# Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")



## Mercurius

This thread became dominated by a discussion on skill challenges--no problem, have at it, guys--but I wanted to reply to TerraDave, DannyAlcatraz, and comment on Mike Mearls' excellent piece, all in one fell swoop.




TerraDave said:


> This hypothesis has recieved official (if uncited) endorsement:
> 
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (An Introduction)
> 
> 
> I am sure we can all agree that Mercurius should now win a large portion of the internet.




LOL - OK, now which portion? But yeah, Mearls is saying pretty much what I was saying. Where's my shout out, Mikey boy?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Personally, I think they're merely making  the mistake of being overbroad and imprecise I criticized from the  start.
> 
> I mean, the closing phrase of the last sentence is simply _wrong._




Hmm? Really? Here's the quote in question:



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> This may sound strange, coming from R&D—but it’s easy to mistake  what Wizards of the Coast publishes as the core essence of D&D. We  might print the rules for the current version of the game, or produce  accessories you use at your table, but the game is what you, the  community of D&D fans and players, make it. D&D is the moments  in the game, the interplay within a gaming group, the memories formed  that last forever. It’s intensely personal. It’s your experience as a  group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. *No  specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D  designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.*




I put the relevant sentence in bold-faced.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Danny, even vehemently (well, I'm not really feeling _vehemence, _but you get my point). 

I actually think the entire article is a great exposition or mission statement for "D&D unity" - that is, unity of the community, no matter which edition or sub-variation or house rules one plays. What he is saying is that D&D is the experience that you and your buddies make, no matter what rule set one uses.

Now we can go back to my delineations of primary, secondary and tertiary, with primary being "official" versions of D&D, secondary being retro-clones and heartbreakers, and tertiary being other rules sets being used to emulate D&D themes - and yeah, that would be more precise. _But that's not the point - _both with my original post on "All Roads Lead to Rome" and with Mike Mearls' article. I cannot speak for Mearls, although I think he is getting at something quite similar, but the point, in my mind, is that the "core essence of D&D", as he put it, is not defined by the rules, but by the experience itself. We can talk about the rules, about different definitions and delineations of what D&D is, but all of that is secondary to the experience itself, the stories, the adventure, the fun.

I think we, the diehard base, lose sight of that, and may actually turn the casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers away from the table, and in so doing inhibit the health and growth of the hobby itself.

The bottom line being: D&D is _my _game, and it is also _yours. _Make of it what you will. And enjoy.


----------



## Mark CMG

It's a shame that such damage control type articles need to be written.  It's fairly obvious that the pulse of the community is often taken and that the need to respond is felt.  The cure for the malaise, however, lies not in pep talks and repeated insistence on one version of the game being as validly deserving of the brand being on it as another but rather in some simple steps like making past editions available again in PDF form, occasionally throwing past edition players a bone in the form of a new product or free online support, and in continuing the type of support first explored at the end of the last millenum (OGL).  An article like that isn't trying to convince players of the most recent version of the game of anything, it is trying to get people who don't play it to not be problematic to the new directions being explored by WotC.  Taking the three steps outlined above would achieve the desired goals for the vast majority of people being addressed by that article.  If the sentiment of the article is to be believed, that players of all versions of the game are welcome in the D&D community envisioned by the owners of the trademark, then the above steps should be pursued.


----------



## pawsplay

I think that article, if read critically, is more a ratinale for disunity. If D&D is the experience at every table, then it is a given that each group has different needs from D&D. A particular version of D&D may serve one group better than another as a basis for their game. If it's true that "No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.," then he's basically agreeing to the premise that 4e is essentially irrelevant to many people's enjoyment of the D&D experience.


----------



## Wild Gazebo

While I share the sentimentality of Mearl's statement the definition is completely flawed.  The same could be stated about football and hockey or darts and wrestling:  while these involve shared experiences that keep us coming back, the idea that the inherent oneness of the product is the experience just doesn't hold water.


----------



## Nagol

> It’s your experience as a group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.




The game mechanics and game concepts inform the experience as a group.  The group will have a different experience and different tall tales to share if they play D&D or get together to go fishing once a week.

The game conceits, rule constraints, and genre have a marked effect on group experience.  My group has very different memories of AD&D 1e and 3.xE.  Stories get told about both, but the context and experience were different.  The more variant the mechanics and game expectations, the greater the difference in group play and experiences derived from it.  Certainly 4e's expereince is likely closer to previous D&D experiences than say, Pendragon or Ars Magica, but that doesn't make the feel the same as previous editions.


----------



## BryonD

Mark CMG said:


> It's a shame that such damage control type articles need to be written.



That's right.  And if the pie in the sky of the final sentence were truly accurate, they wouldn't.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I know Mike Mearls is pretty "official", but the OP is using the "appeal to authority" fallacy that doesn't make a specific point correct.


Mike Mearls can be wrong about what D&D is too...and his definition IS overbroad as well.



_At some point, you can change something so much so that it is a different thing entirely from the original._ 4e may not have done that (opinions differ), but 5e,6e or 7e very well might. Make "D&D" no longer a tabletop RPG? Make it a collectible card game only? I'm sorry, but I could absolutely not accept that as "D&D".

We are humans, evolved from monkeys. I don't think anyone would agree that they are a monkey (primate, sure, but not a monkey). 

Enough evolution, and you get a new species.


----------



## avin

Aberzanzorax said:


> Mike Mearls can be wrong about what D&D is too...




Mike Mearls, in my humble opinion, is wrong about a lot of things in his D&D vision.

I guess I won't be able to truly enjoy a game DMed by him...


----------



## Imaro

Personally I find the timing of this article just a wee bit too convenient.  I mean with the VTT ready to be released to DDI subscribers next month... now all of a sudden we are one big family and the D&D(I) community embraces all players of all editions (forget the fact that most of their release marketing for 4e was about how bad 3e was, or that they purposefully made older edition material unavailable in PDF format)... I mean it's a great beginning to a marketing push towards getting players of previous editions ramped up to join DDI and use the VTT.  IMO, of course, talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.


----------



## amerigoV

I can get behind the D&D is an experience concept. D&D has become a generic term for me these days - like Kleenex or Xerox. Anything that has lots of orcs, elves, dragons, and wizards pretty much qualifies. Yes, I view WOW as a D&D variant, although I kicked that habit about a year ago. 

The ruleset behind it does not mean as much to me. I ran Ravenloft using Savage Worlds. I am currently running Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk with SW. I play in a Pathfinder AP using D&D 3.5. I've played some D&D 4e. Its all D&D to me, although I prefer the SW ruleset if given a choice.

Now, if a fantasy setting has a strong theme, I do not consider it D&D. So Dragon Age (both the computer game and RPG) are distinct to me from D&D. The Black Company Campaign setting, while d20, is not D&D. Eberron, while it has a theme, is still D&D cuz it is still a high fantasy kitchen sink type of game. The Pathfinder APs and world is D&D. Dark Sun I am not sure which it is - strong theme but still a lot of the kitchen in there.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Good point Imaro. If "it's all D&D"...why not release the old material/make it available again?

Or is it really "D&D is an amorphous conglomerate of feelings, so we at Wizards can change it any way we like it, and this article is an attempt to justify our having carte blanche to do so. Just wait to see what changes we have in store for you!"


This does seem a bit disingenous when you consider the speaker (well, not so much Mearls himself, but rather this column as "WotC's voice"). If WotC were to support all editions (as some have suggested multiple times in a few threads), then this might feel a bit more sincere, albeit still a bit overly inclusive.

I mean, forgotten realms run using GURPS rules (or World of Darkness rules)? Not D&D.


----------



## mrswing

Back in the OD&D/AD&D 1e/2e days, Mearls' claim that 'it's all one D&D) had some merit as the systems were generally compatible - or at the very least bound by common concepts and mechanics. The fracturing started with 3e, but even that held on to several basic concepts of the earlier versions. 

The jump from 3e to 4e was so big that the 'connecting tissue' which united all editions was severed. Even levels no longer really mean what they used to... certainly not where monsters and NPCs are concerned. 

So if WOTC R&D decides to alter many of the basic concepts of the game in a fundamental way (leaving aside whether these changes are for the better or not), that does directly impact the game table experience. It's not 'our game' any more, not when there is so little common ground between editions any longer. 

My feeling is that keeping 4e closer to the Star Wars SAGA system would have made made the transition between editions smoother, and kept the legacy feeling intact while implementing (and paving the way for) some major changes to the game (moreso than what Pathfinder ended up doing). Alas, we'll never know. 

In any case, this column proves that WOTC is struggling with the edition wars and would really like to end them. But there's really no quick or easy fix. If 5e returns to some of the older concepts, it'll lose many of its current fans. If it evolves even more strongly away from its roots, it won't stand a chance of wooing the renegades back into the fold.


----------



## Mercurius

Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.

I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions? I am not saying that WotC shouldn't have, say, a section of Dragon called "3.5 Corner" or "Retro Arcana" but I do think it is a tad ridiculous for them to pour resources into an older version of the game, at least to the extent that some seem to want.

I mean, it is time to accept that 4E is the current, supported version of the game. Paizo is supporting 3.5 via Pathfinder - why should WotC?



Aberzanzorax said:


> I know Mike Mearls is pretty "official", but the OP is using the "appeal to authority" fallacy that doesn't make a specific point correct.




This is a dirty tactic, Aberzanzorax, and one that I would have thought was beneath you. I am not "appealing to authority", but I am agreeing with Mearls and pointing out that his article agrees with my "hypothesis." You're basically being an instant of your own complaint by trying to negate what I'm saying by calling it an appeal to authority. In truth, I find it refreshing to know that he holds such a view. This is not to say that I agree with everything that comes from the home offices--I certainly don't--but that this was a blast of fresh air. 

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed by the responses in this thread. No wonder the community is so fractured, no wonder the edition wars rage on, and no wonder what I was calling casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers get turned off.


----------



## Nagol

Mercurius said:


> Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.
> 
> I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions? I am not saying that WotC shouldn't have, say, a section of Dragon called "3.5 Corner" or "Retro Arcana" but I do think it is a tad ridiculous for them to pour resources into an older version of the game, at least to the extent that some seem to want.
> 
> I mean, it is time to accept that 4E is the current, supported version of the game. Paizo is supporting 3.5 via Pathfinder - why should WotC?
> 
> <snip>




I have very little interest in fan conflict and edition warring.  I simply do not agree with the premise that all mutations of X still count as X regardless of degree of change.

I don't have an issue with WotC dropping support for their previous editions other than I thought it had a very foolish rationale (removing legitimate sales channel reduces piracy? really?).  I certainly never expected them to produce new material for those games.

I do accept 4e is the current edition supported by the brand holder.  But the experience I've had with 4e while certainly within my big tent of "feels like fantasy roleplaying" didn't fit in my smaller tent of "feels like D&D roleplaying" to go back to a good metaphor I've seen on enworld before.  

Having someone say "it's the same!"  means it's the same to them.  Disputes start when they say "It's the same and so it must be the same for you too!"


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Well, in terms of "supporting older editions" that could mean (what I would love) putting out, and keeping in print, at a minimum the core books for each edition. But that's even more than what I think would be necessary. 

_I'm just saying that they're intentionally trying to remove support for older edtions_ (like yoinking all their pdfs).

I disagree that my claim of "appealing to authority" was a dirty tactic. I certainly didn't indend it to be dirty. Your original post read (to me) to have a bit of an "I win" flavor to it...and a bit of a "you're wrong" to Dannyalcatraz. If that intent and emotion wasn't there, then I'll admit I was wrong in the "appeal to authority", and apologize for claiming it. 

I do think Mearls wrote a very similar article to what you had written (so much so that I wonder if he read it and borrowed some of the ideas or the thematic concept...not plagarized, but inspired by you). 



> You're basically being an instant of your own complaint by trying to negate what I'm saying by calling it an appeal to authority.




Not sure what you meant by this.



> Frankly, I am a bit disappointed by the responses in this thread. No wonder the community is so fractured, no wonder the edition wars rage on, and no wonder what I was calling casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers get turned off.




Well, you bring up a sore spot, and then are surpised that people complain. 

I mean, there have been a number of threads of late discussing how this concept just doesn't work for people. I honestly don't think this article adds to that discussion. Plus, when you said it, it had an air of sincerity to it. I believe it is truly what you want. 

When Mearls says it (given that he's a WotC employee), I believe it less, but I'd believe it much more if it were a post of his on ENworld or on a blog...it'd be more personal.

When Mearls says it in an official WotC publication, I believe it even less (the sincerity of the sentiment, not the sentiment itself). Given WotC's 3e is badwrongfun and yoinking of pdfs to name the two most opposing perspectives taken by the company as a whole, when Mearls says "It's all good, and it's all D&D" it rings hollow.

Hence, at least speaking for myself, is why, if anything, this took a point I don't agree with and made it into "a point I don't agree with said by a company that doesn't believe it either."


When the article smells like hypocrisy (again, yours was sincere, this, for the reasons I mentioned has a bit of an odor), you're going to get some negative responses, some of which will point out that very hypocrisy itself.


----------



## BryonD

Mercurius said:


> Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.



You want "edition-peace", and as soon as everyone agrees with you, we will have it.

All that stands between us and harmony is everyone else abandoning their preferences and agreeing with mine.


I don't think those are very fair assessments.


----------



## Imaro

Mercurius said:


> Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.
> 
> I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions? I am not saying that WotC shouldn't have, say, a section of Dragon called "3.5 Corner" or "Retro Arcana" but I do think it is a tad ridiculous for them to pour resources into an older version of the game, at least to the extent that some seem to want.
> 
> I mean, it is time to accept that 4E is the current, supported version of the game. Paizo is supporting 3.5 via Pathfinder - why should WotC?




Well first off, I've seen the "support thing" mostly in reference to PDF's.  I think that some people would actually like to have or be able to complete their 3.5 collection, even if it's in the form of PDF's. For me personally I would like the chance to buy the BECMI gazetteers and the Planescape stuff in PDF... these are all things Paizo or anyone else cannot publish due to IP issues.

As to what other companies make older editions available... lets see...

White Wolf has nWoD and oWoD PDF's available
White Wolf also has Exalted 1st ed. and 2nd ed. PDF's available
Chaosium has made the PDF's of the old Elric game available
Goodman continues top make their 3.5 modules available
Mongoose makes both Runequest 1 and Runequest 2 available via PDF
FFG makes WFRPG 2e PDF's available
Steve Jackson makes books available for the 3rd edition of GURPS via PDF

... you know this is kinda pointless as there are tons of companies that make older edition material available in digital format... honestly it seems WotC is actually behind the curve when it comes to allowing older edition material to be available to customers.


----------



## UniversalMonster

I started playing D&D with 1st edition in 1978. I love AD&D 1st edition. I sort of dropped out in AD&D2e.. but came back for a girlfriends campaign when Tome of Magic came out. I had a wild-mage, and I learned about Spelljammer. I got the Rules Cyclopedia in the 90s and was a huge fan of the Voyage of the Princess Ark boxed set (and Dragon articles). Basic D&D harkens back to a simpler time, and that, more than anything, informed the DMing style I use to this day. 

In 1999 I came back in and got all of the AD&D2e books  *just* to play Planescape because a Planescape box sort of fell into my hands. I have the black border edition. 

When 3e came out, I ran it weekly for the entire life of the edition. I'm still a huge fan of 3rd edition. 

And then 4th edition came out.. and it cleaned up a lot of the issues that 3e had. 3e provided the things I wanted like a skill system and interesting tactics.. and then 4e simplified it and made those elements sing. 

I do think this: 4th Edition is - bar none-- the best version of D&D ever published. And it's the closest in spirit to how I feel D&D is supposed to work. But that's just an opinion, of course. You know how Diaglo always had that thing in his signature block about his favorite edition? That's cool! It's always cool to like something. I've played them all. I like this one. 

But it's all D&D. If I want to play an earlier edition (and sometimes I do) I already own them. I don't need some company to "re-release" stuff that I already have to make me feel good about my choices. Geez- the entire point of D&D is you don't need official content.. you can come up with your own stuff fairly easily! I don't need new players to have a background in the history of D&D- because back when this was all new? There was no history.  Everything was new thne. Everything is new now. If 5th edition came out and I didn't like it, it wouldn't take away what I already have. It wouldn't stop me from loving D&D or playing it however I liked. 


D&D isn't an edition, it's what I do with my friends. I wish we could all get over the sociopathic self-centered foolishness of edition wars and industry obsession or maybe come to the realization that resentment isn't a matter of edition, it's a regrettable personal choice. In effect it's saying "you can't be having fun because I'm unhappy". Move on. This is a wonderful hobby. New D&D players I meet (with very few exceptions) are funny and interesting and I'm happy to have met them.. 

If I had one request I could make to the edition warriors it's this: stop trying to ruin the online discussion and appreciation of D&D (of all editions) for everyone else just because you have some personal issue. The problem is you. Stop doing it. Go on a retreat. Do some soul searching. Talk about something else that you do like. Quit _wallowing_, it's just gross.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Peter said:


> <snip>
> 
> If I had one request I could make to the edition warriors it's this: stop trying to ruin the online discussion and appreciation of D&D (of all editions) for everyone else just because you have some personal issue. The problem is you. Stop doing it. Go on a retreat. Do some soul searching. Talk about something else that you do like. Quit _wallowing_, it's just gross.




This is fallow wisdom. It seems wise, but it oversimplifies a problem that exists.

I don't know if I count as someone you would label an "edition warrior" or not...I certainly don't think I am. In fact, other than a very very few people who I would consider trolls (and I think all of them have been banned or disappeared at this point) I don't see "edition warriors" around anymore...for any edition.

For the purposes of my response, I'll assume you're not addressing the very clear "trolls" who pop up in threads without real critique, who are just there to say "x edition sucks."

So I will assume that you label me an edition warrior. I want to explain something to you. I am not here to "try[sic] to ruin the online discussion and appreciation of D&D (of all editions) for everyone else" nor do I have "some personal issue."

I'm here, on this discussion board, to discuss D&D. I have strong opinions, I share them with some, disagree with others, and meet in the middle with even more. 

In fact, the more I've discussed D&D here (presenting my own opinions and perspectives) and listened to the perspectives of other "edition warriors", the more I've come to understand the game, and to enjoy the game.

I'll specifically thank Pemerton and Hussar and Mercurius (the OP) who have broadened my understanding of the game, and more specifically have expanded my appreciation of 4e.

I'm not wallowing, thank you very much, and I'm not a fan of how you label posters who want to discuss editions on these boards "edition warriors" and then go on to (mis)characterize them in such a negative fashion.


And the problem that exists? The reason edition wars are going on, to this day? It's not the "edition warriors". It's the schizm. There IS something to be talked about, if there weren't people would have given up on it long ago.


----------



## DaveMage

I think it would be easier to embrace what Mike is writing if there wasn't so much disdain in the original 4E marketing for things that the 4e team didn't like about 3E (and older) editions.   Not that they aren't entitled to their opinion, but if you're going to enjoy (celebrate?) the removal of facets of the traditional D&D planar cosmology (for example), don't be surprised that those that *do* like the traditional D&D cosmology are pissed off.  Likewise with Vancian magic, etc.


----------



## Umbran

Mercurius said:


> Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.




Humans have a innate tendency to divide the world into Us and Them.  

If the fans want to fight, they will fight.  There is nothing WotC can do that would prevent this. 

Unless and until people realize that we have more similarities as gamers than we have differences based on the edition we play, the nonsense will continue.  And, when we do realize that, the nonsense will largely cease.


----------



## pawsplay

avin said:


> Mike Mearls, in my humble opinion, is wrong about a lot of things in his D&D vision.




Yeah, I pretty much hated his revised Beholder and Ogre Mage articles.


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.




Well, I for one am tired of the war against edition warring. Why can I not simply dislike something, or disagree, or refuse to be persuaded, without being labeled as the problem?



> I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions?




Pretty much all of them. GURPS, Palladium, Runequest, etc.



> I mean, it is time to accept that 4E is the current, supported version of the game.




I accept it but I will never like it, and I wait impatiently for 5e.



> Paizo is supporting 3.5 via Pathfinder - why should WotC?




Bigger market share?


----------



## BryonD

Peter said:


> And then 4th edition came out.. and it cleaned up a lot of the issues that 3e had. 3e provided the things I wanted like a skill system and interesting tactics.. and then 4e simplified it and made those elements sing.



Cool.  Is it also ok with you that A LOT of people disagree?



> I wish we could all get over the sociopathic self-centered foolishness



I guess my question is answered.


----------



## thedungeondelver

Mercurius said:


> Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.
> 
> I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions? I am not saying that WotC shouldn't have, say, a section of Dragon called "3.5 Corner" or "Retro Arcana" but I do think it is a tad ridiculous for them to pour resources into an older version of the game, at least to the extent that some seem to want.





I don't want them to "pour resources" into anything.  Other people were selling OOP edition PDFs.  Other peoples' server space, other peoples' e-commerce fees, other peoples' worry.

I want them to quit acting like older editions didn't exist or were laughable.

Is that so much to ask?

Apparently it is since doing so constitutes, to you, "edition war".


----------



## Mark CMG

Peter said:


> D&D isn't an edition, it's what I do with my friends. I wish we could all get over the sociopathic self-centered foolishness of edition wars and industry obsession or maybe come to the realization that resentment isn't a matter of edition, it's a regrettable personal choice. In effect it's saying "you can't be having fun because I'm unhappy".





You're absolutely correct, WotC should stop trying to marginalize players of earlier editions.  I'm not sure which WotC employees you are accusing of "sociopathic self-centered foolishness" but maybe if they just started "making past editions available again in PDF form, occasionally throwing past edition players a bone in the form of a new product or free online support, and in continuing the type of support first explored at the end of the last millenum (OGL)" they'd find that it would work better than either ignoring those fans or marginalizing them.  It's funny but when you actually listen to those fans of earlier editions you can break down most of their gaming wishes into the three suggestions I make above.  When instead you ignore their wishes and choose to label them or name call, you tend to undermine the feeling that all players are part of a larger community.  The rest of the sentiment proffered in the article rings hollow when the name calling starts.  Fans of past WotC editions generally want one of those three suggested things to be content WotC fans.  Mind you they will keep playing earlier editions regardless of being happy with WotC but a key to the happy community WotC seems to want to foster probably lies in my suggested triad of initiatives. Past edition fans are not unhappy at the table, they just aren't happy with the trademark holder of the game they play because of the way the fans get marginalized if they don't play the latest edition.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

I already see some trying to have it both ways in this topic. Look, if you want to come from an original D&D perspective, and fight for D&D "purity" (whatever that is), then it is possible to do that without dancing with hypocrisy. I think the, "we made up stuff that we thought was fun," crowd has an argument against you, but you certainly can make a *consistent* argument for what should be done, versus what was done.

By the time the 2E designers had started grafting on things, though, it is getting difficult. By the time 3E came out, and it's "rule for everything" push? Too late, the purity ship done sailed. Once that's been settled, now we are merely discussing price. 

Hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is all the folks that were just fine with D&D *changing* into something that they wanted, but screamed bloody murder about "not being D&D" the moment it *changed into something other people wanted in their D&D* all along. Note the "and", please.

There isn't a whiff of hypocrisy in Mearls' statement. He is coming from a avowed and strong position of advocating for change and expansion in what is D&D. You can criticize that for being a bad idea if you want. You can criticize it for advocating more change or different change than you think is a good idea. You can advocate for a certain amount of change, or lack thereof. If you support change and expect it to always be the ones you want--well I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## UniversalMonster

Mark CMG said:


> You're absolutely correct, WotC should stop trying to marginalize players of earlier editions.  I'm not sure which WotC employees you are accusing of "sociopathic self-centered foolishness" but maybe if they just started "making past editions available again in PDF form, occasionally throwing past edition players a bone in the form of a new product or free online support, and in continuing the type of support first explored at the end of the last millenum (OGL)" they'd find that it would work better than either ignoring those fans or marginalizing them.  It's funny but when you actually listen to those fans of earlier editions you can break down most of their gaming wishes into the three suggestions I make above.  When instead you ignore their wishes and choose to label them or name call, you tend to undermine the feeling that all players are part of a larger community.  The rest of the sentiment proffered in the article rings hollow when the name calling starts.  Fans of past WotC editions generally want one of those three suggested things to be content WotC fans.  Mind you they will keep playing earlier editions regardless of being happy with WotC but a key to the happy community WotC seems to want to foster probably lies in my suggested triad of initiatives. Past edition fans are not unhappy at the table, they just aren't happy with the trademark holder of the game they play because of the way the fans get marginalized if they don't play the latest edition.




Nobody has been marginalized. The edition warrior idea that "I've been marginalized!" is a _paranoid fantasy _and then it gets turned around and used as the justification for constant negativity. Because once you've been marginalized, of course any response is justified. I'm saying, no, it's not justified, and jeez, I'm just so tired of it. It's ruined the online discussion of D&D, because we can't really talk about the game anymore, now we have to talk about everyone's feelings. Aren't there other forums where guys go and talk about their feelings? 


It's been three years now.  There is nothing that WOTC can do to save people from their feelings. They don't provide therapy or counseling. But your favorite version of D&D is probably still up on your shelf where you left it. 

The clock is never ever, ever, ever turning back.


----------



## BryonD

Crazy Jerome said:


> If you support change and expect it to always be the ones you want--well I don't know what to tell you.



I don't for a second think anything remotely like this will happen, but just for kicks....

That message could be laying the groundwork for next month's announcement that 5E is coming and they are going back to bring in all the simulation/OGL/D20 fans they lost.  It would be interesting to see how many people stuck to their "unity and acceptance" position.


----------



## BryonD

Wow Peter, you sure like the name calling.

Why can't we all just get along?


----------



## darjr

I like the sentiments in the article. I think I mostly agree.

I love that the OGL is there and the clones exist. I think and hope that there is a conscious and well meaning lack of interference.

As I read the article, however, I have this erge to follow along and read the forward that Gary signed. To learn from that history myself, to play with and study the original material, even if only in PDF. WotC owes me nothing, but I would like WotC to complete Mearls sentiment and make available the older editions.


----------



## thedungeondelver

Peter said:


> Nobody has been marginalized.





Of course not!  I mean it's not like WotC discontinued the sales by third parties of games people liked, or pinned their whole marketing strategy for the release of 4e on "nobody back then played right" with loltacular ads making fun of previous editions, or like anyone's running around calling people out as paranoid delusionals. 

Yeah, no, that's not marginalizing in the least.


----------



## Mark CMG

Peter said:


> Nobody has been marginalized.





Your post becomes ironic after this statement.  Seriously, the three points I outlined are so easy for WotC to fix if they truly want the type of harmony desired in the article.  The name calling and whatnot is beneath those working toward that harmony.  As a fellow community member I ask you to desist.


----------



## Nagol

Peter said:


> <snip>
> 
> But it's all D&D. If I want to play an earlier edition (and sometimes I do) I already own them. I don't need some company to "re-release" stuff that I already have to make me feel good about my choices. Geez- the entire point of D&D is you don't need official content.. you can come up with your own stuff fairly easily! I don't need new players to have a background in the history of D&D- because back when this was all new? There was no history.  Everything was new thne. Everything is new now. If 5th edition came out and I didn't like it, it wouldn't take away what I already have. It wouldn't stop me from loving D&D or playing it however I liked.
> 
> <snip>




You may have a copy of everything in the previous editions you want.  I may have a copy of everything I want.

That new guy over there -- you know, the new player you've invited and is having fun playing that older game?  Maybe he wants a copy too, especially since he's been talking about wanting to run a game!  Having access to content is not about those who already have it; it's about those who never had that chance.

Ah well, I'm sure that looking for second-hand copies is perfectly fine.


----------



## UniversalMonster

I'm not calling anyone names. I'm just tired of all of the negativity.. aren't you? It's been constant for nearly three years now. 

If the evidence of being marginalized amounts to "they stopped selling a certain thing" then yes, it's a fantasy. If the evidence is that they ran insulting ads that told people they were playing wrong.. I've been here the whole time, and I don't remember being insulted even a single time. Maybe that was an interpretive step someone else made? Again..a fantasy. A fantasy where someone made the most negative and self-loathing interpretation possible.. and then just held it close to their heart for 3 years running. 

I also think it's highly unlikely they'll make "older editions available".. what would the point of that be? You can already get them (and stuff that basically goes out of it's way to look like them) elsewhere. I've been running D&D Encounters.. I'm at the beginning of something set in the "ghost Tower of Inverness", and finished up another thing called "Keep on the Borderlands". I have an adventure on my shelf that I got in the mail called "Village of Hommlet" and another one called "Tomb of Horrors.."  Clearly they haven't turned their back on the past. But they aren;t a used bookstore. They aren't going to go back in their time machine and suddenly start selling TSR stuff again.  Time only works in one direction.


----------



## Umbran

BryonD said:


> All that stands between us and harmony is everyone else abandoning their preferences and agreeing with mine.




What stands between us and harmony is our own willingness to be jerks about having different preferences.  You don't need to like a particular game, or what a company does.  You have to like your fellow gamers enough to treat them well, to consider them before the needs of "winning" an argument on the internet.


----------



## UniversalMonster

Nagol said:


> You may have a copy of everything in the previous editions you want.  I may have a copy of everything I want.
> 
> That new guy over there -- you know, the new player you've invited and is having fun playing that older game?  Maybe he wants a copy too, especially since he's been talking about wanting to run a game!  Having access to content is not about those who already have it; it's about those who never had that chance.
> 
> Ah well, I'm sure that looking for second-hand copies is perfectly fine.





Maybe someone will make a D&D retro-clone and put it upon the internet for free one day. 

I just don't think this happens very often. The history of the hobby is interesting, but in the end, it's still history.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

BryonD said:


> I don't for a second think anything remotely like this will happen, but just for kicks....
> 
> That message could be laying the groundwork for next month's announcement that 5E is coming and they are going back to bring in all the simulation/OGL/D20 fans they lost. It would be interesting to see how many people stuck to their "unity and acceptance" position.




There would be some strenuous disagreement with that direction, and it would be voiced. There might be a few people who screamed bloody murder. There might even be some disingenious payback for the last three years of frequently spewed nonsense. People are people.

Me, I'd check out 5E on its own merits. Maybe it would be a nice blend of some of the improvements that I like in 4E, with some other stuff. Its not like I stopped liking early 3E/AE or Basic when the later versions arrived. If I didn't like it, I'd not buy it, or buy very little of it. Three years out, I sure as heck wouldn't be telling people that they were playing a board game (or Mother May I, or whatever the equivalent would be for this hypothetical 5E). I really never thought sour grapes accomplished much.


----------



## Mark CMG

Peter said:


> I'm not calling anyone names.





The vitriol of your previous posts could be taken that way.




Peter said:


> I'm just tired of all of the negativity.. aren't you?





It's why I have outlined three positive steps WotC can take.  Their reasoning for ceasing to sell PDFs was that current edition PDFs were being pirated, so there is little reason to not sell past edition PDFs.  Current WotC employees seem to be regular players of past editions, if I am reading the blogs correctly, so it is a simple matter to occasionally release something (free or otherwise) for one of the earlier editions.  When doing so, and since WotC knows the OGL inside and out, it is a simple matter to text box a few of the things in those releases and include them in the OGC pool.  These are simple, positive steps and I am surprised you or anyone would see them as otherwise.  Get behind them, champion them, they do you no harm and would go a long way to achieving the harmony sought in the article.


----------



## BryonD

Crazy Jerome said:


> There would be some strenuous disagreement with that direction, and it would be voiced. There might be a few people who screamed bloody murder. There might even be some disingenious payback for the last three years of frequently spewed nonsense. People are people.
> 
> Me, I'd check out 5E on its own merits. Maybe it would be a nice blend of some of the improvements that I like in 4E, with some other stuff. Its not like I stopped liking early 3E/AE or Basic when the later versions arrived. If I didn't like it, I'd not buy it, or buy very little of it. Three years out, I sure as heck wouldn't be telling people that they were playing a board game (or Mother May I, or whatever the equivalent would be for this hypothetical 5E). I really never thought sour grapes accomplished much.



If 5E came out and it was hugely popular, the debates would end in relatively short order.

If 5e came out and it further divided the market, the people who didn't switch to it still would not be switched in three years and would still be welcome to express their points of view.


----------



## avin

Kinda weird tone... very different from the initial 3.5 bashing, from Wotc itself.

Shame on you, Mearls...


----------



## Crazy Jerome

BryonD said:


> If 5E came out and it was hugely popular, the debates would end in relatively short order.
> 
> If 5e came out and it further divided the market, the people who didn't switch to it still would not be switched in three years and would still be welcome to express their points of view.




This isn't directed at you, but at your implied description of what has been happening:

I'm also tired of people embedding slams in their points of views, getting called on the slams, and then pretending that people are telling them not to express their points of view. Express all you want, as strong as you want, as long as you want. If you can't express without slamming other peoples' playstyles, maybe your expression needs more work than the thing you are slamming.


----------



## Mercurius

I have to run out the door in a few minutes so can't reply to everything, but I wanted to at least reply to a few.



Aberzanzorax said:


> Well, in terms of "supporting older editions" that could mean (what I would love) putting out, and keeping in print, at a minimum the core books for each edition. But that's even more than what I think would be necessary.
> 
> _I'm just saying that they're intentionally trying to remove support for older edtions_ (like yoinking all their pdfs).




OK, fair enough. I disagreed (and still disagree) with their decision to remove PDFs of old stuff. What I was thinking "supporting older editions" to mean was coming out with new material.



Aberzanzorax said:


> I disagree that my claim of "appealing to authority" was a dirty tactic. I certainly didn't indend it to be dirty. Your original post read (to me) to have a bit of an "I win" flavor to it...and a bit of a "you're wrong" to Dannyalcatraz. If that intent and emotion wasn't there, then I'll admit I was wrong in the "appeal to authority", and apologize for claiming it.




That wasn't my intent (sorry, Danny, if it came across that way). 



Aberzanzorax said:


> I do think Mearls wrote a very similar article to what you had written (so much so that I wonder if he read it and borrowed some of the ideas or the thematic concept...not plagarized, but inspired by you).




Or maybe great minds....



Aberzanzorax said:


> Not sure what you meant by this.




An appeal to authority is a tactic whereby a weak argument is strengthened by appealing to someone else, rather than relying on its own merits. I felt like you were dismissing my post by calling it an appeal to authority, thereby dismissing it not on its own merits (or lack thereof) but because (you felt) it was an appeal to authority. 



Aberzanzorax said:


> Well, you bring up a sore spot, and then are surpised that people complain.




What surprises me is how people can read something negative into Mearls' article. I'm not saying that there wasn't a political, damage control element - maybe there was. But what's wrong with that? Shouldn't they be trying to extend the olive leaf? 

If you read the article without preconceived notions or with letting aside any gripes one might have with WotC, it is a pretty nice statement. 



BryonD said:


> You want "edition-peace", and as soon as everyone agrees with you, we will have it.
> 
> All that stands between us and harmony is everyone else abandoning their preferences and agreeing with mine.




That's BS, Bryon, at least coming from me. I could give two rats asses what your preferences are or whether or not you agree with me; you seem to be missing the point. And I actually like discussing the merits and flaws of various editions of D&D. What bugs me is, as I think Umbran said, being jerks about our preferences and missing the forest--that we're all gamers, all D&D players (in this context)--for the trees (take your pick).

The "big umbrella" approach doesn't negate differences, it just contextualizes them within a sense of larger agreement and community. We're all nerds on the bus, if you will!



Imaro said:


> Well first off, I've seen the "support thing" mostly in reference to PDF's.  I think that some people would actually like to have or be able to complete their 3.5 collection, even if it's in the form of PDF's. For me personally I would like the chance to buy the BECMI gazetteers and the Planescape stuff in PDF... these are all things Paizo or anyone else cannot publish due to IP issues.
> 
> As to what other companies make older editions available... lets see...
> 
> White Wolf has nWoD and oWoD PDF's available
> White Wolf also has Exalted 1st ed. and 2nd ed. PDF's available
> Chaosium has made the PDF's of the old Elric game available
> Goodman continues top make their 3.5 modules available
> Mongoose makes both Runequest 1 and Runequest 2 available via PDF
> FFG makes WFRPG 2e PDF's available
> Steve Jackson makes books available for the 3rd edition of GURPS via PDF
> 
> ... you know this is kinda pointless as there are tons of companies that make older edition material available in digital format... honestly it seems WotC is actually behind the curve when it comes to allowing older edition material to be available to customers.




Fair enough. Again, what I thought was meant by "supporting older editions" was publishing new material, and no game company that I'm aware of--or at least very few--does that. But yeah, I agree about the PDFs. It was a bad PR move in a line of a bunch of bad PR moves that WotC seems particularly prone to making.



pawsplay said:


> Well, I for one am tired of the war against edition warring. Why can I not simply dislike something, or disagree, or refuse to be persuaded, without being labeled as the problem?




Good point. I've often said that the worst culprit in the so-called edition war is when people claim that someone is starting an edition war when they're just talking about different editions in the same paragraph. 

But in terrms of "the problem," let's take that paragraph in Mearls' article that seemed to evoke so much controversy: 



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> This may sound strange, coming from R&D—but it’s easy to mistake   what Wizards of the Coast publishes as the core essence of D&D. We   might print the rules for the current version of the game, or produce   accessories you use at your table, but the game is what you, the   community of D&D fans and players, make it. D&D is the moments   in the game, the interplay within a gaming group, the memories formed   that last forever. It’s intensely personal. It’s your experience as a   group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. *No   specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D   designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.*




What's to disagree with? And, more importantly, what impact does disagreeing with this sentiment create? If, for instance, I disagree with the notion in that last sentence, I'm effectively saying that specific rules, opinions, and game concepts and mechanics _do _change whether what anyone is playing in their basement is D&D or not. Do you see the problem with that perspective? 

In other words, why do _I _get to decide whether or not what _you _are playing is D&D? I don't.

It is similar to the whole debate about the phrase "4E isn't D&D to me." If Bubba says that, he is basically saying to everyone that plays 4E that what they are playing is not D&D to Bubba. I mean, what's the point? What does that do? Of course Bubba has the right to say it, but what sort of impact does it have? I have the right to say "I hate heavy metal music", but if I say it on a forum where many people like heavy metal, what sort of shytstorm do you think I might stir up?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but we also have to look at cause-and-effect.

P.S. We can both agree that we're looking forward to 5E!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Peter said:


> I'm just tired of all of the negativity.. aren't you?






Umbran said:


> What stands between us and harmony is our own willingness to be jerks about having different preferences.  You don't need to like a particular game, or what a company does.  You have to like your fellow gamers enough to treat them well, to consider them before the needs of "winning" an argument on the internet.





We're back to this now, are we?

Maybe it wasn't intended to come across that way, but essentially, this is an attempt to get other people to concede that a certain viewpoint is correct.  With a lot of name-calling directed at people who disagree.

Paranoid delusions?  Really?

I like X.  You like Y.  I like X because it has feel Z, which I always associated with A.  You like Y which has feel B, which you also associated with A, but B was never that important to me, so Y doesn't seem that much like A to me.  When you want to add Y to the definition of A, I am okay that you wish to do so for yourself, but not at all happy that you demand I agree with you.

That demand that I agree with you -- either that Y is A, or that Y is not A -- is the source of negativity.  Remove that demand, and there is no reason to be negative, and no one acts like a jerk.

Why demand that Y be accepted as A?  Well, apart from obvious cases where one's paycheque is on the line, it comes down to feeling that your preferences are validated.

Why demand that Y not be accepted as A?  Well, it comes down to feeling that your preferences are validated.

Really look at both sides of the coin, without picking a side, and you will see that both sides look pretty much the same.  Because most of us can validate our own preferences, and do so on a regular basis.  It is just a small minority, really, that demands some form of unity through conformity.

I say, enjoy whatever game you like.  Life is too short to play games you don't like.

Promote whatever game you like.  That's a good thing; it lets designers know what you are interested in.

Discuss whatever game you like.  Do it with an open mind, and you can expand your appreciation of both things you like, and things you do not.

Think of your game however you like, and let others do the same.  If life is too short to play games you don't like, that goes doubly for bickering about whether or not someone else is allowed to like or not like them.

IMHO.

YMMV.


RC


EDIT:  Another way of saying the same:  As someone who agrees 4e is D&D, but doesn't care for it personally.....What does it matter to me if you don't like 4e or don't consider it D&D?  What does it matter to me if you don't like RCFG or consider it D&D?  What makes those agreements necessary for me to get along with you, or for me to agree that we're all "nerds on a bus"?

I am quite happy to say "RPGs" is the bus, or even "nerdom".  I don't require an agreement as to the particulars.

But, then, I guess I'm a "big tent" kind of guy.....right?


----------



## thedungeondelver

Peter said:


> I'm not calling anyone names.





What color is the sky in your world?

"I didn't say *you* were a paranoid delusional, I said your _ideas_ were a paranoid delusion!  See?  No name calling!"

...which is kind of The-Monarch-from-The-Venture-Brothers level of logic, honestly.

(I'm not saying _you're_ The Monarch, I'm saying your logic is like his.)


----------



## BryonD

Mercurius said:


> That's BS, Bryon, at least coming from me. I could give two rats asses what your preferences are or whether or not you agree with me; you seem to be missing the point. And I actually like discussing the merits and flaws of various editions of D&D. What bugs me is, as I think Umbran said, being jerks about our preferences and missing the forest--that we're all gamers, all D&D players (in this context)--for the trees (take your pick).



First, you spelled my name right on the first try, so kudos.  

If I misread you, then my apologies.

I certainly love discussing systems and enjoy debating.  And I like standing my side, but I constantly draw the difference between discussing objective and subjective differences. But I get declared one of the "jerks" often enough, so I know that side.  Sorry about that.

I readily admit that there are plenty of "WotC killed my dog when they made 4E" types out there.  But, there are also plenty of "I love 4E and can't stand that anyone would be critical or suggest that there are reasons for the divided marketplace."  Both of those tones are in ample supply, both at large and in this thread in particular.

There is not much acceptance of the "we don't like 4E" crowd from the "we do" crowd being displayed.  And the same claim could be said in reverse.  But if the pro-4E side wants peace, maybe starting with their own side would be the best first move.

You called this very thread "all roads lead to Rome, Redux".  Do you see how that phrase in intself rejects the subjective view of people who find the experience of different editions radically different?  Saying there are some common elements is one thing.  But saying someone else can not look at 4E and not see what is, to them, "dungeons and dragons" is not an open or inclusive point of view.  So, between tying it back to that claim on your part, and the overall tone of the pro-4e side in this thread, I took your position as being the way I described it.

If I took ity wrong, I apologize.

Is it now safe for me to conclude you respect the opinions of those who say 4E is not D&D to them and it does not ever get to Rome as far as they are concerned?


----------



## UniversalMonster

In the end, everyone is free to be as unhappy and resentful as they like. I just wish they picked some other place to do it, really. Because here the conversation about gaming will always be trumped by this conversation we have here about resentment, and there's just no answer for it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Peter said:


> In the end, everyone is free to be as unhappy and resentful as they like. I just wish they picked some other place to do it, really. Because here the conversation about gaming will always be trumped by this conversation we have here about resentment, and there's just no answer for it.










The only way to win is not to play.


RC


----------



## ferratus

> Is it now safe for me to conclude you respect the opinions of those who say 4E is not D&D to them and it does not ever get to Rome as far as they are concerned?




The problem is that it is for the gamer who is playing the game to decide whether they have arrived at Rome or not.  It is not for another person to say that they are deluded in their play experience and don't know what "true" D&D is.  Saying that since you can't get to a D&D experience with 4e, doesn't mean that it therefore fails as a path to get there.  Some people can't get to a D&D play experience with 3e either.  Does that mean 3e fails as a path to a D&D experience?

When I look at 4e, I can easily reconstruct in my mind all of the class-based powers as feats, as class abilities from substitution levels, and spells.  I can see all the seeds of 4e within 3e, especially in 3.5.  Since I can do that, I can navigate the route to get to a D&D play experience with 4e.

You get lost everytime you try to use 4e to get to a D&D experience.  Some people always get lost taking one route or another to Rome.  They don't have the ability to follow the directions, but another route gets them where they need to go.   But they sound awfully ignorant when they try to claim the route doesn't work, to people who have arrived via that route.

So no, saying that all roads lead to Rome isn't overly pro-4e, or excluding those who don't like that 4e route.


----------



## BryonD

ferratus said:


> The problem is that it is for the gamer who is playing the game to decide whether they have arrived at Rome or not.



That debate has been beat to death and the point wasn't to start it over here.

If John Doe says "4E isn't D&D", you can be accepting, understand that he is OBVIOUSLY expressing an opinion and be glad that you are both enjoying good games.  Or you can stamp your feet and call his statement insulting.

And, frankly, I don't care which you do.  The first is certainly better, but the second offers more fun time for me.  So whatever.

But, if you choose option two and reject being accepting, you really can't expect to turn around and call for acceptance.  Or at least not without being called on it.


----------



## Mark CMG

Peter said:


> In the end, everyone is free to be as unhappy and resentful as they like. I just wish they picked some other place to do it, really. Because here the conversation about gaming will always be trumped by this conversation we have here about resentment, and there's just no answer for it.





Almost everyone in this thread has been discussing gaming and the article respectfully and without a tone of resentment.  Being unhappy with what WotC does is not equal to being resentful.  And just to reemphasize the context, the people taking exception with some of what is being said in the article all seem to be fine enjoying their own games at their own tables and also enjoying discussing gaming in general here and elsewhere.  The sticking point seems to be that WotC is saying one thing while having been practicing something else for some time now. There are goals in the article and some paths being suggested in this thread toward achieving those goals.  No one is suggesting that these are the only paths, though they are perhaps the most obvious ones to anyone who has been following the dialogue and response to WotC's actions over the past few years.  The question raised in the article is _Why can't everyone be happy?_ (and thereby get along) and when others explain what might make people happy rather than respond to the question you seem to feel denigrating others will achieve this elusive harmony.  It's odd since no one in this thread seems to be upset with how anyone else in their thread plays, as the article seems to suggest.  Rather the disharmony over the past few years seems to stem from how WotC acknowledges it has fans of all editions but doesn't seem to walk the walk of supporting its entire fanabse when so little need really be done to achieve the goal.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Mercurius said:


> That wasn't my intent (sorry, Danny, if it came across that way).




Then I do indeed, and wholly sincerely, apologize for my misperception and the mention of "appeal to authority" that I mistakenly thought followed from that.

Sorry Mercurius.


----------



## Incenjucar

While I understand why players of previous editions would appreciate continued support for those editions, including editions that WotC had no involvement in whatsoever, there's a good chance that the people on top have determined that selling old materials reduces the chance of people adopting the new materials, and also makes them look desperate for sales, which reduces the survivability of the brand as a whole. It would be like Nintendo re-releasing N64 carts because some fans didn't want to move on to the Wii.

While this is an unfortunate aspect of business, and is perhaps something worth writing to *Hasbro* about, considering the nature of D&D I seriously doubt that the D&D staff is making choices to spite people who refuse to adopt the new edition. Beyond that, there is no point where vitriol is reasonable.


----------



## NoWayJose

I think it's true that 4E was marketed in a way that directly or indirectly marginalized the 3E fans.

To convince consumers to buy a new model or upgrade, you can a) convince them there's a problem with the original, and/or b) emphasize all the new and improved features, so that you can c) create lots of hype and sell lots of the new product.

Alternatively, you can market the new product as just another variation (ie., a new flavor of chips, a cold water version of Tide, a blu-ray version of the DVD, etc.) with no judgment call on the viability of the original product (which may or may not be slowly phased out over time).

Like 3.5 was to 3.0, 4E was, for the most part, sold and marketed as The New Edition that would fix all that was broken with the earlier edition. As a consequence of this type of marketing, it is not unreasonable that anyone sticking with the original version for whatever reason may feel marginalized.

In contrast, the Essentials D&D was marketed as a parallel option.

So when Mearls tries to assuage feelings by claiming that 'everything is D&D' without acknowledging that some WoTC actions may have been directly or indirectly part of the problem, I can see why some people would consider that disengenious. If Mearls had touched upon WoTC's role in all this, then perhaps his beseechment would have come across as sincere to everyone (and not just to the 'converted') and perhaps this thread would have been spun quite differently?


----------



## Raven Crowking

double post


----------



## Raven Crowking

NoWayJose, I owe you some XP.

In order to convince anyone of anything that they do not already believe, you first have to understand why they do not already believe it.  Which means that you have to be willing to put yourself in their shoes, without assuming that they are simply being "jerks" (as I believe someone upthread put it).

Thank you for a reasoned post!


RC


----------



## Mark CMG

Incenjucar said:


> While I understand why players of previous editions would appreciate continued support for those editions, including editions that WotC had no involvement in whatsoever, there's a good chance that the people on top have determined that selling old materials reduces the chance of people adopting the new materials, and also makes them look desperate for sales, which reduces the survivability of the brand as a whole.





Has WotC ever given any other reason for nixing PDFs sales other than the 4E PDF pirating?  I've often wondered, like yourself, if there was some wider reasoning behind it, but without some other explanation from them I have to take them at their word.  And with that being their only reason on the table I have to feel that restarting previous edition PDF sales would be an easy fix to much of their PR problem. So, too, I take them at their word that they wish to mend the PR fence, which is why there is such a strange gap between what they say and what they do, or do not do.




Raven Crowking said:


> NoWayJose, I owe you some XP.





Got it . . . but now I owe him!


----------



## Dannager

NoWayJose said:


> I think it's true that 4E was marketed in a way that directly or indirectly marginalized the 3E fans.



I hear this all the time. I mean, someone pops up with this opinion several times a week here, it seems. And despite how many times I hear it, something about it bothers me every single time:

I was a 3rd Edition fan, and I _never once_ felt marginalized by 4e's marketing.

This makes me suspect that perhaps the feeling of marginalization had nothing to do with whether or not someone was a 3rd Edition fan - some 3rd Edition fans were totally cool with the marketing, and some were not. The deciding factor was _not_ whether or not they were 3rd Edition fans, but was something else.


----------



## NoWayJose

Incenjucar said:


> It would be like Nintendo re-releasing N64 carts because some fans didn't want to move on to the Wii.



Nintendo is an entirely different beast... The N64 was effectively nullified by the newest consoles.

The consumer demand for better performance and graphics is so universal and, well, obvious, that the manufacturers don't feel challenged in trying to market the Xbox 360 or PSP 3 as a superior product.

So perhaps a better analogy to D&D and WoTC is to pretend that Microsoft launched a marketing campaign about how the Xbox 360 is lame and clunky, whereas the new Kinect is totally amazing motion capture that replaces any need for the old push button controls. Well, that backfires if some consumers don't like the motion capture and prefer their control pad, or if some people don't like new games offered with Kinect and still want to play the current games for a while longer.

The RPG industry might be unique in that new editions have to be marketed as a complete replacement, but I'm not sure why they would risk alienating fans that way... Every other industry seems to be more careful about managing customer loyalty, no?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

BryonD said:


> If John Doe says "4E isn't D&D", you can be accepting, understand that he is OBVIOUSLY expressing an opinion and be glad that you are both enjoying good games. Or you can stamp your feet and call his statement insulting.




If John Doe could say that, and leave it there, or perhaps elaborate on why he feels that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  But Mr. Doe frequently can't.  Instead of such elaboration, Mr. Doe apparently finds it a better use of his time to dish out the passive aggressive snipes on what anyone else enjoying 4E must be doing with it--since they are obviously aren't [roleplaying, playing D&D, having fun, telling a story, preventing dog and cat abuse, etc.]. 

And speaking of policing "your side," as much as I can admire the way RC, Danny, you and others can argue on behalf of "your side" of this issue with a calm head, I can't help but think that "4E isn't D&D" as a useful shorthand and simple statement of preference could have been preserved if you (collectively) had spent some time countering Mr. Doe's unwarranted sniping--instead of leaving it to others.   (Not that it never happens.  I've been lurking here a long time.  I've seen it happen occasionally.)  

Peter, you are over the line.  I'm probably over the line (hard to see when its you).  If my rifle is loaded and I'm headed to the roof, it's only because I saw Mearls and Mecurious step out in the street, and *immediately* several shots rang out. Hypocrisy?  Really?


----------



## ferratus

BryonD said:


> That debate has been beat to death and the point wasn't to start it over here.




Then stop bringing it up.  I'm responding directly to a post you made.



> If John Doe says "4E isn't D&D", you can be accepting, understand that he is OBVIOUSLY expressing an opinion and be glad that you are both enjoying good games.  Or you can stamp your feet and call his statement insulting.




Oh wow.  You don't have much respect for people do you?  I like the way you phrased your sentence to portray me as a petulant child while you lecture me on being respectful of other people's opinions and play styles.  A brief and elegant bit of passive aggressiveness.   Rich with irony too.



> And, frankly, I don't care which you do.  The first is certainly better, but the second offers more fun time for me.  So whatever.




Oh, but you do care Bryon.  You see, it isn't me that is on every single thread in this forum someone starts talking about "4e Dungeons and Dragons" that immediately jumps up to take a position of whether 4e is D&D or not.  That's YOU.   Most people will not even recognize me as a regular commentator on the edition wars at all.

So I think you need to thrust yourself on casual commentators who are enjoying talking about their game as a means to talk down to them, as you did to me in that last paragraph.  I think that's how you find your fun, and I'm probably just encouraging you by responding to you.  I think that you would have considerably less fun if people didn't respond to your provocations at all and simply accepted them, as you suggest I should do.



> But, if you choose option two and reject being accepting, you really can't expect to turn around and call for acceptance.  Or at least not without being called on it.




Listen, Mercurius simply said that we all have different ways of playing the same game, and that playing different editions is part of the difference in how we play.  However, we can all acknowledge that what we play is part of the wider hobby of Dungeons and Dragons.   That's a pretty non-controversial statement to everyone but those who want to make the claim that other people don't know how to play D&D properly.  

You want to make the claim that you can't have a good ol' D&D experience with 4e... fine.  Nobody will gainsay you, including the OP.  If you want to say that I am not having a D&D experience, I'll tell you that you just don't have the same perception of the game that I do, and you're being rude in assuming that you are a better arbiter of what is the "spirit" of D&D than I am.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

NoWayJose said:


> So perhaps a better analogy to D&D and WoTC is to pretend that Microsoft ...




Change the product, and you don't even need to pretend.  Microsoft has frequently aliented customers with changes to a software package--in MS Word itself at least two or three times.  MS Word 2007 is a big improvement over the prior version in a lot of ways. It's faster, friendlier to true newbies, and more reliable.  However, the "rearrange all the menus and hide 3/4 of the features by default" plan still annoys me, and I've been using it for a couple of years now.

Many people think that Vista sucks, but Windows 7 seems to be heavily admired.  "All" Windows 7 is, is Vista cleaned up and a few missing parts straightened out, based on a few years experience.  That's a lot of "all," though.

There are bugs in Visual Studio 2005 that MS never did fix.  They finally just designed around them in 2008 and 2010.  

If you liked 3E, didn't like 4E, and are hopeful for 5E--any one of those patterns could apply.  Or something different.  Just note that in all those cases, MS never explicitly said anything negative about prior versions.  They pretty much market everything as "the bestest ever", to constantly rolling eyes. But then, they don't often let their internal tech people speak openly until an old issue is moot.


----------



## DaveMage

I can't wait for 5E to come out so that the 4E fans can be as upset as the 3E fans were with 4E.   

That's when the 3E/4E edition wars will likely stop.   


(Although, unfortunately 4E fans, without the OGL, there will be no Paizo to rescue you from 5E hell.)


----------



## NoWayJose

Crazy Jerome said:


> If you liked 3E, didn't like 4E, and are hopeful for 5E--any one of those patterns could apply. Or something different. Just note that in all those cases, MS never explicitly said anything negative about prior versions. They pretty much market everything as "the bestest ever", to constantly rolling eyes. But then, they don't often let their internal tech people speak openly until an old issue is moot.



I'm not sure I understand this analogy either. Almost every industry feels the need to market the new version as best ever. Whether this succeeds or not is besides the point.

You wrote that Microsoft 'never explicitly said anything negative about prior versions' which is usually the correct way to market a new product. That's how Essentials vs core 4E was marketed. I don't think that's how 4E to 3E was marketed.

The other difference between Microsoft and WoTC is that Windows XP and Vista are STILL being officially supported.


----------



## ferratus

DaveMage said:


> I can't wait for 5E to come out so that the 4E fans can be as upset as the 3E fans were with 4E.




Well, no worries for me.  It's three years in.  I saw the warts with 3e at about this time, and I see the warts with 4e too.  I think 3.5 solved some problems but also fixed things that didn't need to be fixed, and I think 4e essentials did the same thing.

So I'm already upset with both 3e and 4e.   Whether I am satisfied with 5e will depend on which direction they take it.  If it revives the Tolkienish flavour of 2e, makes the use of miniatures optional, and brings in lots of rules for managing a keep and followers... I'll likely be satisfied.  If it becomes more about powers and power-ups, miniatures encounters, and a campaign of constant dungeon crawling with goth/new age/metal themes and flavour... I'll probably not be interested.

After all, if I was interested in all those things, I'd be happily playing 4e rather than trying to come up with my "best of D&D" home-made system.  So I guess I'm using works rather than just faith alone in the Wizards of the Coast to achieve my gaming salvation.



> That's when the 3E/4E edition wars will likely stop.




The edition wars have largely stopped enough that I can generally name all of the regular instigators on this forum.  (You are on that list of names DaveMage but near the bottom). 

That pretty much is the same as it was when 3e came out.  The accusations that 3e wasn't D&D generally lasted 3 or 4 years before people generally settled down to either accept that new school was here to stay, and/or began organizing an "old school renaissance".  In real life, I have to say, I meet just as many people who consider 2e to be the best edition of D&D as 3e... but I meet very few people who actually take the time to play.



> (Although, unfortunately 4E fans, without the OGL, there will be no Paizo to rescue you from 5E hell.)




 I don't think anyone really needs to be rescued from 5e hell.  You see, 4e doesn't have the OGL, but its design makes it very easy to offer support for without rewriting any rules.   The base combat system is pretty much the same as the 3e system, so the OGL applies there.  The rest of the rules are delivered through powers.  You can simply invent new powers that have a direct effect on how miniatures affect the battlemat.. and there is pretty much nothing WotC can do.  As well, since everything is about matching attack to a defense, you can rewrite the rules to be compatible with all of the monsters 4e has created with a completely new rules system.  Sure you couldn't actually call it 4e D&D, or put the D&D name on it, but 4e is very, very easy to clone.


----------



## Dannager

DaveMage said:


> I can't wait for 5E to come out so that the 4E fans can be as upset as the 3E fans were with 4E.
> 
> That's when the 3E/4E edition wars will likely stop.
> 
> 
> (Although, unfortunately 4E fans, without the OGL, there will be no Paizo to rescue you from 5E hell.)



Except that quite a lot of the people who are 4e fans are 4e fans in part because they are not the type to get upset by the next iteration of a game, and are, in fact, excited by the idea of the game moving forward. 

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3rd Edition holdouts/Pathfinder players end up more upset with whatever 5th Edition turns out to be than the 4e players do.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

NoWayJose said:


> I'm not sure I understand this analogy either. Almost every industry feels the need to market the new version as best ever. Whether this succeeds or not is besides the point.
> 
> You wrote that Microsoft 'never explicitly said anything negative about prior versions' which is usually the correct way to market a new product. That's how Essentials vs core 4E was marketed. I don't think that's how 4E to 3E was marketed.
> 
> The other difference between Microsoft and WoTC is that Windows XP and Vista are STILL being officially supported.




Microsoft clamps down on their message harder than WotC. They probably spend a bit more on marketing, too. My point there is that, after the fact, you can find people from MS who say highly critical things about prior versions. They are the same things they said in closed door meetings, which is what led to the changes in the first place. For why we don't find out about them, see the clamp. So I guess I'm saying that we could get better messaging from WotC if they got themselves a clamp. However, I'd prefer to have the information, rather than nothing but preapproved marketing speak--whatever trouble it causes.

And remember what topic we are in. If we go with what ByronD said earlier, then should not have all those people that got cheesed at WotC's comments simply have shrugged it off as an expression of preferences? 

As for officially supported, there is officially supported and then there is "officially supported". MS doesn't have any choice with operating systems--too many units. Visual Studio? Don't make me laugh! I'm working on a project right now in VS 2010--because the components I needed were broken in VS 2005, promised a fix, never fixed, and finally quitely removed from that edition when 2008 arrived. And I just spent the last two days tracking down an "optional" component needed to make a VS 2010 feature work. You can include the feature without that component and it will run. It just won't work.

That's roughly equivalent to WotC deciding that the 3E bard and ranger needed work, promising a fix, including the fluff and headers for the new versions in 3.5, promising to get you the new mechanics any day now, and then when 4E arrives, telling you just to switch to that if you want a working bard or ranger. (Not that the 3E bard and ranger were *that* bad.) 

I think WotC's piracy concerns are vastly inflated beyond reason, especially with the 3.* OGL documents out there anyway, nevermind PF.  I'd say it would be worth their while to put some older stuff out there on PDF, just to quit listening to that particular complaint.  Or better yet, license someone else to do it, and manage the work.  OTOH, they have to wonder what the new complaint would be, once that one was addressed.  Sometimes, better to stick with the complaint you have ...


----------



## Crazy Jerome

DaveMage said:


> I can't wait for 5E to come out so that the 4E fans can be as upset as the 3E fans were with 4E.
> 
> That's when the 3E/4E edition wars will likely stop.




The 2E/3E edition war was finally put to rest when 3.5 arrived and created another tsunami to drown it out.  Not that this negates that particular point.  But if you are counting on 4E fans to be as upset with 5E as 3E fans were with 4E, you are setting the bar awfully high ...


----------



## ferratus

Dannager said:


> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3rd Edition holdouts/Pathfinder players end up more upset with whatever 5th Edition turns out to be than the 4e players do.




I'll imagine that they will be like the supporters of 1e/2e, who simply see 4e as a continuation of 3e.  3e/Pathfinder will largely see 5e as a continuation of designs elements they don't like that 4e introduced.

I do think that there will be some 4e players who are 12-22 who will hate 5e as not being D&D because 4e is the only system that they've ever played.  D&D 2e gives the "most authentic" experience of D&D for me because I played it at the age of 12.  My friend's son will never associate 2e or 3e with D&D at all.  I also think that when you've only played one edition you can lack some perspective.  People used to say that 2e wasn't really D&D anymore when it was new too.  Now people talk about the two editions as if they are practically twins.

I understand the desire of the old-timers on forums such as Dragonsfoot or blogs such as Grognardia for the D&D experience of their youth.  I want to revive some of the themes and experiences that old-school play encouraged too.  I do however find it frustrating that they are largely a useless resource when asking for advice on how to fix elements of the mechanics of older editions that you don't like, or even worse adapting rules from later editions into your 1e/2e game.   The answer is usually "That rule makes perfect sense and is better than any so-called improvements, so don't bother changing it."


----------



## Dannager

ferratus said:


> I'll imagine that they will be like the supporters of 1e/2e, who simply see 4e as a continuation of 3e.  3e/Pathfinder will largely see 5e as a continuation of designs elements they don't like that 4e introduced.
> 
> I do think that there will be some 4e players who are 12-22 who will hate 5e as not being D&D because 4e is the only system that they've ever played.



Right, I think there will be some current edition players who won't like what ends up changing, but I think what we'll see far more of are previous edition players who, for whatever reason, were hoping that the developers would actually _backpedal_ their design philosophy, and who will end up upset that this is not the case. I can practically guarantee that whatever comes next for D&D will look less like 1e/2e/3e than what we're playing right now. And, frankly, I'm excited that's the case.


----------



## Imaro

Crazy Jerome said:


> If John Doe could say that, and leave it there, or perhaps elaborate on why he feels that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But Mr. Doe frequently can't. Instead of such elaboration, Mr. Doe apparently finds it a better use of his time to dish out the passive aggressive snipes on what anyone else enjoying 4E must be doing with it--since they are obviously aren't [roleplaying, playing D&D, having fun, telling a story, preventing dog and cat abuse, etc.].




Ok... I just had to read this again to make sure I wasn't imagining that you had actually whined earlier in the thread about passive aggresive snipes and then... opened up a volley of your own passive aggressiveness towards 3.5 players with no provocation...



Crazy Jerome said:


> ...
> And remember what topic we are in. If we go with what ByronD said earlier, then should not have all those people that got cheesed at WotC's comments simply have shrugged it off as an expression of preferences?
> 
> ...That's roughly equivalent to WotC deciding that the 3E bard and ranger needed work, promising a fix, including the fluff and headers for the new versions in 3.5, promising to get you the new mechanics any day now, and then when 4E arrives, telling you just to switch to that if you want a working bard or ranger. (Not that the 3E bard and ranger were *that* bad.)






Crazy Jerome said:


> ... But if you are counting on 4E fans to be as upset with 5E as 3E fans were with 4E, you are setting the bar awfully high ...




Kettle...pot. Oh, and just because you stick smilies on the end of a sentence doesn't make it any less snide, condescending or passive aggressive. Real talk.


----------



## TheFindus

I am quite shocked.

This thread has "edition war" written all over it.
The cause of it being an article that spells out "togetherness" in almost every single line. This is just mindboggling to me.

I think I will take a long break from ENWorld. Too much anger here.

See ya.


----------



## Beginning of the End

First, let me just say that the first thread where somebody said, "You're wrong about 4E having fundamentally different gameplay, and now that we've all agreed that you're wrong, can't we all just get along?" ended splendidly, and I'm really glad we're trying to do it again. I think it's really productive.

With that sarcasm out of my system, allow me to continue...



Mercurius said:


> Hmm? Really? Here's the quote in question:
> 
> 
> 
> D&D is the moments  in the game, the interplay within a gaming  group, the memories formed  that last forever. It’s intensely personal.  It’s your experience as a  group, the stories that you and your friends  share to this day. *No  specific rule, no random opinion, no game  concept from an R&D  designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can  alter that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put the relevant sentence in bold-faced.
Click to expand...



Does he mean that changing the rules can't alter the moments in the game, the interplay within my gaming group, or the stories that we share? Because I can speak from personal experience and say, "Yes. It does."

(And, honestly, if you think that it doesn't, then you have no business being a game designer.)



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> When we look to the past, we learn that there are far more things that tie us together than tear us apart.




Ze game remains the same! Ze game remains the same! Ze game remains the same!

They protest too much.

In fact, they spend a lot of time claiming that a game that was designed to do fundamentally  different things in fundamentally different ways is not actually  different from its predecessors in any meaningful way If they'd spent as much time designing a game that actually captured the gameplay of D&D from 1974 to 2008 while fixing 3E's problems... ... Well, they  probably wouldn't have split their customer base so severely.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Imaro said:


> Ok... I just had to read this again to make sure I wasn't imagining that you had actually whined earlier in the thread about passive aggresive snipes and then... opened up a volley of your own passive aggressiveness towards 3.5 players with no provocation...
> 
> 
> Kettle...pot. Oh, and just because you stick smilies on the end of a sentence doesn't make it any less snide, condescending or passive aggressive. Real talk.




Everything I have said has been a direct reply to something brought up by someone else and statements made earlier in the topic.  If I have come across as passive aggressive, I apologize, as that was not my intent.

My intent was to aggressively, no passive about it, call out people who couldn't let the ink dry on an internet post before calling out the OP and Mearls.  If holding up the mirror to that behavior means that I have to get down in the ditch with the rest, well, I'm sorry for that too.  If I were a better person, a more accomplished person, I could get the pot to look at itself long enough to quit trying to pre-empt the kettle. Sadly, I lack these skills.  And as long as I'm apologizing, I'll go ahead an apologize for mixing my metaphors, too, as I'm sure that'll be the next tangent barked up. 

The last paragraph was passive-aggressive.  See the difference?


----------



## Dannager

TheFindus said:


> I am quite shocked.
> 
> This thread has "edition war" written all over it.
> The cause of it being an article that spells out "togetherness" in almost every single line. This is just mindboggling to me.
> 
> I think I will take a long break from ENWorld. Too much anger here.
> 
> See ya.



I'm not actually seeing much in the way of edition-based hostility in this thread. I think you may be mistaking fairly civil discussion for edition wars.

Oh, and when you take issue with a perceived divisiveness on a website, it strikes me that leaving a message that translates roughly to "Screw this website, I'm leaving," probably doesn't contribute much by way of solution. You probably would have been better off just not posting.


----------



## Dannager

Beginning of the End said:


> Does he mean that changing the rules can't alter the moments in the game, the interplay within my gaming group, or the stories that we share? Because I can speak from personal experience and say, "Yes. It does."
> 
> (And, honestly, if you think that it doesn't, then you have no business being a game designer.)



No, I think he means that a changed rule, or an inflammatory opinion, or a design decision will not change the fact that you have shared memories of the games you've played in the past, and those memories are not altered by changes that might be made in the future. It's a unifying message.

I'll also add: If you get a group of random D&D players together and ask them to narrate one of their favorite adventures without making reference to rules, you will be largely unable to make a definitive determination as to which edition any given story "belongs" to.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> Except that quite a lot of the people who are 4e fans are 4e fans in part because they are not the type to get upset by the next iteration of a game, and are, in fact, excited by the idea of the game moving forward.
> 
> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3rd Edition holdouts/Pathfinder players end up more upset with whatever 5th Edition turns out to be than the 4e players do.



I don't think that is true at all.  I think you will find that the proportions are about equal in measure.

Certainly there are many that will.  But, there are also plenty that are none to shy about their loathing of 3E and would be just as vocal if a 5E moved back in that direction.

That isn't intended as an "I know you are but what am I" or a one-upping.  All I mean is they are both collections of human beings and you will see the same general distribution of reactions.  Tolerance for change is easy to show when you LIKE the changes.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> I'll also add: If you get a group of random D&D players together and ask them to narrate one of their favorite adventures without making reference to rules, you will be largely unable to make a definitive determination as to which edition any given story "belongs" to.



 If you get a group of random fantasy tabletop players together and ask them to narrate one of their favorite adventures without making reference to rules, you will be largely unable to make a definitive determination as to which game system any given story "belongs" to.

That doesn't make them all the same.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

BryonD said:


> If you get a group of random fantasy tabletop players together and ask them to narrate one of their favorite adventures without making reference to rules, you will be largely unable to make a definitive determination as to which game system any given story "belongs" to.
> 
> That doesn't make them all the same.




True, assuming that they can so narrate.  I have my doubts about their ability to do so, unless they are gifted speakers/writers, or have a wide variety of experiences with different game systems.  Hints creep in.  It is easier for the casual observer to see the D&D influence in Raymond Feist than it is to see the D&D influence in Steven Brust.  This despite that the Feist version was probably more heavily house ruled during the play that informed those stories.  

Whether that supports or undermines your point, I'm not at all sure.


----------



## Imaro

Crazy Jerome said:


> Everything I have said has been a direct reply to something brought up by someone else and statements made earlier in the topic. If I have come across as passive aggressive, I apologize, as that was not my intent.
> 
> My intent was to aggressively, no passive about it, call out people who couldn't let the ink dry on an internet post before calling out the OP and Mearls. If holding up the mirror to that behavior means that I have to get down in the ditch with the rest, well, I'm sorry for that too. If I were a better person, a more accomplished person, I could get the pot to look at itself long enough to quit trying to pre-empt the kettle. Sadly, I lack these skills. And as long as I'm apologizing, I'll go ahead an apologize for mixing my metaphors, too, as I'm sure that'll be the next tangent barked up.
> 
> The last paragraph was passive-aggressive. See the difference?




Waitaminute... so your perception is that people "called out" the OP and Mearls??? No one forced the OP to post this on a discussion forum, but in doing so he invites debate. It seems more that you're bitter because not everyone believes Mearl's sentiments are sincere... and they had the audacity to post what they think... on a discussion board. Seriously, get over it.

There's nothing clever or thought provoking about snide quips, especially when coated with the hypocrisy of feighned victimization... I mean seriously it seems you're the one who can't just accept that not everyone is going to agree with you. It also seems you're trying to provoke more hostility in the thread with potshots in some misguided attempt to enlighten all those you deem in need of it. I mean it must be lonely up there on that high horse where you need to teach us the errors of our ways...


----------



## Umbran

BryonD said:


> That doesn't make them all the same.




Correct.  However, it makes them similar enough that beating each other over the head about the differences seems pretty silly, though.

Not to say that the differences aren't worth discussing.  Just that they aren't worth warring over.


----------



## M.L. Martin

Incenjucar said:


> While I understand why players of previous editions would appreciate continued support for those editions, including editions that WotC had no involvement in whatsoever, there's a good chance that the people on top have determined that selling old materials reduces the chance of people adopting the new materials, and also makes them look desperate for sales, which reduces the survivability of the brand as a whole. It would be like Nintendo re-releasing N64 carts because some fans didn't want to move on to the Wii.




  Bad example, since Nintendo is selling games going back to the NES through its Virtual Console. It's even allowing developers to sell _new_ games designed with 8-bit style and standards through it.

  I would also note that Hasbro has had no problems with reissuing old Transformers and GI Joe figures to a limited extent, or with maintaining multiple sub-lines with each brand. I strongly suspect that the 'one D&D to rule them all, one D&D to bind them' philosophy comes from WotC, who did make their success with a uniform, strongly unified play environment.


----------



## Mark CMG

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Bad example, since Nintendo is selling games going back to the NES through its Virtual Console. It's even allowing developers to sell _new_ games designed with 8-bit style and standards through it.





Yet there still seems to be some interest in that style of gaming.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Hey, as one of those "likes 3e and 4e" freaks, let me step in and point out that if I were to make a 3e based thread here, nobody would poop on my face about it, but I know for a fact that it would be different fora  4e thread.

If I like 3e or older editions - which I do - I have a whole *lot* of books to support it.

If I like Pathfinder - which I do then I have a full company continuing to make books for it.

If I like 4e -which I do - then I again have a full company continuing to make books for it

At the point the only people still mad about 4e are those that cannot get over their goddamn martyr complex.  It's been three years.  I somehow miraculously am in a 3e game despite it apparently being murdered in a horrible and brutal fashion by those nasty devils at WotC.

If a message all about togetherness and gamers getting along gets nothing but spite and snide, the problem isn't with the message.

Earlier this week or last week, hundred year old oak trees were poisoned and killed by an erratic and angry sports fan.  *Stop being like that.*


----------



## Beginning of the End

Dannager said:


> No, I think he means that a changed rule, or an inflammatory opinion, or a design decision will not change the fact that you have shared memories of the games you've played in the past, and those memories are not altered by changes that might be made in the future. It's a unifying message.




Maybe I'm just giving Mearls too much credit, but I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying. Largely because I seriously doubt there's any meaningful contingent of people saying, "We played baseball today, but today we're playing football AND MY MEMORIES OF PLAYING BASEBALL HAVE BEEN DESTROYED!" that needs to be responded to.


----------



## mxyzplk

On the one hand, I can agree with Mearls.  Why do we obsess over the specific rules of our edition?  People who played football talk about how they played football, and don't scream "YOU PLAYED WITHOUT TWO POINT CONVERSIONS YOU ARE THE ANTICHRIST."  "YOU YOUNG PUPS THAT PLAY WITH HELMETS AND PADS ARE WUSSES." Concentrate on the shared experience and let people do it the way they like.

On the other hand, there's a really, really good chance that this is apologetics for what they are about to do to D&D, which will transform it away from what even 4e players recognize as an RPG, and plead "but aren't we a big tent CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG." "This is the current incarnation of the D&D BRAND, you can experience it in, you know, other ways if you like, DON'T HIT ME IT'S NOT MY FAULT HASBRO MADE ME."


----------



## Raven Crowking

Again, this whole discussion only matters if your tent is *just big enough *to worry about what other folks think is or isn't D&D, and *too darn small* to consider "all rpgs" as the tent instead.

Which is really a pretty narrow range of tents to find acceptable, IMHO.

YMMV.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

mxyzplk said:


> On the one hand, I can agree with Mearls.  Why do we obsess over the specific rules of our edition?  People who played football talk about how they played football, and don't scream "YOU PLAYED WITHOUT TWO POINT CONVERSIONS YOU ARE THE ANTICHRIST."  "YOU YOUNG PUPS THAT PLAY WITH HELMETS AND PADS ARE WUSSES." Concentrate on the shared experience and let people do it the way they like.
> 
> On the other hand, there's a really, really good chance that this is apologetics for what they are about to do to D&D, which will transform it away from what even 4e players recognize as an RPG, and plead "but aren't we a big tent CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG." "This is the current incarnation of the D&D BRAND, you can experience it in, you know, other ways if you like, DON'T HIT ME IT'S NOT MY FAULT HASBRO MADE ME."




This is literally paranoia.

I don't mean like "you are paranoid" nor am I insulting you; I'm saying that you are taking a statement of togetherness and understanding and you're twisting it into something incredibly negative that is aimed at harming others.

It's almost textbook definition of paranoia.


----------



## BryonD

Umbran said:


> Correct.  However, it makes them similar enough that beating each other over the head about the differences seems pretty silly, though.
> 
> Not to say that the differences aren't worth discussing.  Just that they aren't worth warring over.



Did I advocate anything different?

People who have been around a long time will know that I argued just as much two years before 4E was announced as I do now.  It is fun.


The differences are well worth discussing.  And frankly, I find debating differences vastly more engaging and entertaining than "me too".  Yes, people say stupid stuff on both sides.  But I don't see how that makes "beating each other over the head" an appropriate response to what I said.

I'll readily admit that I've fired off some ill-thought one liners on occasion.  If you go back and look at the times you have said anything at all to me you will first see that they are all one liners.  I snap off something stupid in 10 seconds.  Which is not remotely to justify it.  That is stupid.  But you will ALSO see that I walk away from debates very frequently.  99% of the time, when the opposition gets dumb, imo, and is the easiest target for just blasting.   I walk away.  

Yeah, I screw up some and there is no excuse.  And it is also understandable that my overall perception gets colored by those hair trigger exceptions.  Human nature, that's cool.

But I wasn't looking to "beat anyone over the head" when I rules argued pre-4E and I'm not now.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Peter said:


> Maybe someone will make a D&D retro-clone and put it upon the internet for free one day.
> 
> I just don't think this happens very often. The history of the hobby is interesting, but in the end, it's still history.




I want to ask because I'm not sure, but surely you are posting that ironically?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mercurius said:


> Personally, I think they're merely making the mistake of being overbroad and imprecise I criticized from the start.
> 
> I mean, the closing phrase of the last sentence is simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm? Really? Here's the quote in question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Mike Mearls
> This may sound strange, coming from R&D—but it’s easy to mistake what Wizards of the Coast publishes as the core essence of D&D. We might print the rules for the current version of the game, or produce accessories you use at your table, but the game is what you, the community of D&D fans and players, make it. D&D is the moments in the game, the interplay within a gaming group, the memories formed that last forever. It’s intensely personal. It’s your experience as a group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. *No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I put the relevant sentence in bold-faced.
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you, Danny, even vehemently (well, I'm not really feeling _vehemence, _but you get my point).
Click to expand...



If you're going to disagree with me- using boldface, no less- please boldface the right stuff.  I said "the closing _*phrase*_ of the last sentence is simply wrong"- not the whole sentence.  IOW, the portion of that sentence that read "no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that."

I daresay that had WotC simply taken the mechanics from F.A.T.A.L. (or R.A.H.O.W.A., or even less controversial games like HERO or GURPS) and used them in their entirety as the whole of 4Ed, very few people on these boards would call the end result D&D.

Ergo, the closing phrase of the last sentence is simply very factually wrong.


----------



## mxyzplk

ProfessorCirno said:


> This is literally paranoia.
> 
> I don't mean like "you are paranoid" nor am I insulting you; I'm saying that you are taking a statement of togetherness and understanding and you're twisting it into something incredibly negative that is aimed at harming others.
> 
> It's almost textbook definition of paranoia.




One man's paranoia is another man's learned experience... "It's not paranoid if they're really out to get you."

Do you think the Orwellian reiteration of the phrase "the brand" that's come into currency in the last year is a coincidence? Boy, it would be nice if it was.  It would be nice if other RPG companies ( White Wolf cough cough) weren't doing the same thing, sacrificing the old RPG at the altar of better ways for The Brand to earn for them... 

Writing on the wall, or paranoid hallucinations?  We'll see.


----------



## Dannager

mxyzplk said:


> One man's paranoia is another man's learned experience... "It's not paranoid if they're really out to get you."
> 
> Do you think the Orwellian reiteration of the phrase "the brand" that's come into currency in the last year is a coincidence? Boy, it would be nice if it was.  It would be nice if other RPG companies ( White Wolf cough cough) weren't doing the same thing, sacrificing the old RPG at the altar of better ways for The Brand to earn for them...
> 
> Writing on the wall, or paranoid hallucinations?  We'll see.



But that's the best part about paranoid predictions: they're either totally forgotten if they end up being irrelevant, or they end up coming true and then you can go and say "I TOTALLY TOLD YOU SO!"

Basically, people have learned (consciously or not) that predicting unhappy change is basically foolproof. You can't lose. Either your portents of doom don't come true, no one remembers that you got it wrong, and you get to enjoy the happy times that follow, or your portents of doom _do_ come true and you get undeservedly hailed as a keen observer (even though all you were doing was pointing out every possible sign - no matter how small or clouded - and seeing what sticks).

The takeaway from this is that people who are aware of how this all works shouldn't give half a damn about portents of doom.


----------



## pawsplay

Why don't you play 4e? It's not got much Rome in it.
_But I don't want any Rome! I don't like Rome!_


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Dannager said:


> But that's the best part about paranoid predictions: they're either totally forgotten if they end up being irrelevant, or they end up coming true and then you can go and say "I TOTALLY TOLD YOU SO!"
> 
> Basically, people have learned (consciously or not) that predicting unhappy change is basically foolproof. You can't lose. Either your portents of doom don't come true, no one remembers that you got it wrong, and you get to enjoy the happy times that follow, or your portents of doom _do_ come true and you get undeservedly hailed as a keen observer (even though all you were doing was pointing out every possible sign - no matter how small or clouded - and seeing what sticks).
> 
> The takeaway from this is that people who are aware of how this all works shouldn't give half a damn about portents of doom.




Case in point, this thread is the now standard _weekly_ proclamation of 4e's doom on ENWorld, a proud tradition that has gone on for *three years* now.


----------



## Imaro

ProfessorCirno said:


> If a message all about togetherness and gamers getting along gets nothing but spite and snide, the problem isn't with the message.




Needless to say, I don't necessarily agree with the other points in your post... but I really want to address the above. I find it strange that, especially after the misleading messages about the CB during the secret transition from offline to online, you think people should take WotC at their word without questioning or suspecting. This isn't Mearls as my friend speaking... it is Mearls as a representative and under the direction of WotC putting out an article they paid him to write. On the one hand we should expect WotC to do what makes them money and treat them like a company... but then when something like this comes out, we should ignore the previous deceptive practices and misleading statements by WotC and just accept there is no hidden agenda behind the article and they really are just gamers making games... sorry but WotC has really ran that particular well dry, for me and many others at least. I play in a 4e game now (though I will readily admit I prefer Pathfinder) but I choose not to buy anything more from WotC because I simply don't like or trust them as a company anymore... and that, IMO, is what is driving the sentiments in many after reading this article... not necessarily what edition they favor but the previous actions of the company as opposed to the message they are presenting. In other words for many WotC can't just speak about it... they need to be about it.

I'm sorry but this isn't even a 3e vs. 4e thing, on WotC own site there are 4e players already posting that they also suspect Mearls article of being less than sincere, and/or a sign of weakness. When many of your own fans and customers who actually play the game and subscribe to your service have gotten to the point where they don't take your words at face value... perhaps it's time to actually extend some kind of good faith token as opposed to just words. YMMV of course.


----------



## DaveMage

ferratus said:


> Well, no worries for me.  It's three years in.  I saw the warts with 3e at about this time, and I see the warts with 4e too.  I think 3.5 solved some problems but also fixed things that didn't need to be fixed, and I think 4e essentials did the same thing.
> 
> So I'm already upset with both 3e and 4e.   Whether I am satisfied with 5e will depend on which direction they take it.  If it revives the Tolkienish flavour of 2e, makes the use of miniatures optional, and brings in lots of rules for managing a keep and followers... I'll likely be satisfied.  If it becomes more about powers and power-ups, miniatures encounters, and a campaign of constant dungeon crawling with goth/new age/metal themes and flavour... I'll probably not be interested.
> 
> After all, if I was interested in all those things, I'd be happily playing 4e rather than trying to come up with my "best of D&D" home-made system.  So I guess I'm using works rather than just faith alone in the Wizards of the Coast to achieve my gaming salvation.




Well, actually, I don't think WotC will make the same marketing mistakes with 5E.  That will likely go a long way towards a lack of anger.



ferratus said:


> The edition wars have largely stopped enough that I can generally name all of the regular instigators on this forum.  (You are on that list of names DaveMage but near the bottom).




Near the bottom?

Geez, I'm slacking....

Actually, I don't really think about it as much anymore - except when Mercurius starts a new thread.   



ferratus said:


> That pretty much is the same as it was when 3e came out.  The accusations that 3e wasn't D&D generally lasted 3 or 4 years before people generally settled down to either accept that new school was here to stay, and/or began organizing an "old school renaissance".  In real life, I have to say, I meet just as many people who consider 2e to be the best edition of D&D as 3e... but I meet very few people who actually take the time to play.




See, people mention this, but I don't remember as deep a schism once 3E came out.  Heck, *I* was worried about 3E when it was first announced.  (Especially staring at me extensive 2E collection.)  But they won me over - especially by making it clear that all my 2E fluff was still very usable.  (And it was - and still is in 3.5/Pathfinder!)




ferratus said:


> I don't think anyone really needs to be rescued from 5e hell.  You see, 4e doesn't have the OGL, but its design makes it very easy to offer support for without rewriting any rules.   The base combat system is pretty much the same as the 3e system, so the OGL applies there.  The rest of the rules are delivered through powers.  You can simply invent new powers that have a direct effect on how miniatures affect the battlemat.. and there is pretty much nothing WotC can do.  As well, since everything is about matching attack to a defense, you can rewrite the rules to be compatible with all of the monsters 4e has created with a completely new rules system.  Sure you couldn't actually call it 4e D&D, or put the D&D name on it, but 4e is very, very easy to clone.




Well, "5E hell" was a bit of a joke.   Obviously we have no idea what it will look like, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if we never see it - at least, not from WotC.  Also, as someone said elsewhere in the thread, I think that because of the differences between 3E & 4E, most 4E fans like new systems, and would probably embrace (or at least be open to) any changes.


----------



## mxyzplk

Dannager said:


> But that's the best part about paranoid predictions: they're either totally forgotten if they end up being irrelevant, or they end up coming true and then you can go and say "I TOTALLY TOLD YOU SO!"
> 
> Basically, people have learned (consciously or not) that predicting unhappy change is basically foolproof. You can't lose. Either your portents of doom don't come true, no one remembers that you got it wrong, and you get to enjoy the happy times that follow, or your portents of doom _do_ come true and you get undeservedly hailed as a keen observer (even though all you were doing was pointing out every possible sign - no matter how small or clouded - and seeing what sticks).




Yes, that is how I came to win the Internets.  Don't be envious! There's enough of me to go around.


----------



## BryonD

ProfessorCirno said:


> Case in point, this thread is the now standard _weekly_ proclamation of 4e's doom on ENWorld, a proud tradition that has gone on for *three years* now.



I'd suggest that the predictions of decline have been bearing out.

Certainly the counter-predictions that all the debate would die down once everyone accepted the transition have been shot down.  

But calling current statements "of doom", strongly implying an expectation of sudden extermination, doesn't make the constant observations of underwhelming status any less accurate.


----------



## BryonD

DaveMage said:


> See, people mention this, but I don't remember as deep a schism once 3E came out.  Heck, *I* was worried about 3E when it was first announced.  (Especially staring at me extensive 2E collection.)  But they won me over - especially by making it clear that all my 2E fluff was still very usable.  (And it was - and still is in 3.5/Pathfinder!)



Exactly.

There WERE people saying the same things.  So simply making a general comment is easy.

But the statement, "there are black marbles in the bag" is true whether there are 2 in a bag of 100 or 40 in a bag of 100.  (or is it 60?)

And even more significantly, as the pro-4e side likes to point out, we are talking about a vocal minority.  And, truthfully, it is a vocal minority on both sides of the debate.  Most people on either "side" of the debate really don't care in the least about "the debate" they just go about playing their game of choice.  And when you look at the market mood rather than the intrawebs kerfluffle, the difference between general acceptance then and market splitting now is even more pronounced.


----------



## Umbran

BryonD said:


> Did I advocate anything different?




Not everything said is specifically for you, you know.



ProfessorCirno said:


> At the point the only people still mad about 4e are those that cannot get over their goddamn martyr complex.




*Because, as we see here, some folks are still rude about things.

Stuffing everyone who disagrees with you into one pigeonhole, and ascribing it to a character flaw is about as rude, dismissive, and ad hominem as it gets.  This is a fine example of why we still have warring.

Let's have no more of it, please and thank you.*


----------



## Mercurius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you're going to disagree with me- using boldface, no less- please boldface the right stuff.  I said "the closing _*phrase*_ of the last sentence is simply wrong"- not the whole sentence.  IOW, the portion of that sentence that read "no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that."
> 
> I daresay that had WotC simply taken the mechanics from F.A.T.A.L. (or R.A.H.O.W.A., or even less controversial games like HERO or GURPS) and used them in their entirety as the whole of 4Ed, very few people on these boards would call the end result D&D.
> 
> Ergo, the closing phrase of the last sentence is simply very factually wrong.




OK, I apologize for missing that you were talking about the last phrase and not last sentence. Even so, aren't you being a little extreme? I mean, yes, that phrase is factually incorrect, but only if you're talking about massive change. And even then, it may not change what he's talking about - which is the experience of fun and adventure with friends D&D-style, sitting around the game table.

I would suggest that we're really talking about two different things: 



What I was calling the "D&D experience," or what Mearls called the "core essence of D&D" - that is _not _dependent upon any specific rules configuration or idea or concept, but merely and only dependent upon the experience of the individuals involved.
A more technical definition of what is and is not D&D, as exemplified by my primary/secondary/tertiary framework.
So what I hear you doing is continually changing conversation of the first to the second, but if I'm talking about the first it makes little sense to shift to the second and say something to the effect of "That definition isn't precise enough." 

So what I've been talking about as the D&D experience, or what Mearls was discussing in his article, is _not _an attempt to define D&D in a technical or factual sense, but to describe and explore the "core experience" of it, the essential quality--as experienced by the individual and different D&D groups. 



BryonD said:


> I'd suggest that the predictions of decline have been bearing out.
> 
> Certainly the counter-predictions that all the debate would die down once everyone accepted the transition have been shot down.
> 
> But calling current statements "of doom", strongly implying an expectation of sudden extermination, doesn't make the constant observations of underwhelming status any less accurate.




I tend to agree with you here. Actually, the situation reminds me of a situation at the school I teach at. The faculty enacted a change to the evening schedule in the dormitories that the students didn't like; the year is now two-thirds over and the students are still complaining about it and pushing the boundaries. Now the faculty could do one of three things: 1) They could cave in and go back to the students' preferred schedule; 2) they could stubbornly hold their ground no matter what the students say; and 3) They can try to look at the situation impartially and combine the best of both worlds for a New and Improved schedule next year.

This sort of thing happens _all the time _at this school (and, I would guess, others), where faculty feel caught between either "giving in" or "holding ground" which creates a polarization with the student body that I feel is unnecessary. What is often missing is a willingness and ability to dialectically evolve, to take thesis and antithesis and come up with a (superior) synthesis.

The rift created in the wake of 4E is unparalleled in D&D history; I don't care what some have said, the fallout from 3E was *nowhere near *as bad. Actually, it was so overwhelmingly positive that the 2E holdouts seemed like little mice squeaking in a round of applause. And the fact that the gripes and squabbles have continued for three years means something.

I like 4E, but I think it is a seriously flawed game. I actually think that WotC should be pushing 5E development, and not for 4-5 years down the line but 2012 or 2013 at the latest. And I think they should be doing so in such a way that they can somehow integrate the best of 3E and 4E and bring something new to be table. And, perhaps most of all, I think they should get the feedback of those--like the folks at EN World--that care the most about the game, but at the very same time not be hostage to the loudest complaints echoing across the internet.

Good luck, WotC!


----------



## NoWayJose

Umbran said:


> *Because, as we see here, some folks are still rude about things.*
> 
> *Stuffing everyone who disagrees with you into one pigeonhole, and ascribing it to a character flaw is about as rude, dismissive, and ad hominem as it gets. This is a fine example of why we still have warring.*



I think that Mearl's 'can't we all just get along?' is a noble gesture, and I can see why some people would swoon over this uplifting message. On the other hand, I can see why other people would see it as naive or insincere.

It's a lot like Obama's appeal to 'let's set aside our bipartisanship and work together'. Democrats may applaud that sentiment, while Republicans may reject it as a blue sky wishful thinking.

For that reason, anyone who complains about the lack of harmony just isn't being realistic. As long as people care deeply about D&D, there will be "bipartisanship". The fighting will end when D&D in its current form fades into obscurity.

One can certaintly argue that some roleplayers care *too* deeply, but that's a different angle.

That said, I agree that rudeness and name-calling is uncalled for. It is human nature and systemic, and needs to be reeled in periodically.


----------



## Azgulor

ProfessorCirno said:


> Case in point, this thread is the now standard _weekly_ proclamation of 4e's doom on ENWorld, a proud tradition that has gone on for *three years* now.




Really?  'Cause I thought it was the weekly attempt at convincing everyone who doesn't care for 4e that they're wrong & that their reasons for not liking 4e can't possibly be grounded in something as rational as a dislike for the edition's mechanics.

Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## Mercurius

Azgulor said:


> Really?  'Cause I thought it was the weekly attempt at convincing everyone who doesn't care for 4e that they're wrong & that their reasons for not liking 4e can't possibly be grounded in something as rational as a dislike for the edition's mechanics.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up!




As the thread starter--and the starter of a few other recent similar threads--thanks for characterizing my intent in such a way. I'd like you to point out how anything in the original post of this thread, or in the linked article by Mike Mearls, says _anything _to the effect of "You're wrong for not liking 4E."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> OK, I apologize for missing that you were talking about the last phrase and not last sentence. Even so, aren't you being a little extreme? I mean, yes, that phrase is factually incorrect, but only if you're talking about massive change. And even then, it may not change what he's talking about - which is the experience of fun and adventure with friends D&D-style, sitting around the game table.




I can't agree.  I threw out F.A.T.A.L. to make it obvious, but included HERO & GURPS to headmen back to the prior thread, towards the end of which it _seemed_ as if we had agreed that there is a point at which- feel aside- the structure of the rules of the game can make a game "not D&D."  That is, after all, how we (correctly) excluded D&D clone campaigns run in entirely different systems from the "big tent."



> I would suggest that we're really talking about two different things:
> 
> What I was calling the "D&D experience," or what Mearls called the "core essence of D&D" - that is not dependent upon any specific rules configuration or idea or concept, but merely and only dependent upon the experience of the individuals involved.
> A more technical definition of what is and is not D&D, as exemplified by my primary/secondary/tertiary framework.
> So what I hear you doing is continually changing conversation of the first to the second, but if I'm talking about the first it makes little sense to shift to the second and say something to the effect of "That definition isn't precise enough."
> 
> So what I've been talking about as the D&D experience, or what Mearls was discussing in his article, is not an attempt to define D&D in a technical or factual sense, but to describe and explore the "core experience" of it, the essential quality--as experienced by the individual and different D&D groups.




Again, though, your tertiary definition was rules-based.  And Mearls' sweeping, broad, "kumbayah" statement fails the rigor of that tertiary formulation.

By talking about the "experience" in that fashion, he is as overbroad as your OP in the other thread, which, because if it's breadth, potentially included non-D&D games AND glossed over the reality that the experience is not universal.  The "core essence" is a fiction, and not a particularly good or useful one, either.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> Certainly the counter-predictions that all the debate would die down once everyone accepted the transition have been shot down.



I don't think there were many counter-predictions that debate over which edition is best would die out. Most of the counter-predictions were that the frothing nerd rage we saw for the first year ("MMO on paper," "You can't roleplay in 4e," etc.) would become less common as time goes on, and I think that's the case. The above examples have been so thoroughly addressed and hashed out that to use them now makes one look entirely silly, as opposed to a little silly and a little thought-provoking, which is I think how these sentiments were originally viewed.


----------



## Dannager

Imaro said:


> I'm sorry but this isn't even a 3e vs. 4e thing, on WotC own site there are 4e players already posting that they also suspect Mearls article of being less than sincere, and/or a sign of weakness. When many of your own fans and customers who actually play the game and subscribe to your service have gotten to the point where they don't take your words at face value... perhaps it's time to actually extend some kind of good faith token as opposed to just words. YMMV of course.



Actually, if I were WotC (or really any tabletop gaming company trying to make it in today's world) I'd be trying to ditch this portion of the fanbase entirely, rather than try and patch things up like Mearls is doing. Trying to please the hyper-entitled, hyper-sensitive portion of the tabletop gaming community is probably very frustrating and very demoralizing. I'd be inclined to just ignore them entirely and focus on acquiring some new, decent fans. It's to Mearls' credit that he's making a concerted effort to court a segment of the hobby community that (in my opinion) D&D doesn't need and would probably be better off without.


----------



## El Mahdi

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...there is a point at which- feel aside- the structure of the rules of the game can make a game "not D&D."...




I agree. I also believe there's a point at which the rules differ so much that it's no longer D&D. But it's also a very personally subjective threshold when that occurs. I believe that "_D&D"_ is impossible to objectively define. Although not an edition I prefer, 4E has enough familiar elements to for me to still consider it _"D&D"_. For others, not so much.

Personally though, since I feel that all RPG's are just houserule derivations of Original D&D (including all editions of D&D other than OD&D), then they are _*all*_ D&D (which should make Diaglo...and Mearls...happy).



NoWayJose said:


> I think that Mearl's 'can't we all just get along?' is a noble gesture, and I can see why some people would swoon over this uplifting message. On the other hand, I can see why other people would see it as naive or insincere.
> 
> ...
> 
> As long as people care deeply about D&D, there will be "bipartisanship". The fighting will end when D&D in its current form fades into obscurity...




1) - Fighting happens regardless of subject or motivation. People like to fight. If it wasn't 4E vs. xE, it would be something else.

2) - The current conflict's ending *is not* predicated upon 4E fading into obscurity.  Despite the _kumbayah_ vibe of Mearls statement, different editions and their players can coexist peacefully...and even support and enhance each other.

3) - I can't say if Mike Mearl's statement is sincere or not, only he can. But, such statements are completely useless without actions. Until Mearls and WotC put their money where their mouth is, and start providing real support for *all* editions of D&D on DDI, such sentiments are simply a whole lot of sound and fury...signifying nothing... (And a VTT that _*can*_ be used for other editions, is not _*support *_of other editions...)

@mike Mearls and WotC: Make no actual changes in DDI support and WotC philosophy, and it'll just be more of the same...and what a lot of us have come to expect from WotC.



So, what's it gonna be Mike...?


----------



## Imaro

Dannager said:


> Actually, if I were WotC (or really any tabletop gaming company trying to make it in today's world) I'd be trying to ditch this portion of the fanbase entirely, rather than try and patch things up like Mearls is doing. Trying to please the hyper-entitled, hyper-sensitive portion of the tabletop gaming community is probably very frustrating and very demoralizing. I'd be inclined to just ignore them entirely and focus on acquiring some new, decent fans. It's to Mearls' credit that he's making a concerted effort to court a segment of the hobby community that (in my opinion) D&D doesn't need and would probably be better off without.




First... wow, way to generalize...

Second... that sounds like a plan... instead of examinig why these people, who enjoyed your game enough to spend their hard earned money on books as well as on a subscription service, are loosing faith in your company's statements and sincerity (misleading statements concerning the CB, Declining quality in the e-mags, Paying to beta test new software, etc.)... you should just dump them. I mean you're right, WotC is in no way responsible for any/some/most of the bad blood between it and the fanbase it has steadily fractured since 3.0. Consumers should just shut up and accept whatever they do because otherwise they aren't "decent" fans... If this is the mentality you believe it takes to be a decent WotC fan... well, let me just state for the record that I'm so glad I'm a Pathfinder fan now.


----------



## El Mahdi

Dannager said:


> Actually, if I were WotC (or really any tabletop gaming company trying to make it in today's world) I'd be trying to ditch this portion of the fanbase entirely, rather than try and patch things up like Mearls is doing. Trying to please the hyper-entitled, hyper-sensitive portion of the tabletop gaming community is probably very frustrating and very demoralizing. I'd be inclined to just ignore them entirely and focus on acquiring some new, decent fans. It's to Mearls' credit that he's making a concerted effort to court a segment of the hobby community that (in my opinion) D&D doesn't need and would probably be better off without.




Now there's the spirit of Cooperation and Community we all so dearly desire...


By the way, I'm going to save the above post.  I'll be interested in your future responses when, if WotC stays true to form, 4E is no longer supported (and 5E just isn't your thing)...


----------



## Dannager

El Mahdi said:


> I agree. I also believe there's a point at which the rules differ so much that it's no longer D&D. But it's also a very personally subjective threshold when that occurs. *I believe that "D&D" is impossible to objectively define.*




While I can understand the point you're trying to convey, the above bolded sentence isn't really true, regardless of what you believe. D&D is, in the legal sense, a property and collection of live trademarks registered and/or owned by WotC. Products and copy that make use of these trademarks can be said, objectively, to represent D&D. Products and copy that do not make use of these trademarks (or, more precisely, that would be prohibited from making use of these trademarks, can be said, objectively, to _not_ represent D&D. This strikes me as a fairly reasonable way of defining what is and isn't D&D, and making its use universal would remove the ambiguity inherent in statements like "4e isn't D&D to me!" Rather, people would be forced to actually explain what they mean - something along the lines of "I find I am not able to sufficiently enjoy 4e because I believe Vancian casting is essential," - which allows us to have an actual discussion.



> 3) - I can't say if Mike Mearl's statement is sincere or not, only he can. But, such statements are completely useless without actions. Until Mearls and WotC put their money where their mouth is, and start providing real support for *all* editions of D&D on DDI, such sentiments are simply a whole lot of sound and fury...signifying nothing... (And a VTT that _*can*_ be used for other editions, is not _*support *_of other editions...)




Mearls is not putting that message out there to dangle previous edition support in front of you. That's pretty much never going to happen for a castle-load of good reasons. He's reminding people that we are, under the (fairly superficial) coat of edition-partisan paint, all D&D players and that we share that in common. When they're intended to provoke thought, words have value even without some kind of action attached to them (especially action that doesn't necessarily follow logically from the words, but is instead used as a talking point to make it appear as though an implied follow-through is not taking place, which is what we're seeing right now). Mearls' article is intended to provoke thought, not make promises.

You need to put the idea of WotC offering support of older editions to bed. It's a wholly unreasonable set of demands to be making, and treating WotC as though they're somehow being negligent for not meeting those demands is akin to complaining that Microsoft refuses to produce new applications compatible with Windows 3.1.


----------



## Dannager

Imaro said:


> First... wow, way to generalize...
> 
> Second... that sounds like a plan... instead of examinig why these people, who enjoyed your game enough to spend their hard earned money on books as well as on a subscription service, are loosing faith in your company's statements and sincerity (misleading statements concerning the CB, Declining quality in the e-mags, Paying to beta test new software, etc.)... you should just dump them. I mean you're right, WotC is in no way responsible for any/some/most of the bad blood between it and the fanbase it has steadily fractured since 3.0. Consumers should just shut up and accept whatever they do because otherwise they aren't "decent" fans... If this is the mentality you believe it takes to be a decent WotC fan... well, let me just state for the record that I'm so glad I'm a Pathfinder fan now.




Haha, yes, that's _exactly_ what I said. I am glad that you were so capable of digesting and understand my point. 

C'mon, guys, I _know_ you're better than this.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> I am glad that you were so capable of digesting and understand my point.
> 
> C'mon, guys, I _know_ you're better than this.



Pretty ironic that you say this right after you go on a mini rant using the same old pointless bait and switch of talking about the legal definition of "D&D".

We know you can do better than that.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> I don't think there were many counter-predictions that debate over which edition is best would die out. Most of the counter-predictions were that the frothing nerd rage we saw for the first year ("MMO on paper," "You can't roleplay in 4e," etc.) would become less common as time goes on, and I think that's the case. The above examples have been so thoroughly addressed and hashed out that to use them now makes one look entirely silly, as opposed to a little silly and a little thought-provoking, which is I think how these sentiments were originally viewed.



I was directly told that the whole debate would die down once everyone's 3E campaigns were over and they switched.  And there were numerous other very similar assurances.  Those positions were much more common.  You claim of what most were is simply inaccurate.

I would agree with you that some of that has certainly died down.  But only in direct proportion to over all interest in 4E as a whole.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> While I can understand the point you're trying to convey, the above bolded sentence isn't really true, regardless of what you believe. D&D is, in the legal sense, a property and collection of live trademarks registered and/or owned by WotC. Products and copy that make use of these trademarks can be said, objectively, to represent D&D.




True.

However, there are two things to remember.  In a legal sense, a Trademark is designed to protect consumers from fraud or not being able to find the correct items.  In some isolated cases, the law has allowed Trademarks (at least in dispute), to either be cancelled (due to dilution amongst the populace--as what happened with asprin), or sometimes reassgined.  The latter rarely happens, but usually when it does it involves things such as a strong personal presence, like a band who's members are known well vs. the people who own them--especially if the ownership isn't clear (no registered trademarks).  Hypotheticaly, if somebody wanted to do a class action lawsuit against D&D, I think the best bet would be on the trademark, but that's a huge longshot and I don't think D&D a game that has evolved over time is the equivalent of a band with performers.  (The long shot would be arguing the new version of D&D is fraudulent, but that's not likely to happen).

Secondly, any brand name carries a sort of goodwill, for good or for ill of the company.  In recent years, a lot of companies have tried to re-align brands to mean something else...the most obvious are cable channels.  That carries a huge risk.  I think people are getting fed up seeing movies on the Weather channel and stuff that's fiction on one of the Historical channels.  In this case, brands are starting to become meaningless.

The owners of D&D can do what they want, but at the same time the risk is great if the brand has a strong identity.  So called "Reboots" are risky, especially if the product is still popular and has an active following.  (A lot of people talk about the BSG reboot, but keep in mind that particular franchise just had a small die-hard following and 30 years had passed with no major activity, not akin to the very successful and most popular table-top RPG ever, the one that inspired all the imitators, computer and otherwise).  

If enough people reject the change, and they can't get enough new people, then D&D as a brand will falter and it will either change course to woo those people again (and there are some signs its doing that), or it will fail and we'll see some competitor take up the plate.


----------



## Dannager

El Mahdi said:


> Now there's the spirit of Cooperation and Community we all so dearly desire...
> 
> 
> By the way, I'm going to save the above post.  I'll be interested in your future responses when, if WotC stays true to form, 4E is no longer supported (and 5E just isn't your thing)...



Please do!

I have other areas of my life that contain things I am passionate about. I have experienced transitions wherein others made changes to a product I enjoyed that I disagreed with, or disliked. And when those changes meant that I no longer enjoyed what was being offered, I accepted it and moved on. I did not go online and vocally complain about it, deride the product's creators for perceived irresponsibility or call them false, or demand that they cater to my personal whims.

(On a related note, I'm also a Pathfinder fan - not of the system, but of the product line and setting - and was disappointed by Paizo's decision not to support 4e. When I first heard of this, I posted to their forums encouraging them to support 4e, even if in small ways, but when it became clear that would not be happening, I accepted it. I certainly don't bear any ill-will towards the Paizo guys. And, instead of getting upset about the whole thing, I just decided I'd do something I enjoyed, so I started converting Paizo's material to 4e on my own, and then made that material publicly available so that the many Pathfinder fans who were playing 4e could do the same. See what happens when you choose not to see it as _someone else's responsibility_ to provide you with enjoyment?)

Similarly, when D&D 5e (or whatever) eventually hits, you will not see me _anywhere_ on the internet demanding continued 4e support, or implying that the 5e design team is negligent for their focus.

There is a tiny, _tiny_ chance that I will find myself unable to appreciate whatever the game becomes, and will not participate in its new edition, in which case I will find another way to spend my leisure time (whether it's continuing to play 4e, or otherwise). But, in all reasonable likelihood, I will be able to appreciate the design and product choices made in this hypothetical new edition, because I know that the guys who make D&D are solid, passionate, reasonable folk with level heads on their shoulders. And, in all reasonable likelihood, I will wave goodbye to 4e with the fondest of farewells (just as I did for two previous editions; heck, to wrap up 3.5 I ran a brief crazy gestalt campaign designed to let everyone fulfill their unaddressed powergaming desires ), and will wholeheartedly embrace whatever comes next, and I will have an _absolute blast_ doing so.

So, really, hold onto that one. Heck, hold onto _this_ post, too. I suspect that there are, in fact, a fair number of 4e fans (and probably some less vocal 3e/2e/1e/whatever fans as well) on this board who have very similar takes on the whole issue. It's really kind of nice to just be able to enjoy what I like without concerning myself with whether or not I feel as though I'm being treated properly.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> Pretty ironic that you say this right after you go on a mini rant using the same old pointless bait and switch of talking about the legal definition of "D&D".



How is that pointless, or a bait and switch?

Someone mentioned that it's impossible to objectively define D&D. I pointed out that, in fact, there _is_ a way to objectively define D&D, assuming that you have basic respect for intellectual property concerns.

I am a little concerned that you decided to apply language like "mini rant," "pointless," and "bait and switch," to a fairly innocuous (and, I think, pretty factual) statement.


----------



## Dannager

JohnRTroy said:


> True.
> 
> However, there are two things to remember.  In a legal sense, a Trademark is designed to protect consumers from fraud or not being able to find the correct items.  In some isolated cases, the law has allowed Trademarks (at least in dispute), to either be cancelled (due to dilution amongst the populace--as what happened with asprin), or sometimes reassgined.  The latter rarely happens, but usually when it does it involves things such as a strong personal presence, like a band who's members are known well vs. the people who own them--especially if the ownership isn't clear (no registered trademarks).  Hypotheticaly, if somebody wanted to do a class action lawsuit against D&D, I think the best bet would be on the trademark, but that's a huge longshot and I don't think D&D a game that has evolved over time is the equivalent of a band with performers.  (The long shot would be arguing the new version of D&D is fraudulent, but that's not likely to happen).
> 
> Secondly, any brand name carries a sort of goodwill, for good or for ill of the company.  In recent years, a lot of companies have tried to re-align brands to mean something else...the most obvious are cable channels.  That carries a huge risk.  I think people are getting fed up seeing movies on the Weather channel and stuff that's fiction on one of the Historical channels.  In this case, brands are starting to become meaningless.
> 
> The owners of D&D can do what they want, but at the same time the risk is great if the brand has a strong identity.  So called "Reboots" are risky, especially if the product is still popular and has an active following.  (A lot of people talk about the BSG reboot, but keep in mind that particular franchise just had a small die-hard following and 30 years had passed with no major activity, not akin to the very successful and most popular table-top RPG ever, the one that inspired all the imitators, computer and otherwise).
> 
> If enough people reject the change, and they can't get enough new people, then D&D as a brand will falter and it will either change course to woo those people again (and there are some signs its doing that), or it will fail and we'll see some competitor take up the plate.



All of these things are possible, if unlikely, but the point stands: D&D, as a property, exists and is protected. Products that you see with that Dungeons & Dragons logo on them are, in a very objective sense, D&D. It is not possible for someone to say, for instance, "I don't feel that the Player's Handbook is representative of the D&D trademark and brand."

This isn't to say that this objective definition is automatically the one that ought to be used (I'd personally argue that it has its merits, but that's really a matter for debate), but rather to point out that such an objective definition _does exist_, whether or not it is widely adopted by this particular community.

(As an aside, your rundown of trademarks doesn't include the perspective of the trademark holder. Yes, there are consumer protection concerns inherent in trademark law, but trademarks also exist (and in no small part!) to protect trademark holders from having their business curtailed by imitations/knock-offs, and from having their brand damaged by sub-par products carrying their mark. These reasons (among others) are why corporations and other entities actively register their trademarks.)


----------



## Imaro

Dannager said:


> Haha, yes, that's _exactly_ what I said. I am glad that you were so capable of digesting and understand my point.
> 
> C'mon, guys, I _know_ you're better than this.




Ok, Dannager... since apparently a few of us took your post a certain way (and there's no possibility it is unclear because you expressed it in an unclear way...) could you very clearly and concisely please explain what the point of the post I responded to was, since apparently I and a few others didn't get it?


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> How is that pointless, or a bait and switch?
> 
> Someone mentioned that it's impossible to objectively define D&D. I pointed out that, in fact, there _is_ a way to objectively define D&D, assuming that you have basic respect for intellectual property concerns.
> 
> I am a little concerned that you decided to apply language like "mini rant," "pointless," and "bait and switch," to a fairly innocuous (and, I think, pretty factual) statement.



It is bait and switch because you (should) know full well that this has NOTHING to do with the context in which the "impossible to objectively define" comment was made.  

And, since your entire post was based on that bait and switch, "innocuous" is anything but a fair assessment.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Some thoughts:

(1)  The arguing about editions certainly made EN World a less fun, and less interesting, place to come to for a while.  The moderators did a great job of minimizing it - I understand that it was far worse elsewhere - and I have participated in far more "games theory" threads in recent months than "which games do you hate?" threads.

(2)  If one is going to say that there is a unifying "D&D Experience" that is independent of system, then one needs an acceptable definition of what that experience is.  Unfortunately, for many people, things like Vancian magic, "fiction-first" over "rules-first" design, and tracking resources, are a large part of what that experience is.  

(3)  You should therefore not really expect success from an attempt to define an all-inclusive "D&D Experience" that is not also an all-inclusive "RPG Experience".

(4)  Moreover, WotC should be careful about promoting any statement that WotC means some form of shared experience that has nothing to do with the ruleset that they are selling.  In that direction loss of trademark lies......!

(5)  If WotC is sincere, however, making pdfs of past editions available is not an unreasonable thing to request.  And, indeed, I cannot understand why WotC hasn't yet taken this simple step toward healing the rift......or, rather, I wouldn't understand if it were not for the fact that there are currently 3pp in-print games which are supported by that material far, far more than the current edition is.

IOW, there are a lot of people for whom 4e doesn't feel like Rome, but for whom other non-D&D games do feel like Rome.  How can WotC woo them back?  There are some options:


Convince them that 4e does feel like Rome.  AFAICT, that is what Mike is trying to do here, and it doesn't seem to be working.

Offer a game that is fun, but doesn't claim to be Rome.  But then you lose the drawing power that the brand name has.

Create a new edition of the game that feels more like Rome, to the people who are trying to bring back.  IOW, that has more in common with earlier editions.  The problem here is that you can lose your current fans, for whom your current design feels like Rome.  I would argue that Essentials is an attempt to do exactly this, without losing the current fans.

Have more than one edition in print.  (More than one flavour of Rome, as it were.)  There are reasons why they may not wish to invest in this, but with PoD technology and a plethora of older material archived, I personally think this is a mistake.  _*It would not be,*_* if and only if, not providing these caused folks to move to your new edition.*  But the evidence suggests that this is not the case.....or Pathfinder would be doing far worse than it is.

Open 4e up with an OGL.  Allow other people to come up with versions of 4e that, while they might not help you sell your core books, would at least help to sell support products.  The danger here, of course is that, when 5e does come out, you'll end up with a 3pp version of 4e still in print.  And, of course, some of the 3pp books might be better than your own, appealing to a wider audience.

Just some random thoughts, as they occurred.


RC


----------



## Mercurius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can't agree.  I threw out F.A.T.A.L. to make it obvious, but included HERO & GURPS to headmen back to the prior thread, towards the end of which it _seemed_ as if we had agreed that there is a point at which- feel aside- the structure of the rules of the game can make a game "not D&D."  That is, after all, how we (correctly) excluded D&D clone campaigns run in entirely different systems from the "big tent."




Again, it depends upon what we mean by "D&D". Are we talking about the experiential/personal aspect that Mearls and I were referring to or are we talking about a literal/technical definition of the game? If the latter, I agree with you, if the former, I don't.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, though, your tertiary definition was rules-based.  And Mearls' sweeping, broad, "kumbayah" statement fails the rigor of that tertiary formulation.
> 
> By talking about the "experience" in that fashion, he is as overbroad as your OP in the other thread, which, because if it's breadth, potentially included non-D&D games AND glossed over the reality that the experience is not universal.  The "core essence" is a fiction, and not a particularly good or useful one, either.




You just did it again, Danny - you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the first approach I mentioned, which is the experience/essence aspect of D&D which Mearls and I were talking about. What you do, and did again, is reduce that to a discussion of technicality and definition. These are two different things, different conversations really. 

In some sense I am reminded of a neuroscientist who refutes the notion of "love" as anything but chemical interactions in the brain. That's their right to do so but it stalls conversation when someone is talking about love as something more or other or non-reducible. 

I'm talking about something within the D&D experience (Mearls' "core essence") which is non-reducible to any formulation of rules, opinions, ideas, or concepts, and has nothing to do with my "Threefold Model" of primary, secondary, and tertiary. That is why I used the term "archetype" in the other thread. I am not saying that D&D is _only _an archetype, or that this is the only way that we can talk about it, but if we _do _talk about it as an archetype it takes on a different quality than if we're talking in technical, defining terms, and it also serves to be much more unifying because it protects the personal nature of the experience, yet with an underlying universality.

You just said that you don't buy this notion of a "core essence" so I would suggest that we let the conversation go, because in essence it seems that our disagreement is philosophical, even ontological. I do think we largely agree when we stick to the realm of technical definitions (the 2nd point I mentioned), which boils down to the Threefold Model I posited. But if you say that the first point is meaningless, let's just leave it at that and agree to disagree.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> (As an aside, your rundown of trademarks doesn't include the perspective of the trademark holder. Yes, there are consumer protection concerns inherent in trademark law, but trademarks also exist (and in no small part!) to protect trademark holders from having their business curtailed by imitations/knock-offs, and from having their brand damaged by sub-par products carrying their mark. These reasons (among others) are why corporations and other entities actively register their trademarks.)




I thought that was a given, so I didn't mention it.  Of course it also protects the manufacturer, but like all IP laws, it's not just there for the business and not the public.  I'm just saying there's another side to it, things like Goodwill and consumer rights, etc.


----------



## Dannager

Imaro said:


> Ok, Dannager... since apparently a few of us took your post a certain way (and there's no possibility it is unclear because you expressed it in an unclear way...) could you very clearly and concisely please explain what the point of the post I responded to was, since apparently I and a few others didn't get it?



Absolutely.

I do not have the mountain-like patience of those managing the D&D brand. Were I in their position, I would focus my efforts wholly on trying to bolster the brand loyalty of those who are cool with the direction I'm heading in, while also attempting to court new blood that has a similar appreciation. I would not waste time trying to mend imagined bridges with fans who are (in my opinion) not really great fans to have in the first place. A fan who throws up his arms in frustration when you try to do something new and slightly innovative, especially in an extremely optional way (see: Fortune Cards) is not a great fan to have. You want fans who are passionate but tolerant of change, who are accepting of the basic principle that things will not always work out exactly how they want to, and who will not spend years deriding you online after they've basically rage-quit your brand.

I'm not saying that WotC hasn't made mistakes. They have. They know it. You know it. I know it. It happens. And when it does, they are often sheepish in their apologies over it. But when it does, there are some fans who say "_Whatever,_" and go on living their lives and enjoying the game, conscious of the fact that, frankly, whatever PR blunder WotC made this time is tiny potatoes, and is, at most, an inconvenience that might force them to make minor changes to how they enjoy a small portion of their leisure time. And there are other fans who do _not_ say "_Whatever,_" but instead decide that these changes are, in fact, worth being upset over. Now, whether or not they are worth being upset over is subjective and really depends on how critical you see the stability of your hobby to the continued proper functioning of the universe. But the fact remains that while I and Mearls seem to agree on a number of things, he feels that it's worth making an effort to at least offer an olive branch to the latter group of fans. I'm not so sure that I do.

I hope that made things clearer.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> It is bait and switch because you (should) know full well that this has NOTHING to do with the context in which the "impossible to objectively define" comment was made.



I disagree. I genuinely feel that the D&D community would have much more fruitful discussions over why one edition holds appeal over another if the idea of using personal subjective definitions of D&D to explain distaste was discarded in favor of discussing the _actual facets of the game_ that people feel have changed in unnecessary or unwanted ways.

But yeah, no, I'm totally a disingenuous monster trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Ohhhh, you sly one, you. You caught me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Again, it depends upon what we mean by "D&D". Are we talking about the experiential/personal aspect that Mearls and I were referring to or are we talking about a literal/technical definition of the game? If the latter, I agree with you, if the former, I don't.




So you don't believe that rules changes can affect the way one personally interacts with the game?  If so, I have news to you.  I can say without fear of contradiction that rules changes can and do, since they are the basis for a lot of people's dissatisfaction with 4Ed because I have seen it in others AND personally experienced it.  There is a reason I don't feel a connection to a "universal experience" that you and Mearls are touting: "specific rules" and "change(s) to the game’s mechanics" _have _made 4Ed feel like a generic, non-D&D, FRPG to me.

So have other, non-mechanical alterations.

I enjoy playing 4Ed, I really do.  I've been going stir-crazy about not being able to play my Dwarven Starlock so far this year due to travel and other RW issues.  But behind that yearning to play Magnus Skyhammer is an urge to do likewise in some of our other campaigns in previous editions that I have a stronger "D&D-ish" feel from.  Those games feel like "home" or "Rome"- the 4Ed game simply doesn't.



> You just did it again, Danny - you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the first approach I mentioned, which is the experience/essence aspect of D&D which Mearls and I were talking about. What you do, and did again, is reduce that to a discussion of technicality and definition. These are two different things, different conversations really.
> 
> In some sense I am reminded of a neuroscientist who refutes the notion of "love" as anything but chemical interactions in the brain. That's their right to do so but it stalls conversation when someone is talking about love as something more or other or non-reducible.
> 
> I'm talking about something within the D&D experience (Mearls' "core essence") which is non-reducible to any formulation of rules, opinions, ideas, or concepts, and has nothing to do with my "Threefold Model" of primary, secondary, and tertiary. That is why I used the term "archetype" in the other thread. I am not saying that D&D is only an archetype, or that this is the only way that we can talk about it, but if we do talk about it as an archetype it takes on a different quality than if we're talking in technical, defining terms, and it also serves to be much more unifying because it protects the personal nature of the experience, yet with an underlying universality.
> 
> You just said that you don't buy this notion of a "core essence" so I would suggest that we let the conversation go, because in essence it seems that our disagreement is philosophical, even ontological. I do think we largely agree when we stick to the realm of technical definitions (the 2nd point I mentioned), which boils down to the Threefold Model I posited. But if you say that the first point is meaningless, let's just leave it at that and agree to disagree.




"Wikipedia

An archetype (pronounced /ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality, or behavior."

"Merriam-Webster

Definition of ARCHETYPE

1
: the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example
2
: idea 1a
3
: an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual"

If all that you & Mearls are discussing is that, there is still a problem because, as I've said before, 4Ed doesn't meet that definition.

To me and others, 4Ed does not connect to that universal feel of D&D in any way, and without universality, it does not match the archetype of D&D.  At best, it fits into an archetype of_ FRPGs in general._  The universality you so want to claim is there simply isn't.

If we look to M-W's definition, 4Ed again fails to be archetypically D&D because it is a fairly big variance from its origins.


----------



## Dannager

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To me and others, 4Ed does not connect to that universal feel of D&D in any way, and without universality, it does not match the archetype of D&D.



In the interest of exploring this, do you think you could list features of D&D that you consider indicative of this universal feel?

To be upfront, I am planning on countering with a list of features that 4e contains, and asking you if none of those features are indicative of the universal feel of D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In the interest of exploring this, do you think you could list features of D&D that you consider indicative of this universal feel?




As I said in Mercurius' other thread, I don't think it exists.  At best, I can narrow things down to the way FRPGs make me feel in general.  Or to put it a different way, the boundaries are fuzzy, if for no other reason than there are things that I consider essential that others would consider superfluous or even detrimental...and vice versa.

Mechanical things that detracted for me included the truncated version of Vancian magic they trotted out; a hacked-up alignment system; pared-down multiclassing; basic combat maneuvers translated into class-specific powers; watered-down races and more.  Fluff detractors included cosmology alterations; racial origin changes and others.

Combined, those changed elements (named & unnamed) meant a campaign active since the mid-1980s, translated across and played in various editions, was not translatable into 4Ed without major retcons.  That's a dagger to the heart; that's hard feelings right there.

Even though I like playing 4Ed, just thinking about that- about those first days of realization- causes a physical reaction, a wrenching of my gut.


----------



## Raven Crowking

The experience/essence of D&D cannot be rationally discussed without first coming to some concensus of what that experience/essence *is*.

Demanding that people accept that there is a core experience/essence, while demanding that there be no discussion of what that experience/essence is, is a demand to not look at the situation rationally.

Don't be shocked if, when discussing your undefined core experience, one person is talking about something requiring Vancian magic, another is talking about exploration-based gaming, a third is talking about combat simulation, and a fourth is talking about eating expensive cheeses.  And if, as a result, whatever unity you forge dissolves like the summer mist as soon as the actual disparity rears its ugly head.


RC


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> In the interest of exploring this, do you think you could list features of D&D that you consider indicative of this universal feel?
> 
> To be upfront, I am planning on countering with a list of features that 4e contains, and asking you if none of those features are indicative of the universal feel of D&D.




To be upfront, NO ONE is going to make the argument that 4e contains NONE of the features that make D&D, D&D. The purpose of this exercise escapes me.


----------



## El Mahdi

Dannager said:


> While I can understand the point you're trying to convey, the above bolded sentence isn't really true, regardless of what you believe. D&D is, in the legal sense, a property and collection of live trademarks registered and/or owned by WotC. Products and copy that make use of these trademarks can be said, objectively, to represent D&D.




And Mike Mearls statement was quite obviously *not *about D&D as a Brand, which is what you're post is pertaining to.  He was talking specifically about the feel of the game being D&D regardless of edition or mechanics.  My statement is correct in that context, which is also the context of the OP, the post I was responding to, and the general context of the entire thread.  If you'd like to change the context of the discussion and talk about the Brand definition of D&D, feel free to start a thread about it...




Dannager said:


> Mearls is not putting that message out there to dangle previous edition support in front of you. That's pretty much never going to happen for a castle-load of good reasons. He's reminding people that we are, under the (fairly superficial) coat of edition-partisan paint, all D&D players and that we share that in common. When they're intended to provoke thought, words have value even without some kind of action attached to them (especially action that doesn't necessarily follow logically from the words, but is instead used as a talking point to make it appear as though an implied follow-through is not taking place, which is what we're seeing right now). Mearls' article is intended to provoke thought, not make promises.
> 
> You need to put the idea of WotC offering support of older editions to bed. It's a wholly unreasonable set of demands to be making, and treating WotC as though they're somehow being negligent for not meeting those demands is akin to complaining that Microsoft refuses to produce new applications compatible with Windows 3.1.




1) I don't care _why_ Mike Mearls is putting that message out.  But one can't make such a statement, and then not be prepared for it to generate expectations.  If one makes a such a statement with the intention of provoking thought, then one needs to be ready for the thoughts it provokes...whether you like or agree with the generated thoughts or not.  One had also better be ready to back their statements up with more than just words.  Otherwise, it's at the least an exercise in futility...at the worst yet another PR mistep guaranteed to generate even more ill-will.  Customer Ill-Will does equate to lost revenue.  One can rail against the percieved unfairness of that until the end of time, and it won't change the fact that it's something that a business must deal with...whether they want to or not.

2) I don't _need_ to do anything I don't want to.  I'm a potential customer.  Which means WotC *needs* to listen to and woo _*Me*_...if they want my money that is...which is the entire point of their business in the first place.

3) It may never happen for what you consider are a castle load of _good_ reasons...but it's also due to a castle load of _bad_ reasons.

Fact: Digital subscriptions such as DDI are the future for sustainable financial success in the RPG market.

Fact: Not everyone is going to like every edition.

Fact: There is a significant amount of RPG customers (read as: potential D&D customers) that do not like WotC's current products and are subsequently not spending money on WotC's products.

Possibility: That significant group of potential WotC customers could be as large as, or larger than, their current group of customers.

Fact: But even if not as large or larger, is still a _substantial_ untapped reservoir of potential income.

Fact:  Due to Brand recognition and their unique position in the RPG market, only WotC D&D brand has the ability to fully exploit this potential customer base.  (Pathfinder has done an incredible job of tapping into this group, but I believe it's only a drop in the proverbial ocean compared to what WotC _could do_ with that group if they chose to.)

Conclusion: The only way to get this pool of potential customers to pay for a DDI subscription, is to provide things on DDI that those potential customers want.  Period.  Describing those potential customers as _"unreasonable"_, or making statements such as _"never going to happen"_ is unconstructive and counter-intuitive.

4)  Nobody here is calling WotC _negligent_...except you.  Telling a company what they need to do in order to get your money, and telling a company what they are doing that's keeping you from spending money with them...and then voting with your feet and wallet...is not unreasonable.  Quite the contrary, it's a basic tenant of our financial system.

5) Stating that those who want something that you don't are unreasonable, seems unreasonable in it's own right.  This makes me intrigued as to your motivations in seeming to want to stop the possibility of such products and services from happening...?

I simply want a service and support that only WotC is capable of providing.

How does the possibility of that service and support being provided, adversely affect you?

If it doesn't adversely affect you, then what is the source of your reticence or objections to such service and support?

Why come along and interject such strong and derogatory statements against those who want something different than _only_ the currently available offerings?

And, if it's simply a matter of not wanting to hear from, or hear about, what I and others like me want...then why are your even reading and replying to such posts?  All that you'd need to do is simply ignore them and your problem is solved...


----------



## El Mahdi

Dannager said:


> ...I would not waste time trying to mend imagined bridges with fans who are (in my opinion) not really great fans to have in the first place. A fan who throws up his arms in frustration when you try to do something new and slightly innovative...




Which is a misconception about the purpose of a business.  Fans or not-Fans is ultimately irrelevent to a business.  Paying customers are the only thing that matters.  Even non-Fans can be, and many times are, paying customers.  I don't play 4E, just like a lot of other people, but I still bought the corebooks, occasional other products (miniatures, adventures, etc.), and most importantly - had a DDI subscription - also just like a lot of other people.

But things like pulling pdf's (among other things), drove a lot of us away.  

If your companies approach continuously fractures your customer base and drives away customers (giving you a progressively smaller and smaller pool of customers), then I think it's only logical to revise ones approach.


----------



## Umbran

Raven Crowking said:


> Maybe it wasn't intended to come across that way, but essentially, this is an attempt to get other people to concede that a certain viewpoint is correct.




It is an attempt to get people to stop arguing.  "I'm not going to discuss this with you any more right now," is not a concession.  Silence does not signal agreement.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Even non-Fans can be, and many times are, paying customers. I don't play 4E, just like a lot of other people, but I still bought the corebooks, occasional other products (miniatures, adventures, etc.), and most importantly - had a DDI subscription - also just like a lot of other people.




That describes me, certainly.

I don't think anyone here would say I'm rah-rah about 4Ed, but I currently own the Core 3, the other 2 PHBs, the 2 Essentials Heroes books, the Rules Compendium, MP 1&2, AP, PP, DP, the Dragon Magazine Annual #1, the Adventurers Vault books and the setting books for Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms and Eberron.  That's at least $500 of stuff right there, minimum.

I'm considering buying some of the future products, but if they're not in book form- IOW, physical, not digital only, I won't buy (for reasons enumerated elsewhere).

So, despite my desire to consider the Starpact Hexblade for a PC build, it simply ain't happening this year, nor in any future in which that isn't republished in a physical format.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> It is an attempt to get people to stop arguing.  "I'm not going to discuss this with you any more right now," is not a concession.  Silence does not signal agreement.




Sorry, but I disagree.  It is an attempt to stop people arguing by making them accept a premise (All Roads Lead to Rome) endorsed by one side of the argument.  

People would also stop arguing if those who believed all roads led to Rome accepted that this was not so, but expecting them to simply reverse their position because it would make things sweet and light for those who believe all roads do not lead to Rome, would be equally irrational.

Rationally, the only way to stop arguing is to accept that people have differing views, and to choose to accept that.

Any argument that fails to understand, acknowledge, and answer the "other side" has automatically failed.  A person can accept that 4e is a D&D Brand game without accepting that it leads to Rome.  A person can accept that 1e is a D&D Brand game without believing that it is really anything more than a pale imitation of D&D (cue diaglo).

If a person believes X is Y, and you want to convince him that X is not Y, you cannot do so unless you understand why he believes X is Y, and actually address the reasons for that belief.  Anything else is great to get marks on the EN World XP system, and it is great to convince the people who already agree with you, but that's it.  The people who don't agree with you....still don't agree with you.

And, in fact, by failing to acknowledge their reasons (or, in the case of some, by belittling reasons you clearly don't understand and cannot be bothered to understand), you've actually made things worse.  Now you have the initial disagreement, plus whatever resentment you accrue from failing to understand/acknowledge/respect the other side.  Rather than working toward healing the rift, your actions are making the rift larger.

If you want to heal the rift, here's what I recommend.  And this goes to WotC as well as to EN World posters:

(1)  Acknowledge that the other side has valid reasons for feeling as they do.

(2)  Attempt to honestly understand and appreciate those reasons.

(3)  Change your approach based on (1) and (2) above.  Sometimes, this means admitting that you were wrong, and have changed your mind due to a wider perspective.  Sometimes, this means realizing that both views are equally valid, and letting it go.  Sometimes, this means discovering an actual middle ground.

But without steps (1) and (2), all you can do is roll a critical failure.



RC


----------



## Imaro

Dannager said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I do not have the mountain-like patience of those managing the D&D brand. Were I in their position, I would focus my efforts wholly on trying to bolster the brand loyalty of those who are cool with the direction I'm heading in, while also attempting to court new blood that has a similar appreciation. I would not waste time trying to mend imagined bridges with fans who are (in my opinion) not really great fans to have in the first place. A fan who throws up his arms in frustration when you try to do something new and slightly innovative, especially in an extremely optional way (see: Fortune Cards) is not a great fan to have. You want fans who are passionate but tolerant of change, who are accepting of the basic principle that things will not always work out exactly how they want to, and who will not spend years deriding you online after they've basically rage-quit your brand.




Sooo... pretty much what I said???  I mean besides your own judgement of what is "innovative"... yeah it's pretty much exactly what I said... good fans are those who accept anything WotC does without complaint or criticism... Thanks for the clarification.



Dannager said:


> I'm not saying that WotC hasn't made mistakes. They have. They know it. You know it. I know it. It happens. And when it does, they are often sheepish in their apologies over it. But when it does, there are some fans who say "_Whatever,_" and go on living their lives and enjoying the game, conscious of the fact that, frankly, whatever PR blunder WotC made this time is tiny potatoes, and is, at most, an inconvenience that might force them to make minor changes to how they enjoy a small portion of their leisure time. And there are other fans who do _not_ say "_Whatever,_" but instead decide that these changes are, in fact, worth being upset over. Now, whether or not they are worth being upset over is subjective and really depends on how critical you see the stability of your hobby to the continued proper functioning of the universe. But the fact remains that while I and Mearls seem to agree on a number of things, he feels that it's worth making an effort to at least offer an olive branch to the latter group of fans. I'm not so sure that I do.
> 
> I hope that made things clearer.




Well in all honesty... many of their "PR blunders" have cost their fans money... or the time and effort to get back money, especially concerning DDI. Now it's all good if you want to brush it under the rug... but really you have no call to judge others on how much or little they should be annoyed at those "small PR blunders"... cough... CB ...cough, cough...declining quality and quantity of content...cough, cough...snatching of PDF's, some of which had been purchased with the understanding that the customer would be able to download it again if necessary or desired...cough... and so on. 

If anything I would call into question the integrity of a company that feels justified in taking people's money without forewarning them of the impending replacement of their tools with subpar online tools and their e-mags with declinig content and quality compared to what they're customer originally believed they would be receiving... but yeah it's the fans that aren't decent...


----------



## Dannager

Imaro said:


> Sooo... pretty much what I said???  I mean besides your own judgement of what is "innovative"... yeah it's pretty much exactly what I said... good fans are those who accept anything WotC does without complaint or criticism... Thanks for the clarification.



I'm glad you felt it was worthwhile! 


> Well in all honesty... many of their "PR blunders" have cost their fans money... or the time and effort to get back money, especially concerning DDI. Now it's all good if you want to brush it under the rug... but really you have no call to judge others on how much or little they should be annoyed at those "small PR blunders"... cough... CB ...cough, cough...declining quality and quantity of content...cough, cough...snatching of PDF's, some of which had been purchased with the understanding that the customer would be able to download it again if necessary or desired...cough... and so on.
> 
> If anything I would call into question the integrity of a company that feels justified in taking people's money without forewarning them of the impending replacement of their tools with subpar online tools and their e-mags with declinig content and quality compared to what they're customer originally believed they would be receiving... but yeah it's the fans that aren't decent...



I'm not going to dive into the particulars of why it's silly to be so obsessed with the three issues you cite, because I'm sure you've heard those reasons before and they haven't made a dent in your convictions. But yes, basically, fans who think this way are, frankly, really terrible fans/customers/whatever to have.

I mean, just by way of example, one of the digs you've taken at WotC is that they pulled PDFs that were sold to customers with the understanding that they'd be able to re-download those products in the future, *completely ignoring* the fact that the _vendor sites_ made that promise to the customer knowing full well that any publisher could ask them to remove their product, and that ability to re-download would be revoked. At no point did WotC promise that you'd have eternal access to replacement copies of your PDF, and yet this is blame you lay at WotC's feet - blame that is, *demonstrably*, not theirs. You can hate on WotC all you want for pulling PDF sales, but you can't hate on them for preventing re-downloads as well when they never told you that you could re-download in the first place.

And yet, of course, *you do*, because it's mud to sling, and it's fun to sling mud, reasonable cause be damned.

The other things you mention, sure, those are reasons to feel a tad inconvenienced and WotC can certainly be seen as the bad guy. But PDF re-downloads? This is why hyper-entitled fans shouldn't be taken seriously.


----------



## Azgulor

Mercurius said:


> As the thread starter--and the starter of a few other recent similar threads--thanks for characterizing my intent in such a way. I'd like you to point out how anything in the original post of this thread, or in the linked article by Mike Mearls, says _anything _to the effect of "You're wrong for not liking 4E."




Firstly, if I'm responding to something YOU'VE written, I'll quote you.

That said, in post #13 of this thread there's this (emphasis added):
_"Wow, tough crowd - *it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring*.

I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions? I am not saying that WotC shouldn't have, say, a section of Dragon called "3.5 Corner" or "Retro Arcana" but I do think it is a tad ridiculous for them to pour resources into an older version of the game, at least to the extent that some seem to want.

I mean,*it is time to accept that 4E is the current, supported version of the game*."_

Many of your threads are absolutely discussion starters.  However, they are often couched in the vein of "4e acceptance".  I don't know if that's intentional or not, and maybe I'm totally off base -- it's the impression I'm left with when reading some of your posts.  Until your reply, I hadn't given it much thought as I wasn't responding directly to something you stated.

Then there's the add-on comments & posts of "Haters will hate", "martyrs", etc. added by others along with the claims that ENWorld would be a happy place if anyone who doesn't play 4e would just be civil.  I get tired of the "They, and only they, are keeping the Edition War going," and "4e fans are never the aggressor/initiator/less civil faction".  FWIW, I see name-calling being thrown around far more frequently from the pro-4e side of the aisle (see hater, martyr, etc. in this thread).

If you're for "Edition Neutrality" then we're on the same page.  I've stated on several occasions that in my view, both sides won -- as in they have a published and supported game to play.

However, for a "shared D&D experience", I think mechanics DO matter.  And while 4e doesn't suit my tastes, it is D&D.  However, that does not mean that I have to accept a stance of "mechanics don't matter".  It's a game -- the rules DO matter, because the rules affect the gameplay.  Soccer and Hockey share some common rules but I'd argue that the play experience of each is very different.  Basketball, baseball, football - different planets in the universe of "sports".

IMO, the shared experience where you & Mr. Mearls are going to find more common ground is the Tabletop RPG Experience, rather than the D&D experience.


----------



## Roland55

Mercurius said:


> This thread became dominated by a discussion on skill challenges--no problem, have at it, guys--but I wanted to reply to TerraDave, DannyAlcatraz, and comment on Mike Mearls' excellent piece, all in one fell swoop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL - OK, now which portion? But yeah, Mearls is saying pretty much what I was saying. Where's my shout out, Mikey boy?
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm? Really? Here's the quote in question:
> 
> 
> 
> I put the relevant sentence in bold-faced.
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you, Danny, even vehemently (well, I'm not really feeling _vehemence, _but you get my point).
> 
> I actually think the entire article is a great exposition or mission statement for "D&D unity" - that is, unity of the community, no matter which edition or sub-variation or house rules one plays. What he is saying is that D&D is the experience that you and your buddies make, no matter what rule set one uses.
> 
> Now we can go back to my delineations of primary, secondary and tertiary, with primary being "official" versions of D&D, secondary being retro-clones and heartbreakers, and tertiary being other rules sets being used to emulate D&D themes - and yeah, that would be more precise. _But that's not the point - _both with my original post on "All Roads Lead to Rome" and with Mike Mearls' article. I cannot speak for Mearls, although I think he is getting at something quite similar, but the point, in my mind, is that the "core essence of D&D", as he put it, is not defined by the rules, but by the experience itself. We can talk about the rules, about different definitions and delineations of what D&D is, but all of that is secondary to the experience itself, the stories, the adventure, the fun.
> 
> I think we, the diehard base, lose sight of that, and may actually turn the casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers away from the table, and in so doing inhibit the health and growth of the hobby itself.
> 
> The bottom line being: D&D is _my _game, and it is also _yours. _Make of it what you will. And enjoy.




Hmm.  Seems I gave you XP too recently.  So:

Strong post; very strong, indeed.  Kudos.


----------



## Obryn

I'm guess I'm just unclear on why, "Play different kinds of D&D, but there's no need to be dicks to each other" is controversial enough for this long a thread.

-O


----------



## Beginning of the End

Dannager said:


> D&D is, in the legal sense, a property and collection of live trademarks registered and/or owned by WotC. Products and copy that make use of these trademarks can be said, objectively, to represent D&D. (...)
> 
> He's reminding people that we are, under the (fairly superficial) coat of edition-partisan paint, all D&D players and that we share that in common.




Okay. For the sake of argument, I'm going to accept your thesis that Mearls' comments should be interpreted as meaning "we all play a game that has been published under the D&D trademark". Keeping in mind that this is a broad enough category to include computer games, plastic electronic games, and board games, let's revisit Mearls' original post and clear this up by making his hypothetical "we all share a trademark thesis" clear:



			
				Mike Mearls by way of Dannager said:
			
		

> "There’s something innately appealing about [the D&D trademark], about its nature as a  roleplaying game, that made it spread like wildfire. [The D&D trademark] took off  and remains healthy to this day because it answers a basic human need  that hadn’t been met before. It was the first game that let us share our  imaginations against the backdrop of a fantastic world of sorcery and  danger. It’s no wonder that so many digital games plunder from [the] rich history [of the D&D trademark]. The idea of going to another world and sharing that  journey was heady stuff back in the 1970s, and it still defines hardcore  gaming today."
> 
> "When we look at the past, we see how we played the [trademark] and learn where  it started. As we move forward from [the D&D trademark's] beginning, we see how the [trademark] changed, why it changed, and how we changed in response. When we  understand the sum of those 38 years of changes, we can understand the  present. We can see the big picture, the tale that extends from 1973  (the year Gary signed the foreword to the Original Edition) to today. A  cycle emerges, as each version of the [trademark] represents a shift from one  gaming generation to the next. What I’d like to do in this column is  inspect that cycle, take it apart, and use it to look to the future."
> 
> "To borrow from the foreword to the 1st Edition _Player’s Handbook_: "As diverse as this mélange of enthusiasts is, they all seem to share one commonality: a real love for [the D&D trademark] and a devotion that few other [trademarks] can claim.""
> 
> "This is our [trademark], and it is as healthy, vibrant and important as we  make it. The rest is details. Don’t let that details drive us apart  when the big picture says we should be joined together."




... Hmm. I was going to say that makes no sense. But actually it makes a lot of sense. Maybe you're right that Mearls was just talking about the D&D trademark.


Not that this is making me agree with him any more. (Or, at the very least, your version of what he's saying.) I don't actually have any loyalty to the D&D trademark. I have an interest in the D&D gameplay from 1974-2008.


----------



## Mercurius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So you don't believe that rules changes can affect the way one personally interacts with the game?  If so, I have news to you.  I can say without fear of contradiction that rules changes can and do, since they are the basis for a lot of people's dissatisfaction with 4Ed because I have seen it in others AND personally experienced it.  There is a reason I don't feel a connection to a "universal experience" that you and Mearls are touting: "specific rules" and "change(s) to the game’s mechanics" _have _made 4Ed feel like a generic, non-D&D, FRPG to me.




No, I'm not saying that rules changes don't "affect the way one personally interacts with the game," but the core, essential experience of D&D is not dependent upon specific rules, so that any specific rules change is not enough to necessarily change that essential quality of "D&Dness."



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If all that you & Mearls are discussing is that, there is still a problem because, as I've said before, 4Ed doesn't meet that definition.
> 
> To me and others, 4Ed does not connect to that universal feel of D&D in any way, and without universality, it does not match the archetype of D&D.  At best, it fits into an archetype of_ FRPGs in general._  The universality you so want to claim is there simply isn't.
> 
> If we look to M-W's definition, 4Ed again fails to be archetypically D&D because it is a fairly big variance from its origins.




Danny, you are misunderstanding what I've been saying. I am not saying that 4E is archetypally D&D, but that D&D is itself an archetype, with a kind of universal quality to it that requires no specific form or set of rules (or edition) to experience it. Furthermore, the means by which we experience that archetype are different and quite personal, but there is also a shared, universal experience. In other words, you could be playing 2E and I could be playing 4E and we could both be partaking in the archetype of D&D, even if the details were quite different. 

How does this differ from RPGs in general? Well again, I would say that it isn't any specific factor but a combination of factors. In a similar fashion that we could ask, "Why say fantasy? Why not just call it fiction?" Fantasy has certain qualities; there are many kinds of fantasy, but there is are certain qualities that set it apart from other forms of fiction. 

But again, this isn't about defining what D&D is and isn't but looking at it as an archetypal experience or, as Mike Mearls put it, the "core essence" of it. 

And, for the love of all that's holy, I am _not _saying that 4E should or does get you to that core experience. Although it certainly does get some to that core experience. What is that core experience? Well, let's just call it "D&D" and leave it at that.  




Raven Crowking said:


> The experience/essence of D&D cannot be rationally discussed without first coming to some concensus of what that experience/essence *is*.
> 
> Demanding that people accept that there is a core experience/essence, while demanding that there be no discussion of what that experience/essence is, is a demand to not look at the situation rationally.




I'm not demanding anything, Raven. I would say, however, that you are looking to rationally define something that you may not be able to define in a _definitive _way. We can define D&D as a game and talk about it in technical, factual terms. This is where I posited the "threefold model" of primary, secondary, and tertiary (your game would be secondary, no?). But what I've been talking about as the "D&D experience" or, I think, what Mearls has been talking about as the "core essence" of D&D doesn't fall under the purview of that sort of model. It is more of a _feeling, _an experience, a quality of "D&Dness."



Raven Crowking said:


> Don't be shocked if, when discussing your undefined core experience, one person is talking about something requiring Vancian magic, another is talking about exploration-based gaming, a third is talking about combat simulation, and a fourth is talking about eating expensive cheeses.  And if, as a result, whatever unity you forge dissolves like the summer mist as soon as the actual disparity rears its ugly head.




I have no doubt that different people require different cues or mediums or vehicles to get to that "undefined core experience," but I am saying that no specific rules set or thing is part of the core experience. In other words, I would say that what I am talking about as the core essence of D&D is not made up of any specific parts, it is more of a feeling quality (as I've said). One might need Vancian magic as part of their game to experience that quality, but Vancian magic itself is not part of that quality (as I am using the concept). 

In some ways I am talking about D&D in a Taoist fashion: "The Tao that can be talked about is not the Eternal Tao." The D&D that can be talked about, defined, and codified is not the Core Essence of D&D. The core essence has no inherent form or specific content; different content may enable different people to experience the essence of D&D, but the essence itself is formless, that is, without inherent or specific or limited (and definable) form.


----------



## Beginning of the End

JohnRTroy said:


> The owners of D&D can do what they want, but at the same time the risk is great if the brand has a strong identity.  So called "Reboots" are risky, especially if the product is still popular and has an active following.  (A lot of people talk about the BSG reboot, but keep in mind that particular franchise just had a small die-hard following and 30 years had passed with no major activity, not akin to the very successful and most popular table-top RPG ever, the one that inspired all the imitators, computer and otherwise).




There's a great deal of truth here.

In 2000 WotC was dealing with an overwhelmingly dissatisfied fanbase and responded with a new edition that largely addressed that dissatisfaction without overstepping the boundaries of its "mandate". It wasn't perfect. Plenty of people remained dissatisfied (or hadn't been dissatisfied in the first place). But consider the number of people over the years who have said, "3E looked like my house rules for AD&D."

In 2008, I think it's clear that WotC thought they had a similar level of overwhelming dissatisfaction. But either they didn't or their sweeping and fundamental changes to the game exceeded the "mandate" of that dissatisfaction. Or both. (Personally, I suspect they were misled by the echo chamber of the 'net and a corporate decision to prevent OGL support for 4E. They both tried to solve "problems" that most players weren't actually experiencing and simultaneously "fixed" them in an unnecessarily excessive fashion.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> No, I'm not saying that rules changes don't "affect the way one personally interacts with the game," but the core, essential experience of D&D is not dependent upon specific rules, so that any specific rules change is not enough to necessarily change that essential quality of "D&Dness."



And yet you haven't explained with any degree of clarity what "D&Dness" is; how it differs from "Talisanthaness" or "Harn-ness" or any other "FRPGness", it would seem.



> D&D is itself an archetype, with a kind of universal quality to it that requires no specific form or set of rules (or edition) to experience it. Furthermore, the means by which we experience that archetype are different and quite personal, but there is also a shared, universal experience. In other words, you could be playing 2E and I could be playing 4E and we could both be partaking in the archetype of D&D, even if the details were quite different.




Soooo, now you would assert that I'm "partaking in the archetype of D&D" when playing D&D sims in HERO?



> How does this differ from RPGs in general? Well again, I would say that it isn't any specific factor but a combination of factors.



Like?



> But again, this isn't about defining what D&D is and isn't but looking at it as an archetypal experience or, as Mike Mearls put it, the "core essence" of it.



In what way is this an archetypal experience?  What is this "core essence?"



> What is that core experience? Well, let's just call it "D&D" and leave it at that.




That's circular reasoning and not very helpful at all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In some sense I am reminded of a neuroscientist who refutes the notion of "love" as anything but chemical interactions in the brain. That's their right to do so but it stalls conversation when someone is talking about love as something more or other or non-reducible.




I'm not refuting the existence of "love;" I'm asking for a definition of it that it is not so broad as to include "hate," "physical hunger," or "confusion."

I mean, I remember all my distinctions of types of love from philosophy: fraternal/filial paternal, erotic, agapic, etc.  None of them had any real vagueness to them.

The "D&D experience," however, is as vague as can be, so far.


----------



## Mercurius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And yet you haven't explained with any degree of clarity what "D&Dness" is; how it differs from "Talisanthaness" or "Harn-ness" or any other "FRPGness", it would seem.




Danny, we're getting nowhere. I keep on saying that we're talking about two things, one the "D&D experience/core essence" and two "D&D the game" which _is_ definable; you keep on wanting to reduce the first to the second, when I'm saying that they are two different things, categories even. You may not be refuting the existence of "love" but you certainly seem to want to quantify it in a way that I'm saying is not really possible or particularly useful. We can talk about it, write poetry about it, but any definition is inherently limited and less than the actual experience.

I haven't explained "D&Dness" because I don't have to; well actually, I _have _explained it ad nauseum, but you are not accepting my explanation because you feel that it is too vague. As I've said, it is a felt-experience, both quite personal and with a universal quality that allows us to experience something together. In the same sense that the experience of "love" is extremely personal but also universal.

I'm perfectly happy to see that the D&D experience is whatever the individual wants to say that it is, thus it is personal. But I also think there is a universal quality that ties together each of our individual experiences. You may not feel that 4E taps into the D&D experience to you, but I think there is a strong relationship between what I experience playing 4E and what you experience when you play your edition of choice, strong enough to say that we're both playing D&D, tapping into the "core essence" of D&Dness.

I don't understand why this sort of unifying gesture is such a problem to some people. All it is saying is that "Hey, we prefer different things, different editions of D&D even, but we're all playing D&D!"

I'm not sure where we can go from here except rehash the same thing in different forms.


----------



## Jasperak

Unless "D&Dness" can be defined in some form or another, it is useless as a term for any meaningful discussion. 

WHFRPG1/2e has more "D&Dness" to me than 4e. That's just my opinion. And some will think 4e has more "D&Dness" than 2e. So again what is the point of the term again?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Danny, we're getting nowhere.



Agreed.


> you keep on wanting to reduce the first to the second,



Not even close- I'm asking you to distinguish between "D&Dness" and "Harn-ness" or "Talisantha-ness," etc.

Or to put it differently, what is it about the "D&D Experience" that distinguishes it from the "Harn Experience", the "Talisantha Experience" and so forth?  That is NOT reducing one to the other, its asking for clarity of the former.



> any definition is inherently limited and less than the actual experience.




True, but even so, a definition helps us understand each other.

After all, its perfectly clear that filial, erotic and agapic love are entirely different things, right?  They are types of love with definitions we can look up and say, this relationship is not that kind of love, but is this particular other.  And with those definitions in mind, we write our poetry, and analyze it.

Imagine all those poetic visions in Shakespeare's sonnets or Khayam's Rubayat as being about filial love...or paternal love.  Kinda changes their meanings, doesn't it?

But we know- because we understand the distinctions between agapic, erotic, filial, paternal, etc. love- that the poems have an entirely different meaning.



> I haven't explained "D&Dness" because I don't have to; well actually, I have explained it ad nauseum, but you are not accepting my explanation because you feel that it is too vague. As I've said, it is a felt-experience, both quite personal and with a universal quality that allows us to experience something together. In the same sense that the experience of "love" is extremely personal but also universal.




If you want to be understood, and either agreed with or at least avoid challenges, you DO have to define it.

So far, your "definitions" of the "D&D Experience" have been circular and unclear.  All I'm asking for is either give your phrase clarity in at least the same amount as we can find in definitions of "love" or stop tossing the phrase around like it means something.


----------



## Mark CMG

Jasperak said:


> Unless "D&Dness" can be defined in some form or another, it is useless as a term for any meaningful discussion.
> 
> WHFRPG1/2e has more "D&Dness" to me than 4e. That's just my opinion. And some will think 4e has more "D&Dness" than 2e. So again what is the point of the term again?





I've been noticing for some time that this recent era in the timeline of RPGs is the first period where those in the know will call something that is not branded as D&D, D&D.  There was a time, and it may persist in some corners to this day, when those who only have a slight idea of what RPGs are will call anything RPGesque D&D.  It's a broadbrushing shorthand often used to either denigrate the hobby by linking RPGing with some bad event or activity.  But in the past half decade rulesets from a nuber of quarters are routinely referred to as D&D including but not limited to retro clones and PF.  It is certainly possible that people at WotC are beginning to feel that the trademark is in jeopardy or, at the least, being diluted by the many rulesets now on the market or freely available that players are using in lieu of D&D but still claiming it is D&D and bringing others on board to the mindset.

The idea of a D&Dness has broader implications than has been discussed thus far.  I'm not sure it is what Mike Mearls had in mind when he brought up the subject but can hardly be avoided as important to the issue.


----------



## pawsplay

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but I disagree.  It is an attempt to stop people arguing by making them accept a premise (All Roads Lead to Rome) endorsed by one side of the argument.




I second RC's objection to this rude and disheartening position. Further, my sympathy has already been taxed by Mike Mearls claiming all roads lead to Rome since before 4e even came out. I don't want go to Rome. Since I play Pathfinder and FC now, I'd say my road leads to Byzantium or something.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mercurius said:


> I'm not demanding anything, Raven. I would say, however, that you are looking to rationally define something that you may not be able to define in a _definitive _way.




Okay, can we stop here for a moment?  Because you are going about this backwards.

Let us say that you, or Mearls, or anyone else, wishes me to agree with his point, whatever it may be.  That person wishes me to change my mind.  You may not call it a "demand"; I would say, if it is not a demand, you can simply accept that people don't agree and move on.

But, here's the thing......Unless I already agree with you, if you wish me to change my point of view, you must address it.  And the only way you can address it is by understanding it.

Now, I don't wish to change your point of view, as relates to the topic of the thread.  What I am suggesting, though, is changing your tactics in expressing that point of view.  

In order to make Bobby Joe Bobber accept your "quality of D&Dness", you first need to understand what Bobby Joe Bobber believes that "quality of D&Dness" is....and it is a safe bet that if BJB doesn't already agree with you on all roads leading to Rome, BJB also has a different idea of what the "quality of D&Dness" is.

IOW, until you are willing to accept that there _*may be no*_ universal "undefined core experience", your mind is too closed to other experiences to determine whether there is one or not.

It would be nice if there were one.

That doesn't make it so.

And I am not saying that there is not one.  Rather, I am saying that the exploration of what such an experience or quality may be must come before trying to convince everyone to accept that it is so.  The cart cannot pull the horse.



Obryn said:


> I'm guess I'm just unclear on why, "Play different kinds of D&D, but there's no need to be dicks to each other" is controversial enough for this long a thread.




It isn't.

If that was the message, I don't think we'd have gotten off of page 2 (unless it were because of folks wanting to chime in to agree).  But, then, I have a fairly optimistic view of human nature!





RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> There was a time, and it may persist in some corners to this day, when those who only have a slight idea of what RPGs are will call anything RPGesque D&D. It's a broadbrushing shorthand often used to either denigrate the hobby by linking RPGing with some bad event or activity.




To be fair, some people just call the RPG hobby "D&D" because, well, they don't know that there is anything else.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mercurius said:


> As I've said, it is a felt-experience, both quite personal and with a universal quality that allows us to experience something together.




I'm not sure if you see the problems here.

In order to convince anyone who is not already convinced, there are some things you need to address.  To whit:

(1)  If it is an udefinable, uncommunicatable felt-experience, how do you know that it is universal?

(2)  If it is definable and/or communicatable, how come you are unable to define and/or communicate it so that we know what you are talking about?

EITHER what you are talking about cannot be communicated effectively, in which case it is impossible to know it is universal, OR what you are talking about can be communicated effectively, in which case it is possible for us to determine whether or not we believe it is universal for ourselves.

What you are asking us to accept is that you (and, perhaps, those who are already convinced of the same thing) have some special way of knowing that something which cannot be effectively communicated is universally felt, OR that you  (and, perhaps, those who are already convinced of the same thing) have some special way of understanding which makes communication a moot point.

(This is, BTW, the reason that divination spells in rpgs aren't foolproof; even if you have access to "revealed knowledge", your claim of said access isn't necessarily sufficient to convince anyone who doesn't already believe what the spell revealed!)

Because, while the experience of "love" may be extremely personal, it is also communicatable.  I communicate love, and receive communications of love, on a daily basis.  To and rom family, my partner, and close friends.  And, if the only way one can communicate one's love is through poetry.....well, my shelves contain much poetry on that topic.

Indeed, I have seen some attempts at defining what that core experience means to various people here on EN World, often in sig blocks, and sometimes even quite poetic.  So I would say what any given person gets from D&D is certainly communicatable.

But I have seen nothing to indicate that there is a "universal" core experience that spans all editions and all playstyles, which is also at the same time particular to D&D (rather than being embedded in all rpgs).

And that is the bar you must pass, in my case at least, to convince me that your premise is viable.


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Because, while the experience of "love" may be extremely personal, it is also communicatable.




And definable.  And in some cases, communicable.


----------



## Mercurius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not even close- I'm asking you to distinguish between "D&Dness" and "Harn-ness" or "Talisantha-ness," etc.
> 
> Or to put it differently, what is it about the "D&D Experience" that distinguishes it from the "Harn Experience", the "Talisantha Experience" and so forth?  That is NOT reducing one to the other, its asking for clarity of the former.




I can describe my experience but that doesn't define yours. That's the personal element at play. Setting aside those qualities that are common to all of the games you mentioned, each of them have distinct qualities - themes, tropes, races, flavor, but more so a kind of "energetic signature" that is uniquely their own. 

You and I may have different associations with what D&D is, we may experience it differently, but we both are drawing from the same legacy, if you will - the gestalt of ALL D&Disms, all the unique monsters, takes on fantasy concepts, themes, tropes, etc etc etc.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> True, but even so, a definition helps us understand each other.




Sure, it _can, _but it can also limit understanding, or reduce it to something that it is not, just as a map reduces the territory to a two-dimension representation. Nothing wrong with maps (I love maps), unless we confuse them for the territory, as the famous saying goes.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> After all, its perfectly clear that filial, erotic and agapic love are entirely different things, right?  They are types of love with definitions we can look up and say, this relationship is not that kind of love, but is this particular other.  And with those definitions in mind, we write our poetry, and analyze it.




I would argue that when we analyze poetry we kill it or at least reduce it to something less than it is; but that's another topic of conversation - related, though. The same with concepts and types of love - those are mental simulations or recreations of something that is not mental.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Imagine all those poetic visions in Shakespeare's sonnets or Khayam's Rubayat as being about filial love...or paternal love.  Kinda changes their meanings, doesn't it?
> 
> But we know- because we understand the distinctions between agapic, erotic, filial, paternal, etc. love- that the poems have an entirely different meaning.




Right. But I've already given you two differentiations of D&D: One being the feeling or tonal quality, the other being the technical/factual definition (the threefold model). I've been saying that what I've been talking about is the former, and that it is not easily reducible or definable, yet you keep on insisting that I define it.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you want to be understood, and either agreed with or at least avoid challenges, you DO have to define it.




Only by those that either don't understand what I'm talking about or insist upon a narrow and easily quantifiable definition.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> So far, your "definitions" of the "D&D Experience" have been circular and unclear.  All I'm asking for is either give your phrase clarity in at least the same amount as we can find in definitions of "love" or stop tossing the phrase around like it means something.




What I'm trying to understand, Danny, is where you're trying to go with this? Why do you keep drawing this out?


----------



## Odhanan

Stop ranting about how much AD&D sucks, that magic users are "broken," that "level limits don't make any sense," that the game is "horribly unbalanced," and all that sort of insane nonsense, and then maybe maybe other people will stop comparing your game to MMOs, or a non-RPG boardgame, or whatever else you find insulting about it.

The only people you can control is you.


----------



## Mercurius

Raven Crowking said:


> Let us say that you, or Mearls, or anyone else, wishes me to agree with his point, whatever it may be.  That person wishes me to change my mind.  You may not call it a "demand"; I would say, if it is not a demand, you can simply accept that people don't agree and move on.
> 
> But, here's the thing......Unless I already agree with you, if you wish me to change my point of view, you must address it.  And the only way you can address it is by understanding it.




Likewise.

Raven, I think what you are not getting is that I'm not trying to  convince you of anything. I could care less about changing your point of view. I'm perfectly happy to accept that we disagree  and to move on. Are you?

The whole point of my posts in these conversations has been to try to put forth a unitive gesture; I find it odd how insistent some are on debating this, as if it is more important to deconstruct an argument than entertain the possibility that D&D players (for instance) might have something in common, something that unites us in a way that is more important than our differences.

My view is that if we can get to that point - a sense of unity as a community - than we can discuss our differences in a way that doesn't end up in endless (and pointless) squabbling, whether ad hominem attacks or more civilized (but equally pointless) debates on rhetoric and logic, such as what this thread has become.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Setting aside those qualities that are common to all of the games you mentioned, each of them have distinct qualities - themes, tropes, races, flavor, but more so a kind of "energetic signature" that is uniquely their own.




OK...is "energetic signature" a synonym for "D&D Experience", etc.?  If so, we've gone nowhere.


> Right. But I've already given you two differentiations of D&D: One being the feeling or tonal quality, the other being the technical/factual definition (the threefold model). I've been saying that what I've been talking about is the former, and that it is not easily reducible or definable, yet you keep on insisting that I define it.




I'm not trying to get a technical/factual definition.  I'm trying to get you to commit to a feeling/tonal definition _that is distinguishable from the feeling/tonal definitions of other FRPGs._  Because otherwise, your feeling/tonal definition is not a definition.



> *Merriam Webster*
> Defintiion:
> : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
> 2
> *a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something*
> b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions>
> c : a product of defining
> 3
> *: the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group*
> 4
> *a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear* <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition>
> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction
> c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>




(emphasis mine)

You claim there is an "Essential D&D experience" that is universal.  Fine.  Express what that universal experience is.



> What I'm trying to understand, Danny, is where you're trying to go with this? Why do you keep drawing this out?




Because you're being unclear.

You've expressed that something called a "D&D Experience" exists, but as yet, have provided no boundaries to distinguish it from the Experiences gained from other RPGs, its a phrase devoid of content.


----------



## Mercurius

Odhanan said:


> Stop ranting about how much AD&D sucks, that magic users are "broken," that "level limits don't make any sense," that the game is "horribly unbalanced," and all that sort of insane nonsense, and then maybe maybe other people will stop comparing your game to MMOs, or a non-RPG boardgame, or whatever else you find insulting about it.
> 
> The only people you can control is you.




Who in the Nine Hells are you talking to?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> ...entertain the possibility that D&D players (for instance) might have something in common, something that unites us in a way that is more important than our differences.




This is laudable and understandable.  But we still need to define that "something" before we can figure out if we have it in common.


----------



## Henry

pawsplay said:


> I second RC's objection to this rude and disheartening position. Further, my sympathy has already been taxed by Mike Mearls claiming all roads lead to Rome since before 4e even came out. I don't want go to Rome. Since I play Pathfinder and FC now, I'd say my road leads to Byzantium or something.




To me, that's the same as saying that where D&D is concerned, there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun."

I've played 'em all - OD&D, Basic, 1,2,3,4, Pathfinder, and likely some I've forgotten - and as long as the group of people I play with is a good group, I've gotten the same level of thrills, occasional corny jokes, exciting roleplay, and occasional thrill of a victory snagged from the jaws of defeat. (Well, maybe not with OD&D, I've only ever played it at one-shot con games.) I empathize with Mearls' sentiments exactly. To me, All roads not only Lead to Rome, they are paved with the same color of bricks!

Still doesn't mean I'm coming back to DDI, or using their Virtual tabletop - it means I understand Mearls, and what some people in the thread don't realize is that he agrees with him! He's gone on record, on ENWorld no less, as saying that every game company understands the big secret -- that we gamers don't really need them, ever since Gary and Dave let the genie out of the bottle some thirty - odd years ago.

However, every generation needs something different to attract new blood (my sentiments, not his), and that's what new editions are for. Stick to loyal rhetoric for any edition you want, the same rules aren't going to appeal to new generations over and over again as a general rule, and the majority of people playing the game's culture changes, so the game needs to change, too. But the goal of the gaming companies, and SHOULD BE OUR GOALS TOO, if we're interested in growing the hobby base, is to get the same outcome as every generation before -- players reliving moments from the table in conversation, plotting how they'll make their characters better for next game, talking about how they can't wait for the next session, and sharing it with the next person to come along.


----------



## Odhanan

Mercurius said:


> Who in the Nine Hells are you talking to?



Those people hopefully will recognize themselves.


----------



## BryonD

Henry said:


> To me, that's the same as saying that where D&D is concerned, there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun."



I don't think he said anything like that.  He didn't say no one else should play in "Rome" or that doing so was in any way inferior.  He simply said there were differences.

You have stated with absolute certainty that you don't perceive a difference.

Cool.

But, the relevant question is not Does Henry perceive a difference? or Does Bryon perceive a difference? or Does Mercurius perceive a difference?

The relevant question is: Is it reasonable that some people may see a difference?  


IMO it is absolutely reasonable for people to see a difference.  And being as that is reasonable, stating their position that they see a difference is also reasonable.  We have people saying they are insulted for nothing more than someone saying they see a difference.  

One answer to the question can we "get to that point - a sense of unity as a community - than we can discuss our differences in a way that doesn't end up in endless (and pointless) squabbling... ?" is: If expressing a point of view that someone else disagrees with is going to be grounds for feeling insulted, then, unfortunately, no, we can not.

"4E does not feel like D&D" is a valid opinion.
"4E feels exactly like D&D" is a valid opinion.

Any attempt to have a quality conversation with anyone offended or insulted by either of those statements will be seriously limited.


----------



## GreyLord

Mercurius said:


> Who in the Nine Hells are you talking to?




That would be me.  I have a hard time retaining control when I fall out of airplanes at 10,000 AGL without a paracute.  Something in me just releases and says I'm going to die.  

Lucky for me I haven't fallen out of any airplanes without a parachute yet.

It wouldn't be pretty.



PS:  Actually, I admit, I haven't read 99.9% of the posts in this thread, I just was responding for a laugh.  I have no idea what context I just accepted.  Probably fits anyways.


----------



## Mercurius

I agree with you, Bryon, but would only add that we should also be aware of what effect our shared opinions have in a practical, interpersonal sense. I mean, _all _opinions are valid but it doesn't mean that all opinions are kind or aren't hurtful or controversial.

My sense is that the issue surrounding the phrase "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" (or one of its variants) centers on the implication of insult (whether perceived and/or actual). The cause of this is two-fold: 1) the inability or unwillingness of those saying the phrase to take any responsibility for the problems that their communication creates, and 2) the taking offense of those that perceive it as an insult even if it was not intended as one.

There are also two possible deeper problems, but I'm hoping that most of us don't actually hold these views as they are much harder to uproot: 1) The unwillingness to see 4E as a valid form of D&D, even if it isn't to one's tastes or identification of what D&D is; and 2) The need to invalidate another's opinion about their preferred form of D&D because it differs from their own.

The first pair of issues are easily dealt with - all it takes is willingness and a bit of self-awareness on both parts. The second pair of issues is much harder to deal with but, fortunately, less prevalent, at least among 95% of those that participate in these conversations.


----------



## Nagol

Henry said:


> To me, that's the same as saying that where D&D is concerned, there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun."
> 
> I've played 'em all - OD&D, Basic, 1,2,3,4, Pathfinder, and likely some I've forgotten - and as long as the group of people I play with is a good group, I've gotten the same level of thrills, occasional corny jokes, exciting roleplay, and occasional thrill of a victory snagged from the jaws of defeat. (Well, maybe not with OD&D, I've only ever played it at one-shot con games.) I empathize with Mearls' sentiments exactly. To me, All roads not only Lead to Rome, they are paved with the same color of bricks!




Yeah, but I can say the same about _Star Trek (FASA)_, _Aftermath_, _Bushido_, _CHAMPIONS (2, 3, 4, 5)_, _Danger International_, _Justice Inc._, _Harn_, [_Runequest (2, 3)_, _Elric_, _Ars Magica (2, 3, 4)_, _Pendragon_. _Chivalry and Sorcery_, _GURPS_, _MERP_, _Teenagers from Outer Space_, and a host of RPGs crossing companies, genres, and decades of time.  If all those lead to Rome then there ain't nothing special about D&D that leads us there.

Is there something that separates D&D from the rest or is the "D&D essence" being described unfairly being limited to D&D by personal agenda and the true essence is RPG play?


----------



## Jasperak

I have written--and deleted--three posts because I cannot articulate a fundamental response to question that I kept bringing up. How does one separate the D&D experience from that of any other FRPG? I see more in common with 1e and WHFRPG1/2e; 2e and Earthdawn. I have had wildly different experiences with D&D in all of the editions I have played, that I cannot see them as one all-encompassing experience and yet separate them from any other FRPGs.

Mercurius> In another thread of yours concerning campaigns we'd like to play, I posted a link to a story hour for a Call of Cthulhu campaign. Strip out the modern-day and Lovecraftian influences and insert fantasy archtypes and it would be an excellent D&D campaign. It leads me to that question I can't answer, "What makes the D&D experience unique from any other FRPG?"<

Yes we are unified as roleplayers, but as D&D players? We all look for different experiences with our games. I have little in common with 3e optimizers*; little in common with 4e tacticians*. Except a Brand Name. I have more in common with that CoC story hour I mentioned earlier. I don't play D&D anymore, but I am working on a fantasy sandbox using a retro-clone. Does that mean I am still in the D&D community? In Mearls' eyes? In the eyes of the players of the currently supported edition of D&D?

*I do not mean for these terms to imply they are the only types of players in those editions. Just that in my experience, those types seem amplified by those editions. I have played with optimizers and tacticians in other editions, but their actions were more limited. There is only so much optimization or tactical minutia in 1e for example.


----------



## Mercurius

Danny, are you asking for clarity because you want to _understand _what I am saying or because you want to _invalidate _what I'm saying? I'm honestly not sure.

I'll assume the former. What I'm saying is that I can't define it for you. The universal aspect of D&D can only be experienced through the individual and thus is quite personal. _My _D&D experience is probably quite different from yours, but I also think there is a universal and archetypal underlying "essence" that imbues both of our experiences. In other words, you and I both have personal experiences of a universal "archetype," in a similar sense that you and I both have personal experiences of love, but that love is universal.

Let me use the analogy of water. Water can be in different forms: a solid (ice), a liquid (water), a gas (vapor). It can be in the ocean, a sea or lake, a river or stream, a cup, a Nalgene bottle, a toilet bowl. But it is always water. You and I might experience water quite differently; maybe you are a scuba diver and I'm a Himalaya conqueror. Maybe you drowned when you were little and I am an Olympic swimmer. Maybe you hate drinking water and I can't go anywhere without my Sigg bottle of spring water. But it is still water, no matter what form or context it is in.

But let me be a bit more specific. What is the D&D experience to me? Well, I'm tired so won't be able to wax as poetically or as clearly as I might be able to in eight hours, but there is a lot I could say about this, but again, remember that whatever I say is my own personal take and may or may not apply to you. 

The D&D experience is entering into a shared imagination space with others with familiar themes that are uniquely flavored in a certain way, with very distinct fantasy tropes that have become part of the D&D canon: vorpal swords, chromatic dragons, dungeon crawls, magic missiles, fireballs, gold pieces, rods, staves, and wands; drow and githyanki, Orcus and Demogorgon, illithids and aboleths; elvish fighter-mages and dwarvish warrior-priests, etc etc etc.

D&D has a unique flavor to it; the experience of it is engaging the canonical tropes in some manner, whether by-the-book versions in a pre-made world or unique variations in a homebrew. It combines familiar and even common fantasy concepts, but in a very specific manner. One could call it "Gygaxian" but it has been developed beyond the Great Founder by countless game designers and dungeon masters and players. 

I think you could say that D&D is a distinct fantasy world unto itself; all of the different campaign settings are different takes on the archetypal D&D world, of which there is no direct or specific official version - not even Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms; those too are "versions" of _the _D&D World. 

So yeah, I would say that when it comes down to it, the D&D Experience is imaginative play in some version of the archetypal D&D World. Earthdawn or Talislanta or Harn are cousin fantasy worlds but they aren't D&D Worlds. The "Talislanta Experience" is different, with its own unique flavor, its many races and exotic locales, from the mysterious Ariane mystics to the gluttonous Quan, from the Zaran wilderness to the hellish Midnight Realm.

In some sense the D&D Experience, or the archetypal D&D world, is just as specific. It has just been diversified more, into thousands upon thousands of different variations. In the same sense that the D&D Experience is both personal and universal, the D&D world is both personal--in the form of a specific world--and universal--in the form all possible D&D ideas, tropes, creatures, races, and themes. 

I'll leave it there for now to see if that helps clarify at all what I mean. If you can tease a definition out of that, I'll be impressed. G'night!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mercurius said:


> Danny, are you asking for clarity because you want to _understand _what I am saying or because you want to _invalidate _what I'm saying? I'm honestly not sure.




Understanding first.  Invalidation if necessary.  Agreement if possible.



> I'll assume the former. What I'm saying is that I can't define it for you. The universal aspect of D&D can only be experienced through the individual and thus is quite personal. _My _D&D experience is probably quite different from yours, but I also think there is a universal and archetypal underlying "essence" that imbues both of our experiences. In other words, you and I both have personal experiences of a universal "archetype," in a similar sense that you and I both have personal experiences of love, but that love is universal.






> Let me use the analogy of water. Water can be in different forms: a solid (ice), a liquid (water), a gas (vapor). It can be in the ocean, a sea or lake, a river or stream, a cup, a Nalgene bottle, a toilet bowl. But it is always water.



It is also_ never _oil.



> The D&D experience is entering into a shared imagination space with others with familiar themes that are uniquely flavored in a certain way, with very distinct fantasy tropes that have become part of the D&D canon: vorpal swords, chromatic dragons, dungeon crawls, magic missiles, fireballs, gold pieces, rods, staves, and wands; drow and githyanki, Orcus and Demogorgon, illithids and aboleths; elvish fighter-mages and dwarvish warrior-priests, etc etc etc.




I can do that all in HERO (and other FRPGs), but go on.



> D&D has a unique flavor to it; the experience of it is engaging the canonical tropes in some manner, whether by-the-book versions in a pre-made world or unique variations in a homebrew. It combines familiar and even common fantasy concepts, but in a very specific manner. One could call it "Gygaxian" but it has been developed beyond the Great Founder by countless game designers and dungeon masters and players.




If its very specific, it should be articulable.



> I think you could say that D&D is a distinct fantasy world unto itself; all of the different campaign settings are different takes on the archetypal D&D world, of which there is no direct or specific official version - not even Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms; those too are "versions" of _the _D&D World.




How far afield can you go and still call it D&D?  Where is the cutoff between Eberron and Earthdawn?



> So yeah, I would say that when it comes down to it, the D&D Experience is imaginative play in some version of the archetypal D&D World. Earthdawn or Talislanta or Harn are cousin fantasy worlds but they aren't D&D Worlds. The "Talislanta Experience" is different, with its own unique flavor, its many races and exotic locales, from the mysterious Ariane mystics to the gluttonous Quan, from the Zaran wilderness to the hellish Midnight Realm.




One could still say those other games are as close to the D&D experience as any of the published campaign settings over the various editions.  Look at Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Greyhawk and the vastness that is The Forgotten Realms over 2Ed-4Ed.  What connects them to the D&D experience more strongly than Earthdawn or Harn?  Or a D&D homebrew of Barsoom?

Or, differently, what makes Earthdawn et alia NOT D&D worlds and thus, merely cousins?



> In some sense the D&D Experience, or the archetypal D&D world, is just as specific. It has just been diversified more, into thousands upon thousands of different variations. In the same sense that the D&D Experience is both personal and universal, the D&D world is both personal--in the form of a specific world--and universal--in the form all possible D&D ideas, tropes, creatures, races, and themes.




I'm not sold.

I can see someone saying that the guys who were Superbowl winners, at Normandy, on Iwo Jima, who have flown in space all have personal but universal bonds forged in their unique experiences, but I'm not seeing the same kind of cohesion in the D&D experience.


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It is also_ never _oil.



Is someone claiming that water is oil? 



> How far afield can you go and still call it D&D?  Where is the cutoff between Eberron and Earthdawn?
> 
> One could still say those other games are as close to the D&D experience as any of the published campaign settings over the various editions.  Look at Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Greyhawk and the vastness that is The Forgotten Realms over 2Ed-4Ed.  What connects them to the D&D experience more strongly than Earthdawn or Harn?  Or a D&D homebrew of Barsoom?
> 
> Or, differently, what makes Earthdawn et alia NOT D&D worlds and thus, merely cousins?



Good question. What are your thoughts on the matter? After all, these non-D&D games could certainly be converted to pre-4E rules D&D. So what makes D&D "D&D" in your opinion?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Aldarc said:


> It is also never oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is someone claiming that water is oil?
Click to expand...



The point is that, for all the variations Mercurius delineates for water in her analogy, none of the definitions or tropes includes oil.  All are clearly water in some way.

She has not been so successful in excluding non-D&D games from her "experiential" definitions of D&D.



> Good question. What are your thoughts on the matter? After all, these non-D&D games could certainly be converted to pre-4E rules D&D. So what makes D&D "D&D" in your opinion?




Like I've said a few times, I haven't seen something that can be described as uniquely D&D on the purely "emotional"/"experiential" level that Mercurius has been asserting exists.  I can define it mechanically, yes.  Legally, yes.  But Mearls'/Mercurius' "D&D Experience" is, so far, so nebulous as to be ungraspable.

I can and have run D&D sims in HERO that emulated vorpal weapons, Vancian casting, D&D races, etc., that delivered the same "feel" as I got playing 1Ed-3Ed D&D.  I've also played many FRPGs that don't, 4Ed included.

So, despite Mearls'/Mercurius' assertions to the contrary, I can only say that "feel" derives from the aggregation of tropes, the rules, the fluff of the game, how the PCs use their resources- all achievable in a variety of systems, some of which are not legally or mechanically D&D.  And because that feel is not unique to legal/mechanical D&D systems, there doesn't seem to be a truly unique "D&D Experience."  At best,_ at best,_ you can say there is an "Experience" that is predominantly found in D&D, but is not unique to it.

Unless, of course, Mercurius can provide some form to the "D&D Experience" that convincingly excludes experiences found playing non-mechanical/non-legal D&D sims.


----------



## pawsplay

Henry said:


> To me, that's the same as saying that where D&D is concerned, there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun."




What do you mean, to you? Are you claiming I said someone was having badwrongfun? All I said is that I don't want to go to Rome. It seems other people are claiming that either:

1. I am having badwrongfun, or
2. I am actually going to Rome and don't realize it

If Rome includes playing 4e, I generally do not want to go there. And by "other people" I principally mean Mike Mearls.


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Like I've said a few times, I haven't seen something that can be described as uniquely D&D on the purely "emotional"/"experiential" level that Mercurius has been asserting exists.
> 
> I can define it mechanically, yes.  Legally, yes.  But Mearls'/Mercurius' "D&D Experience" is, so far, so nebulous as to be ungraspable.
> 
> I can and have run D&D sims in HERO that emulated vorpal weapons, Vancian casting, D&D races, etc., that delivered the same "feel" as I got playing 1Ed-3Ed D&D.
> 
> I've also played many FRPGs that don't, 4Ed included.



Perhaps an emotional sense of brand association? If we were to use a Coke analogy (), so while different Coca-Cola products may exist (i.e., Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Coke Zero, etc.), there is still something of an emotional association with that brand based upon your experiences. This is what marketing agencies like to remind customers of - that pleasant experience with their product throughout their lives that maybe would cause them to consider buying another one of their products.


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> I agree with you, Bryon, but would only add that we should also be aware of what effect our shared opinions have in a practical, interpersonal sense. I mean, _all _opinions are valid but it doesn't mean that all opinions are kind or aren't hurtful or controversial.
> 
> My sense is that the issue surrounding the phrase "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" (or one of its variants) centers on the implication of insult (whether perceived and/or actual). The cause of this is two-fold: 1) the inability or unwillingness of those saying the phrase to take any responsibility for the problems that their communication creates, and 2) the taking offense of those that perceive it as an insult even if it was not intended as one.




What would you consider a completely neutral phrasing that conveys the same information?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Perhaps an emotional sense of brand association?




I'm fine with that: clear, concise, definite, understandable.

...but Mercurius has repeatedly stated she wants to expand the "D&D Experience" to include games like Pathfinder, Hackmaster and other games that were derived from the mechanics of "D&D Actual"*




* This is my new, nBSG-inspired terminology for games legally released under the brand name of "D&D" by the IP owners.


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm fine with that: clear, concise, definite, understandable.
> 
> ...but Mercurius has repeatedly stated she wants to expand the "D&D Experience" to include games like Pathfinder, Hackmaster and other games that were derived from the mechanics of "D&D Actual"*
> 
> * This is my new, nBSG-inspired terminology for games legally released under the brand name of "D&D" by the IP owners.



Even in clear derivatives, such as Pathfinder, I think there is a sense of brand association with D&D. It's clear, for example, that Pathfinder is attemting to evoke the brand association of D&D 3.5. The emotional brand association is with Pathfinder in all but name.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That's stretching "brand association" pretty far.

Is Chickenfoot part of the Van Halen brand association?  It had Sammy Hagar and Michael Anthony as half of its (stellar) lineup.

Is Lady Gaga™ a part of Madonna™?

I know someone who is a sub-contractor for Harry Winston's jewelry, who occasionally uses the same designs for his own work, but with stones of different sizes than the ones he makes for HW.  Is his work part of the HW brand experience?  What about a Rollex vs a Rolex?

Pathfinder, etc. may be very similar to their inspirations, but they really shouldn't be considered part of the "association" except in the very loosest sense.


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's stretching "brand association" pretty far.
> 
> Is Chickenfoot part of the Van Halen brand association?  It had Sammy Hagar and Michael Anthony as half of its (stellar) lineup.



I would say so. Brand association is often used by people outside of that brand to encourage people to buy the product. 



> Pathfinder, etc. may be very similar to their inspirations, but they really shouldn't be considered part of the "association" except in the very loosest sense.



How loose of an association is it really? It's a repackaged D&D 3E. Who are the people who are mostly buying Pathfinder materials? Those who preferred 3E D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I would say so. Brand association is often used by people outside of that brand to encourage people to buy the product.




I bet the members of both bands would reject the association to a certain extent...especially since Sammy has a career dating back to about 1973, and Joe Satriani and Chad Smith have stellar resumes as well.

They DID, however, mention their associations on a removable sticker.  Explicitly.

But not so much with the makers of D&D clones.  There is no "Inspired by D&D" language anywhere on their product or press releases.  There is nothing about them that someone not already knowledgable about the industry could point at and say- "Oh, its like D&D 1Ed." or "Its a clone of 3Ed."  The brand association is not actively leveraged.


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But not so much with the makers of D&D clones.  There is no "Inspired by D&D" language anywhere on their product or press releases.  There is nothing about them that someone not already knowledgable about the industry could point at and say- "Oh, its like D&D 1Ed." or "Its a clone of 3Ed."  The brand association is not actively leveraged.



And do you honestly believe that Pathfinder has not benefited from D&D brand association?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Aldarc said:


> And do you honestly believe that Pathfinder has not benefited from D&D brand association?




It has benefitted from being mechanically similar to 3.5Ed, much like a Automatiku Shqiptar model 56, OBJ-006, and IMI Galil are all similar to a Kalashnikov AK-47.

It has not, however, explicitly used that similarity in its advertising, which is what you'd do if you were actively trying to gain "brand association."


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It has benefitted from being mechanically similar to 3.5Ed, much like a Automatiku Shqiptar model 56, OBJ-006, and IMI Galil are all similar to a Kalashnikov AK-47.
> 
> It has not, however, explicitly used that similarity in its advertising, which is what you'd do if you were actively trying to gain "brand association."



Weird analogies. But did Pathfinder not declare itself meant to be "compatible" with 3E? Are there not many threads that frequently label themselves as 3E/Pathfinder? it seems a wee bit intellectually dishonest to suggest that Pathfinder has not benefited from brand association.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Jasperak said:


> I have written--and deleted--three posts because I cannot articulate a fundamental response to question that I kept bringing up. How does one separate the D&D experience from that of any other FRPG?




It's a lengthy question that I can't do full justice to in this post.

But for me, when I'm talking about D&D (as opposed to some other fantasy roleplaying game) I'm talking about a commonality of experience which can be primarily analyzed from two perspectives:

(1) As a player, do the core classes play in a fundamentally similar fashion?

(2) As a DM, if I set up an identical situation will it result in fundamentally similar gameplay?

For example, let's say I take a fighter, a magic-user, a cleric, and a thief from OD&D and I put them in a fight against a troll.

Now, I do the same thing except this time with the AD&D1 rules. The encounter looks pretty much the same: The AD&D1 fighter has abilities virtually identical to the OD&D fighter. The AD&D1 magic-user has spells pretty much identical to the OD&D magic-user. And so forth. The troll also is basically identical, too.

This holds true in AD&D2, BECMI, and D&D3. Are there differences? Sure.

Now, to the basic gameplay of OD&D you can _add_ a lot of elements and I'll still see D&D: Give fighters proficiencies and feats; give new spells to the magic-user; introduce a plethora of new classes; tack on a skill system. Underneath all the new bling, though, the core gameplay is still there.

Now, let's turn to D&D4 and dial-up the same encounter: Now every single class has completely different gameplay. Even the troll's regeneration no longer works the same way.

I write this as somebody who has interchangeably used material across OD&D, AD&D1, AD&D2, BECMI, D&D3, and D&D4 in various combinations: Prior to 2008, if I fed similar classes, monsters, and situations into the system, I got back out gameplay that was all pretty much identical. A few big changes here and there (the variable effectiveness of _sleep_ is a big one), but still basically the same game. The same isn't true of 4th Edition.

I take an encounter designed for 3rd Edition and I plug it into OD&D, the encounter basically works the same way. I take an encounter designed for AD&D2 and I plug it into 3rd Edition, and it basically works the same way.

I plug an encounter designed for 4th Edition into OD&D and it doesn't work the same way.

I encourage everyone to give it a try: Grab _Caverns of Thracia_ and do a straight monster-for-monster conversion from OD&D to 3E and 4E; see how it plays. Grab _Keep on the Shadowfell_ and run it in OD&D and 3E swapping goblin-for-goblin and kobold-for-kobold; see it how plays.

I have played and run in these games. I speak from both theory and experience.

One of these things is not like the others.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But did Pathfinder not declare itself meant to be "compatible" with 3E?




I haven't seen it.  If you have, show me.



> Are there not many threads that frequently label themselves as 3E/Pathfinder?



Brand association is an explicit linkage to another product or service as part of one's advertising/promotions strategy.

A thread on an online board is NOT advertising, it is not "brand association."


----------



## GreyLord

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I haven't seen it.  If you have, show me.
> 
> 
> Brand association is an explicit linkage to another product or service as part of one's advertising/promotions strategy.
> 
> A thread on an online board is NOT advertising, it is not "brand association."




I have no real interest left in this conversation...but since you asked...I looked it up on google and took me about 5 seconds...



> The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been * designed with compatibility with previous editions in mind, so you'll be able to use your existing library of 3.5 products with minimal effort. In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots in the 3.5 rules set, making several existing books even easier to use. * On the other hand, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game contains numerous additional options and exciting new takes on classic character classes and races, infusing the game with a level of excitement that will carry it years into the future.



4th paragraph down (that's paragraphs...not editions...yes...for those who can't take humor...that's a haha...)

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

read into that as you will


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Then I stand corrected- that IS an example of authentic brand association.


----------



## BryonD

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I haven't seen it.  If you have, show me.



Does this qualify?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5470475


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mercurius said:


> I put the relevant sentence in bold-faced.
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you, Danny, even vehemently (well, I'm not really feeling _vehemence, _but you get my point).
> 
> I actually think the entire article is a great exposition or mission statement for "D&D unity" - that is, unity of the community, no matter which edition or sub-variation or house rules one plays. What he is saying is that D&D is the experience that you and your buddies make, no matter what rule set one uses.
> 
> Now we can go back to my delineations of primary, secondary and tertiary, with primary being "official" versions of D&D, secondary being retro-clones and heartbreakers, and tertiary being other rules sets being used to emulate D&D themes - and yeah, that would be more precise. _But that's not the point - _both with my original post on "All Roads Lead to Rome" and with Mike Mearls' article. I cannot speak for Mearls, although I think he is getting at something quite similar, but the point, in my mind, is that the "core essence of D&D", as he put it, is not defined by the rules, but by the experience itself. We can talk about the rules, about different definitions and delineations of what D&D is, but all of that is secondary to the experience itself, the stories, the adventure, the fun.
> 
> I think we, the diehard base, lose sight of that, and may actually turn the casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers away from the table, and in so doing inhibit the health and growth of the hobby itself.
> 
> The bottom line being: D&D is _my _game, and it is also _yours. _Make of it what you will. And enjoy.





I will have to agree with Danny on this one. I will agree that the experience of play is greater than any set of mechanics but what the designers say and more importantly what the company that makes the game _actually does _is very important especially to the casual gamer. 

If and when the producers/designers actually show some care  for the health and growth of the hobby (as opposed to the customer base, a huge difference) then I believe we should all stop and listen. 

Current trends lead me to believe that the current custodians of D&D are willing to change it into a boardgame, CCG, or something else if that is what it takes to get the sales numbers that they seem to require. I don't see how this serves the hobby at all. All it will accomplish (if successful) is providing a company with more customers to consume products. If anything this will fragment the community even more.  Caring about the growth and health of the hobby and the growth and health of the industry are NOT the same thing. 

The hobby is about what the people are actually doing, the industry is about what the people are buying. If what people are doing isn't important as long as they are buying, guess which one is more important?


----------



## Jasperak

*Holy crap this is long*



Beginning of the End said:


> It's a lengthy question that I can't do full justice to in this post.
> 
> But for me, when I'm talking about D&D (as opposed to some other fantasy roleplaying game) I'm talking about a commonality of experience which can be primarily analyzed from two perspectives:
> 
> (1) As a player, do the core classes play in a fundamentally similar fashion?
> 
> (2) As a DM, if I set up an identical situation will it result in fundamentally similar gameplay?
> 
> /snip examples though they match my experiences




I thought about something after my last post before I went to sleep and didn't want to say anything until I had thought it through. I will try and make my point but I think I will need to take the long way around, so this might be kinda longish. And interestingly enough it made me question a long-held belief of mine that I didn't quite expect. For the poster somewhere that is thinking, "why do we keep having threads that could rekindle the EWs," this is for you.

I have played all editions of D&D except the LBBs--commonly referred to as 0e--and the two basic editions before BECMI. I started with BECMI, joined 1e at its tail end, and grew up with 2e--especially liking the customization that kits offered. I grew tired of D&D in the late 90's and started drifting off to other systems. 

[tangent]
That's when we started with Earthdawn. It was an abysmal failure and didn't last. Why, because we tried to play it like D&D. Talk about trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver. Thinking back on this experience leads me to believe that there is some essence that is D&D.
[/tangent]

When I had heard about 3e on the horizon I was elated, much like the rest of the community. Granted there were some that I have heard about since--and maybe a little back then, since I was here on EN World before 2002 and the great rebuild--that did not welcome 3e, but I was looking forward to it. When it came out I jumped in and didn't look back until 2006 or so. I loved all of the new character options: skills, feats, and removal of demi-human class restrictions; all of its new combat options. And most importantly the one feature that exemplified its elegance, 1d20 to rule them all.

But...there had to be a but, something happened which I can only describe by telling another quick story. A group I played with in the early to mid 2000's had originally played with a kitbash of 1e, 2e, and BD&D. I pestered them to play 3e, look at all of the new character options I said. So when their DM wanted to take a break and be a player himself, I took the reigns. And we played 3e. But very early on we realized all of those fiddly bits didn't add anything to their experience. As an example, AoO were too complicated for our wine-addled minds. The rules got in the way of our collective story. By the time my wife--of course she played too--and I moved, we were essentially playing 1e/2e with 3e characters. And that was the most fun I had with D&D. Let me note here that in 3e I made her characters by asking her to describe her character and me picking the appropriate feats and skills. She didn't want to be bothered with all the different accounting and such.

[important tangent]
While I had been playing D&D for years, my wife didn't start playing D&D until the late 90's when I bought her the red BECMI box set while she was at Penn State. She wanted to learn why I liked D&D so much; why she had to share me with this hobby. I felt that she needed to learn as I did; that the red box set would give her the best chance to see why I love D&D. She enjoyed it. She eventually graduated to 2e when she moved up to Alaska while I was in the Army. I have all of her characters--I think--from that time and you know what, she didn't play anything but fighters, a paladin, and a ranger. Know why? I'll paraphrase her response from so many years ago, "I just want to roll my d20 and kill things. I don't care about all of that other stuff." My wife just wants to play Conan, how cool is that.
[/important tangent]

It was eventually my wife that metaphorically pulled me aside and said that everyone would have more fun if I didn't make the game so complicated. Talk about getting hit upside the head with a sledgehammer. But she was right. While I loved setting up 20-level character progressions and designing challenging NPCs and encounters, everyone else just wanted to play. It was on me as DM to prevent "the Christmas Tree effect"; challenge them appropriately when we deviated from expected rules.

By the time we moved I was tired of 3e; we never did embrace 3.5e and 4e was not yet on the horizon. I was looking for newer systems that were more simple. I found WHFRPG1/2e--arguably not more simple but I loved the gritty realism, lethality, and character growth when starting as a Ratcatcher or a Barber/surgeon. I found Savage Worlds. I found Dragon Age. To me SW and DA scratched my D&D itch, but to my wife none of them were D&D. Why? Do I get to roll my d20 and kill things?

But dear, with SW you get to roll the die that corresponds to your ability and all you have to do is roll a 4 or higher. How simple is that? Do I get to roll my d20 and kill things? No. Where are my hitpoints? Well it doesn't use hit points, there's a damage track. Then it ain't D&D.

But dear, with DA you get to roll 3d6. We can play anywhere that we can buy a set of dice if we forget ours. I don't want to learn new rules. If i can't just roll a d20 and kill things, then it ain't D&D.

So, would she consider 4e as D&D. If like 3e I took out all of the fiddly bits and chose her powers for her. Yes. If all she has to do is roll a d20 and kill things, it's D&D.

Now this is a simplistic anecdote but one that illustrates my point. All she wanted to do is roll a d20 and kills things--though admittedly loved taking on more specialized roles like the paladin and ranger. She can tell you stories like how her paladin took the side of a PC cleric against my Bard/Shadowdancer and others when we explored an island like "the Isle of Dread" and found a meteorite venerated by the native population and some of us wanted to take it to make better weapons and armor. Or like how her first character--a fighter named Ruamil--lost her new friend, a cleric named Aleena, to a powerful magic-user's "glowing bolt of arcane energy" and how she hired a couple of other fighters and a magic-user to hunt "that f--ker Bargle" down and serve justice. Was she playing D&D? Yep. Could she do this again in 4e. Yep. With no more changes than I needed for her to do it in any other edition of D&D. 

Does she get the essence of D&D? I think so.

D&D is no more than a toolbox to facilitate the growth of a communal story; a way for like-minded people to pass the time in a manner that matches the group's style. All editions arrive at that goal in different ways.

Afterword
This is why the sandbox I am working on now is using as its base the earliest editions of D&D. Because that's what makes my wife and I happiest. Essentially leave most of the challenges to descriptions and adjudication, and leave the whacking of monsters to the d20. YMMV

[last tangent]
If we could really define love, would we really have needed thousands of years of poetry talking about it?
[/last tangent]

Holy crap that was long.


----------



## Nagol

> D&D is no more than a toolbox to facilitate the growth of a communal story; a way for like-minded people to pass the time in a manner that matches the group's style. All editions arrive at that goal in different ways.




Earthdawn also does this -- all RPGs do -- why isn't it D&D?  Why did that game crash and burn because you were trying to play D&D with it?

What were you trying to do with Earthdawn that it didn't facilitate the way D&D does?


----------



## Mercurius

Jasperak said:


> I have written--and deleted--three posts because I cannot articulate a fundamental response to question that I kept bringing up. How does one separate the D&D experience from that of any other FRPG? I see more in common with 1e and WHFRPG1/2e; 2e and Earthdawn. I have had wildly different experiences with D&D in all of the editions I have played, that I cannot see them as one all-encompassing experience and yet separate them from any other FRPGs.
> 
> Mercurius> In another thread of yours concerning campaigns we'd like to play, I posted a link to a story hour for a Call of Cthulhu campaign. Strip out the modern-day and Lovecraftian influences and insert fantasy archtypes and it would be an excellent D&D campaign. It leads me to that question I can't answer, "What makes the D&D experience unique from any other FRPG?"<
> 
> Yes we are unified as roleplayers, but as D&D players? We all look for different experiences with our games. I have little in common with 3e optimizers*; little in common with 4e tacticians*. Except a Brand Name. I have more in common with that CoC story hour I mentioned earlier. I don't play D&D anymore, but I am working on a fantasy sandbox using a retro-clone. Does that mean I am still in the D&D community? In Mearls' eyes? In the eyes of the players of the currently supported edition of D&D?




These are all good questions and I think you began to answer them in your longer post that I XPed. First of all, something I've been trying to express to DannyAlcatraz (and evidently failing) is that the "core essence" of D&D is inherently nebulous and difficult to define; I would even say that it _should _be nebulous to allow different takes, different experiences. 

(I want to be clear again that what I'm talking about as "D&D Experience/core essence" is not synonymous with the game itself. We can try to define "What is D&D" all we want - that is a different (if related) discussion. But when we are talking about the _core essence _or _experience _of the game, it is something different.)

In this sense there is no sharp line between D&D and, say, Earthdawn. They are related, cousins if you will. Think of D&D as a tradition, a religion even. Buddhism and Hindu Vedanta are strongly related but aren't the same thing; the "core essence" is different, even if many aspects and concepts of their philosophies are similar.

A couple times I have used what I am calling the "Threefold Model" for defining D&D as a game: primary D&D, which is any official version of the game as published by TSR or WotC (the brand name holders); secondary D&D, which is any retro-clone or heartbreaker that is based off an official version of the game; and tertiary D&D, which is any RPG that is being used to play fantasy "D&D-style" - with D&D tropes and themes (e.g. a Savage Worlds campaigns set in the Forgotten Realms). They are all D&D, but they are different _orders _of D&D.

Now again, this doesn't define "core essence" although I would say that players of each order partake of this essence simply by virtue of partaking of the tradition.

I'm not sure if I answered your questions but hopefully I helped bring a bit of light to the issue, as best I can at least.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not sold.




Cool, I'm not selling anything. Or rather, I'm _offering _something and discussing it but not trying to get you to buy it. Any disagreement at this point is with regards to your understanding of what I'm trying to express, and I still feel like you're not getting it. That's fine - I can live with that. I'm not sure what else I can say at this point, other than to reiterate what I've already said. I did frame it slightly different to Jasperak above.

p.s. I am a "he" not a "she," although I hardly take offense for you confusing me with the superior sex 



pawsplay said:


> What would you consider a completely neutral phrasing that conveys the same information?




First, it depends upon what information you're wanting to convey. I'm not convinced that there are some that actually want to undermine 4E as a valid form of D&D, that it shouldn't be considered part of "real D&D" but as some new version that is "pseudo-D&D." 

But for those that simply are trying to express that 4E simply doesn't adequately scratch the D&D itch for them, how about something like this: "4E doesn't feel like what I personally consider to be D&D, although I can see how it could for others. I consider a valid, legitimate form of D&D, just not one that scratches my itch."

This isn't to be PC, but to be clear about what one means, and to be specific that what one is talking about is one's own relationship to 4E, not someone else's relationship to 4E, or whether or not 4E is actually or really a form of D&D. If one truly means that 4E isn't real D&D but is pseudo D&D, then one should realize what sort of effect that might have on those that feel that 4E _is _real D&D, especially on a website dedicated to all forms of D&D. (I would also argue that this perspective, that 4E is pseudo-D&D, is actually a perspective that holds little water and one that can be refuted from numerous angles, but that's another discussion).



ExploderWizard said:


> I will have to agree with Danny on this one. I will agree that the experience of play is greater than any set of mechanics but what the designers say and more importantly what the company that makes the game _actually does _is very important especially to the casual gamer.
> 
> If and when the producers/designers actually show some care  for the health and growth of the hobby (as opposed to the customer base, a huge difference) then I believe we should all stop and listen.
> 
> Current trends lead me to believe that the current custodians of D&D are willing to change it into a boardgame, CCG, or something else if that is what it takes to get the sales numbers that they seem to require. I don't see how this serves the hobby at all. All it will accomplish (if successful) is providing a company with more customers to consume products. If anything this will fragment the community even more.  Caring about the growth and health of the hobby and the growth and health of the industry are NOT the same thing.
> 
> The hobby is about what the people are actually doing, the industry is about what the people are buying. If what people are doing isn't important as long as they are buying, guess which one is more important?




I'm not sure what you're agreeing with Danny about or seemingly disagreeing with me about as nothing that you said is against what I've been saying. This isn't a pro vs. anti WotC discussion. We were talking about the contents of Mike Mearls' article in relation to previous discussions about the nature of D&D, what I was calling the "D&D experience," and what Mearls called the "core essence" of D&D. In other words, I think these might not be the droids that you were looking for - although I don't disagree with what you wrote.


----------



## Jasperak

Nagol said:


> D&D is no more than a toolbox to facilitate the growth of a communal story; a way for like-minded people to pass the time in a manner that matches the group's style. All editions arrive at that goal in different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earthdawn also does this -- all RPGs do -- why isn't it D&D?  Why did that game crash and burn because you were trying to play D&D with it?
> 
> What were you trying to do with Earthdawn that it didn't facilitate the way D&D does?
Click to expand...



Good question. If I remember correctly there were several issues. At that time I was a D&D/high fantasy purist. The setting as the DM described while fantastic was much darker than I was used to--also maybe too fantastic. If I remember correctly the DMPC was some sort of rock creature. I remember I was playing a human knight archtype that used swords, but found that the spell casters and the aforementioned DMPC were much more capable. Not that I believe that balance is the be all in the game, but I expected my character to act as a strong front-line fighter and it didn't turn out that way.

The game seemed to penalize lethality more than D&D since creating characters were more involved than I was used to since I was unfamiliar with the system. I think it took longer to worry about death--more hit points or something or at least it would take more than one or two hits to kill me--, but I always seemed to worry about it. There was much more grittiness to it.

The conflict/challenge resolution system were also more difficult for me to learn. If I remember correctly there were different dice used based on ability. I am reminded of Savage Worlds for some reason.

Also the techniques for exploration I had learned playing D&D did not translate well. Most of the time we were above ground instead of in confined dungeons with well-defined marching orders. I don't remember using tactics like in D&D for that exploration.

I like the idea and resource management of what we call Vancian magic. But does Earthdawn's Circles of magic seem more natural or more believable, yep. The magic had a different feel; I would definitely appreciate it more today. 

If I were to play Earthdawn today, I might enjoy it more. It was a very interesting setting (like many of 2e's), but the mechanics were a turn off at that time. Very similar to how I like WHFRG1/2e now but probably would have hated it back then.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mercurius said:


> Raven, I think what you are not getting is that I'm not trying to  convince you of anything.  I could care less about changing your point of view.




Are you sure about that?



> The whole point of my posts in these conversations has been to try to put forth a unitive gesture




You have done so.  Some people disagree about the premise that that gesture is based on.  Are you trying to convince them that they are wrong to disagree?



> My view is that if we can get to that point - a sense of unity as a community - than we can discuss our differences in a way that doesn't end up in endless (and pointless) squabbling




I agree with this, and would love that to come about.  However, wishing simply doesn't make it so.  That is why I outlined the way in which someone -- and preferable WotC -- could attempt to overcome the barriers to that unity.

Denying that those barriers exist helps no one; they must be examined honestly and dealt with as seems appropriate after honest appraisal.  And even then, there are no guarantees.



RC


----------



## El Mahdi

Beginning of the End said:


> ...when I'm talking about D&D...
> 
> (snip)
> 
> ...One of these things is not like the others.




This is why it's such a subjective thing. For you, this is absolutely, 100% true. For me, it's not. I've said it before, but I'll repeat in order to not be misunderstood - I don't prefer or play 4E. The complexity of 3E is why I like it so much. For me, that complexity is missing in 4E. That doesn't make it a bad rules set, just not one I don't prefer.

But, when I look at the books, I see the same six attributes, the same attribute bonuses. I see base attack bonuses and AC (Defense) which work essentially the way they did in 3E. I see the same D20 mechanics that underlayed 3E. Some things may have changed names or use slightly different forumulas (i.e.: Defenses vs. Saving Throws), but all in all it simply seems like a simplified, homogenized version of 3E with the "Powers" system tacked on.

For me, it still looks and feels like D&D...just lacking a few bits that are crucial to me.

I feel that only Original D&D can _objectively_ be called D&D, as all other editions are an evolution originating from that common beginning. However, one may also be able to make the argument that if one can chart the evolution of D&D through the editions by identifying common elements and progressions, then all editions are also objectively D&D. But if we accept the second premise, we have to accept that almost all RPG's, even if not branded _D&D_, also fulfill that requirement - as almost all RPG's have evolved from certain common mechanical elements and premises originated in Original D&D.

But, since what we (Mearls and us) are really talking about is _Feel_ - it's purely a subjective matter whether or not a specific edition, or any RPG for that matter, feels like D&D to any specific person.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Couple of asides:

(1)  As far as is legally possible, derivitive games do indeed seek to gain the benefits of being associated with pre-existing trademarked properties.  Not the trademark, but the property that the trademark is used to sell.

(2)  About how various edition encounters play out.....I am currently working on a fusion between OS & NS games, which I intended to make useful all of my vast roleplaying library.  My goal was to use basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e modules, as well as Harn and MERP modules, and pretty much anything else I wanted, with the minimum requirements for prep.  IOW, I wanted to be able to convert these modules in my head while playing.

4e is very hard to do.  In some cases, harder than MERP.

Again and again, one has to stop and ask "Does this mean what 30 years of playing D&D suggests that it means?  No, no, it does not."  And because I never followed 4e beyond the initial release, I am sure that I am not getting how much has changed then to now.

Another way to put it:  I can (and have) run adventures from 3e, OSRIC, and Basic D&D, interweaving them during play, and not having any difficulty with on-the-fly conversions.  I cannot do that with the Trollhaunt Warrens.


RC


----------



## UniversalMonster

Raven Crowking said:


> Another way to put it:  I can (and have) run adventures from 3e, OSRIC, and Basic D&D, interweaving them during play, and not having any difficulty with on-the-fly conversions.  I cannot do that with the Trollhaunt Warrens.
> 
> 
> RC




Are you sure? Spoiler alert: It's a bunch of caves with trolls in them.

Here, have a look: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/excerpts/P1_Trollhaunt.pdf


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Morbidly fascinated with this thread.

Mercurius, Rome has declined and fallen. The glory of yesteryear is gone. 

Pathfinder is in Constantinople, and the 4E Visigoths have established a new system in WotCItalia. They vie with the encroaching Essentials Vandals - a related tribe - who threaten to sack Rome a second time.

Rome is an image of memory.

Now we're just waiting for Charlemagne.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mercurius said:


> I'm not sure what you're agreeing with Danny about or seemingly disagreeing with me about as nothing that you said is against what I've been saying. This isn't a pro vs. anti WotC discussion. We were talking about the contents of Mike Mearls' article in relation to previous discussions about the nature of D&D, what I was calling the "D&D experience," and what Mearls called the "core essence" of D&D. In other words, I think these might not be the droids that you were looking for - although I don't disagree with what you wrote.




To clarify, it was about the bolded part of Mearls statement and actions speaking louder than words.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Peter said:


> Are you sure? Spoiler alert: It's a bunch of caves with trolls in them.
> 
> Here, have a look: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/excerpts/P1_Trollhaunt.pdf




I just lost my post due to a Windows error, but, yes, I am sure.

*  DCs need to be adjusted to be fiction-first.
*  Monsters might not mean what they did in previous editions; I need to make sure that I understand what a "troll" is in this context.
*  Monster abilities have to be rewritten to match ruleset assumptions, and to remove strongly grid-based combat.  *This can take a long time.*
*  Encounters have to be examined to remove rules-first assumptions.  This is pervasive in delve-format adventures, and is true for late 3e adventures as well.
*  Treasure assumptions are different, and have to be examined.

The way encounters play *is* the D&D experience, to me.  While I agree that 4e is D&D, I don't agree that it provides the experience I associate with D&D.


RC


----------



## Jasperak

Raven Crowking said:


> The way encounters play *is* the D&D experience, to me.  While I agree that 4e is D&D, I don't agree that it provides the experience I associate with D&D.
> 
> RC




That's the rub. What Mearls and co. have to figure out is what made D&D great in the past to bring in into the future.

When I think of how my wife views the hobby, I wonder if dropping the d20 license hurt more than finding a place for it in the new business model. Because where the wife goes; I go.


----------



## Jasperak

I very rarely post but this thread and others here have really kicked my brain into overdrive.

In another thread I posted that I would love to play in a Call of Cthulhu campaign based on "The Masks of Nyarl...." I would love to run/play in it for my wife and friends. The only way I see that happening is to run it in Call of Cthulhu d20. "It's the same as D&D except you have also have sanity points in addition to hit points." That's what they would be familiar with.

I wonder if there are really only two types of RPGers out there.
1. Those like on us on a message board, discussing the minutia of game theory and design.
2. Those like my wife that just want to play a game.

I am trying to set up a "How to Host a Murder Game". Does anyone think those people give a rat's ass about differences between 3e or 4e? Or what WOTC does with their marketing? 

I think these same people would love a game of Dread. These same people loved the Lord of the rings Trilogy. Why do I have the unwavering belief that they would be turned off by the current state of RPGs today if I were to try to introduce them?


----------



## Ahzad

Like someone else mentioned a few posts up I too am morbidly fascinated with this thread.

For *me* the quintessential D&D experience was that feeling of a shared community, one that no longer exists IMO & can no longer be recaptured. Let me explain what I mean, I'm talking about the OD&D, 1e & the first bit of 2e, before the TSR glut. It was a truly shared world experience we all played the same modules (I know this is a broad generalization, but one I think basically holds true) A1-4, GDQ series, B1-9, T1-4. It was a time when if at the con, or game store and you talked about the Green Face, Eclavdra, Marissa the slave lord, Caves of Chaos, or others. You instantly knew what was being talked about b/c you had traversed those same dungeons. As the game grew in popularity and the wealth of modules & game settings exploded that sense of community passed from the hobby. It was replaced by a new form of shared experience where we all played D&D (whatever your flavor) but it no longer had that closeness of a small town community it once had. I saw a flicker of it at the beginnings of 3e with the adventure path, but the rapid expansion & diversity (thanks to the OGL) of the other modules quickly squashed that, and I can also see that in 4e with what they are trying to do with the Encounter nights. Unfortunately the community is to large and fractured to ever really regain that feeling again.

Someone else further up broke down the compatibility of the various editions and I think I agree with that, basic thru AD&D and to a smaller extent 3e are D&D to *me* (your experience may vary and i'm perfectly happy to accept that, just respect my own opinion as I do yours) b/c of the ease of compatibility. 4e while I played it up until the paragon level and had a DI subscription and spent hundreds of $ on it, it just isn't the same thing to me b/c while the names are the same in a lot of cases the rules just don't work the same, and it's much harder to mix stuff together.

I didn't get on board with Pathfinder, I gravitated toward FantasyCraft, and more recently flirting with a return to 1e/2e as my gaming engine of choice these days. I would love to see some of these wide cracks in our hobby mend themselves or at least shorten the gap b/c there is entirely to much friction as to which edition is the true version of D&D, when they are just D&D no matter which one you play. The only distinction that matters is the one that affects you and your group, and it shouldn't be foisted off on everyone else.

Those are my thoughts anyways.

As an afterthought I do think bringing back the pdf of older editions would be a great idea as well b/c of the revenue stream that it might generate. It might not be a lot but it's still money flowing into your coffers from people who would not be buying your current products. I don't understand how that would be a bad thing. I've got most of everything for D&D either in hard copy or pdf, but I'm sure there are others that might like to replace or re-own their old books. You might even get a bunch of older lapsed gamers who have no interest in the current game coming back and rebuying entire lines of stuff. Wouldn't you rather have that money or do you prefer them to pirate the stuff? I can't see it as competing with your current edition b/c those folks weren't going to buy it in the first place, and it's not like anyone is asking them to support the older editions (well some are but we all know that's not going to happen), just make the older stuff accessible and we'll pony up the money for it. As Mark said further up it polishes up your public image as well b/c the piracy argument doesn't hold water to anyone who is in the slightest bit up on current tech news. So if you aren't going to do it give us another reason even if it's we don't want to at least we'll know you are up front and honest about it, not hiding behind a weak reason.


----------



## Jasperak

Ahzad said:


> /lots of snippies
> 
> I didn't get on board with Pathfinder, I gravitated toward FantasyCraft, and more recently flirting with a return to 1e/2e as my gaming engine of choice these days. I would love to see some of these wide cracks in our hobby mend themselves or at least shorten the gap b/c there is entirely to much friction as to which edition is the true version of D&D, when they are just D&D no matter which one you play. The only distinction that matters is the one that affects you and your group, and it shouldn't be foisted off on everyone else.
> 
> Those are my thoughts anyways.




XP offered for truth.


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> First, it depends upon what information you're wanting to convey. I'm not convinced that there are some that actually want to undermine 4E as a valid form of D&D, that it shouldn't be considered part of "real D&D" but as some new version that is "pseudo-D&D."
> 
> But for those that simply are trying to express that 4E simply doesn't adequately scratch the D&D itch for them, how about something like this: "4E doesn't feel like what I personally consider to be D&D, although I can see how it could for others. I consider a valid, legitimate form of D&D, just not one that scratches my itch."
> 
> This isn't to be PC, but to be clear about what one means, and to be specific that what one is talking about is one's own relationship to 4E, not someone else's relationship to 4E, or whether or not 4E is actually or really a form of D&D.




You seem to have contradicted yourself. You repeated the original phrase, and then added that you consider 4e a valid form of D&D. What if I don't want to talk a stand on what is a valid, legitimate form of D&D, and just wish to state that 4e doesn't feel like D&D to me? I don't want to put your words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that people are okay to disagree, as long as they have the same opinion you do. 

To be clear on what I mean, and specific, 4e does not feel like D&D to me, and I do not wish to take a stand on what is a valid, legitimate edition of D&D. Other people are free to enjoy 4e, but that does mean I personally have to bolster their sense of justification. I'm not out to undermine anything, but 4e scratch my D&D itch, even a little.


----------



## Dannager

Jasperak said:


> That's the rub. What Mearls and co. have to figure out is what made D&D great in the past to bring in into the future.



I think what made D&D great in the past was probably that it was a reliable way for 4-6 people to spend the amount of time it would take to watch a couple of movies, enjoy themselves as much (if not more) than they would have at the theater, and come away from the whole thing without having spent $120 on their collective tickets (granted, movie tickets were cheaper in whatever time period you consider to be D&D's heyday, but D&D was probably cheaper, too).

You can certainly dive down into the more detailed levels of this (shared story, caters to lots of playstyles, encourages imagination, etc.) but I think the above goes a long way towards explaining why us humans keep coming back to the same social activities over and over again. D&D just so happens to be one of those activities, for the people who are familiar with it.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> I think what made D&D great in the past was probably that it was a reliable way for 4-6 people to spend the amount of time it would take to watch a couple of movies, enjoy themselves as much (if not more) than they would have at the theater, and come away from the whole thing without having spent $120 on their collective tickets (granted, movie tickets were cheaper in whatever time period you consider to be D&D's heyday, but D&D was probably cheaper, too).
> 
> You can certainly dive down into the more detailed levels of this (shared story, caters to lots of playstyles, encourages imagination, etc.) but I think the above goes a long way towards explaining why us humans keep coming back to the same social activities over and over again. D&D just so happens to be one of those activities, for the people who are familiar with it.



I've suddenly seen several comments with this basic bent to them lately.

I have no doubt that there were plenty of people who are perfectly described this way.  And I can readily see how those people would not only be completely content with 4E, but would also strongly prefer 4E to 3E.

But I also find these posts to be extremely short sighted.  Basically they are saying that they can't imagine that a very large number of fans do in fact play the game for a much more involved experience.  

If you see it that way, then your conclusions make sense.  Unfortunately, your conclusions are not based on an accurate description of the fan base that makes the economic engine for the industry.  And that is why you can be completely convinced that your thinking is sound and still come to conclusions which do not reflect the market outcomes being observed.  You can't just take good logic and apply it to the data.  You must apply to logic to good data.


----------



## lamia

I think it's really just a matter of wording. I wouldn't say that 4e is not D&D. I would say that it is not D&D to me. That implies the personal experience aspect when I add the "to me" bit. I also realize that it is entirely possible for it to be D&D to someone else, I'm certainly not trying to be disrespectful or insult anyone's game when I say that.

I will anecdote it up. 

My ex and I were both musicians. We loved a lot of the same bands and loved talking about music. (Thus the big tent we are all RPGers)

But we experienced music in entirely different ways. He was a guitarist/drummer, while I was a singer/bassist/sometime keyboardist. If you asked both of us to point out what really defined a certain album, I would say the eerie harpsichord, melodic basslines, and haunting vocal melodies. He would say it was the sparse drums used for more impact and the way the guitar weaved in and out of the main harmony for a feeling of disconnectedness. 

Sometimes bands we liked would change members, and it would stop feeling like that band anymore to one of us. If the plaintive vocals are what define a band to me, but not to him..well, it would lose what it was to me even if all the other members stayed the same. I wouldn't even notice sometimes when a band changed drummers, but it could totally ruin them for him because he was seeing them through the lens of a drummer. 

Neither of us got offended or huffy if the other said "It's just not the same band anymore, to me". We fought about pretty much everything except this! We were both still musicians and understood how important certain aspects were to the other.


I guess for me, 3x got rid of the drummer and added a backup vocalist. Then 4e got rid of the bassist and changed singers entirely. I can completely understand that it feels the same for others, and respect that. But can you see why it's no longer the same for me? 
On a side note:
I really feel like the people here are lovely and not trying to personally attack people or have edition wars. It's just discussing the game through different lenses. I had actually stopped posting altogether on certain other sites because of the way I was treated. Here I've only had my feelings hurt once, and I'm pretty sensitive!


----------



## Aldarc

Raven Crowking said:


> The way encounters play *is* the D&D experience, to me.  While I agree that 4e is D&D, I don't agree that it provides the experience I associate with D&D.



I think this is a reasonable and respectable position to take.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then I stand corrected- that IS an example of authentic brand association.




(Had to get SOME sleep last night- today is Dad's 65th birthday party, and I was doing prep work 'till 6AM...)

So Pathfinder has legitimately used brand association.  How many other clones have?  If they haven't, are they to be included as part of the "D&D Experience?"

If so, _how_ do they qualify?


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Had to get SOME sleep last night- today is Dad's 65th birthday party, and I was doing prep work 'till 6AM...)
> 
> So Pathfinder has legitimately used brand association.  How many other clones have?  If they haven't, are they to be included as part of the "D&D Experience?"
> 
> If so, _how_ do they qualify?



Again, good questions. Now I'm genuinely interested in brand association. 

True20 arguably does as well: 


> Familiar!
> 
> Thanks to something called the Open Game License, *True20 is based on the world's most popular roleplaying game system,* giving it many elements familiar to fans and players of that and other similar systems.
> 
> True20 has heroic roles to help define its characters, and six ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) to describe their capabilities. It uses skill ranks and heroic feats as well as saving throws. If these things sound familiar, you probably already know a great deal about how to play the game!
> 
> This familiarity lets you tap into a bigger audience of players. Even if they haven't played True20 before, odds are they already know how! If roleplaying is new to you, that's OK too. True20 gives you everything you need to get started in a rewarding and enjoyable hobby.




d20 Modern does as well. Whether d20 Modern qualifies is questionable, but it's a different system that also influence numerous other systems as well: True20, Grim Tales, Star Wars Saga Edition, etc.


----------



## Beginning of the End

El Mahdi said:


> But, when I look at the books, I see the same six attributes, the same attribute bonuses. I see base attack bonuses and AC (Defense) which work essentially the way they did in 3E. I see the same D20 mechanics that underlayed 3E. Some things may have changed names or use slightly different forumulas (i.e.: Defenses vs. Saving Throws), but all in all it simply seems like a simplified, homogenized version of 3E with the "Powers" system tacked on.
> 
> For me, it still looks and feels like D&D...just lacking a few bits that are crucial to me.




Couple points:

You say "looks", but have you actually played it? Have you tried playing identical scenarios across multiple rulesets? Because I have.

That aside, I think it's interesting that you focus only on the most rudimentary resolution mechanics when I didn't talk about that at all. And I didn't talk about it for good reason:

If you boil _Monopoly_ down to "roll 2d6 and move around the board", then lots of board games are "just like _Monopoly_".

D&D, like Monopoly, is more than its central dice mechanics.


----------



## Jeffrey

[Being honest I will have to cop to harboring some internal resentment, all these years later, about the manner in which WOTC initially marketed 4e by denigrating previous editions of the game and those who played it (anyone remember the dragon crapping on the critics comic?).

As far as I can tell the first shot in the "edition war" was fired by WOTC. From that point on everyone was a casualty in one form or another.

I think that if Mr. Mearls et al. truly want to address potential unity, they have more work to do.

They can begin by apologizing.

*sigh*

Sometimes, my "internal resentment" leaks out.


----------



## El Mahdi

Peter said:


> Are you sure? Spoiler alert: It's a bunch of caves with trolls in them...




Yeah, I don't get it either.  An adventure is an Adventure is an Adventure...




Raven Crowking said:


> * DCs need to be adjusted to be fiction-first.




I'm not sure what you mean by adjusting for "fiction-first", but whatever reason you're adjusting them for, DC's are incredibly easy to adjust to the feel you want.  I'm assuming your using 3.x, and assuming you have a very good grasp of 3.x mechanics and "Feel"...which means I can assume you know how various DC's apply as pertains to your adventures and play group.  So I'm just not seeing it - especially when you say you easily convert 1E and 2E adventures on the fly.

1E and 2E adventures don't have DC's in the first place, so if you're playing 3E, you have to come up with them whole cloth - or simply ignoring them when converting 3E to 1E/2E.  At least 4E is the same basic D20 mechanic, and has a lot more in common mechanically with 3E than 1E/2E...so how are 4E DC's so much more difficult or different to convert, and if you still feel they are, why can't you just do the same thing as when converting a 1E/2E adventure - make them up whole cloth...?  It seems that as far as DC's are concerned, converting 1E, 2E, or 4E adventures to 3E is, at the worst, exactly the same process and difficulty...

And are you actually going to say that you find it harder to apply a suitable DC for a 3.x group, than to convert 1E/2E Thac0's to 3E AC/Defense (or vice/versa)...?  That sounds counterintuitive to me...



Raven Crowking said:


> * Monsters might not mean what they did in previous editions; I need to make sure that I understand what a "troll" is in this context.




Why?!?  Unless a monster in the 4E Adventure is a critical part of the adventure's story...in which case I assume you've already read through the adventure in order to have an useable grasp of it's progression/story/plot...then whatever you want the monsters to do, you can have them do.  It doesn't matter.  As long as they are level appropriate, and don't have abilities that your group can't counter or deal with, I don't see the problem.  And you already have to insert 3E math anyway - whether 1E, 2E (so they are a properly leveled threat for your group) - so how is this any different for 4E?

If your meaning is that 4E monsters have different "abilities" than their 1E/2E/3E counterparts, then I don't understand the problem as those pertinent abilities are listed in the 4E stat block.  If you already know the monster in 3E, then all you simply have to do is just play it as the 3E version (or 1E, 2E, etc.).  And again, if one of the 4E monsters abilities are crucial to the adventures plot/progression, then you already know this from overviewing the adventure, and can simply add it in.

I'm not seeing how this is a problem either...



Raven Crowking said:


> * Monster abilities have to be rewritten to match ruleset assumptions, and to remove strongly grid-based combat. *This can take a long time.*




If you're talking about _mini-less_ combat, how is converting a 4E adventure any different from the other editions.  They were all set up to be used with miniatures - and if you don't want miniatures, all you have to do is ignore the miniatures combat portions.

As for Ranges or areas, it's all just a matter of simple conversions, as almost _*all*_ of those editions used a slightly different system.  All that's needed is to make a basic conversion, regardless of source edition and edition being played in.

1E used inches (with 1"= 5'), 2E used squares (with 1 square = 5'), 3E used feet (with 5' = 1 square), and 4E went back to squares (the 2e system).

I've played in 1E, 2E, and 3E - and since my very first game, every group I've played with or DM'd has used grid based combat.  And all three systems rules supported this.  Looking over 4E's rules I don't see any significant change from this...



Raven Crowking said:


> * Encounters have to be examined to remove rules-first assumptions. This is pervasive in delve-format adventures, and is true for late 3e adventures as well.




Now this part I understand and agree with...but it's the only one.  4E adventures are written with a different _*encounter*_ design assumption than previous editions, independent of mechanical differences.  Such as it's not simply a room by room type thing, as it's more of the entire area type of thing.  But, in actual play...whether 1E, 2E, or 3E...every group and DM I've ever played with took this into account anyways.  Whether encounters were designed this way or not, we expected our actions to not simply be limited to affecting only the room as written (i.e.: monsters in other rooms might hear you and come looking for you, rather than wait for you to come to them)...  YMMV on this, but for me it's a non-issue.



Raven Crowking said:


> * Treasure assumptions are different, and have to be examined.




Simple - just swap in the other editions equivalent or drop in something level appropriate for the system your using.  The same thing you'd have to do if converting a 1E or 2E adventure to 3E, or a 3E adventure to 1E or 2E...

Again, not seeing the problem.



Raven Crowking said:


> The way encounters play *is* the D&D experience, to me.




Agreed.  But the way encounters play is mostly determined by the mechanics one is using (the system you're playing in), and completely dependent upon how the DM presents the encounter...both factors that are independent of the source system the adventure is from.

So again, not seeing how 4E is any different in this regard.

I use adventures from not just 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E...but I also use adventures from completely different game systems (Palladium, Cortex, Dragonlance SAGA, etc.), and I've found that for the most part - an Adventure is an Adventure is an Adventure.  So... 



Raven Crowking said:


> While I agree that 4e is D&D, I don't agree that it provides the experience I associate with D&D.




And since ones opinion is completely and wholly subjective, this observation is 100% valid, and one I also hold (for the most part).

For me, I also agree that 4E is D&D.  And I think we're saying basically the same thing when I say that 4E doesn't provide the experience I desire.  I still _associate_ it with D&D, it just doesn't _play_ the way I want D&D to play.






Sepulchrave II said:


> ...Now we're just waiting for Charlemagne.




Charlemagne was too Frank for my tastes...


----------



## El Mahdi

Jasperak said:


> I wonder if there are really only two types of RPGers out there.
> 1. Those like on us on a message board, discussing the minutia of game theory and design.
> 2. Those like my wife that just want to play a game.




Nahhh...  I think there are those two types, and infinite array of types in-between them.  RPG'ers in the end are just people, and just like no two people are identical, no two RPG'ers are identical.



Jasperak said:


> I am trying to set up a "How to Host a Murder Game". Does anyone think those people give a rat's ass about differences between 3e or 4e? Or what WOTC does with their marketing?
> 
> I think these same people would love a game of Dread. These same people loved the Lord of the rings Trilogy. Why do I have the unwavering belief that they would be turned off by the current state of RPGs today if I were to try to introduce them?




You're right, the majority of gamers probably don't care a wit about what we here seem to endlessly discuss and ponder over.

But as to why you have an unwavering belief that they would be turned off by the current state of RPG's today...?  I don't know.

Are you differentiating between the games we play in our homes and the "Industry"?

All in all, the games sitting on my shelf, and the experience at my table, are the same today as they were when I first started playing...regardless of the state of todays RPG industry.  So as with the other, I don't think the majority of gamers would really care.


----------



## El Mahdi

Beginning of the End said:


> Couple points:
> 
> You say "looks", but have you actually played it? Have you tried playing identical scenarios across multiple rulesets? Because I have.
> 
> That aside, I think it's interesting that you focus only on the most rudimentary resolution mechanics when I didn't talk about that at all. And I didn't talk about it for good reason:
> 
> If you boil _Monopoly_ down to "roll 2d6 and move around the board", then lots of board games are "just like _Monopoly_".
> 
> D&D, like Monopoly, is more than its central dice mechanics.




I'm not sure the point your'e trying to address, though it seems you may have taken away a different point from my post than what I intended.

So...


No. I haven't _played_ 4E.

I do however, have a very good understanding of game mechanics, and what mechanics I prefer and why. So reading over the 4E rules, I _*know*_ the feel they will generate in play *for me*.

I wasn't focusing on rudimentary mechanics. I was only making the comparison that the rudiments of 4E and 3E are mostly the same, and therefore *I Feel* that both are D&D. It was an example of the subjectiveness of defining a game as D&D or not-D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

El Mahdi said:


> Yeah, I don't get it either.  An adventure is an Adventure is an Adventure...




So, am I to understand that you don't see the difference between something I can swap in my head, looking at the numbers provided, and something that requires looking up other statistics and/or treasure values to swap?  Really?  You can't see how that makes one more difficult than another?



> I'm not sure what you mean by adjusting for "fiction-first", but whatever reason you're adjusting them for, DC's are incredibly easy to adjust to the feel you want.  I'm assuming your using 3.x




Bad assumption, and one you would not have made had you actually read the posts leading to my conclusions.



> Unless a monster in the 4E Adventure is a critical part of the adventure's story...in which case I assume you've already read through the adventure in order to have an useable grasp of it's progression/story/plot...then whatever you want the monsters to do, you can have them do.  It doesn't matter.




Now, here we have (I think) the real reason you don't understand the difficulty.  The game I run is fictional-reality-first, not "narrative-first" or "mechanics-first".  I don't know the adventure's story until the PCs have finished the adventure.  The story is the interaction of the PCs and the adventure, and I cannot assume that the PCs will follow a chosen progression through events, or that a particular encounter will be a "combat encounter", a "skill challenge", or not somehow bypassed.


RC


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> I have no doubt that there were plenty of people who are perfectly described this way.  And I can readily see how those people would not only be completely content with 4E, but would also strongly prefer 4E to 3E.
> 
> But I also find these posts to be extremely short sighted.  Basically they are saying that they can't imagine that a very large number of fans do in fact play the game for a much more involved experience.



I can see two ways of reading these paragraphs.

The first: 4e, like 3E, is capable of providing an involved RPG experience, but (unlike 3E) is also capable of providing a simpler game.

The second: 4e, unlike 3E, provides a less-involved RPG experience.

Now I read on through the post:



BryonD said:


> If you see it that way, then your conclusions make sense.  Unfortunately, your conclusions are not based on an accurate description of the fan base that makes the economic engine for the industry.  And that is why you can be completely convinced that your thinking is sound and still come to conclusions which do not reflect the market outcomes being observed.



There seems to me only one way of reading this paragraph: that gamers who like an involved RPG experience don't spend money on 4e.

What does this add to the two candidate readings identified above?

Either (i) the second reading is intended, and the reason that those who like an involved RPG experience don't buy 4e is because it doesn't provide one, or (ii) the first reading is intended, and those who like an involved RPG experience don't buy it despite its capcity to produce one.

If I read the post, as a whole, as suggesting (i) above, and together with this as suggesting that 4e doesn't provide an involved RPG experience, am I being unfair?

To put it another way: is it unreasonable to see a post that appears to use "capacity to produce an involved RPG experience" as the touchstone for distinguishing 4e from prior editions of the game as _not_ simply expressing a preference for other editions, but _also_ as somewhat denigrating of 4e play?

EDIT: For maximum clarity: BryonD's post does _not_ state simply that 4e does not provide him with involved play. It is not just a statement of personal preference. Rather, it appears to posit that 4e is unable to provide involved play _for the bulk of the serious roleplayers who make up WotC's target market_.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Rather, it appears to posit that 4e is unable to provide involved play _for the bulk of the serious roleplayers who make up WotC's target market_.



Close, but not quite.

A frequent problem with these debates is everything gets forced into absolutes.

When I played 1E and 2E, I loved them and played them as as "involved" "simulationist" games.  Now, many people will eagerly jump on this and point out that these games were not particularly simulationist.  

I would agree with them.  At least, with the perspective I have today I will.  And even with the perspective I had for quite a few years before 3E came along I would.  Because I found much better games.  I did the best I could with the tools I had and then I found better tools.  That does nothing to reduce the fun I was able to create in 1E and 2E.  It just means that once I found better games there was not reason to stay with games that were still good, but decidedly LESS good.  (And, to some extent, my appreciation of what could be achieved was recalibrated as well.)

I make no claim whatsoever that 4E is unable to provide "involved play".  
But, there are other games that do a head and shoulders above superior job of it.  

The claim of "unable" is ultimately a straw man.  It is able.  But the people I was referencing find other games so much better that there is no point is choosing a game just because it too is "able".  No litmus test, but rather a question of which is best.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> But I also find these posts to be extremely short sighted.  Basically they are saying that they can't imagine that a very large number of fans do in fact play the game for a much more involved experience.



I don't think anyone is under the impression that there aren't _tons_ of fans out there who play exactly as you describe - with the desire for a more involved experience.

But I was responding to the idea of what made D&D great in the past. I don't think that it was the "involved experience" you describe that propelled D&D to greatness in the past. Certainly that contributed, but _plenty_ of hobbies can claim a very involved experience among their hardcore (in fact, _most_ hobbies could, I imagine). What made D&D different from the other niche hobbies out there was that it was inherently social, the bar for entry was very low, and as long as you can enjoy hanging out with your friends, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a good time.

That's what made D&D great in the past. And, to a large extent, it's one of the reasons D&D isn't what it was in the 80s. There are other forms of entertainment that are accessible, social, and fun (video games, for instance). D&D shouldn't lose the involved experience that all healthy hobbies offer, but if the development team wants to use D&D's past success as a roadmap to future success, those traits I identify above are good things to focus on.


----------



## Dannager

Jeffrey said:


> [Being honest I will have to cop to harboring some internal resentment, all these years later, about the manner in which WOTC initially marketed 4e by denigrating previous editions of the game and those who played it (anyone remember the dragon crapping on the critics comic?).




This is the sort of thing I was talking about earlier in the thread. What is it about some people that caused them to view that animation short as personally offensive, and what is it that caused others to view it as hilarious?

It's not whether or not they were 3e fans. I was a 3e fan, and so were lots of others who thought the animation was great.

By the way, they weren't targeting fans of previous editions of the game. They were targeting the critics who were repeating, ad nauseum, some of the most pointless/baseless complains about the new edition. It just so happens, however, that anyone in any kind of position to critique a new D&D game is also a fan of some previous edition. Furthermore, for whatever reason you forgot to point out that, throughout that same animation, the pro-4e fanboys were represented as a bunch of blindly worshipful, sycophantic kobolds.

I think what a lot of 3e partisans failed to realize about that animation was that it wasn't making fun of 3e fans or 4e fans. It was making fun of the entire ludicrous nature of the edition wars. Why is it that the 4e players are the ones who always end up pointing this out?



> As far as I can tell the first shot in the "edition war" was fired by WOTC. From that point on everyone was a casualty in one form or another.



Nope. The first shot was the "Screw you WotC!" outburst that hit the internet as soon as the splash page announcing 4e went up. Unless you're claiming that the splash page _was_ the first shot, which is kind of a silly position to take, don't you think?

Calling that cartoon, or even WotC's attempts at responding to critics by justifying their design choices the "first shot" in the edition war is like calling Hiroshima the first shot of World War II. (Don't read too far into that particular analogy)


----------



## El Mahdi

Raven Crowking said:


> Bad assumption, and one you would not have made had you actually read the posts leading to my conclusions.




I humbly apologize for offending you.  I did read your posts, but for some reason it didn't register what it was you were doing.  After re-reading it however, I understand.  I still don't understand how 4E is inherently more difficult than any of the other systems you're cannibilizing from, but I understand what you're trying to do.  Sounds like fun.  Kind of like what I'm doing with my own houserule system, just on a larger scale.



Raven Crowking said:


> So, am I to understand that you don't see the difference between something I can swap in my head, looking at the numbers provided, and something that requires looking up other statistics and/or treasure values to swap? Really? You can't see how that makes one more difficult than another?




I can understand how that's more difficult, I just don't understand how it's endemic to 4E itself and not any other edition? What you are describing sounds more like simple relative unfamiliarity with 4E as compared to the other systems you're talking about. I don't see anything inherent in 4E's mechanics that make it any harder, or easier, than any other edition or game system as pertains to converting adventures...

Can you be more specific as to what in 4E causes these difficulties? Perhaps a specific example of what you're describing? 



Raven Crowking said:


> Now, here we have (I think) the real reason you don't understand the difficulty. The game I run is fictional-reality-first, not "narrative-first" or "mechanics-first". I don't know the adventure's story until the PCs have finished the adventure. The story is the interaction of the PCs and the adventure, and I cannot assume that the PCs will follow a chosen progression through events, or that a particular encounter will be a "combat encounter", a "skill challenge", or not somehow bypassed.




I understand what you're saying here, I don't understand how your gaming style is contrary to gaining an overview of the adventure before using it?

How can one possibly DM an adventure without reading the adventure first? (Unless I'm misunderstaning you and you do read the entire adventure before using it? In which case I again don't understand the difficulty of conversion...)

Of course you can't know what the PC's are going to do, but every adventure still has a premise. I call it a plot, a general plot for the most part, but a plot, if you don't see it that way, that's fine...but thats just a potato/potato thing. But an adventure still boils down to a premise such as "there are bad guys that want to do something evil", or "some item needs to be found/recovered/destroyed", etc., etc. - and there are NPC's written into the adventure for the characters to interact with or oppose that are crucial to the adventures premise. Other than macguffins, or specific events, or specific powers, or specific spells, or specific magic items, etc. - the rest of the adventure is all just window dressing for the journey, and can simply be changed or replaced at will with no real impact on the adventure.

So if _converting_ something from 4E is so difficult (which again I don't understand why), why not just insert something from your preferred mechanical system instead, as it won't matter at all to the adventure or the PC's?

In other words, if it's a 4E adventure, with 4E trolls - and those 4E trolls are different than other edition trolls - but the nature of the trolls in the adventure aren't crucial for the premise of the adventure - then why convert them when they're so difficult and not just use a Troll that you know?


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> When I played 1E and 2E, I loved them and played them as as "involved" "simulationist" games.  Now, many people will eagerly jump on this and point out that these games were not particularly simulationist.
> 
> I would agree with them.  At least, with the perspective I have today I will.  And even with the perspective I had for quite a few years before 3E came along I would.  Because I found much better games.  I did the best I could with the tools I had and then I found better tools.  That does nothing to reduce the fun I was able to create in 1E and 2E.  It just means that once I found better games there was not reason to stay with games that were still good, but decidedly LESS good.  (And, to some extent, my appreciation of what could be achieved was recalibrated as well.)
> 
> I make no claim whatsoever that 4E is unable to provide "involved play".
> But, there are other games that do a head and shoulders above superior job of it.



I don't know of anyone on these boards who (i) talks seriously about the contrast between simulationist and other forms of mechanics, and (ii) denies that 4e has fewer simulationist mechanics, and is therefore less well suited to simulationist play, than 3E.

But your post _seems_ to equate "involved play" with "simulationist play". It's that apparent equation which is tendentious. Because it appears to deny, by way of implication, that non-simulationist play can be "involved" (or "serious", or "..." ).


----------



## Raven Crowking

EITHER "it's all D&D" and my 30+ years of familiarity with D&D should help me to understand the rules constructs of the module (as it does in all other editions), OR my 30+ years of familiarity with D&D is of no help, and I might conclude that it isn't "all D&D".

Again, I conclude that 4e is D&D -- that 30+ years of familiarity is helpful -- but it is far less helpful here than with any other edition.  And there is enough difference that I can easily understand why someone else might not come to the same conclusion (4e is D&D) that I do.  Moreover, there is enough similarity that I can easily understand why a third person might come to the conclusion that "It's all D&D" rather forcefully.

And I'll grant you that part of the problem is not generated by the ruleset, but is generated by the format.  The assumptions that the Delve format uses -- this will be a skill challenge, that will be a combat encounter, here is where everyone will stand, there is where the PCs will approach from -- create a worse level of railroading than even 2e dared aspire to.  IMHO.

I mentioned upthread that I had a longer response that got eaten by Windows 7 ending my Internet Explorer session early....It included a mini-rant about the problems of the delve format, and what it does to adventures, starting with late 3rd edition modules and the work required to fix the Barrow King module.

The adventures put out definitely colour one's impression of an edition, and (again, IMHO) the delve format should have a sudden demise.  I would buy a lot more 4e modules if it did, because the conversion work would be cut in half.

......But there would still be a lot more work than "convert in my head", and that point stands.  


RC


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> I don't know of anyone on these boards who (i) talks seriously about the contrast between simulationist and other forms of mechanics, and (ii) denies that 4e has fewer simulationist mechanics, and is therefore less well suited to simulationist play, than 3E.
> 
> But your post _seems_ to equate "involved play" with "simulationist play". It's that apparent equation which is tendentious. Because it appears to deny, by way of implication, that non-simulationist play can be "involved" (or "serious", or "..." ).



First, please keep the context of the post I was replying to in mind.
The word "involved" was specifically offered in context of talking about gaming as an excuse to get together with friends and specifically in contrast to "dive[ing] down into the more detailed levels".  You are ignoring that context.

Second, if you still think that I am remotely trying to deny anything despite the fact that my second post very directly addresses that claim, then you either are not paying attention or you are trying to change my point into something you have an easier time challenging.

4E was strongly marketed as "for new players", "easy to DM", etc, etc.
I think both the "less involved" (note: "less" does not mean absolute removal) and the "non-simulationist" elements are not themselves cause and effect but, rather, are both effects of this design philosophy cause.

Are you going to try to force absolute terms on me a third time?

(And, though it isn't really relevant, there are absolutely people who very strongly argue that 3E and 4E are equivalent in regards to simulation.  As a matter of fact, there are people that insist that they are both equal in being excellent simulation games and people who insist they are equal as not even trying to be simulations.  But, again, not really relevant other than as a point of clarification.)


----------



## El Mahdi

Raven Crowking said:


> ...(snip)...




Fair enough...I think I understand what you've been saying.  I don't agree with all of it, but I agree 100% on the uniqueness of 4E formatting (as compared to other D&D editions).  There are assumptions within that formatting that does take either some working around or a shift in ones paradigm.


----------



## Jeffrey

Hey! How dare you try to quell my internal resentment!! 

(For the record, I am not a 3e fan. Never played it. I have played 4e. Not my cup of tea.)

If all WOTC did to denigrate 3e and those who played earlier editions was to draw a cartoon of a dragon crapping on someone's head, I might concede your point.

Unfortunately, for us and them, it was not.


----------



## tuxgeo

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Understanding first.  Invalidation if necessary.  Agreement if possible.
> < . . . >
> I'm not sold.
> < . . . >






Mercurius said:


> < . . . >
> Cool, I'm not selling anything. Or rather, I'm _offering _something and discussing it but not trying to get you to buy it. Any disagreement at this point is with regards to your understanding of what I'm trying to express, and I still feel like you're not getting it. That's fine - I can live with that. I'm not sure what else I can say at this point, other than to reiterate what I've already said. I did frame it slightly different to Jasperak above.
> 
> p.s. I am a "he" not a "she," although I hardly take offense for you confusing me with the superior sex
> < . . . >



[ sidetracking thread for comment about gender: ]

Mercurius with a "c" from "The center and periphery" has a longer screen name than Merkuri with a "k" from "Eastern Massachusetts." 
IIRC, it is the latter of the two who is a she. The similarity of screen names might make it easy to confuse them with each other.

[ /sidetrack ]


----------



## RandallS

I've read the entire thread, but would like to reply to the original "All Roads lead to Rome" analogy....

Yes, all roads lead to Rome -- the Eternal City. However, while Rome may be eternal, it's not unchanging. Early Rome (under the monarchy) is a much different city that Rome under the Republic which is a much different city than Rome under the Empire which is a much different city than Rome under the Popes which which is a much different city than Rome today. We may all be traveling to Rome, but a person from the Roman Rupublic who travels down the road to today would not find the Rome he was expecting. He might or might not like the Rome he finds, but it would be a very different Rome. 

The same is true of D&D, IMHO.  It's all D&D, but not all editions of D&D are the same -- they can be very different from one another while still being the "same place" on the map. Someone who likes the way 4e plays might not like the way 1e plays at all (and vice-versa, of course.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Which means that the meaning of "Rome" itself is so variable that what one experiences there may not be universal...


----------



## pawsplay

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which means that the meaning of "Rome" itself is so variable that what one experiences there may not be universal...




"Rome is the mob."
"No! Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of God."


----------



## El Mahdi

Rome is the Mob

Rome = D&D

D&D is the Mob!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

"If you listen to fools,
The Mob rules!"
- Black Sabbath


----------



## Thunderfoot

"Rome wasn't built in a day... but it only took 8 hours for a jackass in a dress with a fiddle to burn it to the ground....."
I was at GenCon the year two years prior to the 4e launch and played a game where MM actually DMed.  he did a fair job and it was fun. No Problem.
I was there the year prior to the 4e launch when the big whigs kept everything close to the vest asnd said, change is a coming. No Problem.
I was there at GenCon when they launched 4e and they told me that everything that came before was but a stepping stone to the ultimate edition.  Okay, prove it.
I was at D&D XP when they told me all other editions were wrong....Huston, we have a problem.

So seeing MMs touchy feely articles about how its all one big happy family feels, well, fake.  I don't feel the sincerity.  I have stated before, I am not a fan of 4e, but that doesn't mean that people who play it are dumb, stupid, ignorant or the three-thousand other adjectives I have seen to describe the players by "old school" players.  (a term I use loosely as many of these folks have only been playing since 3rd edition)

Likewise the 3e crowd has received their far share of abuse by the 4e crowd, I think my favorite was "knuckle-dragging neanderthals".  

I've seen editions come and go, and frankly, there is good and bad in every edition, even the original (sorry diaglo).  What I take away from this little pep talk is that something is a foot (and I don't mean that thing on the end of my leg).  The last time we got this pep talk, they launched a new edition, I don't _think_ 5e is coming, but something is.  

Last time it went something like this:
1) No holiday lay-offs (check)
2) Abrupt end to the publishing schedule (check)
3) Touchy-feely pep talk (check)
4) RPGA structure change (*check*) as of 22 February 2011
5) Late GenCon participation (pending)
6) Announcement at GenCon (TBA)

Take it for what its worth, but frankly, I don't think any of it is going to matter after August....


----------



## ProfessorCirno

The idea that you can oh so easily take 2e and just move it straight into 3e is the opinion of a 3e fan.

I think *most* people at ENWorld either like 3e or did like it, so opinions contrary tend to be missing or ignored, but there's a whooooole lot of folks who were rather unhappy about 3e and would Internet Fight you over the idea that it represents a fluid and perfect transition.

Remind me again what 3e is referred to as at places like Dragonsfoot?


----------



## BryonD

ProfessorCirno said:


> Remind me again what 3e is referred to as at places like Dragonsfoot?



I respect Dragonsfoot.  A lot.

There is a ton of great ideas and great gaming there.

People who disliked 3E certainly found a home throughout the D20 boom.

If there had been 4E boom, us H4TERS would be off in some little corner of the internet now.

Just because you can say that people said the same things doesn't make it significant if it was two people then and two hundred now.

Again, one of the complaints you frequently heard about 3E was that it was stifling innovation because everyone was playing it.  No one is saying THAT about 4E.


----------



## Gryph

Raven Crowking said:


> EITHER "it's all D&D" and my 30+ years of familiarity with D&D should help me to understand the rules constructs of the module (as it does in all other editions), OR my 30+ years of familiarity with D&D is of no help, and I might conclude that it isn't "all D&D".
> 
> Again, I conclude that 4e is D&D -- that 30+ years of familiarity is helpful -- but it is far less helpful here than with any other edition.  And there is enough difference that I can easily understand why someone else might not come to the same conclusion (4e is D&D) that I do.  Moreover, there is enough similarity that I can easily understand why a third person might come to the conclusion that "It's all D&D" rather forcefully.
> 
> And I'll grant you that part of the problem is not generated by the ruleset, but is generated by the format.  The assumptions that the Delve format uses -- this will be a skill challenge, that will be a combat encounter, here is where everyone will stand, there is where the PCs will approach from -- create a worse level of railroading than even 2e dared aspire to.  IMHO.
> 
> I mentioned upthread that I had a longer response that got eaten by Windows 7 ending my Internet Explorer session early....It included a mini-rant about the problems of the delve format, and what it does to adventures, starting with late 3rd edition modules and the work required to fix the Barrow King module.
> 
> The adventures put out definitely colour one's impression of an edition, and (again, IMHO) the delve format should have a sudden demise.  I would buy a lot more 4e modules if it did, because the conversion work would be cut in half.
> 
> ......But there would still be a lot more work than "convert in my head", and that point stands.
> 
> 
> RC




I have disagreed with some of your earlier posts in this thread, but I found myself nodding in agreement reading this one. Mostly I like 4e, but I'm not sure I'm going to keep running my campaign using that ruleset anymore. While it is vastly easier to run than 3e was for me, the experience increasingly seems more like a reflection of D&D than the reality.

Ain't going back to 3e though. That one feels like the Hitchcock version of D&D. I still shudder at the memory of those massive statblocks.


----------



## amerigoV

Gryph said:


> I still shudder at the memory of those massive statblocks.




It was Strahd's statblock that put me over the edge (and into Savage Worlds - THANK YOU!!!). I just pulled out the Super Monster Manual from 3.0 (FR's Faith and Pantheons) - Strahd's is longer than most of the avatar's from FR!


----------



## Jasperak

El Mahdi said:


> You're right, the majority of gamers probably don't care a wit about what we here seem to endlessly discuss and ponder over.
> 
> But as to why you have an unwavering belief that they would be turned off by the current state of RPG's today...?  I don't know.
> 
> Are you differentiating between the games we play in our homes and the "Industry"?
> 
> All in all, the games sitting on my shelf, and the experience at my table, are the same today as they were when I first started playing...regardless of the state of todays RPG industry.  So as with the other, I don't think the majority of gamers would really care.




I don't have the time this evening to really clarify my point but I will try and give the short and sweet of what I think.

The people that I am trying to set up "How to Host a Murder" for seem amiable to roleplaying. After that evening I would consider trying to teach some of them D&D using either the Red box BECMI or Swords & Wizardry. Those are incredibly simple games that after a short time explaining abilities we can get to playing. Roll a d20 to hit. Easy Peasy. Would I consider starting them with 3e or 4e? How long do you think that would take to teach. What about Dark Heresy? Maybe I could get away with Savage Worlds. The games now are so complicated for alot of people that many may be interested in playing, but not interesting in reading dozens of pages before getting to buy their first sword. The people I am thinking about might like roleplaying, but I don't think they would be interested in playing games. Heroscape would be out. Even a fun game like Castle Ravenloft might be too much. I'd probably have better luck with Hero Quest or Dungeon! (if I had it).

I see what WOTC, Paizo, GW, Green Ronin, Chaosium as the industry. What we do here on the boards or at our kitchen tables as the hobby. I think those companies need us more than we need them.

Hopefully I've made myself a little more clear.


----------



## WheresMyD20

Interesting article by Mearls. I disagree with his basic premise, though, that the "D&D experience" is the same regardless of edition.

It boils down to a Ship of Theseus paradox: how much of something can you replace before it loses its original identity? It's something that's been debated since the time of the ancient greeks... and there's no objective answer, only subjective judgments.

To me, the classic TSR editions provide a different experience than 3e  and 3e provides a different experience than 4e. To me, they're not even  the same games. To me, Classic, 3e, and 4e are like soccer, rugby, and  american football: they're all related, but they're all different and  distinct games. It's more than just "details".

In the case of D&D, it seems that there's a sizable portion of fans who, like me, have made their own subjective judgment that not all of the editions provide the "D&D experience" to them. Instead of trying to convince us otherwise, I'd prefer if WotC would just make the older editions available and give them some support, or at least license them to someone who will.


----------



## Dannager

WheresMyD20 said:


> It boils down to a Ship of Theseus paradox: how much of something can you replace before it loses its original identity? It's something that's been debated since the time of the ancient greeks... and there's no objective answer, only subjective judgments.



You know, it's interesting to think of this in the context of how biological evolution works. As a population evolves over time, its descendants branch off gradually as the environment dictates adaptations. Past a certain point, the new, adapted population becomes sufficiently genetically distinct from the original population that they are no longer genetically compatible, and speciation occurs.

Shifting this framework to the gaming community, we get the following scenario: responding to the perceived needs of the (existent and potential) tabletop gaming community (read: the environment), WotC and Paizo both developed off-shoots from the parent "population" of game (3rd/3.5 edition). One edition, 4e, "adapted" to the more significant demands of a changed environment, and as a result experienced more change over the course of its development. The other, Pathfinder, found a different "environment" of fans to call its niche, a niche with environmental qualities very similar to that of its parent population, 3.5e.

Clearly, both environmental niches exist, and clearly, both companies are seeking to deliver a product that can survive in the demands of their chosen environment. Viewed in this way, it can be seen that each edition has its own share of resources inherent to its chosen environment, and there isn't much in the way of competition between the two of them, save for those resources which exist in the portions of the environment which have qualities that both editions can survive in (read: fans who like things about both 4e and Pathfinder).

Thoughts?


----------



## pemerton

Dannager, my thoughts are this: I'm not really sure why those who prefer 3E to 4e care what WotC is doing. Why not just play Pathfinder? (or use Pathfinder modules to run 3E games).

I can see why they would prefer it if WotC made the old PDFs available. So would I - from time to time I bought old TSR stuff in the past, and would probably do so again if it were made available.

But it's not as if it's impossible to run a 3E (or earlier edition) game without access to that stuff. Apart from Pathfinder, plus whatever one might pick up second-hand, there's vast quantities of free online stuff for 3E in circulation (most of it from the WotC website, that regularly posted free 3E adventures over the course of nearly 10 years). And there seems to be a widespread consensus among those who don't like 4e that 3E stuff can be used to run AD&D games without much conversion hassle.


----------



## Dannager

pemerton said:


> But it's not as if it's impossible to run a 3E (or earlier edition) game without access to that stuff. Apart from Pathfinder, plus whatever one might pick up second-hand, there's vast quantities of free online stuff for 3E in circulation (most of it from the WotC website, that regularly posted free 3E adventures over the course of nearly 10 years). And there seems to be a widespread consensus among those who don't like 4e that 3E stuff can be used to run AD&D games without much conversion hassle.



I do get the feeling that there's some desire to participate in a shared nostalgia that might be accessible were WotC to post prior edition material as purchasable PDFs.

I don't think anyone is of the belief that there isn't enough non-4e material out there to satisfy them. With their upcoming adventure path, Paizo will have produced no fewer than 48 Pathfinder adventure path modules, and they show no signs of stopping. Combined with their non-AP modules, Paizo could stop production now, and you would still have enough material to run official adventures in Golarion for the next _10 years_ of weekly sessions.

Frankly, I don't think that there are _that many_ pre-3e players (and, really, I don't think there are a ton of D&D players who aren't playing either 4e or Pathfinder) out there. I think the vast majority of Pathfinder players are satisfied with the material they're getting. I think the vast majority of 4e players are satisfied with the material they're getting. And I think a relatively small minority of _all_ gamers are unsatisfied with the material they're getting, whether than material is 4e, PFRPG, or one of the older-school editions.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Dannager said:


> You know, it's interesting to think of this in the context of how biological evolution works. As a population evolves over time, its descendants branch off gradually as the environment dictates adaptations. Past a certain point, the new, adapted population becomes sufficiently genetically distinct from the original population that they are no longer genetically compatible, and speciation occurs.
> 
> Shifting this framework to the gaming community, we get the following scenario: responding to the perceived needs of the (existent and potential) tabletop gaming community (read: the environment), WotC and Paizo both developed off-shoots from the parent "population" of game (3rd/3.5 edition). One edition, 4e, "adapted" to the more significant demands of a changed environment, and as a result experienced more change over the course of its development. The other, Pathfinder, found a different "environment" of fans to call its niche, a niche with environmental qualities very similar to that of its parent population, 3.5e.
> 
> Clearly, both environmental niches exist, and clearly, both companies are seeking to deliver a product that can survive in the demands of their chosen environment. Viewed in this way, it can be seen that each edition has its own share of resources inherent to its chosen environment, and there isn't much in the way of competition between the two of them, save for those resources which exist in the portions of the environment which have qualities that both editions can survive in (read: fans who like things about both 4e and Pathfinder).
> 
> Thoughts?




I agree with using evolution and species as a metaphor. An interesting concept/point follows from this as well.

Let's assume the "genetic line" splits from 3e to the "lines" of pathfinder and 4e. Many seem willing to say that these are both D&D. But in 5 to 10 to 30 years I expect both of these games will evolve again, maybe more than a few times.

At some point, though they could be traced to the same roots, say, 5th edition pathfinder and 10th edition D&D might be just about 100% unrecognizable as anywhere close to the same game as one another.

In which case, despite my current preference for Pathfinder, and even assuming that Pathfinder goes in directions I like while D&D goes in directions I do not, I'd have to say that 10th edition D&D would be "more D&D" than would 5th edition pathfinder.

They'd be different species, but only one would be D&D (or neither?).


Then the point comes back to the present day. How does this inform the many changes that have already happened? Is 4e a liger and pathfinder a tigon? Is either one a mule or donkeyhorse? When species begin to differentiate, often they can produce offspring, but the offspring are sterile.

And again with the ship of theseus, it seems as though Pathfinder built an identical ship to the ship of theseus, while 4e took apart the ship and, using only the boards and rivets from it, built a more streamlined boat.

In the end, neither is actually the ship of Theseus. (But that's not to say neither is D&D).


----------



## WheresMyD20

Dannager said:


> Frankly, I don't think that there are _that many_ pre-3e players (and, really, I don't think there are a ton of D&D players who aren't playing either 4e or Pathfinder) out there.




I don't know the exact numbers, but judging by the number of OSR websites and the number of retro-clones, there's certainly a sizable market for older material. Considering that PDFs and print-on-demand have negligible overhead, I don't see why this market can't be supported. WotC doesn't have to support it itself, it could always license a third party to do it.

In my opinion, the real challenge with the OSR is that it's so fragmented. Unlike 3e fans, who can rally around Pathfinder, there's no dominant in-print version of the classic game.


----------



## ExploderWizard

WheresMyD20 said:


> In my opinion, the real challenge with the OSR is that it's so fragmented. Unlike 3e fans, who can rally around Pathfinder, there's no dominant in-print version of the classic game.




This is not a challenge, its a feature. After all the idea is to take the base mechanics you like best and create your game from them. Fragmentation is a goal. When released and during the time of active support the various TSR editions of D&D were played with a multitude of variations and house rules by many groups. Game products were filled with advice about modifying them and the popular message was to "make the game your own". 

Somewhere along the way that message was drowned out. Altering the rules or making rulings somehow meant that you were no longer playing "real D&D" whatever the hell that is supposed to be. IMHO what is the purpose of a roleplaying game of the imagination that must adhere to some bog standard collection of instructions? 

To me, the OSR is simply a reminder that creative freedom still has a place at the game table today.


----------



## WheresMyD20

Dannager said:


> Clearly, both environmental niches exist, and clearly, both companies are seeking to deliver a product that can survive in the demands of their chosen environment. Viewed in this way, it can be seen that each edition has its own share of resources inherent to its chosen environment, and there isn't much in the way of competition between the two of them, save for those resources which exist in the portions of the environment which have qualities that both editions can survive in (read: fans who like things about both 4e and Pathfinder).
> 
> Thoughts?




I think your biological analogy describes things well. The only small nuance is that 3e didn't "go extinct" because 4e and Pathfinder evolved from it and took its resources, it went extinct because WotC decided it should be extinct.

Same with the older editions. The classic editions aren't extinct because they can't find a biological niche. They're extinct because WotC has decided that they should be. The classic niche exists and currently it's filled with some small fish (the retro-clones), but none of them have yet evolved to become the dominant species in the niche.


----------



## WheresMyD20

ExploderWizard said:


> This is not a challenge, its a feature. After all the idea is to take the base mechanics you like best and create your game from them. Fragmentation is a goal. When released and during the time of active support the various TSR editions of D&D were played with a multitude of variations and house rules by many groups. Game products were filled with advice about modifying them and the popular message was to "make the game your own".
> 
> Somewhere along the way that message was drowned out. Altering the rules or making rulings somehow meant that you were no longer playing "real D&D" whatever the hell that is supposed to be. IMHO what is the purpose of a roleplaying game of the imagination that must adhere to some bog standard collection of instructions?
> 
> To me, the OSR is simply a reminder that creative freedom still has a place at the game table today.




I agree with you that variation and house rules among groups is a core goal of the OSR. I think, though, that the OSR would greatly benefit from having a core ruleset serve as a touchstone. The core ruleset would really be more like a framework, describing the central concepts of the game -- to-hit rolls, saving throws, the core classes and spells, etc. Something with a brand name that could sit on a store shelf.

There's currently very little incentive for store owners to support the OSR. If there was something with a brand name and solid product line to sell, that would probably change.

I think that there are already several rulesets that exist that could serve this goal, but none of them have the market power (at least yet) to really carry the banner of the OSR.


----------



## rogueattorney

I think the main point of Mr. Mearls' blog is the last sentence.  



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> Don’t let that details drive us apart when the big picture says we should be joined together.




But how can we be joined together when we're all playing different games?  Perhaps he means something other than playing games together when he says "joined together," but I'm not sure what.  The cynic in me thinks that he means "buy WotC products."  The less cynical side of me sees it as an invitation to older-edition players to take part in the 4e community.

But what does WotC or a specifically 4e community or website have to offer my D&D game?  You want me to join together with WotC and 4e players?  Fine.  How shall I do that if I don't particularly want to play 4e?

If WotC wants me in the group, it would be nice if WotC offered something - anything - that I might like to use in my D&D games.  As a contrary example, EnWorld, while certainly focused on more recent editions of D&D, often has quality discussion of the older edition.  This gives me a reason to participate and be a part of the community.

In short, I guess it's nice that Mr. Mearls is talking the talk.  But until WotC walks the walk, I don't really have any method of "joining together" with 4e'ers through any instrument currently offered by WotC.


----------



## Imaro

rogueattorney said:


> I think the main point of Mr. Mearls' blog is the last sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> But how can we be joined together when we're all playing different games? Perhaps he means something other than playing games together when he says "joined together," but I'm not sure what. The cynic in me thinks that he means "buy WotC products." The less cynical side of me sees it as an invitation to older-edition players to take part in the 4e community.
> 
> But what does WotC or a specifically 4e community or website have to offer my D&D game? You want me to join together with WotC and 4e players? Fine. How shall I do that if I don't particularly want to play 4e?
> 
> If WotC wants me in the group, it would be nice if WotC offered something - anything - that I might like to use in my D&D games. As a contrary example, EnWorld, while certainly focused on more recent editions of D&D, often has quality discussion of the older edition. This gives me a reason to participate and be a part of the community.
> 
> In short, I guess it's nice that Mr. Mearls is talking the talk. But until WotC walks the walk, I don't really have any method of "joining together" with 4e'ers through any instrument currently offered by WotC.




As I said earlier in the thread... the VTT is right around the corner and is not rules specific... IMO all this, "We're all one" sentiment, is based around promoting it's use, not some desire for comraderie... of course I would love for WotC to somehow prove me wrong... say by offering the old PDF's...


----------



## ExploderWizard

WheresMyD20 said:


> I agree with you that variation and house rules among groups is a core goal of the OSR. I think, though, that the OSR would greatly benefit from having a core ruleset serve as a touchstone. The core ruleset would really be more like a framework, describing the central concepts of the game -- to-hit rolls, saving throws, the core classes and spells, etc. Something with a brand name that could sit on a store shelf.
> 
> There's currently very little incentive for store owners to support the OSR. If there was something with a brand name and solid product line to sell, that would probably change.
> 
> I think that there are already several rulesets that exist that could serve this goal, but none of them have the market power (at least yet) to really carry the banner of the OSR.




A noble goal but the OSR is quite a diverse group. What should the standard be? 

OD&D purists will want 3 classes, 3d6 in order, etc. 

AD&D fans will want the standard to be more like OSRIC

Basic D&D fans will be somewhere between these.

Despite being similar enough to each other to convert material on the fly the differences are great enough to cause friction should one of the flavors be declared " OSR standard"


----------



## Dannager

Aberzanzorax said:


> I agree with using evolution and species as a metaphor. An interesting concept/point follows from this as well.
> 
> Let's assume the "genetic line" splits from 3e to the "lines" of pathfinder and 4e. Many seem willing to say that these are both D&D. But in 5 to 10 to 30 years I expect both of these games will evolve again, maybe more than a few times.
> 
> At some point, though they could be traced to the same roots, say, 5th edition pathfinder and 10th edition D&D might be just about 100% unrecognizable as anywhere close to the same game as one another.
> 
> In which case, despite my current preference for Pathfinder, and even assuming that Pathfinder goes in directions I like while D&D goes in directions I do not, I'd have to say that 10th edition D&D would be "more D&D" than would 5th edition pathfinder.
> 
> They'd be different species, but only one would be D&D (or neither?).



See, this is actually one of the interesting points that arise from using the biological evolution analogy.

When we discuss speciation and so on, new species are never discussed as no longer being whatever they were before. Us humans, for instance, evolved somewhere _way_ back from a common ancestor that we share with great apes. Because of this, no matter what we eventually become, we will always be considered hominids.

Similarly, no matter what D&D/Pathfinder eventually evolve into, they will always bear the "genetic" history of D&D. We may consider them wildly different from how they once were, but to say that those games are no longer D&D, under this metaphor, would be like saying humans are no longer primates.


----------



## rogueattorney

ExploderWizard said:


> A noble goal but the OSR is quite a diverse group. What should the standard be?
> 
> OD&D purists will want 3 classes, 3d6 in order, etc.
> 
> AD&D fans will want the standard to be more like OSRIC
> 
> Basic D&D fans will be somewhere between these.
> 
> Despite being similar enough to each other to convert material on the fly the differences are great enough to cause friction should one of the flavors be declared " OSR standard"




I think calls for a "unified OSR" (which have been sounding in various quarters for four or five years) convey a misunderstanding of exactly what the OSR is about.  Yes, it's about "old school" D&D.  But it is also a DIY/indie movement. 

It is essentially a group of fans tired of waiting for designers to make the D&D they want to see taking up the reigns and making it themselves.  Allowing some top-down designer to dictate what D&D is, is completely contrary to the OSR.


----------



## Dannager

WheresMyD20 said:


> I think your biological analogy describes things well. The only small nuance is that 3e didn't "go extinct" because 4e and Pathfinder evolved from it and took its resources, it went extinct because WotC decided it should be extinct.




Except that 3e _isn't_ extinct, and neither are the older editions. People still play them, so they clearly have _some_ environment remaining that they are suited to. I would say that these editions are simply endangered. They are seeing less and less play as time rolls on and new editions arise that are better-suited to the current game-playing landscape.

Part of the assumption inherent in using this metaphor is that the corporate decisions behind release aren't necessarily worth examining. Because it assumes that people are only going to play games they enjoy playing, and that people will naturally play the game they enjoy playing _most_, a decision to produce a game is much less important than the existence of an "environment" of potential gamers willing to play the game.


----------



## Mercurius

WheresMyD20 said:


> Interesting article by Mearls. I disagree with his basic premise, though, that the "D&D experience" is the same regardless of edition.




If that his is basic premise I would disagree too, but I don't think he's saying that. But I'm not going to be a Mearls apologist and instead speak for myself: one's experience is _not _the same regardless of edition, although I think there is something, an "essence", that is. There's been a lot of disagreement around this and I think it boils down to differences in philosophy, whether one buys into the notion of "essence" or not. 



WheresMyD20 said:


> It boils down to a Ship of Theseus paradox: how much of something can you replace before it loses its original identity? It's something that's been debated since the time of the ancient greeks... and there's no objective answer, only subjective judgments.




The Ship of Theseus only applies if we believe that the original is the only "true" version of something. I mean, am I the same person that I was 20 years ago? Of course not - in fact, my entire molecular is different (afaik; I'm not a scientist!). But is there a "core essence" that has been there regardless of my age? I think so, at least in that there is a continuity of "me-ness" - and that might be the core of the disagreement, those that believe in a "core essence" and those that do not.



WheresMyD20 said:


> To me, the classic TSR editions provide a different experience than 3e  and 3e provides a different experience than 4e. To me, they're not even  the same games. To me, Classic, 3e, and 4e are like soccer, rugby, and  american football: they're all related, but they're all different and  distinct games. It's more than just "details".




I actually agree with you, although probably to a lesser degree. But I don't think that anyone is arguing that they are the exact same experience.



WheresMyD20 said:


> In the case of D&D, it seems that there's a sizable portion of fans who, like me, have made their own subjective judgment that not all of the editions provide the "D&D experience" to them. Instead of trying to convince us otherwise, I'd prefer if WotC would just make the older editions available and give them some support, or at least license them to someone who will.




I hear you, but I'm wondering...afaik ever single edition of D&D _is _supported, is in print in one way or another (except for maybe 2E), just under a different name. You've got Pathfinder for 3.5, and the retro-clones for pre-3E editions. I understand and agree that WotC should at least have the PDFs available, but to ask them to give them ongoing support in the form of new material may be a bit too much to ask, and I am wondering why this is an issue especially considering that they are receiving support, albeit under different names. Or is the so much of a problem?


----------



## Raven Crowking

You know what would help with unity?  Dropping all this fouldung donkeyhorse nonsense.  

"I was walking past a stand of hardwood acorntrees the other day, when I noticed that one had been hit by a skyblast thunderzap.  Suddenly a fuzzypants ursinegrowler jumped out of the lowbrush underforest.  So I ran as fast as I could into the nearby waterwheel corngrinder."

I get you want to protect your IP, but being unable to use normal language to describe normal things -- or even, say, the terms that have been hanging around since OD&D for some monsters -- damages the unity of feel between editions.

Sometimes 4e doesn't feel like D&D because it's too busy being IPprotected DungeonDragonGame.

IMHO.  YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mercurius said:


> The Ship of Theseus only applies if we believe that the original is the only "true" version of something.




No; it applies as a philosophical question about change and conservation of identity.  The conundrum doesn't suggest that, necessarily, when the first board is exchanged that identity changes with it.  Nor does it suggest that, necessarily, when the ship is completely changed, it has changed identity.

I would argue that identity doesn't follow conservation laws, as it is not an objective thing.  Both ships are the Ship of Theseus, and neither, depending upon one's point of view.

(There's another 20 seconds for ya!   )


RC


----------



## Mercurius

Raven, I can dig it. Actually, I think you point out why "essence" (or "soul") is a useful - if not precise - concept: it gives us a name for that which holds identity as a continuity, but is not easily definable or solid or, perhaps most importantly, not reliant upon form or any combination of forms to retain its own being.

There is a debate between Buddhists and Vedantins about the nature of self; most Buddhists hold a concept of "no soul" (anatman) where in the Hindu Vedanta there is an eternal self, or soul (atman) which is our primary identity. Yet even in Buddhism there is talk of a continuity of consciousness, they just like to emphasize that there is no solid identity that one can say "That's it!" Just as one cannot stop a river from flowing and say "This part here, that is the river."

This is why it is so hard to define "soul" or "core essence" with regards to anything, let along D&D. It isn't a solid, fixed thing and even more so, it looks different depending upon who is looking (and what vantage point they are looking from). As long as we can remain flexible about what it "is" and not assign fixed concepts to it, I think it is a useful concept, and maybe nothing more.


----------



## Raven Crowking

True, but if you wander from one stretch of water to another, you should be able to explain why you think they are part of the same river.


----------



## WheresMyD20

Dannager said:


> Except that 3e _isn't_ extinct, and neither are the older editions. People still play them, so they clearly have _some_ environment remaining that they are suited to. I would say that these editions are simply endangered. They are seeing less and less play as time rolls on and new editions arise that are better-suited to the current game-playing landscape.




I think I should clarify what I mean by "extinct". I mean that those  editions are "extinct" in the marketplace - you can't buy them anymore  except for second-hand copies.



Dannager said:


> Part of the assumption inherent in using this metaphor is that the corporate decisions behind release aren't necessarily worth examining. Because it assumes that people are only going to play games they enjoy playing, and that people will naturally play the game they enjoy playing _most_, a decision to produce a game is much less important than the existence of an "environment" of potential gamers willing to play the game.




That's where the metaphor stumbles. In nature, a new species takes over when it's better adapted than the old species - it out competes the old species. Here, there's really no competition - the old game is made extinct in the marketplace by the company and only the new game is offered. It's not really true evolution, it's evolution being dictated by the company, not by competition.


----------



## Dannager

WheresMyD20 said:


> I think I should clarify what I mean by "extinct". I mean that those  editions are "extinct" in the marketplace - you can't buy them anymore  except for second-hand copies.



Alright, but bear in mind that, under the evolutionary metaphor, "extinct" doesn't mean you can't buy it. "Extinct" means it is not being played.



> That's where the metaphor stumbles. In nature, a new species takes over when it's better adapted than the old species - it out competes the old species. Here, there's really no competition - the old game is made extinct in the marketplace by the company and only the new game is offered. It's not really true evolution, it's evolution being dictated by the company, not by competition.



But that's exactly what's happening here. 4e and PFRPG _are_ out-competing the competition, because they are stealing environmental resources (potential players) away from the games that already existed. This evolution is not being dictated by any company. Certainly, a company releases a new game in the hopes that it will be attractive enough to gamers to cause them to drop whatever they were playing before and instead play the company's new game, but they don't have direct control over this; the "environment" (again, the environment is the whims of gamers) has the control.


----------



## ExploderWizard

rogueattorney said:


> I think calls for a "unified OSR" (which have been sounding in various quarters for four or five years) convey a misunderstanding of exactly what the OSR is about. Yes, it's about "old school" D&D. But it is also a DIY/indie movement.
> 
> It is essentially a group of fans tired of waiting for designers to make the D&D they want to see taking up the reigns and making it themselves. Allowing some top-down designer to dictate what D&D is, is completely contrary to the OSR.




Exactly the point I was making earlier. See my post # 246.


----------



## Azgulor

Thunderfoot said:


> The last time we got this pep talk, they launched a new edition, I don't _think_ 5e is coming, but something is.




Thunderfoot's post really has me wondering.  I went and re-read the original article.  It starts out saying how players want to know where the game is going in the future and then spends the entire discussion talking about the past & the experience of D&D.  So, the future really isn't discussed at all.  Clearly, this is something that is going to be built up to over some period of time.

While re-reading, I ran across the link to the second article in the series and the topic is... MINIATURES?!?

I have no axe to grind with miniatures.  Sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't.  What I find odd is that Mr. Mearls chooses this topic in light of the current fate of the D&D Miniatures.  Is it salt in the wound for some or a set-up for hyping the VTT?

I'm really not sure what the objective of these articles are.  (That's a speculative statement, not a judgement so turn the burners on the flame-throwers down...)  Make no mistake, however, there is an objective.  This isn't Mearls' personal blog.  He's writing in an official WotC capacity and while I can't see the picture yet, I think there's an underlying purpose to it all.  

I just can't determine if it's intended to be 1) a marketing campaign disguised as gamer musings (harmless), 2) an attempt at improving/repairing WotC-gamer relations (commendable), or 3) a slow build to a major shake-up of some sort. If it's the latter, I think that at best, we'll see a risky (in WotC's view) change in business plan, and at worst a "disruptive announcement" (like a new edition, new lawsuit, price hike, new owner, etc.).

My SWAG is just that, a guess, but I tend to think it's #1 or #3 as those are more readily tied to an measurable business goal/objective.  The fact that the 2nd article is about miniatures when they recently pulled back/dumped a miniatures line has me thinking Scenario #3 is the most likely.

So, maybe it's as simple as "Hey Mike, can you write a regular column for us about D&D?".  If so, then I spend way too much time at ENWorld & conspiracy-think has taken hold.  However, if it's more than that, I'm hoping for #1 but betting on #3.

YMMV.


----------



## WheresMyD20

Dannager said:


> But that's exactly what's happening here. 4e and PFRPG _are_ out-competing the competition, because they are stealing environmental resources (potential players) away from the games that already existed. This evolution is not being dictated by any company. Certainly, a company releases a new game in the hopes that it will be attractive enough to gamers to cause them to drop whatever they were playing before and instead play the company's new game, but they don't have direct control over this; the "environment" (again, the environment is the whims of gamers) has the control.




Actually, I'd argue that in the case of D&D, the company has lots of direct control. 4e and PFRPG didn't out-compete other versions of D&D for resources, the other versions (3e and earlier) were starved of resources by WotC. Since WotC holds the rights, they can simply prevent older editions from competing in the market. If WotC had its way, I'm sure they'd starve PFRPG too, but that's out of WotC's control because they don't hold the rights to PFRPG.


----------



## WheresMyD20

ExploderWizard said:


> A noble goal but the OSR is quite a diverse group. What should the standard be?
> 
> OD&D purists will want 3 classes, 3d6 in order, etc.
> 
> AD&D fans will want the standard to be more like OSRIC
> 
> Basic D&D fans will be somewhere between these.
> 
> Despite being similar enough to each other to convert material on the fly the differences are great enough to cause friction should one of the flavors be declared " OSR standard"




I'm not sure what the standard should be, nor would I dictate one... nor am I even sure that there actually needs to be an "OSR standard".  However, I think that the OSR would benefit greatly from having an in-print game with a large enough following to act as a "standard bearer" for the OSR - something that game store owners can steer customers toward if they're interested in that Old School experience.

I think if this is going to happen, it won't be someone "dictating" it. It will be a publisher putting some resources and support behind and old school product and the old school community gravitating towards it in an organic grass-roots fashion. It won't get the whole OSR community on-board (nothing will) but if it reaches a critical mass it could be the third major branch of D&D along with 4e and Pathfinder.


----------



## Dannager

WheresMyD20 said:


> Actually, I'd argue that in the case of D&D, the company has lots of direct control. 4e and PFRPG didn't out-compete other versions of D&D for resources, the other versions (3e and earlier) were starved of resources by WotC.



Again, this isn't supported by the metaphor. In choosing to no longer produce 3e, WotC did not directly starve it of resources. The environmental resources this metaphor assumes are the players and their investment in a given game. Perhaps WotC's decision made it more difficult for 3.5e to expand, but that decision alone did not cause the decline of 3.5e we observe. For instance, we can safely assume that if WotC stopped producing 3.5e but never created a new edition (and Paizo never produced Pathfinder), more people would be playing 3.5e than are currently doing so. We are forced to acknowledge that the added presence of new games (4e, PFRPG) contributed _significantly_ to the starvation of 3.5e's resources.

If you'd like to look at this another way, imagine WotC had (granted, foolishly) continued to produce 3.5e material while releasing 4e (and while Paizo released Pathfinder). Given the presence of all three supported games on the market, would you assert that 3.5e would maintain the same level of playerbase it had before 4e and PFRPG were released? I very much doubt it. The presence of newer games better "adapted" to the desires of the tabletop gaming community meant that 4e and PFRPG posed _extremely_ strong competition to 3.5e.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Regarding the whole "Evolution" metaphor:

One thing that rarely gets pointed out are the similarities between 4e and Pathfinder in respect towards 3.5 - and there's far, *far* more similarities then people who focus on only one game tend to notice, especially between the APG and Essentials.  In both games, SoDs were cut down and altered albeit in different ways.  HP was raised in both games along with the desire to make combat longer and more fulfilling and to extend the "Sweet spot" across better.  In Pathfinder, Druids and clerics and their buffs were significantly brought down to help fighters regain niche control.  Enemy saves are higher in both and, in Pathfinder, SR is a much bigger deal.

Let's go farther.  Classes (other then PF fighter) that have distinctly more options that the player chooses from - often which are either "every five minutes" (per encounter) or are Daily; hell, a number of them are near identical to some 4e options (compare Rogue powers and Rogue talents).  A paired down skill list.  Drastically increased emphasis on single classing.  Both of them saw full attack supremacy as a problem and worked to fix it, though I'm admittingly less pleased with PF's result of the Vital Strike chain.  Fighters can impose conditions, with the caveat that it's through the critical strike chain.

APG only makes the comparisons _more_ clear.  Drag and Reposition make for tactical positioning.  And Dirty Trick makes for condition imposing.  The APG also brings in the class variants that read like 2e kits..._or_ like 4e sub-builds.  Even the Cavalier has a daily marking ability.

Certainly both games are different, but they grew from the _same shared problems_.


----------



## Thunderfoot

Thunderfoot said:


> <SNIP>
> Last time it went something like this:
> 1) No holiday lay-offs (check)
> 2) Abrupt end to the publishing schedule (check)
> 3) Touchy-feely pep talk (check)
> 4) RPGA structure change (rumors abound)
> 5) Late GenCon participation (pending)
> 6) Announcement at GenCon (TBA)
> 
> Take it for what its worth, but frankly, I don't think any of it is going to matter after August....




Number 4 is now (check) -  The announcement of the restructuring of the RPGA to a new format for the ever-changing "D&D Encounters" I believe counts as a structure change.  So we are now to 4 out of 6....


----------



## pemerton

WheresMyD20 said:


> I don't know the exact numbers, but judging by the number of OSR websites and the number of retro-clones, there's certainly a sizable market for older material. Considering that PDFs and print-on-demand have negligible overhead, I don't see why this market can't be supported. WotC doesn't have to support it itself, it could always license a third party to do it.



But it _is_ supported. Via a licence issued by WotC - a free, non-revocable licence called the OGL!

The only thing that is _not_ licensed is the D&D trademark and trade dress. But why is this so important?



Dannager said:


> I do get the feeling that there's some desire to participate in a shared nostalgia that might be accessible were WotC to post prior edition material as purchasable PDFs.



And maybe this is the answer to my question.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> But it _is_ supported. Via a licence issued by WotC - a free, non-revocable licence called the OGL!
> 
> The only thing that is _not_ licensed is the D&D trademark and trade dress. But why is this so important?




I can only answer for my self, but contrary to a few/some/many people's belief that no one enjoys the fluff of D&D... some do, especially when it comes to older editions.  Mystara, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Planescape, Hollow World, Birthright... and so on are all things one cannot get from other companies because they are the IP of WotC.


----------



## pemerton

But Imaro, that stuff exists. If you like it, surely it's because you've read it. And if you've read it, nine times out of ten that will be because you own it!


----------



## mxyzplk

Imaro said:


> I can only answer for my self, but contrary to a few/some/many people's belief that no one enjoys the fluff of D&D... some do, especially when it comes to older editions.  Mystara, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Planescape, Hollow World, Birthright... and so on are all things one cannot get from other companies because they are the IP of WotC.




Exactly, and the Tomb of Horrors and the Temple of Elemental Evil and Eclavdra and Mordenkainen and Strahd's castle...  Believe it or not, guys, these things are why some people love D&D, not because "AC ascends now" or some such garbage. It's funny, by trying to spike fluff in favor of All Rules All The Time, WotC has actually made the game less "sticky."

Edit: and yes, pemerton, you can still read your old stuff, but not use new stuff, and not publish your own stuff, because it's WotC's IP.


----------



## darjr

I don't own the tomb or temple or the LBB.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> But Imaro, that stuff exists. If you like it, surely it's because you've read it. And if you've read it, nine times out of ten that will be because you own it!




I have no desire to play or run a game in Greyhawk, but I do have a real desire to obtain a new printing of the gazetteer.  I'd also like new copies of the booklets in the original Spelljammer boxed set, which are useful for populating a fantasy solar system even if you are not using Spelljammer.

I like the idea of side trips to other worlds in a campaign setting, ala Edgar Rice Burroughs, even where there is no direct tie to Spelljamming!


R - jumping on the bandwagon of stealing Lanefan's sig -C


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon...I'm going to just steal sigs outright.

R - jumping on the bandwagon of stealing Lanefan's sig -C


----------



## Mark CMG

Interesting move . . .




M - redesigning on the bandwagon of gaming -CMG


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> But Imaro, that stuff exists. If you like it, surely it's because you've read it. And if you've read it, nine times out of ten that will be because you own it!




Again, I can only speak to my own situation... I was really young when alot of the Planescape setting stuff came out. As a kid I was able to get the original boxed set and (I believe though I could be wrong) a single module and the Planewalkers Handbook. I was lucky as is to have gotten my parents to buy that stuff then... now I have my own money and I would love to be able to get everything for the setting that I want... as well as a replacement for my very worn box set. So I have neither read everything or own everything I want for Planescape or the BECMI gazetteers, or... well you get the point.

Edit: The weird thing to me is that WotC has all this IP that they could sell to people who may not be all that thrilled with 4e's sparse setting philosophy... or who want to use it for their 1e, 2e, BECMI, retro-clones, C&C, 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, etc. games.  Cost is minimal because it's already been produced and would reside in PDF format... and yet you don't make it available??  Even White Wolf recognized the viability of releasing the OWoD for those fans who wanted to complete collections or check out the old stuff... I mean after all, at a certain point you have sold 4e to whose going to buy it... withholding stuff isn't going to get more people to buy your current stuff if they don't like it... but you could still retain a connection with them so they will at least give future products a chance to win them over.


----------



## WheresMyD20

Dannager said:


> Again, this isn't supported by the metaphor. In choosing to no longer produce 3e, WotC did not directly starve it of resources. The environmental resources this metaphor assumes are the players and their investment in a given game.




I think that it's wrong to assume that only player demand is  what's driving the "evolution" of editions. Companies have a vested  interest in providing and restricting supply in order to encourage the "evolution" of  the hobby in a way that is in their best business interest. One needs to consider  the supply side as well as the demand side.

Taking this in terms of the evolution metaphor, the companies involved are capable of some degree of artificially altering the food supply (support/availability) in order to ensure that their preferred species "wins" in the evolutionary race.


----------



## WheresMyD20

pemerton said:


> And maybe this is the answer to my question.




It's amazing how many times "nostalgia" is the motivation automatically assumed when discussing classic editions.

Consider this - The movie "Psycho" is an old movie filmed in black and white. A color remake was created a few years back. Why do many people prefer the black-and-white original? Is it out of nostalgia? No, it's because many people consider it a better overall film.

Likewise, there are those of us who feel that the original, classic editions are better overall versions of the game than the modern "remakes" of D&D. It's not nostalgia - it's just a personal preference and a subjective judgment of overall quality.


----------



## pemerton

WheresMyD20 said:


> It's amazing how many times "nostalgia" is the motivation automatically assumed when discussing classic editions.



I think you misunderstood me. (Which is not to say you'll agree with me even if you do understand me.)

I'm not saying that people like the old games because of nostalgia. Heck, if I wanted to run or play in a non-4e D&D game I'd be tempted to go AD&D/OSRIC ahead of 3E.

But what puzzles me is why people care whether its WotC or someone else who's publishing the OSRIC rules, new OSRIC adventures, etc etc. Nostalgia seemed a possible explanation for _that_.

I was also suggesting that nostalgia might be a reason why people want to (re-)purchase Vault of the Drow, the Slave Lords etc. Raven Crowking has given an alternative reason - new copies to replace old worn out copies.



Imaro said:


> The weird thing to me is that WotC has all this IP that they could sell to people who may not be all that thrilled with 4e's sparse setting philosophy



Because I've always been happy to prepare my own setting stuff, and/or to cobble together bits or pieces of whatever I've got on my shelf (D&D's pantheon meets Palladium's pantheon meet's 1st ed Deities & Demigods meets . . .), maybe I personally don't feel the force of this. Especially because quite a bit of this stuff is on my shelf (mostly but not always picked up second hand from my local game store). I can see how others might feel differently.

My own hypothesis is that WotC are sitting on their IP because they believe that by selling it, even if the proceeds of sale are greater than the cost of hosting and processing sales, they will dilute their brand and therefore ultimately cost themselves more sales. I don't know if this is true. If I read him correctly, I believe that DannyAlcatraz thinks it's false.

But WotC would hardly be the only company that sits on its IP. That's the way of things in a world in which cultural production is privatised. (My collection of Rolemaster materials is incomplete, for example, because some of my stuff was lent out and not returned, and other stuff I never got back in the day, and now you can't get it at all. This is just the way of the modern world, I think.)


----------



## HolyMan

I have only read through the first page of this 6 day old 18 + page monster so please put me in the corner (with a dunce cap) if I tarry to far off topic.

On the first page they started talking about edition wars, and as a player of AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, and even Basic. So I wanted to give a little insight.

When I was playing 1e and my friends said we need to switch to 2e I was like "Don't think so." and then I saw an adventure in Dungeon mag. called *"Tallow's Deep"* (highly recommend btw) and I remember saying this I have to run. And after that all we played was 2e.

Then 3e came out and I was like cool and bought it. Back then you bought just about everything that came out. You were a gamer. You owned it all no matter if it sat around or not. But 3e was a change from THAC0 and Saves were so foreign I was going to keep with 2e. Then I saw The Sunless Citadel and was all over it to convert that, but the more you get to reading the more you just want to run through it as is. So I made the switch.

For me it is was all about the great support they gave to us gamers. We didn't have the internet but had plenty of support. Worlds and adventures, articles and stories. And that was were I think 4e came in lacking at least for me. I didn't own a computer till about two years ago. No more Dragon or Dungeon mag, only the one setting. On top of a new rules system I see as foreign to what I had been playing for ten years.

But I bought the books (still have them), bought the modules - and have ran a group through the first two using 3.5e rules - So yes it is the memories but it is also the support and connection from those who make these products that fuels my drive to want to play one system over another. It should always be a game made by gamers for gamers.

I am heavy into playing Pathfinder right now but when someone asks me what I'm doing I say "I'm playing D&D." 

HM


----------



## Dannager

WheresMyD20 said:


> Likewise, there are those of us who feel that the original, classic editions are better overall versions of the game than the modern "remakes" of D&D. It's not nostalgia - it's just a personal preference and a subjective judgment of overall quality.



So, not to say that this is necessarily where you or anyone else interested in old school D&D is coming from, but I'm sure you can understand that one of the things nostalgia _does_ is make one believe that their preference is motivated by a good-faith judgment of quality.


----------



## HolyMan

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then I stand corrected- that IS an example of authentic brand association.




I like this one better...









HM


----------



## Dannager

HolyMan said:


> I like this one better...



Not to cast Paizo in a poor light in any way whatsoever (since this is actually quite smart, and an extremely valid tactic), but it's interesting to examine this bit of copy.

First, it begins by setting up an adversarial situation between WotC and Pathfinder by using the word "survives". The use of this word implies that WotC attempted to "kill" 3.5. While that may be true from a certain perspective, highlighting that was a tactical decision on Paizo's part. (And, mind you, 3.5 was no more "killed" than 3e, 2e, 1e, or any other version of the game before it was.)

This simultaneously casts Pathfinder as the underdog, crawling out from beneath WotC's bootheel, and _personifies_ it, treating an edition of a game as though it were a living creature. This is also brilliant - the concept of a rising underdog is a powerful one that people enjoy getting behind.

Finally, it nixes the "3.5 survives" line and replaces it with "3.5 thrives", the ultimate "Ha-hah! Take that!" response.

Essentially, this marketing strategy cast 3.5/Pathfinder as the metaphorical star in an epic tale of a rise from oppression. Not only was Paizo acutely aware of the splinters falling away from the D&D community, but it was in their best interest to encourage and leverage that splintering.


----------



## wedgeski

No-one should begrudge Paizo a good bit of marketing. Their brand association goes all the way back to saying their product was compatible with "the world's best selling RPG" or similar copy on adverts in Dungeon for their GameMastery products. Their business model, at the moment, likely relies almost entirely on capturing and keeping disenfranchised 3E players, so the "3.5 Thrives!" jab shouldn't come as a shock.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

I like Pathfinder, but there's plenty of people who don't, and they were just as miffed at the whole "3.5 thrives!" thing as many here were miffed at 4e's marketing.


----------



## Azgulor

ProfessorCirno said:


> I like Pathfinder, but there's plenty of people who don't, and they were just as miffed at the whole "3.5 thrives!" thing as many here were miffed at 4e's marketing.




I'm not understanding why.  "3.5 thrives" seems to me to just be a tag-line to draw fans of 3.5 in.  I don't see anything implicity negative to 4e or its fans in that statement.

Most of the people, myself included, who took issue with the 4e marketing felt that WotC was slamming the 3e system, or at least over-exaggerating it's flaws, which seemed more than a tad hypocritical given they were happy to take customers' money for that system for the previous 8 years.  

Then there were the digs at customers who weren't 100% on board, which didn't help, either.  Whether those digs were reality or just perceived is still open for debate, but there's a pretty significant portion of the D&D fanbase that felt they were real.

I'm just not seeing how "3.5 thrives" carries the same tone or weight as the multiple issues some fans have with the 4e marketing.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Dannager said:


> So, not to say that this is necessarily where you or anyone else interested in old school D&D is coming from, but I'm sure you can understand that one of the things nostalgia _does_ is make one believe that their preference is motivated by a good-faith judgment of quality.




I still fail to see how nostalgia has anything to do with the conclusions that someone comes to based not on memories of long ago but of the awesome adventure from the past week. What role does nostalgia play exactly, when evaluating how great a current campaign is running?

What about younger gamers who are enjoying playing older editions? Gamers just like what they like and usually because it is what they enjoy the most. Sometimes, a memory from fondly remembered times will trigger a desire to revisit a game long forgotten. That is nostalgia for certain. If they then enjoy playing that game and decide to continue doing so it will be because it was actually fun in the present.

I will be personally putting this to the test soon. Next week I will start running an AD&D 1E campaign for the first time since 1989. I have played and run some Basic D&D since then and played in a single AD&D session in 1999. I will find out for myself if the glasses are rose colored or crystal clear.


----------



## pawsplay

ProfessorCirno said:


> I like Pathfinder, but there's plenty of people who don't, and they were just as miffed at the whole "3.5 thrives!" thing as many here were miffed at 4e's marketing.




What justifiable reason does someone have to miffed that "3.5 thrives?" Is it unseemly to be glad to be able to play a game you enjoy?


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> Not to cast Paizo in a poor light in any way whatsoever (since this is actually quite smart, and an extremely valid tactic), but it's interesting to examine this bit of copy.
> 
> First, it begins by setting up an adversarial situation between WotC and Pathfinder by using the word "survives". The use of this word implies that WotC attempted to "kill" 3.5.




No, what set up the adversarial situation was WotC attempting to "kill" 3.5. In the process of doing so, they also took away Dragon and Dungeon. 

Along the way, they also created a fiasco by ordering Paizo to stop making available PDF downloads people had already paid for.


----------



## DaveMage

pawsplay said:


> What justifiable reason does someone have to miffed that "3.5 thrives?" Is it unseemly to be glad to be able to play a game you enjoy?




I doubt there were very many (if any) 3.5 fans miffed at the Paizo marketing.  Some didn't like the changes in Pathfinder, but no one was miffed at the marketing anywhere near the same level some 3.x fans were miffed at the 4E marketing.  

Now, some 4E fans may have been miffed at the Paizo marketing - I don't know.  But then, who can understand THOSE people?


----------



## Imaro

pawsplay said:


> No, what set up the adversarial situation was WotC attempting to "kill" 3.5. In the process of doing so, they also took away Dragon and Dungeon.
> 
> Along the way, they also created a fiasco by ordering Paizo to stop making available PDF downloads people had already paid for.




Hey now... let's not forget the GSL debacle as well...


----------



## WheresMyD20

Dannager said:


> So, not to say that this is necessarily where you or anyone else interested in old school D&D is coming from, but I'm sure you can understand that one of the things nostalgia _does_ is make one believe that their preference is motivated by a good-faith judgment of quality.




There are also those who are put off by anything that looks "old". There are plenty of people out there that won't watch a black & white movie, even classics like "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind", because they are not in color. They let _their _preference of color film stand in the way of a good-faith judgment of quality.

The "nostalgia" argument is often used as a convenient way of dismissing something old out of hand when one cannot see or understand why others may see merit in it. It's a lot easier to blame "nostalgia" than to take the time and effort try to understand why someone else likes something. It's a lot simpler to label someone as sentimental rather than understand their point of view.


----------



## wedgeski

DaveMage said:


> I doubt there were very many (if any) 3.5 fans miffed at the Paizo marketing.  Some didn't like the changes in Pathfinder, but no one was miffed at the marketing anywhere near the same level some 3.x fans were miffed at the 4E marketing.



I wouldn't worry. When it comes to the collective ENW memory, in a year or two this piece of Paizo marketing will similarly have mutated into a scathing attack on Wizards, its staff, their families, all players of 4E, and all their pets... instead of the fun and innocuous jab it actually was.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

DaveMage said:


> I doubt there were very many (if any) 3.5 fans miffed at the Paizo marketing.  Some didn't like the changes in Pathfinder, but no one was miffed at the marketing anywhere near the same level some 3.x fans were miffed at the 4E marketing.
> 
> Now, some 4E fans may have been miffed at the Paizo marketing - I don't know.  But then, who can understand THOSE people?




...Because for those that don't like Pathfinder and don't like 4e, they see the tagline as meaning "Pathfinder thrives - and 3.5 suffers."

Just hop on into the D&D legacy forums right here on EN World.  Plenty of people there who aren't happy with Pathfinder.


----------



## Ranes

WheresMyD20 said:


> There are plenty of people out there that won't watch a black & white movie, even classics like "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind", because they are not in color.




Agree wholeheartedly with your point but would just like to note that Ernest Haller and Ray Rennahan won the Oscar for Best Cinematography (Colour) for Gone with the Wind.


----------



## Gryph

ExploderWizard said:


> I still fail to see how nostalgia has anything to do with the conclusions that someone comes to based not on memories of long ago but of the awesome adventure from the past week. What role does nostalgia play exactly, when evaluating how great a current campaign is running?
> 
> What about younger gamers who are enjoying playing older editions? Gamers just like what they like and usually because it is what they enjoy the most. Sometimes, a memory from fondly remembered times will trigger a desire to revisit a game long forgotten. That is nostalgia for certain. If they then enjoy playing that game and decide to continue doing so it will be because it was actually fun in the present.
> 
> I will be personally putting this to the test soon. Next week I will start running an AD&D 1E campaign for the first time since 1989. I have played and run some Basic D&D since then and played in a single AD&D session in 1999. I will find out for myself if the glasses are rose colored or crystal clear.





I'd be very interested in hearing how your game goes. Saturday I am running the second session of a side trek using the 1e rules for my 4e players.


----------



## WheresMyD20

pemerton said:


> I think you misunderstood me. (Which is not to say you'll agree with me even if you do understand me.)
> 
> I'm not saying that people like the old games because of nostalgia. Heck, if I wanted to run or play in a non-4e D&D game I'd be tempted to go AD&D/OSRIC ahead of 3E.
> 
> But what puzzles me is why people care whether its WotC or someone else who's publishing the OSRIC rules, new OSRIC adventures, etc etc. Nostalgia seemed a possible explanation for _that_.




The publisher matters for a couple of reasons:

First, the size and market power of the publisher will determine how much support the product will receive and whether store owners will stock it. 

Secondly, having an established publisher with a decent track record does guarantee some basic level of quality. Remember the old "d20" trademark days? The "d20" trademark became almost worthless since there was so much garbage being published under it with no quality control. It forces players and, more importantly, store owners to sift through the garbage to find the gems.

I think that the success of Pathfinder has been greatly increased by the fact that it has (1) a reputable company behind it with a proven track record, (2) shelf space in game stores, (3) a full product line with plenty of support.

I'd love to see an "old school" game also given that level of support. I can't see it happening, though, unless a fairly sizable publisher is involved, or a designer with a lot of name recognition, or enough of the old school crowd coalesces around a product that it reaches "critical mass".


----------



## Erik Mona

HolyMan said:


> I like this one better...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HM




That is an awesome poster.

--Erik


----------



## Dannager

pawsplay said:


> No, what set up the adversarial situation was WotC attempting to "kill" 3.5.



Again, WotC no more "killed" 3.5 than 3e, 2e, 1e, and all other prior editions of the game were "killed" during their own transitions.

The idea that the creation of a new edition of a game automatically sets up an adversarial relationship is a little ludicrous, don't you think?


----------



## Mark CMG

Dannager said:


> The idea that the creation of a new edition of a game automatically sets up an adversarial relationship (. . .)





You're right.  Nothing "automatic" about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The idea that the creation of a new edition of a game automatically sets up an adversarial relationship is a little ludicrous, don't you think?




I agree- the only edition of HERO I can think of that most players hate was the FUZION version.  For the most part, people who like the old stuff like most of the new stuff.  Sure, there are occasional gripes- I miss some things from 5Ed that got the axe in 6th- but by & large, the disagreements & dissatisfactions across the editions of THAT game are pretty minor.

I'm sure there are fans of other multi-editional systems that would say likewise of some of their favorite games.  To date, 4Ed D&D is the only one I've noticed where things got nasty.

With the transition from 2Ed to 3Ed, I noticed some of my fellow gamers balk at changing...but they were concerned largely about 2 things: the change in the math and the costs.  But they weren't _angry._


----------



## Gryph

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I agree- the only edition of HERO I can think of that most players hate was the FUZION version. For the most part, people who like the old stuff like most of the new stuff. Sure, there are occasional gripes- I miss some things from 5Ed that got the axe in 6th- but by & large, the disagreements & dissatisfactions across the editions of THAT game are pretty minor.
> 
> I'm sure there are fans of other multi-editional systems that would say likewise of some of their favorite games. To date, 4Ed D&D is the only one I've noticed where things got nasty.
> 
> With the transition from 2Ed to 3Ed, I noticed some of my fellow gamers balk at changing...but they were concerned largely about 2 things: the change in the math and the costs. But they weren't _angry._




The edition history of D&D is fairly adversarial at an organizational level. 2e was largely a result of the forced ouster of Gary Gygax and the perceived need of a product they wouldn't have to pay royalties on. Adkinson may have had a lot of love for D&D when he bought TSR for WoTC, but I'm not sure the 3e designers did. I don't think anyone believes Hasbro bought WoTC out of an overwhelming love of D&D.


----------



## Herschel

Ranes said:


> Agree wholeheartedly with your point but would just like to note that Ernest Haller and Ray Rennahan won the Oscar for Best Cinematography (Colour) for Gone with the Wind.





He don't know nothin' 'bout colorin' no films. 

Either that, or he frankly doesn't give a darn.


----------



## Erik Mona

Gryph said:


> The edition history of D&D is fairly adversarial at an organizational level. 2e was largely a result of the forced ouster of Gary Gygax and the perceived need of a product they wouldn't have to pay royalties on. Adkinson may have had a lot of love for D&D when he bought TSR for WoTC, but I'm not sure the 3e designers did. I don't think anyone believes Hasbro bought WoTC out of an overwhelming love of D&D.




My sense from having been at WotC when they designed 3rd edition was that, of the core design team, Monte Cook and Skip Williams pretty obviously had "overwhelming love" for D&D, and that Jonathan Tweet (who was already at WotC when they acquired TSR) was honored by the challenge of redesigning the industry's flagship game, though he was perhaps a bit less enamored with the sacred cows of the game than the other two. 

Pretty much all of the designers there in 1999 "loved" D&D, as far as I could tell. That was in no way a problem.

--Erik


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> The idea that the creation of a new edition of a game automatically sets up an adversarial relationship is a little ludicrous, don't you think?




It is. Typically, it requires a fairly consistent program of adversarial actions in order to create conflict out of such a situation. It's not really something that is likely to happen spontaneously.


----------



## Herschel

I'd like to believe you Erik, but that account simply doesn't jibe with internet conspiracy theories and non-involved, third-party speculation.


----------



## Mournblade94

Warhammer despite its jump with 3rd edition did not seem to fracture those players.  I have not played the new warhammer, I am not that interested in it honestly, but I know most players of Warhammer seem to like it.  I don't like the boardgame direction of the game, so I have not invested time into it.  ( I like boardgames, I play many of them I am just not interested in a RPG-Boardgame reduction reaction).

Whatever FF did to keep their marketshare they did correctly.  Then again they did not have ANOTHER game company supporting a better edition.  I think if not for Pathfinder lots of the old 3rd ed crowd may have eventually given in to 4e, or at least a sizeable portion of them would have.


----------



## pawsplay

Mournblade94 said:


> I think if not for Pathfinder lots of the old 3rd ed crowd may have eventually given in to 4e, or at least a sizeable portion of them would have.




If Pathfinder did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent it.


----------



## Azgulor

pawsplay said:


> If Pathfinder did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent it.




Since I have to spread around XP...

CAN I HEAR AN AMEN!!!!


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Mournblade94 said:


> I think if not for Pathfinder lots of the old 3rd ed crowd may have eventually given in to 4e, or at least a sizeable portion of them would have.




NOTE: This is not an attack on you Mournblade. Just want to make that clear at the outset. 
And this was another one of my pet peeves from the 4E supporters at the beginning: "Stop your griping, you'll be playing 4E eventually anyway!" 

As if it were the ONLY game of value in town. If there were no Pathfinder, I'd be playing 3.5 with Trailblazer mods. Or I'd have moved to FantasyCraft. Or FantasyHERO or maybe gone full time back into Supers Gaming. But I would NOT have gone to 4E any more than I would have gone to Palladium Fantasy,  WHFRP or any other RPG that I've tried and didn't care for. 

Bottom line, I would probably be playing something. But it wouldn't have been 4E.


----------



## pawsplay

ShinHakkaider said:


> Bottom line, I would probably be playing something. But it wouldn't have been 4E.




Maybe some GURPs. I like GURPS.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I agree- the only edition of HERO I can think of that most players hate was the FUZION version.




Wow I just recently got rid of the last of my HERO Fuzion stuff, I was still thinking about running a Psionic/Mecha game using Mekton and HERO Fuzion but gave up on the idea. 

ESPERS! Psionic Battles! Psionically powered SUPER MECHA! GALAXY BUSTING AWESOMENESS!!! 

not so much now...


----------



## ShinHakkaider

pawsplay said:


> Maybe some GURPs. I like GURPS.




I have a crap load of the books! 

Not enamored of the game itself though. To be fair the last time that I played a game of GURPS was near the end of High School back in 88 - 89.


----------



## CuRoi

*Walks in, looks around, squeezes through the crowd*

So THIS is where everyone went!  



ShinHakkaider said:


> Bottom line, I would probably be playing something. But it wouldn't have been 4E.




Yep. 

I think many of us can agree 4e has its merits. Through some other threads where I tried to discuss without "edition wars" I even got some insight from people that have had great results with the system. It modified my opinion a bit about it, but I'm still not really into it. Like you, I'd move on to a different system to get the feel I want at a table before trying to force 4e into that same type of game.

It wasn't what I was really hoping for with a new edition. I tried it several times and never got into it, enough said. So I do think it merits a lot of discussion, no matter how painful it may be. Anytime you get a fair amount of players making their own rules systems to avoid using your new product, a widely successful clone of your old product, or customers presumably buying other systems at a faster pace than yours, well, you'd think WotC would be curious why.

It might be a knock down drag out to figure out the "why" but it doesn't have to be IMO. I think you can cite reasons why players went one way and why other players stayed behind without calling it a "war". But for whatever reason, people just take it personally. To me its important to know that 4e combat feels like a board game and 3e combat feels like a rules fest. I won't get offended cause I want to find the middle ground there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Bottom line, I would probably be playing something. But it wouldn't have been 4E.




Count me and my group of 10+ as well.  We have an active 4Ed game going, mostly on the strength of friendship- the 4Ed DM is a cool dude and we're giving the current 3.5 DMs a break.

But to date, I'm the ONLY guy in the group who even owns any 3PP variant of 3.5Ed.  The rest really aren't all that interested.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Double Post.

(No, I'm not bragging.)


----------



## HolyMan

I tried 4e like a kid who tries brussel sprouts 

One bite and that was that. I instantly thought the modules would be great converted to 3.5 and went that route, never looking back.

Here at EnWorld I gave 4e another try and it's not for me. Would I play it if I had no other system to choice from. Heck yeah I'm a gamer! - but I would have made it my own. 

HM


----------



## Mournblade94

ShinHakkaider said:


> NOTE: This is not an attack on you Mournblade. Just want to make that clear at the outset.
> And this was another one of my pet peeves from the 4E supporters at the beginning: "Stop your griping, you'll be playing 4E eventually anyway!"
> 
> As if it were the ONLY game of value in town. If there were no Pathfinder, I'd be playing 3.5 with Trailblazer mods. Or I'd have moved to FantasyCraft. Or FantasyHERO or maybe gone full time back into Supers Gaming. But I would NOT have gone to 4E any more than I would have gone to Palladium Fantasy,  WHFRP or any other RPG that I've tried and didn't care for.
> 
> Bottom line, I would probably be playing something. But it wouldn't have been 4E.




I was not exactly speaking for myself.  I for one would not have gone to 4e.  For one thing I did return to Warhammer, but that changed edition.  I would in all likelihood have stayed with 3rd edition Forgotten Realms for fantasy, Star Wars saga for saga, and Alternity for my sci fi gaming.

Seriously on that one, I struggle between using Traveller or Alternity for sci fi engines.  I have used alternity for so long, and Traveller is supported.  But I somehow just feel like I can do more with Alternity right 'out of the box'.


----------



## BryonD

Mournblade94 said:


> I think if not for Pathfinder lots of the old 3rd ed crowd may have eventually given in to 4e, or at least a sizeable portion of them would have.



Well before PF was announced, I was already helping Wulf Ratbane work on "3.75" (which eventually became "Trailblazer" AFTER PF was announced, for fairly obvious reasons).

I actually had also bought some new GURPS and Warhammer stuff, just looking around at options. 

4E was off the table.  And, as much as I LOVE to argue about it, I've also quite truthfully stated on numerous occasions that I consider 4E to be a perfectly "ok" game.  The most common reaction I hear from people I talk to is "4E sucks".  I am "hostile" to certain comparisons that get made between 4E and 3E.  But I'm just "meh" on the game itself.  And yet, long before PF came along, I knew I was not going to be playing 4E.  I don't think people who are more hostile to the game itself are any more likely than I to "give in".

People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

Yes, there were a lot of other reasons as well.  But this specific variable is the question at hand. 

Also, as has been pointed out, a significant number of 3E holdouts don't really care for Pathfinder.  If the fact that Paizo is supporting the old edition was the only thing keeping people from giving in, those people would all be picking dailies by now.

Far and away the number one reason people are not playing 4E is, quite simply, they don't want to.  Anything else is just a kind of wishful thinking.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
> Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.




Well put.



> Far and away the number one reason people are not playing 4E is, quite simply, they don't want to. Anything else is just a kind of wishful thinking.




Well put.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
> Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.



While I'm sure that the latter is correct, I doubt the former.

Certainly, there are a lot of 3e players who didn't want to play 4e and would have stuck with their 3e games if Pathfinder hadn't come along. But let's not pretend that there aren't gamers out there who saw Pathfinder as a _legitimate alternative_ to 4e simply because both Pathfinder and 4e were receiving active support from the companies that created them. I know that current support is a _huge_ deal for me as a DM, and that I give a lot of weight to playing current games rather than older games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I doubt the former.



As mentioned before, I know of at least 10 gamers who are not interested in Pathfinder- or any 3Ed clone- and have simply kept playing the original.  For them, those games might as well not exist.

While half of us are currently playing 4Ed, that is out of courtesy & friendship- 3.5 is still the game of choice and the rest aren't even touching the 4Ed books.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> While I'm sure that the latter is correct, I doubt the former.
> 
> Certainly, there are a lot of 3e players who didn't want to play 4e and would have stuck with their 3e games if Pathfinder hadn't come along. But let's not pretend that there aren't gamers out there who saw Pathfinder as a _legitimate alternative_ to 4e simply because both Pathfinder and 4e were receiving active support from the companies that created them. I know that current support is a _huge_ deal for me as a DM, and that I give a lot of weight to playing current games rather than older games.




Before the Pathfinder RPG came along, I had never purchased a single product from them other than PDFs of old TSR D&D products. Pathfinder exists not just because of the Paizo audience, but because it is an acceptable substitution, perhaps an improvement, for much of the 3e audience.

The hypothetical you are discussing doesn't make sense. Many people on these boards were actively developing 3e products when the 4e bomb was dropped, and would still be doing so now. It is great that a top tier group like Paizo decided to put out a flagship for an updated version, but if they had waited too long, someone else would have. Paizo's strategy was cunning; early announcement, early strike into the market, and a huge playtesting strategy that generated interest at the same time it was drawing oxygen away from any other theoretical heirs to the 3e crown. They capitalized on the goodwill they had earned being the good guys in the Dragon and Dungeon situation and the PDF fiasco, and they used their expertise to put print books into stores.

But make no mistake; Pathfinder was sufficient, but not necessary. Just google, and you can find a half dozen generic OGL brandings that popped up during the brief Dark Age between 3.5 and PfRPG as a stopgap measure.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> While I'm sure that the latter is correct, I doubt the former.
> 
> Certainly, there are a lot of 3e players who didn't want to play 4e and would have stuck with their 3e games if Pathfinder hadn't come along. But let's not pretend that there aren't gamers out there who saw Pathfinder as a _legitimate alternative_ to 4e simply because both Pathfinder and 4e were receiving active support from the companies that created them. I know that current support is a _huge_ deal for me as a DM, and that I give a lot of weight to playing current games rather than older games.



All that establishes that people not playing 4E had a currently supported version of 3E amongst their choices.

Your premise seems to demand that lacking a currently supported version of 3E, non-4E fans would throw their tastes out the window and play 4E.

Again, if you were right the non-PF 3E holdout would be slowly but steadily drifting into 3E.  It ain't happening.  If anything the net flow is the opposite direction as people decide they are done with 4E, but don't want to go to PF either. 

Certainly PF has hugely benefited from the lack of enthusiasm for 4E.  But that does not make the reverse true.  I'm sure GURPS, Warhammer, Fantasycraft, and many others have also benefited from the market split as well.  And, I'm sure that THOSE games have gained less fans because the "not 4E" crowd was their prime growth target and PF staked a big claim in that territory.

In this reality a lot of people said "I'm not interested in playing 4e."  They then, later, said "I will play Pathfinder."  (with a lot of people replacing Pathfinder with something else, just not 4E)

In your alternate reality with no Pathfinder the first step is unchanged.  But the second step would not become "I will play that game that does not interest me."  They would play other games that DID interest them.  If Pathfinder disappeared tomorrow and every copy fell to dust, very few current players would go to 4E.  Yes, some, but very few.  Many more would go to other games.  The number who would leave table top RPGs altogether would probably outnumber the 4E converts.


----------



## BryonD

pawsplay said:


> But make no mistake; Pathfinder was sufficient, but not necessary. Just google, and you can find a half dozen generic OGL brandings that popped up during the brief Dark Age between 3.5 and PfRPG as a stopgap measure.



I would be playing Trailblazer, with the only difference being it would have a different name.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

_*3.75*_ with a nice Frank Miller cover & internal art would have been cool.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> Your premise seems to demand that lacking a currently supported version of 3E, non-4E fans would throw their tastes out the window and play 4E.



No. I'm saying that some people who were not initially enamored of 4e would have eventually come to view active support as a selling point unto itself, and would have made the switch to the new edition, doing everything they can to fix their perceived problems with it. Are you really going to tell me that you don't think _anyone_ views active support as a big enough draw to pull that one guy who didn't have enough of a reason to try 4e over the edge?

What you initially claimed was an absolute: that there wasn't anyone who decided to stick with the 3e-generation solely because of Pathfinder. I'm challenging that absolute.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> No. I'm saying that some people who were not initially enamored of 4e would have eventually come to view active support as a selling point unto itself, and would have made the switch to the new edition, doing everything they can to fix their perceived problems with it. Are you really going to tell me that you don't think _anyone_ views active support as a big enough draw to pull that one guy who didn't have enough of a reason to try 4e over the edge?
> 
> What you initially claimed was an absolute: that there wasn't anyone who decided to stick with the 3e-generation solely because of Pathfinder. I'm challenging that absolute.



Where?  Please show me.

You quoted THIS:


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
> Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.




There is nothing remotely reflecting your claim in that, or anything else I posted.

To answer your first part, as far as market relevant numbers are concerned I am saying that no amount of support for 4E is going to make people play  game they don't like.  Not only have you invented a core premise I didn't state, you have elected to ignore the key point I did make.  That being that there ARE other actively supported games, both D20 derived and other that would be much higher up the list than 4E for people who don't like 4E.  I think my point that 4E dislikers would be more inclined to just not play than play 4E should have been clear enough.

a) 4E dislikers are not going to play a game they dislike just because it is supported.
b) Even if PF didn't exist, lots of other options do exist.

One of the logical outcomes of these realities is:
People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

Paizo didn't create the market, they saw it and reacted to it.


----------



## Mark CMG

BryonD said:


> Where?  Please show me.
> 
> You quoted THIS:
> 
> *People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
> Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E. *





The first portion of that quote can be read two ways.

1. (your flexible version) Paizo making Pathfinder isn't the only reason people chose not to move from 3E to 4E . . . 

- or - 

2. (Dannager's absolutist interpretation) Paizo made Pathfinder, therefore people are choosing PF (and not 3E) over 4E . . .

For D's version to be the way to read it, the reader would really need to ignore the second sentence, IMO.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> No. I'm saying that some people who were not initially enamored of 4e would have eventually come to view active support as a selling point unto itself, and would have made the switch to the new edition, doing everything they can to fix their perceived problems with it. Are you really going to tell me that you don't think _anyone_ views active support as a big enough draw to pull that one guy who didn't have enough of a reason to try 4e over the edge?




Everyone agrees with what you have just said here. Everyone. The problem is seem to be implying or hedging something beyond that, namely, that it's enough people actually impact Pathfinder's market share. 

Few people who play Pathfinder agree with your intimation, because (I am speculating, but I think I am safe ground here) those same people know they would be playing 3e or something else. True, we are polling ourselves, but I have yet to see more than two or thee people ever say on these boards, "I play Pathfinder now, but if it hadn't come out I would totally have abandoned 3e and just switched to 4e." That slice would be larger among casual players, but again, probably not enough to impact the 3e market hugely, and probably not enough to keep an alternate universe Pathfinder from coming to market. If I am mistaking your intent, please correct me and let us all you know you were not thinking what I have suggested in this paragraph.



> What you initially claimed was an absolute: that there wasn't anyone who decided to stick with the 3e-generation solely because of Pathfinder. I'm challenging that absolute.




No, that's just wrong. You seem to be mistakenly reading general nouns as though they were categorical definitions.


----------



## Dannager

Mark CMG said:


> The first portion of that quote can be read two ways.
> 
> 1. (your flexible version) Paizo making Pathfinder isn't the only reason people chose not to move from 3E to 4E . . .
> 
> - or -
> 
> 2. (Dannager's absolutist interpretation) Paizo made Pathfinder, therefore people are choosing PF (and not 3E) over 4E . . .
> 
> For D's version to be the way to read it, the reader would really need to ignore the second sentence, IMO.



Neither is correct. My interpretation was:

The fact that Paizo produced Pathfinder was not seen as a pull on those undecided on whether or not to stick with 3e.

I think, given the language used, the above is a pretty reasonable interpretation to take away. And I disagree with that statement. If you disagree as well, that's great, we have no argument here, we can move on.

Let's be honest, though, guys. The reason Paizo produced Pathfinder in the first place was to keep a current set of 3e-compatible rules in print. If they hadn't concluded that a lack of current support in the form of in-print core rulebooks wasn't important to their market share (and to the continued participation of the community in 3e-compatible games), Paizo _wouldn't have produced the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game_. The fact that Pathfinder _exists_ is evidence of active support playing a significant role in deciding what system people play.

Again, to be clear, if it _was _all about the fact that people just wanted to stick with 3e over 4e, Paizo wouldn't have had to produce their own version of the game. They could have continued selling their adventure paths with no problems, because people were just sticking with 3e for the rules, and current support would just be icing on the cake. I'm sure some of you _do_ see current support as icing on the cake. Paizo, however, clearly anticipated that for a significant chunk of their potential market, current support was a great deal more than just icing.


----------



## Mark CMG

Whatever, D.  If someone says you misread their post, you probably need to take them at their word.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

BryonD said:


> Far and away the number one reason people are not playing 4E is, quite simply, they don't want to.  Anything else is just a kind of wishful thinking.




Pretty much this. Pretty much the same reason why some 3.5 gamers arent playing Pathfinder OR 4E. Same reason some old school holdouts are playing their respective games.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> Let's be honest, though, guys. The reason Paizo produced Pathfinder in the first place was to keep a current set of 3e-compatible rules in print. If they hadn't concluded that a lack of current support in the form of in-print core rulebooks wasn't important to their market share (and to the continued participation of the community in 3e-compatible games), Paizo _wouldn't have produced the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game_. The fact that Pathfinder _exists_ is evidence of active support playing a significant role in deciding what system people play.




This paragraph is riddled with logical errors. First, Paizo is selling the Pathfinder game in no small part to sell a core game to people who are already their customers. Even if the market remained exactly the same, that's money in their pocket. Second, their concern could be losing market share to another third party. Third, if 3.5 is going to become 3.75, someone has to write it. Irrespective of relative market share, Paizo apparently decided to crown themselves the publisher of 3.75. There is no question that an itch to revise 3.5 was growing. Fourth, it could be a hedge, to attempt to weaken WotC's position and try to get them to open 4e under the OGL. Fifth, you are making the very questionable guess that 3e players will not need new rulebooks; even without any rules changes at all, someone had to figure out a profitable way to reprint something resembling the 3.5 core books. In this case, active support is evidence of... active support. 

You are correct in that publishing Pathfinder clearly serves Paizo's interests, but you are incorrect in implying a 3pp continuation of the 3e game lineage exists only because Pathfinder wants to sell modules. The clearest reason for Paizo to puplish Pathfinder is because they could. They are a game company; if it suits their financial and creative ends to publish something, they will. 

You're painting a picture of Paizo as a blade-and-razor type operation, but that's inaccurate. The core books themselves are money makers, and thousands of "razors" are already out there. Even without the Pathfinder RPG, Paizo could have continued to sell modules as long as _someone_ kept the core rules in print.


----------



## Dannager

pawsplay said:


> You are correct in that publishing Pathfinder clearly serves Paizo's interests, but you are incorrect in implying a 3pp continuation of the 3e game lineage exists only because Pathfinder wants to sell modules. The clearest reason for Paizo to puplish Pathfinder is because they could. They are a game company; if it suits their financial and creative ends to publish something, they will.




From James Jacobs, in an interview with RPG Blog II (in answer to the question "For the uninitiated, can you briefly state an overview of the main design goals for Pathfinder?"): "When Wizards of the Coast switched to 4th edition, the previous edition  of the game went out of print. The core rulebooks would still be  available in stores, but not forever; they would eventually sell out and  be gone. And at that point, even though the rules were still totally  viable (and indeed, readily available online for free as the SRD), *you  can't maintain a line of RPGs without having a core rulebook in print*."

Emphasis mine. Their "line of RPGs" is their Pathfinder campaign setting. I have seen the Paizo guys explain, _explicitly_, on more than one occasion, that one of the primary reasons they published the Pathfinder RPG was because they felt they needed to keep a version of the rules in print so that they could keep selling their adventures. They certainly used it as an opportunity to tweak parts of the game they felt could be improved, but I very much doubt they would have felt the need to do so were they not the publishers of a line of compatible adventures that they were doing quite well selling.

I'm not sure why you're presenting this as a novel or even an unwelcome idea. It's intelligent, and it makes perfect business sense, unless you're of the hardened opinion that support isn't a significant deciding factor in what people play.



> You're painting a picture of Paizo as a blade-and-razor type operation, but that's inaccurate. The core books themselves are money makers, and thousands of "razors" are already out there. Even without the Pathfinder RPG, Paizo could have continued to sell modules as long as _someone_ kept the core rules in print.



I'm not painting Paizo as a blade-and-razor operation in the sense that they are selling razors for cheap and charging oodles for the blades. Their prices are all pretty reasonable. But they do maintain the model and concept of "Our Adventure Paths are what keep people coming back for more, and we need to provide those Adventure Paths with a level of support adequate enough to ensure that people will continue to play them."

I'd love to have one of the Paizo guys chime in on this, because I'm almost positive I have seen James Jacobs or Erik Mona say, almost verbatim, "We created the Pathfinder RPG so we could keep selling our adventures."


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> I'm not sure why you're presenting this as a novel or even an unwelcome idea.




Ok, you've made some weird arguments before, but you have completely lost me here. I cannot figure out what point you are driving at in this post. It's like you're pretending to disagree with me, while repeating my own arguments which you have seemingly adopted over the course of two pages of posts.  What is it you want me to understand that you think I'm not getting?


----------



## HolyMan

@James Jacobs maybe he will respond maybe not. 

The point of this thread is the life expectancy of 4e isn't it? And if 4e goes the way of all the other edition the real question on my mind and probably others is will there be a 5th edition or will we see...

"A world without D&D!" - 

HM


----------



## Raven Crowking

HolyMan said:


> @James Jacobs maybe he will respond maybe not.
> 
> The point of this thread is the life expectancy of 4e isn't it? And if 4e goes the way of all the other edition the real question on my mind and probably others is will there be a 5th edition or will we see...
> 
> "A world without D&D!" -
> 
> HM




"We'll always have Rome."


----------



## Argyle King

Perhaps this was covered somewhere in the 23 pages of this thread or one of the previous threads; honestly, I haven't read every response...


I'm curious how those who now view their D&D experience as coming from a different game fits into the idea of 'Rome.'  In the past few years, I've met more than a few groups who seem to feel that a different game (GURPS, Hero, Hackmaster, Savage Worlds) 'feels like D&D' to them moreso than 4E or Pathfinder.  In what way do these groups fit into the idea of this rpg Rome?


----------



## HolyMan

Johnny3D3D said:


> Perhaps this was covered somewhere in the 23 pages of this thread or one of the previous threads; honestly, I haven't read every response...




Doubt it think it has been edition wars since page 2 

But the edition shouldn't matter. Like I said before when I get together to RP no matter what the system it is, I tell everyone I'm playing D&D. 

The getting together around the table, pizza on the way, character sheets and dice all about is the same no matter if I'm a dwarf in full armor or a guy in tights. It shouldn't matter what your playing, what should matter is you have  fun playing it.

HM


----------



## Argyle King

HolyMan said:


> Doubt it think it has been edition wars since page 2
> 
> But the edition shouldn't matter. Like I said before when I get together to RP no matter what the system it is, I tell everyone I'm playing D&D.
> 
> The getting together around the table, pizza on the way, character sheets and dice all about is the same no matter if I'm a dwarf in full armor or a guy in tights. It shouldn't matter what your playing, what should matter is you have fun playing it.
> 
> HM





That's a view I can live with.  That's not to say I still won't debate the merits and flaws of various systems, but I think it's good to realize that having fun is what matters most.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> I'd love to have one of the Paizo guys chime in on this, because I'm almost positive I have seen James Jacobs or Erik Mona say, almost verbatim, "We created the Pathfinder RPG so we could keep selling our adventures."




I'll chime in here and back that.  It is my understanding that this is completely true.

However, it also my understanding that the game itself is blowing the doors off the expectations which were in place when that choice was made.

I think their APs are still their biggest seller.  But I'm confident that their basis has migrated from AP dominant to a much more balanced situation.

Talking about a choice that was made when APs were the start and end of their business model doesn't say much about where they are now that PF has wildly exceeded everyone's expectations.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> Neither is correct. My interpretation was:
> 
> The fact that Paizo produced Pathfinder was not seen as a pull on those undecided on whether or not to stick with 3e.



I never made any claim about people who were undecided.  Read my quote again.  I very specifically described that a lot of people were already completely decided.  



> I think, given the language used, the above is a pretty reasonable interpretation to take away. And I disagree with that statement. If you disagree as well, that's great, we have no argument here, we can move on.




How is there any way for you to get "undecided" out of "it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E."  There is nothing remotely "undecided" stated or implied in that.  Decision was already over and done with is the only reasonable interpretation.  



> Let's be honest, though, guys. The reason Paizo produced Pathfinder in the first place was to keep a current set of 3e-compatible rules in print. If they hadn't concluded that a lack of current support in the form of in-print core rulebooks wasn't important to their market share (and to the continued participation of the community in 3e-compatible games), Paizo _wouldn't have produced the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game_. The fact that Pathfinder _exists_ is evidence of active support playing a significant role in deciding what system people play.
> 
> Again, to be clear, if it _was _all about the fact that people just wanted to stick with 3e over 4e, Paizo wouldn't have had to produce their own version of the game. They could have continued selling their adventure paths with no problems, because people were just sticking with 3e for the rules, and current support would just be icing on the cake. I'm sure some of you _do_ see current support as icing on the cake. Paizo, however, clearly anticipated that for a significant chunk of their potential market, current support was a great deal more than just icing.



I actually agree with this.

But you seem to be trying to make a correlation where none exists.

Yes, it is an obvious and good plan to keep in print the rule set that supports your APs.

But that has no bearing on the persistent reality that people who don't want to play 4E are not going to play 4E.  You can't point at someone who says "4E sucks" and claim "If it weren't for PF, you would be playing 4E."  Or, I guess you can, but you won't be taken seriously.


----------



## HolyMan

I wouldn't be playing 4e had there been no Pathfinder. 

I was happily playing my HomeBrewed 3e (even a campaign here). When I got the chance to jump in a game (here in EnWorld) of PF. As we played I learned that I enjoyed some of the changes and then my gamer need* kicked in and now I play more PF than 3e. 

HM

*gamer need = need to own every book and module.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> But that has no bearing on the persistent reality that people who don't want to play 4E are not going to play 4E.  You can't point at someone who says "4E sucks" and claim "If it weren't for PF, you would be playing 4E."  Or, I guess you can, but you won't be taken seriously.



I think we must be talking about two completely different groups of people, then. My posts are referring to the things that matter to people who might not like the game of 4e, overall, but who see the promise of active support as a sufficient enough draw to perhaps choose 4e (despite any rules-related distaste) over an edition that is _not_ currently supported. I contend that this segment of the gaming population is significant. I further contend that Paizo's publication of an actively supported RPG has prevented this segment of the gaming population from having to make the difficult choice posed here - instead, they get their edition of choice (mostly) _and _have it actively supported. The crux of my argument is, therefore, that examining the level of current support the various editions/games out there receive is important to having a full understanding of why people are playing the games they are playing.

It looks like no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because they dislike 4e, and no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because it is a currently-supported game. I'm just trying to caution against the idea that support doesn't factor into a person's mental calculus when deciding on two less-than-ideal choices.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> I'm just trying to caution against the idea that support doesn't factor into a person's mental calculus when deciding on two less-than-ideal choices.




That's already been covered. I know that I mentioned more casual players would probably respond to the in-print status of a game.


----------



## Dannager

pawsplay said:


> That's already been covered. I know that I mentioned more casual players would probably respond to the in-print status of a game.



Okay.


----------



## HolyMan

For me it wasn't totally the game rules there were some I liked and thought about bringing over to my 3e HB game. 

I thought of a + 1 per 2 lvls to every skill. Kind of a the older you get the more you learn how things work. You see it done enough so you get the bonus.

Ritual books for utility spells. Sine no one every takes them otherwise.

+1/2 your BAB as a Defensive Bonus to AC. 

My problem was the way it felt as I played 4e. It felt off to me. And it could have been because of 8 years of 3e and 10+ years of the other systems. I don't like the play of it for me it is geared for a younger faster want to do as many neat things as I can in an encounter. And I'm an old schooler who would rather role-play than roll-play.

HM


----------



## Argyle King

Dannager said:


> I think we must be talking about two completely different groups of people, then. My posts are referring to the things that matter to people who might not like the game of 4e, overall, but who see the promise of active support as a sufficient enough draw to perhaps choose 4e (despite any rules-related distaste) over an edition that is _not_ currently supported. I contend that this segment of the gaming population is significant. I further contend that Paizo's publication of an actively supported RPG has prevented this segment of the gaming population from having to make the difficult choice posed here - instead, they get their edition of choice (mostly) _and _have it actively supported. The crux of my argument is, therefore, that examining the level of current support the various editions/games out there receive is important to having a full understanding of why people are playing the games they are playing.
> 
> It looks like no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because they dislike 4e, and no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because it is a currently-supported game. I'm just trying to caution against the idea that support doesn't factor into a person's mental calculus when deciding on two less-than-ideal choices.





You also have to consider that it's possible -had PF not been created- that some of those people who didn't like 4E would have gone to a different gaming system which is actively supported.


----------



## Dannager

Johnny3D3D said:


> You also have to consider that it's possible -had PF not been created- that some of those people who didn't like 4E would have gone to a different gaming system which is actively supported.



You're right, there were other options, and more may have sprung up had Paizo not gone ahead with Pathfinder. I don't think there was another company that could have done as well with releasing a new edition as Paizo, though. They were in the _perfect_ position. For a lot of people who held more loyalty to Paizo than WotC and who liked 3e more than 4e, the PFRPG was a dream come true.


----------



## Dannager

HolyMan said:


> My problem was the way it felt as I played 4e. It felt off to me. And it could have been because of 8 years of 3e and 10+ years of the other systems. I don't like the play of it for me it is geared for a younger faster want to do as many neat things as I can in an encounter. And I'm an old schooler who would rather role-play than roll-play.



Let's be careful, here. Wanting your encounters to be chock full of neat things does not a "roll-player" make.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> You're right, there were other options, and more may have sprung up had Paizo not gone ahead with Pathfinder. I don't think there was another company that could have done as well with releasing a new edition as Paizo, though. They were in the _perfect_ position. For a lot of people who held more loyalty to Paizo than WotC and who liked 3e more than 4e, the PFRPG was a dream come true.




More perfect than Mongoose, who have published the PHB and DMG before? More perfect than Super Genius Games, with their amazing alien intellects? 

Again, and I hate to belabor this, I don't own any Paizo products other than the Pathfinder RPG and some maps. No modules, no campaign setting, no critical hit decks, no nothing. I don't think I am unusual in this regard; probably in a minority, but not unusual.

I like 3.5. I like games that are in print. I like the revised skill system. Therefore, Pathfinder.


----------



## HolyMan

Dannager said:


> Let's be careful, here. Wanting your encounters to be chock full of neat things does not a "roll-player" make.




Not sure I understand you there. I was referring to what a character could do in an encounter, not the encounter itself.

And 4e is a heavy roll-play game. 90+% of the powers have you rolling this and or that.

What threw me off the most is when I tried to make a pacifist healer and had to take an attack power. There was no way around it. No way to make the character I wanted to play. Oh and clerics don't start off with shield prof. very un-D&Dish. 

HM


----------



## Dannager

HolyMan said:


> And 4e is a heavy roll-play game. 90+% of the powers have you rolling this and or that.





As opposed to what you normally do in D&D combat, where rolling is a rarity?


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> I think we must be talking about two completely different groups of people, then.



I take it this is your official correction to your prior statement about how I had claimed an absolute at that was what you were challenging.



> My posts are referring to the things that matter to people who might not like the game of 4e, overall, but who see the promise of active support as a sufficient enough draw to perhaps choose 4e (despite any rules-related distaste) over an edition that is _not_ currently supported. I contend that this segment of the gaming population is significant. I further contend that Paizo's publication of an actively supported RPG has prevented this segment of the gaming population from having to make the difficult choice posed here - instead, they get their edition of choice (mostly) _and _have it actively supported. The crux of my argument is, therefore, that examining the level of current support the various editions/games out there receive is important to having a full understanding of why people are playing the games they are playing.
> 
> It looks like no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because they dislike 4e, and no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because it is a currently-supported game. I'm just trying to caution against the idea that support doesn't factor into a person's mental calculus when deciding on two less-than-ideal choices.



So you invent the idea that we need to be cautioned and decree that we didn't already know that and then proceed to focus your entire response on this double straw man.

Cool.

I am 100% certain you could go find some John Doe who left 4E because a supported 3E system was available.  

Your claim of "significant" is noted, but I see no evidence to actually support it.

In the mean time, while you were spending all your energy beating the straw man, my initial point is still standing right over there untouched.



> Originally Posted by BryonD
> People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
> Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.




On day PF-1 nobody other than Paizo insiders knew that Paizo would be providing on-going support for 3E. And yet a huge number of people were already rejecting 4E and choosing to play 3E or some close cousin despite the fact that no on-going published support existed.

So Paizo thinks, we know our APs are our company's life blood.
We can either:
-Start supporting the current edition of D&D, published by WotC and carrying the D&D brand name on it.  or
-Publish the 3E rules ourselves, lose the D&D brand name recognition and the ability to be on the marketing coat tails of a WotC and offer a decade old, freely available system up against the new shiny (which, btw, will be BRAND NEW on shelves within a few months of us making this choice)

Why in the world would they make the second choice?  The answer is because it was highly obvious to anyone paying attention that a very significant chunk of the fan base was not interested in 4E and already intended to play 3E despite the fact that there was no on-going support for it.

So, on day PF-1:
-number of non-Paizo-insider people rejecting 4E for 3E with no support: significant enough that Paizo bet the farm on them
-number of non-Paizo-insider people rejecting 4E for 3E because PF existed: zero.  (I hope we can agree on that on THAT date, the zero people in that group you have referenced qualifies as "not significant")

That right there establishes the point I made and you challenged.  Paizo's choice was not made in today's marketplace.  It was made (or at least officially announced) in March 2008.  In March 2008, Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

Yeah, there were other reasons as well.  I don't dispute that.  But, remove this one reason, remove the reality of a strong pre-existing market base and all the other reasons are not going to be enough for them to throw their livings at it.

So, are there *some* people now in the other group to which you speak?  I'm sure there are.  Are their numbers significant? No.  At least not on any scale that wouldn't require adding a new word to the english language to describe the high level of relevance of the "4E sucks/I'm done with 4E" numbers.

But, at least you have retracted your claim that I made an absolute.  I appreciate that.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> That right there establishes the point I made and you challenged.  Paizo's choice was not made in today's marketplace.  It was made (or at least officially announced) in March 2008.  In March 2008, Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.



This would be your point, if your point had made use of the past tense, but it didn't (at least, the part I took exception to didn't). That's why I agreed with the second half of your argument - that Paizo felt comfortable making PFRPG because it was clear that there were still people who wanted to play 3e or some variation thereof. But I disagreed with the first half of your argument, I explained why, I clarified myself, and reached what I feel is a very reasonable position to take. You used the present tense in the first half of your argument, and I assumed that to mean that you were talking about the current state of the hobby. If that is not what you intended by your use of the present tense, I apologize.

At this point, however, I don't think there's much more to be discussed regarding people playing 3e/PF/4e. We should move onto a discussion where we do not find ourselves getting bogged down in disagreements stemming from writing tenses.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> This would be your point, if your point had made use of the past tense, but it didn't (at least, the part I took exception to didn't). That's why I agreed with the second half of your argument - that Paizo felt comfortable making PFRPG because it was clear that there were still people who wanted to play 3e or some variation thereof.



You are desperately splitting hairs now.  I don't think it could be any more obvious that the two statements were presented as a set.  

I'll also point out that it is amusing that you have gone to plan B, since the "absolute" thing fell through.



> At this point, however, I don't think there's much more to be discussed regarding people playing 3e/PF/4e. We should move onto a discussion where we do not find ourselves getting bogged down in disagreements stemming from writing tenses.



"We" don't find ourselves bogged down in anything.  

The position you are trying to defend is stuck clinging to a combination of word games and ignoring other points altogether.

You now clearly agree that in the past there was such a major split in the market that Paizo bet their livelihood on it.  So let's focus on the present and remove all questions of tense from the matter.

Are you claiming that the condition that existed on the day 4E was released would have gone away if PF did not exist?  I guess you could claim that.  But the evidence to support that is seriously lacking.  

Pathfinder and 4E exist in the same marketplace.  So obviously, like any competing products they cut into each others share.  But that is a mutual thing, and the "best" product wins*.  The significant share of the marketplace who didn't like 4E in the first place is solely a result of 4E.  And, as I predicted three years ago, the rapid burnout rate of 4E which is now in the marketplace is also solely a function of 4E.  PF has nothing to do with these key items.

Sure, the option of pathfinder adds some more grains on the scale.  But you can not blame those grains for tipping the scale when the scale was tipped long before the grains were placed there and at no point would have ever tipped back the other way without them.

And, bottom line, above and beyond the obvious connection between my two statements, this reality of the scale being tipped on its own all along makes your tense hair splitting irrelevant.  



* - Understanding that "best" has nothing to do with individual tastes, and sometimes even has nothing to do with highest quality (VHS, for example).  "Best" in this context simply means a combination of product, marketing, and price to gain the best share.


----------



## BryonD

The funny thing is, I'd *LOVE* to say that PF is 4E's problem.  

"Yeah, dude, Pathfinder is kicking 4E's butt.  Obviously Pathfinder is awesome and 4E can't handle it as a marketplace competitor."

But I can't give PF credit for 4E's self-inflicted wounds any more than you can blame PF for 4E's self-inflicted wounds.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> You are desperately splitting hairs now.  I don't think it could be any more obvious that the two statements were presented as a set.
> 
> I'll also point out that it is amusing that you have gone to plan B, since the "absolute" thing fell through.



This has clearly stopped being a discussion for you and started in on something personal, so I'm going to remove myself from this.

Nice chatting with you.


----------



## Saracenus

I have seen 5E:







The image is something I whipped up during when 4e (WotC) hysteria was fresh and new, you know back in 2008. 

Me, I go out and got my game on (4e happens to be by preference) and I am happy.

My friends that I converted to 3.5 from 2e just before 4e's launch are happy playing their bi-weekly Pathfinder RPG campaign. They are happy.

The over a hundred folks that got back into D&D or discovered it for the first time when I helped launch D&D Encounters (DDE) in Portland are out there playing. They are happy.

We have Pathfinder RPG, D&D 3e, D&D4e games filling up the weekly calendar at my local shop. DDE is still going strong (and has spread to most of the stores in the local area) and Pathfinder society now has a day too. The Dungeon Divas (an all women RPG group at the store) just got done with Serenity. Those folks are happy.

If someone wanted to run 1e, 2e or some other earlier version or even a retro-clone I will bet there is an audience here. And I would welcome them with open arms as brothers and sisters.

It used to be there was almost nothing but Warhammer, Magic, and other competitive games filling the schedule.

While WotC was not 100% responsible for this flowering, if they hadn't supported in store play (at a significant cost) most of this would not be happening.

You know what I have found from all this? This forum is not D&D. Its not talking about it. Its not fighting about it. That is all noise. D&D is the act of playing with people around a table and finding their happy, that is D&D. Kicking down doors, killing the monsters, and looting their treasure... that is D&D. Role-playing with my fellow gamers, that is D&D. Stupid puns and jokes at the table, that is D&D. Waiting with baited breath for the die to stop rolling to see if you succeed or fail, that is D&D. Having some fun while doing that, that is D&D.

So stop this pettiness and go out and play some D&D! If there isn't a ready game available, then do what I did and make it happen because arguing what is or isn't D&D is not D&D.

My two coppers,


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Saracenus said:


> I have seen 5E: (...and a bunch of other stuff)




Okay I guess that's it then. 

Shut down the forum and turn the lights off. 

Last guy out lock the door behind you.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> This has clearly stopped being a discussion for you and started in on something personal, so I'm going to remove myself from this.
> 
> Nice chatting with you.



Hmm, so you get corrected when you try to substitute "absolutes" into my statement.  So you switch to word games and get corrected on that as well.  So you go with a cheap shot exit by baselessly claiming "something personal".

I'm not taking it personal, I'm having fun hitting your softballs over the fence.

But, that probably was your best move at this point.  So good job.

Good Gaming!

*Mod Edit:*  You might want to consider if this kind of post is your own best move at this point.  Because parting shots like this look pretty damn snotty, and will lead some folks think that despite your protestations, it is personal.

Folks, if someone's leaving a discussion, be a good sport and let them do so without throwing spitballs at their back.    ~Umbran


----------



## Raven Crowking

I am going to posit that it is possible to create a new game out of 4e that, to an outsider, might look an awful lot like 4e, but which, to someone who really understands and enjoys what 4e has to offer, might feel substantially different.  Or even limiting.  Possibly even so limiting that using this new system might be difficult (or very difficult) for some current 4e group’s playstyle.

I will further posit that it is possible to create such a game that actually models the way some people play 4e _*right now*_.  And it might actually facilitate what they want out of the game. To them, it will seem like a true evolution from 4e.

To many people playing 4e now, I would posit that the change and level of change might seem obvious.  I would also posit that, for those people to whom the new game seems like a true evolution, the change and level of change might not be so obvious.  They might blame 4e players for having a narrow perspective, for not understanding other games, which the new game borrows ideas and mechanics from.  They might even argue that there is no real change.

Finally, I am going to posit that this has already happened.  More than once, in all likelihood.  Except the game being changed wasn’t 4e.

RC


----------



## Argyle King

Raven Crowking said:


> I am going to posit that it is possible to create a new game out of 4e that, to an outsider, might look an awful lot like 4e, but which, to someone who really understands and enjoys what 4e has to offer, might feel substantially different. _Or even limiting_. Possibly even so limiting that using this new system might be difficult (or very difficult) for some current 4e group’s playstyle.
> 
> I will further posit that it is possible to create such a game that actually models the way some people play 4e _*right now*_. And it might actually facilitate what they want out of the game. To them, it will seem like a true evolution from 4e.
> 
> To many people playing 4e now, I would posit that the change and level of change might seem obvious. I would also posit that, for those people to whom the new game seems like a true evolution, the change and level of change might not be so obvious. They might blame 4e players for having a narrow perspective, for not understanding other games, which the new game borrows ideas and mechanics from. They might even argue that there is no real change.
> 
> Finally, I am going to posit that this has already happened. More than once, in all likelihood. Except the game being changed wasn’t 4e.
> 
> RC





I've heard it argued that this has happened with 4E and 4E.E


----------



## M.L. Martin

Raven Crowking said:


> Finally, I am going to posit that this has already happened.  More than once, in all likelihood.  Except the game being changed wasn’t 4e.
> 
> RC




   Nice summary of nearly _every_ edition change.


----------



## HolyMan

I know nothing of the difference between 4E and 4E.E but isn't this sort of like the way things went when 3e came out and then 3.5 (even about the same time frame).

What everyone wonders at is support. WOTC doesn't act like they wish to support a D&D line. Or at least not with the same quality as years gone by.

HM


----------



## Saracenus

HolyMan,

The short answer to your question is no, 4e and the recent Essentials are not the same as the jump from 3.0 to 3.5 at all.

As to your assertion that WotC doesn't want to support the D&D line, I think you would be best served by listening to the 2011 D&D XP Product Seminar here:
Tome  Blog Archive  Tome DDXP Special: Product Seminar

Now, will this change in how products are produced, marketed, and delivered ultimately be successful? That is a completely different discussion.

But this is all again big meta issues of how a business is run, does this really effect your enjoyment of playing D&D? As a DM or a player do you really sweat this when you sit down at the table?

I can say that the vast majority of folks out there don't.

One thing I make clear to any DM that sits down at a table for me when I am organizing games here locally, "How you feel about company X or product y is not as important as providing those who sit at your table a good time."

We have has several very good judges who couldn't and they bowed out gracefully and ran other things (Shadowrun Missions is very popular at one store around here).

I know one of the folks that helped birth the Ashes of Ashes (Convention only Dark Sun Living Campaign) because they were not satisfied by Living Forgotten Realms or D&D Encounters. This was a big hit at D&D XP. I can tell you the success of that campaign's debut has shown the folks running LFR (and WotC folk that played at their tables) a different way to do a Living Campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I sometimes marvel/despair at the stumbles and mistakes that WotC has made with D&D of late. I just have a hard time constantly arguing about it. It makes me tired and sad. It makes me not want to play because of all the negativity that bleeds out. Then I shake it off and go pick up some dice and rediscover my gamer happy by playing or DMing.

I personally think all the energy that is used to fight the edition wars (or the equally poisonous "WotC is the root of all evil" meme) could be better spent coming up with cool ideas that advance the hobby and make things better for all.

Stalker0 was not satisfied with skill challenges in 4e (and wanted to adapt them for 3e) made a positive contribution by coming up with a solution. I continually get inspiration by reading Piratecat's campaign thread.

I said that this forum is not D&D. I stand by that. But it can be more than a battlefield for fighting over the scraps of RPG territory.

At the end of the day I have two questions I have to ask myself, did I make my hobby better and did I have fun doing it?

Otherwise, why I am I wasting my time with something I don't wan to positively participate in or enjoy?

My two coppers,


----------



## HolyMan

Sorry my post may have come off as another part of "the edition wars" it is not.

To me there is no bad RPG game. The game is what you make it. D&D to me is an experience and social event...

to either have time laughing with friends or

meet new people and bring out the gamer in them.

What I was trying to say (and badly) was that from the first post of this thread it looked liked most people were trying to read between the lines. And wondering what WOTC was going to do to their game.

The podcast says they are bring out a lot of new stuff. But it again isn't geared to a system that is for me. But saying that I will look into the Neverwinter Nights setting to see if a little conversion is in order.  (What can I say I'm a gamer.)

HM


----------



## Saracenus

HolyMan,

Some of what I posted in my previous entry was not directed at you specifically. I started by answering your questions and it then expanded into something larger that I have been thinking about for over a year.

So, I am sorry that the full weight of my post was attached to your name. Perhaps it would have been better to have split them in two.

On to developing my theme...

I really struggled with the tribalization of the D&D community at the release of 4e. It was quickly becoming Lord of the Flies. I actually stopped posting on several web forums (and I have never returned since) because every time I tried to share something interesting or positive about my edition preference with others it degenerated into gamer nerd rage at it's worst.

It felt like the chorus from Joss Whedon's musical commentary for Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog:

We're gonna pick pick
Pick pick pick it apart.
Open it up to find the
Tick tick tick of a heart.
A heart, broken.

I had many a soul searching conversation with a few gamer friends that I had tremendous respect for. Those conversations eventually led me to stop worrying about defending "my game" and I went out and just did it. I organized locally, I made sure mail lists I ran were calm resources for gamers of all stripes to share, and I reconnected with folks playing D&D at the table. Mostly as a DM and sometimes as a player.

I am not perfect. I get angry at WotC (I have not met many who haven't at some point). Despite my gripes I  ultimately I got involved so I could contribute something positive at the end of the day. In return I get to see folks smile and have fun. Even me.

And that is why I am talking about it now, I have seen a "road to Rome" and it has nothing to do with the edition I am playing, it is the act of playing the game itself.


----------



## HolyMan

Here's hoping everyone gets to the "Rome" they remember. 

HM


----------



## thedungeondelver

I'm going to preface this by saying I should probably have my head examined posting this message this late in the thread.  I will also say that I have no dog (any longer) in the I-hate-4e-fight.  I don't.  With that said (and yes I posted something like this elsewhere, but I wanted to edit it up and rather than just link back there, mention it here where it was salient to this thread):

My take on the Mearls'  article is:

  He seems to say that Wizards of the Coast has a big tent and darn it all _why can't everyone just come underneath and play and have a good time_?

He's ignoring the fact that for a lot of gamers, WotC have put that tent up in the courtyard  of a castle with unassailable walls and a locked gate, through which  only fans of 4e may pass (currently; they'll probably all be thrown out  in 18 months or so and only fans of the next iteration may stay or come  in).  People in internet forums who shout "shut up and play the *D&D*  you like" actually have some cachet when they say so...because those  folks don't hold the keys to that locked gate.

When the public face of WotC shouts "shut up and play the *D&D* you  like" it's at the very best naively hollow and at the worst cynical and  assholish because _you're not giving folks an avenue to play the *D&D* they like_.   Or - no!  Wait!  Yes they are!  You can get used previous edition  *D&D* books!  You can get games that are almost like *D&D*!  Right?   Is that it?  The statement being made is "Well...you can go off and  play clone games, or buy old books, but we're not supporting you but _darn it everyone can play the D&D they like_!" then the cognitive dissonance in that piece becomes thick enough to walk on.

At that point, we can do a reduction for about 10 minutes on a high boil  and we're left with the essence of what he's saying which is : "Go  away."

Well, some ask, what do you WANT?

I want: WotC to quit pretending old *D&D* didn't exist, or that it was  bad and messed up and wrong and only the committee that designed 4e got  it right, and to quit doing something so obviously stupid that even I  can figure out that it's wrong, and that's keeping PDFs under lock and  key.  I don't demand that 5e feature backwards compatibility with  *AD&D*.  A slipcase "classic edition" limited re-release of AD&D  books would be nice but isn't necessary.  I sure as _hell_ don't  want new adventures.  Got plenty, thanks.  Just put the PDFs back up and  quit pretending that, without that, "It's all *D&D*, baby".  Because  until you give people back a reliable, legal avenue to play actual real  D&D other than what is out now, it isn't "all *D&D*".  It's "the  game we want you to play, and nothing else."

That's it.  That's all.  The servers the PDFs were hosted on weren't  WotCs, the transactions weren't managed by WotC's servers, it cost WotC *nothing*  to maintain.  Conversely, it was income, period.  Pure and simple.  The  argument that "oh how can you expect them to sell a competing product"  is pretty specious.  Either [CURRENT EDITION] is strong enough to stand on its  own, or it isn't.  If it isn't, it's crap and should be done away with.   If it is, and people recognize that, they won't be "confused" by "other  versions".  I well remember when Bastion Press started the whole  scanning business how excited people were - people who had no interest  in playing *AD&D* (that's the scans Bastion Press started with, by the way, and the *AD&D DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE* .pdf was the top selling item on WotC's online store for a long long time after it was released).  Why?  Because  with the exception of a few psychos with a frothing Hatred of All  Things Gygax(TM), lots of folks were eager to get copies of old modules  to convert, or a *DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE* to have handy for gem generation,  poison generation and, yes, "wandering prostitutes".  And - get this! -  they _used it alongside their 3rd edition books and nobody died and everyone was beautiful_.

Apparently the world where WotC lives now is a place where up is down  and black is white and I don't even know what could be going through  their heads but at this juncture, again, saying "It's all *D&D*" is  about as hollow as a chocolate easter bunny *without something to back  that up.*


----------



## Mercurius

Dungeondelver, a quick aside: I'm not quoting your post because I find  the font to be difficult to read; a nice font, but it is kind of  distracting in this format. Just a bit of unsolicited feedback!

That said, interesting post. I can agree with many of the points you  make but to be honest I question a lot of it, the tone in particular. I  think it well exemplifies that this meta-issue isn't exactly what it  seems to be, that people are still upset about things that aren't  necessarily what is being talked about. 

I would take it that you don't disagree with what Mearls says in his  article, taken at face value? I mean, it is a nice sentiment, right?  What is there to disagree with, really? We're all playing D&D,  D&D is sitting down with your friends, it doesn't matter what  version you're playing, make it your own, yada yada yada...

I completely agree that WotC should sell PDFs of older material. But I  find this complaint to be a tad disingenuous when you say something like  WotC is "not giving folks an avenue to play the D&D they like." I  am sorry, dungeondelver, but that's a bit suspect. First of all, as you  yourself said, there are tons of old and used material available. For  3.x, more than a lifetime's worth. 

Secondly, and probably more importantly, the vast majority of people who  want to play an older edition of D&D likely already have tons of  gaming material, so their "avenue to play the D&D they like" was  never shut down. WotC can't shut it down - it is _your _avenue. As  some have commented, there is a kind of shared illusion in the gaming  industry that customers (gamers) need the companies that produce gaming  material. They don't. All we need are our imaginations, pencils, paper,  dice, maybe a rule book or two - and maybe not even that. 

You also mention WotC's supposed slandering of older versions of  D&D. I might be missing something, but all I remember are a couple  tongue-in-cheek comments and/or advertising back in 2008 that said  something to the effect that 4E was the newer, better version of D&D  and you shouldn't be left out in the cold playing "something else." Are  people really upset about that sort of thing? _Really? _No one  seems upset about Paizo's (again, tongue-in-cheek) "3.5E  survives/thrives" advertising - nor should they, imo. I think this is a  case of overly thin skins.

So what I really hear you saying is that you're pissed that WotC doesn't  sell their PDFs, although probably mainly as a matter of principle, and  possibly _actually _because you're unhappy with 4E and wish they  had stuck with 3.5. I also hear you saying that your feelings are/were  hurt with some of their initial advertising comments.

To this I can only say: get over it. It is done. Let it go. Bygones be  bygones. Compost the sour grapes. Rejoin the larger D&D  community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print,  and presumably most popular version of D&D--*and play the D&D that you want. *

I can tell you with all honesty and full confidence that if WotC  announces 5E at GenCon this year and starts in with some "Stop playing  that WoW-clone version of D&D and go back to your roots with 5E" and  then they stop publishing all things 4E, I'll say "Cool, a new edition,  let's check it out and if I don't like it I'll stick with 4E or, better  yet, create the hybrid I've always wanted to make." 

You are, of course, free to continue letting these things bother you,  even if they are, well, water under the bridge. Again, I agree that not  making PDFs available for donwload is not only a bad PR move, but a poor  business decision (as Gary himself explains in your signature). But in  the end, 4E is the current version of D&D and WotC is still not  making older PDFs available, but at the same time Paizo is supporting  3.5 possibly better than WotC ever did in the form of Pathfinder, and  there are tons of retro-clones available, with the internet flooded with  used material from all editions of the game. 

It is a good time to be a  D&D player!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> To this I can only say: get over it.




That phrase- and those like it- is never depicted in a positive light in works like Dale Carnagie's _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ and similar works.


----------



## Mercurius

True, Danny. But I think that's this issue in a nutshell, especially with regards to the so-called slandering by WotC of 3.5. It goes back to the old "It isn't _what _you said, but _how _you said it." I am fully aware that this is true, that the medium is the message (or at least greatly colors the message).

But let's stop for a minute and think about what we're actually talking about. Yes, _how _one says things is important but let's not get lost in that and lose _what _is being said. "Get over it" is a bit harsher than "let it go." I am really saying "let it go" and hopefully my friendly tone translates for dungeondelver and he isn't offended. "Let it go" be a friend saying to another friend, "Stop worrying about it. The Red Sox traded Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson twenty years ago; heck, Bagwell is already retired. Let bygones be bygones."

But why do you, Danny, single out that one phrase from its context? I also wrote in that very same paragraph "It is done. Let it go. Bygones be  bygones. Compost the sour grapes.  Rejoin the larger D&D  community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print,  and presumably most popular version of D&D--*and play the D&D that you want."

*Selecting out that first sentence without reading the rest is, at best, misleading but at worst, dirty politics.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But why do you, Danny, single out that one phrase from its context? I also wrote in that very same paragraph "It is done. Let it go. Bygones be bygones. Compost the sour grapes. Rejoin the larger D&D community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print, and presumably most popular version of D&D--and play the D&D that you want."



I read your whole post, actually.  But I was making a point.

In recent years, I've been involved in pursuing a degree in Conflict Resolution.  I've reaches a certain point in that pursuit to be certified in the state of Texas in that field and have gone beyond that as well.

And one of the things you learn in the earliest stages of that training is that when you phrase things a certain way, you utterly wreck your chances of persuading someone to your position.

By using the phrase you did, when you did, you negated the content of your subsequent words.  You may as well not have written those words as far as some would be concerned.

So while I DID read your whole post, others may not have.  And even if they did, that paragraph's opening sentence could be ringing in their heads like the bells of Notre Dame, drowning out your more conciliatory language.

IOW, while the opening to your last post recognizes this problem, you still initiated the second half of your post in such a way that indicates you haven't internalized the lesson you were talking about when you started.  You delivered your message in a way that the _how_ drowned out the _content._


----------



## Mercurius

Yeah, I got your point and agree to an extent, but also feel that you're making a bit too much of it. 

As I said, this is part of the issue with regards to the sentiment that dungeondelver and numerous others have expressed with regards to WotC: magnifying perceived insult way beyond its intention. 

Furthermore, bringing attention to it is a way by which this sort of thing gets magnified. Talk about missing the forest for a single shrub.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> magnifying perceived insult way beyond its intention




You still dont get it. telling someone to just "get over it" or in other ways dismissing the perceived insult is just going to compound the original hurt.  The insult begins to ossify into harder and harder feelings.

By acknowledging the insult- even if you don't think it's valid- you've already put your audience in a more receptive mental state.

And when you vacillate between conciliatory and inflammatory or even merely insensitive language, it isn't the concilliatory language that leaves the deeper impression.


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> As I said, this is part of the issue with regards to the sentiment that dungeondelver and numerous others have expressed with regards to WotC: magnifying perceived insult way beyond its intention.




So what do intention and perceived insult have in common? At all?


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> Yes, _how _one says things is important but let's not get lost in that and lose _what _is being said.




"The message is the medium." You are making a distinction that does not exist according to most philosophical systems. When you intend to say something, you are intending to say it in a particular way. If you have not conceived what words to use, you have not yet decided what you wish to say. "Finding the words" is tricky, particularly in that choice of language is not merely coding, but the creation of meaning.


----------



## thedungeondelver

Let this be a placeholder for a longer post but for now: in the context of the larger post, no, "get over it" wasn't offensive (to me).  Had that been the totality of his post, or something like "oh god, _you_ again.  Get over it.", then, yeah, there'd be something.

Mercurious I'll get back to you shortly.


----------



## Mercurius

Cool, thanks dungeondelver - I'll look for it.


----------



## Mercurius

Danny, not _entirely_ agreeing with you does not mean I don't get it. It may be that _you _don't get it as you are using phrases like "you don't get it," which is just as much a faux pas as "get over it" if we're talking about diplomatic, politically correct communication. Why not phrase it "I am feeling that you may not be understanding what I am trying to communicate?" Because it is a pain in the arse, that's why! And that sort of phrasing, common in interpersonal communication theories (e.g. Nonviolent Communication) has the potential to be obfuscating. I'd prefer just plain, honest talk, especially among friends.

Now of course the potential problem with "plain, honest talk" is that feelings may be hurt. It is a risk, really. I think there is a middle ground possible, which I try to tread. But I personally don't think that diplomacy must always come first, especially at the cost of expression and truthfulness. It depends upon the situation and I felt like using such language ("get over it") would be fine, or at least not overly aggressive, if framed within a context and post that was friendly in tone. I'm glad that dungeondelver didn't perceive what I said as an insult.

And pawsplay, I meant to say what I said. Danny perceived it as insulting, whereas dungeondelver (for whom it was intended) didn't. The problem with these interwebs is that it is hard to write with the tone and nuance that comes with being physically present. This is one of the reasons why flame wars rage on the internet, I think - because of pure and simple miscommunication and misunderstanding!

But all of this is just a distraction. This is a forum (and thread)  about RPGs, not communication. Let's keep it that way, shall we?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Danny perceived it as insulting



Actually, no- I was merely pointing out you were using a linguistic structure that could be- and has been- perceived as dismissive.

Generally speaking, M., I find you assert your points with honesty and integrity, but sometimes your word choice puts up little barriers to understanding between you and your intended audience, especially when you feel strongly about something.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> Danny, not _entirely_ agreeing with you does not mean I don't get it. It may be that _you _don't get it as you are using phrases like "you don't get it," which is just as much a faux pas as "get over it" if we're talking about diplomatic, politically correct communication.




I disagree. "Get over it" is an aggressive attempt to tell someone else what they should feel and how they should respond to a situation. "You don't get it," is just a statement of what I believe to be true. 

"Politically correct" is a throwaway phrase in this context. Unless you are talking about a specific cultural viewpoint on a way of phrasing something, it's so general as to have no meaning at all.



> Why not phrase it "I am feeling that you may not be understanding what I am trying to communicate?" Because it is a pain in the arse, that's why!




That's not even really a feeling. If you want to be picky, a particularly diplomatic phrasing might be: "The thing you are saying to me lead me to think you do not understand what I am trying to say."



> And that sort of phrasing, common in interpersonal communication theories (e.g. Nonviolent Communication) has the potential to be obfuscating. I'd prefer just plain, honest talk, especially among friends.




"Get over it" is neither plain nor honest. It holds a number of implied meanings and judgments. Further, you can say it without any interest in the other person's feelings. Most people say "get over it" when they mean "I am not interested in your feelings on this matter."



> Now of course the potential problem with "plain, honest talk" is that feelings may be hurt. It is a risk, really. I think there is a middle ground possible, which I try to tread. But I personally don't think that diplomacy must always come first, especially at the cost of expression and truthfulness. It depends upon the situation and I felt like using such language ("get over it") would be fine, or at least not overly aggressive, if framed within a context and post that was friendly in tone. I'm glad that dungeondelver didn't perceive what I said as an insult.




I avoid saying "never," but I don't think "get over it" is a hepful phrase except in situations where you wish to express a lack of concern for the other person's interest.



> And pawsplay, I meant to say what I said. Danny perceived it as insulting, whereas dungeondelver (for whom it was intended) didn't. The problem with these interwebs is that it is hard to write with the tone and nuance that comes with being physically present. This is one of the reasons why flame wars rage on the internet, I think - because of pure and simple miscommunication and misunderstanding!




Also, because of communication and understanding. Clearly, if I understand you to have communicated contempt for my viewpoint, we are likely to have a disagreement.



> But all of this is just a distraction. This is a forum (and thread)  about RPGs, not communication. Let's keep it that way, shall we?




This is a tangent, probably one that will tidy up in a few posts. I feel _distracted _ by the combination of your assumptions and your apparent lack of interest in modifying those assumptions, or at least your mannever of expressing them. As long as you are trying to tell people to "get over it," whatever specific phrasing you use to communicate that attitude, it is likely there will continue to be distractions. Please seriously consider what others have said to you; they invested some effort in helping you understand.


----------



## thedungeondelver

Mercurius said:


> Dungeondelver, a quick aside: I'm not quoting your post because I find  the font to be difficult to read; a nice font, but it is kind of  distracting in this format. Just a bit of unsolicited feedback!




For the sake of this reply, I'll stick to verdana.

_this time_



> I would take it that you don't disagree with what Mearls says in his  article, taken at face value? I mean, it is a nice sentiment, right?  What is there to disagree with, really? We're all playing D&D,  D&D is sitting down with your friends, it doesn't matter what  version you're playing, make it your own, yada yada yada...




I don't agree with the *tone* of what Mr. Mearls is saying in his article.  



> I completely agree that WotC should sell PDFs of older material. But I  find this complaint to be a tad disingenuous when you say something like  WotC is "not giving folks an avenue to play the D&D they like." I  am sorry, dungeondelver, but that's a bit suspect. First of all, as you  yourself said, there are tons of old and used material available. For  3.x, more than a lifetime's worth.




I remember that back in...good lord, 2008?  Anyway what I said was:



> Now consider when the last copies of those were published, versus the last published and printed copies of 3e and 3.5e books.  Add in PDFs, of both editions.  See where I'm going with this?
> 
> _No edition of *D&D* is out of print._  None.  The print run starts again when you take the memory stick to Kinkos and knock out a spiral bound copy of *THE COMPLETE PSIONCS HANDBOOK* or *RETURN TO THE TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL* and so on.






_BUT_: IIRC when I _wrote that_ *Wizards of the Coast hadn't interdicted and shut down PDF sales*.  The options were still there to get your hands on the PDFs quickly and easily.



> Secondly, and probably more importantly, the vast majority of people who  want to play an older edition of D&D likely already have tons of  gaming material, so their "avenue to play the D&D they like" was  never shut down. WotC can't shut it down - it is _your _avenue. As  some have commented, there is a kind of shared illusion in the gaming  industry that customers (gamers) need the companies that produce gaming  material. They don't. All we need are our imaginations, pencils, paper,  dice, maybe a rule book or two - and maybe not even that.




I don't doubt that.  I'm asking for that PDF avenue back.  It'd give a lot more oomph to what Mr. Mearls is saying.



> You also mention WotC's supposed slandering of older versions of  D&D. I might be missing something, but all I remember are a couple  tongue-in-cheek comments and/or advertising back in 2008 that said  something to the effect that 4E was the newer, better version of D&D  and you shouldn't be left out in the cold playing "something else." Are  people really upset about that sort of thing? _Really? _No one  seems upset about Paizo's (again, tongue-in-cheek) "3.5E  survives/thrives" advertising - nor should they, imo. I think this is a  case of overly thin skins.




Eh.  That's a personal nuance thing, but jesus christ: go back and watch the videos.  NO MINIATURES EVER EXISTED BEFORE 4E. LOOK AT THOSE CLODS.  ERASERS. WHICH ONE IS THE TROLL.  HA HA HA.  



> So what I really hear you saying is that you're pissed that WotC doesn't  sell their PDFs, although probably mainly as a matter of principle, and




I'm pissed that they're entirely disingenuous about it.  I'm pissed that - let me put it this way.  This isn't like Coke stopping real coke (there's a whole history behind classic Coke and so on I won't go in to here) or Chevy not selling the Bel Air any more or anything like that.  In those cases, the manufacturer (Coca-Cola, General Motors) made the thing and sent the thing to the shop or dealership and you bought it.  When the companies in question decided to stop making the thing you like, it's not like you could demand they start the production lines up again.

This is not like that.  This is like: GM gives the blueprints to a company that starts stamping out '57 Bel Aires and Coke gives the formula to a local bottling company and they start selling Coke.  GM never has to run a factory (indeed the onus is on the reseller to keep the factory - or in the case of PDFs, the server - open) or anything.  This is GM saying "Whoa whoa whoa, our cars are being stolen?  Psh, shut it down, third party company!  Quit making money and giving us money!"



> I also hear you saying that your feelings are/were  hurt with some of their initial advertising comments.




Their advertising was mean spirited.  "People who drove bel airs were IDIOTS!  HA!  Back then they didn't know what a steering wheel was!  Look at them!"



> To this I can only say: get over it. It is done. Let it go. Bygones be  bygones. Compost the sour grapes. Rejoin the larger D&D  community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print,  and presumably most popular version of D&D--*and play the D&D that you want. *




The sour grapes analogy doesn't apply here; I'm not looking longingly at something I can't reach and saying "Well, it's probably not quality anyway."  I could, tomorrow...hell, in between words here I could pause and go sign up for DDI and get the core books and etcetera.  It's not sour grapes for me to say "Stop doing what you're doing and loosen your grip on old D&D."

I've never been part of the larger D&D community, 4e has no appeal to me, the how's and why's of that are beyond the scope of my thesis.  4e has no cachet with me, I have no desire to detail why, for it is edition warlike.



> I can tell you with all honesty and full confidence that if WotC  announces 5E at GenCon this year and starts in with some "Stop playing  that WoW-clone version of D&D and go back to your roots with 5E" and  then they stop publishing all things 4E, I'll say "Cool, a new edition,  let's check it out and if I don't like it I'll stick with 4E or, better  yet, create the hybrid I've always wanted to make."




They won't, and I don't expect them to, and I don't want them to.  D&D is theirs.  *ALL* D&D is theirs.  




> Again, I agree that not  making PDFs available for donwload is not only a bad PR move, but a poor  business decision (as Gary himself explains in your signature). But in  the end, 4E is the current version of D&D and WotC is still not  making older PDFs available, but at the same time Paizo is supporting  3.5 possibly better than WotC ever did in the form of Pathfinder, and  there are tons of retro-clones available, with the internet flooded with  used material from all editions of the game.
> 
> It is a good time to be a  D&D player!




Here we've come full circle.  In my original post I said "Folks who say 'get over it' and 'play what D&D you like' certainly have a point" because that's all you're really in a position to do.  I don't expect anything more, really.  Okay!  Message received!  Thanks for listening and stopping to reply to me...but - *and this is key* - when the public face of Wizards of the Coast says "it's all D&D" and he absolutely has the pull with the company as the brand manager to say "hey you know what, if I'm going to go out there with with a 'let's all play under the big tent message' maybe we can actually, you know, make it a big tent" and won't, or won't indicate that they can or ever will, then "it's all D&D" from the offices of WotC is hollow and cynical.

And that's what I'm saying.

*YOU* telling me to shut up and play whatever D&D, player to player, that's one matter.  *HIM* telling me to shut up and play whatever D&D and then not backing it up, that's onerous.  WotC denied themselves money and made it more appealing to people to pirate their stuff.  How dumb was that?

I don't want, and I don't expect official OD&D, AD&D, AD&D2, 3e and all 11 versions of Basic D&D and on and on to be supported by WotC.  I said back in 2008 I didn't want or expect that.  I said in my post that I didn't want or expect them to pack up, move back to Lake Geneva and start selling AD&D hardbacks.  But what I said back in 2008 was in the shadow of ease of access.  I want that ease of access returned.  _Then_ the tent is truly big enough again for everyone and not in some sorta-kinda way.


----------



## Mercurius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, no- I was merely pointing out you were using a linguistic structure that could be- and has been- perceived as dismissive.
> 
> Generally speaking, M., I find you assert your points with honesty and integrity, but sometimes your word choice puts up little barriers to understanding between you and your intended audience, especially when you feel strongly about something.
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding.




Cool beans. I'll take your advice at face value and try to be more aware of it. 

I don't know what you mean by "intended audience" as that seems to imply that I have some kind of agenda to proselytize. I don't. I tend to post whatever comes to mind or in response to what I read on the forae. 

And I apologize if I seemed dismissive, if anything I was saying "get over it" like a friend would say to another friend who is still pining about a break-up that occurred a year before. Anyhoo...



pawsplay said:


> This is a tangent, probably one that will tidy up in a few posts. I feel _distracted _ by the combination of your assumptions and your apparent lack of interest in modifying those assumptions, or at least your mannever of expressing them. As long as you are trying to tell people to "get over it," whatever specific phrasing you use to communicate that attitude, it is likely there will continue to be distractions. Please seriously consider what others have said to you; they invested some effort in helping you understand.




Holy condescension, Batman! This is really starting to get into ad hominem territory, pawsplay. Look, I get that I kind of irritate you, but I would really prefer if we kept to the topic at hand rather than you turning it into a discussion about my communication skills (or lack there of). In other words, if you disagree with something I've said, out with it - but don't try to invalidate it with this sort of thing. 

As to the the "others" you talk about, all I'm seeing are you and Danny in this thread. Or was I not awake for the intervention?


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> And I apologize if I seemed dismissive, if anything I was saying "get over it" like a friend would say to another friend who is still pining about a break-up that occurred a year before. Anyhoo...




That wouldn't be a nice thing to do to your friend.


Holy condescension, Batman! This is really starting to get into ad hominem territory, pawsplay. 
[/quote]

I'm confused. In what way am I attacking your character in order to discredit your viewpoint? I have referred only to behaviors evident in this thread. I've said nothing about you personally. "Your apparent lack of interest in modifying those assumptions" is of course an inference and identified as such (hence the term "apparent"). The behavior I am talking about is the same behavior you just demonstrated: you are attacking me rather than address in any way the merits of what I said.



> Look, I get that I kind of irritate you, but I would really prefer if we kept to the topic at hand rather than you turning it into a discussion about my communication skills (or lack there of).




I don't acknowledge that your communication skills are being attacked. Rather, the quality of your arguments are being examined and found lacking.



> In other words, if you disagree with something I've said, out with it - but don't try to invalidate it with this sort of thing.




What sort of thing? I have stated my disagreement with what you've said. 



> To this I can only say: get over it.




I take objection to this expression and the attitude it suggests.



> It is done.




I take issue with you claiming supremacy on the issue and attempting to unilaterally end the discussion as the victor.



> Let it go.




This doesn't sound like friendly advice. It sounds like an invalidation of all viewpoints that disagree with yours.

Unless you're willing to modify you're stance in how we are going to have thid discussion, I suggest that instead of complaining about how your communication style is critiqued, you simply stop participating in the thread, which will make your communication style a non-issue. Or we can attempt to communicate, which will require you to exercise your skills.

Your ball.


----------



## 'Arry

I think one reason that this thread is, so far, 26 pages long, it that some people (me included), can no longer take whatever WotC says at face value.  We have read what Mike Mearls _wrote_; we are trying to figure out what it _means_.

If it means what it says, which I interpret as 'play whatever D&D you like, it's all cool, don't get at other people for playing a different version'; yeah, that's sensible.  Edition warring is counter productive and silly.

If Mearls' comment doesn't mean what it says . . . then you have a 26+ page thread discussing it.


----------



## Mercurius

Pawsplay, this is a waste of time. We obviously don't see eye to eye or have a lot of room to communicate, at least in this context. I'm not interested in the kind of discussion you seem to want to have, which my guess will only satisfy you if you "win." I'm not into a win-lose argument; I'm interested in discussion. As I see it, you are _not _interested in discussing the actual topic or substance of what I wrote, just how I said it, which is a matter of rhetoric and, quite frankly, rather tedious. Sorry, but I'm not interested.

Your two choices for me are a joke: You want me to either stop participating in the thread or play this little game with you, evidently by your rules. How about a third option: We stop wasting our time with this ridiculous back and forth and, well, get over it?


----------



## mxyzplk

thedungeondelver said:


> Here we've come full circle.  In my original post I said "Folks who say 'get over it' and 'play what D&D you like' certainly have a point" because that's all you're really in a position to do.  I don't expect anything more, really.  Okay!  Message received!  Thanks for listening and stopping to reply to me...but - *and this is key* - when the public face of Wizards of the Coast says "it's all D&D" and he absolutely has the pull with the company as the brand manager to say "hey you know what, if I'm going to go out there with with a 'let's all play under the big tent message' maybe we can actually, you know, make it a big tent" and won't, or won't indicate that they can or ever will, then "it's all D&D" from the offices of WotC is hollow and cynical.




This. Mearls isn't "some internet guy," he's the main representative of WotC's D&D interests. If WotC really does believe this, they can put their money where their mouth is. But you don't wipe away a history of hostile behavior with a "Can't we all just get along" speech. From the GSL poison pill to pulling licenses to pulling PDFs to the advertising to not allowing the RPGA to play the older games... Every actual action WotC has taken is inimical to people who want to play older eds. So yes, many people consider it to be an insult to their intelligence when they get told "We are all one big family, aren't we?" Well, to use the family analogy, you're the one who threw us out of the house, and now you're shocked we are bitter?

Maybe this is indicative of a sea change at WotC and they really do believe it. The way to prove that is to actually DO SOMETHING that would help prove it. Do I trust Mike Mearls the person?  Sure, don't have any reason not to.  Do I trust the WotC spokesman? No, of course not, and frankly after the last three years it's an unreasonable expectation that everyone would. They have lost much credibility, at least with the people outside the 4e tent, and have to understand that they need to rebuild it. And to rebuild it, they'll have to make meaningful change. Let's hope that actually happens.

Till then, it's just his mouth writing a check his ass can't cash.


----------



## pemerton

thedungeondelver said:


> In my original post I said "Folks who say 'get over it' and 'play what D&D you like' certainly have a point" because that's all you're really in a position to do.  I don't expect anything more, really.  Okay!  Message received!  Thanks for listening and stopping to reply to me...but - *and this is key* - when the public face of Wizards of the Coast says "it's all D&D" and he absolutely has the pull with the company as the brand manager to say "hey you know what, if I'm going to go out there with with a 'let's all play under the big tent message' maybe we can actually, you know, make it a big tent" and won't, or won't indicate that they can or ever will, then "it's all D&D" from the offices of WotC is hollow and cynical.
> 
> And that's what I'm saying.
> 
> *YOU* telling me to shut up and play whatever D&D, player to player, that's one matter.  *HIM* telling me to shut up and play whatever D&D and then not backing it up, that's onerous.  WotC denied themselves money and made it more appealing to people to pirate their stuff.  How dumb was that?



DungeonDelver, this makes sense to me.

I'm not sure about the "WotC denying themselves money" part. They're a business. They do things to make money. I assume that someone in the business has therefore formed the view that not making old PDFs available is a better way to make money. I don't know what their reasoning is, although I would speculate that it has something to do with concerns about brand dilution or other forms of (what they would see as) miscommunication that ultimately might undermine 4e sales/growth. I do know that I'm not really in a position to second-guess a reason that I'm not even sure about.

But the contrast you draw between commuications among fans and communications from the writer/seller/IP holder - that makes absolute sense!


----------



## pemerton

mxyzplk said:


> From the GSL poison pill to pulling licenses to pulling PDFs to the advertising to not allowing the RPGA to play the older games... Every actual action WotC has taken is inimical to people who want to play older eds.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> They have lost much credibility, at least with the people outside the 4e tent, and have to understand that they need to rebuild it.



This, on the other hand, I can't really get behind. Whereas the Dungeon Delver's response _turns precisely_ on the contrast between a personal communication and a communication from the representative of a commercial entity, this response seems not to appreciate that difference.

In particular, what is this "credibility" thing? I've played games (ICE games, to be precise) where whole lines have gone out of sale and support because an IP holder (Tolkien Enterprises) severed its connection to the company. Does this mean that Tolkien Enterprises has "lost credibility" with me and I boycott Peter Jackson's movies? No. It's a commercial entity making commercial decisions. This is the reality of an environment where the materials with which we entertain ourselves are privatised and commodified.

WotC, in building in the so-called "poison pill", and in its dealings with the PDFs, and in placing restrictions on the RPGA - it's inhouse gaming club - is simply making commercial decisions about how to best make use of its primary asset, namely, its IP. WotC is under no greater moral obligation, in my view, to make its IP available via a more generous GSL, or via online PDFs, or via a more liberal policy with the RPGA, than is Tolkien Enterprises to make its IP available to ICE for producing MERP RPGs and ME:TW CCGs.

It might be disappointing that a form of entertainment that once was available now is not. But painting this as akin to a moral failing on the part of WotC, when WotC is under no moral duty (that I'm aware of) to deal with its IP in anything other than a commercial fashion, just doesn't work for me.

As for WotC's need to "rebuild credibility" - the somewhat ironic thing here is that the only reason they would have for doing so is the commercial benefit that might accrue to them from making new sales to old fans. It seems strange to me that some people would take a sort of moral or personal validation from what would, in fact, be merely a commercial decision, _driven by exactly the same considerations _as drove the decisions to which the same people earlier objected. It wouldn't be as if WotC (or its designers) had _actually formed a different view_, for example, about the merits of one form of D&D over another.

More bluntly - why would an individual care about the opinion that some commercial entity - be it WotC or whomever else -  has of that individual's hobbies and passtimes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Pemerton,

As I read it, the response you can't get behind is pointing out that the blog post is profoundly hypocritical, unless WotC takes action to back it up.  Want us to accept the "big tent/All Roads" theory of D&D?  Back it up by making that tent/those roads available.  

Failing that, don't tell us you're "big tent" kinds of guys.

WotC can't have it both ways.

It is as simple as that.


RC


----------



## Mercurius

thedungeondelver said:


> For the sake of this reply, I'll stick to verdana.
> 
> _this time_




LOL. Thanks - and sorry to cramp your style. 



thedungeondelver said:


> I don't agree with the *tone* of what Mr. Mearls is saying in his article.




Fair enough. I get that you're pissed about the PDFs - as I've said, I think it was (and still is) a dumb move on WotC's part.

That said, I'm not sure that I would directly link Mearls' article with the PDF Debacle. I mean, I get that he's an integral part of WotC, but to link his article with the PDF Debacle is to essentially say that everything WotC does is Pure Evil, is worthy of distrust and is disingenuous - all because of the PDF Debacle - and that anything that anyone working at WotC says is inherently disingenuous...because of the PDF Debacle.

Let's say your good friend cheats on his girlfriend. Does that mean that anything he says after that point about relationships is inherently suspect? Not necessarily. Now of course with WotC it wasn't just the one isolated incident - there was the monstrous GSL, for example, and the pulling of recent products, and the lack of communication going forward, and the DDI trainwreck, etc. At the very least I think it is safe to say that WotC's PR sucks; at worst, they are only interested in making money and are completely dishonest corporate shills. I'll take the middle ground somewhere in between, probably closer to the "at the very least" side. I take it that you are closer to the "at worst" side?

My sense is that WotC really has no idea what they're doing. They're floundering. All they know is that they aren't pleasing fans, the D&D fan-base is fractured and they've probably lost a ton of folks to Paizo for good. 4E is not _nearly _as possible as they had hoped it would be and they don't know how to fix it. In other words, they blew it - and it isn't just because a lot of folks didn't (and don't) like 4E; that's about half of it; the other half is all of the bad PR stuff. 

I stilldon't see their advertising as being as mean-spirited as you say it was. I can't remember seeing all of it, but to me it sounded rather tongue-in-cheek. 

As for the onerousness of Mearls writing this piece, I am simply not in a place where I can make a strong judgment either way. I (and presumably you) don't know what goes on in the offices at WotC. For all we know things are tense; there might be different camps within the company, folks that want to offer the PDFs again and abolish the GSL, and folks that care only about pleasing Hasbro and only look at the bottom line. 

Who knows? I don't, which is why I'm not going to assume that Mike Mearls is a total slimeball and I'm going to take the sentiment of his article at face value and say "Nice article, I agree" while at the same time recognizing that WotC has and continues to make terrible errors in judgment and that I would do things very differently.


----------



## Mercurius

Raven Crowking said:


> Want us to accept the "big tent/All Roads" theory of D&D?  Back it up by making that tent/those roads available.




Done.





Raven Crowking said:


> Failing that, don't tell us you're "big tent" kinds of guys.
> 
> WotC can't have it both ways.
> 
> It is as simple as that.




Seriously though, I can agree with this. I guess I just don't find it all that offensive, or no more offensive than what any other company does. And I also don't think that Mike Mearls can be held responsible for every decision that WotC has made. Bill Slaviscek? I would think he bears a bit more of the responsibility on his shoulders. 

I guess I just wouldn't be cut out to be a business man because I _would _employ "big tent" business practices and maybe lose money for it, or at least not be as profitable as I could be. At least that seems to be the conclusion that most companies come to, which is really too bad.

I personally think this is a fallacy that the vast majority of companies make. I have seen some companies take the high road and really put their customers first and their customers reward them for it. It doesn't seem that WotC has followed that approach, though.


----------



## Mark CMG

Mercurius said:


> That said, I'm not sure that I would directly link Mearls' article with the PDF Debacle. I mean, I get that he's an integral part of WotC, but to link his article with the PDF Debacle is to essentially say that everything WotC does is Pure Evil, is worthy of distrust and is disingenuous - all because of the PDF Debacle - and that anything that anyone working at WotC says is inherently disingenuous...because of the PDF Debacle.





That's essentially the same in your eyes?


----------



## Mercurius

Mark CMG said:


> That's essentially the same in your eyes?




No, not really - or rather, in a manner of speaking. But my point is that we can't link everything to the PDF Debacle. I mean, this is classic human psychology. Let's say you are pissed at your spouse for doing something cruel to you and you have a hard time getting over it. Years go by and you are often mad at him or her and don't trust anything they say. But what you are mad about isn't necessarily what they are saying or doing now but what they did a few years ago.

Now as I said, WotC continues their string of PR blunders, so it isn't just the PDF Debacle. But again, I just don't like the idea of linking two things (Mearls' article and the PDF Debacle) that aren't directly related. I think we can take what he said in the article at face value, that it is probably how he actually feels, but also recognize that there are business considerations that he may or may not be responsibility for (to whatever degree).


----------



## Mark CMG

Mercurius said:


> No, not really - or rather, in a manner of speaking. But my point is that we can't link everything to the PDF Debacle.





Since that isn't what is happening here, I'll just note that the list of logical fallacies you are using to argue with people in this thread is gettng longer.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I'll say this,

This would be a MUCH more positive thread and WotC would have taken a big step forward if the article had been exactly the same, but at the end they had added:

"and that's why we're..."

1. resuming availability of pdfs.
2. expanding the GSL
3. announcing the return to Dungeon and Dragon in print, from PAIZO (still 4e)
4. Releasing a small series of brand new prior edition material.
5. *any other action that actually supported the statement being made*.



EDIT: I hope someone at WotC reads this thread and it helps them to understand the viewpoint/perspective fans currently have of the company, as well as how the actions of the company in the past few years have shaped that viewpoint/perspective. Sadly, I suspect that their current M.O. interpreting fan viewpoints/perspectives is "it's all nerd rage" and "we can't do anything right, someone will always be mad at us." 

Maybe someone would be....but, as said earlier, better behavior and PR wouldn't have a 26 page discussion involving more than just a single someone. What they've been doing has made several "someones" mad...and they could realy improve the numbers with some better PR and policy.


----------



## BryonD

IMO there is a mistake being made in that there is a presumption of WotC focus on old players as their target market.

I'm not saying they don't want "us".  They do.  But, they saw 1,000,000 birds in the bush as worth 100 times 10,000 birds in the hand.  That was their marketing strategy out of the gate with 4E.  They wanted non table top RPG players to become new players.  And not just the normal development of new players, but a whole new market footprint.  Who cares if they lose half their birds in the hand if they gain back 100 times that from the bush?  On paper that sounds like a solid  policy.  The problem is, those bush birds have no interest in ever being table top gamers, and their willingness to play MMOs does not change that.

But just because that lesson has been demonstrated the hard way does not mean it has been learned.

IMO WotC is annoyed and disappointed about the 5,000+ birds that they lost from their hand.  But, when they look at getting those 5,000+ back, they still see a hell of a lot less birds than the 1,000,000 they didn't get before.  And their attention is still focused on the big prize.

I still see that effort to capture the 1,000,000 as a pipe dream.  But giving them advice on how to recover the lost 5,000+ assumes they have stopped dreaming.  They have not.


----------



## Dannager

BryonD said:


> The problem is, those bush birds have no interest in ever being table top gamers, and their willingness to play MMOs does not change that.




This is _bananas_. Go to PAX. Find a spot, and just watch as hundreds of MMO-playing teens and twenty-somethings line up to try out D&D for the first time.

That's not to say that all MMO players are ripe for the plucking, but the fact is that there are _gajillions_ of potential tabletop players who would try the game out (and, probably, enjoy the hell out of it) if given the chance, and many of them would become customers.

Our hobby has _never_ had a problem with people not enjoying the hobby itself. D&D is fun. It's got a track record that proves it, and it's a type of fun that isn't replaced by MMOs (at least, nothing like any MMO that's ever been produced to date). Our hobby's biggest problem is with making the game accessible for new players - making it easy to understand, easy to run, and providing opportunities for people to try the game out without having to invest in it.

WotC knows this, and it is the driving principle behind their entire brand strategy.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> This is _bananas_. Go to PAX. Find a spot, and just watch as hundreds of MMO-playing teens and twenty-somethings line up to try out D&D for the first time.



"Hundreds", "first time".  Absolutely.



> That's not to say that all MMO players are ripe for the plucking, but the fact is that there are _gajillions_ of potential tabletop players who would try the game out (and, probably, enjoy the hell out of it) if given the chance, and many of them would become customers.
> 
> Our hobby has _never_ had a problem with people not enjoying the hobby itself. D&D is fun. It's got a track record that proves it, and it's a type of fun that isn't replaced by MMOs (at least, nothing like any MMO that's ever been produced to date). Our hobby's biggest problem is with making the game accessible for new players - making it easy to understand, easy to run, and providing opportunities for people to try the game out without having to invest in it.



"Gajillions" seems a good choice of number, being as it is fictional.

I agree that the hobby has never had a problem with having a solid fan base.  I in no way challenged that.  But, that fan base is a more or less understood subset of the population.  Trying to pretend that your market is not what it is, that is the problem.

I think the claim that accessibility is the problem is far more "bananas" than my claim.  D&D is vastly more accessible than it was during the original "golden age".

And I think the obsession with "easy" is just a insult to the intellect of the kids who ARE potential long term gamers.  As has been described in detail, early D&D was highly complex.  The complexities were very different than the complexities of current versions, but they were still there.  And the game thrived on fans who LOVED that.  

Now WotC is trying to follow your advice and they are turning off the serious potential gamers who are not interested in "easy" in exchange for being a three second fad amongst people who are never going to be long term table top players.



> WotC knows this, and it is the driving principle behind their entire brand strategy.



I agree they *think* they know it and I agree they are acting on this belief.  

And the stumbling decline and deeply split market are the results.


----------



## Mercurius

BryonD said:


> IMO there is a mistake being made in that there is a presumption of WotC focus on old players as their target market.
> 
> _Etc...._




Perhaps we could say that post-4E release Mistake #1 was taking the "birds in hand" for granted, or at least assuming that they would draw enough newbies to more than make up for those that they lost. But I don't see how they could have predicted just how many 3.5ers they would lose, that wouldn't come back. Their early PR guffaws like the GSL and PDF issues just compacted the issue. To make matters worse (from WotC's perspective), quite a few folks went over to Pathfinder, which was created under WotC's very own OGL. 
You're probably right that it is a pipe dream to try to win over the "birds in the bush," or at least a large portion of them. But what else can they do at this point? What do _you _think they should do? Could they actually win back the 3.5/Pathfinder crowd? I don't think so. Even if they groveled and apologized for making fun of 3.5 and did everything on Aberzanorax's list--and even killed 4E and pretended it never happened, instead making 5E a continuation of 3.5....I still don't think it would matter, at least not yet. Maybe in another year or two once Pathfinder's luster wears off a bit.

So the only thing WotC _can _do at this point, imo at least, is keep on trying to find ways to catch some of those birds-in-the-bush. The problem is, and has been, twofold: How to attract new players and keep them? And, as a subset of that question, how to transform casual players into diehards? 

Pathfinder will probably downsize a bit at some point, but I think they've created a formula that--if they stick to it and don't corporatize--will keep a strong diehard core. WotC shouldn't waste time and energy trying to win those folks back. 

All that said, I like Aberzanzorax's list and honestly don't know why any of that would be such a problem, although think 3 and 4 are pipe dreams.


----------



## pemerton

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'll say this,
> 
> This would be a MUCH more positive thread and WotC would have taken a big step forward if the article had been exactly the same, but at the end they had added:
> 
> "and that's why we're..."
> 
> 1. resuming availability of pdfs.
> 2. expanding the GSL
> 3. announcing the return to Dungeon and Dragon in print, from PAIZO (still 4e)
> 4. Releasing a small series of brand new prior edition material.
> 5. *any other action that actually supported the statement being made*.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I hope someone at WotC reads this thread and it helps them to understand the viewpoint/perspective fans currently have of the company



I think that 2, 3 and 4 are completely unreaslistic.

The GSL is already very generous _by the standards of commercial IP sharing_. It is not as generous as releasing the d20 SRD under the OGL, but - from WotC's point of view - that must be regarded as somewhat of a debacle, given that OGL+SRD is the very vehicle whereby Paizo are now taking on WotC at it's own game of producing the world's best selling tabletop fantasy RPG.

(I know there is a school of thought which says that many of those who are playing Pathfinder would have just stuck with 3E, or given up altogether, in the face of 4e. I tend to incline to the other school of thought, that the endurance in the marketplace of a widely known and widely supported competitor is a burden on the growth of 4e. And it's the OGL+SRD that make Pathfinder possible.)

3 would involve WotC entering into a licensing agreement with its largest commercial rival. Not unheard of, I guess, but in all the circumstances, and given the history, and given WotC's apparent intention to focus even more on online release of material under the banners of Dungeon and Dragon, extremely improbable. This would be for WotC to completely abandon its current approach, and to concede to Paizo.

4 is unrealistic both from a brand point of view - WotC (rightly or wrongly) seem very concerned about diluting the 4e D&D brand - and also from the point of view of commercial reality. As it is, WotC seems to have a shortage of writer-hours (hence the noted current dearth of new material).

I assume that WotC also regards the PDFs as unviable from a commercial point of view - else it would release them - and I assume that brand diluation is their main concern. Whether or not that concern is misplaced, I doubt that reading this thread would radically change their minds! I think that those who want the PDFs back would be better advised explaining how the PDFs being available would _support and grow 4e and DDI_. Whereas most people who want the PDFs back tend to talk about how these will _help them play Pathfinder, or some retro-clone, or otherwise keep going with a non-4e edition_, and how _prior-4e editions are highly interconvertible, whereas 4e is a radical break from the past_. This may all be true, but it just seems to be a list of reasons that, from WotC's point of view, are reasons not to want to make the PDFs available!

It's a while since I've seen a thread from a Pathfinder-player or retro-clone player talk about how they're using The Plane Above in their game, or the Underdark, or adapting the 4e mixed elementals into d20 form. I think this might be what Mearls has in mind when he's saying it's all D&D - maybe he's saying that 4e is D&D too, and that those who don't play 4e might still be interested in the game elements that it has to offer. If I wanted to persuade WotC that it was worth their while to engage with the players of earlier versions by releasing the PDFs, this is at least the sort of impression that I'd be trying to create.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> And I think the obsession with "easy" is just a insult to the intellect of the kids who ARE potential long term gamers.



I think by _easy_ Dannager is meaning not just inherent complexity but ease of presentation, ease in terms of time, etc.



BryonD said:


> Now WotC is trying to follow your advice and they are turning off the serious potential gamers who are not interested in "easy" in exchange for being a three second fad amongst people who are never going to be long term table top players.



Is this meant to be a characterisation of 4e? Encounters? What exactly is the target of your denigration here?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

"Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in a war
For a lead role in a cage?"


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> I assume that WotC also regards the PDFs as unviable from a commercial point of view - else it would release them - and I assume that brand diluation is their main concern. Whether or not that concern is misplaced, I doubt that reading this thread would radically change their minds! I think that those who want the PDFs back would be better advised explaining how the PDFs being available would _support and grow 4e and DDI_. Whereas most people who want the PDFs back tend to talk about how these will _help them play Pathfinder, or some retro-clone, or otherwise keep going with a non-4e edition_, and how _prior-4e editions are highly interconvertible, whereas 4e is a radical break from the past_. This may all be true, but it just seems to be a list of reasons that, from WotC's point of view, are reasons not to want to make the PDFs available!




Excellent point - and I would also like to hear someone explain why WotC offering their PDFs would help them grow 4E and DDI, because that is what they are primarily interested in doing.

I can offer one thought: It would create goodwill among those not interested in 4E who might feel more inclined to buy an occasional 4E product because they aren't apoplectic about WotC's latest PR blunder. But in the larger scheme of things, I think this is a very small group of people.


----------



## Mercurius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Did they get you to trade
> Your heroes for ghosts?
> Hot ashes for trees?
> Hot air for a cool breeze?
> Cold comfort for change?
> And did you exchange
> A walk on part in a war
> For a lead role in a cage?"




My sentiment was more like:

_Doctors imprisoning me,
All that I see,
Absolute horror,
I cannot live,
I cannot die,
Trapped in myself,
My body my holding ceeellll!!!


_


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> Their early PR guffaws like the GSL



I think this is a bit unfair. Even with the so-called "poison pill", the GSL was a very generous sharing of commercial IP.

The OGL + SRD was an experiment. From the point of view of WotC it must surely count as at best a mixed success. It is very hard to know how much the availability of d20-licensed material contributed to the growth of 3E. My personal view is that pure OGL+SRD games - like Arcana Unearthed, Conan etc contributed little or nothing to the growth of 3E - and that they more likely redirected consumers away from WotC. If WotC shares my view, then from there point of view the question becomes - how can we leverage whatever advantage we might get from d20-style material, without exposing ourselves in the way that we did with pure OGL+SRD? The GSL is one candidate answer to this question.

Here's another way of looking at it. Dancey's professed goal with the OGL was to lock in the d20 SRD as _the_ default RPG for mainstream gaming. The growing success of Pathfinder suggests that Dancey's goal here has been accomplished to a significant extent. Certainly, releasing the world's best selling RPG rules under a non-revocable, indefinite, free licence seems always to have had a good chance of producing this result.

But this was _only_ in WotC's commercial interests if it could be taken for granted that they would always do the best out of d20 sales. Dancey seems to have believed that this was so. Assuming that WotC is even half-rational as a commercial actor, it's decision to break from the SRD shows that this was in fact not true - hence the move to 4e. And in light of this realisation, hence the move away from an SRD+OGL model and towards the GSL instead.

When you look at the situation from the commercial perspective of WotC - which includes, assuming that they're even half-rational, their appreciation of the need to shift the mainstream RPG market _away_ from OGL+SRD games and onto games which WotC (in virtue of retaining control over the IP) dominates the market - you can also get a better handle on their ads for 4e. For those ads to work, they had to rapidly shift the bulk of WotC's customer base from 3E to 4e. Any delay in effectiveness would give time for Pathfinder (or some similar OGL+SRD competitor) to emerge, effectively stifling 4e at its creation. In fact the ads didn't work, and something like this has happened - but from WotC's point of view _it's not as if anything has been lost_. They had to try it, and perhaps those ads were the best that they could come up with.

Now all the above has been written from the point of view of WotC as a commercial entity. From the point of view of a player of RPGs, it's rather different. For those who like diversity, the OGL+SRD was a great thing. But reality is still a constraint. It's simply _irrational_ both to be thankful for the diversification in the market that was made possible by the OGL+STD, _and_ to be regretful that the company which _was_ the market leader has moved on and is trying to leave OGL+SRD games behind. You can't rationally both enjoy the destruction of the monopoly, and be regretful about the consequecnes of that destruction for WotC's publication schedule and it's ongoing attitude towards the IP that it continues to control.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> Excellent point - and I would also like to hear someone explain why WotC offering their PDFs would help them grow 4E and DDI, because that is what they are primarily interested in doing.
> 
> I can offer one thought: It would create goodwill among those not interested in 4E who might feel more inclined to buy an occasional 4E product because they aren't apoplectic about WotC's latest PR blunder. But in the larger scheme of things, I think this is a very small group of people.



I agree that it is probably a small group of people. I don't know how widespread it is beyond posters on these boards, but many of those postsers seem also to have bought the 4e "core three" rulebooks - which means, from WotC's point of view, they have not been lost to 4e at all.

What WotC needs is for those who currently don't play 4e to start games that will grow the 4e market. And the mere goodwill of releasing the PDFs won't do that. In fact it has the opposite effect, of making it even easier to run Pathfinder or a retro-clone. (At least if we take for granted that conversion among pre-4e versions is easier - a view that seems to be fairly widely held among those who want the PDFs back.)


----------



## Mercurius

The worst part about the GSL wasn't the GSL itself, but how late it came out coupled with the $5,000 early entry fee. If I remember correctly, it wasn't until after the release of 4E and a ton of 3PP went under because they couldn't ante up the $5k and/or wait the period of time (six months) when it became free. But I could be mis-remembering.

But yeah, I hear you about the difference between viewing WotC as a commercial entity and looking at this as a player. Forgetting the former, it is all too easy to take a "What have you done for me lately" attitude. But it is also nice to have more options and the D&D world seems a lot more barren under the GSL.

That said, Sturgeon's Law applied quite forcefully to d20 products as a ton of what came out form 3PP form 2000 to 2008 was pretty crappy. For every one great product like _Book of the Righteous _and _Wilderlands of High Fantasy _there were a hundred or more mediocre (or worse) products that just clogged the shelves. I remember feeling that shopping the d20 shelves at game stores was like looking for a needle in a haystack. Actually, it still is as a lot of stores still have the same books they had on their shelves in 2002.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> I agree that it is probably a small group of people. I don't know how widespread it is beyond posters on these boards, but many of those postsers seem also to have bought the 4e "core three" rulebooks - which means, from WotC's point of view, they have not been lost to 4e at all.
> 
> What WotC needs is for those who currently don't play 4e to start games that will grow the 4e market. And the mere goodwill of releasing the PDFs won't do that. In fact it has the opposite effect, of making it even easier to run Pathfinder or a retro-clone. (At least if we take for granted that conversion among pre-4e versions is easier - a view that seems to be fairly widely held among those who want the PDFs back.)




Pemerton, you're dangerously close to convincing me that it was/is actually a smart business decision to keep the PDFs under lock-and-key. I'm still teetering, though. I have a hard time getting around the goodwill thing, and I just don't think that selling the PDFs would dilute the 4E market all that much. I suppose it would probably be a zero-sum game.

As I've said, at this point I think 90% of the Pathfinder crowd are lost to WotC, at least until 5E comes out. Now if they offered the PDFs at least they would have something to sell to those folks, but let's be honest - most folks wanting a PDF of, say, _Tyrants of the Nine Hells _just goes and downloads it off some torrent. As I've been saying, the PDF issue is more a matter of PR than actual economics.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius, I'm not trying to do that! I've bought some of those PDFs in the past, after all, and might buy some more if they became available.

I'm just trying to offer suggestions of _what WotC might be thinking_, given that they're acting at least somewhat rationally from their point of view. And the brand dilution/support to competition aspect is the main thing that I can see.



Mercurius said:


> The worst part about the GSL wasn't the GSL itself, but how late it came out coupled with the $5,000 early entry fee. If I remember correctly, it wasn't until after the release of 4E and a ton of 3PP went under because they couldn't ante up the $5k and/or wait the period of time (six months) when it became free. But I could be mis-remembering.



You're misremembering. I can't remember the precise sequence of events, but the whole "early adopter for money" scheme was abandoned as the relevant deadline for availability of the GSL and the draft SRD was missed by WotC.

What I think is more telling about the GSL saga is not that it shows how stingy WotC has become (as I've already posted, and posted back at the time that the GSL thing was happening, it's unrealistic to expect an entertainment company to give away its IP _merely out of generosity_ - and WotC obviously feels commercially burned by the OGL, and so is not inclined to go the OGL+SRD route again). Rather it is an early sign of WotC's inability to come up with a clear strategy in relation to 4e. First they dithered over the GSL, couldn't agree on the best version, and ended up losing the cooperation of at least some 3PP who might have been 4e supporters (Necromancer in particular comes to mind). Then there seems to have been dithering and a lack of clear direction over the DDI, which by all accounts is still continuing (I'm not a subscriber myself). Then there is the dithering and lack of clear direction over the print publications.

WotC seem to me to have a good game - 4e - but a great deal of uncertainty about how to get it to sell in sufficient commercial volume.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> What WotC needs is for those who currently don't play 4e to start games that will grow the 4e market.




True...and speaking as one of the only 2 people out of a group of more than 10+ who have purchased some 4Ed*, putting certain things- like alternative builds for classes- behind the paywall isn't ncessarily drawing 'em in.  (By way of comparison, only two people in the group don't own any 3.X stuff.)





* only one of us plans to run any 4Ed- I'm never going to, so I'm only buying player-centric releases.


----------



## pawsplay

I am not a lawyer. The following is just some information I have picked up along the way. Please consult a lawyer before considering any action based on the information here. Hopefully, you know better than to regard off the cuff comments on a message board as researched legal advice, but just in case: don't.

That said,



pemerton said:


> I think this is a bit unfair. Even with the so-called "poison pill", the GSL was a very generous sharing of commercial IP.
> 
> The OGL + SRD was an experiment. From the point of view of WotC it must surely count as at best a mixed success.




Actually, the original GSL was incredibly stingy. It was in almost every way worse and more legally risky than using no license at all. The OGL+SRD thing was an experiment but not a risky one. From the beginning, the OGL served the interests of WotC, but not simply in establishing market dominance. The OGL protected WotC by decreasing the chances they would end up in a costly legal battle with a third party publisher.

Let's review a few basics about IP.
1. You can't copyright rules or ideas, only expressions of ideas.
2. You can't copyright or patent prior art or trivial inventions.
3. Not only can you claim compatibility with other people's products, it's restraint of trade for them to unduly interfere with you producing compatible products. 
4. Fair use covers a lot of things, including a lot of stuff that many corporations wish or think it doesn't. However, there's a big gray area in implementation, and no one wants to go there, unless they just want to spend lots of money and be worse off than they were. That is why big companies resort to IP fraud; if they can intimidate people into staying away from their properties, they can avoid the costs of actually going to court.
5. You can't copyright simple lists or information.
6. You can't copyright titles.
7. You can't copyright ordinary phrases.

Think about how much that covers in a roleplaying game. As long as you don't plagiarize sentences or paragraphs, there's a lot you can do with that. Many people don't realize this, but Kingdoms of Kalamar began as an unauthorized AD&D campaign sourcebook. Not only did they not get sued, early in the 3e lifecycle Kenzer got a license to produce official D&D Kingdoms of Kalamar. 

So, a merely _average _ GSL would grant at a minimum, free and clear, all the things you can already do without a license. A generous license? We have never seen such a thing from WotC. The GSL was intended for one purpose only: to limit and restrict access to WotC's IP. In exchange for capitulating, WotC agrees not to frivalously sue you. Unless they feel like it, or unless it's Wednesday.


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> Excellent point - and I would also like to hear someone explain why WotC offering their PDFs would help them grow 4E and DDI, because that is what they are primarily interested in doing.




I would like to hear how keeping old PDFs legally unavailable is helping them grow the D&D brand. Do they want to turn fans of their vintage products into pirates and then sue them out of the hobby?


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True...and speaking as one of the only 2 people out of a group of more than 10+ who have purchased some 4Ed*, putting certain things- like alternative builds for classes- behind the paywall isn't ncessarily drawing 'em in.



I'm also a non-subscriber to DDI, and so miss out on some stuff for the same reason.

I think the tension here is between the "new" model - of subscription-based RPG material - and the "old model" - of books and boxed sets.

The fact that this tension gets caught up in various ways with the "new" D&D/ "old" D&D tension is just another complexity of WotC's current market situation.

Another interesting qusetion (for me, at least) is what it is about WotC that appears to making it institutionally incapable of tackling Paizo on Paizo's home turf (ie adventures). If WotC could do this, then perhaps it would be able to do what you (ie Dannyalcatraz) have suggested in the past, namely, support both 3E and 4e.

But WotC seems to take for granted that fighting on the OGL+SRD front is hopeless. Which means that it is (apparently) taking for granted that it can't beat Paizo on adventures. Why not?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Anyone can write an adventure.  Not everyone can write an adventure worth buying.

I can't tell you about WotC's internal structure, their politics or what they're willing to pay writers as opposed to Paizo or other companies.  But if they can't find quality adventure writers, it's on them.


----------



## Mark CMG

pemerton said:


> Another interesting qusetion (for me, at least) is what it is about WotC that appears to making it institutionally incapable of tackling Paizo on Paizo's home turf (ie adventures).





Asking many of the Paizo employees where they used to work might glean your answer.


----------



## Saracenus

I get the flu for 4 days (fever broke this morning finally) and the sniping continues. This makes me a sad Panda.

To all of you still hurting/smarting/seething @ WotC over whatever perceived (real or imagined) slights I hear you. I have heard you for several years now. I acknowledge your right to feel slighted/personally betrayed/angry.

While I acknowledge what you are saying I respectfully do not acquiesce to your point of view.

Having born witness to the boneheaded maneuvers by WotC last year (and their were many) most of them sprang from poor communication and not setting appropriate customer expectations.

They have begun to redeem themselves in this regard in the past few months. They are talking via their website (and most of that talk is outside the paywall) and they are talking at Cons (D&D XP being the latest). When something is not working out, they let us know and why.

There are still hiccups, yes. For instance I know that at last Gen Con they opened up their play area to any edition of D&D published by TSR/WotC (yes, this excludes Paizo and the retro-clones). Was this communicated far and wide, no.

Only time will tell if this leads to a better community around D&D and WotC.

As to the PDF issue, frankly piracy was the biggest reason they yanked them. Yes, I am well aware that this was not their shining moment of greatness. It was an overreaction.

But the deed is done. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to return. Frankly, the opportunity cost of diverting resources for researching a way to deliver the content while dealing with their fears of piracy is too great. The time, manpower and money spent on it would never outpace the revenues generated by newer content created with those same resources.

Goodwill is not enough. Margins on RPGs are too tight to put out a loss leader that doesn't really lead to people buying your new product.

In the end, I cannot apply a balm to your many wounds folks nor can I make your pain go away. That is totally within your control.

The only happy in my control is at the table. Its my hope that eventually I will see some you there and we play a bit of D&D (version negotiable) together. You are all part of the tribe (even Mearls).

My Two Coppers,


----------



## Dannager

pemerton said:


> I think by _easy_ Dannager is meaning not just inherent complexity but ease of presentation, ease in terms of time, etc.



Exactly.

I have no interest in seeing D&D become a less complex game, and I don't think WotC does either. But clarifying presentation to make that complexity easier to digest is a huge deal, as is lowering the bar to entry and degrading the learning curve.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> I am not a lawyer.



I teach law, including private law (in particular, equity and trusts) in a leading Australian law school. That experience informs some of my opinions about the OGL and the GSL.



pawsplay said:


> the original GSL was incredibly stingy. It was in almost every way worse and more legally risky than using no license at all.



Except that it allowed you to market your goods using WotC's trade dress. What is the value of that? I don't know, but given the number of products that marketed themselves using the d20 logo and references to WotC's Player's Handbook, I would guess that the value is non-neglible.

The GSL also permitted use of a range of terms in a context that WotC might argue infringed upon its copyright, without running the risk of a suit for breach of copyright. That is also, perhaps, of non-negligible value.



pawsplay said:


> The OGL+SRD thing was an experiment but not a risky one. From the beginning, the OGL served the interests of WotC, but not simply in establishing market dominance. The OGL protected WotC by decreasing the chances they would end up in a costly legal battle with a third party publisher.



Well, opinions obviously differ, but I would call it risky to give everyone in the world a free irrevocable licence to reprint vast chunks of my text, when the only asset that I own is my text. Which is what the OGL+SRD did.

The risk started to come home to roost with the Mongoose mini-PHBs, and the OGL+SRD games like Conan and Arcana Evolved, and has now been fully realised with Pathfinder.

If these games had been published without the protection of the OGL+SRD, my view is that it would not be WotC which would be running the risk of a costly legal battle, but rather the 3PP publishers who would have found themselves on the loosing end of such a battle. As far as these sorts of publications are concerned, the OGL+SRD doesn't protect WotC but rather disarms it.

Dancey, back in 2000, expressed the view that WotC would continue to do well because sales of the PHB would dominate. He took for granted that no other company would rival WotC for sale of core books. In my view, Dancey has turned out to be wrong about this.



pawsplay said:


> Let's review a few basics about IP.
> 1. You can't copyright rules or ideas, only expressions of ideas.
> 2. You can't copyright or patent prior art or trivial inventions.
> 3. Not only can you claim compatibility with other people's products, it's restraint of trade for them to unduly interfere with you producing compatible products.



But the laws of copyright still protect WotC's text, including its rules text. And the law of trademarks and of passing off still protect its trade dress. Clark Peterson is on record, for example, as saying that OSRIC is an unlawful infringement of WotC's rights. I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to make a call with the same forcefulness that Clark did, but I can certainly see where he's coming from. And I understand that Kenzer has expressed similar views (although in this latter case I haven't read them, I've only seen second-hand references to them).

Is it possible to write up a module, or even a rulebook, which would deliver a 3E or AD&D experience, without infringing on WotC's rights? Possibly. But that is not what the OGL+SRD games do. They use WotC's text, both to express the rules in such a way as to make it clear that what is being promised is a D&D game, and also as part of a broader strategy of hanging on the coattails of WotC's trade dress and market position.

The OGL+SRD (plus in some cases the d20 licence) is what makes this possible rather than a potentially serious breach of WotC's rights.



pawsplay said:


> 4. Fair use covers a lot of things, including a lot of stuff that many corporations wish or think it doesn't. However, there's a big gray area in implementation, and no one wants to go there, unless they just want to spend lots of money and be worse off than they were. That is why big companies resort to IP fraud; if they can intimidate people into staying away from their properties, they can avoid the costs of actually going to court.



There is no exact analogue to US fair use in Australian law, so I'm hesitant to comment too much, but I would be very surprised if fair use extended in the US to protect purely commercial use of large chunks of someone else's copyrighted text, in the absence of some sort of commentary, satire etc.



pawsplay said:


> 5. You can't copyright simple lists or information.
> 6. You can't copyright titles.
> 7. You can't copyright ordinary phrases.



I don't think that any of this is very relevant to the SRD, which contains much more than simple lists, many non-ordinary phrases, and much more than just titles. Furthermore, the "work", in this case, I think would include the whole mode of organisation and presentation of that content, which is obviously aped by the OGL+SRD games.



pawsplay said:


> Think about how much that covers in a roleplaying game. As long as you don't plagiarize sentences or paragraphs, there's a lot you can do with that. Many people don't realize this, but Kingdoms of Kalamar began as an unauthorized AD&D campaign sourcebook. Not only did they not get sued, early in the 3e lifecycle Kenzer got a license to produce official D&D Kingdoms of Kalamar.



As I understand it, this licence was as part of a settlement agreement pertaining to WotC's breach of Kenzer's copyright in some material reproduced in the Dragon Archive. I don't think that this establishes anything about the legal viability of 3rd party material, and certainly not of OGL+SRD games like Pathfinder and OGL Conan.

Undoubtedly, I can publish a gameworld suitable for use in D&D without breaching any of WotC's rights. For example, Terry Amthors' Shadowworld - published with ICE game stats - is an example of such a thing.

But as soon as I start inlcuding D&D stats, or explaining how the world is to be understood in D&D terms or expressed using D&D mechanics, let alone start using the term "D&D" in my marketing material, the matter gets a lot more complicated. In my view it is non-trivial to do this sort of thing without infringing WotC's rights. Whereas the whole point of the OGL+STD (plus d20 licence in many cases) is to make this lawful - WotC shares its rights in response for (i) a recognition of its rights, defined _very_ expansively, by the party with whom it is sharing, and (ii) a commitment to abide by the terms of the licence.

The GSL does much the same thing, although (i) it offers access to a narrower range of text, (ii) it offers access to a better range of trade dress, and (iii) it is not irrevocable. The revocability of the GSL is what makes it suited to modest individual ventures like the Goodman DDCs, but not to amibitious and ongoing adventures like a Pathfinder rulebook. This is how WotC has "solved", from its point of view, the problem of equipping its own competition.



pawsplay said:


> So, a merely _average _ GSL would grant at a minimum, free and clear, all the things you can already do without a license.



Why would it do that? Apart from anything else, such a licence may fail as a contract if no consideration is flowing from the 3PP to WotC. And who needs a licence to do what is already legal.

The point of the GSL is that the 3PP, in return for getting something from WotC - namely, permission to use WotC copyrighted text and trademarks - gives something to WotC, namely, a commitment to abide by the terms of the licence. Don't like the terms? Don't take up the licence. But then, if you don't want to be sued, don't publish using WotC trademarks either.



pawsplay said:


> In exchange for capitulating, WotC agrees not to frivalously sue you.



In a commercial environment, I don't think that enforcing one's rights in respect of copyrighted text or trademarks is frivolous.



pawsplay said:


> A generous license? We have never seen such a thing from WotC. The GSL was intended for one purpose only: to limit and restrict access to WotC's IP.



No. It's purpose is to _regulate _access to WotC's IP. The law already restricts such access - that what it means to call it intellectual _property_.

As for the question of generosity - I think that offering permission to all and sundry to sell products using your trademarks can be fairly described as a generous offer. Which is why I so described it. What other trademark holder with recognition on a level comparable to D&d does this? I don't know one of the top of my head - are there nevertheless many that do so?


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Anyone can write an adventure.  Not everyone can write an adventure worth buying.
> 
> I can't tell you about WotC's internal structure, their politics or what they're willing to pay writers as opposed to Paizo or other companies.  But if they can't find quality adventure writers, it's on them.





Mark CMG said:


> Asking many of the Paizo employees where they used to work might glean your answer.



I know the history of Paizo and where a lot of its staff came from. I was more thinking that WotC has been able to recruit a great many leading designers of RPGs - Mearls, Heinsoo, Tweet, Laws etc - and its inability to do the same for adventure writers is therefore striking. (I've got not reason to suppose, for example, that adventure writers demand higher pay or refuse to work for WotC on principle.)

To pick up on something Dannyalcatraz alludes to: is there something about the development or editorial culture at WotC that stops good adventures being produced?


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> Except that it allowed you to market your goods using WotC's trade dress. What is the value of that? I don't know, but given the number of products that marketed themselves using the d20 logo and references to WotC's Player's Handbook, I would guess that the value is non-neglible.




Non-negligible, perhaps. I personally wouldn't offer a lot in return for it. Consider Green Ronin and Mutants & Masterminds. At one point, it was supposed to be a d20 System game. When the sticking points became too sticky, they ditched the logo and went purely OGL. Obviously, that worked out pretty well for them.

How much value does that logo have over a phrase along the lines of "compatible with the world's most popular fantasy role-playing game?" Good question.



> The GSL also permitted use of a range of terms in a context that WotC might argue infringed upon its copyright, without running the risk of a suit for breach of copyright. That is also, perhaps, of non-negligible value.




But it is equally of value to WotC, if not moreso. By offering the license, they spare themselves the expense of taking legal action in legally gray areas.



> Well, opinions obviously differ, but I would call it risky to give everyone in the world a free irrevocable licence to reprint vast chunks of my text, when the only asset that I own is my text. Which is what the OGL+SRD did.




Again, if I give it away, I don't have to worry about what to sue people for.



> The risk started to come home to roost with the Mongoose mini-PHBs, and the OGL+SRD games like Conan and Arcana Evolved,




What market share did Mongoose capture? I consider that case to be negligible, as WotC boldly predicted it to be, as it turned out, in fact, to be. Regardless of what's in the book, WotC owns the D&D trademark and has a large-scale publishing business with access to distribution. Mongoose was stuck with "Pocket Player's Guide" which is an uninspiring, to say the least, title.



> and has now been fully realised with Pathfinder.




There's a big wall of wax. To summarize, though, in the absence of Pathfinder, my response would not have been to play 4e, but probably a more earnest boycott of WotC. Further, the enticement would have been all but irresistible for someone to reverse engineer the OGL material... and then you have no leash on the beast at all. Would WotC rather see a CC-SA version of the 3.5 player's handbook floating around, neatly skirting their copyrighted text but providing you with all the material you need to use existing 3e product?



> If these games had been published without the protection of the OGL+SRD, my view is that it would not be WotC which would be running the risk of a costly legal battle, but rather the 3PP publishers who would have found themselves on the loosing end of such a battle. As far as these sorts of publications are concerned, the OGL+SRD doesn't protect WotC but rather disarms it.




I cannot discern how there is a winning side in such a situation, unless you count the lawyers. 



> Dancey, back in 2000, expressed the view that WotC would continue to do well because sales of the PHB would dominate. He took for granted that no other company would rival WotC for sale of core books. In my view, Dancey has turned out to be wrong about this.




That's because Dancey thought the OGL would be a going concern for some time. The GSL and WotC's adversarial stance toward an existing 3pp community is what brought about Pathfinder. All Wotc has to do was... nothing. Let 3e languish as a PDF. Move on with whatever they wanted to do with 4e. But somebody, at some point, felt they had to exert control. Control over something they did not understand as well as they thought they did.



> But the laws of copyright still protect WotC's text, including its rules text. And the law of trademarks and of passing off still protect its trade dress.




Naturally. And hence they still have something of value to sell. 



> Clark Peterson is on record, for example, as saying that OSRIC is an unlawful infringement of WotC's rights. I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to make a call with the same forcefulness that Clark did, but I can certainly see where he's coming from. And I understand that Kenzer has expressed similar views (although in this latter case I haven't read them, I've only seen second-hand references to them).




Those are interesting arguments, but it's important to separate the issues surrounding OSRIC versus any given hypothetical reverse-engineered system.



> Is it possible to write up a module, or even a rulebook, which would deliver a 3E or AD&D experience, without infringing on WotC's rights? Possibly. But that is not what the OGL+SRD games do. They use WotC's text, both to express the rules in such a way as to make it clear that what is being promised is a D&D game, and also as part of a broader strategy of hanging on the coattails of WotC's trade dress and market position.




Somehow, I was never confused about system those third party books were marketed for in the 80s and 90s. 



> The OGL+SRD (plus in some cases the d20 licence) is what makes this possible rather than a potentially serious breach of WotC's rights.




It's also what makes it possible without a potentially even more serious weakening of WotC's rights.



> There is no exact analogue to US fair use in Australian law, so I'm hesitant to comment too much, but I would be very surprised if fair use extended in the US to protect purely commercial use of large chunks of someone else's copyrighted text, in the absence of some sort of commentary, satire etc.




Who said anything about "large chunks?" In recent years, I think people have gotten bolder about mentioning other IPs in roleplaying books, provided the book itself is not obviously intended to replace a licensed product or infringe on existing core rules. If you don't need to actually reproduce a rules system, the door is pretty wide to comment on other people's works.



> I don't think that any of this is very relevant to the SRD, which contains much more than simple lists, many non-ordinary phrases, and much more than just titles. Furthermore, the "work", in this case, I think would include the whole mode of organisation and presentation of that content, which is obviously aped by the OGL+SRD games.




WotC didn't invent the terms longsword, battle ax, or spear. How much control can they exert over those terms being listed on a table, along with public domain expressions like 1d10?



> As I understand it, this licence was as part of a settlement agreement pertaining to WotC's breach of Kenzer's copyright in some material reproduced in the Dragon Archive. I don't think that this establishes anything about the legal viability of 3rd party material, and certainly not of OGL+SRD games like Pathfinder and OGL Conan.




I don't know how the license came about. I do know that I purchased a copy of Kingdoms of Kalamar, well before the OGL era, and was slightly disappointed to find out it was not for "any system" so much as for AD&D of some flavor. The legal viability of a campaign sourcebook as been pretty well established.

As for OGL Conan, if you changed a few terms here and there, renamed the feats, and avoiding lifting any blocks of text, I suspect you could present essentially the same game. The fact that it was OGL-friendly was a benefit... definitely to WotC, who had their flavor of RPG reinforced as the dominant system. You don't need a wacky legal notice in the back of a book to sell a game that says "Conan" on the front. 



> Undoubtedly, I can publish a gameworld suitable for use in D&D without breaching any of WotC's rights. For example, Terry Amthors' Shadowworld - published with ICE game stats - is an example of such a thing.
> 
> But as soon as I start inlcuding D&D stats, or explaining how the world is to be understood in D&D terms or expressed using D&D mechanics, let alone start using the term "D&D" in my marketing material, the matter gets a lot more complicated.




Potentially. But you can play it simple.



> In my view it is non-trivial to do this sort of thing without infringing WotC's rights. Whereas the whole point of the OGL+STD (plus d20 licence in many cases) is to make this lawful - WotC shares its rights in response for (i) a recognition of its rights, defined _very_ expansively, by the party with whom it is sharing, and (ii) a commitment to abide by the terms of the licence.




I think we have a different view of the relative value of the things being exchanged. I view the OGL as, nevertheless, slightly favorable to WotC.



> The GSL does much the same thing, although (i) it offers access to a narrower range of text, (ii) it offers access to a better range of trade dress, and (iii) it is not irrevocable. The revocability of the GSL is what makes it suited to modest individual ventures like the Goodman DDCs, but not to amibitious and ongoing adventures like a Pathfinder rulebook. This is how WotC has "solved", from its point of view, the problem of equipping its own competition.




From a business standpoint, it hardly matters to me whether I am shut down by a cease-and-desist or by a "revocation." Since revocation is pain-free, it sets up WotC in a vastly superior position. OTOH, in the case of a court hearing, they have to use about a pint of blood for evey pint I shed, and it is possible anywhere along the way to find a settlement agreeable to the aims of both parties.



> Why would it do that? Apart from anything else, such a licence may fail as a contract if no consideration is flowing from the 3PP to WotC. And who needs a licence to do what is already legal.




To establish a covenant. WotC is not a high dollar Wall Street venture. Ultimately, they are in arts and entertainment, and you can't have people suing each other all the time if you want anything worthwhile to happen. Nor can you have people brazenly ripping each other off. 



> The point of the GSL is that the 3PP, in return for getting something from WotC - namely, permission to use WotC copyrighted text and trademarks - gives something to WotC, namely, a commitment to abide by the terms of the licence. Don't like the terms? Don't take up the licence. But then, if you don't want to be sued, don't publish using WotC trademarks either.




Well, exactly. The license is not a worthwhile exchange of one thing for the other. 



> In a commercial environment, I don't think that enforcing one's rights in respect of copyrighted text or trademarks is frivolous.




So do you think it was worthwhile for Hanna Barbara to send Image Comics a C&D over the character Bedrock, for "infringing" their Flintstones trademark? 

And what about enforcing rights that may not exist?



> No. It's purpose is to _regulate _access to WotC's IP. The law already restricts such access - that what it means to call it intellectual _property_.
> 
> As for the question of generosity - I think that offering permission to all and sundry to sell products using your trademarks can be fairly described as a generous offer. Which is why I so described it. What other trademark holder with recognition on a level comparable to D&d does this? I don't know one of the top of my head - are there nevertheless many that do so?




If you step outside the tabletop RPG market, it's not hard to find examples of this. "Unofficial" strategy games. "Wii-compatible" controllers. Vacuum bags for "Hoover" vacuum cleaners. Cliff Notes for in-print books. 

I can certainly create game software to run on a Windows PC. And yet somehow WotC is going to stop me from writing "software" for their D&D game system. So I don't have a good example to furnish of such a "generous" trademark holder. Similarly, it's hard to find oil companies arguing for greater regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I know the history of Paizo and where a lot of its staff came from. I was more thinking that WotC has been able to recruit a great many leading designers of RPGs - Mearls, Heinsoo, Tweet, Laws etc - and its inability to do the same for adventure writers is therefore striking.




Great Game Designer ≠ Great Adventure Writer

Look at music.  There are lots of smoking guitarists who can't compose a song to save their lives.

Example: Smashing Pumpkins had 2 good guitarists, Billy Corgan and James Iha.  Iha did most of the solos and lead work that most people remember, while Corgan mainly played rhythm...and was the primary songwriter.

When the Pumpkins broke up, Iha was among the first to release a solo album.  Love his work with the Pumpkins though I do, the solo album was somewhat of a dud.  The man can play, but he's not much of a composer.


----------



## pawsplay

Trademarks can be used denotatively. For instance

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I can show you an example of someone referring to WotC's trademark right now. Keep in mind that even commercial ventures have certain rights to refer to other people's IP.


----------



## pemerton

Pawsplay, just a few things in your reply that I wanted to pick up on - I think the rest speaks for itself as an alternative view to mine on the character of the OGL/SRD/GSL.



pawsplay said:


> Somehow, I was never confused about system those third party books were marketed for in the 80s and 90s.



My impression is that marketing under trade dress is at least seen by those in the industry as making a difference. Whether this is seen as important at the level of distribution or retail (ie who has to be told that this no-frills supplement is just like a D&D supplement?) I don't know.



pawsplay said:


> WotC didn't invent the terms longsword, battle ax, or spear. How much control can they exert over those terms being listed on a table, along with public domain expressions like 1d10?



That's true. But the authors of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail probably didn't invent many of the words in their book either, yet they still had a coherent (if ultimately unsuccessful) suit against Dan Brown. Copyright doesn't reside in the invidual words but in the work, which may be a distinctive concatenation of those individual words. Table design and layout would also count. I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to have a view as to when copyrightability would emerge, but I don't think it's absurd to imagine that WotC has a prima facie claim to copyright in its equipment tables, and particularly in those tables as an element of a bigger work which is itself distinguished by further unique characteristics.



pawsplay said:


> If you step outside the tabletop RPG market, it's not hard to find examples of this. "Unofficial" strategy games. "Wii-compatible" controllers. Vacuum bags for "Hoover" vacuum cleaners. Cliff Notes for in-print books.



With the vacuum bags there is no issue of copyright, only trademark. For the wii-compatible controllers I can't comment, as I don't know enough about how they work and how much copyrighted software (if any) they replicate. For Cliffs Notes there is fair use, and probably also permission from the copyright holder for any substantial reproductions of text (admittedly I don't have any Cliffs Notes handy, but it is the norm in academic publishing at least to get permissions for such reproductions).

I think that RPG material is somewhat distinctive in combining copyright issues (reproduction of text) with trademark issues (the product, in order to sell, must hang on the coattails of someother product). And unlike a hoover bag, from the point of view of WotC it is a product in competition with its sales rather than complementary to them. (And this difference in market status is itself of relevance to the legal characterisation of any potential IP infringement - that is, IP law is _not_ indifferent to the market characteristics of an alleged infringement.)



pawsplay said:


> I can certainly create game software to run on a Windows PC.



Again, I don't know enough about the software issues. My understanding is also that Microsoft is governed by various anti-monopoly considerations, although perhaps I am wrong about that, or at least about its implications for authoring the Windows game.



pawsplay said:


> And yet somehow WotC is going to stop me from writing "software" for their D&D game system.



Well, the first thing that WotC would do is deny that your module - let alone your OGL+SRD clone - is software for their system at all. They would allege that, so far from being a complementary product, it is a competing product. And that allegation wouldn't be obviously fanciful.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> But clarifying presentation to make that complexity easier to digest is a huge deal, as is lowering the bar to entry and degrading the learning curve.



I think "clarifying presentation" is , at best, a red herring as there are plenty of clearly presented options for various game systems already available.

"Lowering the bar to entry and degrading the learning curve" just get back to the same root insult to new players.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I am sure that WotC has good reasons to avoid making earlier editions of D&D available.

I am equally sure that WotC has good reasons to want us to accept WotC as a bunch of "big tent" kinda guys.

They just have to decide which reasons are more important, because they cannot have it both ways.  Regardless of how much they, or others, might wish that they could.



RC


----------



## Umbran

This thread is now quite thoroughly about WotC business practices.  Moving to Industry...

I would like folks to consider how much new ground is being covered here.  If you aren't actually exchanging information, you might want to give it a rest, and move on to something that is more constructive and less divisive.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> I'm just trying to offer suggestions of _what WotC might be thinking_, given that they're acting at least somewhat rationally from their point of view. And the brand dilution/support to competition aspect is the main thing that I can see.




Yes, and I think you are right. They cited piracy as the reason but that just doesn't make sense to me. I remember some poll that was linked to from here that asked people if getting a "free" PDF stopped them from purchasing a hard copy if they liked the product; the response was overwhelming in the negative. I'll take myself as an example. I downloaded the legitimately free Eclipse Phase RPG and scanned through it, realized it was a product that I wanted to buy but didn't need in that moment. A few months later I ordered a hard copy. 

My personal opinion is that the best route for offering PDFs is similar to what Paizo does: offer them for much less than the hard copy and if you buy the hard copy from them, you get the PDF free. But the point being, the vast majority of people greatly prefer a hard copy and a PDF is a good way to get a feel for something before you buy it, not unlike scanning through a book in a bookstore. 

I would say that keeping their PDFs off the market is, at best, a zero-sum game for WotC. But because the cons relate to goodwill, community, and PR, I would say it veers slightly towards a net loss. But you know how you sometimes like someone better after a fight than if you hadn't had the fight at all? This could also be an opportunity for WotC to come out shining: "We realize our mistakes, we want to be a company for the people, and this is what we're going to do about it..." 

Now what they could do about it is another matter, but other than the PDFs I would suggest greater communication with the fans, especially the diehard base that, quite frankly, puts food on their table. This would entail some kind of feedback mechanism where they get info as to what people want, what they like, etc. This would go a long way to making 5E a truly great game that pleases as many people as possible.

It is still a hope that they come back with at least Dragon as a print magazine, but that is sort of swimming upstream at this point given the trends of newspapers and magazines. But Dragon, as far as I know, was always a loss leader so to say that it didn't make any money is to miss the point.



pemerton said:


> You're misremembering. I can't remember the precise sequence of events, but the whole "early adopter for money" scheme was abandoned as the relevant deadline for availability of the GSL and the draft SRD was missed by WotC.
> 
> What I think is more telling about the GSL saga is not that it shows how stingy WotC has become (as I've already posted, and posted back at the time that the GSL thing was happening, it's unrealistic to expect an entertainment company to give away its IP _merely out of generosity_ - and WotC obviously feels commercially burned by the OGL, and so is not inclined to go the OGL+SRD route again). Rather it is an early sign of *WotC's inability to come up with a clear strategy in relation to 4e.* First they dithered over the GSL, couldn't agree on the best version, and ended up losing the cooperation of at least some 3PP who might have been 4e supporters (Necromancer in particular comes to mind). Then there seems to have been dithering and a lack of clear direction over the DDI, which by all accounts is still continuing (I'm not a subscriber myself). Then there is the dithering and lack of clear direction over the print publications.




Yes, good point - especially the part I put in boldface. This continues to be the problem as the ship is floundering. I would say that a large source of the problem is that at some point they became rather insular and seemed to lose touch with the fan-base, especially us diehards. As Bryon put it, they focused too much on the many "birds in the bush" and neglected the fewer "birds in hand," who are also the folks that spend many times the amount a casual player does.



pemerton said:


> WotC seem to me to have a good game - 4e - but a great deal of uncertainty about how to get it to sell in sufficient commercial volume.




I agree. I don't think it is a perfect game, but no RPG ever has been or ever will be. But I would argue that much of its major problems and causes of dislikes for at least some people are _tonal, _the way it has been marketed and the non-traditional elements that have been introduced or emphasized. I would say that there are deeper structural issues that would take a revamp of the game to fix, namely those elements that take many folks out of the story and onto the battlemap. But those in and of themselves don't contribute as much to the hostility currently directed at WotC and 4E.



pawsplay said:


> I would like to hear how keeping old PDFs legally unavailable is helping them grow the D&D brand. Do they want to turn fans of their vintage products into pirates and then sue them out of the hobby?




You first . Seriously - how does offering the old PDFs help WotC sell and grow 4E/DDI?

I think pemerton has addressed your question - especially that it could (at least in WotC's view) negatively impact 4E through dilution and offering material that supports version(s) of the game they are no longer producing, including their main competitors. Now they could take a more radical approach like some have suggested and support both 3.5 and 4E...it is an interesting idea and I don't know how it would turn out, but it seems like it could easily deteriorate into a confused mess.

I personally would like to see them "perfect" DDI as they gradually wind 4E down, offer everything via PDF, create a stronger community through better communication and feedback mechanisms, bring Dragon back into print as an accepted loss leader, and work towards 5E in 2-3 years time. So you'd have something like this:

2011: Fix/develop DDI; experiment with 4E products; work on "healing the rift" in the community (e.g. PDFs). GenCon announcement: The return of Dragon! 5E "alpha" phase begins in earnest - gathering information, feedback, etc.
2012: DDI running at full steam; 4E winding down. GenCon announcement: 5E coming soon!
2013: Open playtest of 5E concepts and rules via DDI and Dragon; 5E's "beta phase." Perhaps even a limited edition "beta box."
2014: 5E comes out to raving accolades. 

The point being, with a bit of direction and well-placed strategic moves, WotC could make the coming out party of 5E a truly memorable occasion. The main points in my above timeline being:

*Fix DDI.
*Bring Dragon back.
*Create better lines of communication and feedback loops with the fan base; and perhaps most importantly:
*Let us help them create 5E via playtesting and feedback. 

The last point is risky and very difficult in that you can't please everyone, but by getting everyone involved and asking for feedback from those that have been playing for 10,20, 30+ years, not only does it nurture goodwill and community, but it gathers great ideas.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> That's true. But the authors of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail probably didn't invent many of the words in their book either, yet they still had a coherent (if ultimately unsuccessful) suit against Dan Brown.




Which means they are unsuccessful. Also, the soul of a novel is different the soul of what is essentially an instruction manual.



> Copyright doesn't reside in the invidual words but in the work, which may be a distinctive concatenation of those individual words. Table design and layout would also count.




Sure. It's also trivial to come up with a new table design and layout. And if your table is in some way alphabetical, that doesn't represent a particular expression of an idea.



> I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to have a view as to when copyrightability would emerge, but I don't think it's absurd to imagine that WotC has a prima facie claim to copyright in its equipment tables, and particularly in those tables as an element of a bigger work which is itself distinguished by further unique characteristics.




Consider this. If the table lists a longsword as doing 1d10 damage, it's telling you, "When you hit someone with a longsword, roll a ten-sided die for damage." That idea is not copyrightable, only the specific form of the instructions. If I relay that information in a slightly different format, I am describing a process. Further, if the type of information constrains me to a certain tabular format, the copyright case against me is weak.

Absurdity is not the issue. As long as two texts have some vague relationship with each other, there is a lawsuit to be had. However, many of those lawsuits are doomed.



> With the vacuum bags there is no issue of copyright, only trademark.




Which is basically the same issue as a D&D module, as it does not contain verbatim text of say, the AD&D Player's Handbook. 



> I think that RPG material is somewhat distinctive in combining copyright issues (reproduction of text) with trademark issues (the product, in order to sell, must hang on the coattails of someother product).




That is not an issue distinctive to RPG material. There have been cases about Tarzan, Mighty Mouse, you name it. In fact, there is a whole area of IP law where it is being argued how much control a trademark ownership can exert over a property when the work it is based on has gone into the public domain. 



> And unlike a hoover bag, from the point of view of WotC it is a product in competition with its sales rather than complementary to them.




That is exactly the same issue, actually. You think Hoover doesn't make bags for their own vacuums? Or, for that matter, do you think you can't make a vacuum cleaner that uses Hoover bags?



> Again, I don't know enough about the software issues. My understanding is also that Microsoft is governed by various anti-monopoly considerations, although perhaps I am wrong about that, or at least about its implications for authoring the Windows game.




Okay. Do you think D&D has a similar monopoly status in the RPG market?



> Well, the first thing that WotC would do is deny that your module - let alone your OGL+SRD clone - is software for their system at all. They would allege that, so far from being a complementary product, it is a competing product. And that allegation wouldn't be obviously fanciful.




It may not seem that way to some. To me it would be obviously fanciful. If it doesn't use characters and places from a D&D book it's not a derivative  work in the literary sense (like an unauthorized sequel). It it doesn't reproduce text, it's not plagiaristic. Do you think a hypothetical Moocow's Player Handbook, creating a D&D 3e simulator is more like...?:

- a game written for a Windows PC
- a vacuum cleaner that uses Hoover bags
- an unofficial strategy guide
- a board game called "Fun-opoly" about acquiring competing popsicle stands
- a novel about a teenaged girl who falls in love with a vampire
- a Wild West roleplaying game which makes reference to Hit Points, Saving Throws, and Feats, but has a different underlying architecture based on rolling 2d6
- A fantasy role-playing game featuring characters of fantasy races like elves, dwarves, and gnomes, who adventure in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world and gain levels by defeating challenges. You know, like Palladium.

While I am completely confident there is a case against someone who puts the words "hit points" to paper, I don't think there's a winning court case against much of what's worth doing in the 3pp world. There's just nothing to win. And that is why it's in everyone's best interests to have an OGL or some other way to create compatible products. If someone from WotC took an index card, wrote a few terms like it like Armor Class and Hit Points, and said, "We release this index card to the public domain," the world would be a happier place. Instead we have the Give Soul License.

The alternative strategy is for WotC to fight with their last breath over every infringement, hoping that in the 21st century, the legal situation will shift in their favor. Given that much of D&D is _itself a pastiche of other copyrighted works_, I don't give them good odds on that.


----------



## pawsplay

Mercurius said:


> You first . Seriously - how does offering the old PDFs help WotC sell and grow 4E/DDI?
> 
> I think pemerton has addressed your question - especially that it could (at least in WotC's view) negatively impact 4E through dilution and offering material that supports version(s) of the game they are no longer producing, including their main competitors.




WotC is not in the business of growing and selling 4e/DDI. They are in the business of making money. 4e is just one means to that end. In fact, it's all but inevitible that at some point, they will switch to 5e. As long as the D&D brand is valuable, it can be used for endeavors such as computer games, movies, cartoons, T-shirts, board games, and what-have-you... many of which are likely more profitable than RPGs, which are a niche. 

Keeping the PDFs available keeps the "literary classics" of RPGs alive. As the copyright holders of said classics, WotC has only to gain by remaining current in people's minds even of products written years ago.

Another reason is that it shows old customers won't be "fired." If I were a 4e player, shouldn't I be nervous that WotC happily tossed the 3e game overboard when they were ready for a new product cycle?

It also means there is a legal means to acquire those PDFs. Thanks to their legal unavailability, there is now an incentive for normally law-abiding, but lustful for vintage D&D individuals, to pirate. If WotC hates piracy so much, they should make it really easy to not be a pirate. 

It's not dilution. Nobody is going to avoid buying 4e to buy an AD&D manual, and they are only slightly likely to do so for a 3e manual. 

It  keeps people part of the D&D community. If I like 3e but I don't like 4e, once 3e becomes unavailable from WotC, I become on orphan. If it goes on long enough, I stop relating to D&D as strongly because D&D comes to mean 4e and not-3e. Then, when 5e rolls around, I'm less excited, and maybe I don't even buy 5e at all. This reason is probably what motivated Mike Mearls to post what he did. By abandoning 3e, WotC effectively created Pathfinder, and thereby created a situation where many of their fans may never "come home." 

This is the 21st century. The question is not whether IP law will change, but how and when. The ease of information exchange suggests it will be toward greater openness. With the OGL, WotC signalled they were ready to experiment with something new. With the GSL, they retreated back to the reactionary stance of the 1980s. By doing so, they are re-arming for a series of legal battles that no one wins. The best case for them is to preserve the status quo, and at some expense. The worst case is they lose a few cases and find themselves on the losing side of history.

Finally, draconian acts have a chilling effect on a community. Is WotC content to have "consumers" or would they rather have fans?


----------



## Umbran

pawsplay said:


> WotC is not in the business of growing and selling 4e/DDI. They are in the business of making money.




And they have to make some choices of direction in order to do that.  They cannot expect to make money without direction.  4e seems to be the current chosen direction.  It isn't reasonable to expect a business to act out of line with its chosen direction.



> It's not dilution. Nobody is going to avoid buying 4e to buy an AD&D manual, and they are only slightly likely to do so for a 3e manual.




We ought to keep in mind the difference between what we think as plausible reasoning, and Truth.  Ultimately, we don't know if there would be dilution or loss of 4e sales.  We may think of believe it, but it is possible for others to think differently, especially if they have different information than we do.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Raven Crowking said:


> I am sure that WotC has good reasons to avoid making earlier editions of D&D available.
> 
> I am equally sure that WotC has good reasons to want us to accept WotC as a bunch of "big tent" kinda guys.
> 
> They just have to decide which reasons are more important, because they cannot have it both ways.  Regardless of how much they, or others, might wish that they could.




This is intended to be constructive, rather than divisive.

A lot of the unfortunate commentary directed toward WotC is based upon the perceived dichotomy between what is said and what is done.  I, for one, would respect them more if they were more frank.  

"I'm sorry, but projections show that keeping the older pdfs available reduces sales of our current edition, so we're shutting those down."  I can understand that.  I can respect that.  It doesn't insult my intelligence.

There are times when you can't have it both ways.  Instead of sending mixed messages (which hurts you more than you might think), figure out which way is the best, and go that way.  Openly.  Heck, proudly even.  There's nothing wrong with that.

Because, while I might not like 4e, you might want to sell me 5e or 6e some day.  And I want to be able to trust you.

-----

Speaking of potential future editions, WotC, you might want to consider tapping the Jester in particular for future work on Skill Challenges.  After all, a person who can make me see their potential is doing far better than has been done in your DMG.  

In fact, right now, you might want to consider tapping some of the finer 4e DMs on EN World (and elsewhere) right now to produce adventures for you.  You have produced some really nice background material for 4e (fluff, as some call it), but don't seem willing or able to use it to its best advantage.  But there are folks here who can and do, and you need some of that.

And, like a broken record, I'll posit again that it's the organizational format you insist on using that makes not only your adventures all resemble each other, but the encounters within the adventures as well. v You don't seem to want to ditch the delve (as I suggest you do), but you could at least open it up some more, make it a little more flexible.

------

For new editions and for current edition adventures, I would recommend getting together to play through some of the classic modules using the editions they were written for.

Ignore for a moment what you don't like about them, and concentrate on the good stuff.  What did you enjoy?  What made these modules classics?  What made these systems work?  How can you put some of that back into your current/new line?

Now look at what you don't like about them.  How can you fix those problems *without dumping the stuff you enjoyed*?

See, this last bolded bit is where I think your problem lies.  That's the challenge.  And, at the end of the day, that's where you're either going to have a hit or a miss.

IMHO, anyway.

RC


----------



## Mark CMG

The big tent people seem to be asking the last of the stalwart 4e 3pps to wait outside despite their pleas for assistance -

AN OPEN LETTER WOTC: SAVE 3RD PARTY DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS PUBLISHERS | LivingDice.com


----------



## Mercurius

Who are the "big tent people" that you are talking about, Mark? Mike Mearls is the only one from WotC that we have gotten a "big tent" statement from. There are plenty of big tent folks that aren't in WotC, like myself, but we certainly aren't asking 3PPs to "wait outside." In fact I agree with Chris Dias's suggestions.

So I ask, who are you talking about? The only one that makes sense is Mike Mearls.


----------



## Mark CMG

Mercurius said:


> Who are the "big tent people" that you are talking about, Mark?





The WotC people Chris Dias is primarily addressing in his open letter, the people Mike Mearls represents when he makes public statements on his WotC blog, the people who are in charge of the GSL that is leaving Mister Dias and other 4e 3pps behind, the only big tent people who really get to decide who is actually allowed in the so-called big tent.  Sorry, not you.  I didn't mean to imply that you had any ability to control who was in the big tent or allowed in or able to ask someone to leave or the size of the tent or anything else.


----------



## pawsplay

Umbran said:


> We ought to keep in mind the difference between what we think as plausible reasoning, and Truth.  Ultimately, we don't know if there would be dilution or loss of 4e sales.  We may think of believe it, but it is possible for others to think differently, especially if they have different information than we do.




In keeping an open mind, I do not have to have an undiscriminating one. Perhaps I lack imagination, but I just cannot conceive that anyone shopping for B4 is postponing a 4e purchase. Either they play 4e, in which case you can probably sell them both products, or they don't, in which case you will never sell them 4e. Someone who plays 4e and not previous editions would have few reasons to purchase a $4 PDF of B4 instead of some 4e product. 

What about the WotC research that determined that someone who already owned a lot of gaming products was more, not less, likely to buy another product? I can even speak of a psychological principle that suggests why this would be so. It's called disinhibition. When we "take down the gate" and allow ourselves to gruntle some urge, we reduce our inhibition against others. Hence, after ordering fries, which are not on the diet, we are more likely to go for the apple pie, too. After purchasing a day pass to the amusement park, we are more likely to pay $7 for a hamburger while we are there. If I buy one gaming product and like it, I reinforce my "buying games" behavior. The more of a fan I am, the more likely I am to seek out further experiences that may be gratifying. That's why in-print games with lots of sourcebooks tend to be more popular than OOP with only one book; there is always "more" if you want another fix.

If WotC is hoping that, with the unavailability of those PDFs, they will create a collective loss of memory as to what D&D used to look like, I think they are setting themselves up for a negative reaction. They should be showcasing those old things, just as DC regularly puts together anthologies, albums, and retrospectives on their properties. Moving away from the discussion of the opiod rush of purchasing, sociologically, we identify with our activities. Since I started collecting quirky old games, I have not stopped: Fantasy Wargaming, Palladium, The Arcanum all now grace my shelves. Why? just to experience them, and compare them to other games I know. Given enough time, I would probably buy every $4 PDF of every product ever made available. Those old products provide a link between a familiar and happy experience and a new and exciting experience. WotC knows that, that's why the new Red Box exists. 

But where is the nerve and the will to do more? As long as I feel like WotC is sniffing my wallet, I feel disinclined to give them more money than serves my minimum purposes. If, on the other hand, they provide me with a wealth of imagination-stimulating opportunities, a community, and a sense of continuity with history, I remain within the D&D tent, evangelizing, ultimately, the identity of their product. I don't want 4e to be my nemesis, yet I think I am reasonable in estimating that it has become an impediment to what I want.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> I would say that a large source of the problem is that at some point they became rather insular and seemed to lose touch with the fan-base, especially us diehards. As Bryon put it, they focused too much on the many "birds in the bush" and neglected the fewer "birds in hand," who are also the folks that spend many times the amount a casual player does.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> with a bit of direction and well-placed strategic moves, WotC could make the coming out party of 5E a truly memorable occasion.



Maybe. I don't feel I have enough of a sense of the relevant variables. And I really don't see how they can make Pathfinder go away.



pawsplay said:


> By abandoning 3e, WotC effectively created Pathfinder, and thereby created a situation where many of their fans may never "come home."



I agree with the second half - I think Pathfinder (which is, for all those who didn't start with it but migrated to it from officially branded D&D, 3.x) is here to stay.

I'm less sure about the first half. _Why_ did WotC abandon 3E, and abandon the OGL+SRD model? It's _possible_ that the game designers took control of the business planning division, and decided that all of WotC's corporate weight had to be thrown behind this better new game bringing D&D into touch with Forgist indie design sensibilities. But I think it's more likely that the business planners in WotC had _already formed the view_ that WotC's future depended on breaking free from the OGL+SRD model that 3E was intimately bound up with. That is, I think WotC must have _already feared_ that Pathfinder or something similar was coming into being.



Mark CMG said:


> The big tent people seem to be asking the last of the stalwart 4e 3pps to wait outside despite their pleas for assistance



A big part of the issue here seems to be DDI, which is the enemy of 3PP. I see this as a sort of complement to the abandonment of the OGL+SRD model - the GSL obliges 3PP to publish material that is obviously complementary rather than competing, and DDI means that there is, in effect, no prospect of competition in any event.



pawsplay said:


> Nobody is going to avoid buying 4e to buy an AD&D manual, and they are only slightly likely to do so for a 3e manual.





pawsplay said:


> I just cannot conceive that anyone shopping for B4 is postponing a 4e purchase.



I think the concern might be more that those PDFs being available actively supports Pathfinder and the retro-clones, and in that way dilutes support for 4e.



pawsplay said:


> I don't want 4e to be my nemesis, yet I think I am reasonable in estimating that it has become an impediment to what I want.



Perhaps, if what you want is for those old publications to be available for purchase outside the second hand market.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> If it doesn't use characters and places from a D&D book it's not a derivative  work in the literary sense (like an unauthorized sequel). It it doesn't reproduce text, it's not plagiaristic. Do you think a hypothetical Moocow's Player Handbook, creating a D&D 3e simulator is more like...?



I think a hypothetical Moocow's PHB is probably not infringing. But it probably wouldn't sell unless it included text like the introductory text to OSRIC, which points out how the game is intended as a replication of someone else's work. And this is where I get more doubtful. Again, I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to have a strong view, but I don't see the argument as fanciful. (Again - Clark Peterson, who is by all accounts an experienced commercial lawyer, thinks that OSRIC is infringing _despite_ being published under the OGL.)



pawsplay said:


> the soul of a novel is different the soul of what is essentially an instruction manual.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If the table lists a longsword as doing 1d10 damage, it's telling you, "When you hit someone with a longsword, roll a ten-sided die for damage." That idea is not copyrightable, only the specific form of the instructions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Which is basically the same issue as a D&D module, as it does not contain verbatim text of say, the AD&D Player's Handbook.



I think it is key to WotC's conception (not necessarily its true, in-its-heart conception, but its legal conception) of its rulebooks that they are not instruction manuals, but more like works of fiction.

For the classic instruction manual, the _real_ product is the device, and the manual-writers are a necessary cost to the business in order to make the device saleable to customers.

For WotC, _there is no business_ but writing the manuals.



pawsplay said:


> If someone from WotC took an index card, wrote a few terms like it like Armor Class and Hit Points, and said, "We release this index card to the public domain," the world would be a happier place. Instead we have the Give Soul License.
> 
> The alternative strategy is for WotC to fight with their last breath over every infringement, hoping that in the 21st century, the legal situation will shift in their favor. Given that much of D&D is _itself a pastiche of other copyrighted works_, I don't give them good odds on that.





pawsplay said:


> This is the 21st century. The question is not whether IP law will change, but how and when. The ease of information exchange suggests it will be toward greater openness. With the OGL, WotC signalled they were ready to experiment with something new. With the GSL, they retreated back to the reactionary stance of the 1980s.



I don't think WotC will have adopted the GSL for ideological reasons. I think that they saw the consequences of the OGL+SRD model as a commercial threat.

You may be right that IP law will change in the 21st century. I think that the relationship between IP law and what passes now for folk culture is a pretty profound one, and it will be interesting to see how (if at all) that changes. My own view is that it is likely to become more commercial, not less, as time passes.

But I don't think this helps WotC. WotC (as a publishing house) makes its money selling instruction manuals that don't need a machine to run them. If it can't protect those works via IP law, it may be that WotC (as a publishing house) is simply not commercially viable.

Hence, perhaps, the move towards WotC the seller of rights to access privately-controlled online databases.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> Maybe. I don't feel I have enough of a sense of the relevant variables. And I really don't see how they can make Pathfinder go away.




Coming in 2013 from Wizards of the Coast:

*Classic Dungeons & Dragons*: A cleaned up version of OD&D/AD&D/BECMI that probably looks a lot like the 1991 _Rules Cyclopedia_ except without race-as-class. Designed to be an edition where you can use OD&D/AD&D/BECMI/Classic products interchangeably.

*Dungeons & Dragons*: An updated version of 3.5 that pushes farther than _Pathfinder_ could (particularly focused on fixing the serious problems in play that begin to crop up around 12th level), but without abandoning the core gameplay of D&D from 1974-2008.

*Dungeons & Dragons: Battlefields*: A full repackaging of the 4th Edition core rules into 1-3 SKUs that remain compatible with the existing 4th Edition supplements.

I'm not saying that's likely. But it would be a pretty effective way for WotC to pretty much immediately re-establish themselves as the core rulebook provider for the OSR and 3.5/Pathfinder brigades.

The next question would be what kind of support WotC would/could give to these games. For starters, IMO, this hypothetical "Classic D&D" would be designed to be an evergreen rulebook with basically no additional support from WotC. Its release would be coupled to putting all the old PDFs back on the market (either directly or as POD products if your corporate HQ really is insane enough to think they're preventing piracy by not selling ebooks), but it would be the functional equivalent of Hasbro's vintage releases of their classic boardgames.

(Why not simply release the original OD&D game? Because, as much as I love those books as a historical document, it would be an embarrassment to offer them for sale as a modern, professional company.)


----------



## Beginning of the End

Dannager said:


> I have no interest in seeing D&D become a less complex game, and I don't think WotC does either. But clarifying presentation to make that complexity easier to digest is a huge deal, as is lowering the bar to entry and degrading the learning curve.




This is the other thing: WotC should re-embrace the distinction between D&D and AD&D. D&D should be a stripped down system that hums along without a lot of the situational modifiers and bling that has accumulated -- broadly supportive, but minutely detailed.

AD&D is where you can pour in all those extra details.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> I think the concern might be more that those PDFs being available actively supports Pathfinder and the retro-clones, and in that way dilutes support for 4e.




It probably does support Pathfinder and retroclones, but withholding does not, in any way I can discern, support 4e. The people not playing 4e now are obviously not playing by choice, and there is _no way_ to support them via 4e. However, they remain an active and visible part of the D&D community... at this point, they may represent a more culturally salient segment than 4e consumers. 

If WotC continue as they have, Pathfinder will no longer simply be a continuation of some version of D&D, but a true rival, and a harbinger of more to come. With or without the OGL. It's not as if the d20 SRD has any really revolutionary concepts in it. 

Perhaps the most significant effect OGL has had on the democratization of D&D is to slow down the adoption of Creative Commons and other licenses that are even more open, in the creation of fan-based RPG communities. It may be that the GSL/OGL split is only the first crack in an acceleration toward a post-D&D role-playing world. Truly, anyone can publish.


----------



## Mark CMG

pemerton said:


> A big part of the issue here seems to be DDI, which is the enemy of 3PP. I see this as a sort of complement to the abandonment of the OGL+SRD model - the GSL obliges 3PP to publish material that is obviously complementary rather than competing, and DDI means that there is, in effect, no prospect of competition in any event.





Agreed.  There might be a small handful of 4e 3pps allowed in the big tent but they are definitely kept at the kiddie table by the DDI.  Not that anyone is entitled to more, but simply that there are inherent restrictions and limits on their involvement as publishers within the big tent environment.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> Coming in 2013 from Wizards of the Coast:
> 
> <snip 3 models of D&D>
> 
> I'm not saying that's likely. But it would be a pretty effective way for WotC to pretty much immediately re-establish themselves as the core rulebook provider for the OSR and 3.5/Pathfinder brigades.



WotC already gave up on this when they created a 4e that is radically different in certain key respects from 3E and AD&D. Assuming that they are commercially rational actors (which may be a false assumption - it's possible, although in my view unlikely, that the aesthetic preferences of the designers play a significant role in WotC's overall direction) this means that, from their point of view, trying to keep WotC support for 3E alive _in an environment where the OGL+SRD will always throw up potential competitors_ is not worthwhile.

Why would WotC think this? Obviously I don't have their sales data to hand. But I imagine that their concern would be that every 3E book WotC publishes, and every step that WotC takes to promote 3E gaming, is a supplement or a step that supports a competitor (like Pathfinder). In effect, Dancey' "network externalities" idea comes back to bite WotC - they risk becoming the tail to another publishers dog.

4e plus DDI seems like a comprehensive attempt by WotC to create a new market where there is no risk of the sort of competition that the OGL+SRD model has given rise to in the case of 3E.



Mark CMG said:


> There might be a small handful of 4e 3pps allowed in the big tent but they are definitely kept at the kiddie table by the DDI.  Not that anyone is entitled to more, but simply that there are inherent restrictions and limits on their involvement as publishers within the big tent environment.



Right. The big tent is a notion that might have some relevance to fan communities - "Why can't we all get along?" - but I don't think it has much relevance to the commercial environment of RPG publishing.

Which relates back to DungeonDelver's and RC's suggestions that WotC/Mearls is hypocritical - if one takes the view that the circumstances of the fan communities, and WotC's commercial publishing decisions, are inextricably linked, then one is likely to see the confining of the big tent to the fan communities as a hypocritical move.



pawsplay said:


> It probably does support Pathfinder and retroclones, but withholding does not, in any way I can discern, support 4e. The people not playing 4e now are obviously not playing by choice, and there is _no way_ to support them via 4e.



From WotC's point of view, every reduction in support for PF/OSR might be seen as marginally reducing the number of new PF/OSR games, and hence marginally increasing the likelihood of a 4e game starting in its place. This assumes that there are some gamers for whom system is a less salient concern than the mere occurence of a game to play - but my view is that _this _is a fairly safe assumption. More open to doubt might be the size of the respective margins. I have no evidence one way or the other.



pawsplay said:


> If WotC continue as they have, Pathfinder will no longer simply be a continuation of some version of D&D, but a true rival, and a harbinger of more to come.



I think that it already is a true rival. The assumption that PF is a rival to WotC underpins my attempts to understand why, from WotC's point of view, the GSL/DDI strategy, plus the no-PDF strategy, might seem commercially rational.



pawsplay said:


> However, they remain an active and visible part of the D&D community... at this point, they may represent a more culturally salient segment than 4e consumers.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It may be that the GSL/OGL split is only the first crack in an acceleration toward a post-D&D role-playing world. Truly, anyone can publish.



As far as publication is concerned, you may be right. But DDI - the selling of access rights to a privately-controlled database - is an alternative model for making money from RPGs, which WotC seems to be banking on.

As for the point about cultural salience - I think the question in part becomes "whose culture"? If DDI and Encounters (bringing with it, presumably, DDI subscriptions and sales of Fortune Cards) do the job that WotC is hoping for, then there will grow up a whole alternative RPGing culture in which published books (even modules and campaign supplements) play at best a secondary role. For these players, PF and OSR may have little cultural salience.

Personally, I hope that 4e as a traditional (ie published) RPG doesnt die off too much. I survived the death of Rolemaster, which is no longer really a living game with a vibrant community (the ICE forums are testament to this, in my view). When I decided to start playing 4e instead, one of the side benefits seemed to be a strong D&D community. I can keep playing 4e without this side benefit (just as I kept playing RM) but it would be a little bit sad to see it go.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> As far as publication is concerned, you may be right. But DDI - the selling of access rights to a privately-controlled database - is an alternative model for making money from RPGs, which WotC seems to be banking on.
> 
> As for the point about cultural salience - I think the question in part becomes "whose culture"? If DDI and Encounters (bringing with it, presumably, DDI subscriptions and sales of Fortune Cards) do the job that WotC is hoping for, then there will grow up a whole alternative RPGing culture in which published books (even modules and campaign supplements) play at best a secondary role. For these players, PF and OSR may have little cultural salience.




That is a reasonable business plan, in the sense that having acces to a group of reliable subscribers is good. However, I really have to wonder where the water in the pipe is going to come from. How would someone find D&D who is not already connected to a gamer subscribed to the DDI? Is there any product they can use to keep D&D "on the shelves" successfully as a gateway?



> Personally, I hope that 4e as a traditional (ie published) RPG doesnt die off too much. I survived the death of Rolemaster, which is no longer really a living game with a vibrant community (the ICE forums are testament to this, in my view). When I decided to start playing 4e instead, one of the side benefits seemed to be a strong D&D community. I can keep playing 4e without this side benefit (just as I kept playing RM) but it would be a little bit sad to see it go.




I'll tell you what, if it comes down to a handful of old fools, I'll play in your Rolemaster game if you'll play in something I want to. 

The overarching goal seems to be to turn D&D (tabletop, hobby game) into M:tG (multiplatform, mass market game). I just don't know if it's feasible, or if the game will survive WotC's attempts to do it.

I remember a surreal period of time, when I was in college, and we all heard TSR went bankrupt. How could the publisher of D&D go bankrupt? But we shrugged and kept playing, AD&D and RC D&D and GURPs and HERO and everything else. Some time later, WotC picked up the pieces, and here we are today. It will be surreal if D&D bottoms up again.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> I really have to wonder where the water in the pipe is going to come from. How would someone find D&D who is not already connected to a gamer subscribed to the DDI? Is there any product they can use to keep D&D "on the shelves" successfully as a gateway?



I guess that Encounters is meant to be an element of this - but of course Encounters relies upon a potential D&D-er going to the gameshop and taking part.

Maybe the thought is that Magic players will be lured into crossing over - I don't know. Maybe the hope was that the Red Box in toy stores would help, although that strikes me personally as a bit unrealistic. I see the Red Box mostly as a nostalgia sell to those who played back in the day - although maybe on the margins it will prompt some to get their kids playing who otherwise wouldn't.

Again, with all this speculation it makes a big difference how wide these margins are - how many MtG players are crossing over, how many retired grognards got their kids involved via the Red Box who wouldn't otherwise have googled D&D, etc, etc. Given WotC's apparent difficulty in forming a stable business strategy, it seems they don't have an especially good handle on it either.



pawsplay said:


> The overarching goal seems to be to turn D&D (tabletop, hobby game) into M:tG (multiplatform, mass market game). I just don't know if it's feasible, or if the game will survive WotC's attempts to do it.
> 
> I remember a surreal period of time, when I was in college, and we all heard TSR went bankrupt. How could the publisher of D&D go bankrupt? But we shrugged and kept playing, AD&D and RC D&D and GURPs and HERO and everything else. Some time later, WotC picked up the pieces, and here we are today. It will be surreal if D&D bottoms up again.



I'd be surprised if D&D tanks, but you never know. Pathfinder shows there's some sort of mass market (in the RPG sense of mass market) for a fairly traditional, rules heavy but highly playable fantasy RPG - but from WotC's point of view I have to assume it's just not enough of a market to sustain the sort of operation they're interested in, and/or depends upon delivering a product - popular adventures - that WotC seems unable to produce.

When 4e came out, I really thought that WotC must know something that I didn't, and that Ron Edwards had only speculated about, concerning the popular viability of a (at least somewhat) non-traditional game with metagame mechanics built in at ground level (eg Come and Get It) and mechanically structured but non-simulationist conflict resolution mechanics (eg skill challenges, and even healing surges and warlord healing).

But between their modules, and Encounters (or at least my impression of it - I've never played in it), and my sense of what comes out in Dragon and Dungeon (again, I'm not a DDI subscriber) they seem to be approaching the marketing and support of the game from precisely the tactical skirmish angle that has caused so much derision of the system.

And they produce thematically rich sourcebooks, with example story arcs that give a sense of what a willing group could do with the cosmology given its integration into the game at all levels of PC build, monster design and hence overall scenario design - I'm thinking Plane Above, Underdark, Demonicon - and then do nothing to produce modules or GM advice to help make any of this a reality in play.

I've just recently converted the Demon of the Red Grove scenario from the original HeroWars Narrators Book to 4e. Obviusly 4e is a different game from HeroWars/Quest, and the conversion is not exact - I'm setting the scenario in the Feywild, and using a glabrezu remodelled as a level 14 or 15 solo as my demon. And the sequence of skill challenges and then combat that I envisage will be a little different from the original. Nevetheless the conversion is surprisingly straightforward - things like the skill challenge mechanics, for example, make it much easier to see how to realise the pacing of the scenario, then would be the case with a strongly simulationist system like Rolemaster.

Why is WotC not producing adventures like this, that really show off what the system can do to deliver a fantasy RPG experience that you can't get so easily with AD&D or 3E - instead of producing hack dungeon crawls or combat fests that are in many ways pale imitations of what 1st ed AD&D in particular was capable of offering?

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this rant is, other than that WotC seems to have some sort of dissonance between the game it has actually designed, and the way in which it is trying to grow and market it. If 4e - and hence, perhaps, branded D&D, tanks, will that be because no one liked the game? Or because they didn't present it as they might have? Or just because PF has dominated the field for mainstream fantasy RPGing?



pawsplay said:


> I'll tell you what, if it comes down to a handful of old fools, I'll play in your Rolemaster game if you'll play in something I want to.



Careful - I might hold you to that!


----------



## CuRoi

pemerton said:


> IBut between their modules, and Encounters (or at least my impression of it - I've never played in it), and my sense of what comes out in Dragon and Dungeon (again, I'm not a DDI subscriber) they seem to be approaching the marketing and support of the game from precisely the tactical skirmish angle that has caused so much derision of the system.







pemerton said:


> Why is WotC not producing adventures like this, that really show off what the system can do to deliver a fantasy RPG experience that you can't get so easily with AD&D or 3E - instead of producing hack dungeon crawls or combat fests that are in many ways pale imitations of what 1st ed AD&D in particular was capable of offering?
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what the point of this rant is, other than that WotC seems to have some sort of dissonance between the game it has actually designed, and the way in which it is trying to grow and market it. If 4e - and hence, perhaps, branded D&D, tanks, will that be because no one liked the game? Or because they didn't present it as they might have? Or just because PF has dominated the field for mainstream fantasy RPGing?




I recall an earlier discussion we had on skill challenges. Again, I have to say it's a case of a skilled DM turning water into wine. (or flip it around to wine into water - I'm not trying to make a qualitative judgment here). You seem concerned that WotC isn't pushing what YOU believe the system to be capable of. Bluntly, I think that's only because you can personally make the system support that capability, not because the system is naturally capable of it. 

I always have to be careful, becasue this is not a rant against 4e on my part. It's a fun game, I see its merits, love some things they did, etc. Its weakness is precisely that I cannot use that system to craft an open ended story the way I craft them. So despite its merits, I'll never play it.

An example I gave in another thread also comes to mind. A player desperately wanted to do something similar to Iron Tide and claimed it wasn't possible in a 2e or 3e because it wasn't spelled out to the letter how you would do it. Therefore, 4e was a superior product. 

My repsonse is precisely the opposite - BECAUSE it isn't spelled out to the letter in previous editions, as the DM I can craft some way for that player to achieve the results they want. In 4e all you have that does something like Tide of Iron is - Tide of Iron. It all boils down to the DM being able to work on the fly (which I prefer) and while 4e is "Easier" on the DM from a rules perspective, it isn't IMO easier on the DM from a story perspective. 

If you have found ways to massage the system into a grand, thematically deep collaborative story building system, hey, more power to you. But the fact of the matter is, 4e truly is a game centered around dungeon delving / skirmishes. That is precisely why it may seem to you that WotC is presenting it as such in their products. The amazing thing is many people will think I have intended this as a slam against 4e, and truthfully its not meant as anything of the sort - just an observation.

I loved 1e and most of those adventure modules were dungeon delving mine car rides where the DM was told explicitly what to do and what not to do. I of course always ignored those instructions and let things derail. Can you do the same with 4e? I'm sure you could, but frankly, there are too places where I want rules but there are none or places where I don't want rules and they are in abundance, so it's not worth the effort. 

I think they wanted to do many things to try to expand the player base for DnD. Lower entry level requirements for DMs was one. DMing is frankly a talent (a rather useless one at that but a talent nonetheless) and not everyone can do it. With 1e, 2e, and 3e, I have seen many over-crowded games because "nobody wants to DM". So, they decide to spell it all out, require less work for the DM, and don't make the DM have to improv so much. Once that's done, perhaps you increase the number of DMs which will increase sales and presumably your player base. Consequently, you may leave old salty free-form DMs with a feeling of having their hands tied.

I also think they may have intentionally wanted to divorce the collaborative story idea - or at least let 4e boil back down to the "dungeon delving, skirmishing combat fests" that made up many early DnD modules. Because this tackles another assumed complaint people have with RPGs - lack of time to play them. You know, it's hard to get a group of working, college attending, child raising people to agree to a set time and place each week and sit still for 5 hours. So if they have a skirmish based game they can get people in and out of the door in 2 hours tops, then thats good. Spell out what exactly needs to be done for "winning" combats, spell out what exactly needs to be done for "winning" non-combat stuff and again, presumably more people can find time to play.

I think both of those things were considered when designing 4e, and they both make perfect sense to me on some level. However, the end result is not a game I'd move to. I'd probably back-track to 2e frankly before I moved to 4e - and again this is all just my humble opinion.


----------



## pemerton

CuRoi said:


> I recall an earlier discussion we had on skill challenges. Again, I have to say it's a case of a skilled DM turning water into wine. (or flip it around to wine into water - I'm not trying to make a qualitative judgment here). You seem concerned that WotC isn't pushing what YOU believe the system to be capable of. Bluntly, I think that's only because you can personally make the system support that capability, not because the system is naturally capable of it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you have found ways to massage the system into a grand, thematically deep collaborative story building system, hey, more power to you. But the fact of the matter is, 4e truly is a game centered around dungeon delving / skirmishes.



Well, we have different views on this.

My view as to what the system is intended to support is based on:

(i) stuff the designers said around the time of release (like Rob Heinsoo's reference to indie design);

(ii) the obvious resemblance to indie game design (nowhere more obvious than in DMG2, where some of it is literally Robin Laws copying and pasting from HeroQuest 2nd ed);

(iii) the inclusion of so many rules - like treasure parcels, skill challenges (including the various examples in DMG, DMG2 and other hardbacks), quest XP (including player-designed quests in the DMG), etc - that make it feasible to run a non-exploration, non-AD&D-style game;

(iv) the contents and approach of books like Underdark, Demonicon and The Plane Above;

(v) discussions on these forums.​
And my own experience running the game is, for me, confirmatory of my view.

I don't know if your view is based on anything other than play experience. (Also, I don't know how familiar you are with the indie games that, in my view, have heavily influenced 4e's design.) If the only evidence a person had was the WotC modules than I think that they would agree with you. But my claim is that there is a huge dissonance between those modules and the hardbound rulebooks. Whatever The Plane Above is, it's not a recipe for a skirmish game. And just ignoring books like that doesn't make WotC's dissonance go away.



CuRoi said:


> I also think they may have intentionally wanted to divorce the collaborative story idea - or at least let 4e boil back down to the "dungeon delving, skirmishing combat fests" that made up many early DnD modules.



If this was their intention, then why would they publish _the first version of D&D_ which has rules for player-designated quests that will earn quest XP?

Or passages like this, in the rules on skill challenges:

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth…

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing​
(The quotes are from the PHB and the DMG.)


----------



## CuRoi

pemerton said:


> Well, we have different views on this.
> 
> My view as to what the system is intended to support is based on:
> (i) stuff the designers said around the time of release (like Rob Heinsoo's reference to indie design);​



First off, awesome link! Thanks for the info it was a great read. However, many things said also completely support EXACTLY what I was saying in my previous post about DMing and how 4e does not fit my style.
_*Ron Heinsoo:* One of the challenges for us with this edition is recognizing that the 3.5 sweet spot was real, it was this element where when the Game Master gets to the point around when their players are using 6th-level spells, all of the sudden the GM’s ability to really understand what’s going to happen in their game is a little bit gone. I’ve seen too many plans of GM’s lovingly figuring out what they want to do, and all of the sudden the PC’s say, “bop!”, and it’s like game over! The GM thinks, “I don’t know what to do.”_

_There are people who can handle it, I’m sure in our audience we have people who are intensely proud of being really good GM’s and can manage to handle it. But I, perhaps, am like the part of the audience who really didn’t want to have to learn 3.5 according to its rules. I could just make up rules when needed to help everybody have fun, but that isn’t really how the game is supposed to be played. What we’re trying to do with 4th Edition is make a game where the Dungeon Master is given enough tools, and enough SIMPLE ways of making the game fun, that the amount of time that 3.5 would force you to spend doing math is actually used by the GM on their story. Go ahead and finish figuring out your story and what seems cool to you, not just dealing with leveling up this monster or figuring out the math._​I am that guy. That guy that loves "handling it" when the players go off the map. The guy that lets the players completely trash the module because its "more fun that way". Take me off the freakin' rails please  The "simplicity" in 4e which is intended to help the DM with the story and take more spontaneous control out of players hands does not at all help me in crafting a story the way I do it. If you want a system that can ensure players stick to the script, then yes, 4e accomplishes that better than 2e, 3e, etc. My style really doesn't want or need that.

Mr. Heinsoo in the above assumes that a) There is a way the game is "supposed to be played" and b) DM's having to ad lib campaigns is a "bad" thing. My games are the antithesis of that. I have never really seen any roleplaying game's rules as anything more than a shared structure for a story. If the story demands the rules be bent, broken or twisted, I'm happy to oblige. The rules, for me, are shared guidelines, nothing more.

3e I think had so many simulationist rules that it encouraged players not to move outside the rules when the story or plot demanded it. It gave the impression that "gee, there's a rule for this, we must follow it at all costs". In many cases that thinking was right - because if you altered that rule you'd break something else. 

However, I do not think the rules bloat of 3e means the idea of DMs having to improv or react to a players wild suggestions was ever a bad thing that needed to be exorcised with a new rule set. It does mean that the DMs were possibly overwhelmed with rules and needed some simplicity but I do not necessarily think many DMs wanted less flexibility as a result. 



pemerton said:


> If this was their intention, then why would they publish _the first version of D&D_ which has rules for player-designated quests that will earn quest XP?
> 
> Or passages like this, in the rules on skill challenges:




I snipped the skill challenge quotes for brevity. 

As previously discussed, you have enlightened me on the value of skills challenges. I think it might make a great foundation for future DMs, but still feel it is unnecessarily restrictive if a DM is never encouraged to move on to a more flexible style. My issues are precisely with how the skill challenges are presented and confirmed by Mr. Heinsoo's interview. The system makes several assumptions which Mr. Heinsoo alludes to in the above: Players shouldn't just say "bop" and challenge the DM / pre-written story as he states. The system also assumes the DM will have a nice laundry list of skills challenges all laid out ahead of time which the players will necessarily follow because the DM "_lovingly figured out what they want to do"_ some time prior to the session. They will then all follow the script to its conclusion. 

Yes, you can alter this approach and take skill challenges and put them together on the fly for a more "free-form" game. I still contend the system is not designed for this, doesn't allude to the budding DM for a future need to do this, and it is a matter of a talented DM "making water from wine" so to speak.

So I'll stick by everything I said previously - 4e's intent was to lower entry level DM barriers and to further divorce collaborative storytelling from the mix so players had less say in the overall direction of a story. Sure, the skill challenge system lets them mechanically interact with the established story in a structured, localized, basis and it is an excellent framework. However, I think the designer made it clear that players fundamentally altering the some "lovingly crafted" plot was something 4e wanted to move away from.

EDIT - Rob says the "I don't know what to do" moment for DMs comes at 6th level spells. I'd lower that to 5th with Teleport, Commune, Commune with Nature, Plane Shift, Overland Flight etc. Heck, just having a druid that can change into a small bird forces you to expand your DMing horizons to aniticipate the extremely unexpected. I love those spells when players cast them frankly. I don't want to see a game where those things are deemed "too difficult for a DM to deal with" and shunted off to some red headed step-child system. Those instances have made for some of the most memorable times I have experienced in RPGs. Again, this is all by my play style which has never followed the typical "module of the day" path.


----------



## nnms

CuRoi said:


> Mr. Heinsoo in the above assumes that a) There is a way the game is "supposed to be played" and b) DM's having to ad lib campaigns is a "bad" thing.




I didn't get that from what he was saying at all.  Not one bit.  I think you might be reading that into it.

What I thought he was talking about is that after around 6th level, certain characters gain abilities that can do so much in terms of solving problems and facing challenges that the average DM has no reliable way to challenge the players and create interesting situations.

The only thing it has to do with DM improv is that you better be good at it when a player says "I cast this spell" and the situation you've presented them with is suddenly solved and the challenge met, 15 minutes into a 4 hour play session.



> So I'll stick by everything I said previously - 4e's intent was to lower entry level DM barriers and to further divorce collaborative storytelling from the mix so players had less say in the overall direction of a story.




No, the intent was to make it easier to DM, in whatever approach the DM wanted to take regarding the group's level of improv and collaboration.

What it was meant to stop is:

DM:  "So you just finished examing the prince's body.  It was definitely murder."
Player1:  "Do you think it was assassination?"
Player2:  "Probably a local issue-- a crime of passion perhaps?"
Player3:  "I cast UltraDivination!"
MYSTERY SOLVED!



> However, I think the designer made it clear that players fundamentally altering the some "lovingly crafted" plot was something 4e wanted to move away from.




No, Heinsoo made it clear that the players shouldn't be able to just press the easy button (bop) and resolve the situation by one declarative statement of which spell was cast or which ability was used.



> I don't want to see a game where those things are deemed "too difficult for a DM to deal with" and shunted off to some red headed step-child system. Those instances have made for some of the most memorable times I have experienced in RPGs.




First of all, just let yourself be one of the good DMs he talks about.  Now see if you can't put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have your mad skills.  You've just prepared a murder mystery that's heavy on the improv and with no set way that you've chosen that the myster must be solved.  They can make any assumptions they like, talk to whom they like, etc.,.  And then with the casting of a single spell it's all gone.  All that prep.  The entire situation.

You might be able to go "awesome!" and instantly change the game session from a murder mystery to an attempt to capture the perp.  From a procedural to an action chase scene.  But not everyone will be able to do it, and for those DMs, the system gives them a big groin punch.

Also, if these instances are always possible and a PC of appropriate level will pretty much reliably have the ability to create them, then that's an exclusion of play styles just as much as a system where you can't just say "I cast fly" and bypass an interesting terrain related puzzle.


----------



## pemerton

CuRoi said:


> I am that guy. That guy that loves "handling it" when the players go off the map.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Mr. Heinsoo in the above assumes that a) There is a way the game is "supposed to be played" and b) DM's having to ad lib campaigns is a "bad" thing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do not think the rules bloat of 3e means the idea of DMs having to improv or react to a players wild suggestions was ever a bad thing that needed to be exorcised with a new rule set.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e's intent was to lower entry level DM barriers and to further divorce collaborative storytelling from the mix so players had less say in the overall direction of a story.



I don't really agree with your description of what is going on here. What Heinsoo says isn't that the players shouldn't be able to affect the story. What he says is that the GM should have control over the framing of the situation. These are two very different things, as explained by Ron Edwards:

*Content authority *- over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom

*Plot authority *- over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content . . .

*Situational authority *- over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example, or phrases like "That's when I show up!" from a player

*Narrational authority *- how it happens, what happens - I'm suggesting here that this is best understood as a feature of resolution (including the entirety of IIEE), and not to mistake it for describing what the castle looks like, for instance; I also suggest it's far more shared in application than most role-players realize . . .

There is no overlap between those four types of authority. They are four distinct phenomena. . .

I was working with a relationship map, not with a plot in mind. I had a bunch of NPCs. Whatever happened, I'd play them, which is to say, I'd decide what they did and said. You should see that I simply gave up the reins of "how the story will go" (plot authority) entirely. . . [but] I scene-framed like a mother-f*****. That's the middle level: situational authority. That's my job as GM . . . players can narrate outcomes to conflict rolls, but they can't start new scenes. But I totally gave up authority over the "top" level, plot authority. I let that become an emergent property of the other two levels: again, me with full authority over situation (scene framing), and the players and I sharing authority over narrational authority, which provided me with cues, in the sense of no-nonsense instructions, regarding later scene framing.

And similarly, like situational authority, content authority was left entirely to my seat at the table. There was no way for a player's narration to clash with the back-story. All of the player narrations concerned plot authority, like the guy's mask coming off in my hypothetical example [of a dramatic revelation] above . . .

I think [good gaming in this style of play] has nothing at all to do with distributed authority, but rather with the group members' shared trust that situational authority is going to get exerted for maximal enjoyment among everyone. If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . .  It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared]I[maginary]S[pace] are worth anyone's time.​
4e is a _great_ game for collaborative story telling, in which the players resolve the situations the GM establishes. Features like skill challenges, the combat rules and so on are all designed to this end. (As per the quotes in my earlier post.) In Edward's terms, they give the players a degree of authority over plot and narration (not full authority, because the GM gets to decide to some extent what NPCs do, and how they do it).

4e is also a game that, like many indie games (eg HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling) gives the GM control over framing the situations that the players have to resolve. This is what makes the mechanics that give the players authority over plot and narration work! (What makes 4e combat fun, for example, is that the GM establishes a situation and the players have to fight their way out of it. 4e doesn't support, for example, a teleport-and-ambush style of play, where the PCs always fight with an overwhelming tactical and logistical advantage from the start - those sorts of combats will be boring in 4e. Similar remarks apply to skill challenges.)

And Heinsoo's point is that a game like 3E makes it hard for the GM to exercise this sort of control, because there are too many variables and powers (particularly at higher levels). The game is therefore, to a degree, incoherent - it has all these guidelines on encounter design, adventure design, running a campaign, etc - all of which presuppose that the GM has primary authority over framing the situations - and at the same time it gives the players (mostly via the higher-level spells granted to wizard PCs) the power to compete with the GM over who will exercise this authority. 4e resolves this incoherence in favour of the GM. To borrow Edwards's phrase, it assumes that the GM will establish situations _that are worth anyone's time_, and that the players will use the abilities of their PCs to resolve those situations, and thereby drive the plot of the game.

If you think that the only way for players to affect the story is to exercise authority over the framing of situations, then I tend to assume that you don't have a lot of familiarity with those indie games I am mentioning. Because these games makes the sorts of distinctions Edwards is drawing - between situational or scene-framing authority, on the one hand, and plot authority, on the other - pretty clear at the level of practice and not just theory.

Also, in case anyone is tempted to equate a GM's situational authority with railroading, then as well as the games I've mentioned I'll finish with this favourite quote of mine from Paul Czege:

I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . .

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​
I  think it very effectively exposes, as Ron points out above, that although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.

How does it feel? I suspect it feels like being a guest on a fast-paced political roundtable television program. I think the players probably love it for the adrenaline, but sometimes can't help but breathe a calming sigh when I say "cut."​


----------



## CuRoi

nnms said:


> I didn't get that from what he was saying at all. Not one bit. I think you might be reading that into it.




Well, that makes two that believe I am reading things into it so I'm fine with giving ground to the majority. However, perhaps its agreeable to say he indicates that having to DM versus "powerful spells" is just too complicated. I'm not arguing that it isn't complicated. What I am arguing is there's no reason to shut it down, but instead DMs should feel free to repsond with out of the box solutions. This however seems to be a bad option in the previous text because this might require a DM to sometimes "make up rules that people enjoy" instead of playing by the rules. It might also require DMs to grow and learn how to adapt (see below to follow my quite possibly bizarre and I'm sure again minority viewpoint.)

As noted, this is all from my play experience and I frankly have no problem doing just those things 4e is supposed to "solve" according to the above passage. I find removing those DM challenges detrimental -see below.



nnms said:


> What I thought he was talking about is that after around 6th level, certain characters gain abilities that can do so much in terms of solving problems and facing challenges that the average DM has no reliable way to challenge the players and create interesting situations.
> 
> The only thing it has to do with DM improv is that you better be good at it when a player says "I cast this spell" and the situation you've presented them with is suddenly solved and the challenge met, 15 minutes into a 4 hour play session.




Again, I think I have made this clear, but this is so far removed from my play style - and I am only speaking from play style. I am not calling on various industry veterans, designers, the local comic book store owner, the uber 4e DM, etc. etc. It's just my opinion. So, for the record, I never sit down at a table with a planned "scenario" to present my players. I know where we left off last game, I know the various intricacies and movements in the world I have created and I have a loose idea of possibilities players could or could not pursue. This coupled with sometimes extensive, sometimes loosely skecthed maps and a database of NPCs in key positions in the major "plot" are all I really need to run a game. They can't ever "win" with one spell. If they do, well, that's dandy. All they've really done is fast track the plot and probably done something we will talk about for years to come.



nnms said:


> No, the intent was to make it easier to DM, in whatever approach the DM wanted to take regarding the group's level of improv and collaboration.
> 
> What it was meant to stop is:
> 
> DM: "So you just finished examing the prince's body. It was definitely murder."
> Player1: "Do you think it was assassination?"
> Player2: "Probably a local issue-- a crime of passion perhaps?"
> Player3: "I cast UltraDivination!"
> MYSTERY SOLVED!




Again, due to the way I've run things, I have never encountered that issue. I'm not working from a rigidly pre-defined scenario, ever. I present the PCs with a large scale problem and let them pick it apart however they want. If the players in my games do cast "UltraDivination" and magically solve some puzzle in 4 minutes, I don't care. They've got an entire world to explore.

To me, deciding that the above "I win Scenario" is inappropriate is just as I pointed out - a capitulation that the game needs to follow set rigidly defined modules which players can't use powers to derail and can only interact with as the script requires. People will argue with me because they think I am saying that means 4e sucks. It doesn't. It means there is a different experience that 4e is trying to create and it is not how I personally run an RPG. It means that IMO, 4e is a bit better suited to skirmishing and dungeon crawling for those reasons. So was Basic DnD, so was 1st Edition, so what, they're still fun games.



nnms said:


> First of all, just let yourself be one of the good DMs he talks about. Now see if you can't put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have your mad skills. You've just prepared a murder mystery that's heavy on the improv and with no set way that you've chosen that the myster must be solved. They can make any assumptions they like, talk to whom they like, etc.,. And then with the casting of a single spell it's all gone. All that prep. The entire situation.




Ok, if the DM preparing this murder mystery just completely ignored the fact that the players have access to Find the Path, Commune, Divination, Speak with Dead, whatever "I win" spell you are thnking of, then they simply were not prepared. They then learn from their mistakes and craft an adventure next time that takes the power of the PCs into account.

This is entirely the point. I'm NOT necesarily a great DM because I have some misguided ego. I'm a great DM because I have been in those positions, made those mistakes, keep making those mistakes, and slowly learned how to run a better game. Making a ruleset that explicitly sets out to remove the "diffcult" or tough decisions from DMing is tantamount to saying "lets all be average DMs forever".



> You might be able to go "awesome!" and instantly change the game session from a murder mystery to an attempt to capture the perp. From a procedural to an action chase scene. But not everyone will be able to do it, and for those DMs, the system gives them a big groin punch.




Then punch 'em in the groin!!! I *swear* they'll but up a nice low block next time and counter with head butt 



> say "I cast fly" and bypass an interesting terrain related puzzle.




Again, if I am a DM and designing adventures based on "interesting terrain puzzles" for say a party of druids or Harrry Potter wanna-bes on broom sticks, thats my own darn fault. I don't need the rules to save me from myself.


----------



## CuRoi

First off, delicious quotes. Thanks 

Second, yep I'm not familair with many indie games. I have read about them, worked with Fudge for a bit (designed a game system for our group for The Matrix based loosely on FUDGE) I am interested in what the guys at Evil Hat are doing, but have only vaguely looked into it.

I am familiar with DnD 

The arguments I'm getting though don't seem to apply to my style in the least. I've never had a player cast an "I win" spell. I enjoy sweating it out when a player puts me on the ropes through creative use of their abilities, I in turn do the same to the players when I play out their encounters with "smart" opponents.



pemerton said:


> What makes 4e combat fun, for example, is that the GM establishes a situation and the players have to fight their way out of it. 4e doesn't support, for example, a teleport-and-ambush style of play, where the PCs always fight with an overwhelming tactical and logistical advantage from the start - those sorts of combats will be boring in 4e. Similar remarks apply to skill challenges.




Right, I get that completely. This is not fun to me. I prefer to present the players with a loosely defined challenge and let them throw the kitchen sink at it while I respond with what obstacles I have at hand.  We collaborate on a story and an outcome. If there is an enemy fortress to infiltrate, I let them do it however they desire. If they come up with a combination of spells or abilities the circumvents the "lovingly crafted" defenses, very cool - I've now got a fortress full of angry guys to start hunting them down next game. If they try to execute this "perfect" plan and end up bogged down in a major slugfest (which is often what happens) with every defender in the place, hey, tough break, but also very cool.

I want my players to step outside the frame as it were. I don't care if they can cast spells that obliterate the scene if it is within their power to do so. They own this story as much as I do. I just help adjudicate the outcome. Sure, I have final say and I set out the ground rules, but I won't even pretend to know what they are planning next. I won't even assume they can't jump from page one to page 45 through creative use of whatever spell or ability they might have. If they catch my bad guys and their minions with their pants down with "ambush play" wow, that's completely awesome.  I garauntee it won't happen everytime, but we will both revel in it because ultimately it makes for a great story. Making "ambush play" boring as you say 4e does, again steers everything toward pre-defined, scripted, toe to toe fights. Also very fun, but not at all how I run a game.



> all of which presuppose that the GM has primary authority over framing the situations - and at the same time it gives the players (mostly via the higher-level spells granted to wizard PCs) the power to compete with the GM over who will exercise this authority.




Ok...I keep seeing this concern about "well a wizard can cast a spell and win the game" thing over and over. Someone give me a concrete example here. I've been playing/DMing DnD for years, I've had players catch me with my pants down before. It has NEVER however spoiled a session or ruined an entire campaign. It's generally great fun and I don't see why all the concern about it and why you say 4e had to "resolve" this travesty 



> 4e resolves this incoherence in favour of the GM. To borrow Edwards's phrase, it assumes that the GM will establish situations _that are worth anyone's time_, and that the players will use the abilities of their PCs to resolve those situations, and thereby drive the plot of the game.




Again, see my response to nms - I've never needed this resolved. Sure, there were maybe some times where players as I mentioned caught me off guard and I just took it from there and ran with it. That's the whole fun behind it. And you know, sometimes my imagined "situations" just plain stink and need some spice! If a player gives me something juicy by intentionally or inadvertently grabbing hold of my precious plot, I'll probably incorporate it and do it in such a way that they thought it was my idea. I don't mind at all stealing a good pointer or two for everyone's enjoyment. (Oooh that's a bad thing right?, heh)

The whole key is that we all have fun and enjoy the game. My current group would loath being told they were entering a scenario with limited options just so I the DM could feel comfortable doing my job. Please, they want to smack me around and I'll do the same to them for good measure and all in fun and friendship. It's a game of strategy in a sense that I relish. So, I'll stick to the ugly, messy, "Oooh my PC just cast the I win spell" version of things.


----------



## Tuft

CuRoi said:


> Right, I get that completely. This is not fun to me. I prefer to present the players with a loosely defined challenge and let them throw the kitchen sink at it while I respond with what obstacles I have at hand.  We collaborate on a story and an outcome. If there is an enemy fortress to infiltrate, I let them do it however they desire. If they come up with a combination of spells or abilities the circumvents the "lovingly crafted" defenses, very cool - I've now got a fortress full of angry guys to start hunting them down next game. If they try to execute this "perfect" plan and end up bogged down in a major slugfest (which is often what happens) with every defender in the place, hey, tough break, but also very cool.
> 
> I want my players to step outside the frame as it were. I don't care if they can cast spells that obliterate the scene if it is within their power to do so. They own this story as much as I do. I just help adjudicate the outcome. Sure, I have final say and I set out the ground rules, but I won't even pretend to know what they are planning next. I won't even assume they can't jump from page one to page 45 through creative use of whatever spell or ability they might have. If they catch my bad guys and their minions with their pants down with "ambush play" wow, that's completely awesome.  I garauntee it won't happen everytime, but we will both revel in it because ultimately it makes for a great story. Making "ambush play" boring as you say 4e does, again steers everything toward pre-defined, scripted, toe to toe fights. Also very fun, but not at all how I run a game.
> 
> Ok...I keep seeing this concern about "well a wizard can cast a spell and win the game" thing over and over. Someone give me a concrete example here. I've been playing/DMing DnD for years, I've had players catch me with my pants down before. It has NEVER however spoiled a session or ruined an entire campaign. It's generally great fun and I don't see why all the concern about it and why you say 4e had to "resolve" this travesty





Getting to solve the scenario _your way_ is so worth it. 

The other week, in a home-brew I am playing in, the party's swordsman used sheer persistence to find the Big Bad ahead of time, which meant that we ran that encounter before the minor encounters that were supposed to lead up to it, and those minors had to be handled afterward. Anticlimactic, you might think, but everybody loved it, just because we had managed to put our own spin on the solution. 


Similarly, a few years ago, in an 3.5 adventure, my pixie sorceress managed to use a series of "benign transportations" to teleport the party through a narrow arrow-slit. What that meant was that we solved the entire dungeon backwards. The scenario, as written, was written with all descriptions intended for the "proper" way, so my DM had to struggle with the descriptions. "To the right is an ornate urn... I mean, to the _left_..." It might have been naughty of me, but I loved every time that happened...


----------



## nnms

CuRoi said:


> If the players in my games do cast "UltraDivination" and magically solve some puzzle in 4 minutes, I don't care. They've got an entire world to explore.




Right.  So let yourself be a good DM.  Heinsoo specifically said that a sufficiently good DM can compensate for this issue.  So let yourself be that sufficiently good DM.



> To me, deciding that the above "I win Scenario" is inappropriate is just as I pointed out - a capitulation that the game needs to follow set rigidly defined modules which players can't use powers to derail and can only interact with as the script requires.




What I'm talking about is situation not plot (where a script might come into play).  I'm not talking about rails or scripts or anything.  I'm a completely imrpov DM myself.  

The spells available in 3.x to sufficiently high level characters means that a DM has to drastically compensate for their ability to solve mysteries, bypass barriers, etc.,.  As well it means that many interesting situations are no longer appropriate or viable for play.

Now imagine your not as good a DM as you are.  Imagine someone else on the spectrum of DM experience/ability.  What if someone can't as easily recognize how their situation is instantly solved by one declaration of spell casting?  Is the answer really to have one bad session after another until they fight their way to your level of competency?



> People will argue with me because they think I am saying that means 4e sucks. It doesn't. It means there is a different experience that 4e is trying to create and it is not how I personally run an RPG.




No.  People are trying to tell you that 4E doesn't do what you think it does.  I run 4E totally unscripted, 100% improv.  I have no preplanned idea of what might happen or who might do what.  And 4E does not in any way work against me in this regard.

What it does do, is expand my options when it comes to making interesting situations.  I can spend less time thinking about the implications of UltraDivination and spells like it and more time thinking about the situation and conflict between different characters and their motivations (PCs and NPCs).  I find 4E does the exact opposite of what you've assessed it as doing.



> It means that IMO, 4e is a bit better suited to skirmishing and dungeon crawling for those reasons. So was Basic DnD, so was 1st Edition, so what, they're still fun games.




I wish that were the case.  I have another campaign starting where we want to play a very traditional mega/campaign dungeon exploration game and I'm brainstorming like mad to figure out the best way to make 4E work in the same manner as Basic DnD and 1st Edition do for this type of game.   4E has pretty jarring shifts between different modes of play that make it less than ideal for exploration heavy dungeon campaigns.



> Ok, if the DM preparing this murder mystery just completely ignored the fact that the players have access to Find the Path, Commune, Divination, Speak with Dead, whatever "I win" spell you are thnking of, then they simply were not prepared. They then learn from their mistakes and craft an adventure next time that takes the power of the PCs into account.




Exactly.  The system lets down those who don't have the forsight and experience at a certain level.  You and I might have no problem realizing that those spells will instantly resolve the dramatic situation with one word.  But what about the lesser skilled DMs?



> Then punch 'em in the groin!!! I *swear* they'll but up a nice low block next time and counter with head butt




This sums it up perfectly.  I have one question:

What if you could have a system that _supported you_ rather than one you fight against until you're strong enough to beat it into submission?


----------



## CuRoi

nnms said:


> Right. So let yourself be a good DM. Heinsoo specifically said that a sufficiently good DM can compensate for this issue. So let yourself be that sufficiently good DM.




Better yet, let's show everyone how to be that sufficiently good DM and continue to challenge them. 



nnms said:


> What I'm talking about is situation not plot (where a script might come into play). I'm not talking about rails or scripts or anything. I'm a completely imrpov DM myself.
> 
> The spells available in 3.x to sufficiently high level characters means that a DM has to drastically compensate for their ability to solve mysteries, bypass barriers, etc.,. As well it means that many interesting situations are no longer appropriate or viable for play.




Drastically? What, by adding Mind Blank to the mix if they need to protect a plot device from Discern Location? By actually using Misdirection on key NPCs/objects? I'm still not following the drastic difficulty of reading the spells in the book, some of which outline ways to possibly foil them in their description. I don't see the difficulty. IMO, if you are DM that has yet to read the PHB cover to cover and at least retain a little bit of info, you might want to consider a different system. 



> Now imagine your not as good a DM as you are. Imagine someone else on the spectrum of DM experience/ability. What if someone can't as easily recognize how their situation is instantly solved by one declaration of spell casting? Is the answer really to have one bad session after another until they fight their way to your level of competency?




It can be the same with any system really - I imagine 4e bewilders some people (obviously I am much more bewildered by it than you as an example!) 

First - if you are a "new" DM and you decide to run an adventure for players with 5th level+ spells its going to be a trainwreck. I've seen it happen. You traditionally start at low level and following the normal XP progression, you will have quite a few sessions under your belt before PCs hit 10th level. If you still don't get how to craft an adevnture for PCs of that level, maybe DMing isn't your gig. Or, maybe you should wrap the game up at a nice end point right then and there. Then start another campaign and work your way through the levels you are comfortable with until you can start to understand what is necessary at higher levels. 

Second - Look, in any game, sport, etc. there is a learning curve. If your players are "suffering" through your attempts at DMing presumably it is in a charitable sense. And if it never gets better, presumably they are good enough friends to step up and say "Hey, look, this just isn't working out. Why don't we let the player who is able to dismantle everything you throw at him in a standard action run the game for a bit?" However, the bottom line is people learn from their mistakes, they learn to be good at something they are motivated to do. I'd rather cultivate Great DMs then rearrraneg a system to accomodate so-so DMs. 

I suppose your friends could step up and say "hey let's all play system X so it's not so hard for you to run a game." In which case, at my table, dice would be thrown on both sides, heh.



> I find 4E does the exact opposite of what you've assessed it as doing.




Ok, you have more experience with the 4e system, so I won't argue about how well it works for you or it doesn't. However, again, removing things just because they could be challenging to a DM seems a bit silly. 

You have to understand though, when I say I want to be challenged as a DM, it does not mean I want to be assaulted with tedium.

In that respect, if you say streamlining the rules would be a good idea, I'm completely on board. I was immediately sold on ditching the 2e THACO chart when 3e came out. I also really like some of the things 4e did to follow this route like the skills consolidation. Or the idea of Defenses and the idea of Attributes making attacks (though I don't think they took this far enough IMO). I like the HP boost at first level. I like that they attempted to flatten the power curve a bit between classes (but really dislike the end result). I could go on and on with things I -do- like about the system. All of those things do make a DMs job easier so they can focus on the creative aspects - like adjudicating really interesting plot twists introduced by Divination spells.

Rules bloat is not a DM "challenge" it is an exercise in sheer tedium. If you tell me they should remove spells that give attribute bonuses I'd be more likely to agree with that before agreeing to removing high level divination spells.

Why? Because challenging me to think creatively and out of the box in response to interesting and possibly powerful spell effects is not tedium. Giving players the opportunity to dramatically alter the course of a game or plot with a spell is also not tedious - it's chaallenging, yes, but not tedious. And it's just plain fun. I will plainly submit that I am perhaps very much in the minority on this thinking.



> I wish that were the case. I have another campaign starting where we want to play a very traditional mega/campaign dungeon exploration game and I'm brainstorming like mad to figure out the best way to make 4E work in the same manner as Basic DnD and 1st Edition do for this type of game. 4E has pretty jarring shifts between different modes of play that make it less than ideal for exploration heavy dungeon campaigns.




See, again this is where I am obviously bewildered by 4e. I can very clearly see a way to modularly chain room after room and skill challenge after skill challenge to create a dungeon in 4e. Frame "Scenes" players can't leave, etc. which they can plow through with encounter powers, healing surges and second winds. Its darn near perfect for it in the really odd version of 4e I guess I have in my head. 3e not so much. In fact, I've almost never run a dungeon crawl with 3e. Not saying it doesn't work, just saying I don't do it.



> This sums it up perfectly. I have one question:
> 
> What if you could have a system that _supported you_ rather than one you fight against until you're strong enough to beat it into submission?




Well, the fight example was yours (punch to the groin) I just expanded on it  But to keep the analogy going, I'd end up a pretty poor fighter if I fought guys that pulled their punches constantly so they didn't hurt me. 

My nephew played on a soccer team once where the whole league was about "winning". I don't mean the uber-competitive winning but the whole "everyone is a winner" concept. You got to run up to open goals and kick it in and it was all happiness and fluffy bunnies and whatever silly ultra-positive reinforcement you could stomach. Too bad IMO such an approach completely devalues the "winning attitude" it is trying to teach. Life is all about challenges and taking it by the horns is the best way to learn.

So, what would I do with a system that completely supported me, kept players from derailing things and offered less opportunity to them for out of the box, insanely open solutions? I'd probably run a dungeon crawl, but that's just me  (Yes, I'm a smart a$$ - sorry I just couldn't resist. If you can't tell, I'm enjoying this debate so I hope no one is taking any of this personally or anything.)


----------



## nnms

CuRoi said:


> Drastically? What, by adding Mind Blank to the mix if they need to protect a plot device from Discern Location? By actually using Misdirection on key NPCs/objects?




These are excellent examples.  What it does is limit the DM to situations where the bag guys must have access to these resources and know that they need to be used in advance.

3.x has a lot of "automatic challenge bypass" type spells.  When a player has access to these, it means a DM can only use a subset of possible situations and still provide a reasonable challenge to the players.

Heinsoo: One of the challenges for us with this edition is recognizing that the 3.5 sweet spot was real, it was this element where when the Game Master gets to the point around when their players are using 6th-level spells, all of the sudden the GM’s ability to really understand what’s going to happen in their game is a little bit gone. I’ve seen too many plans of GM’s lovingly figuring out what they want to do, and all of the sudden the PC’s say, “bop!”, and it’s like game over! The GM thinks, “I don’t know what to do.”​
Can you see now how what Heinsoo was talking about might not have had anything to do with scripting or railroading?  But about how challenges can be utterly neutered and situations resolved by a single magic word uttered by a PC?  And he goes on:

There are people who can handle it, I’m sure in our audience we have people who are intensely proud of being really good GM’s and can manage to handle it. But I, perhaps, am like the part of the audience who really didn’t want to have to learn 3.5 according to its rules.​
He gets that sufficiently skilled DMs can compensate and handle the issue.  But a large portion of DMs out there don't want a game like that.  They don't want to have to adjust everything they do to compensate for players having an array of easy buttons that they can press to dismiss challenges, remove tension and resolve situations.

What we’re trying to do with 4th Edition is make a game where the Dungeon Master is given enough tools, and enough SIMPLE ways of making the game fun,​
Having simple ways of making the game fun does not limit DM skill.  The fact that I can use a wider array of situations because the players do not have "challenge bypassers" doesn't have anything to do with me growing or not growing as a DM.  It just means I have _more tools_.  And I very rarely have to worry about my dramatic situation being gutted by a "bop" uttered by a player as they simply access a system resource to bypass a challenge rather than engage with it.

I think it's just different DMing skills that get built.  Rather than building up my ability to anticipate and compensate for easy buttons, I instead build up my ability to use classic dramatic techniques, situation building, characterization, the addition of colour, and dealing with theme.  I think those skills are far more fundamental than 3.x system mastery.

that the amount of time that 3.5 would force you to spend doing math is actually used by the GM on their story. Go ahead and finish figuring out your story and what seems cool to you, not just dealing with leveling up this monster or figuring out the math.​
I don't know how you handle spells and spell like effects in your improvization heavy form of 3.x DMing.  When the PCs encounter a creature or a bad guy with spells, whether you take the time to pick them and build the NPC out level by level.  When the PCs cast UltraDivination, do you look at your notes and see what the villian is capable of, or do you just think "It's plausible the bad guy is a wizard and would probably use Mind Blank" and then tell the player they get nothing by pressing the easy button?



> I'm still not following the drastic difficulty of reading the spells in the book, some of which outline ways to possibly foil them in their description. I don't see the difficulty. IMO, if you are DM that has yet to read the PHB cover to cover and at least retain a little bit of info, you might want to consider a different system.




Exactly the point.  Some DMs don't want to have to be the best at system mastery at the table in order to provide a credible challenge to th players.  Some want to concentrate on other priorities.  



> First - if you are a "new" DM and you decide to run an adventure for players with 5th level+ spells its going to be a trainwreck. I've seen it happen. You traditionally start at low level and following the normal XP progression, you will have quite a few sessions under your belt before PCs hit 10th level. If you still don't get how to craft an adevnture for PCs of that level, maybe DMing isn't your gig.




The hobby is starved for lack of DMs.  If game system is such that only a small subset of _those _people are suitable for DMing, then that system is probably not the best for the growth of the hobby.  I know locally, it's next to impossible to find DMs for 3.x or Pathfinder, but those wanting to play are numerous.  The 4E players on the other hand, have no trouble finding a game.  I don't know if it's like this in other places, but I do know that WotC recognized that DMs are the limiting factor of the growth of the hobby and designed a product to let them do their thing with far, far less headaches, prep time and necessary levels of system mastery.

And also even if the DM runs the group from level 1 and then starts hitting these "challenge-bypassers" later on, it doesn't mean that they'll even know they have to prepare for them and compensate.  They shouldn't have to be caught in the groin in order to learn they need to do that low front block headbut combo in order to keep going.



> Second - Look, in any game, sport, etc. there is a learning curve. If your players are "suffering" through your attempts at DMing presumably it is in a charitable sense. And if it never gets better, presumably they are good enough friends to step up and say "Hey, look, this just isn't working out. Why don't we let the player who is able to dismantle everything you throw at him in a standard action run the game for a bit?"




Because skill at system mastery doesn't necessarily nothing to do with running an enjoyable game?  From running a system that requires it, you may have arrived at a conclusion that there's a 1:1 correlation there, but I assure you that is not the case.  

If needing to be the best at the table at system mastery is what qualifies you to DM, then we're going to end up missing out on DMs who's expertise lies more in creative areas, like a sense of the dramatic, the ability to do characterization for multiple NPCs at once, an keen understanding of interpersonal conflict, tension, colour, mood, theme, etc.,.

I would *hate it* if those people are shuffled out of the DM's chair because someone else at the table can game the system better than they can and does so to deflate their dramatic situations again and again.



> However, the bottom line is people learn from their mistakes, they learn to be good at something they are motivated to do. I'd rather cultivate Great DMs then rearrraneg a system to accomodate so-so DMs.




Except you're assuming so-so DMs = lack of system mastery.  That if someone can't handle the hurdles of 3.x, that they must be limited as a DM.  When the truth is that the system is likely getting in their way.



> Ok, you have more experience with the 4e system, so I won't argue about how well it works for you or it doesn't. However, again, removing things just because they could be challenging to a DM seems a bit silly.




It's not just challenging the DM.  It's changing the entire focus as to what skills are needed to DM.  It's emphasizing system mastery over story, plot, theme, colour, motivation, characterization, etc.,.



> Why? Because challenging me to think creatively and out of the box in response to interesting and possibly powerful spell effects is not tedium.




For _you._  For the vast majority of people out there, figuring out an awesome dramatic situation and having it utterly deflated again and again because you happen to have someone who's better at system mastery at the table is utterly tedious.



> I will plainly submit that I am perhaps very much in the minority on this thinking.




This.  That's what I was talking about when I was saying to just let yourself be the skilled DM Heinsoo was talking about.



> See, again this is where I am obviously bewildered by 4e. I can very clearly see a way to modularly chain room after room and skill challenge after skill challenge to create a dungeon in 4e. Frame "Scenes" players can't leave, etc. which they can plow through with encounter powers, healing surges and second winds. Its darn near perfect for it in the really odd version of 4e I guess I have in my head.




Yes, it does work for this.  I've done it a lot.  But it doesn't work well for 2E and earlier style dungeon exploration.  The issue is tactical encounters.  This is getting off topic, so here's a post from Robert Schwalb's blog about it:
Reexamining the Dungeon



> So, what would I do with a system that completely supported me, kept players from derailing things and offered less opportunity to them for out of the box, insanely open solutions? I'd probably run a dungeon crawl, but that's just me  (Yes, I'm a smart a$$ - sorry I just couldn't resist. If you can't tell, I'm enjoying this debate so I hope no one is taking any of this personally or anything.)




Well, I chose to ran a game where the players are all nobles and am enjoying political intrigue, military campaigns, negotiations, murder mysteries, etc.,.  And without having to worry about dramatic situations being deflated by the casting of a single spell.  The character playing the wizard is still very, very creative with his rituals and has massively influenced the world as a result.  What he can't do is cast "Solve Mystery" when a mystery comes up.


----------



## CuRoi

nnms said:


> These are excellent examples. What it does is limit the DM to situations where the bag guys must have access to these resources and know that they need to be used in advance.




Actually saying this "limits the DM" is more than a bit silly.

There is no limitation. Hopefully the DM is actually not planning in a vacuum, they have an idea of pitting the PC against foes that can match the PCs power levels. (Though not always because sometimes its great fun to outclass the PCs and conversely great fun for the PCs to stomp people into dust.) Hopefully they have an idea of what their opponents might be capable of and what the players might do?

You do that in ANY system in ANY RPG, this has little to do with just 3e. I bet you do it with 4e too. If an ancient Red Dragon is still vulnerable to cold and intelligent, you think it might have acquired protection against cold in its centuries old existence? Is that "cheating" because the party mage likes to cast fire spells? Isn't it just common sense on the part of the Dragon?

Seriously, when have you ever played an RPG and not taken into consideration what the abilties and powers of any given PC and monster might be in order to build a challenging scenario? I'm completely baffled here. 

Is your contention that 4e requires absolutely no system familiarity or mastery? Really? I'm, well, amazed by the claim.

Knowing to use spells like Misdirection and Mind Blank in advance should be prefunctory for soem adversaries in a highly magical world. When designing an old campaign, the final major plot twist involved the replacement of the High King with a modified Clone. I knew the PCs would most likely (though not necessarily) have powerful magic available when they got to this stage. The individuals that performed the kidnapping were also necessarily a very powerful group with highly accomplished magic users of their own. So with an advesary that had Spellcraft somewhere in the 30's, it should be child's play to recall that you need Mind Blank to thwart the type of diviniations which may be used to locate a missing King. A ring of Mind Blank was gifted to the High King through an inside job. The High King was then Imprisoned (among a laundry list of other security procedures.) 

This is no different than planning some sort of Special Ops rendition in a modern RPG game. You don't leave a trail, you don't leave fingerprints, you don't use unencrypted communications, you delete the security camera data, etc. etc. Saying its a DM limitation because in a modern scenario, the players might _someday_ get access to the security cameras and use their super-deluxe-undeleter which is listed right there in the rulebook is silly. 

A DM whining that the players LATE game have the super-deluxe-undeleter, the Encryption descrambler, the prototype DNA sniffer that finds things as small as skin cells for evidence which can then be run through some sort of identification database so they solve the abduction in 5 minutes maybe should have read the book first...

If you are referring to a completely free form system where players make up their powers / inventory on the fly and the DM just says "nope, sorry you can't have that" to save their plans, well, ok I surrender to that point.



nnms said:


> Can you see now how what Heinsoo was talking about might not have had anything to do with scripting or railroading?




We're both probably at an impass here, which is cool because we don't have to agree. Of course, I have yet to bring up railroading - that's your addition to the debate. People get touchy when you mention that. Scripting yes, I did mention - moving along in some sort of DM comfort bubble. Sure, I've been there, done that but it was like 20 years ago so the memory is a bit foggy I think 4e harkens back to those days and as always, I have to say so I don't offend people, I don't think its a bad thing altogether (especially with others carrying forth the 3e banner), its just not my cup of tea.



nnms said:


> He gets that sufficiently skilled DMs can compensate and handle the issue. But a large portion of DMs out there don't want a game like that. They don't want to have to adjust everything they do to compensate for players having an array of easy buttons that they can press to dismiss challenges, remove tension and resolve situations.




There's nothing "easy" about any of it. If done right it is a constant back and forth and exchange between DM and player. I still have yet to see a concrete example of the standard action spell called "I win DnD" even though it seems to be the focus of this debate and how 4e is so much better for killing that idea. 

Why does DMing have to be easy and playing has to be difficult? Marketing decision? Don't know.



> Having simple ways of making the game fun does not limit DM skill. The fact that I can use a wider array of situations because the players do not have "challenge bypassers" doesn't have anything to do with me growing or not growing as a DM. It just means I have more tools.




Acutally, it explicitly means your players have less tools so your job can be easier. You gain nothing in the equation except an absence of the tools your players once had. Actually, you lose those tools as well as a DM and many of them make awesome plot advancers / hooks, etc.



> I don't know how you handle spells and spell like effects in your improvization heavy form of 3.x DMing.




For the most part, I already addressed this. If the players catch my NPCs with their pants down, well, huzzah! I don't curl up like Golum moaning about "my preciousss" I handle odd spells a) by the rules and b) by the story impact - not necessarily in that order. Whatever makes for the best story and the players enjoy most.



> Exactly the point. Some DMs don't want to have to be the best at system mastery at the table in order to provide a credible challenge to th players. Some want to concentrate on other priorities.




It's been a bit since I looked at 4e but accounting for 50+ "powers" for each and every class that comes to the table seems like a fair amount of system mastery to handle to create credible challenges. But again, since I haven't played in a while, I can't really say. There may be a magic formula that tells a DM exactly what monsters to pit what combination of players against, I don't know. I'm guessing though to pull it off, the DM is generally the best storyteller and probably close to the best at "System Mastery" at the 4e table as well. I personally rank up there at our table but I do have my special "system mastery cronies" that remind when I've screwed up!



> The hobby is starved for lack of DMs. If game system is such that only a small subset of those people are suitable for DMing, then that system is probably not the best for the growth of the hobby. I know locally, it's next to impossible to find DMs for 3.x or Pathfinder, but those wanting to play are numerous. The 4E players on the other hand, have no trouble finding a game.




I comletely agree here. The hobby has always needed more DMs and I can think of many things 4e could have done to draw those people out of the wood work. As mentioned I feel they did some of those things and then they dropped the ball on others IMO, IME, etc. etc. But look what youre saying - there are plenty of players for 3.x or Pathfinder. People still wanting to play 3e and Pathfinder after 4e was released how long ago?? Maybe, just maybe, players still prefer to have the level of decision making 3e gives. The game is a hollow shell without players.

So training people to DM those 3e games sounds like a better option than making an "easy ruleset" for the DM. Or is it best to squlech player options in order to bring forth the crop of DMs that felt alienated by 3e? I can't really answer that, but I'm sure we'd here quite a varied repsonse.



> And also even if the DM runs the group from level 1 and then starts hitting these "challenge-bypassers" later on, it doesn't mean that they'll even know they have to prepare for them and compensate. They shouldn't have to be caught in the groin in order to learn they need to do that low front block headbut combo in order to keep going.




Really? What nerf school of combat are we talking about here? A good groin kick teaches you lots of stuff, in a hurry... It's also h-i-larious at times.



> Because skill at system mastery doesn't necessarily nothing to do with running an enjoyable game? From running a system that requires it, you may have arrived at a conclusion that there's a 1:1 correlation there, but I assure you that is not the case.
> 
> If needing to be the best at the table at system mastery is what qualifies you to DM, then we're going to end up missing out on DMs who's expertise lies more in creative areas, like a sense of the dramatic, the ability to do characterization for multiple NPCs at once, an keen understanding of interpersonal conflict, tension, colour, mood, theme, etc.,.




Ahhh yes, because drama truly does flow like a well-oiled skill challenge? 

Youre right, it has nothing to do with System Mastery. It does have to do with knowing the rules of the game you have chosen to play. I'm guessing at any RPG table, the Game Master or DM will be somewhere near the top of the pecking order for system mastery. True, there is not necessrily a 1:1 relationship, but it helps to know what is going on when you are well, adjudicating rules and such. 



> Except you're assuming so-so DMs = lack of system mastery. That if someone can't handle the hurdles of 3.x, that they must be limited as a DM. When the truth is that the system is likely getting in their way.




Hey, no fair, you and the Heinsoo guy said a sufficiently skilled DM = DM that can react to his players actions no matter how off the wall or challenging (I guess "easy button" is how you put it). I did leap to a conclusion there though that those who can't do that are just so-so. Maybe the really great DMs are those who can't react, I don't know. 

Knowing how spells work, spells which your PC's can cast and have access to, has nothing to do with Power Gaming or Min-Maxing or "System Mastery". It has everything to do with knowing beans about the game you are running. Which is important I think. You don't have to be perfect at it, or the best one at the table, but if you have any aspiration of crafting a challenge of any kind in any system, you have to understand the rules. And I'm not even talking about anything outside the SRD (I limit non-SRD material to solve this problem, but these "Win DnD" spells you keep referring to, and their counters, are all in the SRD.)



> This. That's what I was talking about when I was saying to just let yourself be the skilled DM Heinsoo was talking about.




Yea! An agreement I think?!?



> "Solve Mystery" when a mystery comes up.




If I had time, I'd go back and count the made up "I win DnD" spells you have introduced without providing a single concrete example. I've got to get going though Be gone for a bit, so I won't have a follow up (I'm sure the readers, if there are any left, are cheering at that, heh).


----------



## Fifth Element

CuRoi said:


> Too bad IMO such an approach completely devalues the "winning attitude" it is trying to teach. Life is all about challenges and taking it by the horns is the best way to learn.



Thing is, RPGs are not life. Many people play them to get away from real life. Like me, for instance. Having at least one game that supports that style of play is an awesome thing.

I am the type of DM who can react to what players do, or anticipate their possible actions, such that system-mastery systems present no problem for me. _When I have the time and energy for them_. In recent years, I just want to sit down and play the game and not have to worry about that stuff.


----------



## nnms

CuRoi said:


> Actually saying this "limits the DM" is more than a bit silly.
> 
> There is no limitation.




If a DM can't use a variety of interesting situations because the players have access to "cancel situation" buttons for them, then yes, they are limited to a smaller subset of situations.  I played a diviner from the moment 3.0 came out until he was quite high level.  The DM quickly become limited in that any situation that could be resolved by knowing a pieces of information was going to be instantly resolved by one of my spells.  The DM was forced to compensate by avoiding any situation where mystery was involved.  My ability to just make a declarative statement about what spell I was casting and utterly deflate the challenge limited his options when it came to what situations he presented to the players.

In 4E, I actually don't have to know the capability and text of all the powers they might have.  People could show up to a game with a character I've never seen before and the odds of them deflating any situation with the use of a spell is astronomically low.  There are moments when a player will use something to meet a good portion of the challenge or give them a serious boost towards resolving a situation (and everyone cheers at the effective use of an ability) but never to the point that we repeatedly encountered in 3.x.   And that's with the DM being ignorant of the specific powers chosen by the character.  Imagine if the DM took a cursory glance at the character sheets before designing a situation.

Are you starting to get what Heinsoo was talking about yet?  You tried to make it mean that 4E handles only a scripted approach and that Heinsoo believed improv DMing was bad.  And then you tried to equate the players not having crazy session destroying abilities as limiting possible DM skill because they're not forced to compensate for spells and abilities that deflate a given challenge.

Not everyone is you.  You responded to the Heinsoo quote by specifically saying that you were one of the exceptions he talked about.  Given that, can't you see how there might be issues with running 3.x for a large number of DMs who are of lower skill level than you?  While your response might be for them to get better and be more like you, that's hardly going to help them run a good game tomorrow night.  A much better suggestion is to find a system that doesn't limit their choices in terms of challenging situations and require massive amounts of compensating for the player characters abilities.

Improv DMing is so much easier in 4E than 3.x.  And can be accomplished by DMs of a range of skill levels when using that sytem.  Your earlier assertion that it's for running scripted games where players can't have meaningful impact on the story is just plain wrong.  It certainly works for those who want to use it that way, but that doesn't mean the conclusions you read into Heinsoo's words are at all accurate.


----------



## BryonD

I'll admit that I got really bored with the lack of on point response in this thread, so I have not been reading much of it since I dropped out.  And I've just skimmed through the last bit here.

But it is funny to me that even with a small cast of mostly new people, and a complete derail to boot, the underlying point being made remains that all roads do not lead to Rome.

You are talking past each other because you have different experiences and are not accepting that your own experiences are not representative of the other person's.

Speaking as someone on the "not caring for 4E side", this particularly resonates for me when I read the 4E defenses.  Not that I claim it isn't going both ways, just being clear that I am going to my view on it.

I find it downright humorous that the praise of 4E is being based on people pointing to problems they had with 3E and effectively demanding that their experience must be universal.  But I read that you have a significant problem where I have no problem at all, and I wonder how in the world you expect to give me advice.

And yes, people are going to interpret Rob's comments differently because if the problem is not part of your context, then the meaning is different.

Yes, 4E changed things to make issues that were problems *to some people* stop being problem *to them*.  As with all things in life, there are trade offs.  I accept that solving those problems was a huge boon to you and therefore you love 4E.

But some 4E fans need to get their brain around the idea that for those of us not limited by the problems in the first place, the trade offs were a price paid for no value.  And therefore we don't like 4E and our personal take away from the comments of Heinsoo, and Mearls when he says that 4E isn't for world builders, and Collins when he says that 4E class design is about "why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece" as specifically opposed to "imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic", is different than yours.  Context is important.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> even with a small cast of mostly new people, and a complete derail to boot, the underlying point being made remains that all roads do not lead to Rome.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, 4E changed things to make issues that were problems *to some people* stop being problem *to them*.  As with all things in life, there are trade offs.  I accept that solving those problems was a huge boon to you and therefore you love 4E.
> 
> But some 4E fans need to get their brain around the idea that for those of us not limited by the problems in the first place, the trade offs were a price paid for no value.



Just for clarity, I have never asserted in this thread, or in any of its sibling threads, or indeed in any post since the announcement of 4e, that all roads lead to Rome.

Nor have I asserted anything about trade offs, or resolving problems in the play of 3E. As I mention nearly any time it comes up, I have only limited experience with 3E. I did suggest upthread that there is a degree of incoherence in the _rules text_ for 3E - it simultaneously (i) assumes that the GM has principal authority over the framing of ingame situations (in its discussion of encounter design, adventure design etc) and (ii) gives mid-to-high level PCs abilities - like teleport, scrying, etc - that mean that the players of those PCs have principal authority over the framing of ingame situations. But I did not assert upthread, nor do I assert now, that this creats issues in play, because the incoherence is easily enough resolved by ignoring one or the other pieces of text. Those who run sandbox or world exploration games will tend to ignore (i). Those who run adventure-path type games, where there is an implicit understanding that the players won't stray too far from the pre-packaged adventure, will tone down (ii).

My main issue in this thread at this stage is what it always seems to be in these conversations, namely, _responding to the claim that 4e is primarily, or in essence, or best suited for, a tactical skirmish game_.


----------



## Beginning of the End

nnms said:


> The spells available in 3.x to sufficiently high level characters means that a DM has to drastically compensate for their ability to solve mysteries, bypass barriers, etc.,.  As well it means that many interesting situations are no longer appropriate or viable for play.




It also means that many interesting situations that were previously unavailable are now viable for play.

This gets back to the core problem with the design of 4th Edition: It picked a very narrow and very specific "sweet spot" of play in terms of power level, types of activity, and class mechanics.

If that sweet spot was, in fact, your sweet spot then you're in luck! 4th Edition is completely awesome for you!

But if it wasn't your sweet spot, or if you enjoyed the broad range of play that 1974-2008 gameplay allowed for, then 4th Edition is badly, badly flawed.

Which, ultimately, brings us full circle back to the top of the thread: D&D used to be a big tent. Now it isn't. And that's a result of deliberate design choices made by the 4th Edition design team.

So when Mearls says "everybody should come back inside our tent!", my response is simple: You're going to have to make your tent bigger first.


----------



## pemerton

nnms said:


> What I'm talking about is situation not plot (where a script might come into play).  I'm not talking about rails or scripts or anything.  I'm a completely imrpov DM myself.



We're on the same page here.



nnms said:


> 4E has pretty jarring shifts between different modes of play that make it less than ideal for exploration heavy dungeon campaigns.



I agree with this also.



nnms said:


> So let yourself be a good DM.  Heinsoo specifically said that a sufficiently good DM can compensate for this issue.  So let yourself be that sufficiently good DM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The spells available in 3.x to sufficiently high level characters means that a DM has to drastically compensate for their ability to solve mysteries, bypass barriers, etc.,.  As well it means that many interesting situations are no longer appropriate or viable for play.



I'm hesitant to concede the notion of "good GM" in the way you do here.

Heinsoo has an interest - a commercial, public relations interest - in telling experienced 3E GMs that they are good GMs. I don't. There's certainly a skill in being able to keep an interesting campaign going despite the plethora of nuclear options that high level wizards have in games like 3E and Rolemaster, but I don't think that this skill is particularly definitive of being a good GM. It's certainly not much preparation for running a situation-driven game of the 4e sort, which is its own very different skill.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> It also means that many interesting situations that were previously unavailable are now viable for play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> D&D used to be a big tent. Now it isn't.



I agree to an extent with the first quoted sentence - although my personal view is that the range of situations that 4e opens up is probably richer than the range of situations (such as scry-teleport-ambush) that it closes down.

I don't particularly agree with the second sentence, though. D&D was never all that big a tent. For example, in the past it had no way to do demigods without _also_ doing scry-teleport-ambush. Now it does. (And that's just one example.)


----------



## pemerton

CuRoi said:


> he indicates that having to DM versus "powerful spells" is just too complicated. I'm not arguing that it isn't complicated.





CuRoi said:


> It can be the same with any system really - I imagine 4e bewilders some people (obviously I am much more bewildered by it than you as an example!)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Look, in any game, sport, etc. there is a learning curve.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> removing things just because they could be challenging to a DM seems a bit silly.





CuRoi said:


> It's been a bit since I looked at 4e but accounting for 50+ "powers" for each and every class that comes to the table seems like a fair amount of system mastery to handle to create credible challenges.



I think these quotes suggest that I may have failed to properly communicate my point.

I can't speak for nmns, but I am not saying that "3E is hard, 4e is easy". I am saying that 4e - unlike 3E, and like HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, and similar indie RPGs - is designed to enable the GM to frame strong situations to engage the players.

This means that it does not give PCs abilities that consistently make the optimal path for the players to choose, when confronted with a situation that the GM has framed, the sidesteppping or defusing of that situation - thus, no rapid teleport, no powerful mind reading, no Find the Path or comparable divination, no rapidly-cast-and-long-lasting domination.

So in fact, in order to frame credible challenges, I _don't_ need to know what powers my players have given to their PCs. All I really think about when designing challenges is what roles those PCs occupy in various respects - combat roles, trained skills, etc - and (more importantly) what the various interests of my players are in respect of the story of the campaign.



CuRoi said:


> What I am arguing is there's no reason to shut it down, but instead DMs should feel free to repsond with out of the box solutions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Ok, if the DM preparing this murder mystery just completely ignored the fact that the players have access to Find the Path, Commune, Divination, Speak with Dead, whatever "I win" spell you are thnking of, then they simply were not prepared. They then learn from their mistakes and craft an adventure next time that takes the power of the PCs into account.





CuRoi said:


> I enjoy sweating it out when a player puts me on the ropes through creative use of their abilities, I in turn do the same to the players when I play out their encounters with "smart" opponents.





CuRoi said:


> There is no limitation.



I also can run this sort of game. I have GMed high level D&D and high level Rolemaster. The point is that it _is limiting_. Once powerful divination is available, there are no mysteries. (Of course NPCs can respond with Mind Blank etc. But what does this add to the game, other than making GMing it more tedious? If I want my NPCs to be unscryable, I won't worry about Mind Blank - I'll defuse the underlying problem.) Once rapid (combat-speed) teleport is available, there are no challenges of distance or location. (Of course as a GM I can shut this down with D1-3 style "mysterious magnetic forces", but again I'd rather tackle it at the source.) Once rapid (combat speed) and long-lasting domination is available, there are no challenges of negotation.

A game with these spells present can still present other challenges. I have GMed sessions of Rolemaster where the bulk of the session has consisted in working out complex plans of long chains of spell casting in order for the PCs to succeed in a scry-teleport-ambush assault, or in a complex infiltration mission taking place under the cover of sequential time stop spells (the ultimate in stealthy espionage!).

But it is nice also to run a different sort of game.



CuRoi said:


> I never sit down at a table with a planned "scenario" to present my players. I know where we left off last game, I know the various intricacies and movements in the world I have created and I have a loose idea of possibilities players could or could not pursue.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not working from a rigidly pre-defined scenario, ever.





CuRoi said:


> Making "ambush play" boring as you say 4e does, again steers everything toward pre-defined, scripted, toe to toe fights. Also very fun, but not at all how I run a game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My current group would loath being told they were entering a scenario with limited options just so I the DM could feel comfortable doing my job.





CuRoi said:


> To me, deciding that the above "I win Scenario" is inappropriate is just as I pointed out - a capitulation that the game needs to follow set rigidly defined modules which players can't use powers to derail and can only interact with as the script requires.





CuRoi said:


> I prefer to present the players with a loosely defined challenge and let them throw the kitchen sink at it while I respond with what obstacles I have at hand.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't care if they can cast spells that obliterate the scene if it is within their power to do so. They own this story as much as I do.





CuRoi said:


> Hopefully the DM is actually not planning in a vacuum, they have an idea of pitting the PC against foes that can match the PCs power levels.



I find it interesting that you say that you don't have planned or scripted scenarios, and yet your "pit the PCs against foes". That, to me, suggests a degree of scripting - namely, the GM has scripted who shall be the PCs' foe.

I don't run scripted scenarios. And - contrary to what you suggest about 4e in what I've quote - 4e does not lend itself to scripted fight scenes. (I don't see why you would think that excluding teleport-ambushes means fights are pre-scripted. There are a lot of RPGs, including fantasy RPGs, where combat is an important part of the game and teleport-ambushes generally aren't feasible. Low-level D&D would be one obvious example of such a game.)

You seem to be running together what, upthread, I tried to distinguish, namely, _situational authority_ and _plot authority_. As I said upthread, 4e is designed to confer strong situational authority upon the GM. That is, the GM is in charge of framing scenes. It is up to the players to resolve them, using their PCs as vehicles. And as the quote from Paul Czege indicated (although he was not talking about 4e) this does not involve scripting.

A concrete example from actual play in my game: having raided a hobgoblin fortress, and having fought their way in through multiple entraces and past a number of guards and a small beholder, the PCs have forced the hobgoblin archers to retreat to a room deeper in the fortress. The PCs themselves decide to stop to regroup and have a short rest. They retreat into a room and discover two duergar hunkering down in there.

That is the basic situation, as framed by me (the GM): two duergar hunkered down in a room in a hobgoblin fortress that the PCs are invading. What I also know, which the players at this point don't, is some more backstory: (i) the duergar are slavers, and are here in the fortress arranging payment for a group of slaves that the bulk of their group are already in the process of taking back to the duergar's underground hold; (ii) it is of little concern to the duergar whether or not the hobgoblin fortress is assaulted, provided that they don't get hurt and they don't lose their commercial investment in the slaves.

The players obviously had a range of options as to how they tackled this situation. They could have attacked the duergar straight away. They could have talked for a bit and then fought. Or they could have negotiated - which is what in fact happened. So the encounter ended up being resolved solely as a skill challenge, with the outcome - unexpected to both players and GM at the start of the situation - that the PCs contracted with the duergar to ransom the slaves for a downpayment of 100 gp on the spot and a further 300 gp to be paid over in a neutral city in a month's time.

This has nothing to do with scripting or "rigidly defined modules". But this sort of scenario can't unfold in a game in which the players have access to mind reading and domination. Or probably even teleport without error, for that matter, which would permit teleporting into the duergar hold and then teleporting out with the slaves.

So far from being a "rigidly defined module", this is a paradigm example of collaborative storytelling. And it also obilges me to, at some time in the future, frame at least a couple of new scenes - namely, the ones in which the PCs travel to that neutral city and arrange to pay the ransom.



CuRoi said:


> I present the PCs with a large scale problem and let them pick it apart however they want. If the players in my games do cast "UltraDivination" and magically solve some puzzle in 4 minutes, I don't care. They've got an entire world to explore.



I've frequently posted that 4e is not particularly suited to "world exploration" play. It is better suited to situation-driven play, in the sort of way that I've been talking about in my past few posts.




CuRoi said:


> I can very clearly see a way to modularly chain room after room and skill challenge after skill challenge to create a dungeon in 4e. Frame "Scenes" players can't leave, etc. which they can plow through with encounter powers, healing surges and second winds. Its darn near perfect for it in the really odd version of 4e I guess I have in my head.



Interesting, because I can't see that clearly at all. The outcome of each combat and each skill challenge is likely to have a pretty signficant impact on what happens next, and the framing of any susbequent scene (in Paul Czege's terms, the point B of situation 1 is likely to have pretty big implications for the point A of situation 2). So working it out in advance, as anything other than a sketch of likely possibilities, is pretty hard. In the quote I cited upthread, Ron Edwards talks about using a relationship map to support on-the-fly scene framing. I personally use a mixture of backstory which includes not only relationships but gameworld history, plus some geographical maps, plus a reasonable degree of confidence that I know what my players like.

In your description of a 4e railroad, you again seem to be running together situation and plot authority. If I frame a situation, of course one option is for the players to walk away. Sometimes this is literal: for example, having seen the duergar in the room, the PCs could have shut the door. Sometimes it is figurative, or happens at the metagame level - the players could just say that a particular situation is boring and going nowhere and they want it over.

But the solution to this sort of problem isn't to give the PCs access to abilities like teleport and Find the Path. First, if this _was_ the solution then it would follow that games which don't have such abilities - includingt low-level D&D - are flawed. Second, the solution - as Ron Edwards is quoted saying upthread - is to _frame situations that are worth anyone's time_. That is how I play my game - I frame situations that are worth my players time, and they play their PCs and resolve them. It has nothing to do with plowing through meaningless railroaded combats in the way you describe.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> I don't particularly agree with the second sentence, though. D&D was never all that big a tent. For example, in the past it had no way to do demigods without _also_ doing scry-teleport-ambush. Now it does. (And that's just one example.)




It should be noted that people inside the 4th Edition tent apparently perceive it to be much larger than it is. After all, it hits their sweet spot! It is made of awesome and all the stuff that no longer exists was minimal and unimportant!

The tent is smaller. Even if it seems roomier to you because of all the people that got kicked out.


----------



## Lalato

Beginning of the End said:


> The tent is smaller. Even if it seems roomier to you because of all the people that got kicked out.




The issue for me is that I fail to see how anyone has been kicked out.  I've read a lot of these threads... and for the most part I see a lot of whining about very minor things from both sides of the aisle.  And when I say minor... I mean completely trivial gobbledygook that really has very little bearing on whether or not you are having fun when you play D&D.

Nobody got kicked out... and everybody is still playing D&D.  OMG... the world will explode because somebody plays the game differently than I do.  Seriously... this has to be about the saddest thing I've seen on ENWorld.

I've been on ENWorld for a while.  I stopped playing for a couple of years because I couldn't find a group.  When I returned to ENWorld I see thread after thread after thread with this inanity.  What gives, people.  Play the game... and don't forget to smile while you play.  If you're not smiling at some point, you're probably doing it wrong... but maybe not.  Maybe you* enjoy not having fun.

*the you I refer to in my post is not anyone in particular.  The comment I quoted just touched me.  I'll be honest... I don't understand what the heck you guys are on about in these seemingly endless threads filled with twaddle and whining.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> It should be noted that people inside the 4th Edition tent apparently perceive it to be much larger than it is. After all, it hits their sweet spot! It is made of awesome and all the stuff that no longer exists was minimal and unimportant!
> 
> The tent is smaller. Even if it seems roomier to you because of all the people that got kicked out.



I didn't say the stuff that you can't do in 4e is minimal and unimportant. But nor is the stuff you can't do in 3E or in AD&D minimal and unimportant.

Besides demigods, 4e opens up the sort of heroic protagonism that 2nd ed appears to have aspired to but didin't provide the PC build rules, advancement rules, encounter building rules or action resolution rules to support.

I know how small the old D&D tent was. That's why I left it in 1990, and (other than the occasional visit in the mid-90s) didn't fully move back in until 2009.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Beginning of the End said:


> It should be noted that people inside the 4th Edition tent apparently perceive it to be much larger than it is.






Lalato said:


> The issue for me is that I fail to see how anyone has been kicked out.




Case in point.



> OMG... the world will explode because somebody plays the game differently than I do.  Seriously... this has to be about the saddest thing I've seen on ENWorld.




You might want to cut back on the hyperbolic hyperventilating. I'm not sure how you got from "they made a game that doesn't include the reason I play roleplaying games" to "the world will explode", but I suspect you need to cut back on your caffeine intake.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> Besides demigods, 4e opens up the sort of heroic protagonism that 2nd ed appears to have aspired to but didin't provide the PC build rules, advancement rules, encounter building rules or action resolution rules to support.




I honestly have no idea what you mean by "heroic protagonism". I cannot come up with any definition of those words which wouldn't be completely supported by 3rd Edition.


----------



## Hussar

I have to admit, I'm playing a 4e campaign right now that looks pretty much the same as every other D&D game I've ever played, so, when I look at the tent, I don't see much of a difference.

Let's take this out of hypotheticals for a second shall we BOTE?  What specific scenario can you do in 3e that you can't in 4e?


----------



## Lalato

Beginning of the End said:


> Case in point





Well, I currently play both 3rd and 4th.  And I started playing in 1981.  The tent seems plenty roomy to me because I feel like I've basically been playing the same game all these years.

Just because you don't enjoy some aspects of one edition of D&D, I fail to see how that means the tent doesn't include your version of D&D.  Or that you have been kicked out of some tent that includes 4th edition.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> I honestly have no idea what you mean by "heroic protagonism". I cannot come up with any definition of those words which wouldn't be completely supported by 3rd Edition.



Although my comment was about 2nd ed and not 3E, here are ust a handful of ways in which 3E doesn't support "heroic protagonism" in the same sort of way that 4e does:

*it has no second wind rules, and so doesn't support the same dynamics of combat as does 4e;

*it has apparent inconsistencies in its combat rules, so that a high level fighter is able to survive falls, swipes from dragons, etc that would kill any lesser being (ie hit points aren't a particularly gritty damage mechanic) but has intricate and gritty grapple rules, which make it hard for a high-level fighter to wrestle giants;

*it has no mechanic, other than GM handwaving, for telescoping the exploration elements of play (information gathering, searching, travelling etc) into a challenge that is fairly quick to resolve but still delivers opportunities for player decision making that produce interesting outcomes in the fiction;

*all the stuff currently being discussed on the wizards vs warriors threads on General.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Although my comment was about 2nd ed and not 3E, here are ust a handful of ways in which 3E doesn't support "heroic protagonism" in the same sort of way that 4e does:




For everyone involved in and/or reading this thread could you please define what "heroic protagonism" is? It would really make following you and understanding what you are trying to convey much easier, as well as giving everyone a point of reference to discuss from. Right now, all we have our inferences and ideas of how you are defining this phrase to lead us in our discussion.



pemerton said:


> *it has no second wind rules, and so doesn't support the same dynamics of combat as does 4e;




And those dynamics are what exactly? I mean a DM who monitors the availability/acquisition of healing magic in his 3e campaign can ultimately arrive at the same result mechanically as every character having healing surges... can't he?



pemerton said:


> *it has apparent inconsistencies in its combat rules, so that a high level fighter is able to survive falls, swipes from dragons, etc that would kill any lesser being (ie hit points aren't a particularly gritty damage mechanic) but has intricate and gritty grapple rules, which make it hard for a high-level fighter to wrestle giants;




Wait...what? Maybe I'm missing your point, but the grappling rules in 3e aren't really "gritty" (there's no way to snap bones, gouge eyes, force someone to tap out, choke, etc.) or particularly "intricate" (IMO, again different locks, holds, etc. with differing results) compared to other systems rules.  I would say they are convulted however and that is where some people's dissatisfaction with them come from.  Now granted, compared to 4e which has no actual rules for grappling (only grabbing) outside of specific powers for specific builds... I could see where you might take the view you have... but I just don't see any difference except that it's grapple vs. grab.



pemerton said:


> *it has no mechanic, other than GM handwaving, for telescoping the exploration elements of play (information gathering, searching, travelling etc) into a challenge that is fairly quick to resolve but still delivers opportunities for player decision making that produce interesting outcomes in the fiction;




Huh? It has skill checks, a combination of which allow one to achieve his goals (There's just no artificial pre-set limit of x successes before Y failures)... how long or slow a challenge is to resolve is based entirely on what one is trying to accomplish and how he/she goes about it. IMO, the way a player chooses to approach problems in 3e in and of itself produces interesting outcomes in the fiction. Again I'm not understanding where 4e is special in this regard.



pemerton said:


> *all the stuff currently being discussed on the wizards vs warriors threads on General.




Eh, not about to read a long thread to see more examples... but if you have a few that stand out by all means please present them... though again I think heroic protagonism really needs to be defined so we can all be on the same page before proceeding with this line of discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:


> Huh? It has skill checks, a combination of which allow one to achieve his goals (There's just no artificial pre-set limit of x successes before Y failures)... how long or slow a challenge is to resolve is based entirely on what one is trying to accomplish and how he/she goes about it. IMO, the way a player chooses to approach problems in 3e in and of itself produces interesting outcomes in the fiction. Again I'm not understanding where 4e is special in this regard.




Actually, the Complex Skill Checks option in the 3.5 UA is very, very similar to the Skill Challenge mechanic in 4e.  So much so that, when the inevitable 5e comes along, the 4e retro-clone (should one exist) should be able to use the OGL UA material without any problems whatsoever.

It'll be the classes, powers, and adjectivenoun creatures that are difficult to retrofit without violating IP.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, I'm playing a 4e campaign right now that looks pretty much the same as every other D&D game I've ever played, so, when I look at the tent, I don't see much of a difference.






Lalato said:


> Well, I currently play both 3rd and 4th.  And I started playing in 1981.  The tent seems plenty roomy to me because I feel like I've basically been playing the same game all these years.






Beginning of the End said:


> This gets back to the core problem with the design of 4th Edition: It picked a very narrow and very specific "sweet spot" of play in terms of power level, types of activity, and class mechanics.
> 
> If that sweet spot was, in fact, your sweet spot then you're in luck! 4th Edition is completely awesome for you!
> 
> But if it wasn't your sweet spot, or if you enjoyed the broad range of play that 1974-2008 gameplay allowed for, then 4th Edition is badly, badly flawed.
> 
> Which, ultimately, brings us full circle back to the top of the thread: D&D used to be a big tent. Now it isn't. And that's a result of deliberate design choices made by the 4th Edition design team.
> 
> So when Mearls says "everybody should come back inside our tent!", my response is simple: You're going to have to make your tent bigger first.




So, basically, if you always played D&D the way that 4e plays, then it seems like the same tent to you.  BUT if you played D&D in a way that is different than 4e plays, it seems that the current tent is smaller, and, unless you change the way you play, you are outside it.

That seems really, really obvious and clear to me.

"But I always played this way!" doesn't mean that you can't see the change in tent size, IF you are able to see that there are people who play differently.  "But I always played this way!" only causes you to see the tent as the same size if you are unable to do so.

And, sure, you can use Chinese Checkers to tell the same stories you can in 4e, RCFG, or 1e AD&D.  But Chinese Checkers is not the best system for any of these stories.

Likewise, 4e can be used as a vehicle to tell the same stories as 1e AD&D and vice versa; that does not mean, however, that they are good vehicles for doing so.


RC


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:


> Actually, the Complex Skill Checks option in the 3.5 UA is very, very similar to the Skill Challenge mechanic in 4e. So much so that, when the inevitable 5e comes along, the 4e retro-clone (should one exist) should be able to use the OGL UA material without any problems whatsoever.
> 
> It'll be the classes, powers, and adjectivenoun creatures that are difficult to retrofit without violating IP.
> 
> 
> RC




Yeah, I was aware of the UA complex skill checks, and agree they are very similar to skill challenges... however I've brought stuff up before from UA to make points and there's always cries of "That's not core rules though... it's optional".  Just didn't feel like going down that particular road again.  In the end though,  I just don't think 4e's skill challenges really do anything for the game that can't be done with normal skills.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:


> Yeah, I was aware of the UA complex skill checks, and agree they are very similar to skill challenges... however I've brought stuff up before from UA to make points and there's always cries of "That's not core rules though... it's optional".  Just didn't feel like going down that particular road again.  In the end though,  I just don't think 4e's skill challenges really do anything for the game that can't be done with normal skills.




I would agree, with the sole exception that I have seen some examples from the Jester where the SC mechanic was used to organize the skill information well.  I am not sure whether or not that organization would have occured without the mechanic to suggest it.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

*Smaller Tent = Better?*

I was thinking about this, and I am not certain that a bigger tent is actually better for a role-playing game.  A tighter focus may mean a smaller tent, but it may also mean that the desired feel of the game is better delivered.

For example, in working on my own system, I have had to consider what I did not want to include at least as much as I have had to consider what I do want to include.  The same thing happens when devising a campaign setting -- exclusion is as important as inclusion when attempting to create a cohesive whole.

Big Tent = Good for profits, but does Big Tent = Good for games?

I'm not at all sure that it does.


RC


----------



## Lalato

Raven Crowking said:


> "But I always played this way!" doesn't mean that you can't see the change in tent size, IF you are able to see that there are people who play differently.  "But I always played this way!" only causes you to see the tent as the same size if you are unable to do so.




I don't think people have said they always played exactly the same way.  I think what people are saying is that they've always played *D&D*,  albeit in different incarnations of the same game.

What's pretty clear to me is that some people feel the need to compare the way they play D&D to others...  and when they find that it varies, even slightly, that it somehow invalidates their way or that it invalidates the other way.

So... when someone says they've been kicked out of the tent, they're saying that their way of playing has somehow been invalidated.  That's not the case... and to say that it is requires one to construct all sorts of stuff to support that idea.  The tent has nothing to do with this mechanic or that mechanic.  It has to do with playing D&D.  If you say you're playing D&D, then you're in the tent... no matter what version of D&D you play.

To say that some version of D&D doesn't allow you to play the way you want leaves out the fact that there are other versions of D&D that do allow you to play the way you want.  Does it really matter which version you play so long as you're having fun?


----------



## Raven Crowking

"*Exactly* the same way" (emphasis on what you added) is a straw man.

I suspect that, if you don't see the difference, you aren't really an authority on what the difference is.


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:


> I would agree, with the sole exception that I have seen some examples from the Jester where the SC mechanic was used to organize the skill information well. I am not sure whether or not that organization would have occured without the mechanic to suggest it.
> 
> 
> RC




Interesting, I wouldn't mind taking a look at whatever convinced you of this.  IMO, the 4e skill challenges that I have read about and seen seem to sacrifice too much of the organic and spontaneous nature of free-form skill checks for quantification and definition.  The ones that don't do this...seem to have discarded so much of the form and rules of the SC that they might as well be free-form skill checks.  But hey I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Raven Crowking said:


> I was thinking about this, and I am not certain that a bigger tent is actually better for a role-playing game.  A tighter focus may mean a smaller tent, but it may also mean that the desired feel of the game is better delivered.




I think this can be argued either way.

But insofar as D&D remains the only gateway product of the RPG industry, narrowing the range of people it can potentially cater to is probably bad for the industry.

Now, if some other game could seriously challenge D&D's role as the gateway to the industry that would be great. But other than a handful of years where Vampire was providing an on ramp for goths that's never happened.

On a purely personal level, I've found classic D&D to be one of the most effective RPGs at catering to multiple tastes _at the same table_. While I can also enjoy more focused experiences, I credit classic D&D's ability to fluidly shift between multiple styles of play to its great success.



pemerton said:


> Although my comment was about 2nd ed and not 3E,  here are ust a handful of ways in which 3E doesn't support "heroic  protagonism" in the same sort of way that 4e does:




I'm afraid none of that made any sense to me. You clearly have some definition of the words "heroic" and "protagonism" which are idiosyncratic to the point of exiting the English language and no desire to actually define how you're using them.

I mean, I could talk about all the different ways that high level fighters can, in fact, wrestle giants in 3E. But that would just distract us from the core of the issue here.


----------



## Lalato

Raven Crowking said:


> "*Exactly* the same way" (emphasis on what you added) is a straw man.
> 
> I suspect that, if you don't see the difference, you aren't really an authority on what the difference is.




OK then... what do you mean by your statement that people played the same way in older editions as they do in 4e?  If you don't mean that they played exactly the same way... then  you must mean that they played at least a very similar game.  I'm only pointing out what you said... and now you want to throw it back at my face as if I invented this strawman.

Seriously... this is why these threads are so stupid.

I get it.  Some people don't like 4e.  Now that we have that understanding... can you tell me something useful.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:


> Interesting, I wouldn't mind taking a look at whatever convinced you of this.




[MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION]:  Do you have an easy link to your lake with ghouls SC?



Beginning of the End said:


> I think this can be argued either way.




I'm just throwing it out for conversation.  

I try to avoid having more than one good idea in a 60-day period, and I've had two already here at work, so I am over quota.  Expect mostly general ignorance and unispired notions until I get that back in line!  



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lalato said:


> OK then... what do you mean by your statement that people played the same way in older editions as they do in 4e?




"Using the same general playstyle."



> Now that we have that understanding... can you tell me something useful.




Sorry, see my response to Beginning of the End.  I am over quota.

EDIT:  IMHO, 3e made the tent bigger, in some ways for good (IMHO) and in some ways for ill (again, IMHO).  For instance, I believe that 3e was the first D&D where the "people from modern era enter the fantasy world" trope actually works (like!) but it is also the first D&D where half-dragon half-ooze monks make their appearance....and they make their appearance as player characters (dislike)!  It's hard to do a "normal folks deal with the strange and unknown" trope when the party consists of a half-dragon, a warforged ninja, a humanoid turtle, and a talking rat!  (  )

Personally, I would prefer a modular tent.  A core experience, with additions that modify that core experience (but are not considered core).  AFAICT, 4e has got the first part (a strong core experience), but the GSL specifically restricts the production of the other.  I think that hewing close to a core experience may well be a good thing for a game, even if it is not a core experience that I am particularly interested in.  I am interested in attempts to modify that core experience, though (for example, LostSoul's fiction-first hack) and attempts to fully embrace it (Mallus' surreal but really cool campaign setting).


RC


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> For everyone involved in and/or reading this thread could you please define what "heroic protagonism" is?





Beginning of the End said:


> You clearly have some definition of the words "heroic" and "protagonism" which are idiosyncratic to the point of exiting the English language and no desire to actually define how you're using them.



Well, it's not as if none of us on this thread have ever crossed (virtual) paths before!

In case either of you has forgotten, I'm the 4e-GMing Friend of Ron Edwards (The Shaman's terminology - it abbreviates FoRE). By "heroic protagonism" I mean character- and situation-focused narrativist play. This is, roughly, play in which the players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs - both as part of their backstories and over the course of actual play - and the GM's job is to frame and resolve situations which engage with this thematic material, whether by reinforcing it, challenging it, or otherwise forcing the player to use and develop it. Other terminology that I've used to express the idea is that the players, in building and playing their PCs, create hooks that the GM is obliged to follow (this is sort of the opposite to the standard D&D approach).

From time to time I've also borrowed from another poster (I can't remember who) the phrase "just in time GMing" to describe this approach - the point of this phrase is to make clear the contrast to exploration-based play. In my preferred game, the role of the GM is not to create a world for the players to explore (using their PCs as vehicles) but rather for the GM to create and shape situations that engage the players' thematic concerns (as expressed via their PCs). The gameworld is therefore created on a "just in time" basis, in response to those expressed thematic concerns.

Here is a link to an actual play thread by me. And here is a quote from Paul Czege that I trot out from time to time, and that captures this sort of approach (although I think he is a lot more hardcore than I am - my sort of narrativism is really pretty vanilla in comparison, and mostly my game is fairly typical party play):

Let me say that I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . .

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​
I think it very effectively exposes, as Ron points out above, that although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.

How does it feel? I suspect it feels like being a guest on a fast-paced political roundtable television program. I think the players probably love it for the adrenaline, but sometimes can't help but breathe a calming sigh when I say "cut."​
4e supports this sort of play well. In fact, my view - which I've been articulating on multiple recent threads, some of which either or both of you has participated in, such as this one - is that this is what 4e was desgined to do. 3E does not support this style of play particularly well - for example, it has no mechanism whereby the player can set the thematic tone of the game and oblige the GM to engage it (cf Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies in 4e, not to mention classes like the Warlock, the Avenger or the Invoker), and its mechanics favour scene extrapolation, and hence exploration, over scene framing (cf skill challenges, not to mention the whole approach to combat encounter design and resolution, in 4e). (And here's another recent thread in which playstyles were discussed, in which I talked about the difference between thematically-driven play and other playstyles.)



Imaro said:


> And those dynamics are what exactly? I mean a DM who monitors the availability/acquisition of healing magic in his 3e campaign can ultimately arrive at the same result mechanically as every character having healing surges... can't he?



Not really, no.

As is pretty well known, 4e combat (when an encounter is built following the guidelines in the DMG, and when it is resolved using the 4e action resolution mechanics including page 42 of the DMG) has a distinctive pace: the monsters start out very strongly, putting the PCs on the ropes, but at a certain point into the combat the tide turns, as the PCs' resilience - manifested paradigmatically but not exclusively by their healing-surge based abilities including second wind - kicks in. (Besides healing, there is also the capacity of the PCs to, over the course of a combat, increasingly dominate the tacitcal dimensions of the combat, like terrain and positioning, via the use of their superior powers in these respects.)

I don't know if 3E, suitably tweaked, could be used to replicate this - I don't think it's trivial, given that (i) drinking a healing potion is a standard action, and (ii) a fair bit of combat power is located in full-attack actions, which preclude movment, and (iii) the range of fighter builds that exert the battlefield control of a 4e defender is fairly limited. I'm pretty confident that 3E won't give this particular experience right out of the box.

(And that's ignoring a whole host of other considerations, like the fact that 4e is designed in all sorts of ways - from spell lists to encounter buidling guildelines - to make scry-teleport-ambush a tiny part of the game, whereas the design of 3E very strongly encourages scry-teleport-ambush as the optimal mode of play at mid-to-high levels.)



Imaro said:


> Maybe I'm missing your point, but the grappling rules in 3e aren't really "gritty"  or particularly "intricate" (IMO, again different locks, holds, etc. with differing results) compared to other systems rules.  I would say they are convulted however and that is where some people's dissatisfaction with them come from.  Now granted, compared to 4e which has no actual rules for grappling (only grabbing) outside of specific powers for specific builds... I could see where you might take the view you have... but I just don't see any difference except that it's grapple vs. grab.



3E's grapple rules have a notoriously high search and handling time. This is a marked contrast with 4e's grab.

It's also pretty notorious that unless a PC is built as a grappler, grappling by high-level monsters becomes quite hard to deal with. (In part because of the size contribution to the grapple check, and in part because of the need for opposed checks, which aren't a part of the normal combat system.) I've got nothing against a system in which grappling a giant squid is a challenge even for a very experienced warrior - but in my view it doesn't sit very well side-by-side with the fact that the warrior in question can routinely walk away from 50' or 100' drops onto solid ground.



Imaro said:


> It has skill checks, a combination of which allow one to achieve his goals (There's just no artificial pre-set limit of x successes before Y failures)





Imaro said:


> I just don't think 4e's skill challenges really do anything for the game that can't be done with normal skills.





Imaro said:


> InterestingIMO, the 4e skill challenges that I have read about and seen seem to sacrifice too much of the organic and spontaneous nature of free-form skill checks for quantification and definition.



What you call an "artificial, pre-set limit" or "quantification and definition" - which _are_ things that differ from ordinary skill checks, and hence open up options that can't be so easily achieved using ordinary skill checks in combination with scene extrapolation - is in fact crucial to my point. Skill challenges are, among other things, a device for framing and resolving scenes without having to play out all the details of scene extrapolation, whereas 3E has no comparable mechanic. They achieve this precisely in virtue of their structure, which governs the injection of complications into a situation by the GM, as well as the way in which players respond to those complications (via their PCs' skill checks).

3E, on the other hand, relies upon either scene extrapolation (which may permit protagonism, but is often tedious rather than heroic) or else GM handwaving (which may or may not be heroic, depending on what the GM narrates, but is the opposite of protagonism).



Imaro said:


> Eh, not about to read a long thread to see more examples... but if you have a few that stand out by all means please present them.



3E wizards, at mid-to-high levels, have a wide range of ways both to engage the scenes that the GM presents, and to step outside or reframe them (teleport and its ilk, terrain alterning spells, domination magic, divination magic, etc etc). Martial PCs, in 3E, have little or none of this.

A simple example: in 3E, a wizard - who's main schtick is _not_ climbing - has access to the option of climbing without a chance of failure (via the Spider Climb spell). A rogue or fighter, however highly trained in Athletics skill, on the other hand, must always make a skill roll, and hence risk failure (unless the skill bonus is within 1 of the climb DC).

4e has all sorts of features that differ from this - rogue powers that grant invisbility with no need for a skill roll, powers that grant martial PCs climb speeds, etc. Not to mention Come and Get It - a favoured topic of discussion - which grants the player of a fighter limited but sometimes important narrative control over the behaviour of the NPCs, which control can then be used to reinforce the status of the fighter PC as a heroic protagonist.

Overall, the notion that 4e doesn't offer anything that 3E didn't is one I find remarkable - particularly coming from posters who I tend to think of as among those who frequently emphasise that 4e offers a different (and, for them, less desirable) gaming experience than does 3E.



Raven Crowking said:


> 4e can be used as a vehicle to tell the same stories as 1e AD&D and vice versa; that does not mean, however, that they are good vehicles for doing so.



This, on the other hand, I agree with almost completely. My only quibble would be that it is, perhaps, overly generous to the capabilities of both systems.


----------



## the Jester

Raven Crowking said:


> [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION]:  Do you have an easy link to your lake with ghouls SC?




No, but I'm happy to repost it. 



			
				My Adventure Tscire Nobi said:
			
		

> *FINDING THE ISLAND* (Level 11 Skill Challenge and one or more EL 9 encounters; total xp 3800 or more)
> 
> The pcs should be able to hire a boat to take them out on White Lake for a couple of gold pieces, but the island itself is cloaked by a combination of illusions and weather magic (cloaking it in fog).  In order to find it, the pcs must defeat this magic by completing a skill challenge.
> 
> *RUNNING THE SKILL CHALLENGE*
> 
> Finding the island is a level 11, complexity 3 skill challenge.  To successfully complete it, the pcs must achieve 8 successes before 3 failures.  Once the pcs get close (after they have achieved 5 successes), see Complications, below.
> 
> Since a combination of illusion and weather hide it, the pcs' possible approaches to finding the illusion include the following:
> 
> *Search Grid: *The lake is truly too large to divide and search without immense manpower, but the pcs can spend six hours to eliminate everything within a few miles of the Delphinate proper.  Doing this doesn't require any skill checks or gain a success or failure for the party, but gives all further checks in the skill challenge a +2 bonus.
> 
> *Pierce Illusions:* A character that expresses the belief that illusions are involved may attempt to see through them with an Insight check (DC 27).  Success means that the character earns a success; though they cannot see through the veils of mist, they can make out which ones are illusory. Failure ensnares the characters further in the misty magic; they gain a failure.
> 
> *Countermagic or Follow the Flow: *A character trained in Arcana may attempt to sense the presence and direction of flow of the magical energy that cloak the island (DC 19); doing this earns one success for the party, while failing earns the party a failure.  Once the presence of the magic has been sensed, a trained character may attempt to countermand the cloaking spells here in order to eliminate them, but doing so is very difficult (DC 29).  A character that makes this check earns two successes, while failing it gains only a single failure.  A character that uses dispel magic against the fog earns an automatic success for the party.
> 
> *True Navigation:* The characters may attempt to simply use their Perception (DC 23) or knowledge of Nature (DC 19) to navigate.  Using such a skill earns either a success or failure for the party.  Alternatively, a character could make a History check (DC 19) to remember details on the locations of the lake's islands; the party can earn only one success this way (although they could conceivably earn multiple failures!).
> 
> *Watch the Ghouls:* During and after the attack of the sodden ghouls (see Complications), a pc could try to discern the direction of the island by watching their behavior using either Insight (DC 19) or Religion (DC 19).  A daring character might also swim in pursuit, using Athletics (DC 20).  The characters earn successes or failures for any of these instances.
> 
> *Rituals: * Using a divination or weather control ritual earns the pcs one to three successes, depending on the ritual, its level and how cleverly the party uses it.
> 
> *Complications:* As the pcs get closer to the island, they enter a more active layer of the island's defenses.  After their 5th success, the party is ambushed by a trio of sodden ghoul wailers (OG 154; level 9 soldiers), who attack from the water, attempting to pull the boat's pilot into the water before dealing with the pcs themselves.  The round after they attack, two more sodden ghoul wailers grab the boat from under the water and attempt to tow the vessel away.  Each round until that the ghouls tow the boat, the pcs lose one success.
> 
> As soon as the pcs defeat the three sodden ghoul wailers above the water, the other two retreat into the depths unless any pcs are in the water, in which case they attempt to drag them under and slay them.  If the pcs want to attack the two ghouls under the water, they must enter the water or hole the deck of the boat.
> 
> Each time the pcs achieve a 5th success, they are attacked by another group of ghouls unless they are still dealing with the first group.  In practice, this means that they must continue to work on the skill challenge while fighting the ghouls, or they will end up fighting group after group of them without ever making headway.
> 
> *Success:* When the pcs achieve their 8th success, read the following:
> 
> In the mist ahead, a rocky island starts to resolve itself.  A short pier, inexpertly constructed of wood, bobs above the waves, with three small rowing craft attached.  You can see the suggestion of a steep upward slope, but the thick vapor in the air makes it impossible to tell more.
> 
> *Failure:* The pcs become hopelessly lost.  It is full dark by the time they finally find shore, and it takes until almost 2 a.m. to return to the Delphinate.  The pilot who took the pcs on this journey, if still alive, must be impressively compensated or he swears off the party thereafter.




For the record, my party failed the challenge for two days (bad dice night for our heroes) before they even hit ghouls. The third day they succeeded and managed to do it with only one encounter with the ghouls- they fought them off and got their last success (via _hand of Lester,_ er I mean _hand of fate_.)


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Overall, the notion that 4e doesn't offer anything that 3E didn't is one I find remarkable - particularly coming from posters who I tend to think of as among those who frequently emphasise that 4e offers a different (and, for them, less desirable) gaming experience than does 3E.



I think 4E absolutely offers things 3E does not.  I just don't agree that any of the things you are discussing are among them.


----------



## Nagol

the Jester said:


> No, but I'm happy to repost it.
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, my party failed the challenge for two days (bad dice night for our heroes) before they even hit ghouls. The third day they succeeded and managed to do it with only one encounter with the ghouls- they fought them off and got their last success (via _hand of Lester,_ er I mean _hand of fate_.)




About a month ago, I worked through the probability of Skill Challenge successes.  Here's my upshot:



Nagol said:


> One of my points is the group should be trying to use the optimal choice every round if the group has complete insight into the challenge (i.e. it is presented to them to read).  If the challenge is run 'blind', options that exist that aren't optimal and can lead to a failure are effectively a trap; they reduce the overall chance of success and the comparative difficulty may not be easily discernable by the group.
> 
> Glancing at The Jester's "finding the white lake skill challenge" there are DCs ranging from 19 to 29 on actions the characters can attempt.  Assuming similar levels in the appropriate skills, the PCs should restrict themselves to the DC 19 checks.  If the PCs has a skill bonuses of +17, i.e. they fail on a 2 and they never gain a failure from the sodden ghouls, but don't take actions that cost time of resources (i.e. optimal play), then they have less than 2 percent failure chance.  If they gain one failure from the ghouls and blindly choose some other interesting sounding options, such as disbelief (DC 27) and use Perception to navigate instead of Nature (DC 23), their chance of success falls below 40%.




I note that your DCs have a 10 point range -- DC 19 through 29.  Assuming there isn't a massive change is skill levels for the different skills, it looks like any attempt to use a 'fancier/flashier' skill would seriously reduce the group's overall probability of succes.  Was this intended?  By your recollection, did the group try more esoteric stuff the first two times?


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> So, basically, if you always played D&D the way that 4e plays, then it seems like the same tent to you.  BUT if you played D&D in a way that is different than 4e plays, it seems that the current tent is smaller, and, unless you change the way you play, you are outside it.
> 
> That seems really, really obvious and clear to me.
> 
> "But I always played this way!" doesn't mean that you can't see the change in tent size, IF you are able to see that there are people who play differently.  "But I always played this way!" only causes you to see the tent as the same size if you are unable to do so.
> 
> And, sure, you can use Chinese Checkers to tell the same stories you can in 4e, RCFG, or 1e AD&D.  But Chinese Checkers is not the best system for any of these stories.
> 
> Likewise, 4e can be used as a vehicle to tell the same stories as 1e AD&D and vice versa; that does not mean, however, that they are good vehicles for doing so.
> 
> 
> RC




AFAIC, the only people who are convinced the tent is smaller is people who don't like 4e and somehow think that just because the game doesn't cater to their specific needs, it must somehow not cater to anyone's needs.  The fact that earlier editions didn't cater to my needs but 4e does somehow doesn't mean that the tent has gotten bigger or even stayed the same size just shifted to the left four feet.

If, OTOH, you realize that each edition simply focused on different aspects and go from there, then we're all golden.  I've yet to see an adventure that cannot be translated from one edition to the other.  After all, it's ridiculously easy to translate 1ed adventures into 4e and I imagine going the other way would be pretty simple as well.  

Would they play differently?  Oh sure.  Totally agree there.  But, then again EVERY edition plays differenlty.  Take one of my favourite modules - The Lost City.  Great module.  One of the basic elements of that module is survival.  You start the adventure with no food or water and if you don't find both fairly soon, you're going to die.

Try doing that in 3e.  In 3e, the cleric, at first level, has three castings of zero level Create Water, each of which will create enough water for 4 people for a day.  Hrm, problem solved.  Purify Food and Drink means that the first monster they kill, they can eat safely.  Also a zero level spell.

If you translate The Lost City into 3e, that major aspect of the module goes away because Basic D&D characters certainly couldn't do anything like that.

And, oh look, the 4e characters can't either.  

So, right off the bat, if I want to translate my favourite module into 4e, it's going to play closer to the original than the 3e version will.

Now, I'm sure people are going to jump up and down and talk about how their favorite module just cannot be translated, etc. etc.  Sure.  I'll believe that.  There are modules that won't work very well in 4e that would work better in 3e.  Totally agreed.

But, the idea that 4e has somehow closed off the tent is ridiculous.  It's a talking point for those who want to run covert edition wars and bitch about 4ed.  Every edition has its strengths and weaknesses.  4e plays to my strengths.  Good for me.  3e plays to other people's strengths.  Good for them.  It's only when people want to kick one edition or another out of the tent for not playing to their strengths that we have problems.

The tent hasn't changed.  The only thing that's changed is that now there's a part of the tent that isn't catering directly to one group that has had it all their way for the past ten years and they're pissed off about it.


----------



## Hussar

Pemerton said:
			
		

> Overall, the notion that 4e doesn't offer anything that 3E didn't is one I find remarkable - particularly coming from posters who I tend to think of as among those who frequently emphasise that 4e offers a different (and, for them, less desirable) gaming experience than does 3E.




Something I've noticed that has become a running theme is that 4e is only allowed to be different from 3e when that difference is framed as a negative.  If the changes in 4e are framed as a positive, then they absolutely existed in previous editions and are nothing new or are derided as misinterpretations and not really advantages at all.

It's funny.  If I say that 4e sucks because it's totally different from what came before, there's all sorts of people who will pat me on the back and tell me I'm right.  

If I say 4e is great because it's totally different from what came before, the same people will tell me I'm either mistaken and those things have been there all the way along, I was just too poor of a player to know it, or, I'm mistaken and those things that I think are improvements are actually suckiness in disguise.

One would think that if a game were totally different, then some things would just be better.  It's pretty hard to be totally different AND completely wrong at the same time.  That would take some serious effort on the parts of the game designers.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> About a month ago, I worked through the probability of Skill Challenge successes.  Here's my upshot:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that your DCs have a 10 point range -- DC 19 through 29.  Assuming there isn't a massive change is skill levels for the different skills, it looks like any attempt to use a 'fancier/flashier' skill would seriously reduce the group's overall probability of succes.  Was this intended?  By your recollection, did the group try more esoteric stuff the first two times?




I'm not The Jester, but, if I could take a stab at this.  It's entirely possible for a group not to have all the skills covered.  My current group has no one trained in Thievery for example.  Not intentional, just happened this way.  So, a wide variance in skill DC's could reflect party make-up quite easily.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> I think 4E absolutely offers things 3E does not.  I just don't agree that any of the things you are discussing are among them.



Given that I've run vanilla narrativist Rolemaster, I'm sure that I could run vanilla narrativist 3E (although RM, for various reasons to do both with its character build rules and its melee combat and spell casting rules, is probably better suited to the job). But the claim that 4e is not better suited for character- and situation-driven narrativsit play isn't one I can really get behind.

What's the 3E analogue of Come and Get It? Of resovling a one-week overland journey via a complexity 2 skill challenge? Of second wind? Of a player choosing to play an eladrin, or a feypact warlock (or an eladrin feypact warlock) and _in virtue of that very character building choice_ making the feywild, and the relationship of this ideal otherworld to the mortal realm, a core thematic element of the game that is to be played at the table?

(To be fair to 3E: in the absence of GM-adjudicated alignment rules, the monk and the paladin might be answers to my last question. Unfortunately, though, GM-adjudicated alignment rules are core to 3E, and given the number of spells that rely on them stripping them out is non-trivial.)


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I'm not The Jester, but, if I could take a stab at this.  It's entirely possible for a group not to have all the skills covered.  My current group has no one trained in Thievery for example.  Not intentional, just happened this way.  So, a wide variance in skill DC's could reflect party make-up quite easily.



I think Nagol's point still holds, however. Given that training is only +5, and at level 11 item and power bonuses are probably no higher than +4, it is going to be fairly rare for a party to have a better shot at a DC 29 check than at a DC 19 check, even if the latter is in an untrained, unoptimised skill.

On the other hand, to be fair to the Jester, most of the DCs are in the 19 to 23 range, which is within the tolerance for stat, training, item and power bonuses. And the DC 29 countermagic attempt, which is outside that range, also earns two successes - depending on whether or not the players have a sense of how hard but how worthwhile this might be to achieve (and that would depend on the Jester's approach to GMing this challenge), that could well be worth going for, perhaps concentrating a variety of party resources and actions in order to pull it off.

The only DC in the Jester's challenge that strikes me as problematic is the DC 27 Insight check. If I was running this I might be inclined either to lower the DC, or else to make the consequences of failure a -2 on the next check, or to increase by 1 or 2 the DC of all subsequent navigation checks, or something of that sort.


----------



## Lalato

Raven Crowking said:


> "Using the same general playstyle."
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, see my response to Beginning of the End.  I am over quota.
> 
> EDIT:  IMHO, 3e made the tent bigger, in some ways for good (IMHO) and in some ways for ill (again, IMHO).  For instance, I believe that 3e was the first D&D where the "people from modern era enter the fantasy world" trope actually works (like!) but it is also the first D&D where half-dragon half-ooze monks make their appearance....and they make their appearance as player characters (dislike)!  It's hard to do a "normal folks deal with the strange and unknown" trope when the party consists of a half-dragon, a warforged ninja, a humanoid turtle, and a talking rat!  (  )
> 
> Personally, I would prefer a modular tent.  A core experience, with additions that modify that core experience (but are not considered core).  AFAICT, 4e has got the first part (a strong core experience), but the GSL specifically restricts the production of the other.  I think that hewing close to a core experience may well be a good thing for a game, even if it is not a core experience that I am particularly interested in.  I am interested in attempts to modify that core experience, though (for example, LostSoul's fiction-first hack) and attempts to fully embrace it (Mallus' surreal but really cool campaign setting).
> 
> 
> RC




First, thanks for the clarification...  

I've used different playstyles with every edition of D&D that I've played.  I've had games that were heavy exploration with each edition.  I've had games that were gonzo crazy dungeon fests.  I've had games that would have made any Monty Haulist run to their momma.  I've had games that were strictly by the book.  I've had games with homebrewed rules.  I've had games that bordered on community theater (and not in a good way, either... LOL).

Like I said... I do understand that some people don't like 4e for various reasons.  But not liking 4e doesn't somehow mean that the game you play at home stops being D&D... and therefore you've been kicked out of the "tent".

In my view, exploring new designs and options can only make the hypothetical tent bigger.  It can't possibly make it smaller.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> From time to time I've also borrowed from another poster (I can't remember who) the phrase "just in time GMing" to describe this approach - the point of this phrase is to make clear the contrast to exploration-based play. In my preferred game, the role of the GM is not to create a world for the players to explore (using their PCs as vehicles) but rather for the GM to create and shape situations that engage the players' thematic concerns (as expressed via their PCs). The gameworld is therefore created on a "just in time" basis, in response to those expressed thematic concerns.




You seem to be drawing an equation between improv-based play ("just in time GMing") and a specific flavor of narrativist gaming ("engaging thematic themes") that I'm not really following.

I can see how both can co-exist, obviously. But they're tangentially related to each other.



> 3E  does not support this style of play particularly well - for example, it  has no mechanism whereby the player can set the thematic tone of the  game and oblige the GM to engage it (cf Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies  in 4e, not to mention  classes like the Warlock, the Avenger or the Invoker), and its mechanics  favour scene extrapolation, and hence exploration, over scene framing  (cf skill challenges, not to mention the whole approach to combat  encounter design and resolution, in 4e).



Can you articulate the distinction you see between picking a paragon path and picking a prestige class in terms of the player "setting the thematic tone of the game"?

Can you explain exactly how the mechanics of 4th Edition explicitly support "scene framing" vs. "scene extrapolation"? Could you point to demonstrations of this technique being employed in the adventures written by the designers of 4th Edition?



> As is pretty well known, 4e combat (...) has a distinctive pace: the monsters start out very strongly, putting  the PCs on the ropes, but at a certain point into the combat the tide  turns, as the PCs' resilience - manifested paradigmatically but not  exclusively by their healing-surge based abilities including second wind  - kicks in.



Can you explain what any of that has to do with "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...) and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this thematic material"?



> I've got nothing against a system in which grappling a giant squid is a challenge even for a very experienced warrior - but in my view it doesn't sit very well side-by-side with the fact that  the warrior in question can routinely walk away from 50' or 100' drops  onto solid ground.



Can you explain how the inability for a high level fighter to grapple a giant squid interferes with your ability to do "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the  players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)  and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this  thematic material"?

I'll admit that I may be having difficulty grasping your point because I find Czege's description of scene-framing to be complete and utter . If you took his description at complete face-value, he's advocating an approach where Scene 2 has absolutely no logical connection to Scene 1 which immediately proceeded it. I find it difficult to imagine taking any game played that way seriously for more than a couple of minutes.

Once you accept that Czege has abused hyperbole to the point where it's obscuring his actual point, I still have some difficulty processing Czege's position because he bases most of his rhetoric around a constrast of "GM controls point A, players control point B" with "players control point A, GM predetermines point B". He's playing a shell game of, "Where do ya want your railroad?" But my gut reaction to Czege is pretty much a constant subliminal refrain of, "Take your railroad and stuff it."

So if your point really does boil down to, "4E is better than 3E for GMs who want to railroad their players in very specific ways." I'm willing to believe it. But you still haven't made your case.



> And that's ignoring a whole host of other considerations, like the fact that 4e  is designed in all sorts of ways - from spell lists to encounter  buidling guildelines - to make scry-teleport-ambush a tiny part of the  game, whereas the design of 3E very strongly encourages scry-teleport-ambush as the optimal mode of play at mid-to-high levels.



This does begin to make sense, though. Since you specifically want to be able to shamelessly railroad your players, it makes sense that abilities which allow the players to avoid your shameless railroading would be problematic for you.



> Skill challenges are, among other things, a device for framing and  resolving scenes without having to play out all the details of scene  extrapolation, whereas 3E  has no comparable mechanic. They achieve this precisely in virtue of  their structure, which governs the injection of complications into a  situation by the GM, as well as the way in which players respond to  those complications (via their PCs' skill checks).
> 
> 3E,  on the other hand, relies upon either scene extrapolation (which may  permit protagonism, but is often tedious rather than heroic) or else GM handwaving (which may or may not be heroic, depending on what the GM narrates, but is the opposite of protagonism).



This becomes an interesting point, because it gets to the heart of my problem with the skill challenge mechanics: They specifically interfere with the GM's ability to frame scenes. On the one hand, they violate the chain of causal logic which allows me to suspend disbelief and actually participate in the game world. On the other hand, they frequently become tedious when they mandate that play continues even after the scene has functionally exhausted and resolved itself in the minds of the players.

You know the bit where Czege talks about ending a scene when you've done all the interesting stuff you can do with it? Good advice. And skill challenges muck that up.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Hussar said:


> Good for them.  It's only when people want to kick one edition or another out of the tent for not playing to their strengths that we have problems.




Oh dear. You seem to be confused.

Allow me to explain the analogy for you:

"Tent" = "Current Edition of the Game Supported by WotC"

Now, re-read your message and see if it makes any sense at all.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> I think Nagol's point still holds, however. Given that training is only +5, and at level 11 item and power bonuses are probably no higher than +4, it is going to be fairly rare for a party to have a better shot at a DC 29 check than at a DC 19 check, even if the latter is in an untrained, unoptimised skill.
> 
> On the other hand, to be fair to the Jester, most of the DCs are in the 19 to 23 range, which is within the tolerance for stat, training, item and power bonuses. And the DC 29 countermagic attempt, which is outside that range, also earns two successes - depending on whether or not the players have a sense of how hard but how worthwhile this might be to achieve (and that would depend on the Jester's approach to GMing this challenge), that could well be worth going for, perhaps concentrating a variety of party resources and actions in order to pull it off.
> 
> The only DC in the Jester's challenge that strikes me as problematic is the DC 27 Insight check. If I was running this I might be inclined either to lower the DC, or else to make the consequences of failure a -2 on the next check, or to increase by 1 or 2 the DC of all subsequent navigation checks, or something of that sort.




Let's assume the group's trained skills are at +13. 

If the group has a character with Nature and decides to use it for navigation (DC 19), their success chance (ignoring the ghouls for a moment) is about 67%.

The same group deciding to use Perception instead, all else being equal, has a success chance around 22%.  That's from a DC that's 4 higher.

Let's assume the group's trained skills are at +17.

Thet can only fail the Nature check on a 1.  Their success chance is over 99% if they think to use that skill for navigation and take no other interesting choices.

The same group deciding to use Perception instead, all else being equal, have a success chance around 67%.

The probabilities get worse (and quickly!) if the group earns failures from the ghouls.

The wide variation in success rate from DC in-line with each other for a skill challenge suggests the careful DM better run the numbers prior to play to understand the effect of his DC choices and other challenge interactions on probable group success.  That runs counter to the impromptu "just-in-time design" feel you have been advocating for the game.

Skill Challenges, in the form presented, have the feeling of a DM trap to me.  The typical DM won't have the numeracy to see the consequential effect a small penalty / bonus has on probability for group success and is likely to set up situations with probable success rates at odds with his preference.  This is especially true if it is done at the table in the heat of play.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> You seem to be drawing an equation between improv-based play ("just in time GMing") and a specific flavor of narrativist gaming ("engaging thematic themes") that I'm not really following.
> 
> I can see how both can co-exist, obviously. But they're tangentially related to each other.



They're not the same thing. They are more than tangentially related, however, because in order to respond to the outcome of a given player-driven scene, it is necessary to frame a new scene on the fly. The elements of that scene may on may occasions be pregiven (eg some key NPCs, perhaps even a key location) but the details won't be, as they arise out of what happened previously.

A robust system of encounter-building guidelines based on level appropriate DCs helps with this. A simulationist system makes it harder, because either (i) the simulation gets the DCs wrong relative to level and pacing considerations, or (ii) building in enough additional factors(eg in a combat or other physical challenge, perhaps weather or lighting) to make the simulation generate the right numbers for pacing and level considerations takes too much time. (This is based on my own experience of the differences between running Rolemaster and running 4e.)



Beginning of the End said:


> Can you articulate the distinction you see between picking a paragon path and picking a prestige class in terms of the player "setting the thematic tone of the game"?



My understanding is that a prestige class is (i) subject to GM approval, and (ii) tends to require the PC to achieve the requisite backstory in the course of play (the non-mechanical prerequisites for many prestige classes). Of course, (ii) is another avenue for the GM to control access to the class, given that the GM is typically the final arbiter on the world design and encounter design consideratins that would determine whether or not (ii) can be satisfied.

Paragon paths have neither (i) or (ii). That's the difference. And it is consistent with a more general difference in tenor of the two rulesets as to where this sort of control over the fiction is located.



Beginning of the End said:


> Can you explain exactly how the mechanics of 4th Edition explicitly support "scene framing" vs. "scene extrapolation"? Could you point to demonstrations of this technique being employed in the adventures written by the designers of 4th Edition?



Skill challenges for overland travel are one obvious example. A published instance I'm familiar with is Heathen in one of the early free online Dungeons.

The healing mechanics are another. Both short rests and extended rests - which separate healing from any ingame activity or use of resources - open up much greater flexibility for scene framing, and reduce the impact of ingame causal considerations on the transition from scene to scene (again, the contrast here with Rolemaster and AD&D is very stark - 3E, with its wands of CLW, might make the contrast less stark, but I don't know that wands of CLW contribute very much to a feeling of heroic protagonism).

These two techniques can in fact be combined so that - for example - the consequence of a failure in an overland travel challenge is inability to get an extended rest. Which then allows what are, in the gameworld, encounters that occur on different days (and therefore not threatening to verisimilitude in their temporal proximity) to be, in mechanical terms, encounters drawing on the same bundle of daily resources. This is harder to achieve in a game where healing is heavily simulationist and closely linked to the ingame activity of the PCs, and in which skill checks and their contribution to overland travel are also handled in a much more micro-detail fashion.

What I've just described can't be done in Rolemaster (unless the GM suspends the normal action resolution rules) without going through all the minutiae of the skill checks to determine whether or not the PCs find a place to rest, succeed in getting to sleep, make their RRs against getting woken by biting insects and hooting owls, etc etc. The core 3E rulebooks don't, to me, suggest that 3E plays any differently from RM in this regard.



Beginning of the End said:


> Can you explain what any of that has to do with "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...) and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this thematic material"?



It allows, for example, a player to play a ranger, whose knowledge of the wilderness contributes importantly to the party's survival, without the actual play experience at the table bogging down into tedious minutiae about setting up campsites.

In the combat case, it allows players to build and play PCs whose protagonism is expressed via their choices in combat - this is always likely to be fairly central to a D&D game, given what D&D is about - without getting bogged down in (i) high search-and-handling time minutiae, and (ii) excessive grittiness. The combat pacing feeds into this. The _way_ in which the PCs rebound in combat - what powers do they use, against whom, synergising with whom, at what potential costs - is part of what narrativist play in D&D involves (if you don't want combat in your narrativism, don't play D&D!).



Beginning of the End said:


> I'll admit that I may be having difficulty grasping your point because I find Czege's description of scene-framing to be complete and utter . If you took his description at complete face-value, he's advocating an approach where Scene 2 has absolutely no logical connection to Scene 1 which immediately proceeded it. I find it difficult to imagine taking any game played that way seriously for more than a couple of minutes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So if your point really does boil down to, "4E is better than 3E for GMs who want to railroad their players in very specific ways." I'm willing to believe it. But you still haven't made your case.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Since you specifically want to be able to shamelessly railroad your players, it makes sense that abilities which allow the players to avoid your shameless railroading would be problematic for you.



Look, if you want to insult my GMing and tell me that I run a crappy game using a crappy ruleset, just come out and say it. Naturally I disagree - and I don't see how you'd know, given that I don't believe we've ever played together, or indeed that you've ever met any of my players, or that you've even engaged with any of my many many actual play examples that I've posted over the years. I linked to one or two of them a few posts upthread - have a look and then come back and explain to me where the railroading is.

On another recent thread - about the contrast between values play and challenge play - you asked what a non-challenge-based game would look like. I don't know if the question was serious or not. I assume that you have at least a passing familiarty with games like HeroWars/Quest, and Maelstrom Storytelling, and therefore are aware that there are successful, viable non-challenge based RPGs out there. I assume that you also know that they play in much the way that Czege describes and that I am suggesting is the sort of play that 4e supports better than 3E - namely, comparatively hard scene-framing with open-ended and player driven scene resolution.

If you think that there is no difference in play between those games and (for example) AD&D or Rolemaster or 3E, then I'm baffled. If you think that there is such a difference, but that 4e doesn't resemble those games in any respect, then explain why not. As it happens, I think that in its core play 4e - despite some superficial resemblances to 3E and earlier editions - is closer to those sorts of games than it is to any earlier version of D&D.

As for the suggestion that this sort of game either (i) disavows coherent links between scenes, or (ii) is all about railroading, I'll post another quote (this time from Ron Edwards):

*Content authority *- over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom

*Plot authority *- over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content . . .

*Situational authority *- over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example, or phrases like "That's when I show up!" from a player

*Narrational authority *- how it happens, what happens - I'm suggesting here that this is best understood as a feature of resolution (including the entirety of IIEE), and not to mistake it for describing what the castle looks like, for instance; I also suggest it's far more shared in application than most role-players realize . . .

There is no overlap between those four types of authority. They are four distinct phenomena. . .

I was working with a relationship map, not with a plot in mind. I had a bunch of NPCs. Whatever happened, I'd play them, which is to say, I'd decide what they did and said. You should see that I simply gave up the reins of "how the story will go" (plot authority) entirely. . . [but] I scene-framed like a mother-f*****. That's the middle level: situational authority. That's my job as GM . . . players can narrate outcomes to conflict rolls, but they can't start new scenes. But I totally gave up authority over the "top" level, plot authority. I let that become an emergent property of the other two levels: again, me with full authority over situation (scene framing), and the players and I sharing authority over narrational authority, which provided me with cues, in the sense of no-nonsense instructions, regarding later scene framing.

And similarly, like situational authority, content authority was left entirely to my seat at the table. There was no way for a player's narration to clash with the back-story. All of the player narrations concerned plot authority, like the guy's mask coming off in my hypothetical example [of a dramatic revelation] above . . .

I think [good gaming in this style of play] has nothing at all to do with distributed authority, but rather with the group members' shared trust that situational authority is going to get exerted for maximal enjoyment among everyone. If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . .  It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared]I[maginary]S[pace] are worth anyone's time.​
As a general rule, one necessary condition for a scene to be _worth anyone's time_ is that it follow, in some meaningful fashion, from what has gone before. Also, given that in the sort of game I'm talking about players exercise plot authority, and therefore (indirectly) content authority - because once some piece of the plot is established it can't be undone - there is a further constraint on scene framing.

The whole tone of your post implies that I'm mistaken in my views as to what 4e can do as a system, its strengths, and its differences from more simulationist systems. And maybe I am - the human capacity for self-deception knows few limits! But it seems strange to me that you simultaneously deny that 4e can deliver the same play experience as 3E, and deny those actual examples of difference that a fairly experienced 4e GM is putting forward. What _are_ the differences, then?


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> Skill Challenges, in the form presented, have the feeling of a DM trap to me.  The typical DM won't have the numeracy to see the consequential effect a small penalty / bonus has on probability for group success and is likely to set up situations with probable success rates at odds with his preference.  This is especially true if it is done at the table in the heat of play.



Nagol, obviously there is nothing wrong with your maths. And I am a pretty numerate GM, and occasionally do make the effort to calculate odds of success for a skill challenge based on the PCs' bonuses in the likely relevant skills.

In practice, though, it would be unusual for a party to attempt all Percpetion, or all Navigation. Also, if the guidelines in the rulebooks are followed, then the differences beteen the DCs will typically not be present in the way they are in the Jester's example, and will be driven not by the sorts of simulationist concerns that appear to be governing that example, but by pacing and story concerns (eg in the rules as published, DCs for repeat attempts at a given skill by a given PC go up).

So while I agree that there can be the sort of maths trap you talk about, I think that to the extent that it arises, it is a bit different from the Jester's example (assuming the published rules are adhered to). And in general I haven't found it to be an issue in game (which is, of course, not to say that it's not just passing under the radar!).


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> Nagol, obviously there is nothing wrong with your maths. And I am a pretty numerate GM, and occasionally do make the effort to calculate odds of success for a skill challenge based on the PCs' bonuses in the likely relevant skills.
> 
> In practice, though, it would be unusual for a party to attempt all Percpetion, or all Navigation. Also, if the guidelines in the rulebooks are followed, then the differences beteen the DCs will typically not be present in the way they are in the Jester's example, and will be driven not by the sorts of simulationist concerns that appear to be governing that example, but by pacing and story concerns (eg in the rules as published, DCs for repeat attempts at a given skill by a given PC go up).
> 
> So while I agree that there can be the sort of maths trap you talk about, I think that to the extent that it arises, it is a bit different from the Jester's example (assuming the published rules are adhered to). And in general I haven't found it to be an issue in game (which is, of course, not to say that it's not just passing under the radar!).




It's hard for me to comment on the rules as written;  I only have the original PHB/DMG and I know that skill challenges were revised later which I haven't followed.

The trap is a trap because it's subtle.  If the PCs do not initially know the optimal choice and a range of skills are available at a range of DCs (even if they are all within 4 of each other), the probability of success in the encounter is all over the map depending on their initial blind choices and follow up actions.  Its very swingy and hard to recover once the encounter starts to go poorly.

The alternatives are to provide almost all choices with the same chance of success (tailoring the encounter to group skills but removing tactical choice from the challenge), assign the same DC to almost all skills (promoting strategic skill selection for the group), or provide a default 'hard' skill DC and reward innovative skill choice with a lower DC (encouraging tactical skill play while leaving the DM with an understanding of the likely outcomes).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Beginning of the End said:


> Oh dear. You seem to be confused.
> 
> Allow me to explain the analogy for you:
> 
> "Tent" = "Current Edition of the Game Supported by WotC"
> 
> Now, re-read your message and see if it makes any sense at all.




I was going to respond to some other posters, but then I saw this.  I think you mostly covered it.

I would only change "Tent" to "Any Edition of the Game Supported by WotC", so that, IMHO, they would be enlarging the tent by making available pdf sales of previous editions.

The OGL, IMHO, is the only thing that we've seen which permanently enlarged the tent, and that was WotC's doing.....although a different group of WotC doers.


RC


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> The alternatives are to provide almost all choices with the same chance of success (tailoring the encounter to group skills but removing tactical choice from the challenge), assign the same DC to almost all skills (promoting strategic skill selection for the group), or provide a default 'hard' skill DC and reward innovative skill choice with a lower DC (encouraging tactical skill play while leaving the DM with an understanding of the likely outcomes).



I think that the default, by the published rules, is towards the first of your options - because the default DC is Moderate, and most PCs will have comparable skill bonuses in their best trained skills (good stat +5 for training).

You're right that this makes tactical choice in the challenge less important. In my experience - and I don't know how representative this is, because my impression is that skill challenges play very differently at different tables - choices matter for story reasons rather than tactical reasons. For example, the diffrence between Diplomacy and Intimidate isn't a tactical one (in my party, for example, the paladin has the same skill bonus in both) but rather - do I want this NPC to like me and therefore do want I want, or to be scared of me and therefore do what I want? That's often an important choice, but not for tactical reasons.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> They're not the same thing. They are more than tangentially related, however, because in order to respond to the outcome of a given player-driven scene, it is necessary to frame a new scene on the fly. The elements of that scene may on may occasions be pregiven (eg some key NPCs, perhaps even a key location) but the details won't be, as they arise out of what happened previously.




Previously you were equating "just in time GMing" with "engaging thematic concerns".

You are now equating "frame a new scene on the fly" with "engaging thematic concerns".

Since, AFAICT, "just in time GMing" and "frame a new scene on the fly" are just synonyms for each other, you have not actually explained the connection. You are just posting tautologies.

To repeat myself: Yes, I can see that "just in time GMing" can be used to "engage thematic concerns". But "just in time GMing" can also be used to do other things. And thematic concerns can be engaged using other techniques.



> A robust system of encounter-building guidelines based on level  appropriate DCs helps with this. A simulationist system makes it harder,  because either (i) the simulation gets the DCs wrong relative to level  and pacing considerations, or (ii) building in enough additional  factors(eg in a combat or other physical challenge, perhaps weather or  lighting) to make the simulation generate the right numbers for pacing  and level considerations takes too much time.



I was initially going to point that "set the DC and then explain what the DC means" works in either case to support "just in time DMing". The only distinction between the simulationist and non-simulationist approach is that under the simulationist approach a given DC has meaning.

To make up arbitrary numbers, if a slippery slope of DC 15 is coated in ordinary oil, you can't just declare that a DC 42 slippery slope is also coated in ordinary oil. It has to be coated in dragon's blood or astral-glide or whatever. (It's a lubricant created from the waters of the Astral Plane.)

But after giving this paragraph a great deal of thought, I think I understand what you're trying to say: If you have a PC with an oil-phobia who should be making DC 42 checks, you need to be able to railroad them into confronting a dangerous, slippery slope coated in ordinary oil in order to "engage their thematic concerns". Thus it has to be oil and it has to be DC 42. This is similar to your desire to avoid giving them any powers which would allow them to bypass the carefully constructed "frames" (i.e., railroads) which you've designed ("just in time" or otherwise) to confront them.



> My understanding is that a prestige class is (i) subject to GM approval,  and (ii) tends to require the PC to achieve the requisite backstory in  the course of play (the non-mechanical prerequisites for many prestige  classes).



Not generally true. So we can take this one off the table.



> Can  you explain exactly how the mechanics of 4th Edition explicitly support  "scene framing" vs. "scene extrapolation"? Could you point to  demonstrations of this technique being employed in the adventures  written by the designers of 4th Edition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skill challenges for overland travel are one obvious example.
Click to expand...



Apparently the word "explain" escaped your notice there. Try again.



> The healing mechanics are another. Both short rests and extended rests -  which separate healing from any ingame activity or use of resources -  open up much greater flexibility for scene framing,



Here you've lost me entirely. How is an enforced 6 hour gap between scenes that can only be taken once every 18 hours giving you "much greater flexibility for scene framing"?



> These two techniques can in fact be combined so that - for example - the  consequence of a failure in an overland travel challenge is inability  to get an extended rest.



Can you explain how this significantly differs from disrupting rests in 3rd Edition within the specific context of framing scenes?



> 3E, with its wands of  CLW, might make the contrast less stark, but I don't know that wands of  CLW contribute very much to a feeling of heroic protagonism).



Can you explain how short rests and extended rests contribute to the feeling of "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the  players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)  and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this  thematic material"?




> As is pretty well known, 4e combat (...) has a distinctive pace: the  monsters start out very strongly, putting  the PCs on the ropes, but at a  certain point into the combat the tide  turns, as the PCs' resilience -  manifested paradigmatically but not  exclusively by their healing-surge  based abilities including second wind  - kicks in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can  you explain what any of that has to do with "character- and  situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the players build rich  and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...) and the GM frames  and resolves situations which engage with this thematic material"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It  allows, for example, a player to play a ranger, whose knowledge of the  wilderness contributes importantly to the party's survival, without the  actual play experience at the table bogging down into tedious minutiae  about setting up campsites.
Click to expand...



Wait... what? What does the "distinctive pace" of 4E combat have to do with the ranger contributing to overland encounters?



> Can  you explain what any of that has to do with "character- and   situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the players build rich   and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...) and the GM  frames  and resolves situations which engage with this thematic  material"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the combat case, it allows players to build and play PCs whose  protagonism is expressed via their choices in combat - this is always  likely to be fairly central to a D&D game, given what D&D is  about - without getting bogged down in (i) high search-and-handling time  minutiae, and (ii) excessive grittiness.
Click to expand...



Oh dear. You seem to have missed the word "explain" again.



> As for the suggestion that this sort of game either (i) disavows  coherent links between scenes, or (ii) is all about railroading, I'll  post another quote (this time from Ron Edwards):




When I'm talking specifically and explicitly about the hyperbole of the Paul Czege quotes you linked to and you have to respond with unrelated comments from someone else to claim that Czege didn't write what he wrote, I don't really have much time to waste with that kind of intellectual dodge.

And all of this despite the fact that I explicitly said that I'm willing to accept that this is just hyperbole on Czege's part.



> Look, if you want to insult my GMing and tell me that I run a crappy game using a crappy ruleset, just come out and say it.




Hmmm... I had assumed, based on your praising quotations of Czege, that you were similarly shameless in your railroading, but apparently you feel great shame about it. Sorry about that.


----------



## Lalato

Beginning of the End said:


> Oh dear. You seem to be confused.
> 
> Allow me to explain the analogy for you:
> 
> "Tent" = "Current Edition of the Game Supported by WotC"
> 
> Now, re-read your message and see if it makes any sense at all.





As always happens in these threads, the goalpost keep getting moved and definitions keep changing to the point where no one can keep up with the silly "debate".

Once people understand that there really is nothing to debate to begin with... this thread will die as it should.  Oh well... here's to hoping the end is sooner, rather than later.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Look, if you want to insult my GMing and tell me that I run a crappy game using a crappy ruleset, just come out and say it.



Hey Perm,

You are a great GM, running a great game using a fair to middlin ruleset.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lalato said:


> As always happens in these threads, the goalpost keep getting moved and definitions keep changing to the point where no one can keep up with the silly "debate".





Don't mistake refining a position for shifting the goalposts.  

If you examine the thread in context of the refined statement of position, I believe you will see that the side opposed to your own makes more sense than it might have previously seemed to.

Contrast this with the "superhuman" discussion, where the definitions of what is "superhuman" and "human" seem to shift quite often, and where earlier statements make no sense if you accept the later definitions.

Refinement is something that should be encouraged in a discussion, rather than seen as a problem.  If, under the refined definition, you suddenly agree with the previous statements, then that is a win for everyone.  

Shifting the goalposts is just about not facing (or not admitting) that an argument doesn't make sense.

It is, IMHO and IME, not at all uncommon for one party to phrase something poorly, thus leading to a lack of understanding and an apparent strong disagreement where there is little or no actual disagreement to begin with.  I know this because, all too often, I am that one party (Proud to be a Game Master and the Village Idiot, you see).

I mean, I would be very happy to define the tent as "all rpgs", in which case it is a very big tent indeed.

But, in the case of WotC, "D&D is all a big tent with room for every edition!" rings false when they have limited access to earlier editions as far as they legally can.  Likewise, "4e is a big tent with room for every playstyle!" rings false when one examines the designer commentary or what the edition actually does well.

AND, for the record, I think an edition not being a "big tent" is fine.  It allows for a tighter focus, and a more uniform play experience from table to table.  While the degree might be different, that was clearly one of Gygax's goals for AD&D 1e.  It is not _a priori _bad.

On a tangent:  Want to lead me to Rome, WotC?  Release "Return to the Forbidden City" with a big (not mini-scale) poster map of the Forbidden City, and a ton of detailed locations as a mini-campaign setting.  Done well, I'd pay a pretty penny for that boxed set, and I don't even play 4e!

Well, just think about it, okay?  


RC


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> Apparently the word "explain" escaped your notice there. Try again.



If multiple posts of multiple hundreds of words on this thread  - including that amount of detail on the overland skill challenge - aren't adequate, why don't you go to some of the actual play threads I linked to upthread.



Beginning of the End said:


> Hmmm... I had assumed, based on your praising quotations of Czege, that you were similarly shameless in your railroading, but apparently you feel great shame about it. Sorry about that.



If you can't tell the difference between what Czege describes and railroading, or in Edwards' terminology the differene between plot and situational authority, then I don't know what experience you're bringing to this, but I assume it doesn't include much familiarity with modern/indie RPGs.

The notion that Czege and Edwards are railroaders, or advocates of railroading, is too absurd for words. They're up there with Robin Laws and Vincent Baker as designers of player-focused RPGs.

As I said earlier, go to some of my actual play threads and tell me where the railroading is. As you'll see on those threads, I'm quite happy to talk in detail about the way I GM my games. It's not just theorycraft.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> If multiple posts of multiple hundreds of words on this thread  - including that amount of detail on the overland skill challenge - aren't adequate, why don't you go to some of the actual play threads I linked to upthread.
> 
> If you can't tell the difference between what Czege describes and railroading, or in Edwards' terminology the differene between plot and situational authority, then I don't know what experience you're bringing to this, but I assume it doesn't include much familiarity with modern/indie RPGs.
> 
> The notion that Czege and Edwards are railroaders, or advocates of railroading, is too absurd for words. They're up there with Robin Laws and Vincent Baker as designers of player-focused RPGs.
> 
> As I said earlier, go to some of my actual play threads and tell me where the railroading is. As you'll see on those threads, I'm quite happy to talk in detail about the way I GM my games. It's not just theorycraft.



Heh

I'm very torn here.  On the one hand I feel for you because I know just how frustrating it can be to explain something exhaustively, only to have someone first say they don't get what you are saying and then second to turn around and suggest that you have never explained it and you are therefore proven wrong if you don't start over from the beginning right now.  That gets old fast and it really sucks.

On the other hand, I was pretty much going down that road with you when I just gave up and bailed out.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> They're not the same thing. They are more than tangentially related, however, because in order to respond to the outcome of a given player-driven scene, it is necessary to frame a new scene on the fly. The elements of that scene may on may occasions be pregiven (eg some key NPCs, perhaps even a key location) but the details won't be, as they arise out of what happened previously.
> 
> A robust system of encounter-building guidelines based on level appropriate DCs helps with this. A simulationist system makes it harder, because either (i) the simulation gets the DCs wrong relative to level and pacing considerations, or (ii) building in enough additional factors(eg in a combat or other physical challenge, perhaps weather or lighting) to make the simulation generate the right numbers for pacing and level considerations takes too much time. (This is based on my own experience of the differences between running Rolemaster and running 4e.)




Ok, you still have not explained how 4e's gamist system makes pacing and thematic meaning in a challenge any easier since the rules are only presenting DC's that represent a mechanically appropriate encounter for whatever level of challenge you wish to present to the players. Yet in no way do the rules, in and of themselves, incorporate pacing or theme as you claim.



pemerton said:


> My understanding is that a prestige class is (i) subject to GM approval, and (ii) tends to require the PC to achieve the requisite backstory in the course of play (the non-mechanical prerequisites for many prestige classes). Of course, (ii) is another avenue for the GM to control access to the class, given that the GM is typically the final arbiter on the world design and encounter design consideratins that would determine whether or not (ii) can be satisfied.
> 
> Paragon paths have neither (i) or (ii). That's the difference. And it is consistent with a more general difference in tenor of the two rulesets as to where this sort of control over the fiction is located.




And yet even 4e has rule 0 so everything still boils down to whether the DM approves it or not... I mean I don't know too many GM's who are going to just let a player take any PP they want from Dark Sun in a FR, Eberron or PoL setting. Also Paragon Paths are still limited by their finite number (unlike Heroquest where a character can create anything he wants) and their own sets of requirements as well as the DM's whim ( As a purely made up example...How can a player in 4e take a Dragon Slayer PP without the DM's agreement that dragons exsist?)... again this seems more your way of looking at 4e and could just as easily apply to 3.5 or Pathfinder. 



pemerton said:


> Skill challenges for overland travel are one obvious example. A published instance I'm familiar with is Heathen in one of the early free online Dungeons.




How is the design of a skill challenge (X successes before Y failures) any better than setting up 5 obstacles in a wilderness journey using Pathfinder, that must be faced before reaching a destination? In fact I feel like I have more control over pacing here because the challenges don't end arbitrarily or become pointless because my players happened to fail 3 checks before 5 were made. In my 3.5 game if I set up 5 obstacles my PC's will face five obstacles (barring something like death as a reprecussion for failing to overcome one of them) then my PC's will face 5 meaningful obstacles. In fact I would say that individual reprecussions and awards cater to the thematic concerns and narrative of different PC's better than one that has a binary ending regardless of how well or bad you did individually. 



pemerton said:


> The healing mechanics are another. Both short rests and extended rests - which separate healing from any ingame activity or use of resources - open up much greater flexibility for scene framing, and reduce the impact of ingame causal considerations on the transition from scene to scene (again, the contrast here with Rolemaster and AD&D is very stark - 3E, with its wands of CLW, might make the contrast less stark, but I don't know that wands of CLW contribute very much to a feeling of heroic protagonism).




Wait...what? Short rests and extended rests are very much tied into in-game time. You can't penalize someone for not taking an extended rest unless a certain amount of in-game time has passed... and the same goes for a short rest... so again I'm not seeing your point. 





pemerton said:


> These two techniques can in fact be combined so that - for example - the consequence of a failure in an overland travel challenge is inability to get an extended rest. Which then allows what are, in the gameworld, encounters that occur on different days (and therefore not threatening to verisimilitude in their temporal proximity) to be, in mechanical terms, encounters drawing on the same bundle of daily resources. This is harder to achieve in a game where healing is heavily simulationist and closely linked to the ingame activity of the PCs, and in which skill checks and their contribution to overland travel are also handled in a much more micro-detail fashion.




Again... there are in-game ties to these things, it appears that you are just choosing to ignore them. Extended rests can be taken every 8 hours I believe and short term rests are. every 5 minutes.. that's in-game time.





pemerton said:


> What I've just described can't be done in Rolemaster (unless the GM suspends the normal action resolution rules) without going through all the minutiae of the skill checks to determine whether or not the PCs find a place to rest, succeed in getting to sleep, make their RRs against getting woken by biting insects and hooting owls, etc etc. The core 3E rulebooks don't, to me, suggest that 3E plays any differently from RM in this regard.




But you are ignoring the normal in-game ties to time that extended rests and short rests have in 4e. As far as your take on 3e's skills go... do you really think you have to roll to go to sleep? The narrative and thematic control in 3e is set by the particular challenges the PC's face... if I want to drain them and make them tired then I make them face the difficulty of finding good shelter... if I want them to face being weakened the obstacles become monsters... and so on




pemerton said:


> It allows, for example, a player to play a ranger, whose knowledge of the wilderness contributes importantly to the party's survival, without the actual play experience at the table bogging down into tedious minutiae about setting up campsites.




Well IMO, this boils down more to DM and Player style than anything in the rules of 3.5 or 4e... I've seen minutae filled skill challenges and a single skill check cover a broad area in 3.x




pemerton said:


> In the combat case, it allows players to build and play PCs whose protagonism is expressed via their choices in combat - this is always likely to be fairly central to a D&D game, given what D&D is about - without getting bogged down in (i) high search-and-handling time minutiae, and (ii) excessive grittiness. The combat pacing feeds into this. The _way_ in which the PCs rebound in combat - what powers do they use, against whom, synergising with whom, at what potential costs - is part of what narrativist play in D&D involves (if you don't want combat in your narrativism, don't play D&D!).




Huh? 3.x also allows PC's to express their protagonism via their choices in combat... 4e may nnot have "high search" (and mostly because it forces every player to carry a mini-rules sheet in the form of power cards)... it certainly does have a high amount of handling and tracking with it's numerous fidly bits that change constantly.. 

As far as grittiness goes... I don't understand your usage of the word. IMO, Runequest is gritty... D&D in all forms (without houserules) just isn't. IMO, the synergizing of powers is tactical play not narrativist. You can slap a coating of narativism over it but it's ultimately tactical play... your powers synergize to produce tactical variance in the game... they do not inherently produce a narrative.




pemerton said:


> The whole tone of your post implies that I'm mistaken in my views as to what 4e can do as a system, its strengths, and its differences from more simulationist systems. And maybe I am - the human capacity for self-deception knows few limits! But it seems strange to me that you simultaneously deny that 4e can deliver the same play experience as 3E, and deny those actual examples of difference that a fairly experienced 4e GM is putting forward. What _are_ the differences, then?




I'm not Beginning but I'll touch on this... IMO, the differences are gamism vs. simulationism... you see all I'm reading in your posts are how you've tweaked and slapped a coat of paint on a gamist system to make it more narrative in your opinion. And for the record I am running a Heroquest Nameless Streets game on the weekends and IMO, it plays nothing like 4e.


----------



## Hussar

Beginning of the End said:


> Oh dear. You seem to be confused.
> 
> Allow me to explain the analogy for you:
> 
> "Tent" = "Current Edition of the Game Supported by WotC"
> 
> Now, re-read your message and see if it makes any sense at all.




Oh, fair enough.  I figured that since for much of D&D's history, there have been multiple supported editions of D&D in print at the same time, the Tent simply means "Playing D&D in some form".

3e players have support from Paizo, 4e from WOTC.  Basic/Expert D&D players, 1e and 2e players all had support from TSR at the same time (all three editions saw more than a couple of years of overlap of printing).  Is there really a large difference?

But, if your tent only means "The most current iteration of D&D", then sure, I can see how the tent feels smaller when it doesn't speak directly to you.  Then again, the tent now speaks directly to me, so, is the tent smaller, larger or the same size, just with different people inside?

After all, since Raven Crowking is posting in this thread, 3e certainly didn't speak to him.  300 pages of house rules and a pretty strident constant criticism of all things 3e would mean to me that the 3e tent wasn't too comfortable for him.  Now, the 4e tent still doesn't speak to him, so, I guess it's a wash.  

The assumption here is that 3e somehow had broader appeal than 4e.  That 3e supported various playstyles better than 4e.  That's a pretty difficult thing to prove.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> I mean, I would be very happy to define the tent as "all rpgs", in which case it is a very big tent indeed.
> 
> But, in the case of WotC, "D&D is all a big tent with room for every edition!" rings false when they have limited access to earlier editions as far as they legally can.  Likewise, "4e is a big tent with room for every playstyle!" rings false when one examines the designer commentary or what the edition actually does well.




The problem is, the original column from Mearl's (from the OP) doesn't actually state that.  Where does anyone from WOTC actually say that?  It's quite possible I missed it, it's a big thread after all.  What Mearl's actually says is:



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> When we look at the past, we see how we played the game and learn where it started. As we move forward from D&D’s beginning, we see how the game changed, why it changed, and how we changed in response. When we understand the sum of those 38 years of changes, we can understand the present. We can see the big picture, the tale that extends from 1973 (the year Gary signed the foreword to the Original Edition) to today. A cycle emerges, as each version of the game represents a shift from one gaming generation to the next. What I’d like to do in this column is inspect that cycle, take it apart, and use it to look to the future.




Which is something I think most of us would agree with.




> /snip
> 
> On a tangent:  Want to lead me to Rome, WotC?  Release "Return to the Forbidden City" with a big (not mini-scale) poster map of the Forbidden City, and a ton of detailed locations as a mini-campaign setting.  Done well, I'd pay a pretty penny for that boxed set, and I don't even play 4e!
> 
> Well, just think about it, okay?
> 
> 
> RC




Oh dude, that would rock on toast.  I'd be right behind you on this one.  



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Ok, you still have not explained how 4e's gamist system makes pacing and thematic meaning in a challenge any easier since the rules are only presenting DC's that represent a mechanically appropriate encounter for whatever level of challenge you wish to present to the players. Yet in no way do the rules, in and of themselves, incorporate pacing or theme as you claim.




That's actually not quite accurate.  For one, DC's can be mixed and matched without any problem, so, no, DC's won't necessarily be mechanically "appropriate".  Additionally, you can have a success (or failure) count as multiple, meaning that you can end a challenge before the intially estimation of successes.

So, pacing is actually quite easy to control and, has the added bonus, of not having any one element completely bog down play as each part of the challenge should be roughly the same length.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Hussar said:


> I figured that since for much of D&D's history, there have been multiple supported editions of D&D in print at the same time, the Tent simply means "Playing D&D in some form". 3e players have support from Paizo,




I'm straining to find any interpretation of Mearls' column that suggests Pathfinder should be recognized as part of the D&D tent. I have to admit that I'm not really finding it.



Hussar said:


> Which is something I think most of us would agree with.




I wouldn't. I think Mearls' attempt to claim the current generation of gamers by _fiat_ is exactly the sort of hubris that people have been objecting to.



> Additionally, you can have a success (or failure) count as  multiple, meaning that you can end a challenge before the intially  estimation of successes.



If you're playing RAW, that's only true for successes. And for successes it's only true if the skill challenge has a complexity of 3+ and only if the check had a hard DC.

This is one of the major problems I have with the "system": Whenever it's discussed, the advocates inevitably start claiming that in order for skill challenges to really work right the first thing you need to do is ignore the rules for skill challenges.

(Assuming, of course, that you can even figure out what the current system for skill challenges is supposed to be given the dozen different systems WotC has published in the last two years. In this case I'm basing my statement on the rules as they appear in the _Rules Compendium_.)



> So, pacing is actually quite easy to control and, has the added bonus,  of not having any one element completely bog down play as each part of  the challenge should be roughly the same length.



"Everything is roughly the same length" is a really awful methodology for pacing, though.

Which is my second major problem with skill challenges: Taking pacing out of the hands of the GM and the players in order to turn it over to a simplistic mechanic is, IMO, ridiculous. I can sort of vaguely see how they might be useful as a set of training wheels for complete newbies; but they don't seem particularly effective at the _training_ part of that equation. They also seem to be welded on.

My third major problem is that no one has shown me a single example of play using skill challenges which can in any way be differentiated from _not_ counting successes and instead simply adjudicating logical results from the game world.

So it's a system where you gain nothing, lose much, and usually (according to its own advocates) need to ignore it in any case.


----------



## nnms

pemerton said:


> If you can't tell the difference between what Czege describes and railroading, or in Edwards' terminology the differene between plot and situational authority, then I don't know what experience you're bringing to this, but I assume it doesn't include much familiarity with modern/indie RPGs.




This.

I played a lot of BECMI and AD&D2E but 3.x left me utterly cold (though I still played and ran it some as I had some friends who liked it).  During that time I played a ton of modern/indie RPGs.  Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc.,.  I never really posted on The Forge because of the pedantry there, but I lurked nigh endlessly.

My reaction to 4E was "Yes!  A D&D that does what it says on the box!".  But I soon discovered something very, very interesting.  4E worked seemlessly with techniques like kickers and bangs, best interests, hard scene framing, aspects, and others.  I had tried my hardest to get those techniques to work with 3.x but I always found the universal framework to simulate a fantasy world would often get in the way.  4E just doesn't have that particular trapping.  It may have others, but not that one.

One of the reasons that 4E works well as a non-scripted game compared to 3E is how explicitly the system beats are defined.  It's like notes on a musical score. You have the beats for the starting and ending of combat, the beats of how many encounters until you level, the beats of leveling being a pacing mechanic rather than a power mechanic.  Even within some encounters there are beats.  Like a beat on each success or failure in a skill challenge.

Each of these beats are ideal moments for scene framing.  Previous editions might have similar moments, but not as part of the overall reward cycle of the game.

To get back to the issue of "just in time DMing" and railroading, I think the best technique to illustrate this would be bangs.  What's a bang? 

"Introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player."
- Ron Edwards​
It's a choice as a player that you can't ignore and that will make a thematic statement.  You may think "I have those all the time in my game already" but might I suggest there's a difference between recognizing them after the fact and specifically framing a scene to create a situation that would qualify as a bang?  Similarly, a bang is a situation where no one at the table knows what the result would be.  For if a DM decided it in advance, then the player in question no longer has the ability to make that decision and say something about the theme of the game.

So if I frame a scene where you have to deal with something in a way that is going to produce thematically relevant content, how can I already have the next scene planned?  If I do, then the choice made in the previous scene is actually irrelevant.  

The character's actions might make the thematic statement "if you don't know what the right thing to do is, always choose self sacrifice and you'll make it there."  But then if my next planned scene is where their sacrifice is undone and whatever they chose to sacrifice to protect is destroyed anyway, then I have taken away the player's ability to make thematic statements because my plot authority makes my thematic statements override their own.  

For bangs, I _must_ DM in a "just in time" fashion where the next scene is informed by the previous or I gut the player's thematic authority.

Now where 4E shines in this regard is that it assumes that the PCs and all NPCs and monsters do not follow the same rules framework.  So if I need to suddenly throw in a combat with a powerful spell caster, I can do that with 4E without violating the precepts of the system.  With 3.x, I'd either have had to prep that spell caster using the same framework as a PC or I have to chuck the system out and fake it.  4E's design for effect is much, much more improv friendly than 3.x's universal simulation framework.

To get back to Pemerton's quote, I've found that the greatest impediment in communicating about this stuff is when the other person only sees RPG rules and procedures as the means to determine whether or not a character succeeds at a task and by how much.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Yet in no way do the rules, in and of themselves, incorporate pacing or theme as you claim.



Here are some ways the rules incorporate, or open the door, to thematic content:

*If I choose to play an eladrin, I am playing a PC who straddles two worlds - the mundane, mortal world, and the magic otherworld of faerie. This in and of itself brings into play the thematic questions "What is the relationship between these two worlds?" and 'What is _my_ response to being of these two worlds?"

*If I choose to play a warlock, I am playing a PC who has made a pact with some otherworldly and/or esoteric source of power. This in and of itself brings into play the thematic questions "What is my relationship to the source of my pact? What justifies me in having made such a pact?"

*If I build a fighter with the power Come and Get It, every encounter that I use that power I have to answer the question "How did it come about that my foes suddenly converged on me, and then got chopped by me?" By answering that question the player is able to inject thematic content directly into the game _via the behaviour of opposing NPCs_.​
Core 3E has, as far as I'm aware, nothing analogous to the eladrin. The closest it comes to the warlock is the paladin or monk, but because the game includes GM-arbitrated mechanical alignment the thematic content is in the hands of the GM as much as, if not more than, in the hands of the player (an idea that I develop in greater detail here). 3E has no mechanics comparable to Come and Get It (in fact, the presence of Come and Get It in 4e is one of the main differences adduced in criticisms of 4e - I agree that it's a difference, but for me it's a reason to prefer 4e over 3E).

Here is an example of how 4e has rules that support both pacing and theme:

*The 4e combat rules are such that, early in a combat, the monsters will tend to win, wheras somewhere about halfway through the PCs, through drawing on their deeper but more conditional resources (action points, daily powers, healing surges, greater battlefield control, etc) will come back and (typically) win. If the encounter is more than a level or so above the party level, it is likely that in the course of the combat at least one PC will drop unconscious and have to be revived as part of the PCs' come back.​
This dynamic of pacing is a deliberate feature of 4e's design. It is achieved by features such as giving PCs but not monsters (other than solos and elites) action points, and powers at the level of daily powers. It is achieved by giving monsters more hit points, but PCs healing surges and greater access to temporary hit points, which access is conditional in various ways, requiring skillful manipulation of the game's action economy. It is achieved by giving PCs better capabilities in movement and control, but which again are often able to be accessed only conditionally (eg movement as an immediate action in resopnse to an attack) and again which require skillful manipulation of the action economy, as well as sound judgement in relation to battlefield positioning and terrain.

3E does not have this. There is nothing like second wind in 3E. Healing potions aren't a very effective substitute, because they take a standard action to use. Movement by non-spellcasters in 3E is discouraged by the full attack rules. The death and dying rules of 3E have a different (and less dramatic) pacing dynamic than those of 4e.

Finally, 3E - at least at mid-to-high levels - favours scry-teleport-ambush as the optimal mode of combat, with save-or-die/suck spells being used to shut down the opposition as much as possible. To the extent that, in a 3E combat, the tide of combat is running the monsters' way rather than the PCs, something is going wrong. Whereas 4e has combat mechanics in which the PCs picking themselves up off the mat and turning the tide is the norm. This is dramatic. It's exciting. And because it requires the players to engage a life-or-death situation using their PCs as vehicles to turn the tide, it opens the door wide to the expression by the players of thematic ideas as part of their resolution of the combat.

Here's another example:

*A player plays a ranger. That player likes the idea of being a rugged wilderness guide, who helps the party survive in the wilds. Resolution of overland travel by way of skill challenge permits this PC to realise this role, and make a real difference (Does the party succeed in getting an extended rest? Does the party lose healing surges from exhaustion or not?), _without_ having to actual play out all the minutiae of looking for tracks, describing the terrain, describing the layout of the camp, etc.​
What I've just described supports both pacing (ie avoidance of minutiae that bog the game down in the minutiae of exploration that _don't_ contribute any engaging thematic content) while nevertheless permitting the player in question to realise his/her vision of his/her PC - including having to actually stake things on the PC's talent as a wilderness guide (because failures in the skill challenge will cost the party).

In 3E I don't know of any mechanic for telescoping overland travel in this way. It's either go through all the minutiae and resolve it via scene extrapolation, or it's GM handwaving.

As for DCs and non-simulationism (you call it gamism, but I'm talking here about narrativist play, not gamist play):

*In the aforementioned skill challenge, how hard is it for the ranger to successfully lead the party to safety through the wilderness? Page 42 gives me an answer to that question without having to work out minutiae such as the details of the terrain.

*The PCs are walking down a corridor in an old tomb. They notice a niche in the wall, holding a statue of Orcus (3 of them are divine casters associated with the Raven Queen, so naturally the statue is going to be an Orcus statue). The paladin decides to use Religion to determine whether or not the statue has any supernatural properties. What's the DC? Page 42 gives me a simple answer to that question. Having determined that the statue contains powerful necromantic energy, the paladin decides to cleanse it of that energy in the name of the Raven Queen. What's the DC? What's the benefit of success? What's the penalty for failure? Page 42 gives me simple answers to those questions too (benefit - +2 on next significant d20 roll; penalty - damage equal to a low normal damage expression).​
Rolemaster can't do this, because it has no generic rules for level-appropriate DCs and damage. It also doesn't support the non-simulationist idea that one scene can generate a bonus that carries over into another scene (like +2 for cleansing the statue) without worrying about what, exactly, ingame this represents - the player can decide, for example, whether it's the Raven Queen rewarding the PC, or alternatively can just treat is a metagame reward for engaging with the thematic content that has been brought to the table.

To the best of my knowledge 3E is in the same position as Rolemaster in this regard.



Imaro said:


> 3.x also allows PC's to express their protagonism via their choices in combat



To an extent, of course it does. So does Runequest. But Rolemaster does moreso than Runequest, because each round in melee, and every time a spell is cast, the player must choose how much to stake on the attempt (in melee, that is by allocating points to attack and defence; in casting, that is by choosing how many spell points to spend and how much spell failure to risk).

3E is, in this respect, closer to Runequest. Put somewhat crudely, character build decides what a PC will do in combat, and actual combat resolution is about doing that thing and hoping the dice come up high. 4e, on the other hand, is closer to Rolemaster. The more subtle action economy, the more varied range of powers (for fighters this is obvious; for wizards it's also true, somewhat paradoxically, because the overwhelmingly salient 3E option of spamming with the best save-or-suck/die spell is taken away), all make round-by-round decision making crucial.



Imaro said:


> As far as grittiness goes... I don't understand your usage of the word. IMO, Runequest is gritty... D&D in all forms (without houserules) just isn't.



This is true of 3E damage. I don't think it's particular true of 3E grapple (because of the opposed checks, which make the resolution closer to Runequest in certain respects). For similar reasons I don't think it's true of 3E tripping.



Imaro said:


> even 4e has rule 0 so everything still boils down to whether the DM approves it or not



4e doesn't have rule 0. It does have a brief discussion of whether or not the GM should fudge rolls (p 15). My own play experience suggests there is no need to - the system is very robust, and won't give game-wrecking results simply in virtue of a string of high or low rolls.

The Rules Compendium, page 54, has a heading "It's the DM's World", which goes on to talk about altering the core assumptions of the game in order to make "a unique, personalized world". This does not in any sense imply that, during the course of actual play, the GM has the authority to veto or oversee players' character-building choices.



Imaro said:


> How can a player in 4e take a Dragon Slayer PP without the DM's agreement that dragons exsist?



This is about social contract, and establishing what world the game is being played in. Like any other game, sensible 4e players would resolve this before starting to play together. (In my case, I emailed all my players telling them to build PoL PCs, that any Forgotten Realms stuff had to be refluffed as PoL, and that each PC needed to have a backstory including, at a minimum, (i) a reason to be ready to adventure, and (ii) a reason to be ready to fight goblins.)

There is no suggestion that player choices about retraining, PP or ED selection, etc are subject to GM approval. (Retraining, by the way, is another feature of the game that differs from 4e, which facilitates the player in expressing evolving thematic concerns via rebuild of a PC.)



Imaro said:


> How is the design of a skill challenge (X successes before Y failures) any better than setting up 5 obstacles in a wilderness journey using Pathfinder, that must be faced before reaching a destination?



Because it might have nothing to do with 5 obstacles. It might be 5 obstacles. It might be on obstacle, but with four resulting complications in the course of engaging with that obstacle. What those complications are is likely, furthermore, to depend on what has happened before in the course of resolving the skill challenge.

This is like asking, Wouldn't an extended contest in HeroQuest 2nd ed, which requires getting 5 points for success, be just the same as having 5 obstacles? The answer in both cases is no.



Imaro said:


> In fact I feel like I have more control over pacing here because the challenges don't end arbitrarily or become pointless because my players happened to fail 3 checks before 5 were made. In my 3.5 game if I set up 5 obstacles my PC's will face five obstacles (barring something like death as a reprecussion for failing to overcome one of them) then my PC's will face 5 meaningful obstacles



Well, if you run your skill challenge in such a way that when 3 failures have occured you can't explain what is happening in the gameworld, or what the rationale for the resulting fictional situation is, then you've got a problem, I agree. This would be like narrating an extended contest in such a way that when 5 points are accrued you can't explain how one side won and the other lost.

Luckily for me, I avoid this. One way I avoid this, as indicated above, is by treating each check in the challenge not as a discrete obstacle, but as a response to a previously-narrated complication. (This also, by the way, further explicates the relationship beteen this sort of situation-driven narrative play and "just in time" GMing. It also resonates with Czege's comments about keeping the personalities of NPCs somewhat flexible in their original conception, so they can be developed an precisified as part of the process of introducing and resolving complications. In an overland travel skill challenge, the same idea applies to weather and terrain.)



Imaro said:


> In fact I would say that individual reprecussions and awards cater to the thematic concerns and narrative of different PC's better than one that has a binary ending regardless of how well or bad you did individually.



Well, I follow the advice in the DMG and the DMG2 and impose consequences for individual skill checks as the challenge unfolds. These can be both narrative consequences - if PC 1 has just successfully Intimidated an NPC, this may have implications for the range of options available to PC 2 hoping to use Diplomacy - and mechanical consequences - when I ran a "running out of the collapsing temple after you stopped the dark ritual" skill challenge, indvidual failed checks resulted in damage to that PC, as pieces of falling masonry were only narrowly dodged.



Imaro said:


> Short rests and extended rests are very much tied into in-game time. You can't penalize someone for not taking an extended rest unless a certain amount of in-game time has passed... and the same goes for a short rest... so again I'm not seeing your point.



First, this isn't quite correct. As discussed in various places (DMG 2 at least,  perhaps also the Essentials GM's guide) the short rest is first and foremost a pacing tool. Page 263 of the PHB describes it as "about 5 minutes long". The GM's guidelines make it clear that the GM is free to vary this in order to support encounter pacing.

To give a concrete example: Suppose the PCs just finish fighting some orcs on a plain. They see another mass of orcs in the distance, charging towards them. The 4e rules _do not_ encourage the GM to calculate the distance between the two groups, divide that distance by the pace of the orcs, and thereby determine whether or not a short rest is viable. They _do_ encourage the GM to characterise the distance and the time in dramatic rather than literal terms ("You can see them bearing down on you as you quickly get your breath . . . ) and to allow the short rest (or, perhaps, to make it turn on a skill challenge in some fashion - perhaps a Complexity 1 skill challenge to briefly find some cover in the nearby hills, for example).

(This emphasis on the drama of space and time, rather than its literalness, is also remiscent of the following passage from the rules of Maelstrom Storytelling:

se "scene ideas" to convey the scene, instead of literalisms. ... focus on the intent behind the scene and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how hard the feat is for the character. ... If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game. ... Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.​

Of course, those remarks _don't_ apply to 4e tactical combat. And my biggest single criticism of the 4e action resolution mechanics - oft repeated - is that there isn't enough guidance on how to integrate skill challenges and combat.)

As for extended rests - in the most recent overland travel skill challenge that I ran, one consequence of failure was that the PCs failed to get an extended rest. The sequence of skill rolls was first a failure by the ranger, and then a success by the wizard, on a nature check. The narration was that as the party trudged through the swamp along the river, they had no luck finding a place to camp until the wizard spotted what looked like a slight rise of dryer land. They stopped there to rest, but had a fitful sleep tormented by insects and hence were barely rested when morning came.

A system that more closely connects healing into the expenditure of ingame resources (like a wand of cure light wounds) or the performance of ingame actions (like recovering X hp per Y days of bedrest) makes it harder to manipulate recovery in this sort of fashion.



Imaro said:


> The narrative and thematic control in 3e is set by the particular challenges the PC's face... if I want to drain them and make them tired then I make them face the difficulty of finding good shelter... if I want them to face being weakened the obstacles become monsters... and so on



Right. I can play this way to. I did so for close to 20 years running Rolemaster. It's a style of play that has many virtues. Strong pacing is, in my experience, not one of them. Too often you have to fight against the system, because there is no obvious alternative (other than GM fiat) to actually playing it all out via the minutiae of task resolution and scene extrapolation. Which is, by away, exactly what I see as implicit in the phase "make the face the difficulty of finding good shelter".  

Of course, I did that too in my skill challenge - it's just that I resolved it in a different, non-simulationist fashion (as I've mentioned several times in this post and ad nauseum in other posts, there is a strong resemblance to HeroWars/Quest extended challenges).



Imaro said:


> IMO, the synergizing of powers is tactical play not narrativist. You can slap a coating of narativism over it but it's ultimately tactical play... your powers synergize to produce tactical variance in the game... they do not inherently produce a narrative.



I don't know quite what you mean by "produce a narrative". By "narrativism" I'm meaning it in the technical sense coined at the Forge - that is, _play which aims to engage with thematic ideas, and express them, in the course of play_. (Edwards calls this "addressing a premise". My personal view is that his notion of what counts as an interesting premise is a bit narrow - he focuses too much on moral questions to the exclusion of aesthetics, for example. But I believe that he is a biologist, not a philosopher or literary theorist, so his narrowness here is pretty easily forgivable.)

There is no conflict between tactical play and narrativism (although most Forge games lean away from 4e-style tactics - that's partially why my group plays D&D in preference to Forge games). As I've indicated above, tactical choices can be one way of engaging with and expressing thematic content. The range of options in 4e, both at the point of character build and at the point of round-by-round decision-making, certainly permit this in my experience. For example, meaningful options can include cowardice, expedience, courage, self-sacrifice, callousness, deceit and the like.

Now of course all of that is possible in other games as well, but what is interesting about 4e is that a PC can be built and played so that making these sorts of choices _does not require tactical trade offs_. The game isn't perfect, of course, but most of the time a player does not have to worry about trading off thematic commitment against effectiveness, but rather is able to be effective precisely by expressing a certain thematic commitment. (The poster children for this sort of combat are of course HeroQuest - where relationships and other theme-bearing attributes function as augments - and The Riddle of Steel - where spiritual attributes give bonus dice. 4e is probably not as strong as those games in this respect, but as always in life there are trade offs. 4e also does things those games don't do.)



Imaro said:


> Well IMO, this boils down more to DM and Player style than anything in the rules of 3.5 or 4e... I've seen minutae filled skill challenges and a single skill check cover a broad area in 3.x



Of course player style matters. As I've posted upthread, for many years I ran a vanilla narrativist Rolemaster game. I'm sure I could run a vanilla narrativist 3E game. But 4e has features that better support narrativism (and with rules like skill challenges, Come and Get It, healing surges, etc it's not entirely vanilla).

Again, I'm puzzled as to why someone who _agrees_ that 4e is different from 3E is so hostile to any actual detaild suggestion as to where the differences might lie.



Imaro said:


> IMO, the differences are gamism vs. simulationism... you see all I'm reading in your posts are how you've tweaked and slapped a coat of paint on a gamist system to make it more narrative in your opinion.



Well, as Ron Edwards has pointed out here and here, it's not particularly surprising that a given system might support both narrativist and gamist play (examples he gives are Tunnels and Trolls and Marvel Super Heroes). Both sorts of play involve grabbing hold of the game elements, and using them to _do something _rather than just exploring them.

So, for example, skipping over minutiae can help get to the challenges without tedious preludes (works for gamism) or allow expression of protagonism without tedious preludes (works for narrativism). Building my PC to deploy a certain tactical ability can be an expression of cleverness (works for gamism) or - where the various abilities between which I'm choosing express different thematic concerns, like (for example) a self-heal vs an other-heal, or necrotic damage vs radiant damge - an expression of thematic concern (works for narrativism).



Imaro said:


> And for the record I am running a Heroquest Nameless Streets game on the weekends and IMO, it plays nothing like 4e.



What can I say - it sounds like you've had bad experiences with 4e. But I can assure you I've not done any major tweaking. Other than the two conditions on PC background that I stipulated for my group - not something that the DMG canvasses, to the best of my recollection - I'm just playing it according to the manual.


----------



## pemerton

nnms said:


> This.



Thanks. It's reasurring to know that I'm not some crazy out here on my own!



nnms said:


> the beats of leveling being a pacing mechanic rather than a power mechanic.



Yes. The way I've described this is that levelling, in combination with using the published monsters, means that the backdrop to the game, and to the players' decision making, is "the story of D&D". We start with kobolds, go via drow and mindflayers, and end up with Orcus. And because everyone at the table knows this is what will be happening, it gives the players another tool to draw on in shaping their PCs, choosing their PPs/EDs, and making their choices.



nnms said:


> So if I frame a scene where you have to deal with something in a way that is going to produce thematically relevant content, how can I already have the next scene planned?  If I do, then the choice made in the previous scene is actually irrelevant.



Yes. Exactly!



nnms said:


> 4E's design for effect is much, much more improv friendly than 3.x's universal simulation framework.
> 
> To get back to Pemerton's quote, I've found that the greatest impediment in communicating about this stuff is when the other person only sees RPG rules and procedures as the means to determine whether or not a character succeeds at a task and by how much.



Yes. Exactly what I was saying.

I agree with the rest of your post too, but these were the things that particularly spoke to my experiences with 4e.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> My third major problem is that no one has shown me a single example of play using skill challenges which can in any way be differentiated from _not_ counting successes and instead simply adjudicating logical results from the game world.



The overland travel skill challenge I explained above is an example of this.

The challenge was complexity 2 (6 successes before 3 failures). The PCs were leaving the collapsed temple of Baphomet that they had successfully stopped gnolls from rededicating to Yeenoghu (this is from Thunderspire Labyrinth). I had decided that after three successes the PCs arrived at the gnoll shaman's burial ground (this is from the old Basic module Night's Dark Terror), that after five successes that arrived at the ruin with the witches (this was my own encounter) and that after six success they arrived at the village from which they could easily follow the trail to the city they were headed for (this was adapted from Heathen).

I had also decided that a failure before the burial ground meant the pursuing gnoll archer on a manticore - whom they knew about and from whom they were trying to hide - got surprise against them while they were at the burial ground. I decided that a failure before either of the next two encounters meant that no extended rest was had before getting to it.

As it played out, the first success was the wizard's Arcana check to contain the magic forces collapsing the temple after the ritual was ended - so only the entrance caved in, rather than the entire mountain side. (This obviously makes it less obvious to the flying gnoll that the PCs are departing the temple.) The next I can't remember - maybe group Athletics to climb down the mountain-side, as I think they opted for speed over stealth - and then another check - maybe Nature(?) - which brought them to the burial ground.

After the encounter at the burial ground, the next check was a group check - Athletics or Acro - to cross the river, then the Nature check described upthread to find a resting place - this failed at first, then succeeded, as describd upthread. Consequently, no extended rest was gained. The next check then brought the PCs to the witches - I can't remember what it was, perhaps Nature again, or maybe Perception after climbing a tree to scout.

Since then, dealing with the witches has occupied several sessions, and so the last check(s) hasn't been made.

I don't think this could easily be done in an alternative, simulationist fashion. How would I work out how many Athletics checks are required to descend the mountain slope, for example, or their DCs, or how hard it is to find a satisfactory resting place, without detailed maps and terrain description?

I think upthread I may also have described the negotiation skill challenge with the duergar slavers. In any event, resolving a negotiation as a skill challenge means that there is a clear point at which it is over, and some resolution among the parties is reached (a bit like a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel). In my own experience, freeform resolution via social skill checks doesn't always so straightforwardly lead to finality - it is in fact highly vulnerable to check mongering by either GM or players, and also to overriding the outcome of past checks, as the GM decides that the "natural flow" of circumstances has changed. Whereas the metagame element of skill challengs means that something like "Let it Ride" from Burning Wheel comes into play - if the players have succeeded at a skill challenge negotiation then they have got what they bargained for, and as a general rule the matter is settled (and the GM has to narrate the unfolding gameworld in a corresponding fashion). Just as, in the typical combat victory, the monsters are dead, and the players don't have to worry that five minutes later that GM might decide that circumstances have changed and the monsters suddenly are alive again.

EDIT:


Beginning of the End said:


> This is one of the major problems I have with the "system": Whenever it's discussed, the advocates inevitably start claiming that in order for skill challenges to really work right the first thing you need to do is ignore the rules for skill challenges.



First - if there is no more conflict left in the situation (for whatever reason) - then the skill challenge obviously is over. Just as if one side in a combat surrenders or flees or decides to become friends with the other (for whatever reason) then the combat is obviously over. The DMG leaves this implicit; DMG2 makes it express.

Second, some people think that, at the end of a combat, if one monster having only a handful of hit points is all that's left, and then is hit such that it has only 1 hp left, the GM should just fudge that last hit point and let it die. Others disagree.

I think there is a similar spread of opinions in relation to "dead rolls" in a skill challenge.

My own tendency is to regard no roll as dead - whether in combat or in a skill challenge, it always creates the possibility of extra complication and therefore interesting development. But I'm not dogmatic about this, and if I ever felt that pacing considerations really pushed the other way I'd be happy to call it differently.

In any event, I don't really see this as an issue of following or not following the rules. It's about exercising GM judgment in the interest of keeping the game running smoothly. That it might arise in relation to skill challenges is no more a point against them, then that it might arise in relation to combat is a point against the hit point mechanic. If there was reason to think it might come up frequently in relation to skill challenges compared to combat that would be a different matter, but in my experience the tendency is in fact the opposite to this.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> My third major problem is that no one has shown me a single example of  play using skill challenges which can in any way be differentiated from _not_ counting successes and instead simply adjudicating logical results from the game world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overland travel skill challenge I explained above is an example of this.
Click to expand...



I read the example. I'm afraid it amply demonstrates my point. There's absolutely nothing in what you describe which required the skill challenge mechanics to resolve.

You see the same problem in the example of play in the _Rules Compendium_, too: Remove the references to counting successes and failures and _absolutely nothing changes_.

I should note there that there are circumstances where complex skill checks are a useful way for resolving a single, discrete action. But although the success-vs-failures nature of the mechanic is similar, its application is pretty much completely different.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> Apparently the word "explain" escaped your notice there. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If multiple posts of multiple hundreds of words on this thread - including that amount of detail on the overland skill challenge - aren't adequate, why don't you go to some of the actual play threads I linked to upthread.
Click to expand...



So I guess the answer to, "Can you explain?" is, "No, I can't." Fair enough.



> If you can't tell the difference between what Czege describes and railroading, or in Edwards' terminology the differene between plot and situational authority, then I don't know what experience you're bringing to this, but I assume it doesn't include much familiarity with modern/indie RPGs.



You're the one who linked to the thread where Czege (and others) argue that the GM should take control over PC decision-making away from the players in order to aggressively frame scenes. If there's some screwed up Forge definition of "railroading" which makes that anything other than railroading, I don't really care.



> The notion that Czege and Edwards are railroaders, or advocates of railroading, is too absurd for words. They're up there with Robin Laws and Vincent Baker as designers of player-focused RPGs.



Not a great example to pick. Robin D. Laws designed GUMSHOE. Which, despite his protests to the contrary, is an entire system designed to support railroading the PCs.

You, like Laws, seem to be under the impression that railroading the PCs from Point A to Point B isn't railroading because there isn't a railroad from Point B to Point C. I'm afraid you're mistaken. An intermittent railroad is still a railroad.

Please note that I've gamed with Laws. He's a good guy. I'm generally a fan of his game designs. But describing him as "not a railroader" is kinda kooky.



pemerton said:


> Yet in no way do the rules, in and of  themselves, incorporate pacing or theme as you claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some ways the rules incorporate, or open the door, to thematic content:
> *If I choose to play an eladrin, I am playing a PC who  straddles two worlds - the mundane, mortal world, and the magic  otherworld of faerie. This in and of itself brings into play the  thematic questions "What is the relationship between these two worlds?"  and 'What is _my_ response to being of these two worlds?"
Click to expand...



You understand that nothing you wrote there is a rule right? It's really difficult to have a conversation with you when you keep changing the topic and refusing to explain your actual position.

I could, of course, trivially point to equivalent "thematic content" in 3E:

* I choose to play a half-orc, I am playing a PC who straddles two worlds -- the civilized, cultured world and the savage, barbaric world. This in itself brings into play the thematic questions "What is the relationship between these two worlds?" and "What is _my_ response to being of these two worlds?"

And I could point and laugh at the fact that you think "make a guy move 5 feet" constitutes a deep and meaningful contribution to the narrative.

But, really, that would just be a distraction from that you explicitly and implicitly refuse to explain your positions.

You say that you've written a lot of words in this thread. Yes, you have. And you have failed to use any of those words to answer the simplest of questions. Instead you just post obfuscated tautologies and apparently hope that nobody will notice.



> There is nothing like second wind in 3E. Healing potions aren't a very effective substitute, because they take a standard action to use.



This is a pretty good example of why you're posting nonsense:

(1) You specifically claim that second wind mechanics support "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the  players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)  and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this  thematic material".

This makes little sense to me. What does "you regain hit points and gain a +2 bonus to all defenses for 1 turn" have to do with character- and situation-focused narrativist play, building rich and compelling thematic material into your PCs, or the GM framing situations which engage with that thematic material?

You've been asked for an explanation multiple times, but you refuse to give it.

But even if we accept that the second wind mechanics somehow do all this...

(2) You specifically claim that they would not do so if they were a standard action.

By which we're forced to conclude that the "compelling thematic material" you're talking about is... somehow dependent on whether or not one is taking a minor, move, or standard action?

That seems kinda hokey.

But even if we accept that this is somehow true; that using a standard action to take a second wind would effectively disrupt whatever the heck it is you're talking about...

(3) Using a second wind, according to both the _Player's Handbook_ and _Rules Compendium_, *requires a standard action*.

...

I'm just going to give that a second to soak in.

I think we're done here.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> That's actually not quite accurate. For one, DC's can be mixed and matched without any problem, so, no, DC's won't necessarily be mechanically "appropriate". Additionally, you can have a success (or failure) count as multiple, meaning that you can end a challenge before the intially estimation of successes.
> 
> So, pacing is actually quite easy to control and, has the added bonus, of not having any one element completely bog down play as each part of the challenge should be roughly the same length.




I'm going to disagree... now note, before I continue I never said it gives you mechanically appropriate DC's for the level of your PC's... but 4e's mechanics for deriving DC's most certainly give you an "appropriate" range of DC's for a particular level of challenge. You can use anything however you want, but the actual mechanics support this.

As far as a success counting as multiple or single... it doesn't change the fact that there is a set number of successes or failures you can reach that invalidate the rest of a SC... is this right or wrong? 

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying if you modify a SC on the fly to make sure it creates the correct pacing... you can control the pacing... well yeah, you can fudge anything in any rpg to control "paciing". 

I also keep seeing refrences to play bogging down... IMO, this should be controlled by the players and DM not by the rules of the game, since the rules of the game can't tell you what parts of a game your players will be interested in or want to approach with more detail and what parts they will want to gloss through.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> You, like Laws, seem to be under the impression that railroading the PCs from Point A to Point B isn't railroading because there isn't a railroad from Point B to Point C. I'm afraid you're mistaken. An intermittent railroad is still a railroad.



I've lost track of your letters. What do A, B and C designate relative to Czege's example?



Beginning of the End said:


> I read the example. I'm afraid it amply demonstrates my point. There's absolutely nothing in what you describe which required the skill challenge mechanics to resolve.



Would you care to elaborate? For example, how does one determine whether or not a satisfactory camp site is found, or river crossing is achieved, without a detailed map and terrain description?



Beginning of the End said:


> You see the same problem in the example of play in the _Rules Compendium_, too: Remove the references to counting successes and failures and _absolutely nothing changes_.



I don't see this. The only thing that determines at the end of that sequence that the thugs turn up is _that this is the third failure_. There is no ingame causal logic that makes them turn up - it's a metagame determination governed by the skill challenge mechanic.



Beginning of the End said:


> You understand that nothing you wrote there is a rule right? It's really difficult to have a conversation with you when you keep changing the topic and refusing to explain your actual position.



I didn't know that race descriptions aren't rules. And your half-orc example is interesting. In fact, your mentioning of it reminds me that Penumbra published a couple of modules that pick up on this - one by Keith Baker (? - the Eberron guy) called Ebon Mirror, Mearls' Belly of the Beast, and also The Last Dance.



Beginning of the End said:


> You specifically claim that second wind mechanics support "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the  players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)  and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this  thematic material".
> 
> This makes little sense to me. What does "you regain hit points and gain a +2 bonus to all defenses for 1 turn" have to do with character- and situation-focused narrativist play, building rich and compelling thematic material into your PCs, or the GM framing situations which engage with that thematic material?



Because of its contribution to dramatic pacing in combat - as I've said several times upthread, the fact that the monsters start with the advantage, but that the ability of the PCs to draw on their reserves then turns the tide.



Beginning of the End said:


> Using a second wind, according to both the _Player's Handbook_ and _Rules Compendium_, *requires a standard action*.



It's minor for dwarves. Action points can be spent. Second wind can be triggered by a different PC taking a standard action and making a heal check. And I've referred not only to second wind but to other powers that permit spending of healing surges, and a number of these are minor actions - lay on hands and the X words of the various leader classes being the most obvious.

My question to you is - how much play experience of 4e do you have? In your experience, does or does not 4e combat have the dynamic I describe? It's very obvious at my table. Many other posters on these boards have also talked about it. I tend to see it as a fairly evident diffrence between 4e combat and other mainstream fantasy RPGs, achieved by the way PC access to resources - including but not limited to healing surges - is structured.



Beginning of the End said:


> You say that you've written a lot of words in this thread. Yes, you have. And you have failed to use any of those words to answer the simplest of questions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This is a pretty good example of why you're posting nonsense



Instead of being outrageously rude to someone posting detailed accounts of his playstyle and the actual play of his games, I would find it more interesting to hear about your actual play experiences. Did you try 4e combat and not see the dynamic I describe? How have you acheived narrativist play in 3E? What techniques do you use to resolve overland travel that avoid minutiae and also avoid GM fiat?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I also keep seeing refrences to play bogging down... IMO, this should be controlled by the players and DM not by the rules of the game, since the rules of the game can't tell you what parts of a game your players will be interested in or want to approach with more detail and what parts they will want to gloss through.



Tell me more about how you actually achieve this in play.

For example, suppose that the players want their PCs to travel overland through swampy river country. There is a chance that they will have trouble getting rest, and might end up exhausted. But equally there is a chance that, with skill and luck, they will get through it well. How do you handle this without a detailed map and details about the terrain, and then working your way through it in great mechanical and descriptive detail?

Now, I know how I do this in 4e. I've described it at some length upthread. But tell me how you do it, using 3E. Your view seems to be that 4e doesn't add anything useful here - so tell me how 3E handles it.


----------



## Umbran

Folks,

I just closed another thread in this forum for having too many people being impolite to one another.  So, let us make sure this one does not follow suit.

Remember as you post: as far as EN World is concerned, the person you're talking to is more important than the point you are trying to make.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> After all, since Raven Crowking is posting in this thread, 3e certainly didn't speak to him.  300 pages of house rules and a pretty strident constant criticism of all things 3e would mean to me that the 3e tent wasn't too comfortable for him.  Now, the 4e tent still doesn't speak to him, so, I guess it's a wash.




Hmmm.  Allow me to clarify.

(1)  3e offered so many options that it was necessary to collate them and codify them into a single source for races, classes, feats, etc., as well as for optional rules from various sources that were "in play".  This included racial subtypes of my own creation, with racial levels that could be taken by those playing them.  The human racial subtypes were later published in Dragon Roots, if you have any interest in them as a 3e player.  That document also included the first version of the weapon skill rules I am now using in RCFG.

(2)  You are cutting the size of the final document by half.  It ended up closer to 600 pages.

(3)  I would say that the size of the document is an indication as to what could be done with that ruleset if one was willing to put in the time to research all the options out there, as well as to create some of one's own.  There is no doubt in my mind that the plethora of 3e materials allowed for more variation than the 4e ruleset does.  Indeed, my reading of the designer blogs suggests that reigning this in was a goal of the 4e design team.

(4)  That said, the later work on RCFG is a stronger indication, to mind, of how 3e didn't "do it" for me.  And I credit the design blogs of the 4e designers for direct inspiration not only for making me re-evaluate the problems (IMHO) of 3e, but also to see what I liked and did not like about the direction of 4e.

(5)  One of the things that those blogs did was convince me how much Gygax got right with 1e, and how little the designers understood why things were as they were in that edition.  Indeed, how little I had understood it until I started really taking it apart.  I had thought I'd never go back to 1e when I bought my 2e books.  Now I am not sure that anything I do (with RCFG or otherwise) will be anything more than a footnote to Gygax.  I truly didn't understand the brilliance of his work when I was playing it in the 80s-90s.

(6)  The limitations of 4e are largely, IMHO, the limitations of the GSL.  I feel certain that 4e has been expanded in various houserules (ex. LostSoul's "fiction first" hack), but the limitations on the GSL make it harder to share those expansions.  Had Necromancer Games been able to put out their announced "4e Done Right", WotC would probably have gotten a lot more of my money.



Hussar said:


> Oh dude, that would rock on toast.  I'd be right behind you on this one.




I can't take the credit for that.  It showed up on one of the designer blogs, back when 4e was still going to be a game with faster combat than 3e, and when monsters were going to flow organically from one encounter area to another.  I.e., back when 4e was still going to be published under an OGL.

I also maintain that, if WotC stopped giving us the game experience they want us to have, and started to provide the game we wanted, they would do better.  And I am not just talking about the ruleset here; there are a lot of things one might be able to do with 4e that WotC simply doesn't seem interested in providing.

There is no reason that 4e couldn't be providing "must have" adventures for players of other editions, or even other systems.  The biggest impediment, IMHO, is being married to the Delve format.  I know that I am like a broken record on this, but the Delve is not appropriate to all kinds of adventures, and if you only do Delve, you limit yourself to a narrow subset of what you can do.....or, at least, of what you can do well.

My reading of the designer blogs suggests to me that the initial ideas being tossed around were far more open than the game that they ended up producing.  Moreover, it seems to me that the game they produced was specifically designed to use the Delve format.  

In the end, it seems very much to me that we were told that D&D is what the Delve format supports well, and D&D is not what the Delve format doesn't support as well (again, from the designer blogs of the time).

There is nothing wrong with having a core experience.  In fact, having a core experience is probably a good idea for any edition.  But, no, a core experience built around the Delve format is never going to do it for me.

The first step toward getting me to try a newly reformatted 4e (Essentials II?) would be to ditch the Delve, and then use the tools provided to extend the range of what is (regularly) possible.

There are some great ideas in 4e, buried (IMHO) in lackluster execution.  There is some great material in 4e modules, buried (IMHO) in a lackluster format that limits how the material is used.

Maybe what 4e needs (for those who feel as I do) is an Unearthed Arcana to dig some of that material up, and let it see the light of day.

Let me give one quick example of what I mean:  Healing Surges.

The basic idea (if you want fighters to be more central to the game, they have to have some durability, represented by restoration of resources) is a great one.  It's so good that I've stolen the basic idea for my own "Shake it Off" mechanic.

However, the idea of Healing Surges also encapsulates within it that the restoration of resources should be non-magical; i.e., that there is a benefit to the game in having a character type who is clearly non-supernatural.  Sadly, they either failed to understand that, or failed to carry it out.

I would also say, IMHO, that the limitations on healing surges were not well thought out, preventing them from being as momentous in the game as they are in the fiction it emulates.  I am still working on how to resolve this problem for the Shake it Off mechanic.

Finally, the whole set of healing RAW makes the system wonky (again, IMHO) for anything other than episodic play.

I would contend that the system is like this specifically to meet the needs of the Delve format:

(1)  The Delve format is episodic in nature, so making the game play episodic in nature helps hide the resulting A to B to C railroading implicit in the format.

(2)  The Delve encounters require the party to be at strength for their balance, by virtue of their static framing.  This presented problems with 3e-era Delves; Healing Surges are intended to counteract this problem.

(3)  The Delve format places undue emphasis on combat encounters, thus making "combat healing" important, because the healing takes place during the emphasized part of game play.

There are many, many other problems with the Delve format.  I could write a 600-page document on why I dislike it.  All I am trying to establish here, though, is why I think (perhaps ignorantly) that ditching the Delve would cause the designers to be more creative with the materials already inherent in the edition, leading to more 4e products that would be worth buying for non-4e players and 4e players alike.

YMMV, and probably does!  


RC


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Tell me more about how you actually achieve this in play.






pemerton said:


> For example, suppose that the players want their PCs to travel overland through swampy river country. There is a chance that they will have trouble getting rest, and might end up exhausted. But equally there is a chance that, with skill and luck, they will get through it well. How do you handle this without a detailed map and details about the terrain, and then working your way through it in great mechanical and descriptive detail?
> 
> Now, I know how I do this in 4e. I've described it at some length upthread. But tell me how you do it, using 3E. Your view seems to be that 4e doesn't add anything useful here - so tell me how 3E handles it.




Ok, I'm at work so I can't go into a great amount of detail, but let's first look at the facts of this encounter...

The landscape is swampy river country... thus swamp land, a river crossing or two and any monsters/NPC's who inhabit this environment would be the main obstacles I have at my disposal to create this part of my adventure.

The consequences for whatever obstacles I have set up according to your statement above are exhaustion and/or trouble getting rest (though personally I would have also thrown in sickness due to the conditions of a swamp, but whatever). So let's look at some of the mechanical conditions we could use to simulate this...

1. *Fatigued:* character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued.
2.* Exhausted*: character moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity.After 1 hour of complete rest, an exhausted character becomes fatigued. A fatigued character becomes exhausted by doing something else that would normally cause fatigue.
3. *Hit Points*: Loss of hit points can also be used as consequence of a character being exhausted or not resting properly.
4. *Temporary Ability Damage*: Loss of both mental and physical capability could also simulate exhaustion.

Ok, I think those are enough conditions since this isn’t suppose to be a detailed or in-depth encounter but a quick overland travel scenario to get to wherever they are going. Now let’s construct my scenario. I think 3 non-combat challenges and one combat challenge will round this out nicely.

1st encounter: “Across the Swamp Lands.”: The purpose of this encounter is to simulate travel across the first half of the PC’s journey. The scenario is described for the PC’s with the conflict being a landscape of that they must cross. The PC’s roll for initiative and are then asked, in order, to describe what action or actions concerning this part of the journey their PC’s will make to cross here. The consequences of failure, for any particular PC’s actions, will be tied to one of the above conditions (based on the circumstances) of their particular failure.

2nd encounter: “The River”: This encounter is centered on crossing a strong running river at the halfway point between the beginning of the swamps and the end of the PC’s journey. Again, the scenario is described and the PC’s are asked how they will go about crossing the river. Failure to cross the river results in the PC’s being soaked and suffering the fatigued condition (or the exhausted condition if they are already fatigued) on top of whatever condition they may have gained from the previous encounter (rising crescendo!!).

3rd encounter: “The Hermit’s Hut”: This encounter is a chance for the PC’s to rest and recuperate from the previous encounters. They come upon a small hut inhabited by a slightly eccentric hermit. The hut would provide a warm and dry place to rest but the PC’s must convince, bully, or cajole the hermit into letting them stay. There are also natural materials here that can be used to construct a makeshift shelter if sought out by a PC. If the PC’s do not get adequate rest they suffer the consequences (no healing/no removal of conditons). This is either a comeback for the heroes (removal of conditions), or it highlights the dangers they must face (they must preservere through the adversity)... of course I could shape it either way with a little fudging to portray appropriate themes and narrative structure. 

4th encounter: “Bandit Attack”: As the PC’s near their destination, unless they are cautious and aware they are set upon by a pack of bandits who prey upon those emerging from the swamps. This is a combat encounter (an easy encounter) and the effects of any conditions still attached to the characters apply in this battle. This is the climax as PC’s battle, avoid or talk their way out of a confrontation after having survived the swamps. It also showcases the consequences of their actions in the swamp in a visceral manner. (Climax of this part of the adventure.)


----------



## LostSoul

Beginning of the End said:


> You're the one who linked to the thread where Czege (and others) argue that the GM should take control over PC decision-making away from the players in order to aggressively frame scenes. If there's some screwed up Forge definition of "railroading" which makes that anything other than railroading, I don't really care.




I see what you're saying.  Strong scene framing can take choices away from players.  I've experienced that; one of the guys I play with tends to be too aggressive for my tastes, and I have to ask him to stop at points.  

That doesn't mean strong scene framing necessarily leads to a bad play experience.  If the choices taken away are ones that the players don't care about (to use hyperbole - How much fibre did you get today?  Did you brush your teeth?  Which sock do you put on first?), and skipping over them presents players with more opportunities to make choices they do care about, it's a good thing.



Imaro said:


> I also keep seeing refrences to play bogging down... IMO, this should be controlled by the players and DM not by the rules of the game, since the rules of the game can't tell you what parts of a game your players will be interested in or want to approach with more detail and what parts they will want to gloss through.




This ties into the above, I think.  The game does (its best) to control pacing through action resolution and the economy of the game.  (I'm using "economy" to mean how changes happen to PCs - HP loss, regaining spells, levelling up, etc.) 

Action resolution: In regular 4E you use the character's Passive Perception to determine if traps or secret doors are found.  In my hack, the player has to describe his character's action in order to find traps or secret doors.  This means that the pacing at the table gets changed - I need to ask the players to describe their actions as they wander about through a dungeon.  In regular 4E you don't spend (some would say waste) that time.

Economy: I have a whole bunch of rules in my hack that change how character resources are refreshed.  Basically, you have to go back to town and interact with NPCs.  In regular 4E you simply say, "We take an Extended Rest."  That changes the pacing of the game; in my hack you're forced to head back to town, maybe running across wandering monsters, and you have to interact with NPCs; in regular 4E you can handwave this.

Does that make sense?  I'm not sure I've wrapped my head around this, but I think that's how some rules control the pacing of the game.

Anyway, to tie this into the above - if the choices that are skipped over due to strong scene framing don't have any impact on action resolution or the economy of the game, then you can skip over them without taking away meaningful player choice.  

If every trap triggers based on my Passive Perception, it doesn't matter if I'm tapping the ground with a 10' pole, so there's no need to spend time asking about such things.  You skip past that and go right to the point where action resolution and/or the game's economy kicks in.


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> Ok, I think those are enough conditions since this isn’t suppose to be a detailed or in-depth encounter but a quick overland travel scenario to get to wherever they are going. Now let’s construct my scenario. I think 3 non-combat challenges and one combat challenge will round this out nicely.




Four entire encounters?  For something that "isn't supposed to be detailed or in-depth"?  I'd call that a mismatch between stated objective and solution.  

Not that it wouldn't make a fine gaming session, but it would make a fine entire gaming session, and wouldn't be what I'd call "quick".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> Four entire encounters?  For something that "isn't supposed to be detailed or in-depth"?  I'd call that a mismatch between stated objective and solution.




I wouldn't call that detailed or in-depth, and I can easily imagine more than four encounters for the entire process.  I would, further, recommend Wildscape to 3e DMs who wish to add more depth simply and easily.  



> Not that it wouldn't make a fine gaming session, but it would make a fine entire gaming session, and wouldn't be what I'd call "quick".




Either your sessions are shorter than mine, or your resolution takes longer.  Those four encounters could easily play out in half an hour in my game, taking longer only if circumstances (i.e., player choices) warrant.


RC


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> Four entire encounters? For something that "isn't supposed to be detailed or in-depth"? I'd call that a mismatch between stated objective and solution.
> 
> Not that it wouldn't make a fine gaming session, but it would make a fine entire gaming session, and wouldn't be what I'd call "quick".




I called them encounters, but I just as easily could have called them scenes... I really feel like your being pendantic here since an "encounter" has no set timeframe... but whatever.

Second, My whole point was that player and DM interest will actually determine length devoted to each scene...thus each "scene" will be as long or as short as those at the table want it to be.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> For example, suppose that the players want their  PCs to travel overland through swampy river country. There is a chance  that they will have trouble getting rest, and might end up exhausted.  But equally there is a chance that, with skill and luck, they will get  through it well.




Depends. What's the actual action that we're resolving?

The easiest solution, of course, would be: "Make a Survival check."



pemerton said:


> Instead of being outrageously rude to someone posting detailed accounts of his playstyle and the actual play of his games, I would find it more interesting to hear about your actual play experiences.




That's nice. I'd find it interesting if you'd stop posting tautologies and getting the rules of both 3E and 4E blatantly wrong while actually answering some of the simple and reasonable questions which have been posed to you.



> Did you try 4e combat and not see the dynamic I describe?




You have yet to explain what that dynamic has to do with the topic at hand. If you want this conversation to continue, prove that you have the ability to participate in good faith by explaining that connection.


----------



## Umbran

Raven Crowking said:


> Either your sessions are shorter than mine, or your resolution takes longer.




Possibly both.  I run on weeknights, and I have six players.  So, my sessions aren't long, and things can take a while.  I don't think my arrangement is terribly rare, though.



> Those four encounters could easily play out in half an hour in my game, taking longer only if circumstances (i.e., player choices) warrant.




Ah.  Well, for my group, skim a little of the top for me to describe things,  and that'd be giving each player maybe a minute per each scene to interact - that's inclusive of time for them to think, communicate, maybe look something up, and me to adjudicate what happens.  

Just a minute before I'm describing a new and different situation to them?  That's a lot of context switching, which is a bit of a bane to player engagement.  If it isn't something I intend them to sink their teeth into, I'd probably not present it.  But maybe that's just me.


----------



## Beginning of the End

LostSoul said:


> That doesn't mean strong scene framing necessarily leads to a bad play experience.




Completely agreed. There's nothing inherently wrong with railroading, and lots of people have great experiences in railroaded games.



> Does that make sense?  I'm not sure I've wrapped my head around this,  but I think that's how some rules control the pacing of the game.




I don't think anyone's disputing that the rules control and/or affect pacing. But:

(1) In general, I think GMs and players are better are effectively controlling pace than a set of simplistic mechanics will ever be. I'm not convinced that "everything should take exactly the same amount of time" or "every combat should be paced exactly like every other combat" are actually good examples of effective, dramatic pacing. It doesn't match my experience at the game table, and it doesn't match what effective, dramatic pacing looks like in any other medium, either.

(2) In specific, pemerton keeps claiming that this mechanically-controlled pacing has something to do with "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the   players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)   and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this   thematic material".

Not only am I failing to see the connection, but mechanically-enforced pacing seems to run completely contrary to the idea of GM-controlled framing. To take a simple example: Without ignoring the actual rules (which appears to be what both pemerton and Hussar advocate), you can't cut away from scenes in the way that Czege and Edwards argue for when framing scenes.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> Instead of being outrageously rude to someone posting detailed accounts of his playstyle and the actual play of his games, I would find it more interesting to hear about your actual play experiences.






Beginning of the End said:


> I'd find it interesting if you'd stop posting tautologies and getting the rules of both 3E and 4E blatantly wrong while actually answering some of the simple and reasonable questions which have been posed to you.




And I would find it interesting if you two stopped with the head butting and stopped addressing the person, rather than the position.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> Possibly both.  I run on weeknights, and I have six players.  So, my sessions aren't long, and things can take a while.  I don't think my arrangement is terribly rare, though.




I run on weeknights, too!  (Tonight as a matter of fact!)  I run between 3-6 players, depending upon the session.  There will be four tonight.

I also like to include a lot of description.  Sometimes I am perhaps too chatty.

For me, the 1st encounter (“Across the Swamp Lands.”) would take maybe 5 minutes tops.  I wouldn't even bother with initiative, just a general idea, and make the rolls from there.  

The 2nd encounter (“The River”) would likely involve their coming up with a plan, making whatever rolls they needed to, and then moving on.

For me, these first two encounters wouldn't require any major context shift.

The 3rd encounter (“The Hermit’s Hut”) would probably take the longest, as this is the sort of interaction my players tend to enjoy.  In fact, I would say that if any part of the sequence takes longer than I'd expect, it would be this one.  OTOH, my players are pretty driven to get past the diversions and move on.

The 4th encounter (“Bandit Attack”) is described as an easy combat encounter, and so should take no more than 1-3 rounds in RCFG (and that only if the players are rolling poorly).  How long combats take in your system of choice, and how much you need to look up to run combats, is definitely a factor.

But, seriously, would these four encounters go over an hour for you?  Or eat up your entire session (assuming it is over an hour)?  Even in 3e, I wouldn't expect this series of encounters to run too long.....and I found 3e combats to be snail-paced.

Obviously, YMMV.

Either way, though, it isn't a map with potential encounters strung along all possible paths, where the players need to micro-manage decision points, so it is hardly an in-depth or detailed series of encounters.  IMHO, anyway.

RC


----------



## LostSoul

Beginning of the End said:


> Completely agreed. There's nothing inherently wrong with railroading, and lots of people have great experiences in railroaded games.




Heh heh, yep.



Beginning of the End said:


> I don't think anyone's disputing that the rules control and/or affect pacing. But:
> 
> (1) In general, I think GMs and players are better are effectively controlling pace than a set of simplistic mechanics will ever be. I'm not convinced that "everything should take exactly the same amount of time" or "every combat should be paced exactly like every other combat" are actually good examples of effective, dramatic pacing. It doesn't match my experience at the game table, and it doesn't match what effective, dramatic pacing looks like in any other medium, either.
> 
> (2) In specific, pemerton keeps claiming that this mechanically-controlled pacing has something to do with "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the   players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)   and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this   thematic material".
> 
> Not only am I failing to see the connection, but mechanically-enforced pacing seems to run completely contrary to the idea of GM-controlled framing. To take a simple example: Without ignoring the actual rules (which appears to be what both pemerton and Hussar advocate), you can't cut away from scenes in the way that Czege and Edwards argue for when framing scenes.




1. I agree.  I probably put more emphasis on how the game controls pacing than most, but that's been one of the things I've been working at in my hack so it's in my head.

Hmm... but now I'm thinking about how I originally started played D&D, back with B/X.  I recall counting out every single turn: distance travelled, time spent, wandering monsters, checks for secret doors, and the amount of torch that got burned up.  That's a specific form of game-controlled pacing, and I think it worked very well.

Maybe I disagree, then - I think games are better when they have clear and specific procedures for play.  Of course, those procedures need to have a lot of "open space" in which to try interesting, creative things.

Anyway, that's an interesting subject of RPG design.

(Tangent: How do you determine when you make skill checks in 3.X?)

2. I'll let pemerton cover this.  

Our main point of disagreement re: 4E is that I don't think 4E provides much support for narrativist play; I think it's a good example of play with a pre-determined theme or dramatic flow.  Combat pacing is a good example: combat encounters follow a pre-determined script, PCs coming in _apparently_ weaker than their foes, get knocked down a couple of times, but draw on their superior healing and staying power to come back and defeat the monsters in the end.


----------



## Umbran

Raven Crowking said:


> But, seriously, would these four encounters go over an hour for you?  Or eat up your entire session (assuming it is over an hour)?  Even in 3e, I wouldn't expect this series of encounters to run too long.....and I found 3e combats to be snail-paced.




Oh, I could push them through in less time, sure.  My point is more that at the faster pace, I don't see as they are making the session more interesting for the players, so I question the wisdom of using such a construction to resolve getting through the swamp.

I suppose it comes down to a bit of design philosophy - to me, the half an hour is too long to use to cover something that's supposed to be light detail, but too short to be something that's covered in full detail.  It feels to me like it should be 5-10 minutes, or an hour or more.

And certainly, YMMV.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> Oh, I could push them through in less time, sure. My point is more that at the faster pace, I don't see as they are making the session more interesting for the players, so I question the wisdom of using such a construction to resolve getting through the swamp.
> 
> I suppose it comes down to a bit of design philosophy - to me, the half an hour is too long to use to cover something that's supposed to be light detail, but too short to be something that's covered in full detail. It feels to me like it should be 5-10 minutes, or an hour or more.
> 
> And certainly, YMMV.





This touches on one of the reasons I don't think 4e is any better at narrative pacing and thematic play than PF (which was the original point), and may be even worse due to what I consider... rigid design in the SC's basic structure. For those who enjoy it's particualr artificial pacing it's great... but one size doesn't fit all... and that's where I feel alot of it's pacing falls flat for many. As an example this is probably why some people feel 4e's combat drags and is full of fidly record keeping that's worse than 3.x/PF... while others feel it's just the right length and easier to manage than 3.x/PF. That drag and fidliness is about pacing (amongst other things) and 4e's particular structure concerning it. However I've yet to see anything in the actual mechanics that make it objectively better than 3.x/PF for narrative and thematic play. 

What I see are some who find it's gamist mechanics suited to their particular desires as far as pacing goes... the thematic thing I just don't see period, it seems to be based in fluff and since fluff is in every edition I don't buy 4e does that objectively better either. 

As another example, I could just as easily do the 5-10 min thing in 3.X if I wanted too by simply describing the scene and using a simple skill check by each player at each stage (which would roughly give you the same length of time as SC's in 4e)... However I would rather let the particular table choose the length and level of detail they want in a particular scene, and thus set the pacing that best fits their group.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> pemerton keeps claiming that this mechanically-controlled pacing has something to do with "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the   players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)   and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this   thematic material".





Beginning of the End said:


> You have yet to explain what that dynamic has to do with the topic at hand. If you want this conversation to continue, prove that you have the ability to participate in good faith by explaining that connection.





pemerton said:


> The 4e combat rules are such that, early in a combat, the monsters will tend to win, wheras somewhere about halfway through the PCs, through drawing on their deeper but more conditional resources (action points, daily powers, healing surges, greater battlefield control, etc) will come back and (typically) win. If the encounter is more than a level or so above the party level, it is likely that in the course of the combat at least one PC will drop unconscious and have to be revived as part of the PCs' come back.
> 
> This dynamic of pacing is a deliberate feature of 4e's design. It is achieved by features such as giving PCs but not monsters (other than solos and elites) action points, and powers at the level of daily powers. It is achieved by giving monsters more hit points, but PCs healing surges and greater access to temporary hit points, which access is conditional in various ways, requiring skillful manipulation of the game's action economy. It is achieved by giving PCs better capabilities in movement and control, but which again are often able to be accessed only conditionally (eg movement as an immediate action in resopnse to an attack) and again which require skillful manipulation of the action economy, as well as sound judgement in relation to battlefield positioning and terrain.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This is dramatic. It's exciting. And because it requires the players to engage a life-or-death situation using their PCs as vehicles to turn the tide, it opens the door wide to the expression by the players of thematic ideas as part of their resolution of the combat.



That is the explanation. The combat dynamic of 4e unfolds as it does _by creating the need for the players to deploy the deeper resources to which they have access_, if the PCs are to succeed. And the choices made by players in the course of that deployment are expressive of thematic content/commitments. Unlike (for example) planning for a telepot-ambush in mid-to-high level 3E or RM, they are decisions that are made in the course of resolving a dramatic conflict, under constraints of adversity and antagonism established by that situation. This is what makes them well-suited to expressing those thematic concerns. (As I noted upthread, the contrast here between 3E and 4e reminds me of the similar contrast between RQ and RM.)



LostSoul said:


> I'll let pemerton cover this.
> 
> Our main point of disagreement re: 4E is that I don't think 4E provides much support for narrativist play; I think it's a good example of play with a pre-determined theme or dramatic flow.  Combat pacing is a good example: combat encounters follow a pre-determined script, PCs coming in _apparently_ weaker than their foes, get knocked down a couple of times, but draw on their superior healing and staying power to come back and defeat the monsters in the end.



I agree about the predetermined flow, but not the predetermined theme. The flow _forces the players to choose action_ - but the _variety_ of action chosen is not prescripted. Even in a party with one of each role, there are different choices to be made that are in part determined by character build (which, as I've post upthread, is one factor in the way players use the 4e game elements to address theme) and in part determined actually in the course of play.

Even as simple a choice as to whether a leader or paladin heals  him/herself or heals another PC can be expressive of theme. And because of the robustness of the 4e mechanics over a wide range of PC builds and player choices, it is rare (at least in my experience) for the situation in a combat to foreclose the range of these sorts of choices such that there is only one rational choice if the combat is to be won.

To me, this is a difference from some other mainstream fantasy games, which make it hard to play in a narrativist fashion because they force a trade-off between expressing theme and fighting effecively. At least in my experience to date, 4e doesn't force these trade-offs.



Beginning of the End said:


> mechanically-enforced pacing seems to run completely contrary to the idea of GM-controlled framing. To take a simple example: Without ignoring the actual rules (which appears to be what both pemerton and Hussar advocate), you can't cut away from scenes in the way that Czege and Edwards argue for when framing scenes.



Mechanically enforced pacing is on some occasions at least orthogonal to scene framing. In the example of 4e combat, for example, the scene framing consists in establishing the terrain and the NPCs/monsters. The pacing then unfolds in the way described above, forcing the players to make the theme-addressing choices.

As I said upthread, unlike Czege (and Edwards) I mostly play in a traditional party fashion, so cut aways don't come up. But there is no reason why a skill challenge (for example) couldn't be resolved with the PCs at different locations, with the resolution of one skill check by PC A at place X then affecting (whether via ingame causal mediatio or at the metagame level) the next skill check by PC B at place Y. In this situation, the mechanical resolution would shape the framing of these scenes - as the first (sub-)situation comes to its climax and is resolved (by making the skill check and determining its consequences), the next (sub-)situation would open up.

Some of the examples of skill challenges in DMG2 are suggestive of this sort of possibility (I'm thinking of the one where the PCs take different sides in negotiation over strategy).


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The landscape is swampy river country... thus swamp land, a river crossing or two and any monsters/NPC's who inhabit this environment would be the main obstacles I have at my disposal to create this part of my adventure.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So let's look at some of the mechanical conditions we could use to simulate this...
> 
> <snip conditions>
> 
> I think 3 non-combat challenges and one combat challenge will round this out nicely
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 1st encounter: “Across the Swamp Lands.”: The purpose of this encounter is to simulate travel across the first half of the PC’s journey. The scenario is described for the PC’s with the conflict being a landscape of that they must cross. The PC’s roll for initiative and are then asked, in order, to describe what action or actions concerning this part of the journey their PC’s will make to cross here. The consequences of failure, for any particular PC’s actions, will be tied to one of the above conditions (based on the circumstances) of their particular failure.



How are DCs set? How does a player who is playing a ranger wilderness guide use his/her PC to help the other players? How do I work out the relevant circumstances that determine the relevant consequnces without knowing the terrain and map in detail?

The difference I'm seeing here from a skill challenge is (i) 4e gives very strong support for DC setting, (ii) a skill challenge permits the player of a ranger to take the lead here ("heroic protagonism") and (iii) it doesn't require the detail.



Imaro said:


> 2nd encounter: “The River”: This encounter is centered on crossing a strong running river at the halfway point between the beginning of the swamps and the end of the PC’s journey. Again, the scenario is described and the PC’s are asked how they will go about crossing the river. Failure to cross the river results in the PC’s being soaked and suffering the fatigued condition (or the exhausted condition if they are already fatigued) on top of whatever condition they may have gained from the previous encounter (rising crescendo!!).



How do I resolve the river crossing without needing to know (eg) how wide and deep the river is? Or without having to engage in detail with the PCs' equipment lists?



Imaro said:


> 3rd encounter: “The Hermit’s Hut”: This encounter is a chance for the PC’s to rest and recuperate from the previous encounters. They come upon a small hut inhabited by a slightly eccentric hermit. The hut would provide a warm and dry place to rest but the PC’s must convince, bully, or cajole the hermit into letting them stay. There are also natural materials here that can be used to construct a makeshift shelter if sought out by a PC. If the PC’s do not get adequate rest they suffer the consequences (no healing/no removal of conditons). This is either a comeback for the heroes (removal of conditions), or it highlights the dangers they must face (they must preservere through the adversity)... of course I could shape it either way with a little fudging to portray appropriate themes and narrative structure.



I know how 3E resolves the dealilngs with the hermit (Diplomacy and/or Charm Person). How does it resolve building the hut?



Imaro said:


> 4th encounter: “Bandit Attack”: As the PC’s near their destination, unless they are cautious and aware they are set upon by a pack of bandits who prey upon those emerging from the swamps.



How is _caution_ and _awareness_ resolved? Perception and Steath check? How many? At what DCs?

The questions I'm asking aren't meant to be rhetorical, or pointless niggling. In practice, if I was to run your scenario, they are questions I would have to answer. The skill challenge structure provides answers to them.

In playing a game with a detailed map in which the players engage with the minutiae of the terrain, I also know how to get answers (eg there will be rules for making stealth checks while moving through shrubbery of a certain density, or for throwing a rope and grapple across a river of a certain width).

But I don't have a clear sense of how to answer them if I want to resolve a situation without the degree of minutiae described in the previous paragraph, _and_ without the sort of structure provided by a mechanic like a skill challenge or a HeroQuest extended contest.



Imaro said:


> My whole point was that player and DM interest will actually determine length devoted to each scene...thus each "scene" will be as long or as short as those at the table want it to be.



How do you achieve this? For example, with crossing the river - you describe how wide and deep it is, the players start looking over their character sheets to see how much rope they have, who has the best STR/DEX for throwing a rope across, etc. You set DCs, rolls are made. It seems to me that this is going to take a certain amount of time to play out regardless of how much time those at the table want to spend on it. Of course the GM could just handwave it - but in my view this is not very conducive to the players driving the resolution of the situatoion ("heroic protagonism").



Beginning of the End said:


> Depends. What's the actual action that we're resolving?
> 
> The easiest solution, of course, would be: "Make a Survival check."



Everyone? Just the player of the ranger? At what DC? These are the questions that I need to answer to resolve the situation. The skill challenge mechanic answers them.

And a Survival check - either by one player, or by every player - doesn't seem to me to achieve the same pacing, and the same dramatic relationship between the activities of particular players and their PCs, and the final outcome, as does the skill challenge I described above.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> How are DCs set? How does a player who is playing a ranger wilderness guide use his/her PC to help the other players? How do I work out the relevant circumstances that determine the relevant consequnces without knowing the terrain and map in detail?
> 
> The difference I'm seeing here from a skill challenge is (i) 4e gives very strong support for DC setting, (ii) a skill challenge permits the player of a ranger to take the lead here ("heroic protagonism") and (iii) it doesn't require the detail.




This "detail" is only necessary because you are choosing to use it, it's a tool like everything else in 3.x/PF. The skill descriptions make the setting of DC's trivially easy in 3e... especially since their function or the obstacle is what sets them... thus the only thing I need the DC for is the actual obstacle, any other DC's will be determined by the manner in which the PC wants to use the particular skill he chooses.



pemerton said:


> How do I resolve the river crossing without needing to know (eg) how wide and deep the river is? Or without having to engage in detail with the PCs' equipment lists?




First the +2/-2 rule in Pathfinder is your friend... you want to stay relatively detail free... any equipment that can help adds a +2 (that doesn't stack) and anything that hinders crossing is a -2. 

Next we know that a succesful swimming check allows you to move half your movement, since again we are keeping this short and sweet we set the width in the range of one succesful roll for the majority of characters... 15' and since the description of the river is a strong current... the DC=15 to swim... that took me every bit of 10 secs to figure out. Now the thing is if I want this to be a more detailed encounter/scene I can tweak the DC to swim the length of the river when I create it... sorta like adjusting the level, complexity, advantages, etc. in 4e.  In other words 4e can get just as complex if you use all the rules.



pemerton said:


> I know how 3E resolves the dealilngs with the hermit (Diplomacy and/or Charm Person). How does it resolve building the hut?




Who said anything about building a hut... I said makeshift shelter, and thus survival would be the most appropriate skill with a DC of 15. 



pemerton said:


> How is _caution_ and _awareness_ resolved? Perception and Steath check? How many? At what DCs?




You would resolve them vs. the Bandit with the highest perception score. One roll for him and everyone who tries to sneak past would roll vs. that. Perception vs. Bandit with highest Stealth score.



pemerton said:


> The questions I'm asking aren't meant to be rhetorical, or pointless niggling. In practice, if I was to run your scenario, they are questions I would have to answer. The skill challenge structure provides answers to them.




So do the skill rules in 3.x/Pathfinder... you just refuse to admit it.



pemerton said:


> In playing a game with a detailed map in which the players engage with the minutiae of the terrain, I also know how to get answers (eg there will be rules for making stealth checks while moving through shrubbery of a certain density, or for throwing a rope and grapple across a river of a certain width).
> 
> But I don't have a clear sense of how to answer them if I want to resolve a situation without the degree of minutiae described in the previous paragraph, _and_ without the sort of structure provided by a mechanic like a skill challenge or a HeroQuest extended contest.




Yet I just did... and at a certain point all games including 4e and Heroquest require DM fiat for situations and actions that are unexpected. You will never be able to prepare in advance for every situation... that's what improv is about. IMO, you may prefer a system but once one chooses their system and becomes familiar with either 3.x/PF or 4e it becomes easy to improv with. I honestly get the impression you aren't that familiar with 3.x/PF... am I right?




pemerton said:


> How do you achieve this? For example, with crossing the river - you describe how wide and deep it is, the players start looking over their character sheets to see how much rope they have, who has the best STR/DEX for throwing a rope across, etc. You set DCs, rolls are made. It seems to me that this is going to take a certain amount of time to play out regardless of how much time those at the table want to spend on it. Of course the GM could just handwave it - but in my view this is not very conducive to the players driving the resolution of the situatoion ("heroic protagonism").




Wait a minute here... I've had the same thing happen in 4e and I think you are being disingenuous if you say it doesn't. My PC's look at who has the best skills... how those skills can be maximized, who can aid who, and so on, to ensure success... it just takes place moreso on the meta-game level than in-game... but it still happens. That said...

Now you're setting up a situation that was not what we were talking about. First you are assuming a DM must have every situation prepared for...not true. in every edition DM calls are necessary. Secondly, you as DM are allowing a quick overland journey to be bogged down in minutae when in fact you don't have to. My initial setup was to have each PC state what they are doing and roll... plain and simple, but now you're changing the parameters of the encounter I set up as DM (RULE 0)... players should know how their skills work so that's not on you as a DM, and I've shown you above how easy it is to set up DC's for obstacles.

What I do find interesting is that you seem to be saying that in 4e having pre-set DC's based on level (as opposed to ther world or even the choices the hero makes)... somehow empowers "heroic protagonism"... and I find that hard to believe. Is this what you are claiming?



pemerton said:


> Everyone? Just the player of the ranger? At what DC? These are the questions that I need to answer to resolve the situation. The skill challenge mechanic answers them.




These same questions have to be answered in 4e since characters can have the same skills and anyone can choose to act or not to act in a SC... not seeing your point?? I will say the survival skill in PF has a certain number of other people who can benefit from your check that is determined by how high you roll.



pemerton said:


> And a Survival check - either by one player, or by every player - doesn't seem to me to achieve the same pacing, and the same dramatic relationship between the activities of particular players and their PCs, and the final outcome, as does the skill challenge I described above.




Yet tons of 4e skill challenges have every PC make an endurance check during travel... and tons of players only have the person with the best skill make a check to avoid failures... what's the difference? Basically you're taking how Permeton's particular skill challenges (which I'm not sure are exactly by the book) are designed and how his players appproach them and claiming that bothy of these are because of 4e's skill challenge rules... and they aren't. You're slapping your own coat of narrativist play over a predominately gamist system.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> I'm going to disagree... now note, before I continue I never said it gives you mechanically appropriate DC's for the level of your PC's... but 4e's mechanics for deriving DC's most certainly give you an "appropriate" range of DC's for a particular level of challenge. You can use anything however you want, but the actual mechanics support this.
> 
> As far as a success counting as multiple or single... it doesn't change the fact that there is a set number of successes or failures you can reach that invalidate the rest of a SC... is this right or wrong?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying if you modify a SC on the fly to make sure it creates the correct pacing... you can control the pacing... well yeah, you can fudge anything in any rpg to control "paciing".
> 
> I also keep seeing refrences to play bogging down... IMO, this should be controlled by the players and DM not by the rules of the game, since the rules of the game can't tell you what parts of a game your players will be interested in or want to approach with more detail and what parts they will want to gloss through.




Answering this before I read the next couple of pages (mostly I'm afraid of hitting walls of text that make my eyes glaze over   ((Unfortunately, I'm about to make my own wall)) ).

Let's compare between editions.  

Situation:  The party is traveling across country from A to B.  The party does not have any other means of traveling other than mundane (horses, on foot, whatever, no teleport or fly) and the trip will take about four game days, give or take.  There is no road, its wilderness trekking.

Pre-4e D&D.  To do this, requires a number of checks.  There would be some sort of check to determine if the party gets lost (usually made each day) with failure meaning that the trip will be extended.  Additionally, there will be periodic checks of random wilderness encounters, with each encounter obviously slowing down the pace of the scenario.

So, we have a situation which might be resolved in a few minutes (PC's don't get lost, no random encounters) or in a much longer time (PC's get lost multiple times, the Dice Gods hate the PC's this day and multiple random encounters occur).

In other words, the DM has zero control over the pacing here.  The dice determine pacing.  How long or short this scenario is is out of the hands of a (non-fudging) DM.

Now, let's do this from a 4e perspective.

It's a skill challenge.  The DM has already decided that at the end of the challenge, the PC's will arrive at their destination.  The SC is not meant to determine if they arrive or not, but rather in what condition they will arrive in.  It could be lightning fast - each failure costs a healing surge or it could be slower - each failure triggers a different event, with three failures leading to a Lost in the Woods skill challenge where the PC's have to perform a nested skill challenge which wipes out their previous failures and then continue on from the point where they left the main skill challenge.

In other words, pacing is 100% under the control of the DM.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> First the +2/-2 rule in Pathfinder is your friend... you want to stay relatively detail free... any equipment that can help adds a +2 (that doesn't stack) and anything that hinders crossing is a -2.
> 
> Next we know that a succesful swimming check allows you to move half your movement, since again we are keeping this short and sweet we set the width in the range of one succesful roll for the majority of characters... 15' and since the description of the river is a strong current... the DC=15 to swim... that took me every bit of 10 secs to figure out. Now the thing is if I want this to be a more detailed encounter/scene I can tweak the DC to swim the length of the river when I create it... sorta like adjusting the level, complexity, advantages, etc. in 4e. In other words 4e can get just as complex if you use all the rules.




Sorry, just pulling this one out.  I know, context and all that, but, this one speaks to me.  

Think about it for a second.  In 3e, you tell the players they have to cross a swift moving river and that entails a swim check.  Which in turn requires them to take off their armor or start breaking out the spells.

I can see this bogging way down in micro-managing analysis paralysis for many, many groups.  "Do we take off our armor?"  "Oh, this has to be a trap."  "Ok, start searching the surrounding area for ambushes (roll roll roll)" "Detect spells on the river to see if anything's hiding beneath the surface"... on and on and on.

4e's design philosophy is much more up front about it.  You don't have a specific river to cross, so, there's no analysis of the river and how to cross it.  You simply make your checks and each failure carries some sort of penalty.  

And, let's not forget this from the DM's perspective.  In 3e you have to stat out combat with the bandits, which takes not an inconsiderable amount of time.  Running that combat is going to take the better part of an hour in 3e as well.

This skill challenge, even with the bandits included (Failure number 3 - the party is ambushed by bandits, lose 2 healing surges) could easily be resolved in a few minutes and requires about 10 minutes to set up by the DM.


----------



## LostSoul

It's interesting, Imaro, that you are choosing to ignore certain aspects of 3.5.  You're not calling for "Getting Lost" checks (which seem to require a map of some sort; perhaps not) or making random encounter rolls.  In addition, your handling of getting a good night's rest and the bandit ambush is to my liking, though not by the rules as far as I can tell.

Maybe you can answer my question about 3.x: When do you call for a skill check?  It seems to me that any time you attempt any action that's listed in any of the skill descriptions you must make a check (or Take 10/20).  If that's the case, you can see how that would affect the pacing of a game.



Imaro said:


> What I do find interesting is that you seem to be saying that in 4e having pre-set DC's based on level (as opposed to ther world or even the choices the hero makes)... somehow empowers "heroic protagonism"... and I find that hard to believe. Is this what you are claiming?




There's a reason why this works.  Because you don't have to worry about making poor decisions - for the most part, you know what DCs you will be facing - you are free to take thematic actions.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> 
> 4e's design philosophy is much more up front about it.  You don't have a specific river to cross, so, there's no analysis of the river and how to cross it.  You simply make your checks and each failure carries some sort of penalty.




This seems patently incorrect.  As has been expressed in example SCs -- including Jester's sodden ghoul SC upthread, the SC can evolve and include sudden (or hidden) enemy combatants.  Thre is nothing that prevents a SC from containing a non-obvious threat such as a Dragon Turtle lurking in the river that is awakened with the first failure.

What you *presented would be true if the SC were run in an 'open' environment where the players understood the scenario presented and made tactical decisions based upon that situation.  Others have suggested that SCs are rarely run that way and are more often run 'blind'.


----------



## Nagol

LostSoul said:


> It's interesting, Imaro, that you are choosing to ignore certain aspects of 3.5.  You're not calling for "Getting Lost" checks (which seem to require a map of some sort; perhaps not) or making random encounter rolls.  In addition, your handling of getting a good night's rest and the bandit ambush is to my liking, though not by the rules as far as I can tell.
> 
> Maybe you can answer my question about 3.x: When do you call for a skill check?  It seems to me that any time you attempt any action that's listed in any of the skill descriptions you must make a check (or Take 10/20).  If that's the case, you can see how that would affect the pacing of a game.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason why this works.  Because you don't have to worry about making poor decisions - for the most part, you know what DCs you will be facing - you are free to take thematic actions.




A question -- how do you know the DCs?  Additionally, do you know the ramifications of failure?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> Oh, I could push them through in less time, sure.  My point is more that at the faster pace, I don't see as they are making the session more interesting for the players, so I question the wisdom of using such a construction to resolve getting through the swamp.
> 
> I suppose it comes down to a bit of design philosophy - to me, the half an hour is too long to use to cover something that's supposed to be light detail, but too short to be something that's covered in full detail.  It feels to me like it should be 5-10 minutes, or an hour or more.
> 
> And certainly, YMMV.




In the case presented, it does, because the whole idea that there is a challenge involved to is (4e SC or not) implies that there is something more going on in the scenario.

For example, the PCs might be going to the Hidden Shrine of the Toad God, and it might be important to what occurs there that they understand returning along the same route is not necessarily easy.

For example, the river crossing might be an ambush point on the return journey, so that establishing the mechanics and lay of the land _*now*_ makes the encounter more interesting for the players _*then*_.  I.e., the players can use their experiences in the first crossing as the basis for decision making in the second instance.

It might also be a red herring, which disguises the importance of something that seems to be just glossed over along the journey.  

Or, it may just be a counter-example to the "If the DM's paying attention to it, it must be important!" syndrome.

(Shrug)

Either way, the important point is that I don't see how this can be in any way improved upon by using the skill challenge mechanic.  


RC


----------



## LostSoul

Nagol said:


> A question -- how do you know the DCs?  Additionally, do you know the ramifications of failure?




In 4E specifically the DCs are based on the PC's level (which is supposed to be the same as all other PCs in the party); the ramifications of failure are _not_ defined unless it's HP damage - you can look at page 42 of the DMG to figure out any damage done.

It's possible that failure on a Perception check could lead to total oblivion, but looking at effects from traps and monsters give you an idea of what kinds of effects should happen based on the party's level.  

I think it's a failure of 4E that they didn't codify effects by level, the way they did with damage by level.  (Of course, I wouldn't have used that in my hack, but as far as regular 4E goes I think they dropped the ball there.)

In other games that use similar procedures to determine difficulty, failure is determined in different ways!  It's hard to say unless you specify a game.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> In 4E specifically the DCs are based on the PC's level (which is supposed to be the same as all other PCs in the party); the ramifications of failure are _not_ defined unless it's HP damage - you can look at page 42 of the DMG to figure out any damage done.





Well, the only Skill Challenge I've read and thought myself better for reading did define ramifications of failure, and seemed to have DCs set by what was attempted rather than the PC levels.  To the degree which I may have misunderstood that SC, I may be wrong about its value.  Overall, though, this seems like a *terrible* way to resolve action, to me!

YMMV, though.

IMHO, "thematic action" that is not tied to player choices which make sense within the context of the fictional reality is both bland and meaningless.  And to make sense within the context of the fictional reality, things have to have varying levels of difficulty and chances of success based upon the nature of that fictional reality.

Give me a system where, if X is important to you, you must sacrifice Y to boost your chances of success.

Do not give me a system where, if X is important to you, well, since you're level Z, it is the same difficulty as not-X.

Likewise, risking the dangers of failure is almost defining (to me, anyway) of what is, or is not, important to a character.  I.e., what you will risk or sacrifice to achieve X is the greatest measure available within the game for playing out how important X is to your character.

You say, "Because you don't have to worry about making poor decisions - for the most part, you know what DCs you will be facing - you are free to take thematic actions."  I say, "That isn't taking thematic actions; that's empty posturing without substance."

I will defend your right (or anyone's) to prefer that, or to disagree with me for that matter, but I cannot pretend that they are the same thing.


RC


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> In other words, the DM has zero control over the pacing here.  The dice determine pacing.  How long or short this scenario is is out of the hands of a (non-fudging) DM.



I don't recognize this as remotely resembling anything I play.

Yes, the dice provide a random element to the final details.  But the parameters and degrees of freedom over which the dice have control are entirely under the control of the DM.  

There are times when you *want* things to really come down to fate.  And in that specific case, your description fits.  But that is only because the DM endorsed it.  If the DM wants more control, the DM can very easily impose it.  

And, if done right, it should go back to being about the concept of the area being traveled and if dice and rules did not exist and the party was really there, what are the potential ways it could play out.  Then you use rules and dice to simulate that with the reality of the dice as invisible to the action as humanly possible.

For a well run game, your statement of "zero control" is just completely wrong.

I think you do describe 4E correctly.  But your description is very unappealing.  Yes, you control the pace.  But you pay a price in back fitting story to mechanics.  And since you can have that in 3E without the price, to me it is a no brainer which is the preferable choice. 

Now clearly if you WANT the mechanics/story dynamic that 4E is built upon, then it is a great thing.  But it really takes the whole experience in a different direction.


----------



## Nagol

LostSoul said:


> In 4E specifically the DCs are based on the PC's level (which is supposed to be the same as all other PCs in the party); the ramifications of failure are _not_ defined unless it's HP damage - you can look at page 42 of the DMG to figure out any damage done.
> 
> It's possible that failure on a Perception check could lead to total oblivion, but looking at effects from traps and monsters give you an idea of what kinds of effects should happen based on the party's level.
> 
> I think it's a failure of 4E that they didn't codify effects by level, the way they did with damage by level.  (Of course, I wouldn't have used that in my hack, but as far as regular 4E goes I think they dropped the ball there.)
> 
> In other games that use similar procedures to determine difficulty, failure is determined in different ways!  It's hard to say unless you specify a game.




So the players will know the base range of DCs for their skill attempts (assuming they know the challenge difficulty of the SC) but not the actual ratings in the case where the DM has assigned a range of DCs to the challenge (i.e. navigate by Perception DC 23, navigate by Nature DC 19).

And since the players don't know the effects of a failure, the PCs are still presented with the possibility of a 'gotcha!' encounter at the river where disrobing and dropping weapons can be both embarassing and deadly.  So a player group cautious/paranoid enough to expect gotchas in previous editions are just as likely to want to act in a cautious/paranoid way prior to placing themselves in that position.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> This seems patently incorrect.  As has been expressed in example SCs -- including Jester's sodden ghoul SC upthread, the SC can evolve and include sudden (or hidden) enemy combatants.  Thre is nothing that prevents a SC from containing a non-obvious threat such as a Dragon Turtle lurking in the river that is awakened with the first failure.
> 
> What you *presented would be true if the SC were run in an 'open' environment where the players understood the scenario presented and made tactical decisions based upon that situation.  Others have suggested that SCs are rarely run that way and are more often run 'blind'.




Sorry, that was a misstatement on my part.  I should have said, "A 4e SC doesn't need a specific river to cross.  You are correct in that you certainly can actually have one. 

I was more referring to the idea of controlling pacing.  If I wanted to slow down pacing, I could drop a Dragon Turtle in the river that is awakened on the first failure.  Or, I could simply say, "The going is rough, lose 1 healing surge".  (boring as heck, but possible.)



BryonD said:


> I don't recognize this as remotely resembling anything I play.
> 
> Yes, the dice provide a random element to the final details.  But the parameters and degrees of freedom over which the dice have control are entirely under the control of the DM.  /snip.




It's funny that Raven Crowking hasn't jumped on you for this.  You're basically saying that you control pacing by fudging the dice.  If the dice say that a random encounter happens, then that's what happens according to the rules.  If the dice say that the group gets lost, then they get lost.

Of course, you can ignore the dice, but considering the rather large amount of complaining about fudging from certain quarters, I wanted to be absolutely fair and RAW about things.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> So the players will know the base range of DCs for their skill attempts (assuming they know the challenge difficulty of the SC) but not the actual ratings in the case where the DM has assigned a range of DCs to the challenge (i.e. navigate by Perception DC 23, navigate by Nature DC 19).
> 
> And since the players don't know the effects of a failure, the PCs are still presented with the possibility of a 'gotcha!' encounter at the river where disrobing and dropping weapons can be both embarassing and deadly.  So a player group cautious/paranoid enough to expect gotchas in previous editions are just as likely to want to act in a cautious/paranoid way prior to placing themselves in that position.




But, you are presuming that there is a map that's being followed throughout the SC.  That if I succeed X times, I will reach a river.  That's not necessarily true or even needed.

The river encounter can simply be tied to failures and not the narrative at all.  You succeed four times and then fail once, you have a Dragon Turtle encounter.  You fail the first roll and you have the Dragon Turtle encounter.  

There is no point where the players are screwing around with disrobing and poncing about with the river because the river only comes up on a failed roll.

Note, this isn't the only way to do it, but, it is one way.


----------



## Beginning of the End

LostSoul said:


> Hmm... but now I'm thinking about how I originally started played D&D, back with B/X.  I recall counting out every single turn: distance travelled, time spent, wandering monsters, checks for secret doors, and the amount of torch that got burned up.  That's a specific form of game-controlled pacing, and I think it worked very well.




That's a good point.

If you look at the original OD&D rules they set a very specific pace at which the dungeon operates. Just one year later, in '75, published material was demonstrating how you could adjust that pace (by varying the rate of wandering monsters, for example).

I think it's absolutely true that mechanics have a real and meaningful impact on the pace of play: Throw 1d6 goblins at the party and you're going to have a very different pace than 1d6 storm giants.



> Our main point of disagreement re: 4E is that I don't think 4E provides much support for narrativist play; I think it's a good example of play with a pre-determined theme or dramatic flow.  Combat pacing is a good example: combat encounters follow a pre-determined script, PCs coming in _apparently_ weaker than their foes, get knocked down a couple of times, but draw on their superior healing and staying power to come back and defeat the monsters in the end.




That certainly matches my experience with the system. By RAW, 4E is a very pre-packaged experience. Insofar as it has any virtue, it's that 80% of the system can be torn away and replaced with shooting from the hip with pg. 42 in the holster.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> That is the explanation. The combat dynamic of 4e unfolds as it does _by creating the need for the players to deploy the deeper resources to which they have access_, if the PCs are to succeed. And the choices made by players in the course of that deployment are expressive of thematic content/commitments.




Okay, this begins to make sense. As you mentioned in a previous post, you think that "make that guy move 5 feet closer to me" is a really meaningful narrative control. And here we see that you think "I use Split the Tree and fire two arrows at once that separate in mid-flight" is "rich and compelling thematic material".

I guess what this really boils down to is that my understanding of "rich and compelling thematic material" is... well... richer and more compelling than yours.



pemerton said:


> Everyone? Just the player of the ranger? At what  DC? These are the questions that I need to answer to resolve the  situation. The skill challenge mechanic answers them.




Except the skill challenge mechanic doesn't actually do that. In fact, the only people I've seen suggesting that it _does_ do that before now have been fervent anti-4E haters who are getting their facts wrong.

Allow me to demonstrate: The ranger's player says to you, "We want to cut through the jungle instead of taking the road the long way around."

Walk me through the steps you take to resolve that action using a skill challenge. Starting with how you design the skill challenge and then taking me through each check and its outcome (specifying who's proposing the checks, what they're proposing, and how it resolves).

I will then demonstrate how (a) you did, in fact, set the DCs you're claiming you didn't set and (b) the skill challenge mechanics were completely irrelevant to what you just did.



LostSoul said:


> It's interesting, Imaro, that you are choosing  to ignore certain aspects of 3.5.




It's a question of how you're choosing to resolve these actions. 4th Edition also includes rules for overland travel, enduring harsh conditions, managing rations, and the like which are similarly being ignored by Hussar and pemerton.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Situation:  The party is traveling across country from A to B.  The party does not have any other means of traveling other than mundane (horses, on foot, whatever, no teleport or fly) and the trip will take about four game days, give or take.  There is no road, its wilderness trekking.
> 
> Pre-4e D&D.  To do this, requires a number of checks.
> 
> <snip details of rolls, checks etc>
> 
> In other words, the DM has zero control over the pacing here.  The dice determine pacing.  How long or short this scenario is is out of the hands of a (non-fudging) DM.
> 
> Now, let's do this from a 4e perspective.
> 
> It's a skill challenge.
> 
> <snip details of rolls, checks etc>
> 
> In other words, pacing is 100% under the control of the DM.



Yep, this is what I meant. (Can't XP you yet though - sorry!)



Hussar said:


> In 3e, you tell the players they have to cross a swift moving river and that entails a swim check.  Which in turn requires them to take off their armor or start breaking out the spells.
> 
> I can see this bogging way down in micro-managing analysis paralysis for many, many groups.  "Do we take off our armor?"  "Oh, this has to be a trap."  "Ok, start searching the surrounding area for ambushes (roll roll roll)" "Detect spells on the river to see if anything's hiding beneath the surface"... on and on and on.
> 
> 4e's design philosophy is much more up front about it.  You don't have a specific river to cross, so, there's no analysis of the river and how to cross it.  You simply make your checks and each failure carries some sort of penalty.





Nagol said:


> Thre is nothing that prevents a SC from containing a non-obvious threat such as a Dragon Turtle lurking in the river that is awakened with the first failure.



I agree with Hussar. And even when (as in the skill challenge that I actually ran in my game, and that I described the resolution of upthread) there _is_ a specific river to cross - the Volaga river, marked on the 1 hex = 3 miles map that is on the inside cover of the module - I still don't need to know how wide it is, how deep it is, or how fast it is flowing.

I also agree with Nagol. In the skill challenge I describe, one consequence of failure was being surprised by the manticore-riding gnoll archer while in combat with the gnoll shaman and her band of gnolls and ghouls. This was a case, then, of using a combat encounter - and the arrival in the second round of that encounter of another two combatants - as part of the resolution of the skill challenge. Sometimes, though, I have handled combat as an immediate component of a skill challenge (eg in an infiltration challenge, I mentioned to the player that his PC sees two guards flanking the doorway he wants to enter - he spent his area attack encounter power, and as per the guidelines in DMG2 I then gave him +2 on his stealth check - when he succeeded this was narrated as him having dropped both guards with his halberd before then entering the doorway).

On other occasions I've handled "combat" as a simple skill check - when the party was fleeing the collapsing temple (as mentioned upthread) the player of the wizard decided that his PC would use Magic Missile to kill the devil-worshipper who had been rescued/captured from the gnolls by the players - I resolved this via a simple arcana check, forming the view that making him wade through the 50-odd hit points the NPC was statted as having for an actual combat context would add nothing at all to the game. (One way to construe this in mechanical terms - on a successful Arcana check, the player was able to "minionise" a lone NPC, who had no context or companions to make him a serious combat challenge.)

Incidentally, I don't know how 3E would handle this - with it's more simulationist treatment of hit points what I've described would be closer to cheating, and also there is no skill that is the functional equivalent of Arcana in this context - Spellcraft or Knowledge doesn't quite seem to fit. For me, then, this is another example of 4e's non-simulationist approach to skill use, and situation design, and resolution, offering better support for thematic play. The real issue in the scene I've just described was not the difficulty of killing the NPC, but the ruthlessness displayed on the part of the PC (and in some sense at least therefore endorsed by the player).



Imaro said:


> This "detail" is only necessary because you are choosing to use it, it's a tool like everything else in 3.x/PF. The skill descriptions make the setting of DC's trivially easy in 3e... especially since their function or the obstacle is what sets them... thus the only thing I need the DC for is the actual obstacle, any other DC's will be determined by the manner in which the PC wants to use the particular skill he chooses.



So can I set the DC of the swim check without knowing how deep and/or wide and/or fast flowing the river is?

The d20 SRD says this about swimming:

Make a Swim check once per round while you are in the water. Success means you may swim at up to one-half your speed (as a full-round action) or at one-quarter your speed (as a move action). If you fail by 4 or less, you make no progress through the water. If you fail by 5 or more, you go underwater.​
That implies to me that the players have to make at least as many swim checks as twice the ratio of the river width to their movement rates. The number required is more if some of those checks fail. I don't see how this is not the mechanics determining the pacing in a pretty simulationist fashion.



Imaro said:


> since again we are keeping this short and sweet we set the width in the range of one succesful roll for the majority of characters... 15' and since the description of the river is a strong current... the DC=15 to swim... that took me every bit of 10 secs to figure out.



Except that making it across a 15' wide river is not a very heroic achievement. I'm a pretty crappy swimmer (at least by Australian standards) and I've swum without difficulty across rivers quite a bit wider than 15' - even channels with fairly strong currents.

This relates back to the point about _heroic _protagonism. In a skill challenge I'm free to describe the river as wide and deep (and therefore challenging) while still resolving the crossing with only a handful of rolls. In 3E, at least according to the SRD, this would require a GM handwave. And in my view, at least, that GM handwave/fiat is at odds with the players' protagonism.



Imaro said:


> Yet tons of 4e skill challenges have every PC make an endurance check during travel... and tons of players only have the person with the best skill make a check to avoid failures... what's the difference?



At least two differences. First, these are almost always secondary checks (and so contribute to the consequences of the challenge, but not to ultimate success or failure), or if primary checks are a group check as per DMG2. The heroic protagonism is therefore still there - if the endurance checks are secondary then what will contribute to sucessful primary checks is someone's successful nature (or similar) check, or if it is a group endurance check the group will be anchored by (for example) the dwarf fighter who can't fail on an easy DC, therefore meaning that only half of the other 4 PCs must succeed in order for the group as a whole to clock up a success.

Second, there is no need to specify the minutiae of the ingame elements (dust, heat, lack of food, whatever) that determine the frequency and DCs of these checks.



Imaro said:


> I could just as easily do the 5-10 min thing in 3.X if I wanted too by simply describing the scene and using a simple skill check by each player at each stage (which would roughly give you the same length of time as SC's in 4e)... However I would rather let the particular table choose the length and level of detail they want in a particular scene, and thus set the pacing that best fits their group.





LostSoul said:


> It's interesting, Imaro, that you are choosing to ignore certain aspects of 3.5.  You're not calling for "Getting Lost" checks (which seem to require a map of some sort; perhaps not) or making random encounter rolls.  In addition, your handling of getting a good night's rest and the bandit ambush is to my liking, though not by the rules as far as I can tell.
> 
> Maybe you can answer my question about 3.x: When do you call for a skill check?  It seems to me that any time you attempt any action that's listed in any of the skill descriptions you must make a check (or Take 10/20).  If that's the case, you can see how that would affect the pacing of a game.





Imaro said:


> at a certain point all games including 4e and Heroquest require DM fiat for situations and actions that are unexpected.



What I'm interested in is the nature of the GM fiat. Skill challenges support the GM framing a scene with challenge and pacing in mind, and then leaves the players to take the lead in resolving it, _without_ needing to get bogged down in minutiae. Whereas, at least according to the d20 SRD if I want to achieve this for a river that's more than 15' wide, I either have to start doing multiple swim checks, or else have to start GM fiating the action resolution rules.



Imaro said:


> the thematic thing I just don't see period, it seems to be based in fluff and since fluff is in every edition I don't buy 4e does that objectively better either.



I'm not sure what you mean here. A PC ruthlessly killing a (for all practical purposes) helpless and unwitting NPC isn't just fluff. That's a significant event in the fiction which is mechanically modelled, in some form or other, in every edition of D&D.

If part of the point of playing is for the players to be able to express thematic ideas through engaging with the fictional situation via their PCs, then the mechanics that permit them to do that - and therefore, for example, to kill off NPCs in the way I've described - make a big difference.

Apart from anything else, if killing the NPC requires multiple rounds of to hit rolls, the possibility of retaliatory attacks by the doomed NPC, etc etc then suddenly the game's focus shifts away from the thematic material altogether, and instead it's become just a combat fest. (This is also an illustration of how pacing concerns, the ease of improvisation, and the ability to run a game that allows players to express thematic content, are all inter-linked.)



Imaro said:


> Basically you're taking how Permeton's particular skill challenges (which I'm not sure are exactly by the book) are designed and how his players appproach them and claiming that bothy of these are because of 4e's skill challenge rules... and they aren't. You're slapping your own coat of narrativist play over a predominately gamist system.



I'm not sure what "by the book" means here. I've got quite a few 4e books. They have a lot of sample skill challenges. I use these both as direct sources of skill challenge design, and as inspiration for my own ideas.

The very first skill challenge I ran in 4e - at a point when I had only the three core books plus Adventurers' Vault - was an adaptation from the Basic module Night's Dark Terror. The situation is this: the PCs, following the trail to the homestead that is their destination, come out of the forest, see the homstead on fire across a creek valley, and see goblins on wolves circling round the outside of the homestead to try and cut them off.

Having never designed or run a skill challenge before, I was able to determine in advance how I would adjudicate athletics, acrobatics and stealth checks, as well as attempt by one PC to help another. In the course of resolving the challenge I also worked out how to adjudicate an attempt by a PC to intimidate the approaching goblins. And I successfully implemented my pre-prepared idea that failures on the challenge would result in one or more PCs having to fight their way past a goblin wolfrider or two. I was even able to implement differential consequences for different PCs, with those who succeeded on athletics checks without opting to help others making it into the homestead fine, while those who opted to help, or who tried to hold off the goblins by intimidation while the squishier PCs made their way inside, had to fight the wolfriders.

I don't know if this was "by the book" or not, but it was what I came up with after I read the DMG, read the module, and thought about how to adapt it to 4e.

Of course a similar encounter could be played out in Rolemaster or 3E, but in my view, and consistently with what I've said earlier in this post, that would require detailed maps and terrain. And it would at least be more fiddly, and probably also more handwavey, to integrate considerations like one PC helping another, or one PC intimidating the goblins while others escape to safety. (In the module as written, the PCs make it to safety unless they hesitate for more than two rounds, in which case they have to fight the wolfriders. How to adjudicate the number of rounds passing in hesitation isn't explained. In particular, it's not clear whether the GM is meant to run a real-world stopwatch on the players - 2 rounds in Basic would be 20 seconds - or whether the GM is meant to actually adjudicate 2 rounds worth of actions on the part of the PCs, counting anything other than "run full tilt for the homestead" as hesitation.)



Imaro said:


> I honestly get the impression you aren't that familiar with 3.x/PF... am I right?



I've got a pretty good working knowledge of the rules. I've got a lot less play experience with it than with 4e.



Imaro said:


> What I do find interesting is that you seem to be saying that in 4e having pre-set DC's based on level (as opposed to ther world or even the choices the hero makes)... somehow empowers "heroic protagonism"... and I find that hard to believe. Is this what you are claiming?



Yes. It's 4e's version of the HeroQuest pass/fail cycle, which makes DCs depend on the place of the conflict in the narrative rather than determining them in a simulationist fashion. (In 4e, instead of escalating DCs in response to success, as HeroQuest does, the players gradually lose access to their enhancing resources or ablative resources, like powers and hit points/healing surges.)

Another, more practical, benefit of level-appropriate DCs is that they make determining difficulty on the fly very easy. You don't need to worry about how wide the river is, for example, in order to set a DC to cross it successfully without incident. (Combat works differently in this respect - it does depend on details accounting for time and space. I've already stated upthread that the lack of guidelines on integrating combat resolution with non-combat resolution is a weakness in 4e's action resolution mechanics.)

Yet another feature - which I think is a benefit, but which others may not - is that the way the GM conceives of the situation that the PCs find themselves in has comparatively little impact on the likelihood of their success, _once the complexity of the skill challenge is determined_ (and subject to Nagol's general concern about skill challenges being a maths trap). Whereas in setting up a situation in the way Imaro describes his overland swamp journely, a lot seems to turn on the GM's fiat about whether swimming requires one check overall or one per round, or whether everyone in the party has to make a survival check or just the ranger, and whether everyone in the party gets a perception check against the bandits or just the best, etc, etc. In my view this makes the players' prospects overly subject to GM fiat. It also sets up a situation that encourages check mongering by either GM or players (or both).



LostSoul said:


> There's a reason why this works.  Because you don't have to worry about making poor decisions - for the most part, you know what DCs you will be facing - you are free to take thematic actions.



Right. This relates to the point I made upthread about combat, also, and how (in my view) it supports narrativist play - 4e combat is designed to force the players to _step up_ or be beaten, with that crunch point coming somewhere about half-way into an encounter. This _can_ be the focus for "step on up" play (and Balesir, on this thread, has helped me get a better understanding of how 4e works in this regard).

But because the system is robust across a wide range of choices - as LostSoul describes in relation to skill challenge DCs - this crunch point can also be the focus for thematic choice, as different ways of meeting the test express different sorts of commitments or ideals.



LostSoul said:


> In 4E specifically the DCs are based on the PC's level (which is supposed to be the same as all other PCs in the party); the ramifications of failure are _not_ defined unless it's HP damage - you can look at page 42 of the DMG to figure out any damage done.
> 
> It's possible that failure on a Perception check could lead to total oblivion, but looking at effects from traps and monsters give you an idea of what kinds of effects should happen based on the party's level.
> 
> I think it's a failure of 4E that they didn't codify effects by level, the way they did with damage by level.  (Of course, I wouldn't have used that in my hack, but as far as regular 4E goes I think they dropped the ball there.)



Agreed, although there are a number of published example skill challenges that give a reasonable idea of what the designers think count as reasonable consequences. And, as you say, traps and monsters help - traps especially, because these often have a "disable traps" skill challenge built in that allows fairly clear inferences from failures to mechanical consequences.

Of course in many contexts the consequences of failure aren't mechanical but purely fictional (eg someone doesn't like you, or you lose an item crossing the river, or . . .). In some systems these could be handled mechanically, but they are not in 4e.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> And since the players don't know the effects of a failure, the PCs are still presented with the possibility of a 'gotcha!' encounter at the river where disrobing and dropping weapons can be both embarassing and deadly.  So a player group cautious/paranoid enough to expect gotchas in previous editions are just as likely to want to act in a cautious/paranoid way prior to placing themselves in that position.



I think this is true in theory, but perhaps less likely in practice. (Of course, I may be generalising excessively from my own experience.) My view is that part of the point of level appropriate DCs and damage expressions is to establish a base level of trust.

And it's not just trust that the GM won't deliberately try to crush the players. It's also trust that the GM has the tools to hand not to _accidently_ crush the players. (For me, the main challenge in running Rolemaster is this second issue - because RM has nothing comparable to CR guidelines or 4e encounter budgeting, and has rather notoriously swingy action resolution mechanics.)

How does this trust issue play into the scenario you describe? The PCs getting caught without their gear while crossing the river would presumably only ever be the consequence of a failed check in the challenge, and the guidelines as to damage and the like give the GM some guidance as to how serious such consequences should, in general be. Suppose that, without armour, the paladin is likely to be comparatively ineffective in the ensuing combat, but most of the other PCs adversely effected only for a round or so while they pick up their weapons/implements. Then the GM can be fairly confident that an encounter of no more than three or four monsters of the PCs' level will likely be interesting - because of the challenging circumstances in which the encounter starts - but not devastating, because able to be handled by the PCs even without the paladin there at all.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> As you mentioned in a previous post, you think that "make that guy move 5 feet closer to me" is a really meaningful narrative control. And here we see that you think "I use Split the Tree and fire two arrows at once that separate in mid-flight" is "rich and compelling thematic material".



If that's the sort of potential that you see in using the combat elements of a fantasy adventure game to establish and express thematic material, then I guess you must strongly prefer the non-combat elements of the game.

The sort of decisions that I'm interested in are more along the lines of:

*What sort of warrior am I? An archer, who hides behind others and let's them face the enemy forces? A polearm master from whom none can escape? A paladin and knight who wil never retreat or surrender? What sorts of risks will I take to help my companions?

*What sort of techniques am I prepared to use to battle my foes? Will I use treachery? Stealth? The power of the shadowfell? Who or what will I rely on? Who or what will I repudiate?

*What sort of fate do my enemies deserve? Death? Imprisonment? Defeat and then humiliating execution?​
I've never claimed that my RPGs have great literary depth. But for me, at least, this is engaging stuff and the sort of stuff that dynamic combat rules allow the expression of.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> I think this is true in theory, but perhaps less likely in practice. (Of course, I may be generalising excessively from my own experience.) My view is that part of the point of level appropriate DCs and damage expressions is to establish a base level of trust.
> 
> And it's not just trust that the GM won't deliberately try to crush the players. It's also trust that the GM has the tools to hand not to _accidently_ crush the players. (For me, the main challenge in running Rolemaster is this second issue - because RM has nothing comparable to CR guidelines or 4e encounter budgeting, and has rather notoriously swingy action resolution mechanics.)
> 
> How does this trust issue play into the scenario you describe? The PCs getting caught without their gear while crossing the river would presumably only ever be the consequence of a failed check in the challenge, and the guidelines as to damage and the like give the GM some guidance as to how serious such consequences should, in general be. Suppose that, without armour, the paladin is likely to be comparatively ineffective in the ensuing combat, but most of the other PCs adversely effected only for a round or so while they pick up their weapons/implements. Then the GM can be fairly confident that an encounter of no more than three or four monsters of the PCs' level will likely be interesting - because of the challenging circumstances in which the encounter starts - but not devastating, because able to be handled by the PCs even without the paladin there at all.
> 
> Does that make any sense?




That post was primarily in response to Hussar's notion that 4e breaks the overly cautious situation analysis paradigm offered by player groups when presented with what the DM knows is a minor challenge / fluff piece.

If the 4e DM in question says as apart of a skill challenge "You've made it to a river, it looks like a Athletics DC 20 to cross here.  Heavy armour and weapons will provide a substantial penalty unless removed.  What do you want to do?"  You'll could just as easily have the group try to determine if more is at stake than described as the 3e DM who says "You've made it to a river. It looks like the Ranger (who has Swimmig trained to a decent level) can make it across without rolling.  What do you do?"

The only real difference is the 4e world is a less harsh environment for low level groups (and conversely more harsh to high-level groups) due the level-appropriateness built into the game.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> Sorry, that was a misstatement on my part.  I should have said, "A 4e SC doesn't need a specific river to cross.  You are correct in that you certainly can actually have one.
> 
> I was more referring to the idea of controlling pacing.  If I wanted to slow down pacing, I could drop a Dragon Turtle in the river that is awakened on the first failure.  Or, I could simply say, "The going is rough, lose 1 healing surge".  (boring as heck, but possible.)
> 
> <snip>




The 3e DM can control pace through the swamp about as well through abstracting the environment as well.

DM: "You're at the edge of The Swamp of Icky Swamp Stuff.  Your destination is deep within probably at a least day maybe two based on the muck you need to wade through.  Any special precautions?  No? OK roll a d20".

Destination is 14 hours of normal travel within.  The group will realise it is getting close once it is within 4 hours of travel and not lost.

The Swamp of Icky Swamp Stuff

To avoid becoming lost: Survival DC 12 1/hour Take 10 is possible if no combat that hour (harder than a moor but less than a full forest).  <Note that this means a group with a Wis 14+ character or any character with a trained Survival of +2 or better cannot get lost unless there is a serious distraction like combat.>

Disease check: Fortitude Save DC 12: Filth Fever 1/day for anyone susceptible to disease.

Wandering monsters: chance 1/20 every 12 hours of day travel, and 1/10 overnight.  Average EL 6 during the day, EL 9 at night (see chart). <Chance  of an encounter is remote, but the DM left some chance by assigning a probability.  The players have some strong control over the likelihood to avoid encounters by forcing the travel to be a single day.>

With this setup, the PCs are in control if the lose the equivalent of a healing surge by using Forced March or Hustling to reduce the chance of random encounters and other dangers.


----------



## Imaro

LostSoul said:


> It's interesting, Imaro, that you are choosing to ignore certain aspects of 3.5. You're not calling for "Getting Lost" checks (which seem to require a map of some sort; perhaps not) or making random encounter rolls. In addition, your handling of getting a good night's rest and the bandit ambush is to my liking, though not by the rules as far as I can tell.
> 
> Maybe you can answer my question about 3.x: When do you call for a skill check? It seems to me that any time you attempt any action that's listed in any of the skill descriptions you must make a check (or Take 10/20). If that's the case, you can see how that would affect the pacing of a game.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason why this works. Because you don't have to worry about making poor decisions - for the most part, you know what DCs you will be facing - you are free to take thematic actions.




Wow, I don't have enough time in the day to keep up with this thread...

I play where you only roll for what I would call "obstacles" in certain situations... taking 10 or taking 20 are viable in the majority of situations and take very little time(less than an actual roll) to resolve so why concern yourself as DM with them if you know the players auto-succeded by taking 10?  I don't believe 3.x/PF ever intended a player to roll for every action, that's absurd in my mind... do you have to roll to walk, run, etc? 

LostSoul, the problem with your assertion that you don't have to worry about making poor decisions... does not in any way guarantee thematic actions, and could just as easily lead to players of a different mindset more easily gaming the system mechanics and assumptions and disregarding thematic decisions alltogether... again this seems like a case of choosing to use mechanics in a particular way but not necessarily that those mechanics are designed to lead you or even give you incentive to play in a narrative style.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> If that's the sort of potential that you see in using the combat elements of a fantasy adventure game to establish and express thematic material, then I guess you must strongly prefer the non-combat elements of the game.
> 
> The sort of decisions that I'm interested in are more along the lines of:
> *What sort of warrior am I? An archer, who hides behind others and let's them face the enemy forces? A polearm master from whom none can escape? A paladin and knight who wil never retreat or surrender? What sorts of risks will I take to help my companions?
> 
> *What sort of techniques am I prepared to use to battle my foes? Will I use treachery? Stealth? The power of the shadowfell? Who or what will I rely on? Who or what will I repudiate?
> 
> *What sort of fate do my enemies deserve? Death? Imprisonment? Defeat and then humiliating execution?​I've never claimed that my RPGs have great literary depth. But for me, at least, this is engaging stuff and the sort of stuff that dynamic combat rules allow the expression of.




BUT... all of this can be defined in 3e by player choice just as easily as a player in 4e... this is where I keep missing your overall point. You seem to be saying "heroic protagonism" and rich "thematic choices" boils down to fluff and choices... well then I really don't see 4e as any better at it than 3.x/PF, just different... and I stick by the fact that you are coating gamist mechanics with your own narrative paint, which can just as easily be done in 3.x by adjusting what particular DC's mean... In my game a DC 10 river is 100,000 feet wide... now everyone is a heroic protagonist!!


----------



## Imaro

Beginning of the End said:


> It's a question of how you're choosing to resolve these actions. 4th Edition also includes rules for overland travel, enduring harsh conditions, managing rations, and the like which are similarly being ignored by Hussar and pemerton.




This...

EDIT: I'd also like to add to this a little... as I look through the 4e PHB and DMG... I've noticed that many of 4e's skills have set DC's for particular actions just like 3.x/PF. Does this mean that using the skill rules vs. SC rules of 4e hinders "heroic protagonism"? I'm also curious how you deal with this dichotomy. Why in a SC is an Acrobatics DC based on whatever the appropriate difficulty for level is, and described however you want (which I will comment now, not every 4e fan believes this is the way the DC's should be generated)... but using the Acrobatics skill alone to do something forces the DM to have all those things you rail against as hindering "heroic protagonism" (like width of beam being crossed, length of fall, etc.) and sets clear guidelines?  So one minute my character can balance on the single strand of a spider's web with a DC of 10 and then all of a sudden when he's not in a skill challenge he has to roll a 20 to balance on a narrow ledge.  I mean we are looking at 4e as a whole, just like you claim we must with 3.x/PF... right? 

I mean I understand this discrepancy from a gamist stand point... having general by level DC's makes the game more fun and easier to run when you don't want to be concerned with the detail of simulating the world... What I don't understand is how these seperate resolution systems help to promote narrative play vs. gamist. Again it seems you are ignoring what contradicts your assertions about 4e and using the mechanics the way you want to promote your particular style of play... which is something that can just as easily be done in 3.x/PF.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> It's funny that Raven Crowking hasn't jumped on you for this.




Raven Crowking has always been consistent on this one:  Rolling and ignoring the result is fudging.  Not rolling is not.

EDIT:  Also for clarity, Raven Crowking isn't the arbiter of your game.  If you post "fudging is a great idea", I am going to post to oppose that meme.  If you post "I fudge at my table all the time", Raven Crowking is merely going to make a mental note not to play at your table.  If you post "I occasionally fudge", Raven Crowking really doesn't care one way or the other.

Raven Crowking says now, and always, if you can get someone to play in your game, you can run it however you like.  He's like a broken record that way.


RC


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> You're basically saying that you control pacing by fudging the dice.  If the dice say that a random encounter happens, then that's what happens according to the rules.  If the dice say that the group gets lost, then they get lost.
> Of course, you can ignore the dice, but considering the rather large amount of complaining about fudging from certain quarters, I wanted to be absolutely fair and RAW about things.



No.  I'm not saying that at all.  I think you really don't grasp the root point of where I am coming from.  
At first THERE ARE NO DICE.  I don't follow them.  I don't ignore them.  They don't exist.

When I read the Lord of the Rings, I don't imagine dice.  Do you?
The very idea of thinking about dice while reading great fantasy literature is bizarre to me and I'm going to presume that it is for you as well.

And really the same thing applies to reality.  When I drive my car there is a chance my trip could be delayed by a School Bus or I could have a drunk driver swerve in front of me.  There is a vast array of potential happenings which range from minor but generally good diversions (school bus) to potentially deadly threats (drunk driver) and a million others in between.  When I think about safely and efficiently getting to my destination I am aware of this collection of unknowns.  But I don't think in terms of dice or encounter tables.  There are no dice in reality.

There are no dice when I read fiction for the same reason.

Now, if I wrote some lame fan fiction piece set in Middle Earth, I'm going to be in the exact same mindset.  I'm still picturing Middle Earth exactly the same way as I was when I was reading the Lord of the Rings.  So the dice still don't exist.  And I doubt anyone thinks of Tolkein as having consulted dice to help craft his story.  The very idea of dice is still bizarre at this point.

But something has changed because now that I am the author, I control what happens.  So the characters might meet a giant spider or an orc.  Or, no matter how unlikely, they may find a ring in a cave.  And if I have them encounter Greedo or a Cyclon then I have gotten Middle Earth "wrong".  (It might still be a great story.)  The concept of the setting exists and there are parameters around what it does and does not contain, but the concept of dice apply to it as well as ice skates do to cobras.  The introduction of a deterministic authorial control does nothing to change that because the concept of the setting existed before I ever started thinking about writing.

But now we take another step.  Rather than writing a story, I am involving other people as active participants in the creative process.  And, yet another step, rather than just writing a collaborative work of fiction, we go beyond just inserting a Mary Jane into our fiction and we insert our own selves into the shoes of the characters.  And part of what we want to experience is being characters in the moment of the story, with no certain knowledge of the future, be it whether or not this arrow will hit in the next two seconds, or what new adventure we will encounter when we cross the mountain next month.  

So we have gone from conceptual parameters to authorial determinism, now we a stuck needing a way to surrender that power of determinism.  Otherwise there is no experience in the illusion of achievement or failure if we don't feel we have faced the prospect of both without any more certainty of the outcome than we imagine the protagonist of a great story having.  The audience may know, but part of a great story is (usually) that the characters don’t.  We want to be the characters; therefore we need to not know.

It is now a game.  And we use dice to help with that.
But go back up to the very beginning and every bit of that still applies.  The same parameters of the setting are in place.  The setting exists and there are no dice.  So the challenge becomes to introduce dice and make it still FEEL like there are no dice.  The dice provide a model of the setting that we try to make both as perfect and as invisible as possible.  Sacrifice will enter the picture here. 

But the idea of the setting has no dice.  And any time anyone is really aware of the dice, Greedo is peeking around a tree. 
The dice might “say” the party gets lost.  And if the model was set up well then great, we now know that the party gets lost and that is part of the story.  But, this completely misses the point that the potential results dictated by the dice are FIRST dictated by that original “I’m reading a story” narrative pseudo-reality.  The dice are completely a slave to the narrative definition.  And the DM has absolute control over that.  Once a good model is in place the DM willingly and eagerly concedes control to the dice.  But the dice only have control because the DM provided it and a good DM will have established valuable parameters on what those dice may dictate.

It all starts with a diceless setting and a DM.  When you say the DM has zero control you are exactly 100% wrong.  When you say my approach involves ignoring or fudging dice, you are again 100% wrong.
It is about being inside the story and the game should be invisible.  It is highly clear to me that for some people “the game” is vastly more an important part of the experience for them than it is for me.  So we end up talking past each other.  That is cool.  It is not my intent to say that 4E isn’t fun.  It is partly to say it is different, but mostly to say that you statement about DM control in 3E is wrong.  Because your statement about DM control in 3E is wrong.

(I actually DO fudge dice infrequently, part of the job description of a good DM is knowing when the mechanics, including but not limited to dice rolls, failed to anticipate the events at hand and represent them well.  This is, as I said, infrequent.  But I don’t want to be accused of double talk when in some later thread I heartily endorse fudging.  Fudging dice is completely unrelated to my point here.)


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> That post was primarily in response to Hussar's notion that 4e breaks the overly cautious situation analysis paradigm offered by player groups when presented with what the DM knows is a minor challenge / fluff piece.
> 
> If the 4e DM in question says as apart of a skill challenge "You've made it to a river, it looks like a Athletics DC 20 to cross here.  Heavy armour and weapons will provide a substantial penalty unless removed.  What do you want to do?"  You'll could just as easily have the group try to determine if more is at stake than described as the 3e DM who says "You've made it to a river. It looks like the Ranger (who has Swimmig trained to a decent level) can make it across without rolling.  What do you do?"
> 
> The only real difference is the 4e world is a less harsh environment for low level groups (and conversely more harsh to high-level groups) due the level-appropriateness built into the game.




But, your example here of the river is a very poor example of a skill challenge.  For one, why is the DM announcing the DC's?  And, again, why is the river there?  Have they arrived at the river as a result of a success or a failure?  Additionally, why is the DM telling the players how to cross the river?  It's up to the players to tell the DM how they attempt to cross the river and the DM's job to adjudicate from there.

In 4e parlance, if the party reaches the river as a failure, and the penalty for that failure is an ambush by a dragon turtle, you should start at initiative, not poncing about at how to cross the river.  Crossing the river is not important, the encounter with the Dragon Turtle is.



BryonD said:


> No.  I'm not saying that at all.  I think you really don't grasp the root point of where I am coming from.
> At first THERE ARE NO DICE.  I don't follow them.  I don't ignore them.  They don't exist.




Why are there no dice?  What game are you playing?  The game expressly states how this is handled.  As you so rightly pointed out to me recently, ignoring the mechanics of a system is not a strength of the system.

3.5 D&D tells you specifically that you need to make survival checks to not get lost.  The DMG specifically tells you that there should be random encounters at intervals when traveling across country.

Sure, you can ignore that all you like.  Fair enough, but, you're not playing 3.5 D&D anymore.  You're playing BryonD's Diceless d20.  Because, again, the rules are pretty clear here in the books.  

And, considering the number of shots about people not being perfectly up front about 4e mechanics, I figured that absolute adherence to the rules is a primary concern in this thread.


----------



## Umbran

Raven Crowking said:


> In the case presented, it does, because the whole idea that there is a challenge involved to is (4e SC or not) implies that there is something more going on in the scenario.




That is a point that bears noting - correct me if I am wrong, but the initial goal was to set the effects of passing through the swamp on the party, to determine how fatigued they are at the end, and so forth.

In making this into a series of encounters, that apparently grew into "something more going on".  So, I am back to wondering if this solution actually fits what was originally requested.  We might see a bit of scope creep here, but as we see later on, that actually leads to some resolution...



Imaro said:


> This touches on one of the reasons I don't think 4e is any better at narrative pacing and thematic play than PF (which was the original point), and may be even worse due to what I consider... rigid design in the SC's basic structure.




Let us look at the crossing the swamp scenario.  In 4e, it could be handled by a skill challenge.  It has been suggested that in 3e, it could be 3 non-combat encounters and one minor combat encounters...

...which, if I translate it to 4e again, becomes 3 skill challenges and a small combat encounter.

In 4e you could deal with crossing the swamp in light detail (one SC) or greater detail (3+ challenges), at the GM's whim, not the rules' dictate.  In 3e you wouldn't need to use 4 encounters - you could do it with less.  In either edition, the level of detail, and thus the pacing, rests not in the rules, but in the adventure design in the first place - like it always has!

Mind you, I don't actually think there's anything new in the skill challenge.  The SC is just a clarification of what I used to consider a non-combat scene, putting extended use of skills to solve problems into a framework so that GMs can think a little more clearly about them.  In practice, I don't find its pacing to be any more rigid than 3e non-combat encounters/challenges.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Why are there no dice?  What game are you playing?  The game expressly states how this is handled.



I'm going to just give the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't want to read the rest of my post.  That's fine.

Good Gaming.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> That is a point that bears noting - correct me if I am wrong, but the initial goal was to set the effects of passing through the swamp on the party, to determine how fatigued they are at the end, and so forth.
> 
> In making this into a series of encounters, that apparently grew into "something more going on". So, I am back to wondering if this solution actually fits what was originally requested. We might see a bit of scope creep here, but as we see later on, that actually leads to some resolution...




Umbran, I was asked how *I* would run this without getting bogged down in details and minutae... not for a reconstruction of 4e SC mechanics using 3e/PF. I don't particularly like the pacing of 4e SC's which are too abstract, too railroaded and too based on group vs. individual protagonist's decisions... why would I replicate them exactly, especially when that's not what Permeton asked me to do.





Umbran said:


> Let us look at the crossing the swamp scenario. In 4e, it could be handled by a skill challenge. It has been suggested that in 3e, it could be 3 non-combat encounters and one minor combat encounters...
> 
> ...which, if I translate it to 4e again, becomes 3 skill challenges and a small combat encounter.
> 
> In 4e you could deal with crossing the swamp in light detail (one SC) or greater detail (3+ challenges), at the GM's whim, not the rules' dictate. In 3e you wouldn't need to use 4 encounters - you could do it with less. In either edition, the level of detail, and thus the pacing, rests not in the rules, but in the adventure design in the first place - like it always has!
> 
> Mind you, I don't actually think there's anything new in the skill challenge. The SC is just a clarification of what I used to consider a non-combat scene, putting extended use of skills to solve problems into a framework so that GMs can think a little more clearly about them. In practice, I don't find its pacing to be any more rigid than 3e non-combat encounters/challenges.




So are you saying it is impossible to abstract to the level of a single roll called on by the DM to be taken by the person with the highest score in 3e? Especially if the DM makes the DC's for everything he deems not important, low enough to be passed by taking 10 or 20? 

I don't think it's against the rules and it will give you similar results to 4e's SC's if that's what you want out of the game. Also why do you insist on an encounter being tied to a certain amount of time... it's not. A SC in 4e covers numerous encounters... how much time each takes to resolve is a totally different matter.


----------



## Fifth Element

So as far as I can tell, the lesson from recent discussion is that in terms of non-combat resolution, 3E and 4E are essentially the same? I'd buy that.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> That is a point that bears noting - correct me if I am wrong, but the initial goal was to set the effects of passing through the swamp on the party, to determine how fatigued they are at the end, and so forth.




If that's the case, it's even easier.  The excellent 3pp 3e book, Wildscape (and check the author, btw, for a note of irony) gives you a series of hazards, with appropriate DCs, effects for failure, etc.  If all you wanted to do was set the effects of passing through the swamp and determine how fatigued they are at the end, you can do that in 5 minutes flat.  10 if your players take a long time rolling the dice.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> So as far as I can tell, the lesson from recent discussion is that in terms of non-combat resolution, 3E and 4E are essentially the same? I'd buy that.




They certainly can be, depending upon the group.

But I wouldn't assume them to be for all groups.  Nor would I assume that 3e resolution is necessarily the same for all 3e groups, or 4e resolution is necessarily the same for all 4e groups.


RC


----------



## BryonD

Fifth Element said:


> So as far as I can tell, the lesson from recent discussion is that in terms of non-combat resolution, 3E and 4E are essentially the same? I'd buy that.



I agree with RC that they can be.

In my personal opinion 3E does 4E style far better than 4E does 3E style.  But you could have groups playing 4E style using 3E.  I absolutely admit that 4E does 4E style far better than 3E does.  So I don't claim there is any reason to use 3E if that is what you like.

Also, I further admit that my term "3E style" is from my own POV.  If you were playing 3E 5 years ago in a way that now would be recognized as "4E style" then clearly to you that would be what you thought of as 3E style.  They still would have been different pre-4E, but now it is easier for us to generalize with simple labels.


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> I'm going to just give the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't want to read the rest of my post.  That's fine.
> 
> Good Gaming.




Oh, no, I read the entire post.  I would just like to see why you think that what you are doing is actually using the mechanics of the game you claim to be playing.  You are saying that my characterization of pacing in the 3.5 ruleset is flat out wrong.  

To show that I'm wrong, you then claim to not use any of the 3e ruleset but instead head off into your own diceless system that bears no actual resemblance to what the books say.

So, how am I mischaracterizing 3e by saying that a wilderness trek will require a number of dice rolls to determine whether or not the party gets lost (see the Survival skill for DC's and effects) and a number of random encounter rolls (see the DMG for applicable tables and rules)?  

Additionally, how am I mischaracterizing 3e by saying that the results of those die rolls will dictate to a large degree the pacing of the scenario?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Why are there no dice? What game are you playing? The game expressly states how this is handled. As you so rightly pointed out to me recently, ignoring the mechanics of a system is not a strength of the system.
> 
> 3.5 D&D tells you specifically that you need to make survival checks to not get lost. The DMG specifically tells you that there should be random encounters at intervals when traveling across country.
> 
> Sure, you can ignore that all you like. Fair enough, but, you're not playing 3.5 D&D anymore. You're playing BryonD's Diceless d20. Because, again, the rules are pretty clear here in the books.
> 
> And, considering the number of shots about people not being perfectly up front about 4e mechanics, I figured that absolute adherence to the rules is a primary concern in this thread.




Well I am playing Pathfinder and it doesn't tell me specifically that anyone needs to make a survival check to avoid getting lost while travelling across swamp land. It gives me conditions during travel that may cause PC’s to get lost… none of which were part of the stated set-up and it gives me DC’s for the survival checks to avoid becoming lost but in no way forces me to do so without the specific conditions that cause PC's to get lost (Which of course are the purview of the DM and how he wants pacing to go). Also, per the Pathfinder Bestiary… wandering monster tables are purely optional and at the discretion of the DM. So exactly what rules are being broken?

EDIT: Just looked in my 3.5 DMG... "The exact formula for when you roll for wandering monsters is up to you"... pg. 77 under "Wandering Monsters".

Also in the 3.5 DMG... only poor visibility and rough terrain are mentioned as causes for PC's to get lost... we didn't specify either of these in the example, so I guess it's not just Pathfinder... what you are saying is just wrong going with the actual rules of 3.5.


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:


> They certainly can be, depending upon the group.
> 
> But I wouldn't assume them to be for all groups. Nor would I assume that 3e resolution is necessarily the same for all 3e groups, or 4e resolution is necessarily the same for all 4e groups.
> 
> RC




This...


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Oh, no, I read the entire post.  I would just like to see why you think that what you are doing is actually using the mechanics of the game you claim to be playing.



Then you just did not understand, because I clearly explained it.  And how you can read the entire post and reference "BryonD's Diceless d20" is boggling.




> You are saying that my characterization of pacing in the 3.5 ruleset is flat out wrong.




I am saying that:


Hussar said:


> In other words, the DM has zero control over the pacing here.  The dice determine pacing.  How long or short this scenario is is out of the hands of a (non-fudging) DM.



 is 100% wrong.



> To show that I'm wrong, you then claim to not use any of the 3e ruleset but instead head off into your own diceless system that bears no actual resemblance to what the books say.



I don't know how to respond to this.  It doesn't even remotely resemble what I actually said.  



> So, how am I mischaracterizing 3e by saying that a wilderness trek will require a number of dice rolls to determine whether or not the party gets lost (see the Survival skill for DC's and effects) and a number of random encounter rolls (see the DMG for applicable tables and rules)?
> 
> Additionally, how am I mischaracterizing 3e by saying that the results of those die rolls will dictate to a large degree the pacing of the scenario?



You are accurately characterizing a terrible and thoughtles implementation of the 3E rules.  I would not want to play with a DM who was described by this using any system whatsoever.

But you clearly don't grasp the explanation I offered.   Seriously, I'm still having trouble believing you actually read it.  

But if you did and you still mean what you are saying in your replies, then cool.  You are not going to experience or enjoy 3E as I do.  No one who read that and came away thinking "diceless D20" ever will.


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> I don't particularly like the pacing of 4e SC's which are too abstract, too railroaded and too based on group vs. individual protagonist's decisions... why would I replicate them exactly, especially when that's not what Permeton asked me to do.




But, you did replicate them.  Each of those little non-combat scenes can be interpreted as a SC behind the screen.  The players describe what they do, and roll dice.  You keep track of results, and inform them of status.  The only thing the SC adds is a notion of when you should call it a success or a failure - which you also probably have in mind when you design the scenes in 3e-style anyway.  The difference between these things is not large.

SC's are presented in the rules in an abstract way - but then, so is combat.  Your implementation of them in play does not have to be abstract.  It can be very concrete, interactive, and presented like any other scene. And they by no means have to be railroading - a strength of SCs is that any way each player can think of to apply a skill to the issue can be included, rather than having very specific actions they must take for the players to succeed. 

I will grant you, the way the SCs are described in the core rules kinda stinks, so that maybe this is not immediately obvious upon reading.  But the issues you raise don't seem to me to inherent to the system, but to how the GM approaches the system's use at the table.  Sure, individual encounters can be poorly designed and implemented - but that's as true for combat, and for any edition.  



> So are you saying it is impossible to abstract to the level of a single roll called on by the DM to be taken by the person with the highest score in 3e?




I don't see how that at all follows from what I said.  Given Rule 0, it is possible to do whatever the heck you want.  



> I don't think it's against the rules and it will give you similar results to 4e's SC's if that's what you want out of the game. Also why do you insist on an encounter being tied to a certain amount of time... it's not. A SC in 4e covers numerous encounters... how much time each takes to resolve is a totally different matter.




I tie and encounter, or scene, to an amount of time because I think the game structures were built to directly support dramatic structures, which do generally take time.  The SC isn't a shorthand for getting through things quick and dirty - it is simply a structure GMs can use to help set difficulty and what happens on their own side of the screen.


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> Seriously, I'm still having trouble believing you actually read it.




Take comfort; you are not alone.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> But, you did replicate them.






Only in some Bizarro Universe, where the DCs Imaro chooses must be based off character level, and there must be X successes before Y failures.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> But, you did replicate them. Each of those little non-combat scenes can be interpreted as a SC behind the screen. The players describe what they do, and roll dice. You keep track of results, and inform them of status. The only thing the SC adds is a notion of when you should call it a success or a failure - which you also probably have in mind when you design the scenes in 3e-style anyway. The difference between these things is not large.




As RC cites... the SC DC's given aren't even based on the actual DC's given for the skills in 4e... they are based on PC level (though the funny thing is that I've seen other 4e fans argue that DC's are based on the challenge level of the obstacle) the determination is pre-set, and again X successes on the first roll means the entire SC was a successes and really everyone could just choose not to act for the rest of it and still come out winners, since that is one of the choices in a SC by RAW. However, there is no overarching success or failure level in my set up... success, failures and the end result are all determined by what PC's choose to do and has it's pacing set by the collaborative actions of the PC's and DM... not by an arbitrarily (gamist) limit that is correctly designed for their level. 



Umbran said:


> SC's are presented in the rules in an abstract way - but then, so is combat. Your implementation of them in play does not have to be abstract. It can be very concrete, interactive, and presented like any other scene. And they by no means have to be railroading - a strength of SCs is that any way each player can think of to apply a skill to the issue can be included, rather than having very specific actions they must take for the players to succeed.




Now you are talking about the abstraction level of fluff... which has not been what we've been discussing... we have been discussing mechanics and they have levels of abstraction.



Umbran said:


> I will grant you, the way the SCs are described in the core rules kinda stinks, so that maybe this is not immediately obvious upon reading. But the issues you raise don't seem to me to inherent to the system, but to how the GM approaches the system's use at the table. Sure, individual encounters can be poorly designed and implemented - but that's as true for combat, and for any edition.




Riiight, I get it... I just don't "get" SC's... yet I haven't seen you explain how these mechanics are not a gamist structure as opposed to narrative. 

So maybe it's not my understanding of them, but that you are making them what you want them to be... because the advantages you and permeton are promoting for 4e SC's don't seem to me inherent to the system, but to how you all as GM's approach the system's use at the table. Sure the mechanics can seem great when you intepret and change them to fit your vision... but that's for any edition.




Umbran said:


> I don't see how that at all follows from what I said. Given Rule 0, it is possible to do whatever the heck you want.




Again we are speaking about mechanics of the games. I'm not even clear what you are arguing Umbran, you kinda jumped into the middle of a discussion between me and permeton without clarifying what exactly your stand is... and you don't seem to be addressing the issues that we are all discussing, so could you please clarify what exactly your stance is. 





Umbran said:


> I tie and encounter, or scene, to an amount of time because I think the game structures were built to directly support dramatic structures, which do generally take time. The SC isn't a shorthand for getting through things quick and dirty - it is simply a structure GMs can use to help set difficulty and what happens on their own side of the screen.




But you are tying an encounter to your own pre-conceived notions of how much time it takes... there is not set amount of time for an "encounter" in D&D. And here I see the problem... you see permeton has argued that he doesn't want to deal with minutae and bogging down you are forced to use in 3.x/PF and thus feels 4e's SC's allow a DM to do things you can't in 3.x?PF... I argued that 3.X/PF's rules could accomodate this down and dirty way of playing out encounters as well... you seem to be either going back and forth on your stance or not really understanding what we are discussing.


----------



## Fifth Element

Imaro said:


> As RC cites... the SC DC's given aren't even based on the actual DC's given for the skills in 4e... they are based on PC level



This is due to the assumption that PCs will generally be facing level-appropriate challenges. Using lower-level skill challenges is generally less interesting because they will not really be skill _challenges_, but skill exercises.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> BUT... all of this can be defined in 3e by player choice just as easily as a player in 4e... this is where I keep missing your overall point. You seem to be saying "heroic protagonism" and rich "thematic choices" boils down to fluff and choices... well then I really don't see 4e as any better at it than 3.x/PF, just different



Of course it can be done in 3E. That's why I said way upthread that I'm sure I could run 3E in a vanilla narrativist style.

My point is that 4e does it _better_, because the dynamic pacing of 4e combat creates a situation where _the stakes are high and these choices must be made_. To make it a bit more concrete: In a scry-teleport-ambush scenario, my choice to be a polearm master or an archer doesn't really make any difference other than colour. If the dynamic of combat is hold off the monsters while the wizard casts save-or-suck, choices about sacrifice, who to heal and so on are less likely to come into play.

4e, by changing the dynamics of combat from games like 3E and Rolemaster, creates more space where these sorts of choices have to be made, and start to matter as more than just colour.



Imaro said:


> I just don't "get" SC's



Think of them as HeroQuest 2nd ed extended contests, except (i) instead of 5 points, its somewhere between 4 and 12 points required, and (ii) instead of the opposing force getting to make rolls and accumulate points, the opposing force wins if it gets 3 points, where it gets points by the PCs failing. (So it's a little bit like extended-challenge-meets-players-roll-all-the-dice.) And players would narrate their attempts, and the GM the consequences of those attempts, in a similar sort of way.



Imaro said:


> as I look through the 4e PHB and DMG... I've noticed that many of 4e's skills have set DC's for particular actions just like 3.x/PF. Does this mean that using the skill rules vs. SC rules of 4e hinders "heroic protagonism"?



Yes. The original rules are mildly incoherent in this respect. Essentials mostly resolves this in favour of level-appropriateness.



Imaro said:


> I'm also curious how you deal with this dichotomy.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I mean I understand this discrepancy from a gamist stand point... having general by level DC's makes the game more fun and easier to run when you don't want to be concerned with the detail of simulating the world... What I don't understand is how these seperate resolution systems help to promote narrative play vs. gamist.



The relevance to narrativism is as I've explained - it's the analogue, in 4e, of HQ's pass-fail cycle.

As to the discrepancy - it comes up mostly in the contrast between tactical/combat resolution, and skill challenge resolution. And as I said upfront, this interface is the weakest part of 4e action resolution. The problem _isn't_ that DCs change - I can narrate around that, just as in HQ the GM might have to explain why the same chasm has a different DC (if the pass/fail cycle has moved). It's more about working out how to integrate the two different ways of determining successes/consequences. I've given a few examples upthread of how I've handled this in my game.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> could run 3E in a vanilla narrativist style.
> 
> ...
> 
> My point is that 4e does it _better_,
> 
> ...
> 
> In a scry-teleport-ambush scenario
> 
> ...
> 
> my choice to be a polearm master or an archer doesn't really make any difference other than colour.
> 
> ...
> 
> If the dynamic of combat is hold off the monsters while the wizard casts save-or-suck, choices about sacrifice, who to heal and so on are less likely to come into play.
> 
> ...
> 
> start to matter as more than just colour.



For someone who has gotten highly defensive about critical comments thrown at 4E, I find it really interesting how misguided your assessment of 3E falls.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> This is due to the assumption that PCs will generally be facing level-appropriate challenges. Using lower-level skill challenges is generally less interesting because they will not really be skill _challenges_, but skill exercises.




Right. 

And 3e was explicitly designed with the idea that DMs might not be running the game that way.  (i.e., the section on Status Quo encounters.)


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> I resolved this via a simple arcana check,  forming the view that making him wade through the 50-odd hit points the  NPC was statted as having for an actual combat context would add nothing  at all to the game.
> 
> Incidentally, I don't know how 3E would handle this - with it's more  simulationist treatment of hit points what I've described would be  closer to cheating,




I propose a new drinking game: 

 - Every time somebody says "4th Edition's rules are great for supporting  this style of play. The first thing you need to do is ignore the rules  and then..." Take a shot.

 - Every time somebody says, "So what you do in 4th Edition is ignore the  rules. But I have NO IDEA how you would ignore the exact same rules in  3rd Edition." Take two shots.

Don't read more than a couple of pages at a time, though. Otherwise you might die from alcohol poisoning.



> So can I set the DC of the swim check without knowing how deep and/or wide and/or fast flowing the river is?
> 
> The d20 SRD says this about swimming:Make  a Swim check once per round while you are in the water. Success means  you may swim at up to one-half your speed (as a full-round action) or at  one-quarter your speed (as a move action). If you fail by 4 or less,  you make no progress through the water. If you fail by 5 or more, you go  underwater.​That implies to me that the players have to  make at least as many swim checks as twice the ratio of the river width  to their movement rates. The number required is more if some of those  checks fail. I don't see how this is not the mechanics determining the  pacing in a pretty simulationist fashion.



The D&D4 Player's Handbook says this about swimming:Make  an Athletics check to swim or tread water. Part of a move action.  Success: You swim at one-half speed, or you stay afloat and tread water.  Fail by 4 or Less: Stay where you are and lose the rest of your move  action. Fail by 5 or More: Sink 1 square and risk suffocation by  drowning.​You'll notice that this rule is virtually the same rule.

Take two shots.



Hussar said:


> But, your example here of the river is a very poor  example of a skill challenge. Additionally, why is the DM telling the  players how to cross the river?  It's up to the players to tell the DM  how they attempt to cross the river and the DM's job to adjudicate from  there.




_Rules Compendium_, pg. 158: "As the challenge proceeds, the DM  might prompt the players to make checks, let them choose to make checks,  or both."

Everybody take a shot.



pemerton said:


> as I look through the 4e PHB and DMG... I've noticed that many of 4e's skills have set DC's for particular actions just like 3.x/PF. Does this mean that using the skill rules vs. SC rules of 4e hinders "heroic protagonism"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The original rules are mildly incoherent in this respect.  Essentials mostly resolves this in favour of  level-appropriateness.
Click to expand...



In case anyone's wondering: Every single example Imaro posted, AFAICT,  remains unchanged in the Essentials' _Rules Compendium_. The Swim rules also remain unchanged.

New rule:

- Somebody gets a 4th Edition rule completely wrong while claiming  that the thing they're completely wrong about is intrinsic to 4th  Edition supporting narrativist play. Take a shot.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Beginning of the End said:


> Allow me to demonstrate: The ranger's player says to you, "We want to cut through the jungle instead of taking the road the long way around."
> 
> Walk me through the steps you take to resolve that action using a skill challenge. Starting with how you design the skill challenge and then taking me through each check and its outcome (specifying who's proposing the checks, what they're proposing, and how it resolves).
> 
> I will then demonstrate how (a) you did, in fact, set the DCs you're claiming you didn't set and (b) the skill challenge mechanics were completely irrelevant to what you just did.




Pemerton chose not to respond to this, so I've decided to make the demonstration using the "Example of Play" from the skill challenge rules in the _Rules Compendium_:DM: You're left with the last misty remnants of the strange creature's corpse and a handful of frightened witnesses. "What was that thing?" Pendergraf asks. "And where did it come from?"

Kathra: Can I make an Arcana check to see if I know anything about it?

DM: Sure.

Kathra: I got a 14.

DM (_marking down a success for the characters_): Okay, you know that the creature was some sort of demon, not native to the world.

Uldane: Can I look around and see if I can tell which way it came from?

DM: Sure, make a Perception check.

Uldane: Ouch, a 9. Someone remind me to open my eyes the next time I try looking around.

DM (_marking the first failure_): It takes quite a bit of work to uncover the tracks. It looks like they head to the east side of town.

Valenae: Let's follow the tracks. If we want to protect Pendergraf and the other priests of Pelor, we need to find and destroy whoever summoned that tihng.

DM: The tracks continue for a block or two before they twist and turn around. You realize that you confused the monster's tracks with a horse's, double back, and finally find the trail. It leads to the river quarter, the roughest part of town. The trail ends outside a rundown tavern. Three thuggish-looking men sit on a bench by the front door. They glare at you as you approach.

Kathra: I'd like to talk to the men to see if any of them saw the demon come by. How about a Diplomacy check - an 11.

DM (_marking the second failure_): The thugs make a show of ignoring you as you approach. Then one of them stands: "Around here, folks know better than to stick their noses where they're not wanted." He puts a hand on the hilt of his dagger.

Shara: I put a hand on my greatsword and growl back at them, "I'll stick my sword where it's not wanted if you keep up that attitude." I got a 21 on my Intimidate check.

DM (_marking the second success_): The thug turns pale in fear as his friends bolt back into the tavern. He points at the building behind you before darting after them.

Dendric: What's the place look like? Is it a shop, or a private residence?

DM: Someone make a Streetwise check.

Uldane: Using aid another, I try to assist Dendric, since he has the highest Streetwise, I got a 12, so Dendric gets a +2 bonus.

Dendric: Thanks, Uldane. Here's my check... great, a natural 1. That's a 10, even with Uldane's assistance.

DM (_marking the third and final failure_): It looks like an old shop that's been closed and boarded up. You heard something about this place before, but you can't quite remember it. As you look the place over, the tavern door opens up behind you. A hulk of a half-orc lumbers out, followed by the thugs you talked to earlier. "I heard you thought you could push my crew around. Well, let's see you talk tough through a set of broken teeth." Roll for initiative!​Now, pay close attention while I use my strange and eldritch arts to demonstrate what this example of play would look like _if no skill challenge mechanics were used at all_.DM: You're left with the last misty remnants of the strange creature's  corpse and a handful of frightened witnesses. "What was that thing?"  Pendergraf asks. "And where did it come from?"

Kathra: Can I make an Arcana check to see if I know anything about it?

DM: Sure.

Kathra: I got a 14.

DM: Okay, you know that the creature was some sort of demon, not native to the world.

Uldane: Can I look around and see if I can tell which way it came from?

DM: Sure, make a Perception check.

Uldane: Ouch, a 9. Someone remind me to open my eyes the next time I try looking around.

DM: It takes quite a bit of work to uncover the tracks. It looks like they head to the east side of town.

Valenae: Let's follow the tracks. If we want to protect Pendergraf and  the other priests of Pelor, we need to find and destroy whoever summoned  that tihng.

DM: The tracks continue for a block or two before they twist and turn  around. You realize that you confused the monster's tracks with a  horse's, double back, and finally find the trail. It leads to the river  quarter, the roughest part of town. The trail ends outside a rundown  tavern. Three thuggish-looking men sit on a bench by the front door.  They glare at you as you approach.

Kathra: I'd like to talk to the men to see if any of them saw the demon come by. How about a Diplomacy check - an 11.

DM: The thugs make a show of  ignoring you as you approach. Then one of them stands: "Around here,  folks know better than to stick their noses where they're not wanted."  He puts a hand on the hilt of his dagger.

Shara: I put a hand on my greatsword and growl back at them, "I'll stick  my sword where it's not wanted if you keep up that attitude." I got a  21 on my Intimidate check.

DM: The thug turns pale in fear as  his friends bolt back into the tavern. He points at the building behind  you before darting after them.

Dendric: What's the place look like? Is it a shop, or a private residence?

DM: Someone make a Streetwise check.

Uldane: Using aid another, I try to assist Dendric, since he has the highest Streetwise, I got a 12, so Dendric gets a +2 bonus.

Dendric: Thanks, Uldane. Here's my check... great, a natural 1. That's a 10, even with Uldane's assistance.

DM: It looks like an old  shop that's been closed and boarded up. You heard something about this  place before, but you can't quite remember it. As you look the place  over, the tavern door opens up behind you. A hulk of a half-orc lumbers  out, followed by the thugs you talked to earlier. "I heard you thought  you could push my crew around. Well, let's see you talk tough through a  set of broken teeth." Roll for initiative!​


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> So maybe it's not my understanding of them, but that you are making them what you want them to be...




Perhaps better to say that I am looking at them, and seeing what I can make of them.  In the end, I'm running a game, right?  So, what I can use them for in my game is more important to me than theoretical classification*.  

Are Skill Challenges gamist?  Kinda, yeah, I can see they have some length in the G direction, so to speak.

But then again, they only lie weakly that way.  The rules for them are not particularly rich - as an outright game, they're kinda boring, really.  Also, the GM takes the description of player actions, uses that to determine modifiers himself, and has the players make rolls.  That intervention step makes it hard for the players to strategize, because they don't know the rules.  Between those two, I don't think SCs really do well in serving gamist agendas**.  

If I turn my head a little, and recognize that GM intervention step - the part the GM has personal control of even if he's playing 100% by the book - I realize that this can clearly be made to play the narrativist line too, if I so choose.





*I have to admit that I find GNS theory's complete lack of empirical support to be a major flaw.  If I really want to think about what my players want, I'd rather use something grounded, like WotC's breakdown of players, from the 1999 market research. 


**I've always taken GNS to be a description of what players want, not of system elements - a thing is gamist only if it serves a player's gamist agenda.  But then the classification is not exclusive - if you can serve more than one agenda, the system element lies on more than one axis.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> Perhaps better to say that I am looking at them, and seeing what I can make of them. In the end, I'm running a game, right? So, what I can use them for in my game is more important to me than theoretical classification*.
> 
> Are Skill Challenges gamist? Kinda, yeah, I can see they have some length in the G direction, so to speak.
> 
> But then again, they only lie weakly that way. The rules for them are not particularly rich - as an outright game, they're kinda boring, really. Also, the GM takes the description of player actions, uses that to determine modifiers himself, and has the players make rolls. That intervention step makes it hard for the players to strategize, because they don't know the rules. Between those two, I don't think SCs really do well in serving gamist agendas**.
> 
> If I turn my head a little, and recognize that GM intervention step - the part the GM has personal control of even if he's playing 100% by the book - I realize that this can clearly be made to play the narrativist line too, if I so choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have to admit that I find GNS theory's complete lack of empirical support to be a major flaw. If I really want to think about what my players want, I'd rather use something grounded, like WotC's breakdown of players, from the 1999 market research.
> 
> 
> **I've always taken GNS to be a description of what players want, not of system elements - a thing is gamist only if it serves a player's gamist agenda. But then the classification is not exclusive - if you can serve more than one agenda, the system element lies on more than one axis.




First, again... we are speaking to the mechanics of the system, not what way a DM can twist, tweak and cajole a system to perform. So that is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.

Hmm, you know what...after reading why you don't think 4e is designed around a gamist philosophy...I think everyone in this thread could use some definitions of the GNS terminology permeton keeps throwing around but not defining...

From Wikipedia on GNS Theory... 







Wikipedia said:


> *Gamist* refers to decisions based on satisfying clear predefined goal conditions in the face of adversity- in other words, on the desire to win. As Ron Edwards mentions in _Gamism, Step on Up_:
> 
> I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, include: "Eat me," (-upon winning) "I win," and "C'mon, let's play without these morons."
> These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time dwelling on why the characters are facing them in the first place. Gamist RPG design tends to place a strong emphasis on parity in character-effectiveness: that is, the idea that all player-characters should be (at least when properly built or optimised over time,) equally strong and capable of dealing with adversity. Combat is frequently heavily emphasised, as is a diversity in options for short-term problem-solving (i.e, long lists of highly specific spells or combat techniques.) Randomisation (i.e, 'Fortune' methods,) exist primarily to provide a gamble and allow players to risk more for higher stakes (for instance, attempting a more effective hit in combat requires a penalty on the dice roll), rather than modelling strict probability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Narrativism* is perhaps best illustrated by a quote from the Forge Glossary on the subject:
> 
> The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast- "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other.
> Narrativist play relies heavily on outlining or developing motives for the characters, putting them into situations where those motives come into mutual conflict, and making their decisions in the face of such stress the main driving force behind events. For example, a Samurai character sworn to honour and obey his lord might have that loyalty tested when directed to fight against his own rebellious son, a compassionate doctor might have his sense of charity tested when an enemy soldier comes under his care, or on the lighter end of the spectrum, a schoolgirl having to decide whether to help her best friend cheat on an exam.
> 
> 
> *Simulationism* refers to a style of play where the main agenda is the recreation of, or inspiration by, the observed characteristics of a particular 'genre' or set of source material. Physical reality might count as 'source material' for these purposes, but so might superhero anthologies, or any other literary, cinematic or historical milieu. It's most frequent concerns are internal consistency, analysis or modeling of cause and effect, and informed speculation or even extrapolation to the point of satire. Often characterised by concern for the minutiae of physical interaction and details of setting, Simulationism shares with Narrativism a concern for character backgrounds, personality traits and motives, in an effort to model cause and effect within the intellectual realm as well as the physical.




Now with these to refer to, I'm sorry but SC's do nothing that makes their mechanics even remotely narativist... and I would go so far as to say, 4e is designed with a gamist philosophy, not narrativist. Now you can play any game any way you want but nothing in the 4e mechanics support narrative play. To further explain my point let's take an example permeton used up thread which will illustrate why I feel his examples are erroneous and more a product of his playstyle than any rules, the Warlock's Pact...

You see because 4e is gamist and the Warlock class has to be balanced with every other class... the warlock can't ever really face any conflict (mechanically) over his pact... He can't ever loose his pact, doesn't face any hard choices about his pact and it really is just an ability used to balance the class against others. Now you can slap a thick coating of narrativism on top of that class structure and create situations where the Pact becomes a source of conflict for your character... but unless you create houserules... 4e in no way supports this mechanically. In fact I would say the 3.x/PF Paladin is a much better example of mechanics that direct narrative play... the conflict is built into the mechanics of the class.  Now whether you enjoy that type of mechanic and whether one feels 3.x/PF did a good job instituting it is something else entirely.


----------



## BryonD

Imaro said:


> Now with these to refer to, I'm sorry but SC's do nothing that makes their mechanics even remotely narativist... and I would go so far as to say, 4e is designed with a gamist philosophy, not narrativist.



Exactly right.  At least as far as I am concerned.
But I do think the point of disconnect is the idea of what constitutes "narrativist".

For me (and I'm pretty confident you as well) it means that the narrative is in control.  You provide a narrative and the mechanics provide a result and then you move on from there with the mechanics constantly chasing right behind the narrative.

But for some others "narrativist" seems to just mean that the mechanics define the action and so long as a narrative can be created after the fact which fits the dictates of the game, it is all good.



> You see because 4e is gamist and the Warlock class has to be balanced with every other class... the warlock can't ever really face any conflict (mechanically) over his pact... He can't ever loose his pact, doesn't face any hard choices about his pact and it really is just an ability used to balance the class against others.



You are exactly describing Andy Collins' great quote here.

"In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience. 
...
since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece. It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming"

Complications with a pact and things like that get all hung up in that undesirable "interesting simulation" stuff.  And if anything created any inconsistencies in balance might cause people to prefer a different "game piece".  And certainly lets never design the Warlock to be a warlock in his own right, but instead he needs to be designed to with the presumption of fitting into a team.




> Now you can slap a thick coating of narrativism on top of that class structure and create situations where the Pact becomes a source of conflict for your character...



One of my common descriptions of 4e: role playing "on top" of the system.  You can role play ANYTHING in 4E that you can in 3E.  But the game comes first and you are left to role play "on top" of it.



> but unless you create houserules... 4e in no way supports this mechanically. In fact I would say the 3.x/PF Paladin is a much better example of mechanics that direct narrative play... the conflict is built into the mechanics of the class.  Now whether you enjoy that type of mechanic and whether one feels 3.x/PF did a good job instituting it is something else entirely.



Again agreed.  There is no argument at all that there may be great reasons for loving 4E and hating 3E.  But there seems to be a consistent attempt to try to equate them in ways they were not designed to be equivalent.  They have very different focuses, strengths, and weaknesses.  

I think a big part of the issue is that 3E doesn't really have any safety nets built in.  3E can be played very very badly.  It seems to me there are some people who simply never had the fortune of getting into a really good 3E game, so they don't see 4E as having any relative weaknesses and, frankly, don't know what they are missing.  If you compare 4E to 3E run poorly by a bad DM, then 4E shines.  Even when run by a bad DM, 4E has a strong, resilient system to mitigates the issues.  That is why 3E fans are always saying they don't recognize the descriptions that 4E fans insist are so important.


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> First, again... we are speaking to the mechanics of the system, not what way a DM can twist, tweak and cajole a system to perform. So that is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.




The only reason to have mechanics is so that a GM can use them.  They serve no purpose otherwise, so discussion of practical application is never irrelevant.



> Hmm, you know what...after reading why you don't think 4e is designed around a gamist philosophy...




Hmm.  Somehow, my arguing that one section of the rules has uses beyond gamism has grown into my making statements about the game's overall design philosophy.  Interesting.  Not at all accurate, but interesting.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> The only reason to have mechanics is so that a GM can use them. They serve no purpose otherwise, so discussion of practical application is never irrelevant.




I really wish you would read the last couple pages of this thread so that you have some context for what is going on and what/how it is being discussed. We are discussing whether the mechanics of 4e, and to a lesser extent SC's mechanically actively promote narrativist play better than previous editions... We've already established much earlier in this discussion that a DM can use mechanics however he wants, and have now moved on to whether the mechanics in and of themselves promote narrativist play ... so yeah, at this point it is irrelevant to where the conversation has led. 





Umbran said:


> Hmm. Somehow, my arguing that one section of the rules has uses beyond gamism has grown into my making statements about the game's overall design philosophy. Interesting. Not at all accurate, but interesting.




Again, we have already established a good DM can use any number of mechanics through modification, interpretation, houserules, etc. to accomodate a playstyle that they weren't necessarily created for. That is not what we are discussing.

As for your SC... you still haven't addressed in what way the mechanics support/promote narrativist play... all you did was exspress the opinion they could be used to run a narrativist style game...which no one is disagreeing with. 

The contention arose because it was claimed that ths 4e rules are objectively better for running a narrativist game than the editions before it. I disagreed that it was "objectively better". Now please, because I asked this upthread... could you clarify exactly what your stance is, because right now it doesn't seem like you are participating in the same conversation as the rest of us.


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:


> LostSoul, the problem with your assertion that you don't have to worry about making poor decisions... does not in any way guarantee thematic actions, and could just as easily lead to players of a different mindset more easily gaming the system mechanics and assumptions and disregarding thematic decisions alltogether... again this seems like a case of choosing to use mechanics in a particular way but not necessarily that those mechanics are designed to lead you or even give you incentive to play in a narrative style.




I agree.  PC-based DCs can _help_ you achieve thematic play but on its own it's not really going to do much.  You need to do more.

I think Warlocks are a good example:

However you came to your arcane knowledge, you need not accept the poor reputation warlocks sometimes endure. You could be a libram-toting scholar captivated by ominous lore, a foot-loose wanderer searching for elusive ultimate truths, a devil-touched hunter using infernal spells to eliminate evil, or even a black-clad mercenary who uses sinister trappings to discourage prying strangers and unwanted attention. On the other hand, you could be a true diabolist using your gifts to tyrannize the weak—some warlocks unfortunately are exactly that.​
What that says to me is that you can ignore your pact and any in-game consequences that might have been brought up.  The nasty things you do aren't part of the "economy" of the game and can easily be ignored - even if you want to focus on them.

I always thought Warlocks were cool but this grated at me; in my hack, I specify a Warlock's "Pact Obligation" - what the PC needs to do in order to refresh "Daily" spells and level up.  It's usually pretty horrendous.  That brings the pact into the game's economy and makes it an important part of play.

Of course, that by itself doesn't guarantee thematic play either!  My hack is aimed at "Step on Up" play.  While I could use this "Pact Obligation" to get more thematic play, I'd change other aspects of the game in order to deliver that kind of fun.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I think everyone in this thread could use some definitions of the GNS terminology permeton keeps throwing around but not defining...





BryonD said:


> For me (and I'm pretty confident you as well) it means that the narrative is in control.






BryonD said:


> Andy Collins' great quote here.
> 
> <snip parts of quote>
> 
> since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece.



I made it pretty clear upthread that I'm using Forge terminology.

What Collins talks about isn't about gamism in this sense. Being self-conscious about game elements as game elements is, probably, at odds with some sorts of simulationism (= exploration-based play). It isn't necessarily connected, though, to "step on up" play (= gamism, in the Forge sense).

By narrativism, I mean a game in which the purpose of play is for the players and GM together to engage with and address thematic (moral, aesthetic) ideas _in the course o play_, and to express there own conclusions on these matters. If the gameworld or the mechanics already answer these questions (eg via alignment rules, dark side point rules, rules that tell us when a PC becomes evil and also tell us that evil PCs become NPCs, etc) then it doesn't serve this purpose so well.



Beginning of the End said:


> "4th Edition's rules are great for supporting  this style of play. The first thing you need to do is ignore the rules  and then..."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The D&D4 Player's Handbook says this about swimming



I think it's pretty apparent that 4e has two modes of action resolution - tactical/combat, and skill challenges. The text about movement rates, including movement rates for swimming and climbing, strikes me as being for the first. I'd hardly say that the various published examples of skill challenges that use Athletics skill in a way divorced from these tactical issues of movement rate are ignoring the rules. They're just taking place in the non-tactical mode. (As I said upthread - and it's something I've said many times before - the lack of guidance on integrating the two modes is the biggest weakness in 4e's action resolution rules.)

As for using Arcana to "minionise" an NPC, this doesn't strike me as ignoring the rules any more than the recent module (I think in Monster Vault) that allows use of a social skill to inflict damage on an NPC. After all, 4e does have minions. And with a few exceptions (perhaps decrepit skeletons really are very decrepit) minion is a metagame status (this is obviously true for goblin cutters, human rabble and thugs, etc) - much like hit points. So imposing minion status via a skill check is pretty analogous to imposing hit point loss via a social skill check.

In my mind, this is the sort of thing that page 42 is for.



Imaro said:


> You see because 4e is gamist and the Warlock class has to be balanced with every other class... the warlock can't ever really face any conflict (mechanically) over his pact... He can't ever loose his pact, doesn't face any hard choices about his pact and it really is just an ability used to balance the class against others.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e in no way supports this mechanically. In fact I would say the 3.x/PF Paladin is a much better example of mechanics that direct narrative play... the conflict is built into the mechanics of the class.



I'm not a big fan of the classic D&D paladin, for two reasons. First, because it's dependent on GM-arbitrated alignment descriptions, it is the GM's thematic conception that dominates over the player's. Second, the mechanics already answer the question "Will doing XYZ (various morally dubious actions) lead ultimately to corruption".

The 4e warlock doesn't get _mechanically _tested, that is true. For me that is a virtue, because it leaves the field of interpretation and engagement open to the players and GM. Every time an infernal warlock uses a power, for example, s/he is drawing on the power of the Nine Hells. I think it's pretty obvious how a GM might use this to introduce thematic conflict into a game, and oblige the player of that PC to engage with that theme in some way as part of driving the game forward. (At present, I'm in a similar point in my game with a Chaos Sorcerer about to become a Demonskin Adept. And he's just retrained Diplomacy to Intimidate in order to support a rattling power. So he's providing his own answer to the question - Does chaos lead to corruption?).



BryonD said:


> It seems to me there are some people who simply never had the fortune of getting into a really good 3E game, so they don't see 4E as having any relative weaknesses and, frankly, don't know what they are missing.



Well, I could equally say that there are some people who seem simply never to have had the good fortune of getting into a really good narrativist game, where play is driven by the thematic concerns the players bring to the table, rather than by the desire to explore a pre-given fantasy world.

But I wouldn't know whether or not that's true, or whether the people to whom I'm imputing this (in)experience just have different tastes.

I've always agreed with those who say 4e differs from 3E. I've frequently asserted that it doesn't do particularly well at supporting play where the main aim is exploration of a fantasy world that is, in some metaphorical sense, given prior to play. And I've always taken it for granted that this is because it contains a range of non-simulationist mechanics that many fans of 3E dislike: minions; Intimidate skill causing hp loss; healing surges as a non-simulationist method for handling recovery of hp both in and out of combat; skill challenges as an action resolution mechanic that makes the introduction of complications into a situation something divorced from considerations simply of scene extrapolation and ingame causal logic; classes like paladins and warlocks divorced from an alignment mechanic; etc. Certainly, these are the mechanics frequently criticised by those who say they don't like 4e because of its non-simulationist approach.

So for me, the strangest thing about this thread is being told by many of those critics that, in fact, 3E handles non-simulationist play just as well as 4e, and that it either also possesses these mechanics, or can repiclates them just as well, and that their express existence in 4e makes no difference to the sort of roleplaying that 4e can support.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul said:


> What that says to me is that you can ignore your pact and any in-game consequences that might have been brought up.  The nasty things you do aren't part of the "economy" of the game and can easily be ignored



Only if the GM lets you. And if you, as a player, make it clear that this is why you're playing a warlock, why would the GM let you? Wouldn't the GM introduce situations into the game that make this pact stuff important?


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> Only if the GM lets you. And if you, as a player, make it clear that this is why you're playing a warlock, why would the GM let you? Wouldn't the GM introduce situations into the game that make this pact stuff important?




Not if you chose that game piece for its effect in the game world (power choice and role).

In that case, you'd wonder why the DM was picking on you and making _you_ work for your powers and not the player playing a fighter and why the player with the Cleric isn't being pressured into kowtowing to a particular set of proscribed dogma.

And even if the player wants the pact and the flavour to be more centre stage, the DM has to want to bother focusing on a very personal part of character that with focus, could easily render that character impotent or dead.  Sometimes, the Dm doesn't not want that type of campaign.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> I made it pretty clear upthread that I'm using Forge terminology.



Noted.  But I really don't care.  *I'M* talking about what the perceived issues with 4E are.



> What Collins talks about isn't about gamism in this sense. Being self-conscious about game elements as game elements is, probably, at odds with some sorts of simulationism (= exploration-based play). It isn't necessarily connected, though, to "step on up" play (= gamism, in the Forge sense).



Well, what he is talking about is pretty much a direct hit for the gamist elements that I find detracting in 4E.  Quoting the forge seems a red herring to addressing the issue.



> By narrativism, I mean a game in which the purpose of play is for the players and GM together to engage with and address thematic (moral, aesthetic) ideas _in the course o play_, and to express there own conclusions on these matters. If the gameworld or the mechanics already answer these questions (eg via alignment rules, dark side point rules, rules that tell us when a PC becomes evil and also tell us that evil PCs become NPCs, etc) then it doesn't serve this purpose so well.



I guess you have a slight point with alignment.  But most people use alignment very loosely or ignore it altogether.  I really don't think you are describing a 3E problem that needed solving.



> The 4e warlock doesn't get _mechanically _tested, that is true. For me that is a virtue, because it leaves the field of interpretation and engagement open to the players and GM. Every time an infernal warlock uses a power, for example, s/he is drawing on the power of the Nine Hells. I think it's pretty obvious how a GM might use this to introduce thematic conflict into a game, and oblige the player of that PC to engage with that theme in some way as part of driving the game forward. (At present, I'm in a similar point in my game with a Chaos Sorcerer about to become a Demonskin Adept. And he's just retrained Diplomacy to Intimidate in order to support a rattling power. So he's providing his own answer to the question - Does chaos lead to corruption?).



This is great and I 100% endorse what you are saying here.  But you are also backfitting the solution onto the system, and further you are doing that despite WotC statements to the effect that they left them as a specific part of the design approach.  So what you are doing is great, but it doesn't make 4E itself any better, it just means playing 4E at your table would be a a hair improved against the average.  (And I'm already willing to take much more than that for granted.)



> Well, I could equally say that there are some people who seem simply never to have had the good fortune of getting into a really good narrativist game, where play is driven by the thematic concerns the players bring to the table, rather than by the desire to explore a pre-given fantasy world.



You could say it.  I don't think it is a fitting rebuttal.  When I talk about people having bad experiences with 3E, I'm talking about people actively describing how they went in with expectations and those expectations were not fulfilled.  They wanted an experience and did not get it.  

I'm not willing to concede that there are significant numbers of people seeking the game experience you describe.   I mean, I've never had a great game of golf or Pokemon either.  I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Not experiencing something you are not after is not at all the same thing as failing to get something you do seek.

I'm certain there are others who agree with you.  But overall, I'm also certain your approach is an outlier.  Usually when I talk to 4E fans they DON'T claim that 4E is different then 3E in these ways.  The highly common response is that 4E does everything 3E does, only better and easier.  Which ties back to my prior comment.



> So for me, the strangest thing about this thread is being told by many of those critics that, in fact, 3E handles non-simulationist play just as well as 4e, and that it either also possesses these mechanics, or can repiclates them just as well, and that their express existence in 4e makes no difference to the sort of roleplaying that 4e can support.



I've frequently said that I think you can play 4E style using 3E.  I'll still say that.  BUT, I also readily agree that 4E is BETTER if that is what you want.  I think 3E does 4E vastly better than 4E does 3E.  But "vastly better" isn't really anything more than an academic observation.

I also agree that you can role play anything in 4E that you can in 3E.  Of course you can.  Role play ultimately is not between the covers of a book.  But the level of satisfaction that the game is going to provide if you want a good model is going to be vastly different.

And example I've given before is that I can role play Superman in any system.  But I'm going to find the experience far more satisfying in a PL15+ MnM game than I am in a 100 point GURPS game.  And yet I can role play it just the same.  Obviously the rules in the books need to provide quality feedback to the role play.  And if you want the "in the book" feel, it is my strong opinion that 3E is Superman in PL15 MnM and 4E is Superman in 100 pt GURPS.  If you desire something else, then 4E may rock on toast.


----------



## LostSoul

pemerton said:


> Only if the GM lets you. And if you, as a player, make it clear that this is why you're playing a warlock, why would the GM let you? Wouldn't the GM introduce situations into the game that make this pact stuff important?




Yeah, that's true.  And it's also true that the Warlock spells - especially the Utility ones - carry a great deal of flavour that facilitates thematic play.  I don't think it's quite enough, though.  I don't think 4E goes far enough in either the reward cycles or DM/player advice to make thematic play the assumed mode.

I compare Warlocks to Sorcerers in Sorcerer*.  The same kind of colour, but there's a huge difference in the amount of thematic material in play and - most importantly, in my opinion - how addressing that thematic play is reinforced by the mechanics and advice in the game.

And when you consider lines like "a devil-touched hunter using infernal spells to eliminate evil", what is one to make of a pact?  My feeling is that Warlocks were designed to be Wolverine-type characters - growly and nasty but they are heroes and support the group when it matters.  Obviously this is where we differ. 

* - I lifted some things from Sorcerer & Sword for Warlocks in my hack.  Great game.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> I guess you have a slight point with alignment.  But most people use alignment very loosely or ignore it altogether.  I really don't think you are describing a 3E problem that needed solving.




It was never a problem with 3E.  3E was never designed to make moral and ethical dilemmas the focus of play.  If you want to focus on such issues, 3E doesn't really work.  I think 4E is a better game if that's what you want to do, though obviously not as much as pemerton.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Beginning of the End said:


> I propose a new drinking game:




tired it....u drink ing gam too many muc h gotta lye dwn now


----------



## BryonD

LostSoul said:


> It was never a problem with 3E.  3E was never designed to make moral and ethical dilemmas the focus of play.  If you want to focus on such issues, 3E doesn't really work.  I think 4E is a better game if that's what you want to do, though obviously not as much as pemerton.



This may seem like I being really picky here, but hopefully you will see that I'm not.

Moral and ethical dilemmas are a huge part of 3E "play".  They are not all that significant to 3E "mechanics".  

I think 3E was designed with the presumption that the parts between the covers of the books and the parts not there are assumed partners.  And I really think that the "complete" game experience not only assumes this but does an excellent job of supporting it.  

And I recognize the irony of saying that right after saying that Perm was putting his warlock options on top of 4E.  But I think the difference is that he really is putting something in that the 4E designers left out by design.  Whereas I believe the assumption of a purposeful tension in the narrative was presumed by the 3E designers as something the players would bring to the table and the rules needed to be there NOT to provide, but to support.

And that comes back to my original point.  I think former 3E players who had poor experiences were missing key elements.  And this presumed addition of tension beyond simple physical threat is one of those possible missing elements.  But missing something the game was assuming to be present is completely different than adding something the game was specifically designed to exclude.

Respectfully, I strongly disagree that the material between the covers of 4E books holds a candle to the materials between the covers of 3E books for supporting an overall ethical dilemma oriented play style.


----------



## pawsplay

Umbran said:


> Are Skill Challenges gamist?  Kinda, yeah, I can see they have some length in the G direction, so to speak.
> 
> But then again, they only lie weakly that way.  The rules for them are not particularly rich - as an outright game, they're kinda boring, really.  Also, the GM takes the description of player actions, uses that to determine modifiers himself, and has the players make rolls.  That intervention step makes it hard for the players to strategize, because they don't know the rules.  Between those two, I don't think SCs really do well in serving gamist agendas**.
> 
> If I turn my head a little, and recognize that GM intervention step - the part the GM has personal control of even if he's playing 100% by the book - I realize that this can clearly be made to play the narrativist line too, if I so choose.




Given the scaling nature of skill challenges, SCs are not only boring from a gamist standpoint, but without GM intervention, entirely arbitrary, barely more evolved than the rolepaying game equivalent of pachinko. In the end, you roll the die and see if you can beat a 7 or higher three times before you don't make it twice, or whatever. It's a crapshoot, almost literally.

So insofar as they are not futile and trivial, SCs operate on a narrativist level. The GM jukes the table in approbation of actions they consider appropriate, the players try to juke the table based on dramatically plausible answers to the problem. The only room for simulation is in the retroactive fluffing of the SC elements to match the DCs you specify and the pairing of ability to skill check. Simulation is not a meaningful part of skill challenges unless your world is literally a microcosm in the mind of some superbeing controlled by the GM, and the odds actually reflect the will of that being.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> This may seem like I being really picky here, but hopefully you will see that I'm not.
> 
> Moral and ethical dilemmas are a huge part of 3E "play".  They are not all that significant to 3E "mechanics".




I think that a large part of the game is determined by the mechanics.  That informs player decisions.  If you want to make moral and ethical dilemmas a big part of play, make it matter in your mechanics.  



BryonD said:


> I think 3E was designed with the presumption that the parts between the covers of the books and the parts not there are assumed partners.  And I really think that the "complete" game experience not only assumes this but does an excellent job of supporting it.




I don't think 3E does this at all - and in many ways, works against it (how you get XP, the nature of challenges, how a character changes when levelling up, system mastery, alignment restrictions - there are probably more).

In addition, I don't think 3E spends much time talking about how to DM in such a way to make moral and ethical dilemmas the point of play.

That's not a knock on 3E; I don't think it was ever designed to be that sort of game.



BryonD said:


> Respectfully, I strongly disagree that the material between the covers of 4E books holds a candle to the materials between the covers of 3E books for supporting an overall ethical dilemma oriented play style.




While I don't agree with pemerton that moral and ethical dilemmas are the focus of 4E play, I think it's a lot easier to play that way in 4E than it is in 3E.


----------



## Hussar

pawsplay said:


> Given the scaling nature of skill challenges, SCs are not only boring from a gamist standpoint, but without GM intervention, entirely arbitrary, barely more evolved than the rolepaying game equivalent of pachinko. In the end, you roll the die and see if you can beat a 7 or higher three times before you don't make it twice, or whatever. It's a crapshoot, almost literally.
> 
> So insofar as they are not futile and trivial, SCs operate on a narrativist level. The GM jukes the table in approbation of actions they consider appropriate, the players try to juke the table based on dramatically plausible answers to the problem. The only room for simulation is in the retroactive fluffing of the SC elements to match the DCs you specify and the pairing of ability to skill check. Simulation is not a meaningful part of skill challenges unless your world is literally a microcosm in the mind of some superbeing controlled by the GM, and the odds actually reflect the will of that being.




Considering the lambasting I got from BryonD for making this sort of claim about 3e, I wonder if you will take a similar level of criticism from the same sources?

Yes, if you use a system without any input from the DM, that system will suck.  Totally agree there.

IMO, 4e gives a great deal more guidance to the DM for how and where that input would be most effective, but, obviously there's some disagreement there.  

I would also point out something.  While I might ciriticise 3e for this or that, I most certainly would not characterize my 3e experiences as negative.  I had a barrel of fun with 3e.  I just find myself having more fun with 4e.  

Then again, it could easily be "the new shiney" effect.  I played 3e for almost ten years, weekly and sometimes twice weekly, so, I logged the hell out of a lot of hours in 3e.  To the point where relatively minor issues can be magnified beyond their actual importance.  Add to that, an almost weekly (and sometimes daily) discussion about 3e, and I'm pretty burned out on the system.

But, I'm also slowly realizing that this conversation is largely untenable.  If we discuss 4e and don't absolutely follow the letter of the rule, then we're accused of intellectual dishonesty.  But, if we apply the same discussion rules to other editions, we're accused of being poor DM's and not playing the game right.  It's a no win situation.


----------



## BryonD

LostSoul said:


> I think that a large part of the game is determined by the mechanics.  That informs player decisions.  If you want to make moral and ethical dilemmas a big part of play, make it matter in your mechanics.



Obviously we pretty dramatically disagree.  But this right here is the heart of it.

I think as soon as you start trying to put mechanics on ethics, all you do is start setting up boundaries. 
I think mechanics are for forces and resistences.  They may be physical or social, or whatever.  But they resolve conflicts of potential.

Ethics are about why the forces are aplied in a given way.  Why you care how your forces are applied.  

If you are looking for that between the covers of a 3E book, I agree you won't find it.  But, as I said, I completely believe, I'd say I know, that 3E was designed with the presumption that the rules were there specifically to work with players who bring that to the table with them.  And it is a huge element of how the game works great.

I *might* agree that 4E is *easier* to play for this, as it is for many other aspects.  But, as I've expressed for other elements, I'm not as concerned about how "easy" it is so much as how rewarding the result is when done well.  I'll give you "easier".  But I'll keep much higher potential.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Considering the lambasting I got from BryonD for making this sort of claim about 3e, I wonder if you will take a similar level of criticism from the same sources?



As much as I appreciate being the reference of an appeal to authority, it doesn't really map the same.


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> As much as I appreciate being the reference of an appeal to authority, it doesn't really map the same.




Of course it doesn't.  That's the point really, isn't it?

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the conversation.  It's been enlightening.  

*gets smart and goes back to lurk mode.*


----------



## BryonD

Cool.  So we agree that there is no reason to "lambast" pawsplay.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But, I'm also slowly realizing that this conversation is largely untenable. If we discuss 4e and don't absolutely follow the letter of the rule, then we're accused of intellectual dishonesty. But, if we apply the same discussion rules to other editions, we're accused of being poor DM's and not playing the game right. It's a no win situation.




Wow, IMO this is a totally disingenuous comment.  You were shown with examples and logic that the rules of 3.x/PF hadn't been broken, and that you were in fact wrong in certain assumptions... but instead of admitting you were wrong and moving forward... you're playing the victim role... really?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:


> Wow, IMO this is a totally disingenuous comment.  You were shown with examples and logic that the rules of 3.x/PF hadn't been broken, and that you were in fact wrong in certain assumptions... but instead of admitting you were wrong and moving forward... you're playing the victim role... really?




Welcome to the Internet.


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> The contention arose because it was claimed that ths 4e rules are objectively better for running a narrativist game than the editions before it. I disagreed that it was "objectively better". Now please, because I asked this upthread... could you clarify exactly what your stance is, because right now it doesn't seem like you are participating in the same conversation as the rest of us.




I don't have an stance here*.  Stances are for attack and defense.  I'm not doing either.  

I mean, really - it isn't like anyone's ever come up with an objective measure of "gamism", "narrativism" or "simulationism", right?  You can't hold up your gamometer to the 4e PHB, or drop GURPS into the narra-chromatograph, and have it ping a number back at you.  Of course the thing is subjective.

It then follows that there's no particular reason to agree, no proof that could be offered.  After a short while, you'd expect folk to agree to disagree. When you look at several pages of two sides staunchly defending positions and never budging, it starts looking somewhat like an ideological conflict, an ego conflict, or a thinly disguised edition war, none of which are of any real use to anybody.

Pardon me if I thought stepping away from ideology, and back to practical matters might prove more interesting, and less aggravating.


*This is not exactly true - I've already revealed that I think GNS theory is weak sauce.  I tend to think that entrenching sides over it is wasted energy.


----------



## pawsplay

Hussar said:


> Considering the lambasting I got from BryonD for making this sort of claim about 3e, I wonder if you will take a similar level of criticism from the same sources?
> 
> Yes, if you use a system without any input from the DM, that system will suck.  Totally agree there.
> 
> IMO, 4e gives a great deal more guidance to the DM for how and where that input would be most effective, but, obviously there's some disagreement there.
> 
> I would also point out something.  While I might ciriticise 3e for this or that, I most certainly would not characterize my 3e experiences as negative.  I had a barrel of fun with 3e.  I just find myself having more fun with 4e.
> 
> Then again, it could easily be "the new shiney" effect.  I played 3e for almost ten years, weekly and sometimes twice weekly, so, I logged the hell out of a lot of hours in 3e.  To the point where relatively minor issues can be magnified beyond their actual importance.  Add to that, an almost weekly (and sometimes daily) discussion about 3e, and I'm pretty burned out on the system.
> 
> But, I'm also slowly realizing that this conversation is largely untenable.  If we discuss 4e and don't absolutely follow the letter of the rule, then we're accused of intellectual dishonesty.  But, if we apply the same discussion rules to other editions, we're accused of being poor DM's and not playing the game right.  It's a no win situation.




I was not criticizing 4e's playability in my post. I simply made the observation that a 4e Skill Challenge has potential interest as a challenge in storytelling, but almost none as a challenge of statistical or tactical skill. You can't "win" a SC except through luck, or by successfully engaging the imaginary elements and figuring out what sort of resolution is appealing, particularly to the GM. That may very well be the best of all possible game designs, I can't say. But it is what it is.

While I respect that you feel wronged in some respect, I can't discern how I have any ability to salve that wound. It is certainly not my intention to apply a double standard to any game system, or any group of players. Truthfully, I am much more interested in what I would consider points of intellectual worth, than in advancing any particular agenda. Games come and go. 

I don't know why you chose to use my post as a jumping-off point to complain about intellectual fairness. I thought the point was making was both minor and non-deragotory.


----------



## Hussar

Pawsplay - your post is just one in a host of posts really, and hardly the most egregious.  I mean, it's not like you're claiming that it's the combination of unwritten rules and and assumptions that go beyond what's included in the 3e ruleset that makes 3e great.  It's not you who's making drinking games out of things either.

Sure, if we take a bunch of completely unprovable claims (what the unwritten intent of 3e is) and combine it with a lazer focused examination of ONLY what 4e claims and then try to compare editions, it's ultimately impossible.

Sorry, I don't play BryonD&D.  I kinda wish I did, because it sounds interesting.  But, when I post exact rules quotes, none of which have been refuted beyond, "Well, a good DM just won't use those rules, why aren't you a good DM", and, if I stray a single syllable beyond the RAW of 4e I get monkey piled, why would I think that there is anything of value going to come from this conversation?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> Sure, if we take a bunch of completely unprovable claims (what the unwritten intent of 3e is) and combine it with a lazer focused examination of ONLY what 4e claims and then try to compare editions, it's ultimately impossible.





Thankfully, AFAICT, no one is engaged in that.  Indeed, the "drinking game" you mentioned was about the quality of the argument used to demonstrate that 4e was superior for "narrativist play" rather than the quality of the game.  And, as it quoted examples of contradictions in the argument presented, it was useful from the standpoint of anyone actually following the argument who plays neither 3e nor 4e, and thus has no duck in the quackery.  

However, when you look at any game closely, it has some very funny features.  Like 1e thieves losing their ability to wear a chain shirt in core 1e.  I don't think that is ever completely avoidable; no designer will think of everything.

I note that Pawsplay's description ("I simply made the observation that a 4e Skill Challenge has potential interest as a challenge in storytelling, but almost none as a challenge of statistical or tactical skill. You can't "win" a SC except through luck, or by successfully engaging the imaginary elements and figuring out what sort of resolution is appealing, particularly to the GM.") sounds similar to what you tend to call "Mother May I?" gaming, where you are trying to guess what the GM is thinking.

I have seen better examples of skill challenges here on EN World, but that is the impression I got from the books, too.  (Shrug)  But then, I'm no expert on the system, nor ever will be, and later books might be better.

It does seem to me, from examining several WotC 4e adventures, though, that their lame skill challenges are also tied into the needs of the Delve format, whereas the interesting skill challenges I've heard about on EN World seem far more organic.....really nothing more than a means to organize the DM's notes.  I also note that the DMs with interesting skill challenges seem monolithic (or nearly so) in their willingness to drop X/Y if it seems appropriate, rather than forcing the SC to grind on.


RC


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> But I think the difference is that he really is putting something in that the 4E designers left out by design.



I don't think this particular claim is true, and I'm not sure what you have in mind - the Andy Collins quote about game elements?

World and Monsters, which talks about how to us the fictional game elements to run an engaging RPG, seems to me to talk exactly about how the 4e fiction incorporates thematic material.



Nagol said:


> Not if you chose that game piece for its effect in the game world (power choice and role).
> 
> In that case, you'd wonder why the DM was picking on you and making _you_ work for your powers and not the player playing a fighter and why the player with the Cleric isn't being pressured into kowtowing to a particular set of proscribed dogma.
> 
> And even if the player wants the pact and the flavour to be more centre stage, the DM has to want to bother focusing on a very personal part of character that with focus, could easily render that character impotent or dead.  Sometimes, the Dm doesn't not want that type of campaign.



I took it to be a shared assumption between LostSoul's post and my reply that we're talking about narrativist play where the warlock is part of it. If that assumption isn't true, then the sort of approach I talked about would be less appropriate.



LostSoul said:


> And when you consider lines like "a devil-touched hunter using infernal spells to eliminate evil", what is one to make of a pact?  My feeling is that Warlocks were designed to be Wolverine-type characters - growly and nasty but they are heroes and support the group when it matters.  Obviously this is where we differ.



GMing intragroup conflict in a mainstream party playstyle is tricky. As I've experienced it, it relies on a range of techniques and understandings - mostly informal and developed via familiarity among the players at the table. Done well, it lets "supporting the group" be consistent with "conflicting with the group" (eg via "the enemy of my enemy", or obligations of honour or loyalty that override the lack of friendship).



LostSoul said:


> Yeah, that's true.  And it's also true that the Warlock spells - especially the Utility ones - carry a great deal of flavour that facilitates thematic play.  I don't think it's quite enough, though.  I don't think 4E goes far enough in either the reward cycles or DM/player advice to make thematic play the assumed mode.
> 
> I compare Warlocks to Sorcerers in Sorcerer*.  The same kind of colour, but there's a huge difference in the amount of thematic material in play and - most importantly, in my opinion - how addressing that thematic play is reinforced by the mechanics and advice in the game.
> 
> * - I lifted some things from Sorcerer & Sword for Warlocks in my hack.  Great game.



I know of Sorcerer, but don't know it. I find what you say easy to believe.

I was talking to my play group this afternoon before our actual gaming started, and making the point that to try and explain on the internet how we play 4e I have to draw comparisons to games (and GMing techniques, like my favourite quote from Paul Czege) that are the avant garde of RPGing, if it makes sense to talk about RPGing having an avant garde. Whereas our game is in most respects pretty mainstream fantasy.

(Incidentally - on the reward side I use minor quest XPs fairly regularly to make sure that thematic play doesn't cost in terms of the pacing of PC advancement, and it also gets the non-mechanical reward of engaging the table.)


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> Given the scaling nature of skill challenges, SCs are not only boring from a gamist standpoint, but without GM intervention, entirely arbitrary, barely more evolved than the rolepaying game equivalent of pachinko. In the end, you roll the die and see if you can beat a 7 or higher three times before you don't make it twice, or whatever. It's a crapshoot, almost literally.
> 
> So insofar as they are not futile and trivial, SCs operate on a narrativist level. The GM jukes the table in approbation of actions they consider appropriate, the players try to juke the table based on dramatically plausible answers to the problem. The only room for simulation is in the retroactive fluffing of the SC elements to match the DCs you specify and the pairing of ability to skill check.





pawsplay said:


> I simply made the observation that a 4e Skill Challenge has potential interest as a challenge in storytelling, but almost none as a challenge of statistical or tactical skill. You can't "win" a SC except through luck, or by successfully engaging the imaginary elements and figuring out what sort of resolution is appealing, particularly to the GM.



I probably wouldn't put it in quite these terms - I follow your reply to Hussar, but I can see why he found the language a bit harsh! - but I basically agree.

The one point I disagree on is about "appealing to the GM". This is important to an extent, I agree, but I think not as much as you suggest. If you appeal to other players, they will pick up on what you're doing and drive it in a way that a responsive GM will follow (which might still count as appeal, but it's a type of meta-appeal). And the GM, to make the skill challenge work, also has to find ways to appeal to the players.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> And, as it quoted examples of contradictions in the argument presented



Well I don't concede that I'm in contradiction, as I pointed out in my response.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> I don't think this particular claim is true, and I'm not sure what you have in mind - the Andy Collins quote about game elements?



Huh?  You don't know what I'm talking about, but you know you disagree?
Maybe that shows something about this whole debate.


----------



## BryonD

I'm not doubting for one second that every designer at WotC agrees that including ethics in your game play is a huge part of the fun.  And I'm certain they do that in their games.  But pointing out quotes (or at least vague references to documents) in which they endorse that as part of the gaming experience says nothing whatsoever about mechanical design.  And specific quotes from the designers about the actual mechanics consistently support my point.  

The two points are not incompatible.  I'm certain the designers love ethics in their games.  But they don't want them burdening the mechanics.  They just want the "game piece" to be a good "game piece".  And the same old theme of role playing "on top" of the system returns.  You can do that.  

But I find far more reward in systems in which these elements are integrated.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> I don't have an stance here*. Stances are for attack and defense. I'm not doing either.




They can also be for clarifying one's opinions on the matter being discussed and in no way directly lead to attacks or defense... 



Umbran said:


> I mean, really - it isn't like anyone's ever come up with an objective measure of "gamism", "narrativism" or "simulationism", right? You can't hold up your gamometer to the 4e PHB, or drop GURPS into the narra-chromatograph, and have it ping a number back at you. Of course the thing is subjective.




I don't believe something being quantifiable or measurable is necessary for it to be the topic of a discussion.



Umbran said:


> It then follows that there's no particular reason to agree, no proof that could be offered. After a short while, you'd expect folk to agree to disagree. When you look at several pages of two sides staunchly defending positions and never budging, it starts looking somewhat like an ideological conflict, an ego conflict, or a thinly disguised edition war, none of which are of any real use to anybody.




Ok, I get it... you don't really want to talk about what the rest of us are discussing... that doesn't mean we aren't enjoying our discussion though, and as long as no one is out of line... all that boils down too is that Umbran doesn't personally find this discussion meaningful or engaging... I can understand and respect that, but it doesn't mean I or anyone else should have to stop enjoying the conversation we are having.



Umbran said:


> Pardon me if I thought stepping away from ideology, and back to practical matters might prove more interesting, and less aggravating.




First... if this discussion is aggravating and not interesting to you... well that's your personal opinion... I'm sure you're not the only one who feels that way so why not go start a thread on the aspects that you wish to discuss as opposed to trying to shut down or redirect the discussion in this thread?

Second...It's not always what you do, but how you do it. You jumped into the middle of an ongoing debate, without clarifying your stance or purpose, and quoted answers I had posted to one of permeton's questions. You then, again without clarification or explanation, began to bring up points that had already been hashed out in the discussion... and surprisingly enough agreed to by both sides... while referencing my quotes which were in no way addressing what you were talking about... now you're acting like the problem is you wanted to bring in another facet to discuss, when in fact it was how you went about it... All IMO of course.





Umbran said:


> *This is not exactly true - I've already revealed that I think GNS theory is weak sauce. I tend to think that entrenching sides over it is wasted energy.



 
So I guess you do have a stance and you haven't had to attack, or had to defend it... Hmmmm, intersting in reference to your first statement.


----------



## nnms

I just reread this thread from front to back.  Here's what I learned:

If you have something negative to say about any edition of D&D, don't frame it in objective terms.  As if your opinion of what you don't like is some universal measure of how to assess RPGs.

Similarly, if you see someone do the above, don't interpret it as an attack on what you love.  Interpret it as them being ignorant about the objectivity of their subjective opinion.

As long as we have an "us vs them" mentality, the edition wars will rage on.  Whether it's is OD&D guys lamenting how quickly RPGing lost it's way, or AD&D1E players talking about how Gygax's vision was so utterly betrayed by "Zeb the destroyer" or 2E players talking about how a Collectible Card Game company turned D&D into a table top version of a video game or Pathfinder players talking about how 4E is just WoW on the table top, or 4E players decrying OD&D as being the game of ego-trip DMs, it's all the same crap.

These people that play games you don't like.  They're gamers like you.  They're not in some rival camp that you need to do battle with.  It's okay for people to like different things than you.

As for WotC's screw ups as a company, I think it's best to ask ourselves if our hobby focus is best spent on dwelling on those or playing games we love.  Yep, they made some moves that pissed you off, but is winning an internet message board argument about it going to undo those changes?

I'm starting to find things about 4E that I don't like.  I played it since before day one and have given it an honest go.  Now I'm starting to implement some house rules to make it do more of what I want.  I find myself referring to Dark Dungeons an awful lot as I prep my 4E games.  Does that mean I think 4E without an old school influence added on is objectively bad, or good?


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> Well I don't concede that I'm in contradiction, as I pointed out in my response.




No one said you had done so.

They seem pretty stark to me, though.

(Shrug)

No one would be arguing with you if you said "I find 4e better for narrativist gaming, based upon my style."  It is only the (seeming) claim of being objectively better that is in contention.

RC


----------



## tuxgeo

*Class of Page 42*

For reasons unknown, the use of language in this thread suddenly became more classy and erudite. (Not sure why.) Examples: 



pawsplay said:


> < . . . >While I respect that you feel wronged in some respect, I can't discern how I have any ability to salve that wound. < . . . >



--> "can't discern how I have any ability to salve that wound."



Hussar said:


> Pawsplay - your post is just one in a host of  posts really, and hardly the most egregious.  I mean, it's not like  you're claiming that it's the combination of unwritten rules and and  assumptions that go beyond what's included in the 3e ruleset that makes  3e great.  It's not you who's making drinking games out of things  either.



--> "just one in a host of posts really, and hardly the most egregious."



Raven Crowking said:


> Thankfully, AFAICT, no one is engaged in  that.  Indeed, the "drinking game" you mentioned was about the quality  of the argument used to demonstrate that 4e was superior for  "narrativist play" rather than the quality of the game.  And, as it  quoted examples of contradictions in the argument presented, it was  useful from the standpoint of anyone actually following the argument who  plays neither 3e nor 4e, and thus has no duck in the quackery.



--> "has no duck in the quackery."



pemerton said:


> <. . . > I have to draw comparisons to  games (and GMing techniques, like my favourite quote from Paul Czege)  that are the avant garde of RPGing, if it makes sense to talk about  RPGing having an avant garde. Whereas our game is in most respects  pretty mainstream fantasy. < . . . >



--> "if it makes sense to talk about RPGing having an avant garde."





nnms said:


> I just reread this thread from front to back.  Here's what I learned:
> 
> < . . . >
> 
> As for WotC's screw ups as a company, I think it's best to ask ourselves if our hobby focus is best spent on dwelling on those or playing games we love.  Yep, they made some moves that pissed you off, but is winning an internet message board argument about it going to undo those changes?



--> ". . . if our hobby focus is best spent on dwelling on those . . ."

(Perhaps "engaging" might be a better term here than "winning," because at least one poster here (Aberzanzorax) has acknowledged having learned from other participants, and has thanked them for engaging in the discussion.) 
 

Class of Page 42: Is the language on this page more classy because the antagonism became exhausted through attrition? Or because, after all, it's "Page 42," and 42 is the Answer? Or because time-pressures eased, allowing participants more time to refine their responses? Or because the extensive explanations and considerations allowed the participants to understand each others' positions more deeply? Or because the earthquake in Japan instilled a greater sense of perspective in those posting? Or just because it's the Vernal Equinox, giving everybody lots of new energy and feel-good vibes? 

Perhaps some combination of all of the above? Or other factors entirely? (For example, the increased classiness might be a misperception on my part.)


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> Obviously we pretty dramatically disagree.  But this right here is the heart of it.
> 
> I think as soon as you start trying to put mechanics on ethics, all you do is start setting up boundaries.
> I think mechanics are for forces and resistences.  They may be physical or social, or whatever.  But they resolve conflicts of potential.
> 
> Ethics are about why the forces are aplied in a given way.  Why you care how your forces are applied.




I think we may be talking about two different types of mechanics; I was thinking about how XP are awarded and how that contributes to changes in the character, not general action-resolution mechanics.  Are those XP awarded for addressing thematic concerns?  Do the changes made to the character from the acquisition of XP enhance or deepen our ability to explore a given theme?

I was, just now, reading through the XP section in the 3.5 DMG and it's actually got a _hell_ of a lot more support for that kind of play than I expected!  That's pretty cool.  I think the "story awards" system could be tightened up, but that's just me.

I'm imagining playing 3.x with a narrativist bent now.  You'd (well, I would) want to put a lot of focus on the flavour of various prestige classes and the goals that players create for their characters, making sure that you're using the story award system outlined in the DMG.  I can see how advancing via story awards + thematic flavour of classes, prestige classes, and feats + players who are into that sort of thing would make it work.



BryonD said:


> If you are looking for that between the covers of a 3E book, I agree you won't find it.  But, as I said, I completely believe, I'd say I know, that 3E was designed with the presumption that the rules were there specifically to work with players who bring that to the table with them.  And it is a huge element of how the game works great.




There are some action-resolution level mechanics in 3.x that deal with moral and ethical concerns: alignment-based spells.  Then there are alignment restrictions to different classes.  I'm not convinced that these would make it more or less difficult to play with a narrativist bent.  You can make some powerful thematic statements by choosing to take actions that make you give up your Paladin abilities, for example.

This has been a very enlightening discussion!  Thanks for that.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> I'm not a big fan of the classic D&D paladin, for two reasons.  First, because it's dependent on GM-arbitrated alignment descriptions,  it is the GM's thematic conception that dominates over the player's. (...) The 4e warlock doesn't get _mechanically _tested,  that is true. For me that is a virtue, because it leaves the field of  interpretation and engagement open to the players and GM. Every time an  infernal warlock uses a power, for example, s/he is drawing on the power  of the Nine Hells. I think it's pretty obvious how a GM might use this  to introduce thematic conflict into a game, and oblige the player of  that PC to engage with that theme in some way as part of driving the  game forward.




You seem to be maintaining that:

(1) The 4E warlock is great for narrativist play because the GM can "introduce thematic conflict" with absolutely no support from the mechanics at all.

(2) The 3E paladin is terrible for narrativist play because the GM can "introduce thematic conflict" with some support from the mechanics.

This is a philosophical divide which I might disagree with on principle. But, more particularly, I find your position incoherent given the fact that you're using this argument (that 4E doesn't mechanically enable narrativist play) to support your contention that 4E mechanically enables narrativist play.



Hussar said:


> But, when I post exact rules  quotes, none of which have been refuted beyond, "Well, a good DM just  won't use those rules, why aren't you a good DM", and, if I stray a  single syllable beyond the RAW of 4e I get monkey piled, why would I  think that there is anything of value going to come from this  conversation?




You seem to think you're getting criticized independently for these two stances. What I'm specifically criticizing is the hypocrisy between these stances. You say (paraphrasing), "3E has specific rules for X, so the DM has to use them. In 4E the DM can just make a judgment call for X." Despite the fact that 4E also has explicit rules for X. (And, in many cases, has virtually _the exact same rules_ for X.)

I don't care if you want to adopt a position of "the DM has to use every single rule, guideline, and suggestion published in the core rulebooks for resolving situation X" or a position of "the DM has a great deal of latitude and flexibility in choosing which guidelines to use and when to use them".

But I do ask that you remain _consistent_ in your position instead of engaging in rampant hypocrisy.



BryonD said:


> Huh?  You don't know what I'm talking about, but you know you disagree?
> Maybe that shows something about this whole debate.




I need to spread XP around, but that certainly was revelatory.


----------



## pawsplay

tuxgeo said:


> For reasons unknown, the use of language in this thread suddenly became more classy and erudite. (Not sure why.)




Ha! That's what happens when I type fast and off the cuff. The same things happens when I drink. I find myself carelessly dropping words, and they just go everywhere.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> --> "has no duck in the quackery."




"Ducks in the Quackery" has just become the title of my Toon/Call of Cthulhu fusion.


----------



## BryonD

LostSoul said:


> I think we may be talking about two different types of mechanics



I think so.  It is funny because I really wasn't thinking about the things you brought up and they could be presented as points against my claim.  To me they are not really, but in the general sense, I guess they are.

I don't even use XP any more.  
I do like the idea of alignment as an absolute and real force such that one can *be* "good" or "evil".  I also like to get away from the whole idea, but in D&D it just works for me.  
In 3E you could easily write "good" on your character sheet and then do whatever you want and still be treated mechanically as "good".  But I think that is where the idea of it really has no safety net and allows you to play badly if you don't bring your own good play in with it. 

But I definitely agree that focusing on flavor the characters is the key.  The mechanics themselves, in a perfect world, should be as invisible as they are not just to someone reading The Return of the King, but even as invisible as they are to Frodo.  

So I'm not talking about advancement.  It isn't the destination, it isn't even the road, it is every moment you are in, at that moment.  But, certainly the mechanics become visible in non-perfect world games, such as 3E.  And the points you make fit that just fine.




> This has been a very enlightening discussion!  Thanks for that.



I agree.  Thank you


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> Huh?  You don't know what I'm talking about, but you know you disagree?



I said that I think I disagree - "think" is a weaker claim than "know".

I also didn't say that I don't know what you're talking about. I said I'm not sure what you have in mind. That is a slightly more polite form of words for "I don't what your evidence is, and am myself inclined to doubt that there is such evidence."

The reason I doubt that there is such evidence is because I've read a lot of what the 4e designers have said, and I don't recall anything that I take as evidence for your claim. I was inviting you to adduce your evidence, and/or to confirm my hypothesis that it's the Andy Collins quote.



BryonD said:


> I'm certain the designers love ethics in their games.  But they don't want them burdening the mechanics.  They just want the "game piece" to be a good "game piece".  And the same old theme of role playing "on top" of the system returns.  You can do that.



I don't see why "game piece" and "theme" are at odds. One thing a game piece can do is bring with it thematic content. This is basically what Worlds and Monsters is about - it is the only D&D book I know that talks about the fictional elements of D&D _as game pieces_, that is, as elements to be used by the GM in constructing a game with a particular "vibe and atmosphere" (to borrow a phrase from Mercurius). (One exception: the 4e DMG has this sort of discussion in its Languages section.)

Here is the quote from Andy Collins, as per your previous post:



BryonD said:


> In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience.
> ...
> since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece. It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming



Collins says that a game piece (or game element):

(i) should have a hook that makes it compelling to play;

(ii) should have a story, which is important;

(iii) should have compelling mechanics.

He doesn't deny that (ii) is an instance of (i). He doesn't deny that (iii) can be achieved, in part, because of its relation to or integration with (ii). And if you look at Worlds and Monsters, you in fact see a discussion of exactly how (i), (ii) and (iii) were intended to be integrated in 4e. Monsters (and, in my view, also classes) are intended mechanics that are tactically interesting _and_ support the story/thematic role of that game element.

Has this been achieved perfectly? No - with respect to classes, the archer-ranger is in my view a rather boring class which brings very little to the table in thematic terms, and with respect to monsters I would say that skeletons, for example, don't really bring much either.

But the failures don't exhaust the system, and in my view aren't typical of it.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul said:


> Then there are alignment restrictions to different classes.  I'm not convinced that these would make it more or less difficult to play with a narrativist bent.  You can make some powerful thematic statements by choosing to take actions that make you give up your Paladin abilities, for example.



I think that there are two difficulties that this sort of approach faces, though. I wouldn't say that they're insuperable, but I don't think they're trivial either.

First, the GM gets to arbitrate what it is that will cost you your paladinhood. I think that this is a big issue. At least in my experience, PC "falling" scenarios work when the player takes the lead in judging their PC. This issue can be ameliroated by a more collaborative relationship between player and GM over the meaning of Lawful Good alignment, and the paladin's code. But this will then raise other issues about what alignment is meant to be, and how it is integrated into the game.

Second, once your paladin falls you don't get to play the PC that you built. In D&D, where mechanical build is a big part of the game, this is a pretty big hosing. I can see how it could be the climax of a game, but it would be quite challenging, I think, to carry on with that PC.


----------



## pemerton

Beginning of the End said:


> You seem to be maintaining that:
> 
> (1)The 4E warlock is great for narrativist play because the GM can "introduce thematic conflict" with absolutely no support from the mechanics at all.



I didn't say this. In fact I said something closer to the opposite (and which you quoted), namely, "Every time an infernal warlock uses a power, for example, s/he is drawing on the power of the Nine Hells." Given that using a power is an event in the game that engages the action resolution mechanics of the game, this is a very high degree of mechanical support for the introduction of conflict.

What I did say is that the Warlock is not mechanically _tested_. The testing of the warlock happens primarily in the fiction. That's not to say that the consequences of that testing don't play out mechanically - for example, they might inform a skill challenge, or in an episode of exploration that deploys the action resolution mechanics, or they might inform a combat encounter (either it's design or it's resolution).

An actual example from play, although pertaining to a chaos sorcerer rather than a warlock. After returning from their travels to the past in a type of trance-state (as described in more detail in this actual play post), the PCs slept while the witches who had sent them into the past placed new enchantments on the PCs items.

During their sleep, each of the PCs had a dream pertaining to various past and future events in the campaign. The chaos sorcerer (who is a renegade drow and a member of a secret cult of Corellon) dreamed of a powerful being appearing on a strange world and crushing Lolth like a spider beneath its foot. When he awoke, a strange rune was inscribed both on his demonskin (which he has been cutting from defeated demons as part of his preparation to become a Demonskin Adept) and also on the inside of his eyelids, so that he sees it whenever he blinks.

Now the initial reasoning behind my deciding on the eyelids thing was that part of the Demonskin Adept paragon path is that a successful crit blinds both the PC and the target of the attack scoring the crit. So this was primarily anticipatory of how the PC will be developing. But in the very same session it came into play in ways that I hadn't thought about when I initially introduced it - for example, as relevant to resolving some social interactions with the witches, and then in a a combat encounter with a quasit.

A system that takes a less simulationist approach both to the injection of complication into a situation, and to the fictional interpretation of mechanical resolutions of those complications, in my view makes it easier to incorporate this sort of material.



Beginning of the End said:


> I find your position incoherent given the fact that you're using this argument (that 4E doesn't mechanically enable narrativist play) to support your contention that 4E mechanically enables narrativist play.



Is the absence of mechanical alignment a mechanical feature of the game? I don't know - is there more at stake in that question than mere semantics?

Upthread I talked about race design and description, and you criticised me for departing from a discussion about "rules". Now you're talking about "mechanics" as if it's a narrow and self-evident category. _You're_ the one who introduced notions of rules and mechanics as pivotal notions in the discussion. (BryonD has also talked about "role playing "on top" of the system".)

My claim was about 4e - and I've articulated that claim with reference to character build rules (including racial and class descriptive text), action resolution mechanics (including the way in which these affect and require engagement with the fiction, and also page 42), encounter building guidelines, the XP and treasure system, the GMing advice in Worlds and Monsters, the monster building rules (including minion as a metagame status), etc. I don't make any particular claim as to which of these is rules or mechanics or system and what is something else. But this is what was in the books I bought, and this is what I use to run my game.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> No one said you had done so.
> 
> They seem pretty stark to me, though.



The two alleged contradictions, I think, were in relation to the "minionising" Arcana check, and in relation to the Athletics rules.

I pointed out that 4e has two modes of action resolution - with distinct headings calling them out both in the PHB and the DMG - namely, skill challenges and tactical/combat encounters (there's also a third mode, namely, exploration, but that doesn't seem to have been in issue in this thread). The tactical rules under Athletics are clearly only for the tactical/combat encounters.

Is this claim controversial? Does 3E also have mutliple modes of action resolution, and hence multiple modes of skill use, that I missed in my PHB?

I won't repeat my discussion of "minionising" and page 42, and its close resemblance to a published example of using social skills to do damage. But how is using page 42 ignoring the rules? And does 3E have some equivalent to page 42, and/or metagame minion mechanics, and/or using social skills to inflict hit point loss, that I'm not familiar with?



Raven Crowking said:


> No one would be arguing with you if you said "I find 4e better for narrativist gaming, based upon my style."  It is only the (seeming) claim of being objectively better that is in contention.



Is the claim, then, that 4e doesn't suit simulationist gaming one about what some people find better, based upon their style? Or an objective claim? What about the claim that 3E supports serious RPGing better than 4e?

I also don't actually agree that no one would be arguing with me if I confined my claims in the fashion you suggest. At least some posters here are telling me that 3E does everything worthwhile that 4e does, only better, and hence strongly implying (in fact sometimes actually asserting) that I'm confused about both systems, what their capabilities are, and what sort of game that they support.

As I've said - apparently everyone agrees that 4e is different from 3E, except nearly  everyone who doesn't like 4e also agrees that 4e does nothing that 3E can't do better. So that, apparently, 4e is different from 3E only in having fewer and weaker capabilities as an RPG. From which it apparently follows that anyone who prefers 4e to 3E is confused about what each system can do, and/or doesn't know the rules, and/or doesn't follow the rules, and/or has never had the good fortune to play in a decent 3E game, and/or is a railroading GM, and/or . . .  well, maybe that's about it, although I'm sure there're a few other imputed failings that I've forgotten to list.

EDIT: RC, that looks like a rant against you and in fact it's not - I'm sure your suggestion is well intentioned, but for the reasons I've given I don't believe that it would actually make any significant difference to the tone or content of this thread.

What I would like to see, instead of being told that I'm wrong about what 4e does and can do, are some _acutal examples_ of how 3E has been used by posters here to play in a narrativist (in the Forge sense) fashion.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> As I've said - apparently everyone agrees that 4e is different from 3E, except nearly  everyone who doesn't like 4e also agrees that 4e does nothing that 3E can't do better.




Who says that? That would be crazy talk.

EDIT: Look, here's me in 2008, talking about how to get 3e to do somethings more like 4e does them:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/pawsplay/1102-what-3e-gamer-can-learn-4e.html


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> The reason I doubt that there is such evidence is because I've read a lot of what the 4e designers have said, and I don't recall anything that I take as evidence for your claim.



If you are spinning everything else the same way you are spinning this quote, then of course you would not see it.

He is specifically contrasting 4E to the design approach of prior editions.  And since he didn't work on editions prior to 3E, it is easy to narrow his point down.

Yes, he is saying they have a "hook" and "story", but the POINT he is making is that those were there before and the 4e innovation is rebalancing those issue to make room for a new focus on "game pieces" functionally comparable to other game pieces.  The existing hooks and stories are making room for this and in the full quote he actually makes examples of monks saying you don't need someone who jumps when a wizard can fly.

Can you understand that for many of us the concept of the fantasy monk is the concept of the fantasy monk.  Whether or not wizards can fly has no input to that concept.  And if you start making it have input you are doing harm.

But in the end, most importantly, I am not pointing at Andy's quote as evidence that this is a problem for 4E.  I knew it was a problem long before I ever heard Andy's quote.  I can point at the 4E PHB as my proof.  I point at Andy's comment as proof that they knew it and did it intentionally.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> play in a narrativist (in the Forge sense) fashion.



Is ANYONE other than you hung up on the Forge red herring?

The problem has been well defined with no need to muddy the waters with Forge ambiguities.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> As I've said - apparently everyone agrees that 4e is different from 3E, except nearly everyone who doesn't like 4e also agrees that 4e does nothing that 3E can't do better.




No one in this entire thread has posted anything resembling this.  Hyperbole doesn't make your argument stronger.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> Is ANYONE other than you hung up on the Forge red herring?
> 
> The problem has been well defined with no need to muddy the waters with Forge ambiguities.



Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here by "the problem".

Just as some things about 4e design have been obvious to you from day 1, so some things about it have been obvious to me from that day also, or not too much after it. There was this comment from Heinsoo, for example, about the reemblance to indie RPGs in the design (which was discussed at some length upthread, around the 450s). And there were posts on these boards from Chris Sims about the rationale and use of healing surges (can't link, sorry). Having read these various desinger comments, and having read the rulebooks in light of them, and then having played the game, my principal claim was, has always been, and continues to be, that 4e supports narrativist play better than 3E. A related claim has always been that 4e does not support exploration-oriented (ie simulationist) play as well as does 3E.

A number of contributions on this thread - particularly from Imaro and Beginning of the End - have denied the first of these claims. If you're now telling me that they've been using "narrativist" in some other sense - despite the fact that I made my use of Forge terminology clear pretty much from the get-go - that's interesting, but also a bit confusing. What claim of mine did all those posts think they were trying to rebut?


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> Who says that? That would be crazy talk.



Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. That is, I can't tell whether you think your blog shows that 3E _can_ do 4e better than 4e (once we keep in mind some features of encounter design in respect of which the 4e rulebooks give explicity guidance), or whether you think it shows that there's some stuff that 4e does better than 3E, although 3E can approximate to it in various respects.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As I've said - apparently everyone agrees that 4e is different from 3E, except nearly everyone who doesn't like 4e also agrees that 4e does nothing that 3E can't do better




I don't particularly care for 4Ed, and I'm not shy about saying what I found wrong with it.  However, there are things I think 4Ed did, not just better than 3.X, but better than every previous version of D&D.

Its just that the minuses outnumber and outweigh the plusses.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. That is, I can't tell whether you think your blog shows that 3E _can_ do 4e better than 4e (once we keep in mind some features of encounter design in respect of which the 4e rulebooks give explicity guidance), or whether you think it shows that there's some stuff that 4e does better than 3E, although 3E can approximate to it in various respects.




The latter.


----------



## pemerton

Pawsplay, thanks for the reply. DannyA too.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Pemerton,

I have seen a claim that 3e can handle 4e-style gaming better than 4e can handle 3e-style gaming; I have seen no claim that 3e can handle 4e-style gaming better than 4e can.  That would, indeed, be crazy talk.


RC


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here by "the problem".



OK.....  



> Heinsoo...  Chris Sims ...



I'm not seeing how tangential quotes trump on topic quotes.  But whatever.



> 4e supports narrativist play better than 3E.



There was a whole separate long thread about this.  And you and I were both active in it.  At that time you seemed to clearly understand my point about narrative play.  Now youu have completely changed the defintion.  So fine.  I declare you the winner with regard to your defintion.  I think that is a pretty hollow victory though because the reasons for significant discontent with 4E are not associated with your defintion.  I certainly don't view poast 491 of this thread as "from the get go".



> A related claim has always been that 4e does not support exploration-oriented (ie simulationist) play as well as does 3E.



I also reject your replacement of "simulaton" with "exploration-oriented".  4E does "exploration" just fine, but it is lacking in simulation.



> A number of contributions on this thread - particularly from Imaro and Beginning of the End - have denied the first of these claims.



I'm not going to speak for them.  But disputing your evidence does not mean they agree with your definitions.


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> Pemerton,
> 
> I have seen a claim that 3e can handle 4e-style gaming better than 4e can handle 3e-style gaming; I have seen no claim that 3e can handle 4e-style gaming better than 4e can.  That would, indeed, be crazy talk.
> 
> 
> RC



Sounds familiar to me...


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> I'm not seeing how tangential quotes trump on topic quotes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There was a whole separate long thread about this.  And you and I were both active in it.  At that time you seemed to clearly understand my point about narrative play.  Now youu have completely changed the defintion.  So fine.  I declare you the winner with regard to your defintion.  I think that is a pretty hollow victory though because the reasons for significant discontent with 4E are not associated with your defintion.  I certainly don't view poast 491 of this thread as "from the get go".



BryonD, there seems to have  been needless disagreement/semantic confusion here. (Not on your part, or not on your part solely. Mutual confusion as between the two of us.)

Unless I've radically misread them, BotE and Imaro have for many posts on this thread since post 491 been disputing the claim I made in that post, and have been defending in relatation to their responses since that post. That post made the same claim about 4e's support for my gaming style that I made in other posts on other threads (I'm not sure which one you have in mind - probably either my Actual Play thread about bears and water weirds, or Mercurius's other Road thread, or Mercurius's Reason Why 4e is Less Popular thread.) I can't rememeber in which threads I was using Forge terminology and in which not - depending on context and what other terminology has been in use in a thread, I sometimes use it and sometimes other terminology.

And the claim I made in 491, and take myself to have been defending since, is not a claim about what you call narrativism and also (if I remember properly) "fiction first" (in the style of LostSoul).



BryonD said:


> I also reject your replacement of "simulaton" with "exploration-oriented".  4E does "exploration" just fine, but it is lacking in simulation.



I think 4e has limits in what it can do with exploration. Or rather, I don't think it handles exploration on its own very well, as the sole goal of RPGing divorced from other purposes. To give an example: in the coures of playing a 4e combat, playes will discover whether or not a given "game piece" is a minion. From the mechanical point of view, indeed, this often an interesting discovery. But because minion is primarily a metagame status, the discovery is not generally revelatory of the gameworld. So if exploration was all that was going on, the exploration would primarily be of a system heavily divorced from the fiction. (I think this is what is sometimes meant by criticisms of 4e as "dissociated" or as "merely gamist" - where "gamist" here is not being used in the Forge's sense.)

Once exploration of the gameworld is coupled with some other purpose for play, however, then the discovery of the metagame fact that a monster is a minion can play a purpose, for example of sharpening the connection that the players are drawing between gameplay, fiction and that other purpose. In the example I gave upthread of rindering an NPC a minion via a skill check before then killing said NPC with magic missile, the other purpose in question is something like an aesthetic/thematic statement about the permissibility - or even manditoriness - of ruthless treatment of devil worshippers.



BryonD said:


> I'm not going to speak for them.  But disputing your evidence does not mean they agree with your definitions.



Well, I _think_ that they know what I am claiming via my use of my terms, and disputing it. Which, obviously, on an open message board is their prerogative.

But it's also why I'm still interested to see someone's actual play account of running a game with 3E that is narrativist (in the Forgist sense).


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> Once exploration of the gameworld is coupled with some other purpose for play, however




For the record, I have never seen a game, in any edition, where exploration of the game world was not coupled with other purposes.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## CuRoi

Fifth Element said:


> Thing is, RPGs are not life. Many people play them to get away from real life. Like me, for instance. Having at least one game that supports that style of play is an awesome thing.
> 
> I am the type of DM who can react to what players do, or anticipate their possible actions, such that system-mastery systems present no problem for me. _When I have the time and energy for them_. In recent years, I just want to sit down and play the game and not have to worry about that stuff.




I completely agree with you and everyone should play whatever RPG they choose in any way they choose to play it as long as the whole group is having FUN! However, there are a ton of RPGs out there. If you want to play an RPG and use only the first 100 pages of the rules, do it. But it isn't fair to complain that a system is poor because the system broke somewhere in the other 200 pages you didn't read.

If someone wants to play a game where they don't really need to read a 315 page PHB (DnD 3.5 AND 4e...) there are some awesome alternatives. I've mentioned FUDGE before, there's AMBER if I remember correctly (it's diceless even) - both are fairly freeform and require almost no time investment to get a feel for the rules. There are some great alternatives if time and energy are a concern which I'm sure those of you into the indie RPG scene can tell us about.

Also, I will again admit I am in the minority in that I take even my hobbies a bit too seriously  It's just something I'm driven to do. I'm terrible at the sitting on the beach sipping pine coladas type of relaxation, heh. I need to be moving, progressing, improving, doing...something.


----------



## CuRoi

nnms said:


> My ability to just make a declarative statement about what spell I was casting and utterly deflate the challenge limited his options when it came to what situations he presented to the players.




Again, give me an example here if you could. Not trying to be annoying or anything but that's the X time I've seen a "PCs have I win DnD" spells sort of declarative and no real substantive example. Besides, campaign stories are really fun to read.



> Are you starting to get what Heinsoo was talking about yet? You tried to make it mean that 4E handles only a scripted approach and that Heinsoo believed improv DMing was bad. And then you tried to equate the players not having crazy session destroying abilities as limiting possible DM skill because they're not forced to compensate for spells and abilities that deflate a given challenge.




Both your interpretation and Heinsoos claim designated the "good DM" qualifications, not mine. I just built on what was stated. 

That said, once again, we're talking about "session destroying abilities" and as a wise poster mentions - we're both talking from different experiences. I haven't had a "Session destroying" ability show up in my game when it comes to a standard action I win DnD. As I've tried to make clear, I react and adjust and have fun with it.

I also think I made it clear, I DO see some session destroying abilities when the term "System Mastery" is taken to mean someone doing silly stuff like "Pun-Pun" which is technically sound, but unequivocally game destroying. I DO agree 3e in that sense got very silly and efforts in any pre-3rd edition to limit things like that is a good idea. However, again, IME, IMO etc, etc. I've never seen the "I win DnD" spell.



> While your response might be for them to get better and be more like you, that's hardly going to help them run a good game tomorrow night. A much better suggestion is to find a system that doesn't limit their choices in terms of challenging situations and require massive amounts of compensating for the player characters abilities.




Put that way its a bit Lawful Evil sounding eh? Heh. But I intended no draconian ultimatium. What I intended to say was for anyone (Heinsoo etc) to assume that say Divination spells and other abilities which allow the player to take control of the scenario in powerful ways are a massive problem for DMs is a "problem" that needs to be fixed, is a bad assumption. 

I agreed I _may_ be in the minority to concede the point, however I have no clue about actual statistics. Frankly, I've never, from personal experience, seen a DM say it was such a huge problem it needed fixing. Have I seen DMs say certain spells/feats/items or combinations thereof were broken? Sure. Again, in the sense that system mastery means someone cherry picking stuff from the dozens of available books and making a super powered PC, I readily agree there were things that needed to be fixed.



> Improv DMing is so much easier in 4E than 3.x. And can be accomplished by DMs of a range of skill levels when using that sytem. Your earlier assertion that it's for running scripted games where players can't have meaningful impact on the story is just plain wrong. It certainly works for those who want to use it that way, but that doesn't mean the conclusions you read into Heinsoo's words are at all accurate.




If you took that from my assertion I apologize. What I have always maintained throughout this debate is that I felt 4e, IMO was well suited for dungeon romps and the like. It seemes again IMO very well designed for that. Much better than 3.5.

The fact that some people think I am attacking 4e because I make this claim is irrational. As pointed out, I loved the earlier editions of DnD where a good dungeon romp in a rail car was par for the course. Check out some old modules. I've got one right here that says at several points things like "the players CANT capture the Big Bad Guy at this point; he disappears in a puff of smoke." Its at the very root of the game we all play! Somewhere though, my style completely diverged from that.

My point has been that I see 4e going back to these roots more so than 3.5 which was built on the world exploration / simulation which 2e started to divert to. For me, this was a welcome diversion. As such, for me, going back is not a sign of progress. Strip away some of the rules complexities of 3.5 and streamline some things? Sure. I have not problem with that. Strip away the wildly creative, world exploring, earth shattering type stuff which goes beyond just pushing figures around a battlemat, I'm not so down with.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> But I definitely agree that focusing on flavor the characters is the key.  The mechanics themselves, in a perfect world, should be as invisible as they are not just to someone reading The Return of the King, but even as invisible as they are to Frodo.




I think that this is one of our big differences in our approach to RPGs; I enjoy having clear or transparent advancement mechanics, and basing my choices on those.  I don't mind obvious action-resolution mechanics either, I just want the details of the game world to play an important role in them.

I'll try to keep this discussion in mind if we ever end up butting heads again.  Sometimes I find it difficult to really understand someone's position because they're coming from a point-of-view that I'm not considering.



pemerton said:


> Has this been achieved perfectly? No - with respect to classes, the archer-ranger is in my view a rather boring class which brings very little to the table in thematic terms, and with respect to monsters I would say that skeletons, for example, don't really bring much either.




If I understand how you achieve Story Now in 4E, I think the archer-ranger could have potential.  I can see a PC whose backstory is pretty simple - town destroyed by orcs, survived on their own by keeping at range and using the "slippery" powers that Rangers have.  When playing the game, there will be times when you have to decide if you want to save your own hide or if you trust these guys you've been fighting with enough to take a hit or two.

How do you (pemerton) set up situations where this will come into play?

As for skeletons, I think they can carry a lot of thematic meaning.  They're undead, so they used to be someone who was once alive.  They were either raised by horrible necromantic rituals or by a source of necrotic energy.

* A group of soldiers who vowed to defend a keep until the return of the True King; the keep has fallen into ruin and the soldiers have died long ago, but the power of their vow has kept them in a state of undeath.

* Recognizing the skeletons as people that you once knew; perhaps your PC sent them on a scouting mission.  Now they're back as skeletons.  That could carry a punch.



pemerton said:


> I think that there are two difficulties that this sort of approach faces, though. I wouldn't say that they're insuperable, but I don't think they're trivial either.




I am reminded of an adventure from my first 3E campaign:

The PCs had previously failed to save a young woman from a demon that could control a person (by living in the victim's stomach).  It had taken control of a seedy town, taking advantage of a power vacuum created by the PCs.  It agreed to speak with the PC Fighter/Paladin face-to-face.  It taunted him, telling the PC that there was nothing he could do to save the town or the woman; if he made any move, the _charmed_ (or was it hypnotized?) villagers would carry out its orders to burn their town to the ground, and the demon would forcibly rip itself from its host body, killing the woman in the process.

The player decided that his PC was going to attack the demon.  It carried out its plans, though the woman was saved (Lay on Hands or Goodberry, not sure which; that game didn't have any clerics).

In response I asked the player how his PC felt about his actions.  I let the player decide which powers he lost, if any.  I believe he gave up a few of them - Cure Disease for sure.  I used the loss of that power to drive a future adventure.  

I also let the player decide when he regained the use of his abilities.

I'm not sure that was Story Now; that game took place in the fall of 2001, a long time ago!  We did play fast-and-loose with the rules in order to get a slightly different experience, and I think those decisions had a big effect on the game.


----------



## CuRoi

pemerton said:


> So in fact, in order to frame credible challenges, I _don't_ need to know what powers my players have given to their PCs. All I really think about when designing challenges is what roles those PCs occupy in various respects - combat roles, trained skills, etc - and (more importantly) what the various interests of my players are in respect of the story of the campaign.




Which is something I find interesting about 4e. So many people complained about 2e that "no one wants to play a cleric because they just stand around and cast cures". So 3e created the IMO, too versatile cleric. Now with 4e we swing the pendulum back a bit and make every class fill a "role". 

Again, I have limited experience with the system, so fill me in on how this works exactly. If I am a "striker" like say a ranger, can I have an interest in being a self sacrificial type who takes it on the nose for the party when I can? Or do I need to play say a fighter for that. I realize one will be more optimal for the situation than the other. But is it feasible for a player to decide they want to "Defend" but not play a "Defender" class? If not, how does that effect the players choice of interaction with the ongoing story? Curious more than anything.



pemerton said:


> I also can run this sort of game. I have GMed high level D&D and high level Rolemaster. The point is that it _is limiting_. Once powerful divination is available, there are no mysteries.




I'll take your word for it with Rolemaster, I've never played it. 



pemerton said:


> I find it interesting that you say that you don't have planned or scripted scenarios, and yet your "pit the PCs against foes". That, to me, suggests a degree of scripting - namely, the GM has scripted who shall be the PCs' foe.






You lost me here. Yes, my PCs fight foes. Their foe happens to be whoever they decided to attack . Yes, I did make some assumptions when I created the campaign based on what I knew of the players and the character ideas. I assumed they would eventually confront the "big players" or at least contact these forces in some way. 

In general, my (edit) DnD campaign has players progress to very high levels of ability. In the campaign world as constructed, once you get to say 10-12 level, you are a force to be reckoned with and whether you like it or not, you will start drawing he attention of powerful forces in the game. Whether you join them, fight them, backstab them and take their position, I don't care. However I can easily make some rudimentary assumptions that a) players with these "I win DnD" spells people keep worrying about won't be ignored by powerful forces in the game and b) The players would stick with the campaign until that time. 

If this asserts scripting, I'm guilty as charged. However - I'm not sure how one even runs a campaign if you start completely blank slate with no idea of the major factions and personas and an assumption that the PCs will never get involved enoough in the world to interact with these major factions and personas. 

So yes, for my "railroading" I usually at least detail a fairly sophisticated world for players to explore first. At the very least, I outline a meta-plot of sorts that is running in the background as we play and the players occassionally bump against that meta plot (I did this recently with a Serenity campaign using the Cortex system. And yes, the very last few games were a complete railroad but it was consensual, heh. Everyone was buckled in for the ride and loving every minute of it. So again, I hope people don't think I have something against "railroading" when the story or players for that matter demand it - but its a useless term IMO as interpretations vary.)



pemerton said:


> I don't run scripted scenarios.




Sorry if it seemed I suggested you did. Definitely was not my intention (well, unless you enjoy scripted scenarios and as I have been trying to point out - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.)



pemerton said:


> And - contrary to what you suggest about 4e in what I've quote - 4e does not lend itself to scripted fight scenes.




Your mixing words here - I don't think I ever said the Fight Scenes themselves were scripted (a tleast I did not mean to). That implies telling the players "ok you swing at this person now" etc. I said that 4e IMO lends itself to a scripted adventure quite well. Again, if players can't move outside the box and they must confront the bad guys at the time and place the DM prefers then it at least _feels_ more scripted IMO than if the players have the OPTION to teleport in a smack someone around whenever they please.



> You seem to be running together what, upthread, I tried to distinguish, namely, _situational authority_ and _plot authority_.




Right, the GM frames a scene - all the "situations" if you will and the players must resolve them within the scene limits established by the GM and without help from potentially "scene breaking" spells and the like. I'm pretty sure I get what you are saying. Which leads me to my original point:

Obviously you are a very enlightened DM. You keep talking theory discussing game theory as proposed by people outside the 4e community to defend the constructs of 4e. Who's to say you aren't the DM Heinsoo refers to in his statement? As I've said from the start, I have no issue with how you run your game and it sounds exceptional. What I do think is I have to go back to the "Water to Wine / Wine to Water" comment I made at the start of the debate. I'll wager 90% of the potential DMs that pickup 4e will not at all be thinking of situaional and plot authority. They'll pick up the book, run players through Skill Challenge A and Encounter B, find their plans are never *evolved* by what the players do, only *advanced* by what the players do, and be all warm and fuzzy about it. If they stay in that comfort zone and have fun, awesome. 

Look, leave the theory aside. I dont see it in the DMG. Now, let yourself be that "new DM" that picks up a DMG. You read the skill challenge section. You see advice on how to set up a skill chellenge, you read the section about "consequences". There is a Success and Failure section. There is no mention of relationship maps and diagrams and what some emminent (edit) game designer says about how to use it. 

You get the Succes section for the examples which is one sentence. This is essentially "you win". Its cut and dry just as if you took out a foe in a combat. Next you get the failure section which does allow for more amibiguity but is always telling you that the results will push you toward the final quest objective, just with more skill challenges in the way (which, IMO makes the game more fun so losing seems to be the way to go...)

New DM absorbs the info and probably (but not always) walks away with the following: Players win scenarios I have explicitly created without their input and then they move along toward my intended plot goal. If they screw up, they still get there, I just have more challenges which I have created.

How anyone can keep saying you can't string these together with combat encounters into a good dungeon crawl is completely beyond me. Its made for it. Sounds great to me frankly.



> So far from being a "rigidly defined module", this is a paradigm example of collaborative storytelling. And it also obilges me to, at some time in the future, frame at least a couple of new scenes - namely, the ones in which the PCs travel to that neutral city and arrange to pay the ransom.




Are the PCs really fighting hobgoblin slavers at 10th level? If my players chose to do that, cool - they'd steamroll them most likely and free the slaves in record time for the 100 gold or so. Then I'd need to consider the hobgoblin society a bit (if I hadn't fleshed this to some extent already) and figure out if anyone further up the food chain is upset by this and tries to come put a stop to it. Sounds fun to me.

_Collaborative storytelling_

Players use all powers and abilities at their disposal. They teleport in and free the slaves in record time and they all pat themselve sont he back, collect their gold and move on. 

Slavemaster Brackas is not at all pleased. He holds the Duergar ransom thinking they must have been somehow involved. Really, how else would dozens of slaves just disappear from a fortress? Its unthinkable that they didn't free them or at least plan to accept payment and run. The Duergar are outraged, they demand the return of their people. Meanwhile a Duergar sorcerer who employs the imprisoned slave traders begins consulting Diviners about what happened to his "cargo". He pays a hefty sum for the Diviners who in turn cast theri "I win DnD" spell and discover that a group of 4 motley surface dwellers was involved.

The same day, Blasto the wizard happens to look up and notice a scrying sensor floating in the sky above him...

Hey look - we just collaborated on the shared plot, shared story, shared scene and we still all have lots of fun


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> BryonD, there seems to have  been needless disagreement/semantic confusion here. (Not on your part, or not on your part solely. Mutual confusion as between the two of us.)



Fair enough.

As I said, you and I specifically debated the terminology I am using before.  My bad for assuming you were still on that.



> But it's also why I'm still interested to see someone's actual play account of running a game with 3E that is narrativist (in the Forgist sense).



I guess.  IMO it doesn't represent a meaningful segment of the market.  But that is just that, my opinion.
It seemed pretty clear to me that 3E was never a top rank game over at the Forge.  Is 4E?  

And I'd still say that WotC made it massively clear that they were targeting non-gamers with 4E as game with casual fan appeal.  The Forge is the ultimate extreme opposite of "casual fan".  So I don't see how the Forge stuff is meaningful in any way other than pure academic conjecture.


----------



## BryonD

LostSoul said:


> I think that this is one of our big differences in our approach to RPGs; I enjoy having clear or transparent advancement mechanics, and basing my choices on those.  I don't mind obvious action-resolution mechanics either, I just want the details of the game world to play an important role in them.



Not all roads lead to Rome.  

The fighter doesn't know that he is 6th level working on 7th level, so he shouldn't modify his behavior quite so knowingly.  Now you can always have things like karate belts, or formal wizard training or whatever the analog may be.  And if the story does lead that way, then I will strongly tend to support leveling in a manner that reflects it.  But those are narrative leading mechanics elements.

On the other hand, I certainly know the fun of leveling.  I know my players always give a little cheer about it.  And I recall when my daughter was younger she would jump out of her chair and run around the house shooting "YES!!!"  Fun for the PLAYER is the ultimate goal and they DO know. So I respect that.

I don't claim simulation is any bit better than gamist.  I just claim they are different and I have a personal preference.  



> I'll try to keep this discussion in mind if we ever end up butting heads again.  Sometimes I find it difficult to really understand someone's position because they're coming from a point-of-view that I'm not considering.



You consistently provide thoughtful, interesting comments. I LIKE to argue.  So I will.   



> I'm not sure that was Story Now; that game took place in the fall of 2001, a long time ago!  We did play fast-and-loose with the rules in order to get a slightly different experience, and I think those decisions had a big effect on the game.



Heh, I've lost count of how many 3E campaigns I've run.  But I doubt there have been any two that did not have some fundamentally important house rule difference.  Not that they were falling far from the tree.  A new player could be in any one in minutes.  But the experience always changes a bit.


----------



## Beginning of the End

pemerton said:


> _You're_ the one who introduced notions of rules and mechanics as pivotal notions in the discussion.




This particular thread of conversation originates with post #449 in this thread. A post which you wrote several iterations of conversation before I even engaged these topics.

And in that post you wrote:

When 4e came out, I really thought that WotC  must know something that I didn't, and that Ron Edwards had only  speculated about, concerning the popular viability of a (at least  somewhat) non-traditional game with metagame mechanics built in at  ground level (eg Come and Get It) and mechanically structured but  non-simulationist conflict resolution mechanics (eg skill challenges,  and even healing surges and warlord healing).​Claiming at this late date that you were never talking about mechanics until BryonD and I brought them up as some sort of non sequitur is _absurd_.

Honestly, I find it an exhausting waste of time to have to go rolling back through the pages of this thread to find the quotes necessary to have you argue with yourself.

So, to sum up by way of conclusion: You're wrong about the actual rules of 4E. You're wrong about the actual rules of 3E. You're wrong in most of the things you claim 4E does that 3E doesn't. You're frequently wrong about what other people have said. You're even wrong about the things you've actually said.

I'm happy that you're able to ignore large and significant chunks of the 4E rules in order to find a structure that you find useful for running games of "heroic protagonism".

But it has very little (if anything) to tell us about 4E as it exists on the page.


----------



## CuRoi

nnms said:


> I just reread this thread from front to back. Here's what I learned:




Hats off to you there!! I'll admit to skimming several *ahem* of the 600 or so posts 



nnms said:


> These people that play games you don't like. They're gamers like you. They're not in some rival camp that you need to do battle with. It's okay for people to like different things than you.




Right! I just wish we could constructively discuss things regarding each edition because it's a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion. I hope I haven't come across as "attacking" anyone or anything in this debate. I enjoyed our exchange, hopefully it was beneficial to the greater discussion? 

Spirited debate nowadays often seems to get automatically misconstrued as an "attack" - its not just limited to RPGs. A lot of forums you can't even discuss religion and politics for instance because people get immediately worked up about it. This does everyone a great diservice because it implies religion and politics isn't a place for finding common ground and that assumption only fosters a closed mind - IMO 

Maybe I'll go start a 3.5e "bashing" thread, cause I really have LOTS of problems with that system


----------



## BryonD

CuRoi said:


> Maybe I'll go start a 3.5e "bashing" thread, cause I really have LOTS of problems with that system



Bring it on buddy!!!  I'll kick your butt!!!

Unless you, like, talk about things I, like, house-ruled or other things where 3X, like, has problems.  Cause, then you would be, like, right and stuff....


----------



## nnms

CuRoi said:


> Again, give me an example here if you could. Not trying to be annoying or anything but that's the X time I've seen a "PCs have I win DnD" spells sort of declarative and no real substantive example. Besides, campaign stories are really fun to read.




Well the classic one that still has my friend (who was DMing) pissed off is Speak With Dead.  Imagine what modern murder investigations would be like if you had that spell.  That was a pretty blatant "solve mystery" moment.  Looking at the particulars of the spell, in order to compensate for it, a DM would have to either always have murder victims die unaware of their killer, prepare cryptic answers to nullify the spell or have the murderers cast it on the corpse before they leave the scene to confound magical investigation.

Now a cleric doesn't have a set spell list like a Wizard that the DM can just read and try to anticipate.  They could prepare any spell available to their level when they pray after resting, so trying to anticipate every possible "gotcha" is a bit more work than many DMs want to do.

In this case, Speak With Dead limits the DM to having murder mysteries specifically designed to nullify the spell and cuts them off from using situations that aren't specifically designed to confound the use of that spell.



> That said, once again, we're talking about "session destroying abilities" and as a wise poster mentions - we're both talking from different experiences. I haven't had a "Session destroying" ability show up in my game when it comes to a standard action I win DnD. As I've tried to make clear, I react and adjust and have fun with it.




It's enough of a problem for enough DMs that they wanted to make it less of an issue with the latest edition.  All I can say to the above is that I take my hat off to you for some excellent DMing.  And for the more average or casual DM, there are other games on the market.



> If you took that from my assertion I apologize. What I have always maintained throughout this debate is that I felt 4e, IMO was well suited for dungeon romps and the like. It seemes again IMO very well designed for that. Much better than 3.5.




After playing 4E since release, I think that 3.5 with a properly paired down list of feats, spells, items, etc., might actually do a better job at dungeon delving.  4E seems to be better suited for scene based play with hard scene framing focused on a story.  Now you can do that in a dungeon where the exploration bits are simply scene framing.  The 4E Rules Compendium even uses pretty hard scene framing by the DM as an example of how to handle dungeon exploration.



> As pointed out, I loved the earlier editions of DnD where a good dungeon romp in a rail car was par for the course. Check out some old modules. I've got one right here that says at several points things like "the players CANT capture the Big Bad Guy at this point; he disappears in a puff of smoke." Its at the very root of the game we all play! Somewhere though, my style completely diverged from that.




I don't know if you've been paying attention to any of the proponents of the "Old School Renaissance" or read any of the Q&A articles with the old guard of the early TSR days on Dragonsfoot.org, but there's definitely very divergent approaches to how to game very, very early on.  In old school dungeon design we have examples of extreme railroads and precursors to the very modern idea of a DM setting up the situation but never the plot.  I know many, many current players of OD&D, BECMI and AD&D would talk about dungeon crawling as the least railroading form of play.



> My point has been that I see 4e going back to these roots more so than 3.5 which was built on the world exploration / simulation which 2e started to divert to. For me, this was a welcome diversion. As such, for me, going back is not a sign of progress. Strip away some of the rules complexities of 3.5 and streamline some things? Sure. I have not problem with that. Strip away the wildly creative, world exploring, earth shattering type stuff which goes beyond just pushing figures around a battlemat, I'm not so down with.




Built into BECMI (and other older versions of D&D) was a lot of very different game elements that don't rely fit into this characterization any more than 4E does.

I found 4E so refreshing on release because it was more like pre-2E versions of D&D.  Far, far better suited to improv based play and low prep play than 3.x and it's universal system of simulation.  I like it because it supports wildly creative, story/setting exploring, earth shattering type stuff that goes beyond just pushing figures around a battlemap.


----------



## nnms

BryonD said:


> And I'd still say that WotC made it massively clear that they were targeting non-gamers with 4E as game with casual fan appeal.  The Forge is the ultimate extreme opposite of "casual fan".  So I don't see how the Forge stuff is meaningful in any way other than pure academic conjecture.




Actually Forge style games and games inspired by some of the fruits of the discussion there are almost always casual player friendly.  Usually character creation is wrapped right into playing the first session and learning the mechanics of the game is often also wrapped right into the procedures of the game itself.

The games are usually also low page count games with a tight focus on having rules only about what the game is about.

If someone wanted to give RPing a try and didn't want to do more than an ounce of prep, I'd definitely recommend something like In A Wicked Age for their casual gaming needs.


----------



## BryonD

nnms said:


> Actually Forge style games and games inspired by some of the fruits of the discussion there are almost always casual player friendly.  Usually character creation is wrapped right into playing the first session and learning the mechanics of the game is often also wrapped right into the procedures of the game itself.
> 
> The games are usually also low page count games with a tight focus on having rules only about what the game is about.
> 
> If someone wanted to give RPing a try and didn't want to do more than an ounce of prep, I'd definitely recommend something like In A Wicked Age for their casual gaming needs.



Perhaps.  But it is irrelevant because the point is that the casual players won't be hung up on the "Forgian" terminology.

You are not going to see a marketing campaign with a tagline:
Hey Causal Fans!!!  The narrativist game (in a Forgian sense) that you have been searching for is here at last.

And that is all before you get back to the point I've made multiple times before:  I really don't believe this casual "please make it easy and no prep time" market is particularly big.

Let me know when In A Wicked Age starts to make its move on the market.


----------



## nnms

CuRoi said:


> Which is something I find interesting about 4e. So many people complained about 2e that "no one wants to play a cleric because they just stand around and cast cures". So 3e created the IMO, too versatile cleric. Now with 4e we swing the pendulum back a bit and make every class fill a "role".




And for the cleric, the intention was to create a type of class that can heal without having to stop contributing in other ways in order to do so.  They succeeded to a degree, making healing something you can do in addition to attacking, for example.

A couple of the people I play with really love pushing the role system to breaking point.  They take a character class that is one role, and choose feats, equipment, abilities, etc., to do their best to fill another.  The PHB even had secondary roles already listed for lots of classes.



> Again, I have limited experience with the system, so fill me in on how this works exactly. If I am a "striker" like say a ranger, can I have an interest in being a self sacrificial type who takes it on the nose for the party when I can? Or do I need to play say a fighter for that. I realize one will be more optimal for the situation than the other. But is it feasible for a player to decide they want to "Defend" but not play a "Defender" class? If not, how does that effect the players choice of interaction with the ongoing story? Curious more than anything.




You can do it, sort of.  A defender usually has some sort of mechanic that punishes an enemy for attacking someone other than themselves (I believe the Pathfinder Cavalier does this as well).  So unless you specifically take feats or powers that let you punish people for attacking your friends or allow you to take their blows for them, then it's not going to happen.  You'd have to a) intentionally want to develop that secondary role and b) understand the system well enough to choose the right feats, powers and abilities.

This is a good example of where system mastery can limit 4E.  It would be challenging to make a defender ranger if you were just a casual player.

But, perhaps it's best to ask what you're attempting to accomplish in making the Ranger a defender.  Do you want a wilderness warrior who taps into some nature magic and fights in melee, protecting his friends?  What if you considered the Warden class instead of Ranger?  A couple two weapon fighting feats and maybe a high dex for using missile weapons and you could be pretty much there.



> So yes, for my "railroading" I usually at least detail a fairly sophisticated world for players to explore first. At the very least, I outline a meta-plot of sorts that is running in the background as we play and the players occassionally bump against that meta plot




Why isn't the meta plot spontaneously formed out of the player actions?  They might bump into situations that are unfolding, but why is it a pre-decided "meta-plot" and not simply a situation that not even you as the DM knows the results of yet because you don't know how the players will get involved with it?



> I said that 4e IMO lends itself to a scripted adventure quite well. Again, if players can't move outside the box and they must confront the bad guys at the time and place the DM prefers then it at least _feels_ more scripted IMO than if the players have the OPTION to teleport in a smack someone around whenever they please.




Yes.  If someone wants to run 4E that way, the game will more than support them.  Even the best of 4E published modules are terrible in this regard.  I had heard such good things about Logan Bonner and Orcs of Stonefang Pass and then when I finally saw the thing, it was literally a straight line pass through the mountains full of orcs.  With the players always arriving on scene at the dramatic moment to save the dwarves and learn about how to defeat an ancient evil.  I integrated it into my campaign, heavily modified the dungeon to make it non-linear and had the situation unfold in response the the players.  End result, all the dwarves died before they could arrive "just in time" and they stopped the ancient evil with a solution not present in the module.

4E absolutely supports an approach where the DM has a bunch of scenes they are going to frame prepared in advance no matter what the players do.  But it works so much better when you don't do that.  

When you set up situation and respond to it by framing scenes on the fly based on what happened.  And the low prep DMing it allows heavily, heavily supports this.  I think I posted about this in this thread where I talked about using the Story Now "bangs" technique from Sorcerer and how 4E supports that so well.



> Obviously you are a very enlightened DM. You keep talking theory discussing game theory as proposed by people outside the 4e community to defend the constructs of 4e. Who's to say you aren't the DM Heinsoo refers to in his statement?




The difference is how well 4E supports the improv DM with it's low prep nature.  In the example of 3.x, when a DM has a problem with "gotcha" spells, the system doesn't support resolving that issue very easily (or at least I never got it to work and neither did anyone I else I ever gamed with in a few different cities).

EDIT:  Also, there's a factual error in the above quote.  An author of DMG2 is also an author of Forge type games and developed some of the techniques in question.  It's not just from people outside of the 4E community.



> How anyone can keep saying you can't string these together with combat encounters into a good dungeon crawl is completely beyond me. Its made for it. Sounds great to me frankly.




Because that's a poor dungeon crawl.  Going back to OD&D, good dungeon crawling was about players making meaningful decisions.


----------



## BryonD

nnms said:


> I found 4E so refreshing on release because it was more like pre-2E versions of D&D.  Far, far better suited to improv based play and low prep play than 3.x and it's universal system of simulation.  I like it because it supports wildly creative, story/setting exploring, earth shattering type stuff that goes beyond just pushing figures around a battlemap.




There seems to be a solid mix of truths and non sequiturs here.
Low prep: oh yeah
Far far better improv: huh?
wildly creative?  I guess, as long as you only retroactively create things that fit the results dictated by the mechanics.  
And it is pretty funny considering how frequently 4E powers are built around precisely "pushing" figures around a battlemap.  
I'd actually agree that you can do very cool stories in 4E.  But the context that it is refreshing in this sense as compared to 3E is boggling.

Wildly creative, but only so long as "the math works".


----------



## BryonD

nnms said:


> (or at least I never got it to work and neither did anyone I else I ever gamed with in a few different cities).



So would it be fair to conclude that your comments do not apply to people with this problem?


----------



## nnms

BryonD said:


> Let me know when In A Wicked Age starts to make its move on the market.




And you accused me of making an irrelevant point. 

You made some strange statement about how Forge games/techniques/theory was the opposite of casual.  All I did was point out that you made an error there.  Forge styles games are often the most accessible for casual gamers.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I definetly got the sense that you wanted to dismiss my point as quickly as possible so you could get back to winning the thread.  It's okay to just admit that you have the wrong take on them.


----------



## nnms

BryonD said:


> There seems to be a solid mix of truths and non sequiturs here.
> Low prep: oh yeah
> Far far better improv: huh?
> wildly creative?  I guess, as long as you only retroactively create things that fit the results dictated by the mechanics.
> And it is pretty funny considering how frequently 4E powers are built around precisely "pushing" figures around a battlemap.
> I'd actually agree that you can do very cool stories in 4E.  But the context that it is refreshing in this sense as compared to 3E is boggling.
> 
> Wildly creative, but only so long as "the math works".




*Face palm*

I was quoting CuRoi there.  I was using his same words (or very similar ones) to help communicate something.

Here's a condition on me replying any further to you.  Tell me my point back to me.  Show me you're actually engaging in communication and understand what I said that you responded to above.  If that means you have to reread what I wrote a bit more charitably, then do so.

Until then, I'll continue discussing this stuff with people who are actually trying to communicate (like CuRoi) rather than win an internet message board game.


----------



## nnms

Beginning of the End said:


> Honestly, I find it an exhausting waste of time to have to go rolling back through the pages of this thread to find the quotes necessary to have you argue with yourself.




Then might I suggest not trying to quote people back to themselves in order to "win" the thread?

Pemerton was saying something very specific and came at it from two perspectives to try to best communicate it and you took the time to dig them out to do what?  Show him contradicting himself so you can declare victory in the internet message board game?



> So, to sum up by way of conclusion: You're wrong about the actual rules of 4E. You're wrong about the actual rules of 3E. You're wrong in most of the things you claim 4E does that 3E doesn't. You're frequently wrong about what other people have said. You're even wrong about the things you've actually said.




Here we have a literal declaration of your victory.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> IMO it doesn't represent a meaningful segment of the market.  But that is just that, my opinion.
> It seemed pretty clear to me that 3E was never a top rank game over at the Forge.  Is 4E?
> 
> And I'd still say that WotC made it massively clear that they were targeting non-gamers with 4E as game with casual fan appeal.  The Forge is the ultimate extreme opposite of "casual fan".  So I don't see how the Forge stuff is meaningful in any way other than pure academic conjecture.



I agree that the Forge is the opposite of the casual gamer. I don't follow the Forege webpages enough to know to what extent 4e has registered there - I know there was discussion of 3E play there in the past, but obviously it's not the focus (apart from anything else, no version of D&D has been indie since the original booklets!).

But as to whether it represents a meaningful segment of the market, I don't know (although I do pessimistictically suspect). You can certainly play narrativist without being self-conscious about it - I had a GMing approach before I found the Forge, for example - it's just that some of the stuff on the Forge helped me get a better handle on why some of the issues I was having with various games and various mechanics came up in the way they did, and why some GM advice and some descriptions of "good roleplaying" didn't really speak to me, or didn't seem to help me with the game I wanted to run. (In my day job I'm an academic lawyer and philosopher - I also think that makes me the sort of person who is likely to be attracted by a serious attempt to theorise the creative activities that I'm enagged in.)

I agree with you that WotC were looking for new players. But if I understand you right and correctly remember other posts of yours, you think they were aiming at WoW (or WoW-ish) players.

I've never played WoW, but have a number of friends who have been pretty serious players. I've seen it played and heard it talked about quite a bit. My impression of WoW is that it is mostly analagous to a tactical boardgame or highly structured wargame, with a lot of fantasy colour. I assume that this is more-or-less how 4e is seen by those who say it's really a boardgame, or a tactical skirmish game. I also get the feeling that this is the direction in which you, and perhaps Raven Crowking, see 4e as having tended, although I don't think you say that it has gone all the way there.

I really don't see this when I read the 4e rulebooks - or rather, to see this, I'd have to disregard all the discussion of the non-mechanical elements of PC creation, the discussion of skill challenge resolution in both PHB and DMG, and a lot of other rules text as well. But maybe I'm projecting (that's a common human trait, after all).

A notion that has floated around the Forge is _hybridization_, including the idea that a game might bring in players based around one play purpose, but in the course of play lead them to a different purpose. Maybe WotC thought that WoW players would be attracted by the rules structure plus fantasy colour, and stick around when they discovered what it is that an RPG (including, in my view, 4e) can deliver that WoW doesn't, namely, the opportunity for players to engage the fiction and treat it as more than just colour.

This is all just conjecture, but I'm not sure it's merely academic. If the player base of RPGs is to grow, for example, games have to be written and distributed that offer potential RPGers an activity that the might want to participate in. The Forge take on GNS is one attempt to think seriously about what the activity of RPGing has to offer (this is why, unlike Umbran, I find it more interesting than the WotC market research, which tries to identify what aspects of play existing players enjoy in the game, but doesn't attempt to characterise what the point or points of RPGing might be).


----------



## CuRoi

nnms said:


> Well the classic one that still has my friend (who was DMing) pissed off is Speak With Dead.




 speak with Dead? An "I win DnD Spell?" or "Easy Button" spell? Really?

From the SRD (I'm sorry to quote the SRD - I know it can be annoying):
"Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive." 

Really? To me thats actual story and plot development GOLD. That can't possibly end a murder mystery all it can do is create some really darn intriguing threads to follow.

Who killed you?
Ghostly moan "The one named of colors"
Where did they kill you?
Ghostly moan "In the house of many rooms"
What did they kill you with?
Ghostly moan "A blow to the head"

So...who's game of Clue did I just ruin?  Seriously though, in practice as a DM I use that spell to develop useful riddles which players might be able to jump right to the killer but usually these tidbits just help confirm evidence as they move along. If you never read the description and just assumed "Ahhh this means free flowing two way communication with the deceased! I'm ruined!" then yes, youre screwed. 

Can't they still raise dead in 4e? If I recall its much cheaper than it was or something? How does that not just ruin a murder mystery more than a vague disembodied voice?




> I don't know if you've been paying attention to any of the proponents of the "Old School Renaissance" or read any of the Q&A articles with the old guard of the early TSR days on Dragonsfoot.org, but there's definitely very divergent approaches to how to game very, very early on.




I'll need to check that out for sure, sounds intriguing. And I don't doubt it - as we have seen in this thread, peopel will take whatever RPG and make whatever they and their group want to out of it, so divergent approahces seem to be par for the course. Thats perfectly fine and keeps it all interesting.  



> I found 4E so refreshing on release because it was more like pre-2E versions of D&D. Far, far better suited to improv based play and low prep play than 3.x and it's universal system of simulation. I like it because it supports wildly creative, story/setting exploring, earth shattering type stuff that goes beyond just pushing figures around a battlemap.




Well, as mentioned, I can see how a certain style could produce that with 4e - or any RPG for that matter. I just don't think the target audience for 4e was people with that style, if that makes sense. Again, just conjecture here, no "proof" or quotes or anything to support that.


----------



## Beginning of the End

nnms said:


> Pemerton was saying something very specific and came at it from two perspectives to try to best communicate it and you took the time to dig them out to do what?




To demonstrate emphatically that attempting to have any sort of meaningful communication with him is pointless.

When the conversation goes like this:

"Baseball involves throwing a football."
"Actually, a baseball is smaller and rounder than a football."
"By 'round' I meant 'brown'."
"Baseballs are actually white."
"Which is what I meant by 'round'."
"Uhh... Okay. But footballs aren't round or white, and you don't play baseball with them."
"I was never talking about baseball."

It's not worth going 'round that cul-de-sac again. People who change their definitions and claim they never said the things they said are not worth wasting time with.

'Nuff said.


----------



## CuRoi

nnms said:


> This is a good example of where system mastery can limit 4E. It would be challenging to make a defender ranger if you were just a casual player.




AHA! so there IS system mastery in 4e? Heh, I'm just harrassing you. Thanks for the info on class roles - I did n't play long enough to get a feel for it and still don't fully appreciate it. I sense 4e collapsing under the weight of not too many abused feats or spells but too many abused classes just prior to the release of 5e 



> Why isn't the meta plot spontaneously formed out of the player actions? They might bump into situations that are unfolding, but why is it a pre-decided "meta-plot" and not simply a situation that not even you as the DM knows the results of yet because you don't know how the players will get involved with it?





Ahhhh now you are harrassing me!  Well, it can and it can't be formed out of their actions. It all depends on if the players even want to get involved in that overarching plot or not. But it is there because it WILL effect the players somehow simply because it will effect the entire campaign to some degree. I always include some sort of "bigger than you" plot or scheme for the players to encounter. Why? Because thats what good stories are about. If I wrote campaigns about players doing their laundry and looking for work between sparse "adventure" the game would sorta suck dont you think?

I don't know the result, only the intentions of the main actors in the plot. The players must provide the unpredictable part. If they never latch on to it, it will necessarily unfold as I see fit.

Most recently I ran a Serenity campaign. I'll try to give an example and keep it short, but my plots are usually pretty complex so its tricky to do without filling up way too much space (If you haven't seen Firefly you need to, hopefully it makes sense out of context).

The plot involved an internal power struggle in the Alliance. The Blue Sun corporation (mega corp) was run by a renegade power broker whose family had been members of parliament for generations. This parlimentarian, Blackwell, had literally started the Independence War (similar to the US Civil War) as a smokescreen for the Miranda project. After that project's horrific failure, Blackwell and his partner in the top secret endeavor went different ways. Blackwell, in an attempt to salvage the Miranda project was harvesting Reavers from the black, performing some really scary "renditons", securing them in black facilities (completely off government radar) and experimenting with ways to mind control them.

Blackwell's partner in crime was Lu Ming. From the failed Miranda project, he took to his own methods for securing "the future" of the Verse - the experimentation on and training of elite covert operatives (aka River Tam). He continued to pursue this under covert parlimentarian channels. Lu Ming also happened to have has hand in other shady dealings. When a player once enquired about him, the player was told "you know the Tong? He is the Tong (organizaed crime of the Serenity universe)."

Blackwell's plan was to use the Reavers to massacre parliment in a bid to take control of government.  Why would this possibly effect the players? Because they lived in this universe and had ties to both the Tong and the Alliance from character backgrounds.

Why did I create all this without input from the players? Well, as has been said - to give them somethign worth doing  I can imagine a campaign wrought completely on the fly from whole cloth, but unless the players are really driven and focused, it would quickly get stale. In this case, the players went about flying from job to job and every now and then would brush up against this meta plot. A little taste here and there. It was the "big hook" and they were nibblign on it as they sandboxed the universe. 

They even encountered a very key part early on in the campaign and only later realized its significance and had to return to that planet to gather more information. For the longest time, I figured they wouldn't get directly involved in this as they seemed to be having fun running from planet to planet being general brigands and privateers.

However, at one point, they did something inexplicable (as players often do). They had a spat on board their ship, someone tossed a grenade and blew a whole in the hull (they tossed into the demolition guys room....) They then collectively DECIDED ON THEIR OWN that the closest spaceport was their BEST option (the planet they just left had law enforcement already on the lookout for them). That spaceport belonged to none other than Nishka. I was bewildered. Nishka is a sadistic, cruel, wholly evil sort of guy. He also had a regular job that involved this major plot for which he always needed boats for (cause they often were never seen again.) From there they were immersed. And from there, they were sort of locked in. 

Railroading? I guess. If you call players willingly indebting themselves to a sadistic crime lord that has an interest in using these "nobodies" to handle a suicide mission which they manage to survive by the skin of their teeth which in turn sends them spiralling into a world with REALLY big players on a ride they can't control. I was reeling them in at that point and they were loving it from what I could tell.



> 4E absolutely supports an approach where the DM has a bunch of scenes they are going to frame prepared in advance no matter what the players do. But it works so much better when you don't do that.




Thank you. This has been my point all along. I will NOT argue with you that talented DMs can't take any game and make it a great ride. I won't even argue that if I really wanted to I could probably take this 4e which I have been so resistant to and make it fit my style. However, I have no desire to take the time to do so when I've got a deeply flawed, but fun system which I enjoy already


----------



## pemerton

CuRoi said:


> If I am a "striker" like say a ranger, can I have an interest in being a self sacrificial type who takes it on the nose for the party when I can? Or do I need to play say a fighter for that. I realize one will be more optimal for the situation than the other. But is it feasible for a player to decide they want to "Defend" but not play a "Defender" class? If not, how does that effect the players choice of interaction with the ongoing story? Curious more than anything.



The answer is "sort of, but it depends".

Certainly, in any given encounter, it is possible for a player playing a PC of role X to decide that, givem the circumstances, they will do Y instead. A few sessions ago, for example, the sorcerer in my game (who is a multi-target striker) took the front line to protect the fighter and paladin, who (for various reasons related both to resource depletion and current adverse effects) were in need of protection. And the sorcerer in question has enough close range and defensive tricks - like bursting into fire and frying anyone who tries to hit him - that this was viable even if not fully optimal from the striking point of view.

But if a player tried to make this sort of behaviour the norm, it would have an effect on the sort of contribution that his/her PC makes to combat. In this respect, character build choices are an important aspect of 4e. But it is certainly possible to build a PC who comes close to straddling roles - the fighter in my game is not just a self-sacrificing defender, for example, but also a close range controller (he uses a polearm and has lots of forced movement and knock prone capabilities, in addition to basic fighter control). And the paladin is also a healer (the only leader in the party is a hybrid cleric-archer ranger, so the paladin's contribution to overall healing is non-neglible). And the wizard, while a controller, is not combat optimised at all, but built primarily as a scholar and ritualist.

Bottom line: departing from the orientation of your build is definitely sub-optimal, but the range of viable builds is very extensive. And the retraining rules make changes in build over time feasible, although obviously easier at lower than higher levels (because at lower levels what is being retrained at any given level will be a greater proportion of the whole PC).

This means that in choosing a build, you are already choosing to engage with the story in a certain way - not to the extent of prescripting, but making a non-trivial contribution to it.

That's why I regard the issue of GM control over/veto of build as a fairly important one - the more control of this sort that the GM exercises, the more the GM rather than the player is shaping the player's contribution to the story.



CuRoi said:


> Yes, my PCs fight foes. Their foe happens to be whoever they decided to attack



OK, that wasn't clear to me in your earlier post. I know that in some play groups what you describe here is not the case (eg many modules or adventure paths predefine who the "bad guy" is).



CuRoi said:


> Right, the GM frames a scene - all the "situations" if you will and the players must resolve them within the scene limits established by the GM and without help from potentially "scene breaking" spells and the like. I'm pretty sure I get what you are saying.



I would want to add to this: the scene limits aren't _just _established by the GM but will unfold via the action resolution mechanics; _but_ the absence of "scene breaking" spells means that the players can't test, expand or transcend those limits without having to engage the scene in some sort of meaningful way (for these purposes, I'm not counting "OK, we all teleport away" as meaningful).



CuRoi said:


> What I do think is I have to go back to the "Water to Wine / Wine to Water" comment I made at the start of the debate. I'll wager 90% of the potential DMs that pickup 4e will not at all be thinking of situaional and plot authority. They'll pick up the book, run players through Skill Challenge A and Encounter B, find their plans are never *evolved* by what the players do, only *advanced* by what the players do, and be all warm and fuzzy about it. If they stay in that comfort zone and have fun, awesome.
> 
> Look, leave the theory aside. I dont see it in the DMG. Now, let yourself be that "new DM" that picks up a DMG. You read the skill challenge section. You see advice on how to set up a skill chellenge, you read the section about "consequences". There is a Success and Failure section.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You get the Succes section for the examples which is one sentence. This is essentially "you win". Its cut and dry just as if you took out a foe in a combat. Next you get the failure section which does allow for more amibiguity but is always telling you that the results will push you toward the final quest objective, just with more skill challenges in the way (which, IMO makes the game more fun so losing seems to be the way to go...)
> 
> New DM absorbs the info and probably (but not always) walks away with the following: Players win scenarios I have explicitly created without their input and then they move along toward my intended plot goal. If they screw up, they still get there, I just have more challenges which I have created.



The parts of the rules that, to me, tell against what you say here are:

PHB page 259

A skill challenge occurs when exploration … or social interaction becomes an encounter, with serious consequences for success or failure… Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

DMG pages 72 - 75
More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure…

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role…

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge…

What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?

When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure…

the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story
of the adventure…

If the characters fail the challenge, the story still has to move forward, but in a different direction and possibly by a longer, more dangerous route.​
Also, there is this, under the heading "Player Designed Quests":

DMG page 103
You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure.​
Like all reasonably complex text, this is open to interpretation. But I don't think it's naturally read as meaning "players have no input into my scenarios" and "players have no say over plot goals".

I don't know any new GMs who have started GMing using the advice in 4e. Do we have any evidence that they are more inclined to run railroads than they are to run scenarios into which their players have a high degree of input? My least experienced player has now been playing RPGs for over 10 years. But from the very start he took it for granted that, as a player, part of his job was to input material into scenarios and to help frame goals - both as part of building the backstory of his PC, and as part of actually playing his PC and engaging with situations in the course of the game. Is there any evidence that my experience with this player was atypical?



CuRoi said:


> There is no mention of relationship maps and diagrams and what some emminent (edit) game designer says about how to use it.



This is true. I think the advice on scenario design in the 4e DMG is not all that good. I think the best D&D advice on scenario design I'm familiar with is actually Moldvay's in the Basic rulebook.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> Far far better improv: huh?




For what it's worth, I think 4E is pretty good for improv, at least for me.

There are a couple of ways I think 4E achieves this.  (Not trying to make comparisons here, just how it works for me.)


I find it easy to resolve "actions the rules don't cover" by using set values for Fort, Ref, and Will.
DCs are set by level; I know, as DM, that a 3rd-level monster will have the right DCs to be a 3rd-level challenge, and I can use that handy table on page 42 to set appropriate DCs.
I can base any action on the appropriate stat.
NPC attacks use a simple formula - level + 5 vs. AC and level + 3 vs Fort, Ref, or Will.
I can set the amount of damage any action does by using that table on page 42.

I don't think I use these features in a manner typical to most 4E DMs.  A quick example: in a recent setting, the PCs were fighting near an icy river.  The level of the hex was pre-determined to be 2.  When anyone got pushed into the river, it was simple to determine if the icy waters chilled them to the bone (+5 vs Fort, 3d10+3 damage).  When characters try to swim out of the river, I know what the DC is (15).

It should be noted that I use the logical results of actions to determine non-damaging effects; the river's current was pretty strong, so it moved characters 10' per round.  In order to make this really work I had to hack things a little bit: "If the action requires another character to be physically maimed, such as stabbing someone in the eye to blind them, and the character taking the action possesses no special talent to deliver this effect, the target must be Bloodied (either before the action is taken or as a result of the action) and be unable to defend themselves from the attack."

(Hmm, I guess that icy river could have given characters pneumonia.  Neat.)


----------



## pemerton

nnms said:


> 4E seems to be better suited for scene based play with hard scene framing focused on a story.  Now you can do that in a dungeon where the exploration bits are simply scene framing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I found 4E so refreshing on release because it was more like pre-2E versions of D&D.  Far, far better suited to improv based play and low prep play than 3.x and it's universal system of simulation.  I like it because it supports wildly creative, story/setting exploring, earth shattering type stuff that goes beyond just pushing figures around a battlemap.



Obviously I agree with all this.



nnms said:


> An author of DMG2 is also an author of Forge type games and developed some of the techniques in question.  It's not just from people outside of the 4E community.



In fact, some of the text in DMG2 is cribbed by Laws almost word-for-word from the revised HeroQuest rulebook.



nnms said:


> The 4E Rules Compendium even uses pretty hard scene framing by the DM as an example of how to handle dungeon exploration.



Are you referring here to page 168?



nnms said:


> Pemerton was saying something very specific and came at it from two perspectives to try to best communicate it and you took the time to dig them out to do what?  Show him contradicting himself so you can declare victory in the internet message board game?



Thanks.


----------



## pemerton

CuRoi said:


> Well, it can and it can't be formed out of their actions. It all depends on if the players even want to get involved in that overarching plot or not. But it is there because it WILL effect the players somehow simply because it will effect the entire campaign to some degree. I always include some sort of "bigger than you" plot or scheme for the players to encounter. Why? Because thats what good stories are about. If I wrote campaigns about players doing their laundry and looking for work between sparse "adventure" the game would sorta suck dont you think?



I prefer a game of adventure rather than laundry. But I also tend to prefer that any big overarching plot be the product of play, and the choices of my players, rather than be set up by me behind the scenes.

Which links back to the idea of "relationship maps", and also Paul Czege's comments about keeping NPC personalities flexible - I like to have a degree of backstory to work with, but exactly what the "big plot" might be, and the details of each NPCs' place in that "big plot", is something worked out in the course of playing the game, as scenes are framed and the players engage and resolve them.



BryonD said:


> Far far better improv: huh?



Well, for me this links back to the much-debated skill challenge structure.

One issue in GMing in an improv fashion - including the sort of improv described in the previous paragraph, of working with a loose backstory plus player concerns and interests revealed in actual play to shape and gradually unfold a "big plot" - is coming up with new and interesting ideas and incorporating them into the game.

A mechanic like a skill challenge, and other mechanics that it resembles like HeroWars/Quest extended contests, help with this issue by supporting the introduction of complications into scenes. They do this in two ways: (i) by mandating the introduction of complications at certain points in the game - they stop the GM from being forgetful or blase in this respect; and (ii) because of the triggers for this mandate, they help make sure that the GM has something interesting to work with (namely, the material provided by the players) to help shape and introduce those complications.

To me, this seems to be something like the opposite approach to RPGing to the one you articulated upthread, where the mechanics are in principle invisible and the fiction unfolds purely by its own internal logic. Are you able to say anything about how you improvise under that approach? Is it important to incorporate players ideas/contributions, or is the GM the arbiter of what fits into the fiction?


----------



## CuRoi

pemerton said:


> The answer is "sort of, but it depends".
> 
> That's why I regard the issue of GM control over/veto of build as a fairly important one




Fair enough, and a good explanation to boot. My spidey sense is tingling so I won't ask for an explanation about GM control/veto over builds... 



> I would want to add to this: the scene limits aren't _just _established by the GM but will unfold via the action resolution mechanics; _but_ the absence of "scene breaking" spells means that the players can't test, expand or transcend those limits without having to engage the scene in some sort of meaningful way (for these purposes, I'm not counting "OK, we all teleport away" as meaningful).




Ok, I see your statement here - so can a player interact in a meaningful way with the scene and produce a "teleport effect"? In essence, lets say the skill challenge is inside a combat which the players cannot hope to win and the embedded "skill challenge" involves activating magic runes that teleports the party to safety. The trick is accomplishing this while the fight rages on? Is that a fair depiction of a skill challenge? 

Again, I see the value, however it mucks with my game style. I WANT players to pressure me to react to their crazy stuff. I don't want to plan some sort of Word of Recall slot machine into a fight (but I like the idea, heh). If the players have access to Teleport spells, I want to make them be forced to use them to save their skin because they just went through the absolute wrong door and soiled their armor. I want the players to be so vexxed by the murder mystery that they actually resort to Speak with Dead so I can play a vague and annoying disembodied voice. I want my players to cast Find the Path so I can lead them around by the nose as they surprise my "bad guys" and we can all just see what happens.

If these skill challenges are so open and so conducive to "improvisation", I can't see how the same DM that could handle them would ever claim that 3e has any "I win DnD spells" or "scene breaking spells".  

As far as the provided quotes:

The only thing in the quotes I see is that players might sometimes suggest novel uses of skills and the DM should generally allow whatever players can rationalize. Show me the part that says the players should feel free to completely circumvent your skills challenge and proceed to "point Z" so you should be prepared at point Z for this possibility. Then, I'll know the Skill Challenge concept is for my group  

Ahhh but the counter argument is "all the 4e Skill challenge / scene circumventing power of players has been removed, so there is no need to say that players will bypass your skill challenge without interacting with it in a meaningful way. To which I have to again say - how is this not considered scripted again? How exactly do oyu interact in a meaningful way to transcend a skill challenge? Having to interact with it precludes any transcending...

I love the "RPing on top of the rules" statement someone made earlier. At my table, I think any Skills Challenge would have to be so transparent as to be unrecognizable as such or my players would quickly get bored with it. In which case, I'm simply running my game as I always do - reacting to players decisions and telling them what happens when the roll the dice.

My table with the skills challenges as written (recall I've got a bit of twisted sense of humor)

Grimnoft, Cleric of Maeve approaches a lonely beggar on the side of the road.
Grimnoft: Hello. What are doing out so far from the village on this fair night?
DM: The old man looks up at you pleadingly and points at his open mouth with a shrug.
Grimnoft: Whats wrong with you good man?
Tolidor: Maybe he's hungry...I'll get him some food.
DM: Ummm....you guys need to be making some rolls...Grim roll a Sense Motive and Tolidor a Diplomacy?
Grimnoft, Cleric of Maeve: "Fine I rolled a 25 Sense Motive."
DM: Ok, you sense that something is not quite right with this man and he needs something from you...
Grimnoft: "C'mon, a 25 and thats all I get? Aww son of a..., this guy I just asked a question is a skills challenge? How many more rolls until we win?"  
Tolidor, Wizard/ Rogue: "Yeah, saw that golden question mark floating over his head a mile away. Christ, I've got cooking if I have to roll to hand him some bread." 
Etain, Bard: "Ok, well, I use Perform (cause its my highest score) instead of Diplomacy to convince him by telling him a story about how we are brave adventurers that...
Norha, Fighter: "Forget it - enough talk. I gut 'em and we move on down the road, now."  
DM: Ummm you guys just failed the Skill Challenge. There will be more skills challenges now until I get you back on track for the story.
_Collective groans rise from the table_.



> Like all reasonably complex text, this is open to interpretation. But I don't think it's naturally read as meaning "players have no input into my scenarios" and "players have no say over plot goals".




This isn't A Critique of Pure Reason here...I don't find it that complex honestly. I'm sure with a lot of background in game theory and such you can read all kinds of things into it. Assuming every potential viewer of the passages has that background is probably a bad idea. To me it all seems pretty simple. 

Show me where it does say the players do have input into how the scenario turns out aside from rolling random skills to reach the pre-defined conclusions for the pre-defined adventure using ways to deal with challenges as framed entirely by the DM. DM narrates and fail or succeed, players trudge along toward pre-defined resolution of the story. Sure it has a passing reference to players making up their own challenges. Very cool. But why cant a player just play their role and react to the world how they want and the world more organically reacts back? 

I know, a great DM can make it more transparent and can incorporate it into a less "follow the leader" format. I get that. I won't dispute that.  I don't however think I will see eye to eye with you on the point that 4e is specifically written in such a way that encourages improvisational play. And it does this by specifically by removing player "shock and awe" spells and by creating a defined method for interacting with the world outside of combat that really sort of mimics combat. 

If you mean improvisational by the DM now has guidelines and a necessity to describe to players what random skill or power X does during a challenge, then yes, its got that in spades. If you mean improvisational in that this is a game where both players and DMs get to explore a story together and each make meaningful decisions which may force the DM to re-evaluate their own idea of what the "story" is then I say no, it doesn't do that in the least. It can, in the right hands. But IMO previous editions do this job far better.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul said:


> If I understand how you achieve Story Now in 4E, I think the archer-ranger could have potential.  I can see a PC whose backstory is pretty simple - town destroyed by orcs, survived on their own by keeping at range and using the "slippery" powers that Rangers have.  When playing the game, there will be times when you have to decide if you want to save your own hide or if you trust these guys you've been fighting with enough to take a hit or two.
> 
> How do you (pemerton) set up situations where this will come into play?



What you've described is actually something like the ranger in my game. Perhaps, to an extent, it's the player rather than the class!

Because my party has only a hybrid cleric and a paladin, healing is always at a premium,
and thus questions of sacrifice versus selfishness (not to the point of PC death, but certainly to the point of PC disadvantage in a given combat) come up fairly regularly without me having to do anything much other than set the machine in motion.

The DMG talks about setting up encounters with "front lines" of soldiers and brutes, and the ideal for a PC party seems often to be expressed in terms of a "front line" of defenders. But I tend to find that the encounters I set up rarely have a straightforward front line. This is in part because a number of the PCs have significant movement abilities, and use them, it's in part because our chaos sorcerer has a habit of rolling 1s and pushing everyone, and it's in part because of the sorts of terrain I use - more open terrain and fewer rooms.

What that means, then, is that quite often the players have to make decisions about who will engage what, who will move where to support whom, and so on - and the main thematic content that comes out these decisions, I feel, is a consideration of honour and shame - who is doing the right thing, who is pulling their weight, who is unreasonably grandstanding (this accusation is levelled mostly at the sorcerer, who is also a drow, and who is often cavalier in his use of darkness to shape the battlefield in a way that maximises his chance for success and glory at the expense of other PCs), etc. Sometimes this is fairly lighthearted, but sometimes - for example, in the encounter where the party played it too safely and failed to rescue the prisoners in the ritual circle early enough, allowing one to be sacrificed by the gnoll ritualists - it can be a bit more serious. Sometimes I will use the monsters and develop the situation in such a way as to play this up - for example, deliberately focus on targetting the wizard or sorcerer to see how the defenders respond - but sometimes it's driven by the players.

I think honour and shame - which can also tie in to related values like courage, self-sacrifice etc - as the focus of intraparty rivalry is also one way in which rivalry can flourish, and play out in an interesting way, without actually breaking up the party play in a way that doesn't really work for D&D. (And I think my approach to GMing this is probably influenced by the superhero team comics - especially the X-Men - that I used to read back in the day).

An example from my session on Sunday: the PCs had been staying with some witches who had helped them, and whom they had helped. The situation was less than friendly, but certainly stable (the result of an earlier skill challenge). To help the PCs and witches work together to explore a site on the Shadowfell, the PCs had agreed to send an Animal Messenger (via ritual) to summon a fourth witch from her tower, who (the other witches assured the PCs) has expertise in matters Shadowfell-related.

I took the view that the players, by willingly participating in bringing this new complication into the situation, had opened the door to me reopening the result of the earlier skill challenge. (And in practical terms, they had certainly benefited from both mechanically and in the context of the fiction. So to reopen it would hardly be to rip them off.) The fourth witch (a Night Hag) therefore attacked them when she arrived in the middle of the night. At first the other witches hestitated to take part. The PCs (and the players) were taking a keen interest in this, making Insight checks and so on from the first round in order to try and size up the situation. Instead of trying to dissuade the other witches from taking part in the attack, however, they took the approach of waiting and seeing - and two of the other three decided to participate in the fight. I kept the third witch out in part for encounter balance reasons, but also because, of the three, she was the only one who had actually had her life saved by the PCs - and it therefore seemed proper that she of all the witches show the most loyalty to them.

So far I've talked about setting up a combat situation in such a way as to make honour, loyalty, shame etc relevant - in the combat itself this played out in the way the PCs oriented themselves towards the undecided - and later committed - witches, in terms of defensive positioning, responding to their attacks and so on. There were also more immediate and somewhat self-contained episodes, like when the tiefling paladin charged through a wall of fire that one of the witches had summoned and then made an Intimidate roll against a second witch, a Howling Hag whose blasphemous whispers (a damaging aura) included rantings against tieflings, drow and the like as part of the self-justificatory story she was telling about her own betrayal of them. This charge was a self-contained display of grandstanding, as well as a response to the overall situation of betrayal by the witches.

At the end of the encounter, the PCs negotiated with the witch who had not joined in the betrayal, letting her keep the spellbook with Wall of Fire (the 10th level fire tome from Arcane Power) and suggesting to her a nice place to set up shop in a forest several days travel to the south. So I thought that there was an interesting balance between honour/loyalty and shame/disloyalty in the way the players resolved the conflict - clearly a type of self-interest in letting the witches join their newcomer sister in the fight without much attempt to dissaude them, motivated in part by the desire not to have to share with them any proceeds from the Shadowfell venture, but also a degree of magnanimity in the way they dealt with the witch who did not betray them.



LostSoul said:


> As for skeletons, I think they can carry a lot of thematic meaning.  They're undead, so they used to be someone who was once alive.  They were either raised by horrible necromantic rituals or by a source of necrotic energy.



Agreed, but the basic skeletons in the MM (decrepit skeletons, 3rd level soldier skeletons, even the blazing skeletons) don't really give mechanical voice to this in the way that (for example) the zombies do.



LostSoul said:


> * A group of soldiers who vowed to defend a keep until the return of the True King; the keep has fallen into ruin and the soldiers have died long ago, but the power of their vow has kept them in a state of undeath.
> 
> * Recognizing the skeletons as people that you once knew; perhaps your PC sent them on a scouting mission.  Now they're back as skeletons.  That could carry a punch.



All good stuff. The second idea could be implemented via something like the wight's "horiffic visage" power.



LostSoul said:


> For what it's worth, I think 4E is pretty good for improv, at least for me.
> 
> There are a couple of ways I think 4E achieves this.  (Not trying to make comparisons here, just how it works for me.)
> 
> 
> I find it easy to resolve "actions the rules don't cover" by using set values for Fort, Ref, and Will.
> DCs are set by level; I know, as DM, that a 3rd-level monster will have the right DCs to be a 3rd-level challenge, and I can use that handy table on page 42 to set appropriate DCs.
> I can base any action on the appropriate stat.
> NPC attacks use a simple formula - level + 5 vs. AC and level + 3 vs Fort, Ref, or Will.
> I can set the amount of damage any action does by using that table on page 42.
> 
> I don't think I use these features in a manner typical to most 4E DMs.  A quick example: in a recent setting, the PCs were fighting near an icy river.  The level of the hex was pre-determined to be 2.  When anyone got pushed into the river, it was simple to determine if the icy waters chilled them to the bone (+5 vs Fort, 3d10+3 damage).  When characters try to swim out of the river, I know what the DC is (15).



What you describe here seems pretty similar to how I do things. Except instead of hexes having levels, I set the levels of hazards/monsters/traps etc based on the encounter-building guidelines in the DMG (and so would set the level for the river based on these considerations, and defaulting to the PCs' level).

Also, when the situation is one of exploration rather than tactical combat, I tend to use skill checks by the players rather than attacks against PCs by the terrain/hazard. So while in a combat I might use the river in the way you describe (in my last session, it wasn't an icy river but rather prismatic walls), in an exploration context I'd be more likely to call for an Endurance check against the appropriate DC (with loss of healing surges as the consequence).



LostSoul said:


> I am reminded of an adventure from my first 3E campaign:
> 
> <snip adventure details>
> 
> In response I asked the player how his PC felt about his actions.  I let the player decide which powers he lost, if any.  I believe he gave up a few of them - Cure Disease for sure.  I used the loss of that power to drive a future adventure.
> 
> I also let the player decide when he regained the use of his abilities.
> 
> I'm not sure that was Story Now; that game took place in the fall of 2001, a long time ago!  We did play fast-and-loose with the rules in order to get a slightly different experience, and I think those decisions had a big effect on the game.



Good story.

And it sounds pretty "story now" to me. I agree with Ron Edwards that narrativist play is more common than is often thought, and that it's a mistake to get to hung up on how deep the thematic material is or how self-conscious the play group is in putting into play and working with it. For me, rather than looking at self-consciousness, I think about all the typical ways that the play in question would be shut down by simulationist priorities - "You're not playing your character properly" or "You're violating your alignment" would be the standard shutdown techniques for the scenario you describe.

Here are some quotes from here and here:

Narrativist character creation in some games requires a fair amount of back-story, just as some Simulationist play does, but in the former, it's about establishing a chassis for conflict, metagame, and reward, and in the latter, it's about Coloring the character and providing oppportunities for GM-created hooks. I rank the conflict between these concepts, during play, among the highest-risk situations for the survival of a gaming group. Strategies to resolve this conflict, whether social or design-oriented, are currently not well-developed in the hobby...

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all...

when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary...

[There are r]ole-players who play Narrativist already, but who think what I'm describing must be harder or more abstract than it is. Since they can identify Exploration of Character and Situation in their play preferences, they think they must be playing Simulationist. "That's Narrativist? But we do that, using a plain old well-known role-playing game - it can't be Narrativist!"​
Your story also reminds me of something that happened early in my career as a Rolemaster GM. In Rolemaster most victories in combat are by disablement of the enemy rather than killing - because of the way concussion hits and crits work in that system - but there is always the chance of killing an enemy with a high crit roll. So it wasn't until many sessions in that the paladin PC killed his first human in combat. The player has his PC go into a grieving period, and head out into the wilderness to meditate. I rolled a random encounter (as the rules told me to!) and, via the slightly bizarre collection of tables that govern RM random encounters, ended up rolling a moderarely low level demon.

I had the demon come up to the meditating paladin and start taunting him about his moral failings in having killed a man. I assumed that the player would respond by having his PC attackg the demon and regain confidence in himself, on the grounds that no demon can speak the truth. But instead the player took the view that the demon was a punishment sent by his god, and therefore took no defensive actions as the demon proceeded to pummel him into unconsciouness - at which point I decided that it got bored, realising that this paladin's spirit wasn't going to be broken, and therefore left him alone.

This was in 1990, and I didn't have any terminology to describe the difference between the game I was running - and enjoying running and playing in - and the 2nd ed AD&D game from which I was a refugee, and the games similar to that that were going on around me. (I'd now describe them as moderately dysfunctional high concept simulationism - moderately dysfunctional because of the excessive and clunky GM force being used to keep the exploration on topic). And at that time I also prioritised a tight correlation between system and gameworld much more than I do now (hence, in part, my choice of RM as a system) - in practice, that early RM game was probably as much purist-for-system as narrativist in its focus. But RM doesn't have alignment or moral "reality" built into the system as part of its simulationist mechanics, and I think this - together with the approach to play that we all took as a group - made it easier to play in a narrativist fashion without having the rulebooks jump up at us to tell us that we were doing it wrong.


----------



## CuRoi

pemerton said:


> I prefer a game of adventure rather than laundry. But I also tend to prefer that any big overarching plot be the product of play, and the choices of my players, rather than be set up by me behind the scenes.




So your worlds don't evolve at all without player input? Interesting. There is no "bigger than you" sort of plot or story that players could, if they choose, get involved in? The only plots that happen are plots they essentially create by their choices?

Sigh. Alright, I give up trying to understand this. You say you don't create plots or "big plots" even and that the world really only evolves as your players request it. You don't create challenges and encounters ahead of time, and you freely adapt and create new challenges as the need arises. How again are Teleports and Divination a problem at all aside from circumventing a the 4e "x rolls required" mechanic for skill challenges? It really makes no sense. By your claims only your players are creating anything meaningful in your game yet you think use of powers that let them bypass your on the fly, off the cuff skills challenges somehow threatens the integrity of the game???  

Anyway, I'd love to see more about the relationship maps. Feel free to PM one from your current campaign if you have it in electronic format! Thanks!


----------



## pemerton

CuRoi said:


> Fair enough, and a good explanation to boot. My spidey sense is tingling so I won't ask for an explanation about GM control/veto over builds...



Feel free not to bite if your spidey-sense is still tingling - but an oft-discussed issue on these threads is player entitlement, whether or not the GM has a final veto over what game elements players can bring into the campaign, etc.

I think that for any game, given that the PC is the player's vehicle for engaging with the fiction, the more GM control is exercised the more this limits, in certain respects at least, the player's scope for that engagement. But the significance of this can vary a lot from system to system, because different systems makes the PC build more or less important to enaging the fiction. In a game like 4e it's pretty important, for the reasons I gave. And so GM control over build really is, in my view, in danger of having an adverse effect on player protagonism.

Like I said - feel very free not to bite! 



CuRoi said:


> Ok, I see your statement here - so can a player interact in a meaningful way with the scene and produce a "teleport effect"? In essence, lets say the skill challenge is inside a combat which the players cannot hope to win and the embedded "skill challenge" involves activating magic runes that teleports the party to safety. The trick is accomplishing this while the fight rages on? Is that a fair depiction of a skill challenge?



That could be a possibility. The closest I've come to something like what you describe in my game was a situation in which the PCs had to fight a vampire in an underground room which was rapidly filling with water through many holes in the roof. Their actions included pulling open the drain plug, and forcing open the doors and then jamming their self-closing mechanism with a mace.

The more typical skill challenge in my game is a social encounter, overland travel, or an attempt to understand or defuse some weird magical phenomenon. I don't use a lot of skill challenges imbedded in encounters, because (in my experience) it's non-trivial to get the pacing and balance issues right.



CuRoi said:


> I WANT players to pressure me to react to their crazy stuff.



Well, so do I, but I guess it depends a bit what the crazy stuff is.

From my point of view, I think it hurts the sort of game I want to run if the mechanics of the game make it _expedient_ for the players to have their PCs do one thing, but the game would be more interesting or engaging if they did another thing. A banal examle - nearly everyone agrees that the occasional swing from a chandelier is more dramatic then merely having two combatants stand next to one another and slug it out. A more specific example from my game - the fighter was one one side of a hyena pack filling the corridor, but wanted to get to the other side to protect one of the PCs (I think the paladin) who was isolated there, and so jumped over the pack - requiring a successful Athletics check and taking an opportunity attack in the process. The dramatic jump is, I think, more interesting then teleporting. Yet another example, more generic again: a fight which involves lots of movement, back-and-forth of advantage, and difficult decisions to be made, is more interesting and engaging than a fight which is resolved without any of that, because all the real work was done in planning and buffing before the party teleported in.

So 4e doesn't get in the way of crazy stuff, but I think it is designed to reduce incentives that encourage expedience at the expense of flair.



CuRoi said:


> If these skill challenges are so open and so conducive to "improvisation", I can't see how the same DM that could handle them would ever claim that 3e has any "I win DnD spells" or "scene breaking spells".



Do the examples I give shed any additional light?



CuRoi said:


> As far as the provided quotes:
> 
> The only thing in the quotes I see is that players might sometimes suggest novel uses of skills and the DM should generally allow whatever players can rationalize. Show me the part that says the players should feel free to completely circumvent your skills challenge and proceed to "point Z" so you should be prepared at point Z for this possibility.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To which I have to again say - how is this not considered scripted again? How exactly do oyu interact in a meaningful way to transcend a skill challenge? Having to interact with it precludes any transcending...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Show me where it does say the players do have input into how the scenario turns out aside from rolling random skills to reach the pre-defined conclusions for the pre-defined adventure using ways to deal with challenges as framed entirely by the DM.



The short answer here is: the bit where it talks about player-designed quests. Which will mean player-instigated encounters (both combat and skill challenges).

The longer answer also points to the fact that, once players start making "novel use of skills", the way in which the fiction unfolds is not under the sole control of the GM. So the concusion hasn't been predefined.

As for transcending skill challenges, there are two cases. The first is fairly straightforward - if the players aren't interested in the stakes of the challenge anymore, or if some other development has happened that makes those stakes irrelevant, then the challenge is over. (For example, if the skill challenge involves negotiation over how a particular magic item is to be dealt with, and in the course of the negotiation someone drops the item through a rift to the Far Realm, then the skill challenge has probably come to an end - at least in its present form - and the fictional situation proceeds from wherever it had got to. This is much like a combat that suddenly stops because both sides recognise that they've got better reasons to be friends than to fight.)

The second case, though, is where the challenge is still on foot, but the players just don't want to be part of it. The question in this case is analogous to asking how, in classic dungeon play (say in Basic, or in AD&D 1st ed) a player is to "transcend" the dungeon? Well, once you're in it, there is no way to do so _within the game_ - other than, for examle, by letting the next monster you see eat you. But the real solution is not to play with GMs who design boring dungeons.

The answer with a skill challenge is much the same. The skill challenges a GM designs - whether or not in response to player-initiated quests - _are the game_. If the GM cannot frame skill challenges that are worth anyone's time (to paraphrase Ron Edwards) then yes, the game will suck.

It might seem that one solution to boring dungeons or adventures is teleporting out of them. But if the GM is no good, this is likely to be at best a short-term solution. Because ulimately you're still relying on the GM to make something interesting happen wherever it is that you end up after teleporting.

Likewise with a skill challenge. If the players "teleport out of it" by refusing to participate and just letting it proceed straight through to failure, then they might fairly quickly move their PCs into a different situation in the game. But if the GM is no good, this is likely not to be a very good solution.

In this respect, designing a skill challenge is no different from designing a dungeon (for those games that use them) or desiging a metaplot (for those games that use them) or designing a campaign world (for those games that use pre-defined campaign worlds) - if it's not worth anyone's time, the game is likely to suck. I don't think skill challenges are hostage to this problem in any special way.


----------



## pemerton

CuRoi said:


> So your worlds don't evolve at all without player input? Interesting. There is no "bigger than you" sort of plot or story that players could, if they choose, get involved in? The only plots that happen are plots they essentially create by their choices?
> 
> Sigh. Alright, I give up trying to understand this. You say you don't create plots or "big plots" even and that the world really only evolves as your players request it.



The verbs "create" and "request" in the last sentence of each paragraph aren't quite right.

The only plots that happen are plots that the players _engage with_ via their choices. And these only evolve in so far as it is relevant to, and driven by, those engagements.

I used to use more general campaign timelines, which would explain how various events would happen according to the passage of ingame time in various regions of the gameworld. But then I noticed (i) that these events really only mattered insofar as they connected to what was actually going on, in play, with the PCs, and (ii) as a GM I wasn't paying any attention to those events other than those that were connected to what was actually going on, in play, with the PCs. So I decided to dispense with the campaign timelines, and just focus on play.

An example from my game: I bought a module online after reading a good review - I can't remember it's name - but anyway, it seemed in fact to be somewhat derivative of the old White Dwarf adventure The Lichway (not a criticism, but it would have been good if the reviewer had picked this up), but one thing that was new in it was an NPC who had the power to tell the names of the dead by touching them, and who was commited to burying all the dead to be found on a terrible ancient battlefield.

I liked this NPC a lot and had the PCs encounter him while they were making their way to tombs up a ridge which had been the site of a terrible battle in my gameworld. Various hijinks ensued that I won't bore you with. But at the back of my mind is this idea: various beings are trying to learn the Raven Queen's true name - which is a secret - in order to gain power over her;  the Raven Queen is dead - she came to power after dying, going to Nerrul's realm, and overthrowing him; therefore her body is, in principle at least, recoverable; and this NPC could then be used to learn the name from that body. So this suggests a plot by some faction or other - Vecna, Orcus or both (either or both would fit into my game very well, because there is a wizard-invoker of Ioun, Vecna and Erathis, and a cleric and a paladin of the Raven Queen) - to kidnap the NPC, recover the Raven Queen's body, and thereby learn her name.

But until a context comes up in which this would be an interesting notion to put into action, I won't be doing anything with the idea. And if and when I do decide to do something with idea, the way that it unfolds will be driven by the way that the players interact with it. It's not about them _requesting_ (or not only), but about them sending signals (with express requests being only a modest contributor to them) of what interests them, what doesn't, and where they want the game to go.



CuRoi said:


> You don't create challenges and encounters ahead of time, and you freely adapt and create new challenges as the need arises. How again are Teleports and Divination a problem at all aside from circumventing a the 4e "x rolls required" mechanic for skill challenges? It really makes no sense.



The issue here, as I tried to explain in my previous post, is about removing the incentive to expedience at the expense of flair and excitement. I can run games with teleport and divination - I did so for many years in my first long-running Rolemaster campaign. Teleport and divination were mostly stripped out of the second long-running Rolemaster campaign at the request of the players, because they had experienced the sort of issue that I am talking about - that making those powers available created too big a gulf between making choices that were rational from the point of view of the PCs, and choices that actually made for an interesting and engaging game.



CuRoi said:


> By your claims only your players are creating anything meaningful in your game yet you think use of powers that let them bypass your on the fly, off the cuff skills challenges somehow threatens the integrity of the game???



I don't know about "integrity of the game" - but learning what someone's motivation is by outwitting them in negotiation, and/or scaring them, and/or piecing together various fragments of information, is something my players generally enjoy. Learning by using mind reading is, too often, an anti-climax.



CuRoi said:


> Anyway, I'd love to see more about the relationship maps. Feel free to PM one from your current campaign if you have it in electronic format! Thanks!



There's nothing very dramatic about it. I tend to just use notes that talk about who the different NPCs are and what their relationships are to one another, and what their history is. I've attached a diagram to this post which was actually drawn up my players in our last campaign - an Oriental Adventures-style Rolemaster game. By the end of the campaign they had a better grasp on some of the minutiae then I did! (The black squares represent enemies defeated by the PCs. And the label "so-called heavenly realm" reflects a fundamental feature of the campaign - that the main thematic issue was of the attitude that should be taken towards the heavens, and the gods' plans for and designs upon the world. And some of those boxes are PCs - Hiroshi, Sun Ki, Hidao, Kochi, and 2 members of the Tao clan.)


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Well, for me this links back to the much-debated skill challenge structure.



First, even conceding your point, that just makes it capable.  "Far better" is a whole separate tier of debate.

And obviously from my point of view we are just back around to "pop quiz" gaming in which the players are backing fitting their narrative to match the mechanics.


> One issue in GMing in an improv fashion - including the sort of improv described in the previous paragraph, of working with a loose backstory plus player concerns and interests revealed in actual play to shape and gradually unfold a "big plot" - is coming up with new and interesting ideas and incorporating them into the game.
> 
> A mechanic like a skill challenge, and other mechanics that it resembles like HeroWars/Quest extended contests, help with this issue by supporting the introduction of complications into scenes. They do this in two ways: (i) by mandating the introduction of complications at certain points in the game - they stop the GM from being forgetful or blase in this respect; and (ii) because of the triggers for this mandate, they help make sure that the GM has something interesting to work with (namely, the material provided by the players) to help shape and introduce those complications.



Exactly, those mechanical "mandates" are such a great thing.....  

Seriously, I don't need these mandates to achieve the result you laud, and having the mechanics "mandate" something is exactly what I seek to avoid.  



> To me, this seems to be something like the opposite approach to RPGing to the one you articulated upthread, where the mechanics are in principle invisible and the fiction unfolds purely by its own internal logic. Are you able to say anything about how you improvise under that approach? Is it important to incorporate players ideas/contributions, or is the GM the arbiter of what fits into the fiction?



Honestly, your question seems bizarre and even smacks a bit of the RPG version of "have you quit beating your wife?"

The players are free to do pretty much whatever they want whenever they want.  I usually have a fairly rail-roady "script" ready to go and somewhere between 15 seconds and not at all along the way the players hop the rails.  And sometimes they stay on the rails but completely throw a given scenario into something I never imagined.  And I find the best sessions happen when I'm caught completely flat footed and start making things up to respond to the players unexpected plans.  

I don't remotely claim it is an all parties are equal dynamic.  The DM can throw a dragon at the party when he wants to.  The DM puts the dragon where it "fits".  The players are not permitted to declare they are going to go around that hill, find a cave and go talk to the dragon living in it.  But they could certainly declare that they needed to consult a dragon and lay out a plan for getting there.  And I'd happily support that by sharing information their characters may know which would help them devise a plan.  

Bottom line, in the strictest terms, your question really does not compute.  "Mandates" are not part of this and the idea of a conflict of control isn't a consideration.  Again, I really don't believe you are describing a successful model for making a game vast numbers of people will even want to play.  DM power is a fundamental part of a good system.  And a good DM using that good system will work with the players to make everyone have fun and that constitutes a good game session.  Your dynamic of us vs. them (or equal or controlled) is on the wrong track from the start, so it doesn't have a meaningful answer.

As with so many other elements of 4E, it charges me a price (mandates) in exchange for giving me something I already had, and when it gives it to me it really isn't as high quality as what I had to begin with.  It comes to down to the very kind or presumptions about DMs you have offered.  I don't see 4E as presuming great DMs.  Again, I think WotC made that clear when they promoted easy to DM, great for people who have never DM'ed before, etc...  Instead of looking to what can be achieved and seeking to push that boundary, they assume problems and see to use mandates in the rules to mitigate the harm.

I readily admit that 3E doesn't have a safety net.  It can be played badly in a heartbeat.  And if that is what you have experienced, and the starting premise of your position suggests maybe that is the case, then of course anything that mitigates the harm is going to be "far better".  But if you are getting along without a safety net then that is a whole different level.

Improv happens all the time in my games.  It happens with no mandates and it is great.  Ultimately the DM has power, but everyone at the table feels empowered and enjoys being inside the story and feeling like they are making the story just happen with mechanics just there as support.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> I think about all the typical ways that the play in question would be shut down by simulationist priorities - "You're not playing your character properly" or "You're violating your alignment" would be the standard shutdown techniques for the scenario you describe.



You see these as simulationist????


----------



## Raven Crowking

nnms said:


> Well the classic one that still has my friend (who was DMing) pissed off is Speak With Dead.  Imagine what modern murder investigations would be like if you had that spell.  That was a pretty blatant "solve mystery" moment.




I was going to say, see the first episode of the first season of _*Torchwood*_.  The killer knows they can, effectively, Speak With Dead, and has taken steps to avoid the problem.  Likewise, there are many episodes of *Medium* where the main character gains the same sort of information one might from Speak With Dead, and yet the program still manages to make the outcome a mystery.  And, in _*Medium*_, the protagonist doesn't even need a mostly-intact body!

However, that doesn't even scratch the surface.  In D&D, even the humble Disguise can allow you to look like Bob's Uncle Joe, and won't Uncle Joe be surprised when he discovers he's been named as the killer!?!?!

In _*Prince of Persia*_, the title character is seen to hand the king the poisoned garment that murders him.  He isn't the actual murderer, but Speak With Dead would be more damaging than helpful here.

Finally, and obviously, it takes only one or two examples where Speak With Dead is misleading before the information it provides is seen merely as a clue, and less as a resolution.

Speak With Dead limits the DM in having murder mysteries no more than fingerprinting does in a modern setting.

And, as should be obvious, spectral evidence isn't necessarily evidence, in a world in which the common man simply doesn't know if you cast Speak With Dead or some illusion that merely says what you want it to say.



RC


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> Speak With Dead limits the DM in having murder mysteries no more than fingerprinting does in a modern setting.



Good post

IMO these types of concerns put the priorities out of sequence.  If the game is set in a world in which Speak with Dead is a reality, then dealing with that, both for good and for bad, is part of the FUN of the experience.  Complaining that different conditions require different actions seems to really miss the point.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Remember that time in LotR when Gandalf teleported to Mount Doom, dropped the ring in, then teleported back?  And the book was over in like three paragraphs?

No?


----------



## BryonD

Or the time they just rode on Giant Eagles and tossed the ring in....

Or maybe the time when Gandalf explained that there were downsides to using magic, such as the major bad guys knowing where you are and reacting to you.

There are answers if you look for them.  I assure you my games are working great without these problems.  I get the impression not everyone else is having this success.  That is a shame.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Prior to 3e, there was no guarantee that any wizard would get access to *teleport*.   That said, it should be no surprise to anyone that magic is less flashy in LotR than in any edition of D&D, 4e included.  

Of course, I don't remember Aragorn being a Wuxia Hero, either.


RC


----------



## MrMyth

BryonD said:


> Far far better improv: huh?
> wildly creative? I guess, as long as you only retroactively create things that fit the results dictated by the mechanics.
> And it is pretty funny considering how frequently 4E powers are built around precisely "pushing" figures around a battlemap.
> I'd actually agree that you can do very cool stories in 4E. But the context that it is refreshing in this sense as compared to 3E is boggling.
> 
> Wildly creative, but only so long as "the math works".




For my part, I find that is what helps encourage creativity. The DM having some guidelines (such as via page 42) that let them find easy but balanced ways to resolve a creative action is refreshing. Whereas in the past, when a player finds some creative use of a spell, it often feels more like finding a loophole to trivialize encounters more than anything else. 

That isn't to say you couldn't have creative resolution of actions and effects in 3.5! But I just never found that the rules encouraged it as much as in 4E. In my experience, of course. 

Anyway, I know this is somewhat tangential from the main discussion at this point, but what I really wanted to comment on was the comment about 4E powers that push people around. You mention it like it is some sort of problem or impediment to creativity. But... we're talking about powers that let you know enemies around, hurl them back ten feet and knock them to the ground, and stuff like that. 

That seems ripe with opportunity for creativity. I think you are being put off by presentation over content. 4E describes a power as "The target takes 1d10+4 damage, is pushed 2 squares, and falls prone." Would that feel more creative if it instead ready: "You make a basic attack, which hurls the opponent backwards 10 feet and knocks them to the ground!"

Or are those equally problematic in terms of interesting or creative powers?


----------



## BryonD

MrMyth said:


> For my part, I find that is what helps encourage creativity. The DM having some guidelines (such as via page 42) that let them find easy but balanced ways to resolve a creative action is refreshing. Whereas in the past, when a player finds some creative use of a spell, it often feels more like finding a loophole to trivialize encounters more than anything else.



I'm not as hung up on balance and I don't consider clever solutions to be trivializing the challenge.

Seriously, creative and balanced are completely different elements of consideration.



> Anyway, I know this is somewhat tangential from the main discussion at this point, but what I really wanted to comment on was the comment about 4E powers that push people around. You mention it like it is some sort of problem or impediment to creativity. But... we're talking about powers that let you know enemies around, hurl them back ten feet and knock them to the ground, and stuff like that.



Actually, Perm brought up the term as if it was an impediment.  I simply commented on the irony of his using the term.




> I think you are being put off by presentation over content.



Ok.  You are not correct.  I don't know if you have read comments I've made in the past regarding "pop quiz" gaming, but that, amongst many other issues have a lot more to do with the problem.  I have also mentioned many many times that creative descriptions can easy be placed on top of the 4E mechanics, which is what you are doing here.  But that does nothing to actually solve the problem.


----------



## MrMyth

BryonD said:


> I'm not as hung up on balance and I don't consider clever solutions to be trivializing the challenge.
> 
> Seriously, creative and balanced are completely different elements of consideration.




Well, yes and no. For myself, having a good way to handle creative abilities in a balanced fashion _is _a more preferable style of play than needing to handle them entirely by DM fiat, and having to either reject them outright or risk having them trivialize other options. 

But I readily get that this won't be everyone's view. I was just putting it forward as something that 4E does well, and as something that is a preference for some gamers. 



BryonD said:


> Actually, Perm brought up the term as if it was an impediment. I simply commented on the irony of his using the term.




Fair enough! I had missed that. Of course, I don't think that the ability to knock enemies around has any real negative impact on the ability to enjoying creative or epic stories, but I do see the irony you were going for there. 



BryonD said:


> Ok. You are not correct. I don't know if you have read comments I've made in the past regarding "pop quiz" gaming, but that, amongst many other issues have a lot more to do with the problem.




I'm not familiar with the specific reference, but yeah, my comments were based on misunderstanding your comment, so my apologies there. 



BryonD said:


> I have also mentioned many many times that creative descriptions can easy be placed on top of the 4E mechanics, which is what you are doing here. But that does nothing to actually solve the problem.




This I'm not so sure about. What I did above wasn't putting a creative description on 4E mechanics - it was simply replacing one mechanical description with another, and wondering if that is part of the issue.


----------



## BryonD

MrMyth said:


> Well, yes and no. For myself, having a good way to handle creative abilities in a balanced fashion _is _a more preferable style of play than needing to handle them entirely by DM fiat, and having to either reject them outright or risk having them trivialize other options.
> 
> But I readily get that this won't be everyone's view. I was just putting it forward as something that 4E does well, and as something that is a preference for some gamers.



I have frequently agreed that there are things 4E does well.  And rigorous mathematically, reliable balance is one of those things.




> I'm not familiar with the specific reference, but yeah, my comments were based on misunderstanding your comment, so my apologies there.



no problem.




> This I'm not so sure about. What I did above wasn't putting a creative description on 4E mechanics - it was simply replacing one mechanical description with another, and wondering if that is part of the issue.



Ok, fair enough.

No.  It has nothing to do with the issue.


----------



## MrMyth

BryonD said:


> I have frequently agreed that there are things 4E does well. And rigorous mathematically, reliable balance is one of those things.




Yeah, I think what I was mainly trying to say was that, at least in my case, I found that having reliable balance - and, specifically, _balanced guidelines for the DM_ - are elements that themselves can encourage and support creative play. Rather than being completely divorced from such activity.


----------



## BryonD

I don't follow that.  But I'm glad it works for you.

To me the creative part happens before you think about mechanics and then you just use the mechanics to model the idea.  And I *might* consider specifically how to best make my idea fit a good challenge for the party.  But if the "right" "cool" idea is too hard or too easy, then the party either gets an easy challenge or has to figure a way to avoid a situation because a natural story flow completely trumps "balance".  

So even if I am going back to figure a balanced way to do something, it doesn't encourage or support creativity because the creative part is already done.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> Actually, Perm brought up the term as if it was an impediment.  I simply commented on the irony of his using the term.





MrMyth said:


> Fair enough! I had missed that. Of course, I don't think that the ability to knock enemies around has any real negative impact on the ability to enjoying creative or epic stories, but I do see the irony you were going for there.



I think you guys might be confusing me with nmns and Cu Roi, who were the ones who wre using the phrase "pushing figures around the battlemap".

Upthread, in response to some comments from Beginning of the End, I suggested that forced movement powers are part of the tools 4e offers for facilitating engaging play. Of course, for that to work, you have to think of them not just in mechanical terms but in terms of what is represented in the fiction (much like a natural 20 is exciting not just because of the mildly improbable outcome it represents, but because of the "perfect hit" that it signals in the fiction).


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> I think you guys might be confusing me with nmns



eek

100% my bad.
Sorry about that.


----------



## triqui

Maybe I'm completelly wrong, but I see the recent events, and I have a supposition.

1) Wotc retreating of some books that were going to be published this year.

2) Mike Mearls asking for peace among edition's fan base

3) Mike Mearls advocating for change

4) Essentials running 4e in a different way 

5) Mike Mearls shiny new weekly article that ends every single week with a poll about "what would you like your DD game will be"

6) Mearls talking about removing complexity, and some parts of the  (4e) game he does not like or use (like the approach to cover that 3.5 and 4e have over 3e)

7) MINIATURES being not sold anymore

8) Polls about use of  tactical grids

And my supposition is... 5th edition is coming. And I'm not talking about a 4.5, Essentials++ edition. A completelly new brand system, which probably get rid of miniatures and maybe battlegrids (or, more probably, move into virtual battlegrids)

It was prettey obvious that 4e lifespan was getting to it's end. 4 years is almost as long as it can get (3 had 4 years before 3.5 got out, and then they re-sold the basic game to everybody once again). Core books are the big premium sellers. Every other product sells quite less (and that includes de phb2, 3 and the "core options", as well as campaign settings). They sales are tanking (just ask your local store owner). They probably thought they could extend the lifespan a couple more years with Essentials (ala 3.5), but, as they cancelled some of the new Essentials books, probably they found they wont be able to.

Therefore, they'll probably haste up a little bit their plans, and build the 5th edition (or "New really advanced dungeons and dragons" or whatever).


----------



## mxyzplk

How dare you bring this thread back on topic!

And "all signs point to yes."


----------



## CuRoi

pemerton said:


> There's nothing very dramatic about it. I tend to just use notes that talk about who the different NPCs are and what their relationships are to one another, and what their history is. I've attached a diagram to this post which was actually drawn up my players in our last campaign...




Sort of lost track of this thread, but I mainly wanted to thank you for the example. My players have created a very similar relationship chart, but they did not include every NPC, just the major factions which they then linked back to the party using different colored lines to represent "firendly, neutral, enemy". 

I think again that you show you are running a marvelously complex campaign with great detail and advanced story telling. I don't think it thas much to do with the edition and as I've mentioned, I still feel it is done so in spite of the edition, but again we aren't going to agree there so I won't debate it. 

I do note, in your example, you chose to use an NPC from a module you liked which had an ability that sounded very much like speak with dead and the NPC would use this to get plot information necessary to the overall goal. I'm just still befuddled why PCs couldn't / shouldn't be allowed to do this as well or how its a "bad thing"? From my experience, it makes them more central to whatever quest they may be working on if they don't have to haul around the DM plot device. Now demons might seek to kidnap one of your players instead of the plot device which would create a very dynamic scenario. To me, thats what you lose when you take away those "I win DnD spells" whcih some people find useful to their stories and others find annoying.

I get the idea of "well if the PCs could do it then anyone can so I can't make a story with that schtick in the first place" - Speak with Dead is vague enough to come up with plenty of reasons why say the dead Queen would not speak to a Demon or its minions or why the dead Queen would only speak her true name to someone fulfilling the quest.

Also, from my experience, the PCs feel the game world has more life to it if the world revolves whether they are involved or not. If larger events transpire and they can either choose to get caught up in them, avoid them, or sometimes are mercilessly swept up in them, it gives the feeling that they are a part of something substantive which they can interact with but not necessarily control. So I'll keep a mix of ongoing timelines and player instigated plots and not limit myself to one or the other. But again, its whatever works for your group.


----------



## CuRoi

ProfessorCirno said:


> Remember that time in LotR when Gandalf teleported to Mount Doom, dropped the ring in, then teleported back? And the book was over in like three paragraphs?
> 
> No?




 Heh, good one!

Ahh but you are forgetting the time Blasto tried this trick, rolled "similar location" trying to teleport into a place unseen and ended up in a place similar to a fiery caldera surrounded by evil.

Or the time Blasto tried this and he went precisely nowhere, which through research, divination, and further questing led him to discover the interior of the volcano was actually accessed through a demi-plane adjacent to the Elemental planes of Fire and Earth so just Teleporting wasn't an option.


----------



## triqui

CuRoi said:


> Heh, good one!
> 
> Ahh but you are forgetting the time Blasto tried this trick, rolled "similar location" trying to teleport into a place unseen and ended up in a place similar to a fiery caldera surrounded by evil.



Which just mean 95% of the time Lord of the Rings will be a boring story 3 paragraphs long, and the other 5% of time Gandalf rolls 96+ and doesn't get to his destination, or whatever chances they are.

Plus Gandalf could learn "teleport without error" too. He's high level enough


----------



## Fifth Element

triqui said:


> Plus Gandalf could learn "teleport without error" too. He's high level enough



Nope. He's only a 5th-level magic-user. Everyone knows that.


----------



## pemerton

CuRoi said:


> I do note, in your example, you chose to use an NPC from a module you liked which had an ability that sounded very much like speak with dead and the NPC would use this to get plot information necessary to the overall goal. I'm just still befuddled why PCs couldn't / shouldn't be allowed to do this as well or how its a "bad thing"?



The short answer: for much the same reason that the players can't start play as emperors or gods.

Now I'm not saying that an RPG can't be run in which the PCs are emperors (or gods). Nor am I saying that this couldn't be done in D&D (maybe there is a reason why the emperor has to pretend to be a commoner, and doesn't and can't access his wealth, armies, courtiers etc). But I don't think one can just _casually_ permit a PC to start the game as an emperor (or god) and not expect it to have a pretty big effect on the way the game plays.

Whereas NPC emperors, gods, and speakers-with-the-dead _are_ quite OK. They are various sorts of plot device that I (as GM) can introduce into a situation as I do or don't see fit. The players can also introduce these elements into a situation - by successfully deploying the resources at their disposal (mostly their PCs and those PCs' relationships) - but the adjudication of these situations is ultimately under my control as GM. (So, for example, the benefits of successfully dealing with the emperor to gain access to magic items can't be any greater than the standard treasure parcels for the level of the PCs in question. The benefits of using Religion skill in a skill challenge to commune with one's god can't be greater than the benefits of using History instead - although they might be _different_, sending the scene in a different direction from wher it might othewise have gone.)

Ultimately, if the speaker-with-dead NPC becomes a liability to the game, I can kill him off. This is not so with a PC.



CuRoi said:


> From my experience, it makes them more central to whatever quest they may be working on if they don't have to haul around the DM plot device. Now demons might seek to kidnap one of your players instead of the plot device which would create a very dynamic scenario. To me, thats what you lose when you take away those "I win DnD spells" whcih some people find useful to their stories and others find annoying.



I'm not a big fan of hauling around GM plot devices either. If the PCs want to talk to the speaker-with-dead they will have to go and find him again. Unless something changes radically in the game, there is zero chance of him accompanying them anywhere.

As for demons wanting to kidnap PCs - that may or may not happen (it happened in my last game, in which one of the PCs - a fox spirit - was violating the terms of his banishment from heaven, and so constables of hell came to arrest him; in my current game, one of the PCs is a demonskin adept and enemy of Lolth's cult, and so is certainly in danger of attracting hostile demonic attention). But I can introduce that sort of situation into the game without needing to introduce the "game-breaking" magic as well.



CuRoi said:


> the PCs feel the game world has more life to it if the world revolves whether they are involved or not. If larger events transpire and they can either choose to get caught up in them, avoid them, or sometimes are mercilessly swept up in them, it gives the feeling that they are a part of something substantive which they can interact with but not necessarily control.



Whereas I would only tend to mention such larger events to the players if those events were of some significance in helping establish the situation in which the PCs are engaged, or in enriching the context for the players to make choices for their PCs. An analogy, not exactly perfect but near enough - if it only deserves mention in the Appendix B timelines in LotR, and not in the actual text itself - like, say, the battles fought by the dwarves of the Iron Hills - then it's probably not going to get mentioned by me to my players. Or, to put it another way - I engage my players in the world by using myth and history - which gives shape and context to the events they are actually engaging with via their PCs - rather than current affairs, unless those current affairs also contribute comparable shape and context.

This does have consequences that some don't like - for example, if an NPC or an event is mentioned in any detail then the players know that _adventure lies this way_ - but I'm from the school of "no need to search for the fun". Again, others differ (in part by rejecting that description of sandbox play).


----------



## carmachu

Mark CMG said:


> An article like that isn't trying to convince players of the most recent version of the game of anything, it is trying to get people who don't play it to not be problematic to the new directions being explored by WotC.




Perhaps he should take his own advise, and those that followed his lead. It takes two to tango, and the R&D folks at release werent exactly kind in their past edition, nor are some of the 4e fans that argued as well.

Its not all the non-4e players fault to not be "problematic". I dont seem to recall this being Mearls attitude pre and post launch of 4e. In fact it was a bit different.


----------

