar fight tomorrow, would you declare to be unquestionably "magical" or "supernatural" according to the above definitions?

I, for one, can't find any.



Now, I already know what the argument is going to be.  "Sure, someone _could_ do that, possibly, in real life, in certain _circumstances_.  But they couldn't do it _anytime they want_, once every five minutes, to absolutely anyone who happened to be within 10 feet of them!"

Well sure, I agree with you.  If someone I knew in real life could, in fact, do exactly that, I'd consider it at least borderline mystical, if not outright supernatural.  But *D&D* doesn't actually claim that any given Fighter could do that.  All it claims is that, once per encounter, the character just happens to be in a situation where s/he _can_ do it.  

Unlikely?  Yep.  Obviously the charmed life of a fictional protagonist?  Yep.

_But that's what a *D&D* character is!  _That's what a *D&D* game is -- a fictional, fantasy _story_.  (And a _game_, too, which is a fact that a surprising number of people seem to forget and/or really have a problem with.)  The game, as in _any fictional story ever created_, is chock _full_ of convenient concidences and incidents of near-miraculous serendipity, which _just happen_ to allow the characters to be in the right place at the right time, to survive when "the odds" would clearly make them uninsurable at best, to _allow the plot of the story to proceed_.

Try to write a story where _only the *most likely* thing happens_ in every single scene and circumstance.  That's going to be a really boring story, and it wouldn't make for a very fun game, either.  In fact, I'm playing that game all day, every day, and so are you!  (No DM needed!)



Ultimately, with all of these issues related to apparent narrative disconnects in *4E* due to thematic preferences or assumptions of realism, there are basically only four options:


*1.)*   Accept the idea of shared narrative control, and then everything works out fine, as the players are literally storytellers too, and have the same power as the DM, on a perhaps more limited basis, to _tell the story_ and describe the circumstances in which the characters find themselves, rather than merely the actual decisions made in the gameworld by their particular character.

*2.)*   Accept the idea that the PCs are, in fact, not like normal Earth people, and even the most "mundane" of them simply have the inherent ability as _fantasy heroes_ to perform impossibly heroic feats such as routinely altering their personal fate, forcing other creatures to do what they want on occasion, and recovering quickly from their own grievous physical wounds with or without outside help.

*3.)*   Decide that the first two ideas are just not acceptable to you, not your idea of roleplaying, or of fun, or of verisimilitude, and then _change the game_ to whatever extent you need to, in order for the rules, and the narrative which the rules imply, to make sense to you according to your thematic preferences and ideas of realism.  Nearly every complaint I've seen in this category could be rectified with very minor house-ruling and reskinning of flavor text.

*4.)*   As a last resort, decide that the first two ideas are just not acceptable to you, and that the third option to alter the rules is too much work or otherwise not worth your time, and just _not play the game_.  (In my opinion, though, people who are willing to jump to this decision have very little right to complain about the game.  Well, they have as much _right_ as anyone else, but they should have very little expectation of being taken seriously.)



Now, having said all of that, some people might still have the complaint, "Yeah, but the designers of *4E D&D* shouldn't have made the game in such a way that I _have to_ make that choice!"

I can't say that's an invalid way to feel.  I completely support anyone's right to think that, and to be displeased with the game as it exists, given that none of the four options above may be satisfying to a particular player.

But the game _is_ what it is, and many, many people like it that way.  So it's safe to say that it is designed for a _target audience_, and that target audience either has no real problem with it, or is willing to make one of the first three choices listed above, and go on with their enjoyment of *D&D*.

You can be unhappy that the target audience doesn't include you, but claiming that this somehow makes it a _bad game_ is just silly, and I doubt you'll ever make a compelling argument to the contrary.


I have no interest in watching *Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood*.  It's not for me.  It doesn't offer the specific form(s) of entertainment that I look for in a motion picture.  I'm really not in the target audience for that movie.  But I'm certainly not going to sit here and claim that it's a _bad film_ because of that.


*D&D 4th Edition* isn't broken, flawed, or _badwrongfun_.  It's just designed from a different set of assumptions, preferences, and priorities than some people are coming from in their gaming philosophy.  You can change your perception, you can change the game, or you can kick the dust off your feet and find something you like more.

All that I ask is that you consider, for a moment, that the first three options _are_ options, before committing yourselves wholly to _Reject and Attack Mode_.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 21, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> I don't see any Martial powers in this game which describe an occurrence happening which could _never_ happen here in normal, mundane Earth, or which _has_ _never_ happened.



And I don't see anyone who has made that argument.  You can knock down a straw man you propped up, but I'd prefer that we discuss one another's points.  ExploderWizard made the point against 4E martial exploits quite clearly: 







ExploderWizard said:


> This is where 4E powers fail. They simply work in situations where it makes no sense for them to do so. Instead of having to wait for an actual opportunity to use an ability, we just say that joebob can "find an opening" once per day, per fight or whatever. Having to come up with a reason of why it works after the fact is what makes the play seem so board gamey.


----------



## phloog (Nov 21, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> SNIP
> 
> As far as Magical Martial Powers of Mysticism, c'mon. Really? Are we really going to argue about what's magic and what isn't? Of course not. We're all better than that. If something feels too "magical" instead of "mundane," and you can't reflavor it, that's a personal problem with a system, not a general flaw.
> 
> Not that I'm saying anyone here is engaging in such inefficient discussion! Aheheh.




Wow...seems like a major attempt to shut down debate.  

Note: When you point out something that others are doing and then say 'We're all better than that', you're really saying that YOU are better than the others, sort of 'above the fray'.   I'm enjoying reading most of this discussion, including the posts that don't agree with me, and I've never felt the need to say that we're all somehow too good to argue one side or the other.

Following it with the 'Aheheh' reinforces this.  

I don't recall anyone speaking of a 'general flaw' so much as saying things like "these specific powers seem to ascribe the mystical to things that should simply be the actions of powerful fighters"  It was also pointed out by a few that MANY powers in 4e are hunky dory in terms of non-magical actions.


----------



## phloog (Nov 21, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> I don't see any Martial powers in this game which describe an occurrence happening which could _never_ happen here in normal, mundane Earth, or which _has_ _never_ happened. I don't see a single Martial power which, when I read it, I think, _"There's just NO WAY that could ever happen in the real world. What a fake superpower!"_
> .




You're kind of flipping the argument in a direction I don't think I ever suggested (a bit strawman-y, to be Whedonesque).

Even CAGI could happen in the real world - I taunt everyone and they all rush me. I don't know that I've ever suggested that it could NEVER happen....you are using your argument that it COULD happen to try to dismiss my issue with the fact that it ALWAYS works, and ALWAYS draws in all foes regardless of their own statistics, abilities, and desires.

Could the martial artist say 'come and get it' and every drunk yokel who's already itching for a fight in the bar does indeed move adjacent to him? Absolutely it could happen...this isn't the argument I'm making at all. 

The argument I'm making is about enemies who are not drunk, who have incredible ability to size up an opponent, supreme willpower, and who are armed with a magic wand that does insta-kill damage so long as they are not adjacent to their target...because you know what these towers of intellect do in 4e? They forget all else and rush the fighter...this is where it becomes mystical (FOR ME, remember).

EDIT: ALSO, as a former player and someone who LOVES Earthdawn, my memory was sparked by an earlier post.  I had no problem with powers of the warrior class in that game being odd and hard to explain in mundane (=non-magical) terms, because that's the world/campaign that's being run....EVERYTHING is magical.  If I wanted that in D&D, I would (like many here) not have this issue with 4th edition.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 21, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> *Come and Get It*? Is anyone on this thread _actually_ of the opinion that the scenario described in this power is so impossible, so patently supernatural and contrary to the laws of reality as our science understands them, that this could _never_ happen in the real world?




I wouldn't say never. If your bad dude walked into a bar full of robots        which were not programmed to respond to such commands (golems) or islanders who only spoke an obscure foreign language would the power still work? If so why?


----------



## Delta (Nov 21, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> If you walked into a bar, and saw a big fight breaking out, and some guy in a karate stance looked around at the half-dozen people around him, taunted them, and dared them to "come and get it" and then you subsequently observed all of those people rushing to attack him, would you immediately think, _"HOLY CRAP, OH MY GOD, THAT WAS MAGIC!"_




If it happened to me, then yes, my experience of that would be like some sort of magical mind-control. Because my character is not to run up to fight people, especially people I don't who are doing advanced karate in a bar. And I can't get away from intepreting it that way for the NPC's in that situation, as well.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 21, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> If your bad dude walked into a bar full of robots        which were not programmed to respond to such commands (golems)




I myself wouldn't cast that situation as one likely to happen in "the real world". 



ExploderWizard said:


> or islanders who only spoke an obscure foreign language would the power still work? If so why?




Body language trumps vocal language when it comes to agression. 

/M


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 21, 2008)

phloog said:


> You're kind of flipping the argument in a direction I don't think I ever suggested (a bit strawman-y, to be Whedonesque).




It's not a strawman.  Posters have been arguing throughout this thread that MANY martial powers don't work unless explained as mystical or inherently magical.  When I hit this line above with examples related to heroic acts from fiction the response from the people raising those issues was "well sure, not THOSE powers, but others".  He's just asking - what others?  It's an honest question.  



> and ALWAYS draws in all foes regardless of their own statistics, abilities, and desires.




This is a disconnect of design intentions.  With 3e, the designers saw the need to tackle every corner case and created a lot of subsystems and a lot more corner cases each time.  They learned from this with 4e and decided to leave corner cases to be handled by the groups that had a problem with them.  It's a corner case, deal with it how you see fit.  Disallow the power, modify it so it does basically the same effect, without the forced move (make it so the fighter feigns an injury so his opponents drop their guard just a bit, then he explodes in a burst of speed himself, and shifts himself, attacking everyone in a burst 3).

The silliness ensues when people like exploderwizard claim that the 4e powers fail because you can find a corner case or two to throw at 1 or 2 martial powers that create a situation that is a bit difficult to explain.  When it has already been explained as design intent by the designers that they aren't going to fret over the odd corner case, its hard to rationally call that "fail".  

The shared narrative control works both ways.  If one of the surrounding NPCs woud not possibly ever charge the fighter, the DM can simply say this guy doesn't do it.  The no armed, naked guy with no means to attack doesn't bull rush the fighter along with everyone else.  But is it really inconceivable that the wizard does?  The wizard who sees the fighter going down, who sees his minions rushing in for the kill, he doesn't charge in preparing to blast the fighter with one of his close burst powers (something he might well do on his own on his turn, after having allowed or positioned himself within 15' of the deadly fighter anyway)?  Powers he took specifically for melee damage?  He couldn't conceivably be tricked or taunted by the wily fighter?  "I'll show you why I am the master of Thunder!"

It wouldn't be outside the spirit of the rules to allow someone for whom it would clearly be a huge mistake to charge the fighter to get a save either, like when a forced move effect is going to throw you off a cliff.  



> The argument I'm making is about enemies who are not drunk, who have incredible ability to size up an opponent, supreme willpower, and who are armed with a magic wand that does insta-kill damage so long as they are not adjacent to their target




Why don't you work a bit harder to build up your Super-Corner?  He could also have a gimped leg and walk with a cane, so that movement is not easy for him, and he also has an extreme phobia for violations of personal space, and is enveloped by a magical force shield that makes him impervious to all damage but stops working if he is within 5' of anyone...



> EDIT: ALSO, as a former player and someone who LOVES Earthdawn, my memory was sparked by an earlier post.  I had no problem with powers of the warrior class in that game being odd and hard to explain in mundane (=non-magical) terms, because that's the world/campaign that's being run....EVERYTHING is magical.  If I wanted that in D&D, I would (like many here) not have this issue with 4th edition.




So you open your post accusing someone who asks for examples of the magical nature of these martial exploits by claiming that's a strawman argument that you aren't actually making, then close by saying that if the martial powers were just magical like in Earthdawn you wouldn't have any problem with it...  Interesting.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

phloog said:


> The argument I'm making is about enemies who are not drunk, who have incredible ability to size up an opponent, supreme willpower, and who are armed with a magic wand that does insta-kill damage so long as they are not adjacent to their target...because you know what these towers of intellect do in 4e? They forget all else and rush the fighter...this is where it becomes mystical (FOR ME, remember)




D&D 4e (above all things in my opinion) seems to be about all players involved telling a communal story of some type. The story of your campaign. 

A power like come and get it isn't about your character forcing his opponents to do anything. It's about the player placing some input into the overall story. 

The player getting to say:

1. "At this point in the fight scene, my character is rushed by his enemy."

and 

2. "This is how my character responds when he is rushed by said enemy."

The "character" doesn't know the player did anything. He's just responding to the fact that he was rushed by an enemy. It's like one participant in an improv situtation introducing a new element the others can play off of. 

I personally think it's great for a number of reasons.

1. The game shouldn't (in my view) be about the DM telling a story and the players just playing parts. It's an improv story. The DM sets the overall plot, but all the actors take it in different directions and in the end we hopefully create soemthing wonderfull.

2. It takes a bit of the burden off of the DM. I want the players to be able to use their abilities and powers in the game. I don't have to do as much in order to make it possible.

3. D&D has always promoted the idea that the DM is impartial, and not on the monster's "side."  Sometimes I fall into the trap of being slightly on the monster's side even if only subconciously... You get a bonus when an enemy rushes you? Ohhhh too bad no one rushed you... I start using my knowledge and abilities to think FOR the monsters and not AS the monsters... Which ends up damaging the overall "Story" of the game. When I'm writing a book or a movie, I don't think for the villains. I don't have them avoid bad tactics simply bvexcause as the author I know it will end up allowing the hero to win... They do what they need to for the overall story, and sometimes that means rushing the enemy. (Or leaving them in an insanely complicated trap that no one could possibly escape from, despite the fact that they have a long time to work on it with no one there to prevent it, while they go off to prepair for their plan to come about...)

4e gives me extra tools as a DM to help promote the overall story.

Shrug.


----------



## Andor (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> It's not a strawman.  Posters have been arguing throughout this thread that MANY martial powers don't work unless explained as mystical or inherently magical.  When I hit this line above with examples related to heroic acts from fiction the response from the people raising those issues was "well sure, not THOSE powers, but others".  He's just asking - what others?  It's an honest question.




No, it's not, And neither is your reply. There was no concession that CAGI can be explained in purely mundane terms. 

That CAGI it an explained mundanely when fighting humans or orcs is great. But:





Thasmodious said:


> This is a disconnect of design intentions.  With 3e, the designers saw the need to tackle every corner case and created a lot of subsystems and a lot more corner cases each time.  They learned from this with 4e and decided to leave corner cases to be handled by the groups that had a problem with them.  It's a corner case, deal with it how you see fit.  Disallow the power, modify it so it does basically the same effect, without the forced move (make it so the fighter feigns an injury so his opponents drop their guard just a bit, then he explodes in a burst of speed himself, and shifts himself, attacking everyone in a burst 3).




It is not a corner case. It works on swarms. It works on slimes and oozes. It works on purple mushrooms that _don't even have the power to move on their own_. It works on grimlocks that neither speak common nor see body language. It works on rabbits that just want to run away. It works on clams. It works on skeleton butlers who have no commands to attack the fighter.

These are not corner cases in D&D. If you were playing a fighter would you be happy if the GM started declaring your powers don't work on any non-humanoid because they don't share your body language?


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 21, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> And I don't see anyone who has made that argument.  You can knock down a straw man you propped up, but I'd prefer that we discuss one another's points.  ExploderWizard made the point against 4E martial exploits quite clearly:




It isn't that powers _don't make sense_; it's that there's a breakdown of immersion, a barrier between PC and player.  That's what makes it seem boardgamey or videogamey to some people.

Come and Get It features a mechanic that allows the _player_ to choose how the bad guys act.  That is a big change in player authority from previous versions - there was no resource a player could spend in order to take control of the NPCs in the same way.

Having a player take control of NPCs for a moment means the player cannot be "inside the head" of the PC as easily in earlier editions.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> It is not a corner case. It works on swarms. It works on slimes and oozes. It works on purple mushrooms that _don't even have the power to move on their own_. It works on grimlocks that neither speak common nor see body language. It works on rabbits that just want to run away. It works on clams. It works on skeleton butlers who have no commands to attack the fighter.




Swing and a miss.  Swarms, slimes and oozes live to attack, drawing them in is not very challenging.  It would not work on something that cannot move.  The power says they must shift IF POSSIBLE.  Something that cannot move cannot shift.  Grimlocks engaged in a fight with the PCs are enemies, it works on them just fine.  It would not work on rabbits or clams, they are not "enemies in burst that you can see", same with the skeleton butler.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 21, 2008)

I'm just going to say it. High levels of immersion and people who require it were not a priority of 4E. It was a design choice to dump support for that playstyle and those players. They decided that to most players, it just isn't that big of a deal, and I think this was a correct decision. Pleasing the fanatics would have required too many sacrifices to overall gameplay.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 21, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> That is a big change in player authority from previous versions - there was no resource a player could spend in order to take control of the NPCs in the same way.




Dominate Person allowed players to take control of NPCs in a far more long-lasting (1 day/level) and far more customizable way. Saying that Come and Get It gives players the ability to control NPCs in a way they never have before is ignoring the previous versions of the game. But I'm guessing this will be waved away as okay, since "a wizard did it."


----------



## phloog (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> (SNIP)
> So you open your post accusing someone who asks for examples of the magical nature of these martial exploits by claiming that's a strawman argument that you aren't actually making, then close by saying that if the martial powers were just magical like in Earthdawn you wouldn't have any problem with it... Interesting.




Wow...how did you get that from what I typed?...forgive me if I was unclear...I had no problem with it in Earthdawn because the world was entirely magical - - that's what you bought into when you played Earthdawn - -that your campaign would be infused with mystical abilities in all classes.  So your little "Interesting" on the end is not really called for -- 

Just in case, let me try it again...if I'm in the mood to play Earthdawn, I have no problem with any number of freakish things happening with Warrior powers, because the way the setting/stories work is based around the idea that "Everything has a lot of magic in it"...IF I was playing a D&D game set in a world like Earthdawn, I'd support all kinds of freaky mystical seeming powers.  Since MY (which is why I'm not getting all the defensiveness) current D&D campaign does not have such high levels of magic in all classes, it is hard for me to use any 4E rules or powers that result in any effects that seem like a fighter has used his magic Frotus powers on the enemy.

So...a third time for emphasis:

World with lots of magic and every creature has a little - - no problem from me with the Earthdawn rules OR the 4e rules

MY campaign as it currently exists...issues.

also, I use extreme corner cases at times, granted...but only because we're talking thresholds of belief and I'm attempting to make a point.  I also have a problem with CAGI working without saves or consideration of abilities on normal, highly trained fighters.  Note that CAGI doesn't say 'this doesn't work on NPCs higher level than you' - - so if you're fighting a warrior who is more powerful than you, you still fool them, draw them in, etc.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 21, 2008)

phloog said:


> Note that CAGI doesn't say 'this doesn't work on NPCs higher level than you' - - so if you're fighting a warrior who is more powerful than you, you still fool them, draw them in, etc.




...fool them, draw them in, then miss them because their Defenses are higher than your attack, so you just gave a higher level, well-trained fighter a free 2-square move to start lumping you on his turn.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> ...fool them, draw them in, then miss them because their Defenses are higher than your attack, so you just gave a higher level, well-trained fighter a free 2-square move to start lumping you on his turn.



Indeed. It doesn't have to be the same exact description every time. The higher-level fighter smirks, thanks you for the free movement, and then smashes you in the face.


----------



## phloog (Nov 21, 2008)

Scribble said:


> D&D 4e (above all things in my opinion) seems to be about all players involved telling a communal story of some type. The story of your campaign.
> 
> A power like come and get it isn't about your character forcing his opponents to do anything. It's about the player placing some input into the overall story.
> 
> ...




If I combine your thoughts with the DM option to (perhaps FREQUENTLY) disallow the power, or allow NPC #32 to ignore it, then it becomes workable.  My issue is just primarily that I am opposed to 'zapping' PCs powers at the risk of making something they've 'spent' a power slot on less valuable than a different choice.

The better option for me, if I were ever to run 4E again, would be to simply remove CAGI, but I'm not sure if that 'nerfs' fighters entirely or not.


----------



## phloog (Nov 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Dominate Person allowed players to take control of NPCs in a far more long-lasting (1 day/level) and far more customizable way. Saying that Come and Get It gives players the ability to control NPCs in a way they never have before is ignoring the previous versions of the game. But I'm guessing this will be waved away as okay, since "a wizard did it."




Dominate Person, IIRC, allowed a saving throw...it also did not work on the mindless.  So is it really waving it away to say that a power that in the past allowed a save, was influenced by the nature and statistics of the foe, AND was described as magic is not comparable to a power that ignores all aspects of the foe and is somehow expected to be seen as NOT magical?  

I don't disagree that players could have 'power' over NPCs before, but typically it WAS NOT Mundane (=non-magical), or it involved mechanics of the mundane ("How do I control his movement?  I grapple him and pull him over here, that's how!")


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Dominate Person allowed players to take control of NPCs in a far more long-lasting (1 day/level) and far more customizable way. Saying that Come and Get It gives players the ability to control NPCs in a way they never have before is ignoring the previous versions of the game. But I'm guessing this will be waved away as okay, since "a wizard did it."



Wow.  Just _wow_.

Of course it's going to be "waved way as okay, since a wizard did it," because it makes perfect sense -- in the game world -- that a wizard with a mind-control spell would mind-control someone.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

phloog said:


> If I combine your thoughts with the DM option to (perhaps FREQUENTLY) disallow the power, or allow NPC #32 to ignore it, then it becomes workable.  My issue is just primarily that I am opposed to 'zapping' PCs powers at the risk of making something they've 'spent' a power slot on less valuable than a different choice.
> 
> The better option for me, if I were ever to run 4E again, would be to simply remove CAGI, but I'm not sure if that 'nerfs' fighters entirely or not.




Shrug... The game talks about using common sense at times. it's your game do whatever makes the most fun for yourself and your group, only you know what that is, not me or the rules or the designers of the rules.  

Here are some example of how I see CAGI playing out:

1. Average Warrior vrs a Foe

PC: (I use CAGI) "Maglor lowers his blade slightly shifting his body as if he has slipped..."  (Roll roll roll  A Hit!)

DM: The Goblin smirks seeing the opportunity. It steps forward blade drawn hoping to end this fight perhaps sooner then he'd planend...

PC: "Maglor smiles as the goblin takes the bait... Straightening back into fighting for he swings his weapon into the unsuspecting goblin..."

Or

Roll roll roll A Miss!)

The goblin smirks seeing the opportunity. "I'm wise to your trickses human! But thank you for lowering your defenses!"

2. Poor farm boy vrs trained warrior

PC (I use CAGI) Johan holds the sword in his hand the tip swaying from side to side his body shaking in terror... (Roll roll roll A hit!)

DM: The warrior smirks knowing he has nothing to fear from such a small boy... Stepping forward he says "You're brave boy, but unfortunately for you bravery will not keep you alive much..." Suddenly you see the warrior wince, as he slips on some blood falling against the blade in Johans hands...

or (Roll roll roll a Miss!) 

DM: The warrior smirks knowing he has nothing to fear from such a small boy. Stepping forward he says: "You're brave boy, but unfortunately for you bravery will not keep you alive Much longer..." 

PC: Terror grips Johans heart... He's no match for this warrior...

3. Crazy Kung Fu/Jedi Style

(I use CAGI) Wo-Pan smirks, lowering his blade and motioning for his enemy to come to him... (Roll roll rolll a Hit!)

DM: The goblin tries to resist, but is no match for your warrior magic... he steps forward at your call feeling your blade slash into his body...

or (Roll roll roll a Miss!)

DM: The goblin smiles... "Foolish warrior,... did you think I was a petty commoner open to your trickery???  But I will take this opportunity you've given me..."


----------



## Herschel (Nov 21, 2008)

I think there are a lot of issues with 4e (healing, inorganic feel, etc., ad nauseum) but I like it much better than that PoS 3e rules overload. Each edition has issues (as covered in the other thread) but why does criticizing mean to some that it's a black/white (love/hate) relationship? 

Don't get me worng, I like a good internet rant as well as the next person, maybe more. Some of this stuff is beyond silly though.


----------



## phloog (Nov 21, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Wow. Just _wow_.
> 
> Of course it's going to be "waved way as okay, since a wizard did it," because it makes perfect sense -- in the game world -- that a wizard with a mind-control spell would mind-control someone.




Generally speaking, I've noticed that on the internet when someone attempts to preempt the counterpoint in their own post, that counterpoint is often very reasonable, which is why the attempt to block it in advance is made.  That seems to be the case here.


----------



## phloog (Nov 21, 2008)

Herschel said:


> I think there are a lot of issues with 4e (healing, inorganic feel, etc., ad nauseum) but I like it much better than that PoS 3e rules overload. Each edition has issues (as covered in the other thread) but why does criticizing mean to some that it's a black/white (love/hate) relationship?
> 
> Don't get me worng, I like a good internet rant as well as the next person, maybe more. Some of this stuff is beyond silly though.




And I apologize if I've implied that I somehow HATE 4e...I don't have enough spare energy to use up on hating something like a game system. It just doesn't really appeal to me for use in my current campaign because of things like we're discussing. 

It should also be noted that I don't play 3e either, but True20 (which also has its issues!)


----------



## RefinedBean (Nov 21, 2008)

phloog said:


> Wow...seems like a major attempt to shut down debate.
> 
> Note: When you point out something that others are doing and then say 'We're all better than that', you're really saying that YOU are better than the others, sort of 'above the fray'.   I'm enjoying reading most of this discussion, including the posts that don't agree with me, and I've never felt the need to say that we're all somehow too good to argue one side or the other.
> 
> Following it with the 'Aheheh' reinforces this.




I'm not trying to shut down ALL debate, just inefficient posturing on both sides about what's martial, mundane, mystical, magical, blah blah blah.  There will never be a consensus and frankly (at least here on ENworld), it almost always is centered around some sort of edition war, which I'm fairly sick of.

And what I'm really saying is really only known to me, hrm?  Let's not be too presumptuous here.  I'm obviously not above the fray if I continue to post here, right?    However, I do like to make sure we all realize that we have common ground in these rather ludicrous discussions.

The aheheh was just a reference to a favorite character in literature of mine.  I can see how it came off as slightly dismissive, though.  Apologies!


----------



## Andor (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Swing and a miss.  Swarms, slimes and oozes live to attack, drawing them in is not very challenging.  It would not work on something that cannot move.  The power says they must shift IF POSSIBLE.  Something that cannot move cannot shift.  Grimlocks engaged in a fight with the PCs are enemies, it works on them just fine.  It would not work on rabbits or clams, they are not "enemies in burst that you can see", same with the skeleton butler.




That seems like an awfully big restriction, if the power doesn't grant a movement ability the creature lacks, are you saying that CAGI only works on enemies that natively have the ability to shift 2 spaces at a time? That would mean it only works on... um... What can shift multiple squares at will? Grimlocks can't, yet you say it works on them. Perhaps the power does grant a movement ability the target doesn't normally posses...

If my fighter is trying to kill rabbits or clams he doesn't count as an enemy to them, and thus vice versa? Killing them is not a hostile action? So a clam bake is technically a 'friendly fire' incident? 

Or is that they would rather run than fight? If so you seem to be saying a fighter could not use CAGI on frightened human peasants or goblin children.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 21, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I'm just going to say it. High levels of immersion and people who require it were not a priority of 4E. It was a design choice to dump support for that playstyle and those players. They decided that to most players, it just isn't that big of a deal, and I think this was a correct decision. Pleasing the fanatics would have required too many sacrifices to overall gameplay.




Yeah, that's it, you nailed it.  All TRUE roleplayers must hate 4e since TRUE IMMERSION has been dumped in favor of a tactical minis video game.  TRUE IMMERSION comes from rules, not the players of the game.  No one who plays 4e can be TRUE HARDCORE GAMERS, since the system doesn't, in any way, support a playstyle that relies on the imagination for immersion. 

You really think immersion comes from rules telling you to immerse?  "Roll a d20, on a 12+ you are immersed, no save."  Many of us TRUE HARDCORE GAMERS find 4e more immersive than 3e because the rules get out of the way and let us play and the system encourages the DM to be more fluid, to say 'yes', to adjudicate on the fly.  It's comments like yours that piss people off and keep this nonsense going in unconstructive ways.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> Or is that they would rather run than fight? If so you seem to be saying a fighter could not use CAGI on frightened human peasants or goblin children.




DM: Ok you defeat the last of your goblin foes, leaving nothing but frightened children, and peasants...

PC: Hrmmm just to be a dick I use CAGI on one of the goblin kids... Garlock steps forward... lowering his blade and prettending to slip as he does so...  (roll roll roll a hit!)

DM: Ok... man you ARE a dick... One of the goblin children sees Garlock "slip" the terrified goblin hoping this might be a chance to escape with his life thrusts forward with a blade hoping beyond anything he might kill you and escape... Unfortunately he's stepped right into garlock's plan... 

PC: "Now hear me children... You are my prisoners, and will do as I say!"

DM: Dick.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 21, 2008)

This whole "come and get it" thing is people splitting hairs over little details. The thing is, the game itself doesn't care about the little details. It even says so. If the little details are important to you, you either have to find a way to deal with it or find another game to play. Come and get it works fine within the system.


----------



## RefinedBean (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> If my fighter is trying to kill rabbits or clams he doesn't count as an enemy to them, and thus vice versa? Killing them is not a hostile action? So a clam bake is technically a 'friendly fire' incident?
> 
> Or is that they would rather run than fight? If so you seem to be saying a fighter could not use CAGI on frightened human peasants or goblin children.




The grizzled dragonborn fighter stood 10 feet away from the rabbit, eyes steady, sword level.

"Come and get it," he sneered.  "Come and get it if you DARE, you miserable little..."

And with a roar, the rabbit attacked!

I could get behind a campaign like that.  Four regular characters, and a fighter with obvious mental problems.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> That seems like an awfully big restriction, if the power doesn't grant a movement ability the creature lacks, are you saying that CAGI only works on enemies that natively have the ability to shift 2 spaces at a time? That would mean it only works on... um... What can shift multiple squares at will? Grimlocks can't, yet you say it works on them. Perhaps the power does grant a movement ability the target doesn't normally posses...




Now ladies and gentlemen, THIS is a strawman!  With this nonsense, I guess the easiest way to beat a castle would be to declare it an enemy and stand within 15' of a corner, then use CAGI to draw the walls off its foundation and collapse the castle!  You could at least pretend to be serious. 



> If my fighter is trying to kill rabbits or clams he doesn't count as an enemy to them, and thus vice versa? Killing them is not a hostile action? So a clam bake is technically a 'friendly fire' incident?



The DMG which, along with the other 4e books, you clearly haven't read covers the defintion 'enemy' with the "legitimate targets" rule.  Keeping stuffing that straw, its working great for you.  You don't, at all, sound like someone with no clue what they are talking about



> Or is that they would rather run than fight? If so you seem to be saying a fighter could not use CAGI on frightened human peasants or goblin children.



Yes, that's exactly what I (and the rules) am saying.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

I kind iof feel like using the power and not narrating it in ways that make sense (to your game and group) is a bit like running an OoTS style campaign... Like when the Paladins use Detect Evil, and just yell it out showing they understand that they are part of a  game.

The Detect evil power of a paladin seems silly if used in that style... "Scaning for evil captain!"

But if yo do it more in a way that works narratively it seems cool... I use detect evill... "You sense the overwhelming presence of evil in this creature... So much so you're almost overcome by nausia..."


----------



## Andor (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Yeah, that's it, you nailed it.  All TRUE roleplayers must hate 4e since TRUE IMMERSION has been dumped in favor of a tactical minis video game.  TRUE IMMERSION comes from rules, not the players of the game.  No one who plays 4e can be TRUE HARDCORE GAMERS, since the system doesn't, in any way, support a playstyle that relies on the imagination for immersion.
> 
> You really think immersion comes from rules telling you to immerse?  "Roll a d20, on a 12+ you are immersed, no save."  Many of us TRUE HARDCORE GAMERS find 4e more immersive than 3e because the rules get out of the way and let us play and the system encourages the DM to be more fluid, to say 'yes', to adjudicate on the fly.  It's comments like yours that piss people off and keep this nonsense going in unconstructive ways.




When the system actively interferes with immersion then yes, it does not seem to be as geared towards deep roleplaying as ones that do not _actively interfere_ with immersion.

GM: The Goblin strikes at you. Take 9 damage.
PC: That bloodies me. Ok. Thaglec stumbles back clutching his wounded arm then he..
GM: No, I don't want to call that a wound in case it gets healed by an inspiring word. 
PC: What?
GM: If it gets healed by the cleric, then it was a wound. If it get healed by the warlord, or resting it was just shaken morale.
PC: But Thaglec is a foppish swashbuckler, when do I get to make quips about ruining my wardrobe while running people through?
GM: Just wait till after the battle then retcon in your dialouge.
PC: ...

Or better yet please explain to me how a PC would describe from a first person perspective what it feels like to get healed by a healing strike from a cleric of Pelor. Remember that it only works if it draws blood (or shakes morale).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> When the system actively interferes with immersion then yes, it does not seem to be as geared towards deep roleplaying as ones that do not _actively interfere_ with immersion.
> 
> GM: The Goblin strikes at you. Take 9 damage.
> PC: That bloodies me. Ok. Thaglec stumbles back clutching his wounded arm then he..
> ...




4E doesn't sweat the little details that immersion-heads seem to require. It even says it does not. "4E: we don't sweat the little details. Just play the damn game already!" Its built right into the core of the system. Its like complaining that tires are black. 

This doesn't sit right with some people, but thats just too bad. The last time around, D&D did sweat the little details and it bothered the living s*** out of me. Just gummed up the game for no good reason. I care more about having the game run well than the stupid little details. 

If you want to discuss whether or not the ignoring of little details is a good or bad thing, thats fine. That is not what we have here.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> When the system actively interferes with immersion then yes, it does not seem to be as geared towards deep roleplaying as ones that do not _actively interfere_ with immersion.
> 
> GM: The Goblin strikes at you. Take 9 damage.
> PC: That bloodies me. Ok. Thaglec stumbles back clutching his wounded arm then he..
> ...




yes... if all players are not on the same page and/or are attempting to cause a silly OoTS style situation to occur then yes... that situation will occur.


----------



## phloog (Nov 21, 2008)

I think the 'making a castle move' example IS a bit silly...and MAYBE the 'using it on some creature that doesn't move' is extending it too far...but maybe not, and it's part of the oddness.

I have heard people supporting the CAGI thing say that ONE way of interpreting it is that opponents weren't really where they were originally depicted on the grid.  I think I remember someone saying 'No, the superwise wizard didn't get fooled, but he was already too close, SEE? (moves figure)'

In this instance, there is an argument for CAGI affecting ALL targets, because the PC is influencing the narrative as some have said - essentially rewriting the situation in terms of where enemies were placed (in the case of unmoving creatures, changing where they ALWAYS were retroactively).

This isn't me saying anything pro or anti-4e, just pointing out that I THINK that based on some of the arguments made here, CAGI could absolutely be used on creatures that can't move, leading to a bit of oddness, but a bit of oddness that MANY (just not me and a few others) have no problem with.  To each their own.


----------



## Andor (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Now ladies and gentlemen, THIS is a strawman!  With this nonsense, I guess the easiest way to beat a castle would be to declare it an enemy and stand within 15' of a corner, then use CAGI to draw the walls off its foundation and collapse the castle!  You could at least pretend to be serious.




*sigh* You said CAGI would not work on a Purple Fungus beause they can't move, therefore they cannot slide 2.

In point of fact almost _nothing_ can slide 2 natively. 

So either the CAGI power itself provides the 'slide 2' movement, or... I dunno what the alternative is.

If there was a monster with a speed of one standing  3squares away from the fighter would CAGI or not? Why so?

Since the 'flavor' of the power I keep seeing is 'Oh look an opening' why does it make creature with reach move adjacent to the fighter? How about people armed only with bows? 

Does CAGI work on:
An ogre with reach?
A halfling with a sling?
A kobold with a longspear?
An enemy trying to run away? (Possible on a readied action)
A warlock with no melee weapon?
A Purple Fungus?
An aboleth in the water 3 squares away from a fighter on land?

Does it work if the fighter in invisible and silenced? Does it work on sleeping foes?


----------



## Andor (Nov 21, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 4E doesn't sweat the little details that immersion-heads seem to require. It even says it does not. "4E: we don't sweat the little details. Just play the damn game already!" Its built right into the core of the system. Its like complaining that tires are black.
> 
> This doesn't sit right with some people, but thats just too bad. The last time around, D&D did sweat the little details and it bothered the living s*** out of me. Just gummed up the game for no good reason. I care more about having the game run well than the stupid little details.
> 
> If you want to discuss whether or not the ignoring of little details is a good or bad thing, thats fine. That is not what we have here.




I agree with you absolutely. I was trying to make a point to Thasmodius who appeared to be claiming that 4e in no way interferes with immersion.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> I agree with you absolutely. I was trying to make a point to Thasmodius who appeared to be claiming that 4e in no way interferes with immersion.




It interferes with immersion if the little details bother you. It does not interfere with immersion if you don't care. I don't care. Immersion and 4E are subjective.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 21, 2008)

I think a lot of this current discussion can be (and already has been) summed up in saying that 4E is giving players a new form of narrative control that hasn't existed before. Thus *Come and Get It* doesn't have to be explained a magical, it's just that now the player gets some new authority over how the game world runs that they didn't have earlier. That's it, full stop.

I think the people who are objecting to it the strongest basically fall into two categories: those for who this is entirely new for, and those who simply don't want that play style in their D&D.

For the first group: I'd suggest that they try some other games where this is commonplace. *Feng Shui*, *Donjon* or *Spirit of the Century* immediately come to mind, as does the *HERO *system or even* Mutants and Masterminds*. All of those games give the players significant control over what and how actions are resolved in ways that D&D traditionally hasn't. I'd say try one or more of those other games and then see if it causes 4E to either "click," or turns you into someone in group two.

For the second group, those who say "I know what's going on, I just don't like that in my D&D," I'd say you can either feel free to house rule those cases or move on to another game. Complaining about it on a message board comes in a distant third. Yes, I know that *Come and Get It* might make your monsters do something they wouldn't like to, and that you don't like that. No, there isn't an explanation for it that won't sound magical to you, and that's something fighters shouldn't do. Yes, you can use any number of powers to trip an ooze, something that makes no logical sense. If you're going to play 4E you have to accept those things or house rule them. Either one is okay.

That might come off as dismissive, and that's not what I intended, because that's precisely what I did with earlier editions of D&D. I houseruled the heck out of OD&D and AD&D, and when I found a system that was more to my taste (Champions and Fantasy Hero) I eventually left the ship for it.

When 3E came out, I found that a lot of the things I had left the game over were gone, so I came back to it as well. I am one of those people who likes the new narrative structure to 4E, so to me, it's getting better. There are, of course, things I don't like about 4E, and when I start a full-on campaign with it I'll be house ruling them just like before.

What it all comes down to (in my mind, anyway) is that there is a new mindset to the new edition, and that means there will be people who can't or won't wrap their mind around the new way. There's nothing wrong with that, and nothing inherently right about liking the new way, but in one case you should play and enjoy 4E, and in the other you should play something else that you actually enjoy. When 5E comes out, you might like what you see, and the game will still be there for you.

All of this discussion comes down to people trying to find an explanation for how a power works that will suspend everyones sense of disbelief. That's not going to happen, just like it didn't happen in earlier editions. That's why I left the game years ago. If this was a new phenomenon there would have been no *Arduin*, *Runequest*, *Tunnels and Trolls*, *Fantasy Trip* or any number of other games created to be "D&D done right," years ago.

--Steve


----------



## Andor (Nov 21, 2008)

SteveC said:


> For the second group, those who say "I know what's going on, I just don't like that in my D&D," I'd say you can either feel free to house rule those cases or move on to another game. Complaining about it on a message board comes in a distant third. Yes, I know that *Come and Get It* might make your monsters do something they wouldn't like to, and that you don't like that. No, there isn't an explanation for it that won't sound magical to you, and that's something fighters shouldn't do. Yes, you can use any number of powers to trip an ooze, something that makes no logical sense. If you're going to play 4E you have to accept those things or house rule them. Either one is okay.
> 
> That might come off as dismissive, and that's not what I intended, because that's precisely what I did with earlier editions of D&D. I houseruled the heck out of OD&D and AD&D, and when I found a system that was more to my taste (Champions and Fantasy Hero) I eventually left the ship for it.




It's not dismissive, I think you're right on. I have issues with 4e. I'm capable of getting past those and playing the game. 

What I personally object to is someone trying to insist that 4e is the holy golden be all and end all of gaming and that all perceived flaws (even typos) lie solely in the deranged and malformed minds of a few willfully obtuse madmen. While I agree with them that there are people being willfully obtuse, I don't think those people lie in the '4e isn't for me but I'm willing to live and let live' camp.


----------



## Halivar (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> When the system actively interferes with immersion then yes, it does not seem to be as geared towards deep roleplaying as ones that do not _actively interfere_ with immersion.



That standard is subjective. As such, I can assure you that at my table (and plenty of tohers), 4E does not actively interfere any more than 3.x did.



Andor said:


> GM: The Goblin strikes at you. Take 9 damage.
> PC: That bloodies me. Ok. Thaglec stumbles back clutching his wounded arm then he..
> GM: No, I don't want to call that a wound in case it gets healed by an inspiring word.
> PC: What?
> ...



The GM in your hypothetical dialogue is being pedantic. I would never play at this table.



Andor said:


> Or better yet please explain to me how a PC would describe from a first person perspective what it feels like to get healed by a healing strike from a cleric of Pelor. Remember that it only works if it draws blood (or shakes morale).



It looks like the radiant glow of divine power, exploding from the hammer head and bathing the party in healing light. For me.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> If there was a monster with a speed of one standing  3squares away from the fighter would CAGI or not?



Yes.



> Why so?



Because the monster _runs_ at the fighter, adding +2 to his movement speed.



> An ogre with reach?



Yes. "Seeing the smirking fighter, the ogre advances to within biting distance, Mike Tyson-style."



> A halfling with a sling?



Yes. "Doubting the efficacy of his sling at close quarters, the kobold draws his dagger and turns to meet the advancing fighter."



> A kobold with a longspear?



Yes. "Doubting the efficacy of his pole-arm at close quarters, and without a phalanx of fellow soldiers, the kobold draws his dagger and turns to meet the advancing fighter." 



> An enemy trying to run away?



The use of CAGI means that, for the given round, the enemy has chosen to _not_ run away. 



> A warlock with no melee weapon?



Yes. "Full of Hellish/Elvish/Cthuloid horror-ish rage, the warlock turns to meet the fighter, assuming he can teleport away if things go badly."



> A Purple Fungus?



No. That's just common sense. 



> An aboleth in the water 3 squares away from a fighter on land?



So long as it can get closer, yes. 



> Does it work if the fighter in invisible and silenced?



No. That's just common sense.



> Does it work on sleeping foes?



Nope. See above.

This isn't particularly hard...


----------



## Imaro (Nov 21, 2008)

SteveC said:


> I think a lot of this current discussion can be (and already has been) summed up in saying that 4E is giving players a new form of narrative control that hasn't existed before. Thus *Come and Get It* doesn't have to be explained a magical, it's just that now the player gets some new authority over how the game world runs that they didn't have earlier. That's it, full stop.
> --Steve




I've seen quite a few pro 4e posters espouse this idea...but where is it backed up at in the books.  Do the 4e core rules talk about and explain this as the style in which D&D 4e is suppose to be played?  Because the other games that people seem to like drawing comparisons to take the time to explain this type of gamestyle as they're default.  4e, to my knowledge (and I might be wrong) doesn't talk about this at all.  this could or could not be the style that 4e was intended to be played by the designers, but I think if it is, that it was shoddy and a bit lazy not to spend some pagecount on making this explicit and explaining it as the new style of D&D.

Of course the other option is that the designers didn't plan on this being D&D's new style and thus didn't explain it, instead they believed that the game part of D&D was the most important and instead of narrative control, just made game elements they believed were fun without consideration for narrative or simulation (Also believing that most gamers would like the mechanics so much, nothing else would matter) If this is true, fans who argue the narative angle are just glossing over the fact that it's pure gamist functionality that's being strived for.  The funnny thing is I have seen plenty of gamist comments by the designers, but I find it hard to remember any about narative control or the like.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> It's not dismissive, I think you're right on. I have issues with 4e. I'm capable of getting past those and playing the game.
> 
> What I personally object to is someone trying to insist that 4e is the holy golden be all and end all of gaming and that all perceived flaws (even typos) lie solely in the deranged and malformed minds of a few willfully obtuse madmen. While I agree with them that there are people being willfully obtuse, I don't think those people lie in the '4e isn't for me but I'm willing to live and let live' camp.




Pro-4E people getting silly is provoked from having to deal with willfully obtuse madmen. In addition, to a lot of people who don't lose sleep over fiddling details, 4E is the best RPG they've come across, and are enthusiastic as a result.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I've seen quite a few pro 4e posters espouse this idea...but where is it backed up at in the books.



Everywhere the books describe a martial exploit that's under the player's control. 



> ...instead they believed that the game part of D&D was the most important and instead of narrative control, just made game elements they believed were fun without consideration for narrative or simulation



The DMG disproves this.

Imaro, really, it's great that you don't like the new edition. Cool beans. No harm, no foul. But you're going to have a tough time trying to demonstrate that the designers of 4e were careless or clueless in their design. They merely designed something you don't care for.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> Or better yet please explain to me how a PC would describe from a first person perspective what it feels like to get healed by a healing strike from a cleric of Pelor. Remember that it only works if it draws blood (or shakes morale).




PC of Pelor: I use healign strike (roll roll roll a hit!) "Do not fear my friends for Pelor guides our weapons! We cannot loose this battle!" 

DM: Magnor swings his mighty hammer down onto the head of his foe, feeling the crunch of a direct hit. (turning to Doroth who received the healing)Doroth feels himself bolstered at the though of Pelor fighting by his side...

PC Doroth: "For Pelor!"

The PC receiving the healing smash probably feels the exact same thing any fanatic feels when something goes in his favor... Your team gets a touch-down "yeahhhh!!!  Hustle hustle!"


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> When the system actively interferes with immersion then yes, it does not seem to be as geared towards deep roleplaying as ones that do not _actively interfere_ with immersion.
> 
> GM: The Goblin strikes at you. Take 9 damage.
> PC: That bloodies me. Ok. Thaglec stumbles back clutching his wounded arm then he..
> ...




Again, you aptly demonstrate that you haven't read and don't understand the game you are trying to attack.  



> Or better yet please explain to me how a PC would describe from a first person perspective what it feels like to get healed by a healing strike from a cleric of Pelor. Remember that it only works if it draws blood (or shakes morale).




Really?  That's a challenge?

Cleric: I call for Pelor's Divine Blessing upon Joe the Fighter.  A flash of sunlight seems to envelop me then disappears.  I channel the divine gift through my weapon and strike at the ogre.  *hit - numbers*  A bright flash of sunlight seems to envelop both Joe and the ogre with the strike.  The blessing is fulfilled and the gift bestowed on Joe.

Joe:  As the mote of sunlight hits me, I feel a surge of divine power course through my tired muscles.  I look across at Cleric and grin, this is going to be a long six seconds for the ogre...


----------



## Imaro (Nov 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Everywhere the books describe a martial exploit that's under the player's control.




So narrative control is explained and talked about under every martial exploit?  Are you being serious here or just snarky because the books don't talk about it?




Mallus said:


> The DMG disproves this.




Uhm...how?  Especially when the PHB is chocked full of gamist, mini on grid, tactical, powery gamist elements??  I'm not claiming it's a bad thing, mind you, but really...let's call it how it is.   Sorta like how you seem full of snark and short on any type of evidence.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I've seen quite a few pro 4e posters espouse this idea...but where is it backed up at in the books.  Do the 4e core rules talk about and explain this as the style in which D&D 4e is suppose to be played?





Supposed to be played? 

D&D is (and has always been in my eyes) supposed to be played in the way that is most fun for your group. The idea of "supposed to be played" is such a strange concept to me.

Am I not allowed to play the game if I do so in a difefrent way then the designers do so? 

If it's more fun for you to play it in a way that describes all the powers as magical in nature... Awesome!

If it'as more fun for you to describe the powers in a way that is mundane in effect... Equally awesome!

Play the game in whatever style is fun. Who cares how it's supposed to be fun.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 21, 2008)

Andor said:


> *sigh* You said CAGI would not work on a Purple Fungus beause they can't move, therefore they cannot slide 2.




Correct.  It's clear from a reading of the rules.



> In point of fact almost _nothing_ can slide 2 natively.




Anything that can move can slide.  And many powers push, pull and slide more than 1 square.  CAGI is one of them.



> If there was a monster with a speed of one standing  3squares away from the fighter would CAGI or not? Why so?




Yes, because the rules of forced movement apply to anything that can move.  If a human is slowed to a move of 2, it can still be pushed 5 by a warlord power.



> Since the 'flavor' of the power I keep seeing is 'Oh look an opening' why does it make creature with reach move adjacent to the fighter? How about people armed only with bows?



  Why not?



> Does CAGI work on:
> An ogre with reach?
> A halfling with a sling?
> A kobold with a longspear?
> ...




Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, yes.  



> Does it work if the fighter in invisible and silenced? Does it work on sleeping foes?



  I would say yes to the first, but narrate it differently and no, it doesn't work on sleeping, unconscious, or immobile foes.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Ev
> Imaro, really, it's great that you don't like the new edition. Cool beans. No harm, no foul. But you're going to have a tough time trying to demonstrate that the designers of 4e were careless or clueless in their design. They merely designed something you don't care for.





And this is a big assumption, especially since I've convinced my group to give 4e another go starting this Sunday.

 I never said their design was careless or cluelss (please don't put words in my mouth.)  What I'm questioning is if those goals and designs are being misrepresented by fans who (desperate to make 4e the ultimate game system in every aspect) have decided their own take on 4e is the way the designers thought.  Especially when I'm not seeing evidence of this anywhere.

  It's not that I don't care for 4e, I like it now that I accept it for the type of fun it brings me and my group...but I'm also not blindly making up stuff or intepreting things without some proof to defend 4e against all criticism.  I want a better game next time, and I will harp on 4e's flaws because I don't think it's perfect, and at this point I'm not even sure if it's better or equal to 3.5...but that doesn't mean I won't play it.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Are you being serious here or just snarky because the books don't talk about it?



I'm being serious. The whole powers system makes the most sense when viewed in terms of narrative control transfer. So I viewed it as such. I didn't see the need for that to be stated explicitly (because, again, it's implicit in the way the whole thing is set up). 



> Uhm...how?  Especially when the PHB is chocked full of gamist, mini on grid, tactical, powery gamist elements??



Notice I wrote *DMG*, not *PHB*. Yes, the PHB is much more concerned with the gamist part of the game (weren't they always?).


----------



## Herschel (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> ...I guess the easiest way to beat a castle would be to declare it an enemy and stand within 15' of a corner, then use CAGI to draw the walls off its foundation and collapse the castle!




There's a living tower in "House of Strahd". 

Just sayin'.....


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 21, 2008)

The title of this thread amuses me, especially pertaining to how every conversation regarding 4e seems to inevitably slide (Hah hah!) into "Your problem isn't a problem; 4e has no flaws."

Case in point.

Just a nugget of food for thought, 4e wouldn't have come to be if people didn't have complaints _just like this_ about 3e.  What would've happened if those complainers simply stopped complaining when they were told 3e had no flaws?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 21, 2008)

Aside from 4E being named D&D, a name it shared with 3E, I think the lack of support for simulationism and high-maintenance immersionism is crystal clear. I'm pretty sure the books tell you in plain english that the game doesn't sweat the small details, and you shouldn't either. The previews and development blurbs leading up to 4E certainly did. 

Some people act like they read 4E and are surprised that simulationism and minute details and consistency are gone.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I never said their design was careless or cluelss (please don't put words in my mouth.)



"instead they believed that the game part of D&D was the most important and instead of narrative control, just made game elements they believed were fun *without consideration for narrative or simulation*" -- you. 

I was paraphrasing (but I didn't mean to misrepresent what you wrote). 



> What I'm questioning is if those goals and designs are being misrepresented by fans...



What I'm questioning is when people seem to be deliberately problematizing what look to me like clear design goals/choices. 



> ...but I'm also not blindly making up stuff or intepreting things without some proof to defend 4e against all criticism.



I don't think 4e is proof against all criticism. Hell, my group isn't close to done formulating our critique of the system. But I do like to chip in when people make a big fuss over problems that, from my POV, they're basically inventing (like quantum wounding... sheesh). 



> I want a better game next time...



And on this we can agree!


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Just a nugget of food for thought, 4e wouldn't have come to be if people didn't have complaints _just like this_ about 3e.  What would've happened if those complainers simply stopped complaining when they were told 3e had no flaws?




Sure... when it's a problem with things like the system math (when people pointed out that skil chalenge DCs were bad) constructive criticism is great... 

For things like how people notice the game plays out throughout the course of a number of years, constructive criticsm is great...

But complaining about a system being broken because of what amounts to how you narrate something (half the time before you've even used it in the first place...) seems kind of weird to me.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> "instead they believed that the game part of D&D was the most important and instead of narrative control, just made game elements they believed were fun *without consideration for narrative or simulation*" -- you.
> 
> I was paraphrasing (but I didn't mean to misrepresent what you wrote).




Okay, how am I saying their design was bad in any way when 99.9% (yes this is exaggeration) of people who love 4e have already said simulation was given small, if any, consideration. What I'm saying is that heavy doses of narrative control and simulation probably were not a concern for them in designing and developing 4e.



Mallus said:


> "What I'm questioning is when people seem to be deliberately problematizing what look to me like clear design goals/choices.




Well is it gamist or narrative driven?... personally I think it's purely gamist, and I can accept it as such in the same way I can accept the Cadwallon rpg... but I also feel that many fans are pounding the red circle of gamism into the square peg of narrative based gaming... and was wondering if the designers had commented on this or if there was anything explicit concerning it in the books...sorry this got to you so badly.


----------



## Andor (Nov 21, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Correct.  It's clear from a reading of the rules.
> 
> Anything that can move can slide.  And many powers push, pull and slide more than 1 square.  CAGI is one of them.
> 
> Yes, because the rules of forced movement apply to anything that can move.  If a human is slowed to a move of 2, it can still be pushed 5 by a warlord power.




Actually I don't see anything in forced movement that requires the target be mobile. All it says is "Forced Movement doesn't count against a target's ability to move on it's turn. A target's speed is irrelevant to the distance you move it." So a speed of 0 or '-' should still be subject to such powers. It's also clearly stated that you can force move someone off a cliff.  

If this was a wizard or swordmage power this discussion would never have happened. There would be no doubt that an invisible, silenced wizard could slide a purple fungus. It's only the narrative disconnect that follows from having such a power come from a supposedly mundane source that causes a problem. 

*shrug* 

If you have no problem with a cleric of a good god vampireing hp from foes and loaning them to friends, good for you. 

If you can imagine a fighter knowing an insult so vile it will force a golem to disobey it's programming and attack the fighter instead of the mage it was ordered to kill, also good for you.

If you can imagine both those things yet not imagine where someone else might perceive the disconnect between the gamist and narrativist elements in the design of those powers...  I dunno.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Well is it gamist or narrative driven?... personally I think it's purely gamist, and I can accept it as such in the same way I can accept the Cadwallon rpg... but I also feel that many fans are pounding the red circle of gamism into the square peg of narrative based gaming... and was wondering if the designers had commented on this or if there was anything explicit concerning it in the books...sorry this got to you so badly.





One of the reasons why I dislike the whole narrativist gamist simmulationist thing... Or at least feel "Narrativist" shouldn't be on the compass like that... Narrative seems like it has ultimate power so to speak... You can achieve the same narrative with either gamist or simmulationist elements.It's layered on top of either "style." It doesn't control anything, it's achieved through use of the other two.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 21, 2008)

Scribble said:


> One of the reasons why I dislike the whole narrativist gamist simmulationist thing... Or at least feel "Narrativist" shouldn't be on the compass like that... Narrative seems like it has ultimate power so to speak... You can achieve the same narrative with either gamist or simmulationist elements.It's layered on top of either "style." It doesn't control anything, it's achieved through use of the other two.




The three aren't exactly equal, or independant for that matter, particularly narrativism. Gamism and simulationism don't inherently interfere with narrativism, but generally interfere with each other to a great degree. Simulationism gets murky when it comes to narrativism. Some people find the clunkiness and slowdown of simulationism to interfere with narrative play by ruining the pace of the game. Others can't immerse themselves into the narrative without moderate to heavy simulationism.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Just a nugget of food for thought, 4e wouldn't have come to be if people didn't have complaints just like this about 3e. What would've happened if those complainers simply stopped complaining when they were told 3e had no flaws?




Maybe the flaws of 3.x were so big that even the designers working at WotC could see them? 

Or maybe 4e came because an edition can only make so much money before the well dries up and the books released become niche products that do not generate enough revenue to sustain a company of WotC's size?


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I wouldn't say never. If your bad dude walked into a bar full of robots which were not programmed to respond to such commands (golems) or islanders who only spoke an obscure foreign language would the power still work? If so why?




Even if they didn't speak the language, they are likely to understand body languague of someone challenging them to a fight. If it's unintelligent undead, maybe you make yourself appear a bit more appetizing for their "tastes".

Anyone you are fighting against in D&D is going to have some reason for attacking you in the first place. While an argument could be made that there should be some creatures TOO intelligent to go after the fighter ... a creature being "too stupid" to go after the fighter doesn't necessarily exist, because if it wouldn't attack the fighter why is it attacking the group in the first place?

The big thing though is ... having a power that, in a FEW circumstances, doesn't make sense was deemed better than having to track a list of examples and counterexamples. If each power had to be crossreferenced to monsters that it would or would not work against, it would make it "make sense", at the cost of making the game a LOT more complicated for players and DMs.

There are a couple of exceptions where they leave certain monster types out of the situation (for example grabbing and pushing, etc sometimes have size restrictions involved to avoid grabbing or pushing around really big creatures. However that has to do with "how easy is it to define the exceptional monsters?"

Basically, it would be a lot more work to create a way to define when the power doesn't work than to just let it always work. Similarly, they could make the power only work part of the time, but then they are just putting a power into the book that says "unless your DM decides to let you use this, just pick a different power". [Which _is_ another option for people that hate "magical, but only in specific situations, but because there is at least one situation, even if that situation never comes up, the power is magical" powers ... just don't use them. There are a number of other powers available to choose from]. Part of the design of 4e was addressing problems that SOME PLAYERS had with 3.5. Anyone that has played a rogue has run into at least a few monsters with "character resistance: rogue" that disables one of your defining class features, and your main source of dealing out damage. Having players that stop working against certain types of monsters was not fun, for some players. Instead of having powers that onl work some of the time, they had works that work all the time [but only to a limited number of times 1/enc or 1/day], and make sense most of the time.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Just a nugget of food for thought, 4e wouldn't have come to be if people didn't have complaints _just like this_ about 3e.  What would've happened if those complainers simply stopped complaining when they were told 3e had no flaws?




I think this is an interesting point. For me, the problems with 3E only became problems at higher levels, and were compounded when additional splat material was introduced.

I think that a number of design decisions for 3E work very well up to a certain point, and that the original designers had a good handle on how everything fit together. The problem was that most of the system's design rules weren't explicitly spelled out, and when the original designers moved on, a number of new people came in who didn't understand the ground rules.

Power creep + poor system management = bloated out of control rules.

Will 4E be any better? I believe they have made the new system's design rules more transparent, so I hope the result will be better. I don't believe that Martial Power is unbalanced in terms of the core PHB (from what I've read), so they have at least started off well.

--Steve


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 22, 2008)

Andor said:


> When the system actively interferes with immersion then yes, it does not seem to be as geared towards deep roleplaying as ones that do not _actively interfere_ with immersion.
> 
> GM: The Goblin strikes at you. Take 9 damage.
> PC: That bloodies me. Ok. Thaglec stumbles back clutching his wounded arm then he..
> ...




Once wounded, you will never stop bleeding without magic ... all the fighters have the inability to clot. As your warlord sees you bleeding there, they yells out to suck it up and put some dirt on it. Your friend's words help you keep your focus, and you try to keep concious long enough to get to the end of the fight and tend to your wounds more seriously.

You have a limited number of healing surges per day ... they allow you to "patch up" wounds and fight through the pain. However, it takes magic to give you a significant ammount of REAL healing without using a surge. However, without getting a full night's sleep, you can't "heal" indefinitely.



> Or better yet please explain to me how a PC would describe from a first person perspective what it feels like to get healed by a healing strike from a cleric of Pelor. Remember that it only works if it draws blood (or shakes morale).




Your ally smacks the enemy in the face, and you feel that it is possible to win, and thus you suck it up and keep going.

You may have gotten hit with a wound. But, JUST LIKE IN ANY VERSION OF D&D the wound didn't cause you to start bleeding. You were not on the ground dying, and you weren't taking damage every turn, so the wound, while painful, is not life threatening in and of itself. You aren't at the risk of bleeding to death JUST LIKE IN EVERY OTHER VERSION OF THE GAME. So, when you get "healed", you just raise your pain threshold once more, prolonging the time before you collapse, going into shock, and perhaps even die.

Death by three failed saves: Went into shock, slipped into coma and died
Death by reaching negative bloodied: Outright slain by a single blow ... see also coup de gras.


----------



## cangrejoide (Nov 22, 2008)

Wow after fianlly reading this whole thread I have just one thing to ask...

When did imagination died for you guys?


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 22, 2008)

Andor said:


> An ogre with reach?




Does he have threatening reach? If not, he has a reason to want to get close.



> A halfling with a sling?




He may also have a melee weapon. He may be able to provide a flank. If you are about to pass out, he has to be next to you to coup de gras. The more enemies that surround you, the less chance YOU have to run away. It may not be advantageous for him on his own, but if all the nearby enemies are surrounding you, they can box you in and keep you from moving, because of a lot of OAs, and perhaps even not giving you any places to move to. This applies to most of the rest, so I'll only go with the exceptions.



> An enemy trying to run away? (Possible on a readied action)




He seems to be having a hard time running away if he's within range of the power. Also, his reason for running away might also be a reason to try to finish the fighter off when the fighter seems to be on the brink of dropping.



> A warlock with no melee weapon?




In addition to the above, the warlock has access to some close powers. Not to mention, warlocks often have the ability to teleport away, so they could get in close, give someone a flank, and then pop away without worrying about getting away from the sticky fighter.



> A Purple Fungus?




A purple fungus cannot shift. The power does not SLIDE. It does not PULL. It forces the opponent to shift. It gives someone WITH THE ABILITY TO MOVE enough movement/speed to be able to shift 2 squares, even though most can only shift 1. Since a purple fungus can't move, it can't shift, and thus "fails" to shift towards the fighter.



> An aboleth in the water 3 squares away from a fighter on land?




If you can see the aboleth (a requirement of the power) it can concievably see you as well. Since the aboleth is an enemy/involved in a fight with you, it does want to fight you. Heck, it wants to get in close and get a flank to get free attacks because of combat advantage, not to mention the closer it is, the more it's aura is beneficial because the fighter would be very unlikely to get out of the aura while next to the aboleth. Other aboleth might prefer ranged attacks, but they all have auras and close attacks that can be advantageous in moving next to the fighter.



> Does it work if the fighter in invisible and silenced? Does it work on sleeping foes?




On invisible and silenced: MOST invisibility spells would involve you becoming visible when you attack. Also, monsters can "find" you while invisible using their perception against stealth. If you deliberately failed your stealth, they would be able to find the fighter. In the case of invisible and silenced ... you may drop something that becomes visible because it's no longer on your person, or you may emit some odour to let creatures with scent find you. By "giving away" your position, the enemies try to swarm around you and thus box you in and keep you in place, because then it's easier to attack you since they know where you are.

On sleeping foes: Sleeping foes can't move, see fungus.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 22, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 4E doesn't sweat the little details that immersion-heads seem to require. It even says it does not. "4E: we don't sweat the little details. Just play the damn game already!" Its built right into the core of the system. Its like complaining that tires are black.




I don't have a problem with that. I just find 4e, with its dozens of powers and bonuses and sliding and pushing and stuff to be a big drag in that department.


----------



## rounser (Nov 22, 2008)

> A purple fungus cannot shift.  The power does not SLIDE. It does not PULL. It forces the opponent to shift.



Just as it does not slide nor pull, this purple fungus does not tarry to the east.  It is not wearing overalls.  It does not hum a sea shanty as it forces it's opponent to shift.  

As far as you can tell, this purple fungus has not made a hat out of a barracuda and deigned to wear it.

Num num num num num...


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Dominate Person allowed players to take control of NPCs in a far more long-lasting (1 day/level) and far more customizable way. Saying that Come and Get It gives players the ability to control NPCs in a way they never have before is ignoring the previous versions of the game. But I'm guessing this will be waved away as okay, since "a wizard did it."




It does so with a saving throw.  That's an important difference.



mmadsen said:


> Wow.  Just _wow_.
> 
> Of course it's going to be "waved way as okay, since a wizard did it," because it makes perfect sense -- in the game world -- that a wizard with a mind-control spell would mind-control someone.




What part of "Some bad guys move in close to the fighter and he strikes at them" doesn't make sense in the game world?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 22, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> It does so with a saving throw.  That's an important difference.



It appears to be so. But then, why do we grant a dice roll this kind of power over an NPC? Is there something inherent to it that makes it more believable to us? Or is it just our years or decades of trainings that this is what saves do and how such powers work? 

In literature, I often have the impression that there are no "saves" against mental domination. If the enemy wizard wants to dominate you, he just does. Only if your friends try to speak you out of it you get your chance to resist it And how often does that fail? Is there really a save or are the friends using their Per Episode "Break Enchantment" power that automatically frees you?

You see where I am aiming at - we are more or less conditioned to assume that these powers are handled via saves or attacks. But the stories that employ these powers often don't hint at that at all, things just work. But they are not used all the time. SOmething is limiting that. Maybe a specific ritual is required, maybe the protagonists need first to find out the right words. But does this have to be described as attack rolls or skill checks, or can't it just as well be described with the characters using a power that is limited by encounter or day or another, arbitrary timeframe?


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 22, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> What part of "Some bad guys move in close to the fighter and he strikes at them" doesn't make sense in the game world?



It's not _Some bad guys move in close to the fighter and he strikes at them_.  Bad guys can close in on the fighter and get attacked just fine without _come and get in_ getting invoked.  It's _*All* bad guys are *compelled* to move in close to the fighter_, whether or not they could, of their own volition, make that move, and regardless of their nature and disposition.

Just _what exactly_ is the fighter doing?  If it's fundamentally different each time -- and it seems like it would have to be -- then what does it mean for a character to have _come and get it_ on his character sheet?  Is there any in-game explanation?  Or is it just a board-game power?


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But then, why do we grant a dice roll this kind of power over an NPC?



Presumably because (a) such mental domination is not a sure thing, and (b) stronger-willed individuals are harder to dominate than weaker-willed individuals.


Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> In literature, I often have the impression that there are no "saves" against mental domination.



Really?  I'd consider it a staple of fantasy/SF fiction that most people immediately succumb to mind control, but a few strong-willed heroes -- and villains -- shrug it off.  "Your jedi mind tricks won't work on me."

If you don't think there's any uncertainty to it, you might take the d20 roll out of the equation and have everyone Take 10.


Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Only if your friends try to speak you out of it you get your chance to resist it.  And how often does that fail?



I would agree that help from friends should give the victim multiple saves to break the spell, but I don't think it should be necessary.  I'm pretty sure Conan broke an enchantment or two just by being an uncivilized barbarian, free by nature, and I'm pretty sure friends have failed to save the weak-willed against, say, Dracula's charms.


----------



## phloog (Nov 22, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Pro-4E people getting silly is provoked from having to deal with willfully obtuse madmen. In addition, to a lot of people who don't lose sleep over fiddling details, 4E is the best RPG they've come across, and are enthusiastic as a result.




Can I at least assume that you accept the possibility that there are people who don't lose sleep over 'fiddling details', and still find that 4E is not at all the best RPG system they've come across?


----------



## phloog (Nov 22, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Wow after fianlly reading this whole thread I have just one thing to ask...
> 
> When did imagination died for you guys?




Wow...after finally reading this whole thread all you can contribute is an incorrectly-typed insult?


----------



## Maggan (Nov 22, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> If it's unintelligent undead, maybe you make yourself appear a bit more appetizing for their "tastes".




Easy, just crack your skull open with a mace ... they can't resist the lure of fresh brain! 

/M


----------



## cangrejoide (Nov 22, 2008)

phloog said:


> Wow...after finally reading this whole thread all you can contribute is an incorrectly-typed insult?




So is it dead for you too?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 22, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> So is it dead for you too?





How about you stop suggesting that those who disagree with you lack imagination.  

Everyone - in general we could do without the insults.


----------



## Andor (Nov 22, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Everyone - in general we could do without the insults.[/color]




Well sure, we _could._ But where would the fun be in that?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 22, 2008)

phloog said:


> Can I at least assume that you accept the possibility that there are people who don't lose sleep over 'fiddling details', and still find that 4E is not at all the best RPG system they've come across?




I can accept the possibility. I am just pointing out that the existance and posting habits of willfully obtuse madmen(and we have some) are generally the reason you see some of the pro-4E responses that you see. 

Its called an edition war for a reason. Regardless of a person's individual intent, there are competing agendas, pro and anti 4E, that have taken on a life of their own. It takes such a herculean effort to distance yourself from these agendas that most people don't bother to do so. Some people try to say that they aren't part of it, while their words aren't significantly different than the Edition War attacks. Reasonable dialogue and rhetorical violence in this case are very close and difficult to distinguish. 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that if you post in the edition war, you are a part of it, whether you want to be or not. There are no innocents aside from people who do not post.


----------



## phloog (Nov 22, 2008)

I don't disagree that anyone who posts in these deals is swept up in this 'war', which is a rather grand term for a bunch of folks arguing about Dungeons and Dragons...it's as noble a war as a battle between Deep Space Nine and Enterprise fans...or maybe as ultra-hip-and-cool as a 700+ page dissertation on why Kari Wuhrer ruined Sliders.

In one respect I'm out of the war - - I play in a 3e campaign and run a True20 campaign....but I would like it if enough of this war gets through to WOTC to get them to produce a different game next time.  And I definitely think it's ridiculous that they call 4e an 'evolution', not a 'revolution'.   And as I've said a bazillion times before, just because the rules and the flavor they provide doesn't work for my campaign, doesn't mean I personally think it's a poor game system - it's just not compatible with the fiction of my campaign.  I hold out hope that D&D will take on yet another incarnation in 5e that gets rid of a lot of this stuff that doesn't work for me, but 4th was such a huge shift that I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It appears to be so. But then, why do we grant a dice roll this kind of power over an NPC? Is there something inherent to it that makes it more believable to us? Or is it just our years or decades of trainings that this is what saves do and how such powers work?




It's resolution; there is a conflict, so we roll to see what happens.  It's similar to pretty much any other resolution roll.

There is no roll in Come and Get It; the player of the Fighter uses a resource to dictate NPC action.  The _player_ is using a resource to ensure there is no conflict over whether or not the NPCs jump him.  

Big difference.



mmadsen said:


> It's not _Some bad guys move in close to the fighter and he strikes at them_.  Bad guys can close in on the fighter and get attacked just fine without _come and get in_ getting invoked.  It's _*All* bad guys are *compelled* to move in close to the fighter_, whether or not they could, of their own volition, make that move, and regardless of their nature and disposition.
> 
> Just _what exactly_ is the fighter doing?  If it's fundamentally different each time -- and it seems like it would have to be -- then what does it mean for a character to have _come and get it_ on his character sheet?  Is there any in-game explanation?  Or is it just a board-game power?




The NPCs are only compelled if it is described that way.  There's no roll to be made; the player takes control of the NPCs for a moment (that control is strictly limited).  The player says the NPCs are going to move in to attack him (for whatever reason - it's up to the player to make sense of it) and they do.

What is the fighter actually doing?  That's up for the group to decide.  (The player decides on an description the group can accept.)  The fighter may or may not be compelling them to attack.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 23, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> What is the fighter actually doing?  That's up for the group to decide.  (The player decides on an description the group can accept.)  The fighter may or may not be compelling them to attack.



Let me reiterate my question then.

Just what exactly is the fighter doing? If it's fundamentally different each time -- and it seems like it would have to be -- then *what does it mean for a character to have come and get it on his character sheet?* Is there any in-game explanation? Or is it just a board-game power?


----------



## Campbell (Nov 23, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Let me reiterate my question then.
> 
> Just what exactly is the fighter doing? If it's fundamentally different each time -- and it seems like it would have to be -- then *what does it mean for a character to have come and get it on his character sheet?* Is there any in-game explanation? Or is it just a board-game power?




That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is to view the power is a discrete piece of narrative control related to the character's thematic underpinnings. It's on the character sheet to enable the player to help shape his character's narrative. That perspective will probably not be an improvement if your game play agenda is bound to direct immersion into the game's setting, but some of us consider the fact that 4e can be played in this manner a boon.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 23, 2008)

Campbell said:


> Another way to look at it is to view the power is a discrete piece of narrative control related to the character's thematic underpinnings.



What _thematic underpinnings_ would _come and get it_ exemplify?


----------



## Campbell (Nov 23, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> What _thematic underpinnings_ would _come and get it_ exemplify?




It exemplifies that as a fighter your place is directly in the chaos of battle and it also reflects your ability to direct the flow of a battle towards you.

I will admit that there are times when powers like Come And Get It do not necessarily make sense within the confines of the narrative. I believe in those cases it falls upon the player to carefully consider their use of the narrative power the system has granted them. 

MMadsen,

I get the impression that you are skeptical of the claim that 4e can be approached from a narrative perspective. Do you think I'm being disingenuous ?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 23, 2008)

Personally, I think anything can be justified as "narrative" when there are no tropes or trappings to use as a basis for the narrative... it's like one of those stories a 6 yr old tells you where things happen often illogically, without a basis... it's narrative certainly, but it doesn't make sense that "5 robots show up at the castle of Lord Ven and shoot him with lasers."... that I think is the problem with D&D 4e and the narrative excuse.

What exactly are the trappings and tropes of D&D... there are none, especially in the vaguely defined 4e PoL setting.  As an example, of this done right look at the Angel rpg.  The series shows us that the narrative of an Angel character, especially one whose sub-par (compared to Slayers, vampires with souls, Wiccans on magic speed and cyborgs) often involves them sliding by or even getting one up on a more powerful character through sheer luck, circumstance, etc.  Thus Drama points make sense in an Angel rpg narrative sense.  Not to mention they take the time to explain this within the corebook. 

 Now tell me what is the narrative basis for D&D?  It's all over the place, and a vague setting doesn't help in creating a narrative game...at least so far as what are the narrative tropes.  For some playing D&D their characters narrative should be like Elric, Conan, Fafhrd and Grey Mouser...for others Aragorn and Arwyn...for others Naruto, Kenshin and Jubei. 

 But D&D doesn't take the effort to let you know the basis for it's narrative play and thus why I believe it is gamist in the sense that these really are powers not built around either simulationist or narrative concerns...but around only the game aspect.  Just because you can squint and twist your head just so... to make it look narrativist, doesn't mean it is.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Personally, I think anything can be justified as "narrative" when there are no tropes or trappings to use as a basis for the narrative... it's like one of those stories a 6 yr old tells you where things happen often illogically, without a basis... it's narrative certainly, but it doesn't make sense that "5 robots show up at the castle of Lord Ven and shoot him with lasers."... that I think is the problem with D&D 4e and the narrative excuse.
> 
> What exactly are the trappings and tropes of D&D... there are none, especially in the vaguely defined 4e PoL setting.  As an example, of this done right look at the Angel rpg.  The series shows us that the narrative of an Angel character, especially one whose sub-par (compared to Slayers, vampires with souls, Wiccans on magic speed and cyborgs) often involves them sliding by or even getting one up on a more powerful character through sheer luck, circumstance, etc.  Thus Drama points make sense in an Angel rpg narrative sense.  Not to mention they take the time to explain this within the corebook.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't call 4E a narrativist game. If any edition of D&D could be called more narrativist, I would give that to 2E. 4E is a gamist RPG 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. What 4E does do is to use narrative justification for its gamist mechanics, and to downplay and in some cases outright ignore any semblance of simulationism. In other words, it is narrativist where it isn't simulationist.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 23, 2008)

D&D 4e is pretty gamist, as narration and simulation pretty much piggyback on the game engine. Or to use a different way of looking at games, 4e is decision first, narration second. The 4e immersion experience is definitely skewed toward a visual, event-driven style of immersion.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 23, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I can accept the possibility. I am just pointing out that the existance and posting habits of willfully obtuse madmen(and we have some) are generally the reason you see some of the pro-4E responses that you see.





And the existence and posting habits of willfully rude people is why we have to have moderators.  After a warning, even, and while talking about how nobody is innocent.  The irony.  _*sigh*_

Congrats - you've just gotten banned from your own thread.  

I would recommend that anyone trying to point fingers darn well ought to make sure their own hands are clean.  I will further recommend that everyone be on their best behavior in this thread from this point on.  Do not become part of the reason we cannot have nice things.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> What exactly are the trappings and tropes of D&D...



Races, classes and monsters principally from Lord of the Rings with extra bits from all over - mythology and fantasy plus some sci fi and comic books  - but the setting is Vance's Dying Earth. Which is pure PoL, incidentally, though the 3rd and 4th books, which were published after OD&D, present a safer world than the first two. In the Gygaxian era the PCs had pulp-y money grubbing motivation but these days they're more heroic (and have been since late 1e/2e).

The rules are inspired by Chainmail, earlier editions, other roleplaying games, D&D minis and about 0.01% come from videogames, which makes people very angry.


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 23, 2008)

Man, I'm probably the only person in the community who hasn't posted here yet, and after having skipped straight from page 1 to page 23, it's obvious that this isn't really the same discussion it began as. But since I feel left out, I'll jump right into it:

4E! *flamebait* Previous editions! *flamebait* Your fault! *flamebait*


----------



## Gort (Nov 23, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Man, I'm probably the only person in the community who hasn't posted here yet, and after having skipped straight from page 1 to page 23, it's obvious that this isn't really the same discussion it began as. But since I feel left out, I'll jump right into it:
> 
> 4E! *flamebait* Previous editions! *flamebait* Your fault! *flamebait*




Similar situation to you. I love the fact that a thread decrying endless dead-end critical discussion of 4th ed has ballooned out to 23 pages in a week. Good show


----------



## Allister (Nov 23, 2008)

I'd be very leery about designing powers that can only be explained by mundane means as the ingame opposition will make a mockery of this....

Hell, even 3E suffers from this and people regularly ignore it. (For example, how many people realize you can't sneak attack creatures more than one size larger than themselves i most cases?)


----------



## cangrejoide (Nov 23, 2008)

phloog said:


> In one respect I'm out of the war - - I play in a 3e campaign and run a True20 campaign....but I would like it if enough of this war gets through to WOTC to get them to produce a different game next time.  And I definitely think it's ridiculous that they call 4e an 'evolution', not a 'revolution'.   And as I've said a bazillion times before, just because the rules and the flavor they provide doesn't work for my campaign, doesn't mean I personally think it's a poor game system - it's just not compatible with the fiction of my campaign.  I hold out hope that D&D will take on yet another incarnation in 5e that gets rid of a lot of this stuff that doesn't work for me, but 4th was such a huge shift that I'm not holding my breath.




I  am sorry to say that if anything, the next edition of D&D will further shift into what is defined as the current version of the game ( narrative/gamist/non simulationist). So far their current model has served them well ( If you are to count sales figures). It may not be compatible with your ( an a small vocal minority of the market) 'type' of game, but it is sure  compatible with a huge part of the market 'type' of game. I see no reason for WOTC to take a step back for a 5E design. Just be glad that you have your 3E books to carry you over, the same way some people have 1E, 2E, BECM, etc.

And you will always have Pari....erm I mean OGL.

(For further thoughts on this see the 5E thread in this very forum)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> I  am sorry to say that if anything, the next edition of D&D will further shift into what is defined as the current version of the game ( narrative/gamist/non simulationist). So far their current model has served them well ( If you are to count sales figures). It may not be compatible with your ( an a small vocal minority of the market) 'type' of game, but it is sure  compatible with a huge part of the market 'type' of game. I see no reason for WOTC to take a step back for a 5E design. Just be glad that you have your 3E books to carry you over, the same way some people have 1E, 2E, BECM, etc.
> 
> And you will always have Pari....erm I mean OGL.
> 
> (For further thoughts on this see the 5E thread in this very forum)




I would be careful with assumptions where the market will be heading in 6-10 years. It is possible that it will return to "simulationist" ideals. 
Unless you think there is something inherently more appealing to narrative or gamist interests. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a pendulum swinging between the extremes (except that it has 3 amplitude positions  )


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 23, 2008)

Campbell said:


> I get the impression that you are skeptical of the claim that 4e can be approached from a narrative perspective. Do you think I'm being disingenuous ?



I don't doubt your sincerity; I just don't see any support for the notion that 4E is a _narrativist_ game.  The martial exploits we're discussing are pretty clearly _gamist_ -- and not _simulationist_, which is my personal complaint -- with no meaningful underlying themes.

The rules constructs don't exist in order to explore _character_, in the literary sense, or even to produce a plot with a meaningful conflict.  (Can the DM do such things?  Of course, but the _game_ is not _narrativist_ to any great degree.)

Now, when a player invokes the non-simulationist _come and get it_ exploit, does he have to "narrate" a rationale for why all his enemies approach with great alacrity?  Sure, but that's not narrativism; that's explaining away a gamist power that makes little simulationist sense.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 23, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> Races, classes and monsters principally from Lord of the Rings {B]with extra bits from all over - mythology and fantasy plus some sci fi and comic books[/B] - but the setting is Vance's Dying Earth. Which is pure PoL, incidentally, though the 3rd and 4th books, which were published after OD&D, present a safer world than the first two. In the Gygaxian era the PCs had pulp-y money grubbing motivation but these days they're more heroic (and have been since late 1e/2e)..




 Sooo...D&D doesn't have any solid narrative trappings and tropes.  You're saying it's any and everything, which I guess is why fans find it so easy to claim it is narrativist (since again the narrativism claim can be slapped on anything when there's nothing to base the narration on.) when nothing in the rules or by the designers supports this, ad the setting is not Dying Earth (that's your intepretation)...What in the rules (with unaligned and evi alignments) makes PC's being "more heroic" a given? 




Doug McCrae said:


> The rules are inspired by Chainmail, earlier editions, other roleplaying games, D&D minis and about 0.01% come from videogames, which makes people very angry.




Again any and everything, so I ask once more... what sets the precedence for this so called narrativism in D&D 4e.  What in the tropes of D&D specifically creates an environment where a power like "Come and Get It" makes sense in the way it's used each time...or even that certain powers can be used only once per encounter... Now I'm not asking for fans to step in and give their reasons for why this stuff works, I'm asking where within the rules the claims of narrativism is supported as a reason... or is it just a way some have chosen (because these powers and rules fit their idea of how their D&D world works.) to justify gamist elements of D&D 4e.




mmadsen said:


> I don't doubt your sincerity; I just don't see any support for the notion that 4E is a _narrativist_ game. The martial exploits we're discussing are pretty clearly _gamist_ -- and not _simulationist_, which is my personal complaint -- with no meaningful underlying themes.
> 
> The rules constructs don't exist in order to explore _character_, in the literary sense, or even to produce a plot with a meaningful conflict. (Can the DM do such things? Of course, but the _game_ is not _narrativist_ to any great degree.)
> 
> Now, when a player invokes the non-simulationist _come and get it_ exploit, does he have to "narrate" a rationale for why all his enemies approach with great alacrity? Sure, but that's not narrativism; that's explaining away a gamist power that makes little simulationist sense.




This pretty much sums up exactly what I'm trying to convey...D&D 4e is gamist and using the whole "narrativist" as a defense falls flat in reading it and in gameplay for me, when I compare it to other narrativist games.


----------



## cangrejoide (Nov 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I would be careful with assumptions where the market will be heading in 6-10 years. It is possible that it will return to "simulationist" ideals.
> Unless you think there is something inherently more appealing to narrative or gamist interests. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a pendulum swinging between the extremes (except that it has 3 amplitude positions  )





Hmm I'll grant you that.

But I ask you how many simulationist games have appeared and been suscesful in the last 10 years?


----------



## Ourph (Nov 23, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> The rules constructs don't exist in order to explore _character_, in the literary sense, or even to produce a plot with a meaningful conflict.  (Can the DM do such things?  Of course, but the _game_ is not _narrativist_ to any great degree.)



This is a good point.  A lot of people are seeing examples of players being given a larger piece of the "control pie" and reading that as narrativist.  It certainly can be, when the purpose of giving the players that slice of pie is to allow them to use it to affect the outcome of the campaign's story.  But it can also be purely gamist, when the purpose is to give the players more options for overcoming challenges.  I think the purpose with 4e's powers is clearly to give the players options for overcoming challenges.  Narration of the effects of those tools is entirely possible and overcoming challenges obviously affects the outcome of the story, but it doesn't mean the purpose behind the tools is narrativist-driven.  If that were true, then the rules would limit the players to using those powers at dramatic moments or advise them only to use them when it contributes to the fulfillment of a certain theme or idea within the narrative and I see no evidence of that.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Hmm I'll grant you that.
> 
> But I ask you how many simulationist games have appeared and been suscesful in the last 10 years?




And in turn, I would ask how many games are not from WOTC, White Wolf, or to a lesser degree SJG and, therefore, unable to get into Borders, Barnes and Noble, etc. where they can be exposed to the a larger segment of the population beyond those visiting local game stores or message boards let alone have the DND name attached?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Hmm I'll grant you that.
> 
> But I ask you how many simulationist games have appeared and been suscesful in the last 10 years?




Maybe the question should be: How many simulationist D&Ds have appeared and been successful in the last 10 years? 
I count 1 that lasted for 8 years. Not too shabby, eh? Of course, 3E also had a lot of "gamist" stuff, especially in it attempts to balance classes (and still fail at it on many accounts) and party vs monsters.

---



> This is a good point. A lot of people are seeing examples of players being given a larger piece of the "control pie" and reading that as narrativist. It certainly can be, when the purpose of giving the players that slice of pie is to allow them to use it to affect the outcome of the campaign's story. But it can also be purely gamist, when the purpose is to give the players more options for overcoming challenges. I think the purpose with 4e's powers is clearly to give the players options for overcoming challenges. Narration of the effects of those tools is entirely possible and overcoming challenges obviously affects the outcome of the story, but it doesn't mean the purpose behind the tools is narrativist-driven. If that were true, then the rules would limit the players to using those powers at dramatic moments or advise them only to use them when it contributes to the fulfillment of a certain theme or idea within the narrative and I see no evidence of that.




Come and Get It is "narrative" in this way: The player decides how he wants to affect the battlefield and choses his narration for it.

If 3E had a Come and Get It like ability, it would probably work like this: 
Roll Bluff DC 10 + HD of opponent. Opponent makes Will Save DC 10 + 1/2 per level and then moves (provoking AoOs) towards you on a failure. Then you might get an AoO against the opponent (as a special feature of that feat, so you would want the Combat Reflexes feat). It would be a mind-affecting effect and Undead, Constructs and Oozes would be immune. The player doesn't get a chance to say "I am throwing some stones at the Construct, so he gets distracted from his original target" or "I am throwing some rations towards the Oozes so they finds a trail toward me". 

The simulation approach to Come and Get will always define the narrative to use. You still get to define the narrative, but only if you use the simulationist details. Unfortunately sometimes you'll note that the simulation doesn't allow you to do things well enough to really faciliate the narrative you are interested in. For example, you might notice that you don't have the Taunt feat, or you face a creature immune to it and would have to find another way to describe what you're doing - but there is none. 
Of course, the "gamist" part of 4E also constraints you - you get your narrative rights only once per encounter (speaking of Come and Get It).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Outside of the "everyone uses powers" scope of 4E, there are tone and flavor reasons why 4E is so supers focused.



Here are some reasons why 4e is less, or no more, supers focused than previous editions:

1) Party power levels are far less divergent than they used to be. Casters no longer rule as was the case from OD&D->3e and PCs in the same party are now expected to be the same level which wasn't the case in 1e. Hugely differing power levels are common in superhero comics. For example Triplicate Girl (who, as the name suggests, could split into three) and Superboy were both members of the Legion of Super-Heroes.

2) The notion that everyone having superpowers is a distinctively superhero-y feature is incorrect. In comics, many teams have non-powered members alongside the super-types. For example Green Arrow of the JLA and Wildcat (who was just a boxer) of the JSA.

3) Magic items grant superpowers and the vast majority of D&D PCs in previous editions had those. In fact the Xmas tree has been somewhat reduced in 4e. If it is claimed that a power that comes from an item isn't super, then that would make Green Lantern and Iron Man not super also.

4) A lack of altruism was only a feature of Gygaxian era 1e D&D PCs. From the time of Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms (late 1e) onwards, the PCs were expected to be good guys. So you can't claim that heroic PCs are a distinctively 4e feature. OD&D and early 1e are the outliers here.

5) Although some superhero-esque powers are granted early in 4e - clerics that go pew pew all day long - others, such as flight, come much later than they did in previous editions. Nothing's more superhero-y than the flying, invulnerable (protection from normal missiles), fireball launching wizard that was available at 5th level prior to 4e.

6) No comic book superhero style art. Check out the Bill Willingham and Jeff Dee art in 1e adventures and B/X.

7) 3e had a class, the soulknife, based entirely on a comic book superhero - Psylocke of the X-Men. In fact it appeared in the Expanded Psionics Handbook which I believe was regarded as core or near core. While aspects of 4e may happen to resemble some aspects of superhero comics, it doesn't contain any out-and-out ripoffs, unless you count the Shambling Mound, which has been around forever.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Come and Get It is "narrative" in this way: The player decides how he wants to affect the battlefield and choses his narration for it.



If we're going by the GNS terminology here, "choosing narration" doesn't make a game element Narrativist.  That's simply an aspect of interacting with the system.  There are no limits on _Come and Get It_ that restrict it's use to contributing to the overall theme of the game session.  It's a tool for overcoming challenges, which makes it very much a gamist element.  The lack of simulationist sensibilities does not automatically render something Narrativist.  Some groups might choose to use _Come and Get It_ in a Narrativist way, but in order to do so they have to engage in Drift from the core tenets of the system.  The fact that certain gamist elements can be Drifted to serve Narrativist agendas doesn't make them intentionally Narrativist.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 24, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> 7) 3e had a class, the soulknife, based entirely on a comic book superhero - Psylocke of the X-Men. In fact it appeared in the Expanded Psionics Handbook which I believe was regarded as core or near core. While aspects of 4e may happen to resemble some aspects of superhero comics, it doesn't contain any out-and-out ripoffs, unless you count the Shambling Mound, which has been around forever.




Actually, Rifts was published in 1990 and featured the psi sword, which is roughly contemporous with Psylocke's psychic knife ability.


----------



## Allister (Nov 24, 2008)

Personally, I rather the martial PCs becomes like Superman rather than Batman.

For example, strip a 20th level fighter PC in any edition of their gear and I guarantee that the 4e fighter suffers the least when facing down opposition.

So pick your poison.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 24, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, Rifts was published in 1990 and featured the psi sword, which is roughly contemporous with Psylocke's psychic knife ability.



Okay?

Doug McRae did not say 3e is the only or first game to feature a class like this. Just that it does feature such a class.


----------



## phloog (Nov 24, 2008)

Allister said:


> Personally, I rather the martial PCs becomes like Superman rather than Batman.
> 
> For example, strip a 20th level fighter PC in any edition of their gear and I guarantee that the 4e fighter suffers the least when facing down opposition.
> 
> So pick your poison.




Absolutely.  I just think that people get upset when they feel that their poison doesn't do it for someone else.  And my poison selection is not set in stone, but changes with the mood/campaign I'm in.  I could get into playing some superheroic fighter too...I just do it in a different campaign.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 24, 2008)

Allister said:


> Personally, I rather the martial PCs becomes like Superman rather than Batman.
> 
> For example, strip a 20th level fighter PC in any edition of their gear and I guarantee that the 4e fighter suffers the least when facing down opposition.



It looks like you're taking the analogy in a very different direction.  I don't think anyone's arguing that fighters should be dependent on a utility belt, but rather that they shouldn't fly and shoot heat-rays from their eyes.

OK, that's not so great an analogy either.  After all, it's not like anyone's promoting superman's suite of superpowers for high-level fighters.

I think the conflict rests on two main issues.  First, some people want a more simulationist system, where the player's choices approximate the character's choices -- and some see this as a non-issue.  Second, some people want a high-level fighter's abilities to resemble Conan's -- not supernatural, just _badass_ -- while others enjoy over-the-top action.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> It looks like you're taking the analogy in a very different direction.  I don't think anyone's arguing that fighters should be dependent on a utility belt, but rather that they shouldn't fly and shoot heat-rays from their eyes.
> 
> OK, that's not so great an analogy either.  After all, it's not like anyone's promoting superman's suite of superpowers for high-level fighters.
> 
> I think the conflict rests on two main issues.  First, some people want a more simulationist system, where the player's choices approximate the character's choices -- and some see this as a non-issue.  Second, some people want a high-level fighter's abilities to resemble Conan's -- not supernatural, just _badass_ -- while others enjoy over-the-top action.




What of the high level Fighter abilities don't look badass?


----------



## Gort (Nov 24, 2008)

In any case, I think it's quite clear that Conan's in the heroic tier, as are the baddies from his stories.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Nov 24, 2008)

Allister said:


> I'd be very leery about designing powers that can only be explained by mundane means as the ingame opposition will make a mockery of this....
> 
> Hell, even 3E suffers from this and people regularly ignore it. (For example, how many people realize you can't sneak attack creatures more than one size larger than themselves i most cases?)




What no rule does this. Houserules maybe, but RAW disagrees. Legs have sneak attack point areas.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 24, 2008)

Starbuck_II said:


> What no rule does this. Houserules maybe, but RAW disagrees. Legs have sneak attack point areas.



Not sure about that. The last paragraph of the Sneak Attack description says "*A rogue cannot sneak attack while* striking a creature with concealment or *striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach*."

So, no hard-and-fast rule about what creature have vitals that are out of reach (I'd say a Large creature's vitals are generally still within reach of a Medium creature), but no, legs do not have "sneak attack point areas." Unless the creature has vitals in its legs.


----------



## phloog (Nov 24, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Not sure about that. The last paragraph of the Sneak Attack description says "*A rogue cannot sneak attack while* striking a creature with concealment or *striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach*."
> 
> So, no hard-and-fast rule about what creature have vitals that are out of reach (I'd say a Large creature's vitals are generally still within reach of a Medium creature), but no, legs do not have "sneak attack point areas." Unless the creature has vitals in its legs.





This is a tough one for me...does the femoral artery (if present in the creature under consideration) count as 'vitals'?...you get cut well enough there and you die quick.  I think if you can reach an artery (DM's discretion), you can sneak attack....and if hit points are not just wounds (oh dear lord, here I go...), then a shot to the foot might do enough 'damage' to the non-blood/guts/brains aspects of hit points to count.

But sticking to the words above, I think that if your blade can reach the thigh of a humanoid, you can probably sneak attack...but maybe at a minus due to the lower number of options to strike...?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 24, 2008)

phloog said:


> This is a tough one for me...does the femoral artery (if present in the creature under consideration) count as 'vitals'?...you get cut well enough there and you die quick.  I think if you can reach an artery (DM's discretion), you can sneak attack....and if hit points are not just wounds (oh dear lord, here I go...), then a shot to the foot might do enough 'damage' to the non-blood/guts/brains aspects of hit points to count.



Yeah, it's certainly not clear what they intended. I suspect it was to prevent rogues from sneak attacking a giant in its big toe, that sort of thing. I don't think one size category of difference is enough.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Yeah, it's certainly not clear what they intended. I suspect it was to prevent rogues from sneak attacking a giant in its big toe, that sort of thing. I don't think one size category of difference is enough.




Nah.  "Muscular action" closes wounds to the femoral artery.....just like it does having your stomach ripped open from the inside out.  

(I am surprised that bit of nonsense didn't come up in the hit point discussion.....one of the first things I house ruled away in 3e.)


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nah.  "Muscular action" closes wounds to the femoral artery.....just like it does having your stomach ripped open from the inside out.
> 
> (I am surprised that bit of nonsense didn't come up in the hit point discussion.....one of the first things I house ruled away in 3e.)
> 
> ...



 We should _really_ add this to the hit point discussion, maybe we can squeeze another 10 pages out of it!



Spoiler




I can already see it. I bring it up first as an example to show that 3E hit point model had its flaws. Then others chime in on that, and use it to "discredit" something else you wrote. Others defend it, and we go in some circles. At some point, you or someone else points out that you are not claiming you were happy with the 3E model (I knew that, but I could pretend I didn't for the sake of the extra pages), and that it's no reason to make it worse. Maybe as part of the discussion, I or someone else could come up with a theory of how hit points only model the "outside" of your character, and the inside has another amount of hit points or something like that. Sounds like a plan!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> We should _really_ add this to the hit point discussion, maybe we can squeeze another 10 pages out of it!




20 at least!  

That was, bar none, the worst 3e rule.  "Muscular action".....gimmee a break!

(As an aside, maybe that's what healing surges represent.....the monsters had it in 3e, now the PCs have it in 4e......... )


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> 20 at least!
> 
> That was, bar none, the worst 3e rule.  "Muscular action".....gimmee a break!
> 
> ...




If it makes you sleep better at night, sure, why not?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nah.  "Muscular action" closes wounds to the femoral artery.....just like it does having your stomach ripped open from the inside out.
> 
> (I am surprised that bit of nonsense didn't come up in the hit point discussion.....one of the first things I house ruled away in 3e.)
> 
> ...




:shrug: I just figured that muscular action closed the hole and anybody else the creature had swallowed needed to cut their own way out. The creature was unlikely to survive the encounter anyway short of inflicting a TPK or making the PCs run, and at that point, I don't need to track its hit points or the long term effect of that gut wound. I never assumed that the muscular action healed the creature in any way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

billd91 said:


> :shrug: I just figured that muscular action closed the hole and anybody else the creature had swallowed needed to cut their own way out. The creature was unlikely to survive the encounter anyway short of inflicting a TPK or making the PCs run, and at that point, I don't need to track its hit points or the long term effect of that gut wound. I never assumed that the muscular action healed the creature in any way.




Whereas I ruled that, once you cut your way out, you can fight a defensive holding action, because the creature isn't going to last very long after that.  So, if you can survive it, getting swallowed might be a _*good*_ tactic.


RC


----------



## Allister (Nov 24, 2008)

Gort said:


> In any case, I think it's quite clear that Conan's in the heroic tier, as are the baddies from his stories.




That's where I think the problem lies. For some people, Conan represents an EPIC level fighter but contrasted with not only the magic using classes but also the opposition, at best, I'd say Conan just hits top of the Heroic tier.

(There was an interesting query on WOTC's board where people were asked to link to visual scenes that represented high level martial combat. One guy saw [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRStLYceOT8&feature=related"]Samurai Champloo [/ame]as high end EPIC for example whereas others saw the combat in [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZWLpxTfnB8"]Jubei-chan [/ame]as just middle level PARAGON.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the former is barely low end Paragon/high end Heroic while the latter is just hitting epic/high end paragon.....

re: Extremities.

If the argument that you can sneak attack a giant because of the femoral artery, then the whole point about extremities isn't needed, wouldn't you say.

It's hard to think of a creature that has limbs that you can't kill by letting them bleed out via a wound to said limb....


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 24, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Not sure about that. The last paragraph of the Sneak Attack description says "*A rogue cannot sneak attack while* striking a creature with concealment or *striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach*."
> 
> So, no hard-and-fast rule about what creature have vitals that are out of reach (I'd say a Large creature's vitals are generally still within reach of a Medium creature), but no, legs do not have "sneak attack point areas." Unless the creature has vitals in its legs.




There are actually several places on the leg and foot which can be nearly instantly fatal. I think the rule was not intended to exclude feet, but to exclude sneak attacking the limbs of the kraken.


----------

