# Mike Mearls comments on design



## Lenaianel (Dec 5, 2007)

From WOTC boards : 


*OK, let's see how well I can managed multiple quotes in a single message. I'm terrible with board markup code, and I have a feeling that the boards will eat this post anyway. But, here goes...*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion  
Well, you assume that *every* player considers the rewards (treasure and XP and magic) to be the “most important” thing in D&D, but this is not actually inherently true. Some players (and DMs, too) might actually think that *role-playing* or the *story* in itself is the "greatest" reward in D&D (or in any RPG, for that matter). 

*This is the heart of the matter. I can't write rules that say "And as a reward for defeating this encounter, the DM does some really good roleplaying."*

*I can't do that. I have no control over the DM. I have no input into his abilities. I can put DM advice into a book, which frankly based on reviews and comments everyone ignores anyway. I can put suggestions on how to DM, which based on how people have reacted to the quest card *suggestion* gets taken as the One True Way and villified.

What I can do is stick XP and treasure at the end of the mouse maze du jour, be it combat, social encounters, or bringing a pizza to the game session, and hope that's enough to get most gaming groups moving in the same direction as the rules.*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion  
I don't see how this "card thing" would be a better system (i.e. more organized) than players taking notes (in a character sheet, diary/book or separate note papers). That way (by taking notes), your *players* decide which names or facts or pieces of flavour are relevant and need to be written down -- i.e. you encourage them to *think*, instead of relying on your cards to tell which things are important. As for my group, we have two “record keepers” in my group who both write down stuff in their notebooks –- usually just shorthand notes on events, but sometimes even on a round by round basis (including each character’s combat actions). As I already said, I fail to see how any kind of card system would work better or be “more organized” than this. By using cards, I think some players (especially beginners) may become even more passive in contributing to the story -- they *expect* the DM to guide the story/campaign with the cards, and do not truly interact (role-play) with the setting or pursue any character goals because they won’t be rewarded for that. Hence, it is a “metalevel” effect that has a negative impact on role-playing –- just as much as the “clearly defined” character roles do (“Dude, stop talking with those NPCs –- they are not important and we don’t get any XP for that. Lord Lightspear is already waiting for us to give us a *Quest*!”). Another aspect of this system that troubles me is that you need to *very* carefully think about where to draw the line –- let’s assume that Baron Blacksword (an ally of the PCs) slyly mentions that “the world would be a lot happier place without that cursed Duke Duskshield meddling in everyone’s affairs”. Was that a subtle hint and did he just offer the PCs a Quest? What if they ask him and he denies it -- if you don’t give them a card, they automatically know that this is not a Quest, although perhaps you intentionally tried to subtly guide them to do the dastardly deed. If they kill the duke, should they be rewarded although the baron mentioned no reward (assuming that none of them are of good alignment)? Especially beginners –- both players and DMs -- might have a lot of problems with this system, unless it is presented in a very coherent and “clear-cut” manner in the Core Books. 

*First, the cards are not a system, but I suspect you're talking about the quest mechanic anyway. The cards have nothing to do with the mechanics of how a quest work, just like paper and pencil don't determine how hit points work. They are tools used to implement a mechanic, but not a mechanic. You can use the mechanic without those tools.*
*Second, what's to stop the DM from asking the players to create quests?

Third, I think there's something of a cognitive dissonance at work here. Beginning DMs need some structure to help them learn the game and learn how to DM. Yet, isn't part of DMing learning how to improvise? Isn't it logical that we'd cover that in the DMG and make some effort to address that?*

*The central message of the DMG for 4e is pretty simple: make the game fun for everyone. Communicate with your players. Make expectations clear. Work with the players, not against them. True, a DM who mindlessly applies the quest mechanic can cause problems, but that's not what anyone wants.

From a purely mercenary POV, it is in WotC's best economic interest to do whatever it takes to make more good DMs. Good DMs create interesting worlds and fun adventures. They work with the players to create a fun game. They listen. They adopt a funny voice when portraying a kobold. They bring the game to life.*

*We expect DMs to exercise their judgment when applying any rule, and we do what we can to help that.*

*As for player initiative, that's not something we can necessarily force on to people. Some people are perfectly happy playing D&D with a DM who leads them through adventures by the nose. These guys want to be entertained while bashing monsters.*

*Their style of play (or lack thereof) has no effect on players who want to be more active. Just as I can't force people to be good DMs, I can't force people to become "good" players, by whoever's standard of good we want to apply. What I can try to do is take the doorway into D&D and force it as wide open as possible, to let as many people at least try this hobby, and maybe get more people playing it*.

*See, here's the thing. Down below (and I'll get to this) you ask if we're making a 4e a game that gamers want, or a game that I want. Well, I'd ask you the same question: do you want us to make a game that gamers want, or do you want us to make a game that you want?*

*We all have different styles of playing D&D, and that's the beauty of the game. I'm not going to design a game that forcibly evicts anyone from playing it. If a bunch of mindless couch potatoes can now enjoy D&D, I don't mind. They're not going to effect how anyone else plays the game. If Joe in Peoria doesn't roleplay, that doesn't stop Barbara in San Jose from playing her character to the hilt.*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion  
And it’s not just the Quest Cards that make me feel very concerned about 4E. I don't fear *change*, because I was *very* excited when 3E came out. Why don't I feel the same way now? Why I only feel *very* disappointed about everything we've seen of 4E? I'll try to point out some things that I feel are either mechanically or thematically "wrong" in my opinion. First of all, it's not just the DM's story *only* that matters, because players are "co-authors", too, so what about their preferences and contribution? How will the changes presented in 4E affect "Player input" in the game? I understand the concept of “story” in D&D to roughly mean: “A campaign consisting of a storyline/script written by the DM, which is then influenced and altered during the game by the DM and the players improvising through their characters as it is played in separate sessions”. We should also note that mechanical and thematical “metalevel” effects are also important, because it’s not just about the rules or the flavour or the story –- it’s about how *players* (consciously and subconsciously) feel about and react to them. If we’re discussing characters and player and DM roles and responsibilities, and their influence on the story, I have a suspicion that 4E won’t address these issues in a very *coherent* manner. Perhaps it will offer a mix of different “tools” to deal with them, but so far I have seen a bunch of articles that have (in my opinion) contained only half-hearted attempts at trying to convince us that 4E will be about more than just combat and encounters (and how *cool* and *fun* 4E will be -– especially when compared to that “horribly broken 3E”, which was, incidently, designed by the same guys ).

*My honest opinion is that I see 4E actually stressing and emphasizing “coolness” and “combat effectiveness” over player input, thinking and role-playing –- not to mention that DM’s are more-or-less subtly manipulated into thinking that their “job” has become “easier” and requires less work and creative effort than ever before. For example, in 4E, DMs are “able to drop things out of the books” without any pre-play prep work -- is that cool or what? Somehow in my mind this translates as “fostering” or encouraging new DMs to be lazy –- maybe the idea behind this “design goal” is to lower the threshold of DMing, but I see it discouraging improvisation and thinking on a DM’s part (and these skills are –- in my opinion –- quite relevant to being a DM). James Wyatt’s first ‘Dungeoncraft’-article actually seemed to underline the point that the *setting* and *NPCs* are not very relevant –- just steal some ideas and get the ball rolling, and the PCs will take care of the rest. I’d call that “sloppy” DMing. Your own blog also contains a very telling example of this as you said that you don’t want to “waste” time in having to explain things to your players –- if that’s how you generally view DMing chores, I personally wouldn’t want to play in your campaigns (and this is my honest personal opinion/criticism and *not* meant as a deliberate “attack” –- hope you see the difference ). I wish to ask you some questions: it appears that your own “houseruled” version of 3E contains many mechanical aspects from 4E (monster “roles”, "simplified" special abilities, movement rate in ‘squares’, etc.) –- have you always played 3E in a more “simplified” way or did you “playtest” some 4E game mechanics in your recent 3E campaigns? Is 4E how Mike Mearls want to play D&D, or how the majority of us –- or a new generation of gamers -- want to play it? That is the central question here. * 

*See, again, I have to turn that question around to you. I don't like putting a lot of detail into my campaign worlds, but you do. Which of us is right? The answer, to me, is neither, as long as we and our groups have fun.*

*There are no mechanical elements that allow player input into story in 3e. In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players to make up their own quests.*

*You want to encourage players to think? Here are some quotes I've pulled from the DMG. I hope they stay in, because if they don't I'm going to look really stupid in a few months:*

*"When a player puts forward what you consider a plausible countermeasure for a trap, the next step is to determine the best resolution method and a suitable action cost for the countermeasure—even if that countermeasure doesn’t exist in the trap’s presentation. * ...

*In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes to traps and hazards."*

*"Corollary to the Second Principle: Thinking players are engaged players: reward clever ideas.
In challenges as freeform as these, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say “No.” Instead, let them make a roll using the skill but at a high DC, or make the skill good for only one victory. This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth and engages more PCs by broadening the range of applicable skills."*

*When it comes to DM "chores" we want DMs to only do as much work as they want to do. Again, I have to turn the question back around to you: is it good for D&D as a whole if DMs need to do a lot of work on building a world, or is that how *you* like to DM? If there are DMs out there like me who don't like designing worlds, does that hurt you?*

*D&D is not a religion or a social movement. We're all just DMs and players doing our own thing in our own way. Not every D&D player is a good match for every D&D group. There are groups that I'd never want to game with, yet they have an awesome time every week, and vice versa.*

*I cut the paragraph about mechanics because no one outside of playtesters have seen the full mechanics yet. A lot of people are assuming that we're adding X or Y without counterbalancing it, or they don't see everything in the context of the full system yet.

Suffice to say that there are still plenty of hard choices to be made. If the game was easy, no one would play.

What is easier is all the bookkeeping and mechanics that had a poor return on fun. If you think that ability score loss a la 3e is the only possible way to model a weakening effect, then I think that 3e is the only game you'll like.*

*I'm serious. If you look at 3e and think that its mechanical definition of various effects is the only valid expression of those effects, just stick with 3e. We are not going to hold on to mechanics for the sake of holding on to mechanics. When we can achieve the same goal with less work, we will always do that.*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion  
Another aspect I’m very leery about in the game is the “clearly defined” character roles –- I just don’t see this concept encouraging role-playing or “character introspection”. I wouldn’t mind it if they were just briefly mentioned in the books, but I’m a bit alarmed about these roles being “integrated” into the game mechanics as well (e.g. into the character “powers”). Why don’t I like them? Because you’re effectively telling your players how they should behave in the game (i.e. how to role-play that type of character –- at least in combat) and which types of abilities/feats they should prioritize (e.g. “Dude, you’re a defender, so don’t take that ‘Rain of Blows’, because ‘Waterfall of Parries’ is more fitting for you role and gives the rest of us some cool and nice bonuses!”). All in all these “roles” make me feel like we’re not talking about an adventuring party in a “pseudo-medieval” setting but a modern military “special ops” strike team (“Hey, fighter, stop fooling around and step into your role! You should be covering the strikers and the tanks!”). Then the concept of ‘Social Challenges’ –- while I’m not against them as such, they need to be carefully thought about. Can I state that my goal in the Challenge is to make the Guard Captain break down in tears, drop his magical sword and run away? Should I get XP for that, since I kind of “defeated” him? What is the difference between “small intent” vs. “big intent”? Can I just waltz into the King’s Throne Room and convince him with my uber-high Diplomacy skill to step down and crown me as the next king? These are tricky issues and should be taken into consideration, because even mid-level PCs may run amok the campaign world if you can use the social skills in such “creative” ways. And how do the existence of this system influence role-playing in general –- will it de-emphasize its meaning, because you’re allowed to “just roll” or does it actually encourage it? If you always need to at least *try* to role-play the situation “in character” (whether you roll before or after you deliver your “speech”), it probably *will* encourage it –- if not, at least beginners may shy away from it, telling their DM: “I’m gonna insult that captain – do I get to roll now?”. 

*The Diplomacy skill and similar abilities are no more abusable than they are in 3e. Social challenges, and other non-combat challenges, are mechanics added to the game to make skills more useful and to broaden the types of encounters DMs can have in adventures.

Essentially, a non-combat challenge turns skills from a pass-or-fail check into a series of checks made toward achieving a larger goal. Rather than make on Diplomacy check, the group needs to make a number of differnet skill checks, including Diplomacy, to forge an alliance with the dwarf king. Players can't simply say "I want to do X with a skill" without the DM saying that's OK.*

*I'll let the DMG design notes speak on the issue of roleplaying and skill challenges:

"For “pure” RP, if you say the perfect thing that the duke would absolutely agree to, then the DM gives you a +arbitrarily high bonus on the roll—and it’s OK if the bonus is so big that it makes the roll irrelevant."

I don't think your example for party roles holds water. Whether a role is there or not, if the fighter stands at the back of the party the rest of the group will yell at him. The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do. Mechanically, it simply calls to attention the reason why wizards in 3e can't cast healing spells. Every class needs a unique role to foster teamwork and to give everyone a chance to shine. It also helps enforce class balance in design.*

*And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded. Roles have no mechanics attached to them. They simply serve to inform players about a class and help people make clear, understandable choices.*


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion  
And I also wish to mention the “flavour” about the classes being integrated into the game mechanics (or actually being "force-fed” to us) –- what if I just don’t want to have Golden Wyvern or Emerald Frost Wizards in my homebrew setting? Yes, I don’t need to use them. but it’s not just that I have to rewrite the whole class (probably changing their powers as well) but Feats (‘Golden Wyvern Adept’) but other sections of the book that contains any info about the ‘traditions’ (I’m guessing the ‘Magic’-chapter, at least) as well. Not to mention that I have to think about where all those previous edition “specialist” mages just suddenly vanished to. I understand that this system may actually benefit *some* beginners in defining their character backgrounds for them, but how about encouraging them to write their own? Sometimes, the best adventure hooks come from character backgrounds -– i.e. if I want to create a cleric of the God of Justice and tell my DM that “he was originally born in the Slave City of Adaran-Kesh, and sold to slavery as young boy, before a friendly servant helped him escape from the hands of a cruel and powerful master –- eventually he was rescued from the wilderness by a wandering priest and was then trained by him”. Even with such a brief and simple background, I am actually giving my DM a lot of potential story hooks to use in the campaign, instead of just being “trained by the clergy of the God of Justice” (this would work especially well with the ‘Slavers’-modules). That produces better stories, too, and with a strong pre-campaign input from the *players* with adventure ideas that *matter* to them and their *characters*. 

*I think you're contradicting yourself here a little. On one hand, you don't like the exact feat names, yet on the other you want players to create details on the game world. Don't those names encourage exactly what you want? None of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds. They might have some pointers, but they are there precisely to get players to think of the skills their characters learned as coming from somewhere or something.*


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion  
I also don’t have very high hopes about the ‘Points of Light’-concept, and certainly didn’t feel assured by Mr. Wyatt’s article (as I already noted). It’s a good concept for a campaign, but I wouldn’t want my every campaign being about “flickering points of light in monster-filled Darkness” –- especially as it feels like a very shaky concept without reasoning why these tiny and isolated settlements have managed to avoid being wiped out (something that James doesn’t apparently even think about in his article). Some people have compared the ‘PoL’-concept with the Dark Ages (or some other historical RW era) but that’s a poor analogy, since I don’t recall a time when monsters and magic threated the existence of known civilization. All in all, this is a very “black-and-white” concept about PCs being the most important beings (i.e. the only heroes) in the world –- of course a story is *always* about its protagonists, but (as I have said before) I feel that there just should be some powerful and interesting NPCs, too. If not, how come the Darkness has not already triumphed? Why must the PCs be the only “heroic” characters in their home town/village? If I were a player in such a campaign, I’d want to hear answers to all those questions. 

*Again, this is purely subjective. Nothing in the rules stops you from running whatever campaign you want. The core background is in the game to give beginners something to start with. If anything, it encourages DM and player creativity because it sets up the core D&D world as a huge, blank cavnas waiting to be filled with ideas.*

*I think at times your thoughts are a little contradictory. You want a lot of player input, roleplay, and DM creativity, yet you don't like the steps we take to help foster that. Maybe there's a better way to do it, but I'm not sure it makes sense to want DMs and players who are creative world builders while dismissing the point of light concept.*

*The core thrust of the PoL is pretty simple: it lets the DM invent what he wants. It gives room for players to create stuff in the world, with the DM's OK of course. If I sit down at a DM's table and say, "I want to play a Thor-worshipping Viking-style cleric" it's a lot easier to accomodate that if the DM hasn't detailed every inch of his campaign world.*


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion  
Summa summarum: I feel that 4E is not actually a new edition of D&D -- it’s a whole new *game*. It has vastly different ("simplified") thematical emphasis and mechanical differences to previous editions, and it is very clearly marketed at a whole new consumer base. As for us “older” customers, some like the changes and some don’t –- I feel that my arguments and concerns are echoed by many fans on these boards and therefore are valid. If we're talking about beginners, this system may actually remind them strongly of boardgames, CRPGs or MMORPGs -- and consequently de-emphasize role-playing because they might play D&D the same way they would play those games (again I refer to those “metalevel” effects –- e.g. those Quest Cards that may be seen functioning a bit like Quest Logs in CRPGs and MMORPGs). I guess we will see how 4E turns out, but my intuition already tells me that I’m not going to pick it up –- unless a lot of things we’ve seen glimpses of will be radically different in the end product. 

*We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be. Roleplaying is not some sacred hobby that requires a minimum mental or creative requirement. There are few enough outlets for creativity in the world that I'd never stoop to make D&D less accessible.

The core of D&D is roleplay and the DM as creator/judge/actor/storyteller. Those two tools are the advantage that we have over every other form of game out there. They are awesome advantages, powerful enough to keep D&D going for over 30 years. We'd be insanely stupid to get rid of them or de-emphasize them.*

*EDIT: I wanted to add that I think your original post was very interesting and well thought out. It's good to have a dialogue with someone that doesn't become mindless anger or frustration. You ask a lot of good, hard questions, and you have many of the same concerns that I would have were I not in the seat I currently occupy.
__________________
---
Mike Mearls
Lead Developer, Dungeons & Dragons R&D
Friend to norkers, ally to qullans, champion of Fiend Folio 1e
"Mike Mearls = Gary Gygax on steroids...those poor hapless and unsuspecting players..." - nastynate, CO Boards * 



Very interesting


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 5, 2007)

Lenaianel said:
			
		

> OK, let's see how well I can managed multiple quotes in a single message. I'm terrible with board markup code, and I have a feeling that the boards will eat this post anyway. But, here goes...




Okay, I did some cleanup of this post. All the stuff I have in quotes from now on is the forum poster to which Mearls is responding, and all of the "normal" text from now on is Mearls' response. Enjoy.



> Originally Posted by Asgetrion
> Well, you assume that *every* player considers the rewards (treasure and XP and magic) to be the “most important” thing in D&D, but this is not actually inherently true. Some players (and DMs, too) might actually think that *role-playing* or the *story* in itself is the "greatest" reward in D&D (or in any RPG, for that matter).




This is the heart of the matter. I can't write rules that say "And as a reward for defeating this encounter, the DM does some really good roleplaying."

I can't do that. I have no control over the DM. I have no input into his abilities. I can put DM advice into a book, which frankly based on reviews and comments everyone ignores anyway. I can put suggestions on how to DM, which based on how people have reacted to the quest card *suggestion* gets taken as the One True Way and villified.

What I can do is stick XP and treasure at the end of the mouse maze du jour, be it combat, social encounters, or bringing a pizza to the game session, and hope that's enough to get most gaming groups moving in the same direction as the rules.



> Originally Posted by Asgetrion
> I don't see how this "card thing" would be a better system (i.e. more organized) than players taking notes (in a character sheet, diary/book or separate note papers). That way (by taking notes), your *players* decide which names or facts or pieces of flavour are relevant and need to be written down -- i.e. you encourage them to *think*, instead of relying on your cards to tell which things are important. As for my group, we have two “record keepers” in my group who both write down stuff in their notebooks –- usually just shorthand notes on events, but sometimes even on a round by round basis (including each character’s combat actions). As I already said, I fail to see how any kind of card system would work better or be “more organized” than this. By using cards, I think some players (especially beginners) may become even more passive in contributing to the story -- they *expect* the DM to guide the story/campaign with the cards, and do not truly interact (role-play) with the setting or pursue any character goals because they won’t be rewarded for that. Hence, it is a “metalevel” effect that has a negative impact on role-playing –- just as much as the “clearly defined” character roles do (“Dude, stop talking with those NPCs –- they are not important and we don’t get any XP for that. Lord Lightspear is already waiting for us to give us a *Quest*!”). Another aspect of this system that troubles me is that you need to *very* carefully think about where to draw the line –- let’s assume that Baron Blacksword (an ally of the PCs) slyly mentions that “the world would be a lot happier place without that cursed Duke Duskshield meddling in everyone’s affairs”. Was that a subtle hint and did he just offer the PCs a Quest? What if they ask him and he denies it -- if you don’t give them a card, they automatically know that this is not a Quest, although perhaps you intentionally tried to subtly guide them to do the dastardly deed. If they kill the duke, should they be rewarded although the baron mentioned no reward (assuming that none of them are of good alignment)? Especially beginners –- both players and DMs -- might have a lot of problems with this system, unless it is presented in a very coherent and “clear-cut” manner in the Core Books.




First, the cards are not a system, but I suspect you're talking about the quest mechanic anyway. The cards have nothing to do with the mechanics of how a quest work, just like paper and pencil don't determine how hit points work. They are tools used to implement a mechanic, but not a mechanic. You can use the mechanic without those tools.

Second, what's to stop the DM from asking the players to create quests?

Third, I think there's something of a cognitive dissonance at work here. Beginning DMs need some structure to help them learn the game and learn how to DM. Yet, isn't part of DMing learning how to improvise? Isn't it logical that we'd cover that in the DMG and make some effort to address that?

The central message of the DMG for 4e is pretty simple: make the game fun for everyone. Communicate with your players. Make expectations clear. Work with the players, not against them. True, a DM who mindlessly applies the quest mechanic can cause problems, but that's not what anyone wants.

From a purely mercenary POV, it is in WotC's best economic interest to do whatever it takes to make more good DMs. Good DMs create interesting worlds and fun adventures. They work with the players to create a fun game. They listen. They adopt a funny voice when portraying a kobold. They bring the game to life.

We expect DMs to exercise their judgment when applying any rule, and we do what we can to help that.

As for player initiative, that's not something we can necessarily force on to people. Some people are perfectly happy playing D&D with a DM who leads them through adventures by the nose. These guys want to be entertained while bashing monsters.

Their style of play (or lack thereof) has no effect on players who want to be more active. Just as I can't force people to be good DMs, I can't force people to become "good" players, by whoever's standard of good we want to apply. What I can try to do is take the doorway into D&D and force it as wide open as possible, to let as many people at least try this hobby, and maybe get more people playing it.

See, here's the thing. Down below (and I'll get to this) you ask if we're making a 4e a game that gamers want, or a game that I want. Well, I'd ask you the same question: do you want us to make a game that gamers want, or do you want us to make a game that you want?

We all have different styles of playing D&D, and that's the beauty of the game. I'm not going to design a game that forcibly evicts anyone from playing it. If a bunch of mindless couch potatoes can now enjoy D&D, I don't mind. They're not going to effect how anyone else plays the game. If Joe in Peoria doesn't roleplay, that doesn't stop Barbara in San Jose from playing her character to the hilt.



> Originally Posted by Asgetrion
> And it’s not just the Quest Cards that make me feel very concerned about 4E. I don't fear *change*, because I was *very* excited when 3E came out. Why don't I feel the same way now? Why I only feel *very* disappointed about everything we've seen of 4E? I'll try to point out some things that I feel are either mechanically or thematically "wrong" in my opinion. First of all, it's not just the DM's story *only* that matters, because players are "co-authors", too, so what about their preferences and contribution? How will the changes presented in 4E affect "Player input" in the game? I understand the concept of “story” in D&D to roughly mean: “A campaign consisting of a storyline/script written by the DM, which is then influenced and altered during the game by the DM and the players improvising through their characters as it is played in separate sessions”. We should also note that mechanical and thematical “metalevel” effects are also important, because it’s not just about the rules or the flavour or the story –- it’s about how *players* (consciously and subconsciously) feel about and react to them. If we’re discussing characters and player and DM roles and responsibilities, and their influence on the story, I have a suspicion that 4E won’t address these issues in a very *coherent* manner. Perhaps it will offer a mix of different “tools” to deal with them, but so far I have seen a bunch of articles that have (in my opinion) contained only half-hearted attempts at trying to convince us that 4E will be about more than just combat and encounters (and how *cool* and *fun* 4E will be -– especially when compared to that “horribly broken 3E”, which was, incidently, designed by the same guys ).
> 
> My honest opinion is that I see 4E actually stressing and emphasizing “coolness” and “combat effectiveness” over player input, thinking and role-playing –- not to mention that DM’s are more-or-less subtly manipulated into thinking that their “job” has become “easier” and requires less work and creative effort than ever before. For example, in 4E, DMs are “able to drop things out of the books” without any pre-play prep work -- is that cool or what? Somehow in my mind this translates as “fostering” or encouraging new DMs to be lazy –- maybe the idea behind this “design goal” is to lower the threshold of DMing, but I see it discouraging improvisation and thinking on a DM’s part (and these skills are –- in my opinion –- quite relevant to being a DM). James Wyatt’s first ‘Dungeoncraft’-article actually seemed to underline the point that the *setting* and *NPCs* are not very relevant –- just steal some ideas and get the ball rolling, and the PCs will take care of the rest. I’d call that “sloppy” DMing. Your own blog also contains a very telling example of this as you said that you don’t want to “waste” time in having to explain things to your players –- if that’s how you generally view DMing chores, I personally wouldn’t want to play in your campaigns (and this is my honest personal opinion/criticism and *not* meant as a deliberate “attack” –- hope you see the difference ). I wish to ask you some questions: it appears that your own “houseruled” version of 3E contains many mechanical aspects from 4E (monster “roles”, "simplified" special abilities, movement rate in ‘squares’, etc.) –- have you always played 3E in a more “simplified” way or did you “playtest” some 4E game mechanics in your recent 3E campaigns? Is 4E how Mike Mearls want to play D&D, or how the majority of us –- or a new generation of gamers -- want to play it? That is the central question here.




See, again, I have to turn that question around to you. I don't like putting a lot of detail into my campaign worlds, but you do. Which of us is right? The answer, to me, is neither, as long as we and our groups have fun.

There are no mechanical elements that allow player input into story in 3e. In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players to make up their own quests.

You want to encourage players to think? Here are some quotes I've pulled from the DMG. I hope they stay in, because if they don't I'm going to look really stupid in a few months:

"When a player puts forward what you consider a plausible countermeasure for a trap, the next step is to determine the best resolution method and a suitable action cost for the countermeasure—even if that countermeasure doesn’t exist in the trap’s presentation. 

...

In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes to traps and hazards."

"Corollary to the Second Principle: Thinking players are engaged players: reward clever ideas.
In challenges as freeform as these, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say “No.” Instead, let them make a roll using the skill but at a high DC, or make the skill good for only one victory. This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth and engages more PCs by broadening the range of applicable skills."

When it comes to DM "chores" we want DMs to only do as much work as they want to do. Again, I have to turn the question back around to you: is it good for D&D as a whole if DMs need to do a lot of work on building a world, or is that how *you* like to DM? If there are DMs out there like me who don't like designing worlds, does that hurt you?

D&D is not a religion or a social movement. We're all just DMs and players doing our own thing in our own way. Not every D&D player is a good match for every D&D group. There are groups that I'd never want to game with, yet they have an awesome time every week, and vice versa.

I cut the paragraph about mechanics because no one outside of playtesters have seen the full mechanics yet. A lot of people are assuming that we're adding X or Y without counterbalancing it, or they don't see everything in the context of the full system yet.

Suffice to say that there are still plenty of hard choices to be made. If the game was easy, no one would play.

What is easier is all the bookkeeping and mechanics that had a poor return on fun. If you think that ability score loss a la 3e is the only possible way to model a weakening effect, then I think that 3e is the only game you'll like.

I'm serious. If you look at 3e and think that its mechanical definition of various effects is the only valid expression of those effects, just stick with 3e. We are not going to hold on to mechanics for the sake of holding on to mechanics. When we can achieve the same goal with less work, we will always do that.



> Originally Posted by Asgetrion
> Another aspect I’m very leery about in the game is the “clearly defined” character roles –- I just don’t see this concept encouraging role-playing or “character introspection”. I wouldn’t mind it if they were just briefly mentioned in the books, but I’m a bit alarmed about these roles being “integrated” into the game mechanics as well (e.g. into the character “powers”). Why don’t I like them? Because you’re effectively telling your players how they should behave in the game (i.e. how to role-play that type of character –- at least in combat) and which types of abilities/feats they should prioritize (e.g. “Dude, you’re a defender, so don’t take that ‘Rain of Blows’, because ‘Waterfall of Parries’ is more fitting for you role and gives the rest of us some cool and nice bonuses!”). All in all these “roles” make me feel like we’re not talking about an adventuring party in a “pseudo-medieval” setting but a modern military “special ops” strike team (“Hey, fighter, stop fooling around and step into your role! You should be covering the strikers and the tanks!”). Then the concept of ‘Social Challenges’ –- while I’m not against them as such, they need to be carefully thought about. Can I state that my goal in the Challenge is to make the Guard Captain break down in tears, drop his magical sword and run away? Should I get XP for that, since I kind of “defeated” him? What is the difference between “small intent” vs. “big intent”? Can I just waltz into the King’s Throne Room and convince him with my uber-high Diplomacy skill to step down and crown me as the next king? These are tricky issues and should be taken into consideration, because even mid-level PCs may run amok the campaign world if you can use the social skills in such “creative” ways. And how do the existence of this system influence role-playing in general –- will it de-emphasize its meaning, because you’re allowed to “just roll” or does it actually encourage it? If you always need to at least *try* to role-play the situation “in character” (whether you roll before or after you deliver your “speech”), it probably *will* encourage it –- if not, at least beginners may shy away from it, telling their DM: “I’m gonna insult that captain – do I get to roll now?”.




The Diplomacy skill and similar abilities are no more abusable than they are in 3e. Social challenges, and other non-combat challenges, are mechanics added to the game to make skills more useful and to broaden the types of encounters DMs can have in adventures.

Essentially, a non-combat challenge turns skills from a pass-or-fail check into a series of checks made toward achieving a larger goal. Rather than make on Diplomacy check, the group needs to make a number of differnet skill checks, including Diplomacy, to forge an alliance with the dwarf king. Players can't simply say "I want to do X with a skill" without the DM saying that's OK.

I'll let the DMG design notes speak on the issue of roleplaying and skill challenges:

"For “pure” RP, if you say the perfect thing that the duke would absolutely agree to, then the DM gives you a +arbitrarily high bonus on the roll—and it’s OK if the bonus is so big that it makes the roll irrelevant."

I don't think your example for party roles holds water. Whether a role is there or not, if the fighter stands at the back of the party the rest of the group will yell at him. The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do. Mechanically, it simply calls to attention the reason why wizards in 3e can't cast healing spells. Every class needs a unique role to foster teamwork and to give everyone a chance to shine. It also helps enforce class balance in design.

And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded. Roles have no mechanics attached to them. They simply serve to inform players about a class and help people make clear, understandable choices.



> Originally Posted by Asgetrion
> And I also wish to mention the “flavour” about the classes being integrated into the game mechanics (or actually being "force-fed” to us) –- what if I just don’t want to have Golden Wyvern or Emerald Frost Wizards in my homebrew setting? Yes, I don’t need to use them. but it’s not just that I have to rewrite the whole class (probably changing their powers as well) but Feats (‘Golden Wyvern Adept’) but other sections of the book that contains any info about the ‘traditions’ (I’m guessing the ‘Magic’-chapter, at least) as well. Not to mention that I have to think about where all those previous edition “specialist” mages just suddenly vanished to. I understand that this system may actually benefit *some* beginners in defining their character backgrounds for them, but how about encouraging them to write their own? Sometimes, the best adventure hooks come from character backgrounds -– i.e. if I want to create a cleric of the God of Justice and tell my DM that “he was originally born in the Slave City of Adaran-Kesh, and sold to slavery as young boy, before a friendly servant helped him escape from the hands of a cruel and powerful master –- eventually he was rescued from the wilderness by a wandering priest and was then trained by him”. Even with such a brief and simple background, I am actually giving my DM a lot of potential story hooks to use in the campaign, instead of just being “trained by the clergy of the God of Justice” (this would work especially well with the ‘Slavers’-modules). That produces better stories, too, and with a strong pre-campaign input from the *players* with adventure ideas that *matter* to them and their *characters*.




I think you're contradicting yourself here a little. On one hand, you don't like the exact feat names, yet on the other you want players to create details on the game world. Don't those names encourage exactly what you want? None of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds. They might have some pointers, but they are there precisely to get players to think of the skills their characters learned as coming from somewhere or something.



> Originally Posted by Asgetrion
> I also don’t have very high hopes about the ‘Points of Light’-concept, and certainly didn’t feel assured by Mr. Wyatt’s article (as I already noted). It’s a good concept for a campaign, but I wouldn’t want my every campaign being about “flickering points of light in monster-filled Darkness” –- especially as it feels like a very shaky concept without reasoning why these tiny and isolated settlements have managed to avoid being wiped out (something that James doesn’t apparently even think about in his article). Some people have compared the ‘PoL’-concept with the Dark Ages (or some other historical RW era) but that’s a poor analogy, since I don’t recall a time when monsters and magic threated the existence of known civilization. All in all, this is a very “black-and-white” concept about PCs being the most important beings (i.e. the only heroes) in the world –- of course a story is *always* about its protagonists, but (as I have said before) I feel that there just should be some powerful and interesting NPCs, too. If not, how come the Darkness has not already triumphed? Why must the PCs be the only “heroic” characters in their home town/village? If I were a player in such a campaign, I’d want to hear answers to all those questions.




Again, this is purely subjective. Nothing in the rules stops you from running whatever campaign you want. The core background is in the game to give beginners something to start with. If anything, it encourages DM and player creativity because it sets up the core D&D world as a huge, blank cavnas waiting to be filled with ideas.

I think at times your thoughts are a little contradictory. You want a lot of player input, roleplay, and DM creativity, yet you don't like the steps we take to help foster that. Maybe there's a better way to do it, but I'm not sure it makes sense to want DMs and players who are creative world builders while dismissing the point of light concept.

The core thrust of the PoL is pretty simple: it lets the DM invent what he wants. It gives room for players to create stuff in the world, with the DM's OK of course. If I sit down at a DM's table and say, "I want to play a Thor-worshipping Viking-style cleric" it's a lot easier to accomodate that if the DM hasn't detailed every inch of his campaign world.



> Originally Posted by Asgetrion
> Summa summarum: I feel that 4E is not actually a new edition of D&D -- it’s a whole new *game*. It has vastly different ("simplified") thematical emphasis and mechanical differences to previous editions, and it is very clearly marketed at a whole new consumer base. As for us “older” customers, some like the changes and some don’t –- I feel that my arguments and concerns are echoed by many fans on these boards and therefore are valid. If we're talking about beginners, this system may actually remind them strongly of boardgames, CRPGs or MMORPGs -- and consequently de-emphasize role-playing because they might play D&D the same way they would play those games (again I refer to those “metalevel” effects –- e.g. those Quest Cards that may be seen functioning a bit like Quest Logs in CRPGs and MMORPGs). I guess we will see how 4E turns out, but my intuition already tells me that I’m not going to pick it up –- unless a lot of things we’ve seen glimpses of will be radically different in the end product.




We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be. Roleplaying is not some sacred hobby that requires a minimum mental or creative requirement. There are few enough outlets for creativity in the world that I'd never stoop to make D&D less accessible.

The core of D&D is roleplay and the DM as creator/judge/actor/storyteller. Those two tools are the advantage that we have over every other form of game out there. They are awesome advantages, powerful enough to keep D&D going for over 30 years. We'd be insanely stupid to get rid of them or de-emphasize them.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I think your original post was very interesting and well thought out. It's good to have a dialogue with someone that doesn't become mindless anger or frustration. You ask a lot of good, hard questions, and you have many of the same concerns that I would have were I not in the seat I currently occupy.


----------



## Lenaianel (Dec 5, 2007)

thanks for editing


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 5, 2007)

Huh... what can I say about that? Well, I can quote hong:

"I love mearls with all of my body including my pee-pee."

That post delivers.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 5, 2007)

Right or wrong, I at least appreciate Mearls _stopping his work on 4e_ to come onto message boards and directly address concerns and criticism. 

Were it me, I would have just ignored the message boards and plod away in my safe little bubble, rather than deal with the Sysiphian task of putting out the flames of concern.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 5, 2007)

Wow. I love where Mike's coming from. 

Cheers!


----------



## Deekin (Dec 5, 2007)

Mike is my new hero. 

Huh, the social enconters sound like Complex Skill Checks out of Alternity. Roll multiple checks, and try to get X Success before Y failures.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 5, 2007)

I think I saw his face in my scrambled eggs this morning. I was going to call the paper, but then I got really hungry. 

He makes some pretty decent points, and he's quite correct about the importance of writing the core books under the assumption that they're going to be read by new and or lazy players and DM's. More experienced gamers should know how to ratchet things up to the necessary level.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 5, 2007)

I have mixed feelings about Mearls writing this.  On one hand, I really enjoyed reading it, and it was nicely informative.  On the other hand, I don't feel that actual WOTC employees should be responding to concern trolls, even if they respond to the concern trolls rationally, and even if the concern troll doesn't consciously realize that he's a concern troll.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Dec 5, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Wow. I love where Mike's coming from.
> 
> Cheers!



 I agree.  It brings me back to the opinion that 4e is going to be good but is being marketed _horribly_.  The most recent official updates have left me uniformly lukewarm to cold, so much so that they were actually verging on 'unselling' me from my default position of "Buy the core and check it out at least and hopefully it'll be good". 

These responses, backed up by quotes from the DMG, are quite heartening, and they look like they indicate a change of direction in marketing / revealing info.  As someone who wants to see 4e succeed, I hope they continue!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I agree.  It brings me back to the opinion that 4e is going to be good but is being marketed _horribly_.  The most recent official updates have left me uniformly lukewarm to cold, so much so that they were actually verging on 'unselling' me from my default position of "Buy the core and check it out at least and hopefully it'll be good".
> 
> These responses, backed up by quotes from the DMG, are quite heartening, and they look like they indicate a change of direction in marketing / revealing info.  As someone who wants to see 4e succeed, I hope they continue!




Pretty much Ditto.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 6, 2007)

I have spoken to Mike on several occasions (all of them named Gen Con), and he's a really nice guy, very upfront and a good chat. His replies here showcase that.

Plus he loves Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I agree.  It brings me back to the opinion that 4e is going to be good but is being marketed _horribly_.



Reminds me of Eberron previews. "It's got magic robots! And lightning trains! and Halflings on Dinos!" That resulted in a collective "Whut?" Then when the books hit the shelves, people were happy with what they got.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 6, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Plus he loves Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser.




I knew there was something wrong with him. Boo! Hiss!



Cheers!


----------



## Drammattex (Dec 6, 2007)

This just bolsters everything I already liked about 4e and Mearls.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Dec 6, 2007)

Great respond from Mike! I hope this post manages to ease some of the doubts some folks here have.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I agree.  It brings me back to the opinion that 4e is going to be good but is being marketed _horribly_.




Although I'm not particularly happy with the marketing, I do wonder how much of our reaction to 4e is being affected by pure negativity on the forums. I mean, I found the Quest article rather good, giving an idea of how the structure of 4e XP awards would be changing, and also including a bookkeeping tip that some might find useful.

However, the reaction on the boards was suddenly this explosive "4e sucks - it's railroading you", and so forth. 

I'm not entirely sure that 4e isn't being marketed properly, but the marketing is being hijacked and being purposively misread.

Mind you, any criticism of Gleemax is fully justified. They've now managed to miss the first patch update by 7-8 weeks, which is unacceptable.

Cheers!


----------



## Gundark (Dec 6, 2007)

I have a new sig...


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 6, 2007)

Drammattex said:
			
		

> This just bolsters everything I already liked about 4e and Mearls.




Me too!

Damn. Another content-free post.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Reminds me of Eberron previews. "It's got magic robots! And lightning trains! and Halflings on Dinos!" That resulted in a collective "Whut?" Then when the books hit the shelves, people were happy with what they got.



Yup. Sadly, that's for some a major turn-off (the marketing). Wizards' ads are often worse than their material, that's perhaps the reason why the "crunch" articles (e.g. Paladin smites) "deliver" more in general.

And Mike does. He should blog more often. And drop in here at ENWorld again. Scratch that, back to work, Mike! 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Mind you, any criticism of Gleemax is fully justified. They've now managed to miss the first patch update by 7-8 weeks, which is unacceptable.



Probably it's not helpful that the Gleemax launch is very close to the DI launch, which is also a bit lacking... and since they have a webteam... it's easy to draw conclusions, connections, which can be less than favourable.


Cheers, LT.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 6, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I have a new sig...




Yep.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 6, 2007)

Yeah. Yet again, my belief that the dev teams shall inherit the earth is justified. 

I actually haven't even liked Mike's games that much. They generally strike me as overly baroque and arbitrary; Iron Heroes was pretty cool, but delivered too much new rule per square inch (though I didn't buy it, I only flipped through a friend's copy).

This kind of thoughtfulness + someone else's (sorry Mike!) love of the simple, and I think there's a winning combination in there somewhere.

But marketing and the web-wranglers are facing a harder task, in some ways, and with less success. Poor guys


----------



## Rystil Arden (Dec 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Although I'm not particularly happy with the marketing, I do wonder how much of our reaction to 4e is being affected by pure negativity on the forums. I mean, I found the Quest article rather good, giving an idea of how the structure of 4e XP awards would be changing, and also including a bookkeeping tip that some might find useful.
> 
> However, the reaction on the boards was suddenly this explosive "4e sucks - it's railroading you", and so forth.




My mileage varies, as it does for many (and before reading any reaction).  But the thing is, the way they described the quest system, it seemed like it was an integral part of 4e that would be hard to remove.  It came with a lot of positive spin in the article, but even so, from what they've revealed, I don't like it, and I don't want it in my games.  The press release was designed in such a way that it would emphasise the importance and coolness of what was revealed, which makes sense on a surface level (they want to make you feel like you're seeing bold cool new things), but on the meta-level, it was very bad for damage control.  Why?  For the same reason that Mike's comments added in as an addendum or even as a replacement would have made the press release great:

As Mike told us in this thread, the true purpose of the quest system is to make learning to GM easier for newbie GMs, and it's just kind of sidebar suggested optional system in the DMG that experienced GMs can easily toss and ignore if they don't like it.  While I would have been upset to hear that the quest system became an integral important part of 4e that I would have to remove, I am _delighted_, even though I would never use it, that they are making optional inclusions like this to help beginner GMs.  My youngest brother is just starting to GM, and he could use this kind of help.  

And that's why Mike's take on it is so much better for PR (in my opinion).  It tells us what is in there without pushing it on us.  Recent 4e marketing has had a fairly strong tone of 'we know better than you, so we've simplified everything for you and limited your options as a GM, replacing them with the one that we discovered is most fun for everyone'.  It is refreshing to hear from Mike that this is not the case!





> Mind you, any criticism of Gleemax is fully justified. They've now managed to miss the first patch update by 7-8 weeks, which is unacceptable.
> 
> Cheers!




Yeah, Gleemax is a big letdown (and DI too so far)--on that I completely agree.  But I'm still hoping that 4e will be great.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 6, 2007)

Mostly good answers by Mearls, but I think he missed the core of the "Golden Wyvern" complaint.  It's the same complaint I have.



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> On one hand, you don't like the exact feat names, yet on the other you want players to create details on the game world.



This is not a contradiction.  The OP does not like [culturally specific, non-descriptive] feat names coded into the rules.  He wants them to be specific to each campaign world or culture.  



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> Don't those names encourage exactly what you want?



No; they are impediments to what he wants.  Making a unique campaign world is much harder to do if you have to cross-out and relearn new, non-descriptive names every time.  I think it's a valid complaint.



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> None of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds.



But they do come with names that suggest fleshed out backgrounds, and the last thing I want to hear from my players if "Why is it called Emerald Frost in this game again? I've got it confused with the stretched justification from the previous campaign ..."


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 6, 2007)

I think Mike sounds a LOT clearer than the previews we've been getting. But his arguments are far from being bulletproof to me. 

It's definitely food for thought. I need to sleep on it.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Dec 6, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Mostly good answers by Mearls, but I think he missed the core of the "Golden Wyvern" complaint. It's the same complaint I have.




Mike's post was so long and so good in general that I forgot about this by the time I reached the bottom, but you're right--it looks like he missed Asgetrion's point here.  Still, he had a lot of points to answer, probably in just a few minutes of free time, so 6/7 strong answers is pretty darn good.

As for me, I must admit that I strongly dislike many of those names, but I'm not worried about renaming them even if they make it in.  It shouldn't be too much work.  Of course, I would be delighted if I didn't have to.


----------



## Xethreau (Dec 6, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I think Mike sounds a LOT clearer than the previews we've been getting.



I know! That was really informative!



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> But his arguments are far from being bulletproof to me.



True.  I wish someone would really tackle the issue about Golden Wyvern and its "backstory."  : /


----------



## Reynard (Dec 6, 2007)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Great respond from Mike! I hope this post manages to ease some of the doubts some folks here have.




I am not going to say that I am a sudden convert, but Mearls' responses in the OP just moved me one step away from "Never!" toward "Maybe I'm being too hasty..."

I still hate the flavor changes, though, and the need to make sure everything is statted for melee, even when the creature doesn't need to be (*cough*dryad*cough*).  But the DMG excerpts make me think that maybe there'll be more wiggle room inherent in the system that previous "sneak peaks" have made me assume there would be.


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 6, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> No; they are impediments to what he wants.  Making a unique campaign world is much harder to do if you have to cross-out and relearn new, non-descriptive names every time.  I think it's a valid complaint.




Absolutely. If there's an interest in providing newbies with something meaty to sink their teeth into, having no pre-made world or whatever, then hardwired core rules elements with flavor names are not the best way to do this. It would be better to represent this with those paragon paths or the example gods or examples of play that namedrop things. Remember such classic nuggets of interest in 1e and 2e like Gutboy Barrelhouse and his buddies, the relics and artifacts with bizarre and unexplained backgrounds, etc? Somehow all of that was included in the rules without embedding it in something critical like character-building elements.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> As for me, I must admit that I strongly dislike many of those names, but I'm not worried about renaming them even if they make it in.  It shouldn't be too much work.  Of course, I would be delighted if I didn't have to.



This is where it would be really helpful if they sold the books in WORD format instead of PDF.

Step 1: Find "Golden Wyvern Adept"
Step 2: Replace All: "Spell Shaper"

And ... were done.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 6, 2007)

I think I have a new deity for my next campaign - Mearls, god of balance and wisdom.

Looking down from Olympus
On a world of doubt and fear,
Its surface splintered
Into sorry Hemispheres.

They sat a while in silence,
Then they turned at last to me.
"We will call you Mearls,
The god of Balance you shall be."


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 6, 2007)

Hmm?

What about spell names like Mord et al?


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 6, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Remember such classic nuggets of interest in 1e and 2e like Gutboy Barrelhouse and his buddies, the relics and artifacts with bizarre and unexplained backgrounds, etc? Somehow all of that was included in the rules without embedding it in something critical like character-building elements.




But similar things to Golden Wyvern were all through the spells: Bigby, Tenser and Mordenkainen seemed to be part of every game world. I'm inclined to put wizards spell books and costless material components are pretty similar - the spell component pouch exists so that players can ignore a piece of fluff that was given mechanical status.

Of course, it looks like 4th edition will be removing Bigby et al, and the material components will be replaced by implements; I hope spell books follow them. I just wish they weren't introducing new fluff at the same time.

Edit: Ninja attack!


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 6, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> But similar things to Golden Wyvern were all through the spells: Bigby, Tenser and Mordenkainen seemed to be part of every game world. I'm inclined to put wizards spell books and costless material components are pretty similar - the spell component pouch exists so that players can ignore a piece of fluff that was given mechanical status.
> 
> Of course, it looks like 4th edition will be removing Bigby et al, and the material components will be replaced by implements; I hope spell books follow them. I just wish they weren't introducing new fluff at the same time.




These aren't the same. Don't believe me? Look at the SRD. All the IP names are dropped and it doesn't make a difference. That's because it's all "Bigby's this" and "Rary's that." If it were "Golden Wyvern's Spellshaping" you'd have a better comparison. This was one way that 3e improved upon previous editions without sacrificing any of that newbie grab.

When filing serial numbers off things, it helps to have something left after you're done. I can't file anything off Golden Wyvern Adept unless I change the name completely, and that's a pain in the ass.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 6, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> These aren't the same. Don't believe me?




Sorry, no I don't. Bigby & partners were just as much core fluff as Golden Wyvern. 

Turning "Golden Wyvern Adept" into "Shaping adept" is more difficult than say "Tenser's Floating Disk" to "Floating Disk", sure. Just because they could be removed more easily doesn't change their status.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

I was hoping this thread wasn't going to be derailed into yet another Golden Wyvern argument. It seems like Golden Wyvern is going to be the monk of 4th edition.

The impression I got from the Quests thing is that it was going to get maybe five pages devoted to it in the DMG. I just interpreted the Design article to be "Hey guys! We're going to have a defined mechanic for designating story awards/accomplishing goals! In earlier editions (like in 3e), we had vague and undefined info about story awards, but now we can provide for you a tool!"


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 6, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Absolutely. If there's an interest in providing newbies with something meaty to sink their teeth into, having no pre-made world or whatever, then hardwired core rules elements with flavor names are not the best way to do this. It would be better to represent this with those paragon paths or the example gods or examples of play that namedrop things. Remember such classic nuggets of interest in 1e and 2e like Gutboy Barrelhouse and his buddies, the relics and artifacts with bizarre and unexplained backgrounds, etc? Somehow all of that was included in the rules without embedding it in something critical like character-building elements.



I disagree.  To me, having a feat named Golden Wyvern Adept asks the question "What is Golden Wyvern?"  A new player is going to look at that and wondering where he learned it, what kind of process he went through at this "Golden Wyvern School".  It leads to him thinking about the fact that his character would have been there for a while learning this feat.  What part of the world is the school in?  What kind of people did he meet there?

And as a DM, I have a bunch of ideas already spelled out for me so I don't have to come up with my own.  I can instead have a player ask me "Where is this school in your world?" and not only can I be lazy and say "It's in...this country here in some mountains" but it also encourages me to put more effort into fleshing out some details about it.  I want to answer all the players' questions about the school, so I should think about it.

Compared to "Spell Shaper" which basically says "I can shape spells".  It doesn't say anything about who taught it to you or where you learned it or really require asking questions about it other than "I have a cool power".

That's the difference.  I assume most DMs who LIKE to put a lot of effort into their campaign worlds and like to design the whole world from the ground up with all the details would prefer a generic worded feat so they can say "You learned it yourself from a book you picked up at the library, since there are no magic schools in my world."

I prefer to be able to concentrate on the storyline of particular adventures rather than the world itself.  So, I can say "I don't know how people learn magic in my world....but there are some feats that come from a school called Golden Wyvern, so I'll go with that."


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> And as a DM, I have a bunch of ideas already spelled out for me so I don't have to come up with my own.  I can instead have a player ask me "Where is this school in your world?" and not only can I be lazy and say "It's in...this country here in some mountains" but it also encourages me to put more effort into fleshing out some details about it.  I want to answer all the players' questions about the school, so I should think about it.



The complaint is that DMs who _want_ to flesh out every corner of their world _don't_ want to include it, and thus feel forced because it's shackled to the mechanics. Maybe there is no gold or no wyverns or no adepts or no this or that, but because it's right there in the mechanics, well they just have to put it in. 

At least to my understanding.


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 6, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I prefer to be able to concentrate on the storyline of particular adventures rather than the world itself.  So, I can say "I don't know how people learn magic in my world....but there are some feats that come from a school called Golden Wyvern, so I'll go with that."




The alternative is this.

In a section on magic traditions, which would serve as readymade examples for newbies, you'd have the Golden Wyvern Adept. I assume they're going to do something like this anyway, so we're already halfway there.

Under "Golden Wyvern Adept" you have: Typical Feats: Spell Shaping, blah, blah, blah.

There you go. All the same flavor and hooks you asked for, but without hardwiring it. It's like the prestige classes in the 3.5 DMG. Easy to use, easy to toss out.

Not sure why Mearls didn't see that this was what the poster was going on about, nor why this isn't just as useful, cool, and flavorful an idea as the "we won't tell you anything about the Golden Wyvern, we'll just name a feat after them and let you do the rest" schtick.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The complaint is that DMs who _don't_ want to include it feel obligated because it's shackled to the mechanics. Because maybe there is no gold or no wyverns or no adepts or no this or that.




To me, this is no different than having the Ethereal Plane, which is shackled directly to mechanics. Same sense of obligation since that fluff is tied to game mechanics, and requiring the same amount of work (very little) to change.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Sorry, no I don't. Bigby & partners were just as much core fluff as Golden Wyvern.
> 
> Turning "Golden Wyvern Adept" into "Shaping adept" is more difficult than say "Tenser's Floating Disk" to "Floating Disk", sure. Just because they could be removed more easily doesn't change their status.



Really?  Cuz I'm looking and I kinda see the words "floating disk" in "Tenser's Floating Disk".  I don't see anything in GWA that says a thing in the world about what it does.  Ditto for any 3E "core fluff".  It is a whole world of difference.  You may like the difference.  And if so fine.  But if you are going to claim that there is no difference then you just don't get the issue.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> The alternative is this.
> 
> Under "Golden Wyvern Adept" you have: Typical Feats: Spell Shaping, blah, blah, blah.



Exactly.  You can even say: "Taught by the Golden Wyvern School" right under the feat.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> To me, this is no different than having the Ethereal Plane, which is shackled directly to mechanics. Same sense of obligation since that fluff is tied to game mechanics, and requiring the same amount of work (very little) to change.



Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just trying to succinctly explain the other side that you missed, before you get several paragraphs worth.

This topic has been debated *to death* in at least six different threads, and the point of the ethereal/astral planes have been brought up at least twice that I've seen. 

There's also been the complaint that "The 4e PHB is going to dictate that elves live in forests and dwarves live in mountains". Much like the 3e PHB did.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 6, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> The alternative is this.
> 
> In a section on magic traditions, which would serve as readymade examples for newbies, you'd have the Golden Wyvern Adept. I assume they're going to do something like this anyway, so we're already halfway there.
> 
> ...




It's how I feels the whole mini-setting will be made... Nothing directly hardwired, but an example, a ready-to-use package. Like Shadowrun's (arguably classless) way of making characters.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 6, 2007)

I read Mike's comments and I come away with these thoughts:

1) There will be some mechanical improvements to the game. (This is good)
2) They are trying to attract new players to the hobby and making it easy for them to learn to play (This is probably also good)
3) He used the subjective word "fun" repeatedly to indicate design philosophy (This is not so good, as it doesn't have any real meaning outside of his own personal definition.)
4) He asked the question "should we do what's better for you or better for gamers?"  I don't see how the two answers are necessarily different - they might be, but they might not be.  

I think there is a clear design goal of making the game easier to DM, which is a good thing for those new to the hobby or those who are burned out DMing 3.5. 

I just wish there was more of an effort to bring those along who are happy with 3.5, though.  The more I read, the more I'm convinced that the SRD will hold the most value to those happy with 3.5 to add some rules tweaks rather than invest in the new game.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

> 3) He used the subjective word "fun" repeatedly to indicate design philosophy (This is not so good, as it doesn't have any real meaning outside of his own personal definition.)



You don't think that a company designing a game shouldn't have a target goal of making it fun?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 6, 2007)

Good point.

But part of it depends on who you are and what you're reading.

For example, I've stopped reading a lot of stuff on the 4e updates because I'm not finding it real useful. So on some things I keep up, like the Forgotten Realms update, and on others, like the Quest article, I've skipped it entirely.

For me, I seem to have the opposite problem and see a lot of people hailing 4e for being, well, 4e. It's new, it's shinny and it's going to fix the 'bad' system even if it has to have Superboy Prime punch time to do it.   



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Although I'm not particularly happy with the marketing, I do wonder how much of our reaction to 4e is being affected by pure negativity on the forums. I mean, I found the Quest article rather good, giving an idea of how the structure of 4e XP awards would be changing, and also including a bookkeeping tip that some might find useful.
> 
> However, the reaction on the boards was suddenly this explosive "4e sucks - it's railroading you", and so forth.
> 
> ...


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

On the OP, I agree with others statements that this is vastly better than what has been presented in a lot of previews.  Though some of it reads to me like Mike putting a positive spin on the core statement that they have elected to enhance simplicity in a gambit for new players from a different market over maintaining a the current level of support for established "advanced" players.

I don't even slightly resent their right to do whatever they think will sell the most.  But I am disappointed for myself.


----------



## Blackwind (Dec 6, 2007)

Curses upon thy name, Mearls, for thou hast caused me to feel an ever-so-slight yet painful twinge of optimism.  Curse thee I say!

EDIT: And yet, although Mike has reassured me somewhat with his DMG quotes and discussion of the quest system (as well as overall design goals), he completely failed to address the Golden Wyvern problem, which I see as quite serious indeed, for reasons argued quite well by other posters.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> On the OP, I agree with others statements that this is vastly better than what has been presented in a lot of previews.  Though some of it reads to me like Mike putting a positive spin on the core statement that they have elected to enhance simplicity in a gambit for new players from a different market over maintaining a the current level of support for established "advanced" players.
> 
> I don't even slightly resent their right to do whatever they think will sell the most.  But I am disappointed for myself.



You also have to understand that it's a pragmatic move to keep the hobby alive. 

There was a poll in the General forum that asked "How many played 1e?" and over 80% of ENworld had. WotC needs to be able to get new gamers in, or in ten years, the hobby's going to die. And trying to market to a younger crowd is going to alienate the older crowd - it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Also, 3rd ed brought many D&D players who had abandoned 2e back into the fold, so it's possible that 4e will bring old D&D players.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 6, 2007)

It's not just D&D, but the WHOLE RPG hobby who ages out. It's not just marketting hot air.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Dec 6, 2007)

Um, what the hell are quest cards? I haven't been as up to date on this as I've been doing Warhammer in the interim, but I don't see any threads on it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 6, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Um, what the hell are quest cards? I haven't been as up to date on this as I've been doing Warhammer in the interim, but I don't see any threads on it.




A suggested bookkeeping technique that allows you to simply hand a 3x5 card to your players that contains a quest they have been offered, along with the reward for said quest, for quick reference and a plain way to track goals.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> You also have to understand that it's a pragmatic move to keep the hobby alive.



I dispute your implication that I don't understand.


> There was a poll in the General forum that asked "How many played 1e?" and over 80% of ENworld had. WotC needs to be able to get new gamers in, or in ten years, the hobby's going to die. And trying to market to a younger crowd is going to alienate the older crowd - it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
> 
> Also, 3rd ed brought many D&D players who had abandoned 2e back into the fold, so it's possible that 4e will bring old D&D players.



Yes, and it is also possible that it will lose players.  

I think a lot of the comparisons to 1E and gaming in the 80s are deeply flawed because the marketplace and alternatives are so completely different.  I think a lot of the old 1e players who are gone now would have never played D&D in the first place if the alternatives they have now had been real then.  Nothing is going to bring them back.

I'm not damning them for trying to attract younger players.  And I don't think in my case that it is at all predetermined that an effort to draw younger players would alienate me.
But it isn't "younger" that is the key that is being talked about.  The key hook being touted is simplicity.  And from the pieces seen so far, the price of increased simplicity is running too high (for me). That is a totally different issue.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Dec 6, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> A suggested bookkeeping technique that allows you to simply hand a 3x5 card to your players that contains a quest they have been offered, along with the reward for said quest, for quick reference and a plain way to track goals.




Weird. Was this in a blog post? I'm trying to find info on this at Wizard's site, but its impossible.


----------



## mxyzplk (Dec 6, 2007)

Definitely a good response and lots of good information.  I've been leanign to anti-4e, but maybe it is jsut the marketing.  I have and like Iron Heroes and think Mearls is good, and Jonathan Tweet is my god; I love Over the Edge.   I gove Bruce Cordell props for The Killing Jar and Gates of Firestorm Peak.   I'd love to be able to "trust them" on 4e; it's just that the tidbits we've heard seem to form into a Godawful Voltron of a game.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Weird. Was this in a blog post? I'm trying to find info on this at Wizard's site, but its impossible.



No. It was in "Design and Development: Quests".


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I dispute your implication that I don't understand.



Thin skin much? I wasn't implying that you don't understand. I was imploring you to take that more into consideration. 



> Yes, and it is also possible that it will lose players.



I all ready said that it would lose some people. 



> I'm not damning them for trying to attract younger players.  And I don't think in my case that it is at all predetermined that an effort to draw younger players would alienate me.
> But it isn't "younger" that is the key that is being talked about.  The key hook being touted is simplicity.  And from the pieces seen so far, the price of increased simplicity is running too high (for me). That is a totally different issue.



Eh? Simplicity isn't for newer gamers. I run 3.5 and I _beg_ for simplicity.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 6, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> A suggested bookkeeping technique that allows you to simply hand a 3x5 card to your players that contains a quest they have been offered, along with the reward for said quest, for quick reference and a plain way to track goals.




Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.

Her'es your quest.

Here's the XP and items you'll get if you do it.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 6, 2007)

i wonder if D&D always had the OPPOSITE problem.... They always aim for subtile complexity. Is the game TOO complex?

Don't that cost possible D&D players?

Are not the hardcore gamers with the same complains a part of the problem - what they see as good complexity is in reality confuse and hard to get for the newcommers or less hardcoe gamers?

if we listen to such a complain, is D&D shooting itself in the foot? Did something got lost in all those years?

notice the iconic grognard here, that Diaglo guy, praises 0D&D's SIMPLICITY. It says something.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Are not the hardcore gamers with the same complains a part of the problem - what they see as good complexity is in reality confuse and hard to get for the newcommers or less hardcoe gamers?



I've heard that yes, casual gamers just don't get excited about making characters. I recall during the Women & D&D thread, someone said every woman they've ever played with just wrinkled their nose and looked lost whenever character creation was explained; all they cared about was getting elbow deep into the roleplaying. 

Admittedly, when I'm first learning a system, I dread character creation.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Thin skin much?



please don't try this double talk crap.  Saying that I need to understand is saying that up to that point I don't.



> I wasn't implying that you don't understand. I was imploring you to take that more into consideration.



I reject your implication that I wasn't taking enough into consideration.



> I all ready said that it would lose some people.



I mean net lose.



> Eh? Simplicity isn't for newer gamers. I run 3.5 and I _beg_ for simplicity.



Huh? I didn't say it wasn't.  I said I'm not convinced it will grow the total player base.  Again, simplicity with a lack of any negative impact is all good.  But we can't keep just saying "simplicity" without admiting to the trade offs.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 6, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.
> 
> Her'es your quest.
> 
> Here's the XP and items you'll get if you do it.



But it's a suggestion. For new DMs. To help them get up to speed on the whole story xp thing. You know, to give them ideas that don't involve "go here, kill every monster, come back."


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> You don't think that a company designing a game shouldn't have a target goal of making it fun?




That's not his point. His point is that the use of the word "fun" doesn't give any information because it varies with each and everyone. He has to define what he thinks is "fun" in order to give it meaning through context. 

Some people love to have tons of charts to check out to see what type of weapon does what type of damage down to the very last detail during the game. They enjoy that part, ergo, for them, it is fun. It might not be for you or I. So "fun" is meaningless without context and says nothing about a design philosophy.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 6, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> But it's a suggestion. For new DMs. To help them get up to speed on the whole story xp thing. You know, to give them ideas that don't involve "go here, kill every monster, come back."





Sure.

And it's not a bad suggestion either.

I've often thought of using something like that for Rolemaster.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> please don't try this double talk crap.  Saying that I need to understand is saying that up to that point I don't.



And I reject your claim that I was trying to insult you. 

You're reading into it what you want.


> Huh? I didn't say it wasn't. I said I'm not convinced it will grow the total player base. Again, simplicity with a lack of any negative impact is all good. But we can't keep just saying "simplicity" without admiting to the trade offs.



And I'm just not seeing "simplicity without tradeoffs".


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> But it's a suggestion. For new DMs. To help them get up to speed on the whole story xp thing. You know, to give them ideas that don't involve "go here, kill every monster, come back."



That, and a suggestion for groups who are scatterbrained, or game once a month, and thus don't recall "Why are we in this dungeon, again?"


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And I reject the implication that I was trying to insult you.
> 
> You're reading into it what you want.



I didn't say you were trying to insult me.  (now you are reading things that are not there.)

You said I needed to understand with specific regard to something that I did in fact already understand.  I corrected the statement.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I didn't say you were trying to insult me.  (now you are reading things that are not there.)
> 
> You said I needed to understand with specific regard to something that I did in fact already understand.  I corrected the statement.



Are you done? I was trying to be polite and you jumped down my throat.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I was hoping this thread wasn't going to be derailed into yet another Golden Wyvern argument.




Fair enough, I'll shut up about it here.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And I'm just not seeing "simplicity without tradeoffs".



I'm seeing a lot of people tout the simplicity part with a marked evasion of discussion of the tradeoffs part.  It isn't a question of openly saying there are no tradeoffs.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Dec 6, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.



Probably similar.  Video games handle this sort of thing different ways.  It bears mentioning that the ones that are truest to life (say... Morrowind) are typically also the most frustratingly useless.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> That's not his point. His point is that the use of the word "fun" doesn't give any information because it varies with each and everyone. He has to define what he thinks is "fun" in order to give it meaning through context.



So now the designers need to explain what words mean to them before they can even respond?


----------



## grimslade (Dec 6, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.
> 
> Her'es your quest.
> 
> Here's the XP and items you'll get if you do it.




Joe is attempting to be an idiot savant of flamebaiting. ;>P

The note cards are a suggestion for a type of handout that is a reminder to a player of the boons one can achieve if they work on the DM's plot line. Quest notes have been a staple of RPGs for many years, whether written as notes from a GM, quest logs in CRPGs, or Certs/ARs in RPGA and other Living Campaigns. 
The whole quest article was to point out that there will be pages in the DMG devoted toward developing story based awards to PCs and for the possibility of cooperative design of campaign and character goals. The notecards again are a suggestion/sidebar.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Are you done? I was trying to be polite and you jumped down my throat.



Where exactly did I jump down your throat?  I'd point to "think skin much" as the first rude post in the exchange.  That was your reply to my correcting your declaration of what understanding was needed by me.  I'd love to be done.  But come on, don't try to misrepresnt me to me and then call a correction jumping down your throat.


----------



## Glyfair (Dec 6, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> This is not a contradiction.  The OP does not like [culturally specific, non-descriptive] feat names coded into the rules.  He wants them to be specific to each campaign world or culture.



This reminds me about a _Hero Wars_ discussion when it first came out.  One of the feats* for Orlanth is called "Sunset Leap."  Everyone was asking what Sunset Leap was supposed to be.  The final answer seems to be "whatever you want it to be at the time" (and is mythically appropriate, but that's a Glorantha thing).

I think having descriptive titles that the players and DMs flesh can be a strong hook for a game.  I might quibble about where it's been done, but I think the concept is a strong one.

* Feats in HW are subsets of divine magic.  If you worship Orlanth you have a "Movement" category of magic.  "Sunset Leap" is one of the feats in that category (typically there are 4 or 5 named feats in a category listed, and you can improvise more).


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Where exactly did I jump down your throat?  I'd point to "think skin much" as the first rude post in the exchange.  That was your reply to my correcting your declaration of what understanding was needed by me.  I'd love to be done.  But come on, don't try to misrepresnt me to me and then call a correction jumping down your throat.



How about because it wasn't a "Correction" so much as an excuse to get defensive? Or is that some more double speak crap? 

You came off offended that I was saying you don't understand the situation. Whatever you Read, that is not what I was Saying. But any way I try to explain, it's "double speak crap". 

Come on. There was no reason to "correct" me.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 6, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'm seeing a lot of people tout the simplicity part with a marked evasion of discussion of the tradeoffs part.  It isn't a question of openly saying there are no tradeoffs.




Personally, I believe that a lot of the tradeoffs will include areas of complexity that most people will enjoy shedding; this isn't to say that everyone will think it's an improvement!

One thing that I hope this edition promotes is the idea that you don't have to design an NPC exactly the same way as a PC to get a balanced and playable opponent; indeed, I'm not sure that the complex way we used in 3.5e actually worked the way it should have. NPC Challenge Ratings were notoriously unreliable...

Cheers!


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 6, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.




And character sheets are just like character sheets in MMO games, since they show you the extent of what your character can do.

What's your point? A good system of organization is a good system of organization, no matter what it's origin.


----------



## grimslade (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan and ByronD could you take a few deep breaths and drop the whole argument. It is boring for everyone else and detracts from a pretty civil discussion so far. Stick to your points and leave the poster out of it.

On the whole concept of tradeoffs:
  There is a lot of risk being taken with D&D with 4E. I believe the risks are being taken now while D&D is a strong brand and market leader because D&D can take a dip in numbers and still right itself. I feel like 4E is a 'let's see what sticks" experiment in flavor with a solid mathematical background. There have been 7 years worth of 'more fluff, less crunch' threads on various message boards. The counter-argument has always been that crunch sells. Maybe 4E is giving fluff a chance. The merits of the fluff in question I will leave to the 10 eyed spheres.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 6, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And character sheets are just like character sheets in MMO games, since they show you the extent of what your character can do.
> 
> What's your point? A good system of organization is a good system of organization, no matter what it's origin.




If an idea is good and can be important for benifits to the game, why not do it?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2007)

Me, I'm very, very happy that they are going to design the core books with newbies in mind.  Let's face it, if you've been gaming for 20 years, you probably don't need a whole lot of help getting a game started.  Sure, pointers are always good, but, really, how much hand holding do you need.

IMO, from what I've seen, it's going to be more like, "Buy the core three, they come with a home base statted out (we know that from previews), they come with a fairly strong level of flavour that is consistant with the mechanics - go ye now forth and game".  

Do you or I need this?  Probably not.  We've likely got a dozen or so different campaigns floating around in the back of our heads at any given time.  But, that's because we're not new to the game.  We've done it.  We've learned from our mistakes.

I think it's simply a different teaching method.  Instead of handing people all the tools and saying, "Go build a house." they are going to say, "Here's a house, here's how WE made it.  You can use these tools to build your own house, or you can just use ours, take your pick."

I much prefer the latter.  It's a much better way of teaching.  That way you avoid every group making the exact same mistakes over and over again.  Tell new players and DM's up front, "No, this is a bad idea, here's why.  We did it.  We tried it and it doesn't work."  Sure, people are free to try it anyway, but, at least they can start from a position of being able to draw on other's experience.

To me, that's precisely what the core 3 should do.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> There is a lot of risk being taken with D&D with 4E. I believe the risks are being taken now while D&D is a strong brand and market leader because D&D can take a dip in numbers and still right itself. I feel like 4E is a 'let's see what sticks" experiment in flavor with a solid mathematical background. There have been 7 years worth of 'more fluff, less crunch' threads on various message boards. The counter-argument has always been that crunch sells. Maybe 4E is giving fluff a chance. The merits of the fluff in question I will leave to the 10 eyed spheres.



Another thought is that crunch is always delivered in splatbooks. Usually with very little fluff. Adding flavor to the core provides something to cushion the blow, to be stacked on.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 6, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Second, what's to stop the DM from asking the players to create quests?




Awesome.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 6, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.
> 
> Her'es your quest.
> 
> Here's the XP and items you'll get if you do it.




Its the same thing as appointing a player as chronicler for the party, except on note cards and with the DM overseeing things a bit.  It sounded very useful to me for newer players and DMs.  Less useful for experienced players and DMs.  And its just a sidebar on advice for new DMs.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 6, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> The alternative is this.
> 
> In a section on magic traditions, which would serve as readymade examples for newbies, you'd have the Golden Wyvern Adept. I assume they're going to do something like this anyway, so we're already halfway there.
> 
> ...




Like it, I also cut and pasted with credit to you in a thread on Glemax.  If that bothers you I will remove it.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 6, 2007)

Golden Wyvern seems kinda like the 3e default pantheon to me.

The default pantheon (in 3e it was the Greyhawk pantheon, I guess) ended up being used in probably half of the campaigns I've played in. In probably another quarter it was the Greyhawk pantheon with altered names. Basically, whenever it was a more hack-and-slash campaign, or else a short one- or two-shot campaign, or even a more RP-intensive campaign without much of a focus on religion, it was enough for our cleric and paladin players to just grab an appropriate name from the PHB. 

Obviously this didn't impede anyone from introducing their own pantheons, and the rulebooks made it pretty clear how you'd go about adding new gods with their own favored weapons, domains, etc. 

So I can see "Golden Wyvern" being something like this: wizards will (by default) be associated with arcane orders, just as clerics are (by default) associated with gods in 3e. DMs can stick with the default vanilla orders - "Golden Wyvern," etc. - or they can easily modify them, or create new orders. You can probably even remove the orders altogether, just as in 3e you can have clerics "of an ideal" in a godless world.

Try out this analogy a bit (although I'm sure I'm not the first to use it). Do you get upset when you have to memorize a whole new list of gods every campaign, or else have to justify why Corellon is so much more of a jerk in this campaign than he was last time?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2007)

*Rechan* and *ByronD*,

If you can't just ignore each other for the rest of this thread, I'm going to have to ask you both to stop participating at all.  Beating your heads together in public is a derailing the thread doesn't need, so please stop.  Thank you.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> NPC Challenge Ratings were notoriously unreliable...





Exactly, is a 15th level drow incarnate a reasonable CR 16 opponent?

…Doubtful, but then again the whole CR/EL system is pretty arbitrary and subjective.


----------



## Simon Marks (Dec 6, 2007)

Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> The central message of the DMG for 4e is pretty simple: make the game fun for everyone. Communicate with your players. Make expectations clear. Work with the players, not against them.




Here's hoping they explicitly state this in the rules.


----------



## rounser (Dec 6, 2007)

> I think it's simply a different teaching method. Instead of handing people all the tools and saying, "Go build a house." they are going to say, "Here's a house, here's how WE made it. You can use these tools to build your own house, or you can just use ours, take your pick."



That's a hard balance to get right - how do you include the "serving suggestion" without pre-combining the ingredients so much that it's all you can make?  

Or so that you're not picking out the carrot from the mixing bowl every time you cook because the default is carrot cake and you want to make black forest gateau?


----------



## MerricB (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Exactly, is a 15th level drow incarnate a reasonable CR 16 opponent?
> 
> …Doubtful, but then again the whole CR/EL system is pretty arbitrary and subjective.




Probably closer to CR 16 than a Cleric 5/Wizard 4/Rogue 7! 

In fact, the more powers a character has, the harder to pin down its CR.

Cheers!


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In fact, the more powers a character has, the harder to pin down its CR.




After DMing 3.5 consistently for about 2 years, I have gone back to eyeballing challenges for the party, the way we did it back in the day…and we liked it!

No one knows what will challenge a party like a DM who is intimate with the party's abilities etc.


----------



## Sammael (Dec 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Probably closer to CR 16 than a Cleric 5/Wizard 4/Rogue 7!
> 
> In fact, the more powers a character has, the harder to pin down its CR.
> 
> Cheers!



A Cleric 5/Wizard 4/Rogue 7 is CR 11 because of non-associated class levels.

EDIT: And I'd argue that CR 11 is a pretty good CR for that kind of character. He may not be able to do as much sneak attack damage as a straight Rogue 11, but his saves are considerably better, he didn't have to invest in Use Magic Device, he can turn invisible and use non-detection to slip away and heal himself, and he is not useless against undead PCs.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 6, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> A Cleric 5/Wizard 4/Rogue 7 is CR 11 because of non-associated class levels.



Note that this is not the "RAW" as I understood it (non-associated class levels only apply for creature HD), but it still sounds like a good idea. (Doesn't help the player character with these levels, though)


----------



## Sammael (Dec 6, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Note that this is not the "RAW" as I understood it (non-associated class levels only apply for creature HD), but it still sounds like a good idea. (Doesn't help the player character with these levels, though)



I dunno. If I were to slap those levels onto a 1 HD CR1 creature, it would end up being CR12. I think it's hard to argue that the same thing applied to a 0 HD creature is CR16.


----------



## mara (Dec 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its the same thing as appointing a player as chronicler for the party, except on note cards and with the DM overseeing things a bit.  It sounded very useful to me for newer players and DMs.  Less useful for experienced players and DMs.  And its just a sidebar on advice for new DMs.




Yeah, I already do this to a certain extent as a player, though not on note cards.  If outside events result in a larger than normal gap between sessions, it's great to read over a list of what happened last session and what we were planning on doing this session to get back in character and focused on the game.


----------



## Simon Marks (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> After DMing 3.5 consistently for about 2 years, I have gone back to eyeballing challenges for the party, the way we did it back in the day…and we liked it!
> 
> No one knows what will challenge a party like a DM who is intimate with the party's abilities etc.




It's true that CR etc. are only really good as guidelines - however...

When DMing your first game, CR is really hand to ensure you don't either present dull speedbumps or TPK. It's a good guide.

CR works at lower levels. Hopefully by the time you are running higher levels you can learn to eyeball it. I never did, mind.

In other words, training wheels are good for thems that need 'em.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 6, 2007)

I'm really happy with pretty much everything Mike says. It seems that Wizards are really making an effort to make sure the game is covered for starting players and experienced players alike.

I really appreciate some DMing advice in the DMG, rather than just examples of encounters, treasure and so on. The actual construction of a campaign is something I've always find hard (although i appreciate if I practiced more I'd get better at it...).


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

never mind


----------



## The_Furious_Puffin (Dec 6, 2007)

> The Diplomacy skill and similar abilities are no more abusable than they are in 3e.




But the rules for diplomacy as is are completely unplayable. If you use the DMG tables for changing attitudes you can make people fanatic followers vastly to easily (ignoring the very existance of charm here for a moment), and if you don't, I'm just left eyeballing some sort of outcome that doesn't really have anything to do with the rules.

So saying they are 'no more abuseable' isn't particularly comforting because the rules are super mega hugely abuseable, or you just wing it in which case why waste my time with rules?

Seems sucktacular, I hope they fix it.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Dec 6, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> _deleted for reasons of peace and brotherhood_




My lord Byron...didn't you see Umbran and others ask you to cease and desist?  Normally I just ignore posts like yours, but for some reason I've failed my Will save in this situation.

Enough.  We all beg of you.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

The_Furious_Puffin said:
			
		

> But the rules for diplomacy as is are completely unplayable.




Exactly – example of the problem with Diplomacy:


High level bard saunters up to Llolth –


The bard: ‘_Hey, baby, that spider-web will look great rolled up in a ball next to my bed in the morning_…’


**rolls insane Diplomacy check**


Llolth: ‘_I like a man who's direct_…’


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Personally, I believe that a lot of the tradeoffs will include areas of complexity that most people will enjoy shedding; this isn't to say that everyone will think it's an improvement!
> 
> One thing that I hope this edition promotes is the idea that you don't have to design an NPC exactly the same way as a PC to get a balanced and playable opponent; indeed, I'm not sure that the complex way we used in 3.5e actually worked the way it should have. NPC Challenge Ratings were notoriously unreliable...
> 
> Cheers!



Very possibly.  I have never disputed this claim.  What I have disputed is that this will clearly result in overall growth for the game.  I have no doubt whatsoever that 4E will do well and 3x is a thing of the past.  It would be absurd to even hint differently about 3x.  But I don't believe that there are significant numbers people out there not playing 3X who are going to flock to 4E because it is a more simple game.  If 4E never existed there would be new players who found 3E 12 months from now.  Some of those would try it and leave and some would become gamers.  4E does exist and the same thing will happen for it.  But who says more will stay?  And who says that if more stay the added players will outnumber the people in your "not everyone" who are spending cash on 3E now but stop with 4e?  Do you think that 12 months after 4E comes out it will have the same level of boom going that 3E did 12 months after it came out?  I'm skeptical.

On your specific example, I have never supported CR in 3X.  I mean, I love it as a concept for XP.  But the implementation was terrible and never really got fixed.  But that was because, as you say, it was so unreliable.  If they want to make a more reliable system then make that the priority.  Simplicity is not reliability.  

Again, I'm not wasting my time here just to grind an axe.  If I knew I was going to hate 4E I'd just leave.  And if for some reason I was predetermined to hate 4E just for silly 3E devotion reasons, I'd just leave.  What I want more than anything (in gaming at least) is to be overwhelmed by the coolness of 4E.  And Mikes comments did help some in reducing my pessimism.  But it is not a case of me expected everything to cater to me.  If they make a game that creates lots of profits through a method that leaves me out, then they can listen to my complaints all the way to the bank, with my compliments.  I don't resent them.  But I'm still going to speak from my individual point of view.  When I stop posting here, that will mean I have given up on 4E.  And I still hope that by the time the PH comes out I am back to being one of the big 4E defenders here, as I was right after the announcement.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2007)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> My lord Byron...didn't you see Umbran and others ask you to cease and desist?  Normally I just ignore posts like yours, but for some reason I've failed my Will save in this situation.
> 
> Enough.  We all beg of you.



No I did not see it.  I apologize.  Please remove my comments from your post.  Thanks.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Exactly – example of the problem with Diplomacy:
> 
> 
> High level bard saunters up to Llolth –
> ...




Players are so cute when they only read the rules that they think are in their favor.  You missed this important part of the skill description-



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions).




Since when is Llolth going to give you a whole minute before she kills you?  Diplomacy is only broken if the DM allows it to be so.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Since when is Llolth going to give you a whole minute before she kills you?




If she's impressed by your package…?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 6, 2007)

The_Furious_Puffin said:
			
		

> But the rules for diplomacy as is are completely unplayable. If you use the DMG tables for changing attitudes you can make people fanatic followers vastly to easily (ignoring the very existance of charm here for a moment), and if you don't, I'm just left eyeballing some sort of outcome that doesn't really have anything to do with the rules.
> 
> So saying they are 'no more abuseable' isn't particularly comforting because the rules are super mega hugely abuseable, or you just wing it in which case why waste my time with rules?
> 
> Seems sucktacular, I hope they fix it.



Well, he said "no more abuseable" which still leaves the option of "less abuseable".


----------



## Danzauker (Dec 6, 2007)

I think there's a formatting error.

In the following two paragraphs:



> My honest opinion is that I see 4E actually stressing and emphasizing “coolness” and “combat effectiveness” over player input, thinking and role-playing –- not to mention that DM’s are more-or-less subtly manipulated into thinking that their “job” has become “easier” and requires less work and creative effort than ever before. For example, in 4E, DMs are “able to drop things out of the books” without any pre-play prep work -- is that cool or what? Somehow in my mind this translates as “fostering” or encouraging new DMs to be lazy –- maybe the idea behind this “design goal” is to lower the threshold of DMing, but I see it discouraging improvisation and thinking on a DM’s part (and these skills are –- in my opinion –- quite relevant to being a DM). James Wyatt’s first ‘Dungeoncraft’-article actually seemed to underline the point that the *setting* and *NPCs* are not very relevant –- just steal some ideas and get the ball rolling, and the PCs will take care of the rest. I’d call that “sloppy” DMing. Your own blog also contains a very telling example of this as you said that you don’t want to “waste” time in having to explain things to your players –- if that’s how you generally view DMing chores, I personally wouldn’t want to play in your campaigns (and this is my honest personal opinion/criticism and *not* meant as a deliberate “attack” –- hope you see the difference ). I wish to ask you some questions: it appears that your own “houseruled” version of 3E contains many mechanical aspects from 4E (monster “roles”, "simplified" special abilities, movement rate in ‘squares’, etc.) –- have you always played 3E in a more “simplified” way or did you “playtest” some 4E game mechanics in your recent 3E campaigns? Is 4E how Mike Mearls want to play D&D, or how the majority of us –- or a new generation of gamers -- want to play it? That is the central question here.
> 
> See, again, I have to turn that question around to you. I don't like putting a lot of detail into my campaign worlds, but you do. Which of us is right? The answer, to me, is neither, as long as we and our groups have fun.




The first should be from the original poster, and only the second Mearls' answer.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 6, 2007)

I hope those DM suggestions make it into the final product. Those are some golden words of advice, and long-overdue.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 6, 2007)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> I really appreciate some DMing advice in the DMG, rather than just examples of encounters, treasure and so on. The actual construction of a campaign is something I've always find hard (although i appreciate if I practiced more I'd get better at it...).




Robin Laws is the reason I bought the DMG2.

DMing advice is always welcome.


----------



## The_Furious_Puffin (Dec 6, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, he said "no more abuseable" which still leaves the option of "less abuseable".




Yeah, but as I said, not particularly comforting 

Edit: I guess I'm trying to say 'no more abuseable' isn't really saying anything, because either they are extremely abuseable or don't exist.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> That's a hard balance to get right - how do you include the "serving suggestion" without pre-combining the ingredients so much that it's all you can make?
> 
> Or so that you're not picking out the carrot from the mixing bowl every time you cook because the default is carrot cake and you want to make black forest gateau?




I agree to a point.

However, in 3e, you don't even get cake mix.  You get handed a bunch of ingredients and told to make a cake.  Never mind that you've possibly never seen a cake and have no idea what it should look like.  

Ok, cake is a bad analogy.  

You get the point though, I think.  Without an explicit example of doing a campaign right, how can a new DM be expected not to make all the same mistakes that we did?  Railroading, disorganization, burnout - all of these things are the result of learning on the job.  Why not hand a new DM a paint by numbers picture and tell him the reasons for picking those particular colors?

In the past, the DMG has been very, VERY light on any sort of advice on how to develop a campaign.  Lots on how to make an adventure.  A fair bit on how to make a world.  But, very little on how to hang it all together.  And, next to nothing on how to avoid the rather numerous pitfalls of DMing.  Heck, the Wolfgang Baur article on the Wizards site a while back on how to design a dungeon is some of the best advice I've seen in years.  THAT'S what should be in the DMG.

I guess I'm coming from the point of view that we've tried for years to hand new DM's the tools without taking the time to show them what the end product can look like.  For example, Keep on the Borderlands states that DM's should fill in the blanks but gives pretty much no guidance as to how to fill in those blanks.  It's assumes that new DM's will figure it out.

There is another approach.  Come from the finished product, deconstruct it down the its basic components and then hand it to the new DM.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Players are so cute when they only read the rules that they think are in their favor.  You missed this important part of the skill description-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A Diplomacy check can be made as a full round action with a -10 penalty. The DC for turning Lolth into a Playboy bunny is 50 so an extra 10 isn't a huge increase.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Since when is Llolth going to give you a whole minute before she kills you?  Diplomacy is only broken if the DM allows it to be so.



The last line is always the killer, isn't it?

I wonder how many "Diplomacy is broken" debates could be won by bringing up this little tidbit? (The answer is zero, of course, since one can never win an online debate. But you know what I mean.)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I think I saw his face in my scrambled eggs this morning. I was going to call the paper, but then I got really hungry.
> 
> He makes some pretty decent points, and he's quite correct about the importance of writing the core books under the assumption that they're going to be read by new and or lazy players and DM's. More experienced gamers should know how to ratchet things up to the necessary level.



This point can't be emphasized enough.  If some of the measures they're taking in the 4th edition core books seem "simplistic," or seem to be directing players toward a certain style of play, consider that perhaps those measures are directed not at you, the experienced player who knows the drill, but at new players who need to be told how to get started playing.

They don't need to write detailed instructions for us old hands.  We know how to do it already.  So I think that a lot of the core content aside from the game mechanics might just be kind of useless to us.  I feel the same way about vast tracts of the 3E DMG.  It's just part of writing for a broad audience.  Not all sections are for all players.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> A Diplomacy check can be made as a full round action with a -10 penalty. The DC for turning Lolth into a Playboy bunny is 50 so an extra 10 isn't a huge increase.




Yeah, and we all know how easy it is to get Skill checks to absurd numbers in 3.5, regardless of Epic.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Although I'm not particularly happy with the marketing, I do wonder how much of our reaction to 4e is being affected by pure negativity on the forums. I mean, I found the Quest article rather good, giving an idea of how the structure of 4e XP awards would be changing, and also including a bookkeeping tip that some might find useful.
> 
> However, the reaction on the boards was suddenly this explosive "4e sucks - it's railroading you", and so forth.



People find what they're looking for.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 6, 2007)

The first page or so of responses to this thread gave me the feeling I had stumbled into the Church of Mike Mearls (Reformed).

I still disagree with the attitude that players stepping into a roleplaying game should have rules-assigned tasks from the git-go: "_The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do,_" Merls said. That, to me, seems to be reducing the experience to a simple equation or computer simulation. And if it's a core design consideration, this edition is going to be very much different from previous generations.

OK, I'll use the words. I've avoided them so far, but what the hey: I hate that.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> The first page or so of responses to this thread gave me the feeling I had stumbled into the Church of Mike Mearls (Reformed).
> 
> I still disagree with the attitude that players stepping into a roleplaying game should have rules-assigned tasks from the git-go: "_The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do,_" Merls said. That, to me, seems to be reducing the experience to a simple equation or computer simulation. And if it's a core design consideration, this edition is going to be very much different from previous generations.
> 
> OK, I'll use the words. I've avoided them so far, but what the hey: I hate that.




But, it's always been that way.  Players have always had something they are supposed to be doing.  Even if the game is 100% sandbox style and all elements are 100% player driven, the players still have to be able to come up with something they have to do.

In other words, if I want to play a fighter with a 9 Str, 9 Con, 9 Dex and 18 Cha, there's going to be some problems at the table.  Sure, it's all great that I can do that, but, let's face it, I'm screwing everyone else at the table.  Why not tell the new guy, "Ok, you want to play a fighter?  Here's three or four concepts that will let you play a fighter and be reasonably effective."

Once the player has played for a while, he can ignore that advice and try new things.  But, what's wrong with stepping up with advice?  Why is letting everyone make the same mistakes a good thing?


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 6, 2007)

Yes, Mearls and Noonan seem to speak "my language" and come from a very practical place in regards the game (the desingers are more a mixed bag)...his quote from the DMG on traps and letting players improvise sollutions, why I just did that yesterday in a play by post...

Yes, of course life should be easier for the DM, given other constraints, this is good for new DMs, but it is also good for old DMs who have a life, or want to be able to focus their prep time on some stuff and not worry about the rest...

BUT, we don't really have examples of thing really being easier for the DM, just promises. I hope he is right...

AND, Cam Banks is right about those damn names. Golden Wyvern Adept as a name on multiple feats is just a mistake. If points of light is emphasized in the PHB, it is a mistake. You can have some of this in flavor text, you can tell it in the DMG, you can have less conspicous connections (staff of the wyvern...) but hard wire it into the "setting" and into PCs, you are doing a bad job and reflecting your own, random, prefrences. These are good examples of crap that makes DMs lives _harder_, not easier.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 6, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> The first page or so of responses to this thread gave me the feeling I had stumbled into the Church of Mike Mearls (Reformed).
> 
> I still disagree with the attitude that players stepping into a roleplaying game should have rules-assigned tasks from the git-go: "_The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do,_" Merls said. That, to me, seems to be reducing the experience to a simple equation or computer simulation. And if it's a core design consideration, this edition is going to be very much different from previous generations.
> 
> OK, I'll use the words. I've avoided them so far, but what the hey: I hate that.




Well, I can certainly see that any GM wants players to be creative in interpreting their role in the party.

But, at the same time, this is like a teacher trying to help kids through a basic essay.

You want students to be creative when using the essay, but you don't really want an epic narrative poem.  And since you don't want that you do have to provide students with some instruction.

Now, players aren't students - at least not when they're at the table - but they are co-writers and any group of co-writers needs a clear understanding of what everyone is working on.

So it's not that the guy who chooses Cleric needs to play the cleric certain specific hardcoded into the rules way, it's that the rest of the party needs to know what that choice means to them.

Mearls did say that the roles are there to help understanding and that they don't have mechanical reflection.

So I think you should absolutely hate what you should hate, but I hate it too.  First party I ever ran for 3E had a paladin who's player left the table saying, "I cast detect evil on everything we meet, when I do detect evil I smite it, and I'll be back in a half hour."  But I've also had players who just couldn't understand why we kept getting TPKed when his fighter would abandon the rest of the party. In both cases the player isn't being responsible.

I find some hope in what Mearl's was talking about versus what we would like to avoid, and some hope that that second player would now understand that playing a striker would suit that play-style better.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> This point can't be emphasized enough.  If some of the measures they're taking in the 4th edition core books seem "simplistic," or seem to be directing players toward a certain style of play, consider that perhaps those measures are directed not at you, the experienced player who knows the drill, but at new players who need to be told how to get started playing.
> 
> They don't need to write detailed instructions for us old hands.  We know how to do it already.  So I think that a lot of the core content aside from the game mechanics might just be kind of useless to us.  I feel the same way about vast tracts of the 3E DMG.  It's just part of writing for a broad audience.  Not all sections are for all players.




I would be amazed to find anyone, no matter what their experience, who doesn't find some useful tips in general DMing advice. I would include in that some of the very best DMs who I've ever come across.

It seems to me that if someone were to dismiss elements of the DMG as 'simplistic' or 'aimed at newbies' and not for an 'experienced person' such as themselves, they could end up missing really useful stuff that could enhance their game. I mean, I remember Gary Gygax commenting on ENworld that he had picked up some useful tips from the 3e (or 3.5e) DMG!

I've got... blimey, 32 years or so DMing experience, but I love checking out new advice, because occasionally I come across a little gem that I'd not heard of (or once knew but had forgotten).

Cheers


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 6, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> The first page or so of responses to this thread gave me the feeling I had stumbled into the Church of Mike Mearls (Reformed).



I don't think this comment adds anything to the discussion. The mods have asked that we try to be civil. You can disagree with the posters without this implication.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 6, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> AND, Cam Banks is right about those damn names. Golden Wyvern Adept as a name on multiple feats is just a mistake. If points of light is emphasized in the PHB, it is a mistake. You can have some of this in flavor text, you can tell it in the DMG, you can have less conspicous connections (staff of the wyvern...) but hard wire it into the "setting" and into PCs, you are doing a bad job and reflecting your own, random, prefrences. These are good examples of crap that makes DMs lives _harder_, not easier.




I wonder, though, could this be the only adept feat in the book?

As in when it shows up on the SRD stripped of all IP content could it just appear as Adept, as with Bigby's and Pushing Hand?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> The first page or so of responses to this thread gave me the feeling I had stumbled into the Church of Mike Mearls (Reformed).
> 
> I still disagree with the attitude that players stepping into a roleplaying game should have rules-assigned tasks from the git-go: "_The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do,_" Merls said. That, to me, seems to be reducing the experience to a simple equation or computer simulation. And if it's a core design consideration, this edition is going to be very much different from previous generations.
> 
> OK, I'll use the words. I've avoided them so far, but what the hey: I hate that.



Player 1: Okay, let's play this new game. I'm going to be a fighter.
Player 2: I'll be a cleric.
Player 3: I'm a rogue.
DM: Great!  Now, here's the introduction, a plot hook, and the first encounter: goblins.
Player 1: I hang back and try to move around to flank them.
Player 2: I search through my spells in a somewhat disappointed fashion, looking for a blasty one.  Failing to find one, I grudgingly move up to the goblins and get swarmed.
Player 3: Yarr! I charge the biggest one!
DM: Wow, you guys got your butts kicked.  Perhaps you should rethink you strategy.
Players 1, 2, & 3: If only there were some easy-to-understand index of what the various classes are capable of and good at so we could adjust our strategy accordingly and/or choose classes that suit our preferred playstyles!
Mike Mearls: Ahem...


----------



## Imaro (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> So it's not that the guy who chooses Cleric needs to play the cleric certain specific hardcoded into the rules way, it's that the rest of the party needs to know what that choice means to them.
> 
> *Mearls did say that the roles are there to help understanding and that they don't have mechanical reflection.
> *
> ...




This seems a little at odds to me.  The roles help a player to understand what role they play...but they don't, mechanically, cater to the role.  I'm confused, that's like saying the name of your class is fighter, but mechanically nothing helps you fight better than any other character,  Please explain how this in any way makes sense.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I would be amazed to find anyone, no matter what their experience, who doesn't find some useful tips in general DMing advice. I would include in that some of the very best DMs who I've ever come across.
> 
> It seems to me that if someone were to dismiss elements of the DMG as 'simplistic' or 'aimed at newbies' and not for an 'experienced person' such as themselves, they could end up missing really useful stuff that could enhance their game. I mean, I remember Gary Gygax commenting on ENworld that he had picked up some useful tips from the 3e (or 3.5e) DMG!
> 
> ...



No disagreement here.  However, I think the level of sky-is-falling we see on the boards might be reduced if people would keep my comments in mind while reading previews.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 6, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> This seems a little at odds to me.  The roles help a player to understand what role they play...but they don't, mechanically, cater to the role.  I'm confused, that's like saying the name of your class is fighter, but mechanically nothing helps you fight better than any other character,  Please explain how this in any way makes sense.




You're reading it wrong.  He's saying that there's nothing in the rules that forces a Striker to go strike, or a Defender to go defend.  Sure, they have abilities that make them better at striking and defending respectively, but obviously no one can make your character do anything.

So everyone who's enraged at the roles talk because they want to play a wizard who charges headlong into melee or a fighter who hides in the back, well, you can continue to annoy the rest of your party far into the next edition.


----------



## Slander (Dec 6, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I still disagree with the attitude that players stepping into a roleplaying game should have rules-assigned tasks from the git-go: "_The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do,_" Merls said.




The alternative is having new players jumping into the game thinking Monks are awesome front-line combatants, that Spring-Attacking Fighters are a great idea, and the best types of spells for Wizards are blasting spells. In reality, none of those classes are _supposed_ to be doing the examples I gave. *Veteran *players understand the consequences of making those decisions and can act accordingly; *new *players would likely end up frustrated with their choices.

The roles simply point out to _new _players "Hey, if your picking this class, you should focus on these things in battle". Experienced players will still be able to make characters that go against the grain.



> I'm confused, that's like saying the name of your class is fighter, but mechanically nothing helps you fight better than any other character, Please explain how this in any way makes sense.




The mechanics come into play based on the choices you make. There are going to be Talents(?) and feats that cater to the Defender role, Striker role, etc. A fighter, to be a good Defender, should be picking the Defender Talents/Feats. But a player doesn't _have_ to pick those abilities. 

Will there be consequences if you don't pick talents/feats that go with your role? Sure, just like there is a consequence for a Fighter picking Spring-Attack in 3E. It might be an acceptable consequence for an experienced player who realizes what he's missing. But the fighter in our first 3E group certainly didn't realize that. Thus, the friendly role suggestions in 4E.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> DM: Wow, you guys got your butts kicked.  Perhaps you should rethink you strategy.
> Players 1, 2, & 3: If only there were some easy-to-understand index of what the various classes are capable of and good at so we could adjust our strategy accordingly and/or choose classes that suit our preferred playstyles!




Players 1, 2 & 3 cont.: ... Because we had absolutely no idea that a "fighter" fights, a "rogue" is a sneaky thief concept, and that a "cleric" has many magical healing options via spell-thingies. Yes, for us, an easy-to-understand index would be invaluable.

 :\  

Not sure that was the point you were trying to make, but it's valid just the same.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I wonder, though, could this be the only adept feat in the book?
> 
> As in when it shows up on the SRD stripped of all IP content could it just appear as Adept, as with Bigby's and Pushing Hand?




Based on a Design and Development article from a while ago (that was taken down and changed), there where these traditions with funny names (Emerald Frost, Golden Wyvern Adept), who used these implements (Orb, Staff, Wand, Tome).

As I think more about it, these wizards changes seem to be the source of more "gnashing of teeth" then any other suggested changes. And they backed down a little on the implements. But, from the little we know, there will be feat chains for each funny named tradtion. So a good number of feats.

As I calm down, it just seems sort of funny-silly. But seriously, whoever came up with this, what where they smoking? And where can I get it?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 6, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Players 1, 2 & 3 cont.: ... Because we had absolutely no idea that a "fighter" fights, a "rogue" is a sneaky thief concept, and that a "cleric" has many magical healing options via spell-thingies. Yes, for us, an easy-to-understand index would be invaluable.
> 
> :\
> 
> Not sure that was the point you were trying to make, but it's valid just the same.



But how does a fighter fight? Is a fighter better suited with charging the enemy and keeping them busy? Or should he run around the battle field? 
How do you fight "sneaky"? Should you snipe with a crossbow from hundreds of feet away, or should you try to get behind your enemy while he is busy with the fighter? Should you look out for trouble coming from behind, or should you scout and search for traps?
And what the hell is a cleric anyway? I guess some kind of religious guy, but what does he do? Should he enter the room with blazing guns (Grammaton Cleric  )? Does he call a divine lightning to strike down his enemy, or summon an angel for aid?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2007)

Slander said:
			
		

> The roles simply point out to _new _players "Hey, if your picking this class, you should focus on these things in battle". Experienced players will still be able to make characters that go against the grain.




Or, perhaps just learn to work with the roles, rather than trying to buck them.

It seems to me that much of that issue is the tendency for people saying, "I want to play a fighter who does X" (choosing the class first, and the role second), instead of saying, "I want to play a character who does X, and I'll do it by taking fighter levels" (choosing the role you want to play, and choosing the class to suit).

If you remove the idea that a "fighter" is anything other than a metagame concept, then classes are more building blocks to reach your goal - rather than the class having grain to go against, the class is the tool you use to shape the wood, and the role merely a suggestion of whether the class is better as a chisel or a router.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 6, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> When filing serial numbers off things, it helps to have something left after you're done. I can't file anything off Golden Wyvern Adept unless I change the name completely, and that's a pain in the ass.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Out of all the stuff i've heard about 4e, this is the only thing that really, really bothers me.  It is forcing the term into the game, and it means nothing in and of itself without having the mechanical rules to explain it.  I hope it is not too late for them to change this aspect of the game.


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 6, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Out of all the stuff i've heard about 4e, this is the only thing that really, really bothers me.  It is forcing the term into the game, and it means nothing in and of itself without having the mechanical rules to explain it.  I hope it is not too late for them to change this aspect of the game.




I should note here that I don't mind at all if goofy names like Golden Wyvern Adept and Emerald Frost whatever are in the rulebooks. Heck, they can add them as the examples of wizard traditions as I mentioned above. It's the hardwiring them into feats that are useful outside of those traditions and have no specific connection to them other than flavor, and which are impossible to deduce the purpose of unless you read up on them, that I don't like. It isn't the same as a spell with a wizard's name tagged on the front; it's like changing Knowledge (arcana) to "Golden Wyvern Acuity."

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Slander (Dec 6, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Or, perhaps just learn to work with the roles, rather than trying to buck them.
> 
> It seems to me that much of that issue is the tendency for people saying, "I want to play a fighter who does X" (choosing the class first, and the role second), instead of saying, "I want to play a character who does X, and I'll do it by taking fighter levels" (choosing the role you want to play, and choosing the class to suit).
> 
> If you remove the idea that a "fighter" is anything other than a metagame concept, then classes are more building blocks to reach your goal - rather than the class having grain to go against, the class is the tool you use to shape the wood, and the role merely a suggestion of whether the class is better as a chisel or a router.




Very true. It'd be excellent if the developers were able to effectively impart the concept of "role first, pick classes to suit" on new players.

In my experience, that type of thinking is an "intermediate" level approach. "Novices" tend to look at the class name first and go from there. At the very least, those who do take the novice approach will still have some guidance on how to make the most of their choice.

Edit: I'm sure there are others, but from the WotC/TSR catalogue, Alternity did a very good job of presenting this concept. Actual class selection was the _fourth_ step in the creation process. You first came up with an idea, chose a race, selected a career (which was a freeform, personal description of what your character did/who he was), and _then_ chose the best class to match everything you had laid out. Hopefully the devs can take a page from their own history.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Slander said:
			
		

> "Novices" tend to look at the class name first and go from there.




Yeah, when I first started playing back with 1st Ed, I went for thief, only to later realize I was basically a fighter with a crappy Thaco and poor hp only to be completely eclipsed by basically every other class in the game…

If someone had taken the time; or if the actual books/rules explained it better I would have gone for ranger to realize my vision.


----------



## glass (Dec 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Although I'm not particularly happy with the marketing, I do wonder how much of our reaction to 4e is being affected by pure negativity on the forums. I mean, I found the Quest article rather good, giving an idea of how the structure of 4e XP awards would be changing, and also including a bookkeeping tip that some might find useful.



I wonder if some of the anger directed at 4e is actually residual anger from the cancellation of (Paizo) Dungeon and Dragon.


glass.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 6, 2007)

don't forget residual anger over 3.5.

Some is still around.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> don't forget residual anger over 3.5.
> 
> Some is still around.




Yeah, over here in the UK it's often referred to as "The dead fish slap in the face!"


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Yeah, when I first started playing back with 1st Ed, I went for thief, only to later realize I was basically a fighter with a crappy Thaco and poor hp only to be completely eclipsed by basically every other class in the game…



1e and 2e thieves should've had a big font warning label right at the top of the description: 

This class is total useless pish - never use


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 1e and 2e thieves should've had a big font warning label right at the top of the description:
> 
> This class is total useless pish - never use




Well unfortunately you weren't around.

…I can never count on you!


----------



## Blackwind (Dec 6, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I should note here that I don't mind at all if goofy names like Golden Wyvern Adept and Emerald Frost whatever are in the rulebooks. Heck, they can add them as the examples of wizard traditions as I mentioned above. It's the hardwiring them into feats that are useful outside of those traditions and have no specific connection to them other than flavor, and which are impossible to deduce the purpose of unless you read up on them, that I don't like. It isn't the same as a spell with a wizard's name tagged on the front; it's like changing Knowledge (arcana) to "Golden Wyvern Acuity."




Please, Wizards, listen to Cam Banks!

This would be a really, really smart move.  Instead of calling it Golden Wyvern Adept, call it something like Golden Wyvern Spellshaper.  This would make it easier for new players to understand and easier for experienced DMs who didn't want the Golden Wyvern tradition in their campaign to file off the serial numbers.  And in the SRD, you could just call it Spellshaper.  

This would make 4E better for everyone!  We, the fans, will thank you.

Also, it would be kind of cool if in the DMG, there was a small section on creating your own wizard traditions.  

I hope someone from WotC is reading this.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 6, 2007)

What follows is a cross-board posting from OYT. I just thought it might be constructive to share it with the ENWorld community. Here goes:

Alright. I've read Mike's comments with great attention and I am now going to address a few critical points, in my opinion. Before I do so, I'd like to precise that this is the kind of comments I was waiting for. They are constructive, well articulated and provide a clear insight into the design philosophy of the Fourth edition of the game. I was waiting for no less from Mike, and as usual, he delivered.

That doesn't mean, however, that I agree with all he's saying here. There are a few key passages here, and I'm going to address them in order of appearance:



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> I can't write rules that say "And as a reward for defeating this encounter, the DM does some really good roleplaying."
> 
> I can't do that. I have no control over the DM. I have no input into his abilities. I can put DM advice into a book, which frankly based on reviews and comments everyone ignores anyway. I can put suggestions on how to DM, which based on how people have reacted to the quest card *suggestion* gets taken as the One True Way and villified.




I think this part shows a clear definition of what the input into a DM's or player's abilities ought to be on the part of the written game. Advice as far as game design is concerned is worthless. The only way to have an input on a group's enjoyment of the game is to codify intents into rules. This design philosophy is confirmed later on: "There are no mechanical elements that allow player input into story in 3e. In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players to make up their own quests."

To encourage players to do something, it's better to have rules for it.

I fundamentally disagree with this, from experience. Rules need provide some measure of fairness around the game table. They sustain the suspension of disbelief going on around the table by providing laws by which the actions in the game are resolved. No more, no less. By their very nature, rules are inhibitors of certain behavior. Rules frame. They don't open horizons unless the user knows what the intent behind the rule is, and understands from there how to use them, tweak them, change them, and build on them. We've seen a clear effect of this with Third Edition's feats. Many players and DMs out there have been repelled by them because they seem to be on/off switches: either you have the ability to power attack an opponent, or you don't; if you don't have the feat, you can't power attack an opponent. If you don't have the Acrobatic feat, that means you're character is not acrobatic. And so on. This of course is not true if the users choose to use some critical thinking and adjudicate situations based on circumstances and believability. But the rules are to be circumvented to achieve that enjoyment of the game.

Which brings us back to the advice provided in a PHB and DMG. These are critical bits of information destined to provide the seeds of this critical thinking on the parts of players and DM. Advice, contrarily to what Mike suggests here, IS input. Players and DM then choose whether they want to follow the advice or not. Whether they build on it or dismiss it. What we've got here is the notion that since a part of the users of the game dismiss the advice, it isn't worth a damn in terms of input on how people play the game. I think this is a symptomatic generalization that demonstrates a leveling of the design of the game by catering to the lowest common denominator (those who don't follow the advice). I just can't agree with that.

This design philosophy is also confirmed by the rhetorical question provided by Mike:



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> As for player initiative, that's not something we can necessarily force on to people. Some people are perfectly happy playing D&D with a DM who leads them through adventures by the nose. These guys want to be entertained while bashing monsters.
> 
> Their style of play (or lack thereof) has no effect on players who want to be more active. Just as I can't force people to be good DMs, I can't force people to become "good" players, by whoever's standard of good we want to apply. What I can try to do is take the doorway into D&D and force it as wide open as possible, to let as many people at least try this hobby, and maybe get more people playing it.




Two claims here that I want to challenge: 1/ "I can't force people to be "good" players, and 2/ Styles of play of one table do not influence another table.

You sure can't force people to be "good" players. The question of standard is important. Basically, Mike here tells us that there is no standard of what a "good" player is and there shouldn't be, because however you enjoy the game, it's the purpose of the game, and that's it. I think this is problematic on a design point of view. I too think you can't force anyone to use a game this or that way, but a game surely is designed around an idea of what sort of enjoyment it provides. Then, you can give advice on how to achieve the enjoyment the game is supposed to provide (which brings us back to the notion that advice is worthless according to Mike). I think a game is always more effective on an enjoyment level when it is designed around a notion of the type of fun it provides. If there is no definition of the type of fun the game's suppose to provide, then there is no target for the design. No thematic. No bull's eye.

And that's not like the way other people play the game doesn't influence the way we are playing at home. It does. More so than ever, actually, with the internet, online games, no soon with DDI, and so on, but it has always been the case. First, there is the "common experience" provided by the game. With D&D's first incarnation, the pillar of this common experience was The Dragon. As far as we can reach in the history of modern RPGs, players and DMs have been sharing input and information about how to better their games. They've been thus creating the notion of what is appropriate, and what isn't at a game table (hence the "munchkins", the "monty hauls", and so many more extreme behaviors that have made their ways into the infamous ways of playing the game). It's part of the nature of the game to foster interaction between its participants, no matter how remote they are from each other.

4E embraces this concept full speed by making DDI one of the four main integrated pillars of the edition. If there is interaction between the players of the game world-wide, there is the creation of this common wisdom, knowledge and experience of how the game can be enjoyed or not. The way some fraction of the users of the game end up playing the game does participate to the common pool of experience, which ends up influencing further designs of the game, and how the people playing the game understand it. It forges expectations on the player's part, which later can show up at my game table when I want to run a Greyhawk game and that a play wants to play a Golden Wyvern Ninja, for instance. It surely does impact my game, through the publications or through the people sitting at my game table. Negating that amounts to a dismissal of one of the biggest components of the game's history that motivated things like the publication of Advanced rules for the game so many years ago, or how a Fourth edition is now being published, for instance, and thus how many players playing the sort of game I enjoy will end up being interested or not in my games.

This is confirmed by the rhetorical question "Do you want us to make a game that gamers want or do you want us to make a game that you want?" Ergo, the way other people play the game does have an impact on my own game.

I would go on in my commentary, but I think I'd just turn round and round as the other quotes are just repeats of the same core arguments.

What do you guys think?


----------



## glass (Dec 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 1e and 2e thieves should've had a big font warning label right at the top of the description:
> 
> This class is total useless pish - never use



1e maybe. 2e theives were pretty nifty, at least compared wit fighters. The hp and THAC0 may have been lower at any given level, but due to the different XP tables they were usually higher due to a significantly higher level.


glass.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 6, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Alright. I've read Mike's comments with great attention and I am now going to address a few critical points, in my opinion. Before I do so, I'd like to precise that this is the kind of comments I was waiting for. They are constructive, well articulated and provide a clear insight into the design philosophy of the Fourth edition of the game. I was waiting for no less from Mike, and as usual, he delivered.
> 
> That doesn't mean, however, that I agree with all he's saying here. There are a few key passages here, and I'm going to address them in order of appearance:




Well said, sir.

RC


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Players 1, 2 & 3 cont.: ... Because we had absolutely no idea that a "fighter" fights, a "rogue" is a sneaky thief concept, and that a "cleric" has many magical healing options via spell-thingies. Yes, for us, an easy-to-understand index would be invaluable.



Not to sound elitist, but are you sure every newbie player are familiar enough with the words 'Cleric' or 'Rogue' to attach meaning to them?


----------



## Singing Smurf (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Not to sound elitist, but are you sure every newbie player are familiar enough with the words 'Cleric' or 'Rogue' to attach meaning to them?




I suspect many people associate "Cleric" with clerical work and "Rogue" with an attitude more than a skill set.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Singing Smurf said:
			
		

> I suspect many people associate "Cleric" with clerical work and "Rogue" with an attitude more than a skill set.



Yeah; the only time I hear the word "Cleric" in the religious context, it's usually referring to Islam. And rogue is usually in the manner of "They have split from their organization and are going solo", like "Gone rogue".

It's really easy to think Rogue = Fencer or Knife Fighter, who are fully capable of charging into battle.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 6, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> What do you guys think?



Well, your post sounds well-thought out and is written in a good tone, but (there had to be a but), but I don't agree.




> To encourage players to do something, it's better to have rules for it.
> 
> I fundamentally disagree with this,



I am definitely a child of the 3rd edition, which might mean that I have different experiences. 
Rules serve both as a reminder for what you can do as well as a contraint for what you can do. 

If there is no rule for something, the DM is forced to make it up. The player doesn't know beforehand if the DM finds his idea reasonable and little idea on whether he can try and succeed or if the thing he came up with is impossible. A player can now fall into two related traps: First, he might not even think of something, because the option isn't presented anywhere. (This probably is most likely to happen in the more rules-heavy games - if there are no options presented at all, players will go by their real-life, book or TV experience). Second, he believes that the idea he has won't work because the DM won't let it. It depends a lot on the player and the DM in question whether he falls into that trap, but I think it is not unlikely.

Enforcing rules has the primary drawback of the first trap - thinking outside the box. But without the rules, too much hinges on guessing, which can lead to an unsatisfying experience. 



> I think a game is always more effective on an enjoyment level when it is designed around a notion of the type of fun it provides.



So, tell me, what type of fun does D&D (pick your edition, if required) provides? (Maybe the first question could also be: What are types of fun, but I am going to make a few guesses
Is it the "Kill monster and take their stuff"-fun? Is it the "build a powerful character"-fun? Is it the "immerse yourself deeply in your character and the setting"-fun? Is it the "Anything Goes"-fun? Is it the "Explore the World"-fun?

Personally, I think it is a bit of all of these "funs". Which is a great feature of D&D (and maybe why it is so succesful and has so many players with so many different play styles), but it's also what can make the game so difficult, because you can easily have a group of players with different goals of fun in mind. 
I am not even sure that this only applies to D&D (maybe D&D was just the first, or the best, to mix these types of fun).


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 6, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Out of all the stuff i've heard about 4e, this is the only thing that really, really bothers me.  It is forcing the term into the game, and it means nothing in and of itself without having the mechanical rules to explain it.  I hope it is not too late for them to change this aspect of the game.




Ya ...

Player: I'm playing a Golden Wyvern Adept!
GM: What?!?
Player: It's a new core class in 4E, it's lot's of fun!
GM: Oh, let me see.  What are they good at doing?
Player: They wear armor and are good at killing things with swords and stuff.
GM: Oh, a fighter!
Player: No! A *Golden* *Wyvern* *Adept*.  (Pouts.)
GM: (Writes "Fighter" next to the player on a handy reference card.)

But also ...

Player: I'm playing a Golden Wyvern Adept!
GM: I see.  The adepts are an ancient order, maintaining the immortal teachings of the Golden Wyvern for many years.  They have strict standards.  Are you up to it?
Player: Yes!  My family has maintained the traditions for many generations.  Our bodies are as steel, and we are able to stand unafraid face-to-face with mortal foes.
GM: Yes, you are fit to be a Golden Wyvern Adept.  None of the orders can give you the training you seek.  (Writes "Golden Wyvern Adapt" next to the player.)


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Dec 6, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> What do you guys think?



I think you would do well to make a clear thesis statement, for the sake of both summary and clarity.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Not to sound elitist, but are you sure every newbie player are familiar enough with the words 'Cleric' or 'Rogue' to attach meaning to them?



They aren't. I've touched D&D 2002 the first time... and rogue (stealing, backstabbing) was clear. Wizard = magic guy was clear... but cleric? That was the first time I've ever seen healing clerics in fantasy.

And roles are no different than "fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue", just put into non-class terms that describe better what they're doing.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Singing Smurf (Dec 6, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> I think you would do well to make a clear thesis statement, for the sake of both summary and clarity.




Yes indeed.  I'm having some trouble parsing what you posted, which is a shame as you obviously put some effort into it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> They aren't. I've touched D&D 2002 the first time... and rogue (stealing, backstabbing) was clear. Wizard = magic guy was clear... but cleric? That was the first time I've ever seen healing clerics in fantasy.
> 
> And roles are no different than "fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue", just put into non-class terms that describe better what they're doing.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



You know, they did something similar in 2nd edition.  You had your classes, and then you had your class categories.  Fighters, rangers, etc. were Warriors.  Magic-users and illusionists were Wizards.  This new system just breaks it up differently, along the lines of "am I a skirmisher or a tank?"  

So if you want a tank, look at the tank classes first.  If you pick a fighter, you know you probably won't be nimbly flitting between enemies in a fight.  If you want a guy who appears from the darkness and takes down an enemy in one shot, don't be a warlord.  Etc.  After playing the game for a while, these things become evident and in the past they took the form of advice from old players to new ones.  Now they've been written down so you don't need as much hand-holding when building your first few characters.  And us older players will know, at a glance, what a new class is about.  Will the new shapeshift-heavy druid be a striker or a defender?  Or both?  I can imagine several different angles they could take, and when I crack open PHBII (or whatever druids show up in), I'll know which direction they took the class without having to deconstruct the powers.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 6, 2007)

Mustrum, I'm going to answer to you.

Merlin and Smurf, first off, thanks for clearly stating that you didn't understand. That's a great help for the discussion. Now, in an effort to foster further discussion about this, I'm not going to just summarize my stuff into a single sentence. From experience, it just creates nitpicking about this or that term of the thesis. 

Instead, let me borrow from Mike's response, and return the question: what would you guys need me to clarify, specifically? From there, I hope to be able to make my commentary more comprehensible to anyone reading it. Thank you!


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Or, perhaps just learn to work with the roles, rather than trying to buck them.
> 
> It seems to me that much of that issue is the tendency for people saying, "I want to play a fighter who does X" (choosing the class first, and the role second), instead of saying, "I want to play a character who does X, and I'll do it by taking fighter levels" (choosing the role you want to play, and choosing the class to suit).



It's interesting. I actually experienced the opposite. I expressed what class I wanted to play, and the DM Said, "Okay, I haven't seen that class. Let me look at it. In the mean time, can you pull off that _concept_ with any Other classes?" I was looking to fill an archetype, and he was asking if there were other classes which could facilitate the archetype I wanted to fill. 

I think when people have a more concrete idea of what they want, then you can adapt to it with the class. If its "I want to blast the crap out of my enemy", you could go with wizard, sorcerer, warmage, etc.


----------



## Singing Smurf (Dec 6, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Instead, let me borrow from Mike's response, and return the question: what would you guys need me to clarify, specifically? From there, I hope to be able to make my commentary more comprehensible to anyone reading it. Thank you!




Okay - I'll give it a shot.  It seems like you have 2 main points here:



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> Which brings us back to the advice provided in a PHB and DMG. These are critical bits of information destined to provide the seeds of this critical thinking on the parts of players and DM. Advice, contrarily to what Mike suggests here, IS input. Players and DM then choose whether they want to follow the advice or not. Whether they build on it or dismiss it. What we've got here is the notion that since a part of the users of the game dismiss the advice, it isn't worth a damn in terms of input on how people play the game. I think this is a symptomatic generalization that demonstrates a leveling of the design of the game by catering to the lowest common denominator (those who don't follow the advice). I just can't agree with that.




It sounds like you are concerned that 4e will not offer adequate advice for players and DMs.



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> You sure can't force people to be "good" players. The question of standard is important. Basically, Mike here tells us that there is no standard of what a "good" player is and there shouldn't be, because however you enjoy the game, it's the purpose of the game, and that's it. I think this is problematic on a design point of view. I too think you can't force anyone to use a game this or that way, but a game surely is designed around an idea of what sort of enjoyment it provides. Then, you can give advice on how to achieve the enjoyment the game is supposed to provide (which brings us back to the notion that advice is worthless according to Mike). I think a game is always more effective on an enjoyment level when it is designed around a notion of the type of fun it provides. If there is no definition of the type of fun the game's suppose to provide, then there is no target for the design. No thematic. No bull's eye.




Here it seems that you are saying that 4th edition should attempt to foster a certain style, or styles, or play.  On a related note, you appear to be concerned that the absence of a specific "notion of the type of fun it provides" will make for a weaker design.

Am I even close?


----------



## Slander (Dec 6, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I think this part shows a clear definition of what the input into a DM's or player's abilities ought to be on the part of the written game. Advice as far as game design is concerned is worthless.
> 
> ...
> 
> What we've got here is the notion that since a part of the users of the game dismiss the advice, it isn't worth a damn in terms of input on how people play the game.




Mike was commenting on the vocal negative reaction to some of the published info on message boards. _I can put DM advice into a book, which frankly *based on reviews and comments everyone ignores anyway.*_ That vocal reaction has been strongly negative, and view the advice given as either useless or railroady. I didn't get the impression Mike shared the negative opinion on the inclusion of advice in the books. Why would he write it if he thought it was garbage?



> The only way to have an input on a group's enjoyment of the game is to codify intents into rules. This design philosophy is confirmed later on: "There are no mechanical elements that allow player input into story in 3e. In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players to make up their own quests."
> 
> To encourage players to do something, it's better to have rules for it.
> 
> I fundamentally disagree with this, from experience. Rules need provide some measure of fairness around the game table. They sustain the suspension of disbelief going on around the table by providing laws by which the actions in the game are resolved. No more, no less. By their very nature, rules are inhibitors of certain behavior. Rules frame. They don't open horizons unless the user knows what the intent behind the rule is, and understands from there how to use them, tweak them, change them, and build on them.




I agree rules need to provide a measure of fairness at the table. I don't believe that all rules are laws. Rules (in an RPG) serve to provide a practical expression of a particular concept or set of advice. There was a whole article on quests; a small portion of that article provided rules on implementing those suggestions in [the collective] your campaign. If that is the general tact the developers are taking, giving advice and then providing a sample set of practical rules DMs can use right away, I think that is a good thing.



> We've seen a clear effect of this with Third Edition's feats. Many players and DMs out there have been repelled by them because they seem to be on/off switches: either you have the ability to power attack an opponent, or you don't; if you don't have the feat, you can't power attack an opponent. If you don't have the Acrobatic feat, that means you're character is not acrobatic. And so on. This of course is not true if the users choose to use some critical thinking and adjudicate situations based on circumstances and believability. But the rules are to be circumvented to achieve that enjoyment of the game.




Except Mike specifically addresses this. "_Beginning DMs need some structure to help them learn the game and learn how to DM. Yet, isn't part of DMing learning how to improvise? Isn't it logical that we'd cover that in the DMG and make some effort to address that? ... We expect DMs to exercise their judgment when applying any rule, and we do what we can to help that._" 

That, to me anyway, implies they are doing the opposite of what you think they are doing; or rather, they _are_ doing exactly what you imply they should. Specifically, it sounds like they want DMs to think about the rules framework Wizards has provided, and make sure it fits in with the players expectations of the game. And when it doesn't fit the expectations, the books are providing guidance on how to change the game (at least, it sounds like they are). All good stuff from where I am sitting .


----------



## allenw (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Exactly – example of the problem with Diplomacy:
> 
> 
> High level bard saunters up to Llolth –
> ...




  Works for me.  Keep in mind how a Black Widow spider treats *her* mates.  Sex with a good-looking guy with a nice voice, followed by a quick snack; what's not for her to like?


----------



## CaptainChaos (Dec 6, 2007)

I'm not sure what's more sad, the fact that Mike says things that are completely obvious and people are ready to annoint his feet or that WotC is just figuring out that their core books need to help newbies learn how to play the game.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 6, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what's more sad, the fact that Mike says things that are completely obvious and people are ready to annoint his feet or that WotC is just figuring out that their core books need to help newbies learn how to play the game.




Part of it is the fun of hearing someone from WOTC say the completely obvious things that, in spite of being completely obvious, certain persons seem resolutely unable to grasp.

No disagreement on the newbies thing.  The game has needed to be more accessible to new players for some time.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Dec 6, 2007)

Except that mike says things that are "completely obvious" and people _disagree_. I don't, but the fact is that there are competing viewpoints here, especially regarding the idea of there being hard-and-fast rules to cover non-combat situations. A lot of folks on these boards seem to think that 1e's "let the DM make it up" approach is the right way to go when it comes to using non-combat skills or adjudicating non-combat scenarios. Thus the objection to Mike's statement that likelihood of success and rewards for success should be framed by the rules rather than by DMs following "soft" designers' advice.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 6, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Except that mike says things that are "completely obvious" and people _disagree_. I don't, but the fact is that there are competing viewpoints here, especially regarding the idea of there being hard-and-fast rules to cover non-combat situations.




Some matters are issues of competing view points.  Not all of them though.  Even comments which might hint at legitimate stylistic differences can be couched in the language of irrationality.

Regarding your comments on the 1e style "DM fiat" manner of resolving out of combat situations, that's fine for people to prefer.  However, if someone tells me that 4e "discourages creativity" by having rules for social encounters and non combat skills instead of using DM fiat, and that they are sticking with 3e because of this, I can declare them to be objectively cracked.  3e already _has_ rules for those things.  

Its like telling me that you hate the 2008 Ford trucks because they're not unicycles, so you're going to keep driving your Chevrolet pickup.


----------



## Stone Dog (Dec 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its like telling me that you hate the 2008 Ford trucks because they're not unicycles, so you're going to keep driving your Chevrolet pickup.




http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/05


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its like telling me that you hate the 2008 Ford trucks because they're not unicycles, so you're going to keep driving your Chevrolet pickup.




Yes....but keep in mind, someone might also say the following: 

"I'm not going to buy a 2008 Ford truck because they don't make a hybrid, so I'm just going to keep driving my 1994 Toyota pickup until someone makes a hybrid pickup."

And _that_ doesn't sound nearly as ridiculous. Sometimes, people's negative reaction to 4e is based on: "WotC isn't solving _my big problem_ with 3e, so I'm just going to keep playing 3e since I already understand all of its quirks." Which is exactly analogous to refusing to buy a new truck because it lacks the feature that would make you interested enough to buy it _even if said feature isn't one your current vehicle has_.

If 4e is solving one (or many!) of your big issues with 3e, you're likely to embrace it. If it's not, you're likely to be put off by the changes to things that seemed fine to you. For example, if you hated Vancian spellcasting and the 5-minute work day, 4e looks awfully nice. But if that never bothered you, or worse if you _enjoyed it,_ changing it certainly isn't a selling point. Unfortunately, since everyone has different issues, this is an unavoidable aspect of designing a new edition. Inevitably, someone will dislike some of what you changed and think you should have changed something else that you left alone.

WotC has to design for the majority of their market. However, many people assume that the way they play is the way most gamers play (or if they don't, the way they ought to). If WotC seems to be doing something that runs counter to the way they play, their immediate reaction is more often "WotC must be out of touch with their market" rather than "I must be playing D&D in a different way than most people do."

As an aside, a little more of the latter thought process and less of the former would go a long way toward fostering a more civil tone on the boards.


----------



## The_Furious_Puffin (Dec 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> A Diplomacy check can be made as a full round action with a -10 penalty. The DC for turning Lolth into a Playboy bunny is 50 so an extra 10 isn't a huge increase.




Word. People who accuse me of selective reading then haven't actually read it ftl. Also, there are numerous ways in D&D of making an encounter grind to a halt for 10 rounds while you fire off diplomacy, like, wall of thorns. Or standing further away and getting your diplomat on via telepathy. It's not like my players fight lolth, they fight giants. 

Now of course no-one (including me) actually runs diplomacy like it is written (maybe they do, but they can have fun with that), and we all move along with life, but the problem always has been that I'm paying for a book of rules, as opposed to some suggestions, some of which I'm going to ignore because they are stupid.

Edit: That all said I hope they are making some good decisions, some looks right, and they do seem to have (finally) decided to give fighters cool things. I'm not sure abotu the multiclassing stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what's more sad, the fact that Mike says things that are completely obvious and people are ready to annoint his feet or that WotC is just figuring out that their core books need to help newbies learn how to play the game.




Why should WOTC be any different than anyone else?  Since Basic D&D, has ANY version of D&D been written with newbies in mind?  AD&D certainly wasn't.  We just expected players and DM's to stumble around in the dark and hoped that they'd figure things out on their own.

Oldahan, I really think that you are off base here.  Mearls is stating that the DMG will be written with someone who has no RPG experience in mind.  Which means that it has to be playstyle neutral.  2e tried to dictate playstyle and got vilified for it.  3e is almost entirely silent on the issue of playstyle beyond a couple of pages in the DMG.  It looks to me like they're trying to find a middle ground here  to empower DM's and players.  In other words, they want to go the Robin Laws path and recognize different playstyles without judging them but also give advice as to how to accommodate groups containing different styles.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 7, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what's more sad, the fact that Mike says things that are completely obvious and people are ready to annoint his feet or that WotC is just figuring out that their core books need to help newbies learn how to play the game.



I think you're missing the point: I'm a fan of Mike Mearls because of his game design skills and not because he writes something that had never occurred to me. As a result, I tend to agree with what he writes about the game in general. While what he wrote may seem obvious to you, it has also generated controversy where people have *disagreed *with it.

As far as "WotC just figuring out that their core books need to help newbies learn how to play the game," this is hardly something new. Each edition of the DMG has had advice on how to GM based on what was the prevailing wisdom of the time. It's nothing that Gygax didn't think about, and the 3X team understood it as well. The fact that the 4E DMG will also address this is nothing new, but it does point to the fact that some things have *not *changed from edition to edition.

--Steve


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Mearls is stating that the DMG will be written with someone who has no RPG experience in mind.  Which means that it has to be playstyle neutral.  2e tried to dictate playstyle and got vilified for it.  3e is almost entirely silent on the issue of playstyle beyond a couple of pages in the DMG.




The rules go a long way in influencing the playstyle.  3e was never playstyle neutral.


----------



## F4NBOY (Dec 7, 2007)

Thank you Mike for the answers.

Twenty eight years hearing that whinnings... oh boy...It's good to know D&D is still in good hands. I hope all the people that complain and have been complaing, and repeting and actually believing in all that crap humbly understand, once and for all, that their butts were heavily kicked.
I know you need to be political correct, but we both know that the game is not designed for everyone, it's designed for us, gamers, people that play the game to have fun, grognards or fanboys, we all play the game for the fun, but not them.

Fun is such a simple word, such a simple motive, but after 3 decades they don't understand it, do they?
So don't waste your time trying to discuss or justify your decisions based on fun.
because those guys don't care about it, they don't play the game to have fun. They are players that play it so they can feel better about themselves, they are DMs that dm the game for themselves and not for their players.
How can you be reasonable with people like that? Well it doesn't matter, what's important is that it's our game, and even if we may allow them to play it, we will never allow them to change it, to turn it into something else so they can feel even better about themselves. 
That day they put their freaking hands on D&D is the day D&D dies.
It's good to know this day has not come.

Thank you Mike Mearls, we win!

Long live D&D.


----------



## Ty (Dec 7, 2007)

Although I appreciate the fact that Mr. Mearls took the time to provide an answer to questions posed to him, I don't think I would annoint him as the savior of D&D any time soon.  I do take issue with one reason he implied for the rewrite:


     "And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded."


The struggle to bring new players into D&D has been going on for a long time, well before Hasbro and WotC came into the picture.  Each edition of the game has told people what to do to some extent and to varying degrees.  There's nothing wrong with telling the players how the game is played or what they are supposed to do.  

I believe he is off base however, in telling the players the specific "fluff" of the game, (ahem, here's looking at you "Golden Wyvern Adept" and "Points of Lights" campaigns).  That, simply, is my main beef with 4th Edition.  It's telling me the fluff of how I can play the game and not just giving me the mechanics of how to play it.  


Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book.  I may as well play a video game. 


I can take a wait and see attitude with a revisions of the rules and evaluate them objectively.  I lean against that approach when the game system is tied to a specific "world vision" or "campaign type."  That's why I never got into Paranoia, Elric, Rifts, or Toon!.

I wish 4th Edition well but it's not for me as it is currently being presented to us.  Maybe I'll change my mind after we finish our 3.5.5 Edition campaign and I read the newest rulebooks.  I don't believe a "renaissance" of D&D is going to occur based solely upon the PnP version of the rules.  If Mearls and co. wish to expand the D&D market, it's got to be through marketing and brand identification; not simple rule rewrites.


----------



## Shieldhaven (Dec 7, 2007)

In what possible sense is this fluff "mandated"? Did you feel that your campaign had to have a Bigby, Mordenkainen, or Corellon Larethian just because they were named in the rulebook? If you didn't want to hear frequent references to Melf and the rest, you had to change the spell's names in some way. Or you just decide that names here and there don't "ruin your fantasy" and you go about your merry way.

I am in the category of those baffled by the vast amounts of bandwidth spent bashing "Golden Wyvern Adept."

Haven


----------



## mhensley (Dec 7, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book.  I may as well play a video game.




Suggested != Mandated 

Were you mandated to play in Greyhawk because of the gods or spell names or artifact names in the phb?  No, of course not, but it did make it easier for new dm's or for dm's who didn't have the time or inclination to make up his own fluff.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 7, 2007)

Shieldhaven said:
			
		

> In what possible sense is this fluff "mandated"?




In exchange for a small stipend from WOTC, I lurk outside the local gaming stores where noncomplying games are run, and try to hit the players with my car when they emerge.  They give me "objective cards" with "points" on them that I obtain when my "quest" is completed, and may redeem for WOTC swag.


----------



## Ty (Dec 7, 2007)

Shieldhaven,

No.  In fact, we often referred to a spell as "crushing hand" or just as "I cast Melf's."  It mixed quite well as to the reference point depending on the person.  If however, we played a Greyhawk game, you'd have to explain to me again what the heck the Simbul's Spell Sequencer did again.  Or how dragonmarks operate.  You know, crunchy fluff.

Maybe I should be a little more clear; campaign settings were sold for a reason.  Ready-made fluff.


----------



## Ty (Dec 7, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> In exchange for a small stipend from WOTC, I lurk outside the local gaming stores where noncomplying games are run, and try to hit the players with my car when they emerge.  They give me "objective cards" with "points" on them that I obtain when my "quest" is completed, and may redeem for WOTC swag.





Huh, I only get a baseball bat and a moderately sized stipend...


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 7, 2007)

> Fun is such a simple word, such a simple motive, but after 3 decades they don't understand it, do they?



Hey, I don't think bad names are fun, nor classes that don't make sense and lack archetypes (like "warlord").  Healing by hitting people doesn't make much sense either, and after seeing Mearls' rust monster with rust that "gets better" I have little faith in his ability to suspend disbelief whilst reaching crunch goals.  The track record is not awesome, their attention seems elsewhere.  And what the heck is an eladrin?  How about we just call them elves - you know, like in english?

Can we change that stuff and you can still have your revolution, or am I by default on the bad guy team?


----------



## Ty (Dec 7, 2007)

You're a bad guy like me Tquirky.  Want a baseball bat and a moderately sized stipend?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Hey, I don't think bad names are fun, nor classes that don't make sense and lack archetypes (like "warlord").  Healing by hitting people doesn't make much sense either, and after seeing Mearls' rust monster with rust that "gets better" I have little faith in his ability to suspend disbelief whilst reaching crunch goals.  The track record is not awesome, their attention seems elsewhere.  And what the heck is an eladrin?  How about we just call them elves - you know, like in english?
> 
> Can we change that stuff and you can still have your revolution, or am I by default on the bad guy team?





See, that's exactly it.  There are all sorts of people who are "thumbs up" to the idea of a new edition, but don't like (all of) what they are reading about _this one_.

RC


----------



## Najo (Dec 7, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Suggested != Mandated
> 
> Were you mandated to play in Greyhawk because of the gods or spell names or artifact names in the phb?  No, of course not, but it did make it easier for new dm's or for dm's who didn't have the time or inclination to make up his own fluff.




A spell with a long forgotten wizard's name on it is alot different then plopping an entire order of magic users into your setting or having to explaing what a golden wyvern adept is. 

Likewise, a list of deities as examples is easy to unplug and plug in a new list.

One of the considertions is 3rd party materials. If there is MORE fluff connected material that is renamed in the SRD, it makes it only harder for companies like Piazo to plug onto 4e.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 7, 2007)

> You're a bad guy like me Tquirky. Want a baseball bat and a moderately sized stipend?



Heh...saw "Be Cool" recently and apparently it's important to get the right look of baseball bat in order to be truly bad...so, okay, so long as it's not metallic red.


----------



## Ty (Dec 7, 2007)

I've got a nice shiny gunmetal bat right here for you Tquirky.  It's the Cadillac of bats...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 7, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book.  I may as well play a video game.



I hate to single this out, but, well, it's something I just don't like to read anymore and I think that is actively damaging the quality of a post for me, even if it is undeserved. 

Don't "hide" behind using a shorthand like "video game" (or "anime"), or something like that. 
Say what you think it's wrong, in as precise terms as possible to you. People use the term _Video Game_ as a synonym for "inferior" or "something else I don't like much as the thing I really want". It is in danger of becoming a new variant of _Godwyn's Law_. 

Saying "I don't like it" can't be discussed. It's subjective, it doesn't give anyone a way to react to it (aside maybe from undesirable personal attacks about lack of common sense, taste or mind). Using a "pseudo-synonym" like video game makes thinks even worse...

Instead of saying "Don't like it" explain why you don't like it. Others now have a chance of at least understanding the point and learning why they should care and be able to explain why the feel the same or why the feel different. 

That said, return to your regularly scheduled thread.

Because I think I agree with your point in way, but I think one thing is important: 
Neither rules nor fluff are ever really mandated, though there are degrees of "nearly-mandation". If you want to use a rule system, you're usually best off using all its rules, because changes might have unforseen circumstances.
If fluff really makes it into the rules and this fluff is used for "balance reasons", it becomes a problem. "Yes, you can become a Sword Ubermaster of Destruction, but keep in mind that people like him are hunted down by the Emerald Frost Wizards". That's bad "fluff", because you're trying to balance a mechanic with a story aspect. That won't work, because maybe the DM doesn't want to feel forced sending a hunting team behind his PCs all the time.

Naming a spell or a feat after a wizard or a wizardry tradition doesn't cause this kind of problem. Take away the name "Dark Serpent Adept" and rename it "Scry", and you won't destroy your game. It's not as if you just decided "No Power Attack and Metamagic feats in my 3.5 game!" It's "I call the Barbarian Class Berserker". 

I am not saying it's not work to change fluff written into the rules. But it doesn't have unforseen side effects. You built your homebrew without an "Emerald Frost Academy", so you rename the feats and spells associated with it. You don't have Pelor in your campaign, but want to keep the Sun Domain? Write your own god with the domain!


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 7, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book.  I may as well play a video game.



That's a remarkable leap of logic, by which I mean "That doesn't make sense."

Does this mean that playing a DragonLance campaign (for example), and using its "Mandated Fluff", is the same as playing a video game? Please explain.

You seem to be complaining about "Mandated Fluff" in the PHB, but since such fluff is included in all campaign settings, it can't be inherently bad. You might argue it shouldn't be in the generic PHB. But what does the video game reference even mean?


----------



## Ty (Dec 7, 2007)

Re: the video game analogy.

Yeah, those are fair critiques.  I shouldn't have used shorthand, emphasized the shorthand, and not expected to get called out on it.  Here's the longhand version:

PHB 3.0 and 3.5 had fluff.  In saying fluff, I mean things that only add to the actual mechanics of the rule, feat, ability, spells, etc., in question without having to require a migration of the "fluff."  When I say migration, minor fluff is fine.  It's like the pantheon of gods or the Melf's/Mordenkainen's/Bigby's tags to spells.  They are easily "unplugged" from the rules without any real consequence.  Frankly, we very rarely use the Greyhawk pantheon and it was easily accomplished in the SRD to remove IP/fluff.

That being said, we don't know how much "fluff" is going to be incorporated into 4th Edition but from what I have seen, we have Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, some feats (possibly), and I don't even know about powers/paths/traits/whatever it's going to be named for nifty per/encounter abilities.

The point is that when you tie the core rules to certain "histories" for your campaign or to the presence of a Feywild, you narrow the game.  You narrow it in terms that yes, I have to do significant work to clean up the core rules for adaptation to my own campaign/world.  More work for me as a DM, more explanation of differences to new players (if we decided to add some), more yada yada as to why we don't quite play D&D as it is published. 

Instead of adding onto the PH and DMG, we have to subtract out.  It seems "rigid" to me.  Part of that is because a new player expects that what is in the PHB will be standard across all games.  That's not necessarily the case now.  I applaud the idea of adding "fluff" but as a suggestion, do it in a sidebar for the players.  Don't make it a core rule.  Use it as a suggested background or whatever.

How does this apply with video games?  Video game stories are structured affairs.  You can't deviate from the story set down by the designer.  The base mechanics of most video games don't differ too much in all honesty.  I can pick up any RPG and expect certain things.  

The "particulars" do vary across all games.  NWN2 is different from the Baldur's Gate series, which differ significantly from Everquest or WoW.  The particulars make each gaming experience unique.

The stories, or fluff, however, are what differentiate the games the most.  They're not too easy to work around in my brain or to transcend in terms of appealing to a mass audience.  If for instance, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, or any other campaign were deigned to be the "core" fluff, it would cause issues.  These are my less than shorthand explanations.


Now, where did I put that bat...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 7, 2007)

D&D has never ever been world neutral.

Vancian magic. Arcane/divine split. Very world specific. The vast majority of fictional worlds lack both.

1e PHB has the known planes, including the Great Wheel. Ah, that was an appendix you say. However Dimension Door and Astral Spell both refer to the astral plane and they're not in the appendix.

And the spell names. It's not just a matter of removing the "Bigby's" and "Mordenkainen's", oh no. A lot of Gary's spell names are very culture specific and the culture they reference ain't medieval. Telekinesis. Teleport. ESP. These are late C19/early C20 spiritualist terms. Mnemonic (1745), ventriloquism (1790), polymorph (1820).  

Sticks to snakes. What if I don't want references to Christianity in my game? Druids. What if I don't want Celts in my medieval game? Monks. What if I don't want anime in my game?

D&D is positively dripping with references to places, events, religions and concepts. If I wanted to run a properly medieval European game I'd have to cut about 90% of the PHB.


And oh yeah. Page 37. Weapons table. Bohemian ear-spoon. WTF!!!? All our games gotta have Bohemia now!!?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 7, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> A spell with a long forgotten wizard's name on it is alot different then plopping an entire order of magic users into your setting or having to explaing what a golden wyvern adept is.



It's not an order, it's a style. Like a style of painting such as realism or impressionism. There are artists who are good at the style, it doesn't mean they necessarily learnt it from a formal organisation.

There can be golden wyvern adepts without a Grand Order of the Golden Wyverns, just like there can be realists without a Grand Realist College.


----------



## Ty (Dec 8, 2007)

Aaaand we hit reductio ad absurdum.

I assume the 90% includes swords... and axes... 'cuz you know technically, it's not a greatsword unless you're playing English middle ages based fantasy... it's technically a zwiehander.


I can't seem to find that bat now.  Tquirky, did you steal mine?


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> D&D has never ever been world neutral.



Neither has it's core cleaved very far from mythology (and don't bother to trot out Tolkien again, he didn't invent elves and dwarves, just tapped into a mythological vein).  There are D&Disms like clerics, but that's not an invitation to make it more "out there" based on this precedent.  D&Disms are fine when optional, but too many in the core become obtrusive.

WOTC may want a "plays out of the box" game, but are they mindful of D&D's role as a world construction kit?  They seem to be compromising the latter for the former.  And it's a shame, because the goals aren't mutually exclusive if they'd just take more care with their "flavour" in PHB1.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> I can't seem to find that bat now. Tquirky, did you steal mine?



They're somewhere around here.  Can't find them amongst all these tanglefoot bags and pots of greek fire, and I'm not sure which is worse - direct references to real world in the core or contrived D&Disms in the core which are somehow deemed appropriate for every D&D world purely based on some designer's whim.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Neither has it's core cleaved very far from mythology (and don't bother to trot out Tolkien again, he didn't invent elves and dwarves, just tapped into a mythological vein).



So, the land of fairie where the dark unseelie play is _cleaved far from mythology_? Or the plane of the dead, where souls go to waste and drift is _cleaved far from mythology_?

Please. The Great Wheel, with its "Plane of robots" and "Plane of unbending laws" and "Plane of just air floating out there in the middle of everything" was far more cleaved far from mythology. The only thing that was _mythological_ about it was that _every single spiritual destination_ was crowbarred into it.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> contrived D&Disms in the core which are somehow deemed appropriate for every D&D world purely based on some designer's whim.



I too hate that some designer deemed elves and dwarves, barbarians and bards appropriate for my campaign, purely on their whim. 

What if my campaign _doesn't_ have orcs? The designers have forced me to include half-orcs.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 8, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book.  I may as well play a video game.




I guess you've never tried to play a Bela Lugosi style vampire in _Vampire: the Masquerade _ eh?

Is it Ok for Traveler, Palladium, World of Darkness, Deadlands, and countless other RPGs to define its world in the core books using deities, organizations, and plays on mythic creatures, but if D&D doesn't make the game generic, its bad?


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> D1e PHB has the known planes, including the Great Wheel. Ah, that was an appendix you say. However Dimension Door and Astral Spell both refer to the astral plane and they're not in the appendix.




The Astral Plane is in the 1E PHB appendix.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Dec 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> And oh yeah. Page 37. Weapons table. Bohemian ear-spoon. WTF!!!? All our games gotta have Bohemia now!!?



Bring back the Bohemian Ear Spoon, now that name (and it is a real world one) beats Golden Wyvern Adept anyday!
and yes I have taken the Godwin Wyvern Adept (Metaforum) feat....


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 8, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> The Astral Plane is in the 1E PHB appendix.




He's saying the spells that stated that you use the Astral Plane (which is in the appendix) in order to travel are not in the appendix, but in the meat of the text.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> Please. The Great Wheel, with its "Plane of robots" and "Plane of unbending laws" and "Plane of just air floating out there in the middle of everything" was far more cleaved far from mythology. The only thing that was mythological about it was that every single spiritual destination was crowbarred into it.



Yes, and there's one heck of a lot of mythology in those spiritual destinations.  The bits you're complaining about are just there to reflect a D&Dism: the law-neutral-chaos bits of the alignment system.  

You've made my argument for me.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Yes, and there's one heck of a lot of mythology in those spiritual destinations.  The bits you're complaining about are just there to reflect a D&Dism: the law-neutral-chaos bits of the alignment system.
> 
> You've made my argument for me.



I think it hurts verisimilitude to have _every single_ destination possible crammed into the planes system. 

And I don't seem to recall much mythology for plane of robots and air.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> I too hate that some designer deemed elves and dwarves, barbarians and bards appropriate for my campaign, purely on their whim.



The difference between these and a tanglefoot bag, cleric or eladrin is that they aren't D&Disms.  Do you understand the concept?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> The difference between these and a tanglefoot bag, cleric or eladrin is that they aren't D&Disms.  Do you understand the concept?



I fail to see what that has to do with anything. 

Elves and bards are being forced into my campaign.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> And I don't seem to recall much mythology for plane of robots and air.



You assume I want to necessarily defend the Great Wheel, and that I want to defend old D&Disms and only attack the new.  You assume wrong.

That said, I would venture that the classic idea of four elements is semi-mythological, and that that apocryphal system of the elements is echoed throughout D&D magic...so I'm not sure that a plane like that is totally without basis in "mythological resonance".

Note how they're not named with contrived proper nouns like Airtopia and Fireness, too.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> You assume I want to necessarily defend the Great Wheel, and that I want to defend old D&Disms and only attack the new.  You assume wrong.



You assume that I'm distinctly referring to _you_. There's a huge outcrying on the destruction of the Great Wheel, but that's just as much of spoon feeding setting-specific info into the mechanics and core books as anything else. 



> I would venture that the classic idea of four elements supports a plane of air, though, and that that apocryphal system of the elements is echoed throughout D&D magic...so I'm not sure that a plane like that is totally without basis in "mythological resonance".



"Echoes throughout D&D magic" = planar system tied to magic system. You're arguing my point for me.

A Plane of Air makes just as much sense, and is echoed just as easily, by the Elemental Tempest.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> "Echoes throughout D&D magic" = planar system tied to magic system. You're arguing my point for me.



Oh, get your own material already!  There are planes for elements and alignments, and they're D&Disms.  We agree.  The elements themselves resonate in ancient science theory, though.

Now - where's your point? You're trying to dispute, but all you do is reinforce my argument.


> A Plane of Air makes just as much sense, and is echoed just as easily, by the Elemental Tempest.



See? You assume I'm arguing Edition Wars, like you!  I'm not.  That's why you're having trouble here, you're making too many assumptions about your "opponent".


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Oh, get your own material already!  There are planes for elements and alignments, and they're D&Disms.  We agree.  The elements themselves resonate in ancient science theory, though.
> 
> Now - where's your point?



My point is that the planar system has always been a bastardized mishmash sloppily ducttaped together. Removing the Planes for Alignment, you _still_ have every mythological destination _ever_ all crammed into one thing. If there are no vikings, how is there Valhalla? If there are no Buddhists/Hindus, how is there Nirvanha? 

If _you_ have a point, or a problem, state it. I have stated mine: that the planar system is not any _less_ dumb now, then it has ever been.



> See? You assume I'm arguing Edition Wars, like you!  I'm not.  That's why you're having trouble here, you're making too many assumptions about your "opponent".



I don't see it as having trouble. All you keep replying to is the stuff about alignment, _not_ about my point: mishmashed slop of a planar system being shoe-horned in there from the git-to, just like it's forced in there with 4e.

In other words, the complaints are much ado about nothing because it's always been that way. Most of the fluff complaints levelled at 4e have _always_ been present, the issue is that it's just _new_ fluff as opposed to legacy fluff.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> If you have a point, or a problem, state it. I have stated mine: that the planar system is not any less dumb now, then it has ever been.



All of which is irrelevant to what I've been arguing.


> I fail to see what that has to do with anything.



I noticed.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> All of which is irrelevant to what I've been arguing.



*Then state your premise, please*.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 8, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> He's saying the spells that stated that you use the Astral Plane (which is in the appendix) in order to travel are not in the appendix, but in the meat of the text.




Ah.  Thanks.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> Then state your premise, please.



The core should preferably keep the number of D&Disms in it to a minimum, because too many D&Disms alienate D&D from the generic fantasy worldbuilding which is it's core strength.

I am almost certain that WOTC don't understand or don't agree with this argument because of setting design philosophies behind Eberron and Praemal, where "the simulation defines what is simulated" is a key design philosophy.  This gets D&D's spirit so backwards (IMO) that it boggles me that this stuff ever saw print, rather than remaining experimental homebrew or thought experiment.  

Then we've got classes without archetypes (e.g. mystic theurge), contrived names (e.g. warblade), handwaving of physics without magic to help explain (e.g. Mearls'  rust monster creating rust which heals), even a core class with a name WOTC pretends it can redefine (i.e. warlord).  Plus 3E's crunch-first-flavour-afterthought monsters and many other examples from 3E and what we know of 4E.

Not a good outlook IMO.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 8, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> You assume that I'm distinctly referring to _you_. There's a huge outcrying on the destruction of the Great Wheel, but that's just as much of spoon feeding setting-specific info into the mechanics and core books as anything else.
> 
> 
> "Echoes throughout D&D magic" = planar system tied to magic system. You're arguing my point for me.
> ...




These are really good points. I'm not at all choked up to be exchanging the Great Wheel cosmology with something less complex and rigid (although I'm not sure the 4e cosmology will necessarily be a huge improvement).

Tquirky, are you complaining about the inclusion of clerics and tanglefoot bags in THIRD edition? Dude, that battle's lost. 

I mean, I feel your pain to some degree. I'd rather have a 3.5 warlock flavor than be tied to all the "spooky" interplanar deal-brokering that seems to be the core of the 4e warlock, not because the 4e version sounds "bad," but because the 3.5e version was open enough to allow me to play more character-types out of the box.

That said...

I honestly DO look to the core rulebooks for character/RP ideas sometimes. For example, the fluff we've gotten about the warlord really makes me want to play one, more than I've ever wanted to play, say, a bard. If WotC can pull it off (and that's an important "if"), I'd have no problem with them insinuating some cool ideas like wizardly traditions into the core rules, and just asking DMs who don't like it to excise it from their campaigns.

The key point is that the type of groups who are playing well-developed homebrew settings don't NEED hand-holding. They're perfectly capable of renaming abilities and overriding some fluffy rule elements without WotC's permission, just like basically every DM I've had has just gotten rid of mundane spell components. It's the newbies and the lazy who will benefit from having easily-adaptable fluff aspects embedded into the PHB, and as a religiously lazy player, I support this proposition.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> Tquirky, are you complaining about the inclusion of clerics and tanglefoot bags in THIRD edition? Dude, that battle's lost.



No, I'm just saying that they ideally should be minimised in the core.  That's all.  4E is piling them on by the look of it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 8, 2007)

Minimizing "D&Disms" in a game known as D&D seems somewhat... counterintuitive to me.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> The core should preferably keep the number of D&Disms in it to a minimum, because too many D&Disms alienate D&D from the generic fantasy worldbuilding which is it's core strength.



I thought D&D's core strength was D&D. If I want "Generic fantasy worldbuilding", I pick up HERO or GURPS. 

Why should D&D be _generic_? When you're playing D&D it should _feel_ like D&D.

Also: _levels_ and _spell levels_, and dare I say, _classes_, are quite D&Disms.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> Minimizing "D&Disms" in a game known as D&D seems somewhat... counterintuitive to me.



If you think in terms of semantics rather than meaning, I suppose it could.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> The core should preferably keep the number of D&Disms in it to a minimum, because too many D&Disms alienate D&D from the generic fantasy worldbuilding which is it's core strength.



How can you have too many D&Disms in D&D? Without D&Disms, the game is no longer D&D. Pretty much by definition.

On another note, the tone here is getting a bit nasty. I think we should do the mods a favour and calm down, as they have asked.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> If you think in terms of semantics rather than meaning, I suppose it could.



Your meaning is less than clear, I think.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> I thought D&D's core strength was D&D. If I want "Generic fantasy worldbuilding", I pick up HERO or GURPS.
> 
> Why should D&D be generic?



It shouldn't - it has an implied setting that does a lot of the work for us.  There's such a thing as implying too much, though, and so far most of what it's implied has had mythological resonance, which works in many worlds.  It's shades of grey, but 4E seems to be reaching a tipping point.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> It shouldn't - it has an implied setting that does a lot of the work for us.  There's such a thing as implying too much, though, and so far most of what it's implied has had mythological resonance, which works in many worlds.  It's shades of grey, but 4E seems to be reaching a tipping point.



There's the rub. Who gets to say that it's too much? Why is eladrin "too D&D", when it could just be called a high elf? Why is a tielfing "too D&D", when you can just call it a cambion?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 8, 2007)

> D&D is positively dripping with references to places, events, religions and concepts. If I wanted to run a properly medieval European game I'd have to cut about 90% of the PHB.




You're right.

However, I'm going to pull out a videogame reference for comparison: Kingdom Hearts.

For the uninformed, this is a videogame mashup of Squaresoft (the Final Fantasy poeple) and Disney (the animated empire people).

It is positively dripping with references to places, events, and concepts (and styles!) from both series. East meets west, fairie tales meets dungeonpunk, *space travel* meets *chip and dale*. 

But while it drips with those archetypes, it manages to tell a story with them that is independnt of them, using them for it's own purposes and inventing new conceits where needed to make it hold together as a game itself. 

Sure, it has the Genie from Aladdin, and Sephiroth from Final Fantasy 7, but it also subsumes them both beneath it's own mantle of the power of friendship and the dangers of tampering with human nature (a bit of Merry Shelly meets after school specials).

D&D was doing stuff like this before KH made it cool.

It combined monks and barbarians, Vancian magic and Cthonian miscreants from beyond dimensions, wargames with storytelling....

D&D has long been a fantastic hybrid of tastes, swirled together.

Which makes it *very* adaptable.

Kingdom Hearts can go from the land of Steamboat Willie to the depths of Tron to the Burtonesque weirdness of The Nightmare Before Christmas without skipping a beat, because it includes them all, and the central conceits of the game can bear a LOT of weight before collapsing.

At the same time, it can't be the game that gives you the experience of being in early animation, or a live-action computer movie, or a stop-motion holiday musical comedy exclusively. Because it contains all those things, they'll shoulder up against each other and beat each other around and generally get their chocolate in each other's peanut butter.

Similarly, D&D, because of it's polyglot nature, can ride a lot of tides. It can go from Weird Tales pulp jungles to, yes, Dungeonpunk pierced and be-tattooed heroes, to Anime-style "big guy with a big sword" to Fantasy Western to African Myth to Colonial Legends to Gothic Horror, and then go to something else next week. Likewise, it doesn't sit comfortably in one place for very long -- the more you try to make it fit Gothic Horror on a full-time basis, the more changes you need. But as part of the D&D salad, it makes the whole thing a little bit more interesting.

D&D has always lacked focus, and because of this it has vastly appealed to very different styles of gamers. This is a Good Thing.

My nervousness with 4e largely revolves around the central idea that, in trying to more tightly focus the rules, they've lost D&D's essential schizophrenia. This hits D&D right in it's junk, right in a VERY mighty strength for the game. The need for focus is real, but D&D has been unfocused and scatter shot for it's entire existence, and working against that is working against a real benefit of D&D (vs., say, WoW): that it can be what you imagine it to be, because it contains a little bit of everything.

Doing this story-wise means that things not relevant for Points of Light (though that might be relevant in my own game, or your game) are cut. This makes D&D less able to be whatever I imagine it to be. Now, if I imagine it to be something not Points-of-Light-esque, we have a problem.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I honestly DO look to the core rulebooks for character/RP ideas sometimes. For example, the fluff we've gotten about the warlord really makes me want to play one, more than I've ever wanted to play, say, a bard.



Yeah. Let me tell you, when I first heard about the Warlord I knew that was going to be my first character. Because at the time I was looking at the Dragon Shaman and the Knight and thinking, "These are nice, but..." A class that buffs other party members _as_ they kick ass, or at least _while not losing any actions_, really pleases me. I like the support role of the bard, but I felt _utterly useless_ in combat. A Warlord is much easier to stick in my head as an inspiring warrior then a bard who stands on the sidelines playing minstrel to Sir Robin.

The fact that Dragonborn are inclined towards Warlords makes me want to play a Dragonborn all the more, too.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> There's the rub. Who gets to say that it's too much? Why is eladrin "too D&D", when it could just be called a high elf? Why is a tielfing "too D&D", when you can just call it a cambion?



I'd be fine with high elf and cambion.  That would effectively un-D&Dism them, IMO, and think they'd be much more appropriate in the core were that the case.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> It shouldn't - it has an implied setting that does a lot of the work for us.  There's such a thing as implying too much, though, and so far most of what it's implied has had mythological resonance, which works in many worlds.  It's shades of grey, but 4E seems to be reaching a tipping point.



Except that I haven't seen anything in 4e that _doesn't_ have some mythological resonance.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The need for focus is real, but D&D has been unfocused and scatter shot for it's entire existence, and working against that is working against a real benefit of D&D (vs., say, WoW): that it can be what you imagine it to be, because it contains a little bit of everything.



A bit of everything - including, for instance - Golden Wyvern Adepts?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> I'd be fine with high elf and cambion.  That would effectively un-D&Dism them, IMO, and think they'd be much more appropriate in the core were that the case.



And as discussed earlier, it appears that WotC is keeping to words that they hold rights to. Cambion, high elf, Faerie, the Underworld are all free range; Tieflings, eladrin, Feywild and Shadowfell are all WotC's property. 

It's been a theory or suggestion that this is to keep with their IP.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> I'd be fine with high elf and cambion.  That would effectively un-D&Dism them, IMO, and think they'd be much more appropriate in the core were that the case.



They're just names. Call them whatever you want.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 8, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Your meaning is less than clear, I think.




I believe he means that he sees D&D as a good "high fantasy" RPG construction set that allows you to build your own homebrew "high fantasy" world with the usual elements (elves, dwarves, battleaxes, etc). He thinks the bits that are specific to D&D-branded worlds - stuff like "tieflings" and "dragonborn" that nobody would recognize without picking up a TSR- or WotC-branded book - should not be embedded into the core rules, so that people who want to use the core rulebooks as a basis for their own gameworlds have an easier time of it.

The counterargument here is that "generic high fantasy" is really pretty largely inflected by D&D, going back 30+ years. I'd argue that paladins and (D&D-style) bards are just as much "D&Disms" as clerics and warlords, but we've had a couple extra decades to absorb them into "mainstream" fantasy. (Yes, paladins and bards have historical/mythical background to them, but so do clerics and warlords and part-demons and dragon-people.)

So "cut back the D&Disms" really ends up translating to "don't add anything new," which I have a hard time getting behind.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> And as discussed earlier, it appears that WotC is keeping to words that they hold rights to. Cambion, high elf, Faerie, the Underworld are all free range; Tieflings, eladrin, Feywild and Shadowfell are all WotC's property.
> 
> It's been a theory or suggestion that this is to keep with their IP.



I know.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> So "cut back the D&Disms" really ends up translating to "don't add anything new,"



That's what I suspected.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

> D&D is positively dripping with references to places, events, religions and concepts. If I wanted to run a properly medieval European game I'd have to cut about 90% of the PHB.



This confuses me. D&D has _always_ felt like European Fantasy 101 to me. 

Unless by "Proper Medieval European game", you mean "Historical fiction Roleplaying Game". At which point, well yes. But that comes with the territory of neglecting all magic and sticking to fighting humans.

At that point, you're playing d20 Past.

Besides,  I don't think D&D's ever intended to try and simulate realism. Look at the economy. _Look at it_. It's not supposed to simulate an actual economy, it's just a metagame mechanic to designate what loot you got off the evil wizard can be spent on. It's a reward system. Any game that has multiple attacks worked by rounds isn't very lifelike - it's abstract. That's not very simulationist.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 8, 2007)

Allow me to add that most of WotC's IP names are stupid and I personally wish we had "high elves" and "Faerie"/"The Greening" rather than "eladrins" and "the Feywild." But that's more a matter of aesthetic preference than anything else.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 8, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> At that point, you're playing d20 Past.




Holy crap, WTB.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> I'd argue that paladins and (D&D-style) bards are just as much "D&Disms" as clerics and warlords, but we've had a couple extra decades to absorb them into "mainstream" fantasy. (Yes, paladins and bards have historical/mythical background to them, but so do clerics and warlords and part-demons and dragon-people.)



Never disputed that.  Note that when Gygax trotted out his "warlords" like the paladin and cleric, he at least had the sense to redefine a disused english word rather than jar by trying to use one still in mainstream use (i.e. warlord) or contrived (i.e. "eladrin").


> So "cut back the D&Disms" really ends up translating to "don't add anything new," which I have a hard time getting behind.



No.  It just means try and have a mythological resonance to stuff in the core, and don't use poorly chosen, unintuitive names or contrived archetypes (again, "warlord") in the core.

You can go absolutely hog wild in the supplements: Half-celestial haberdashers for everybody! WAHOO!


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Holy crap, WTB.



I'm not familiar with that acronym.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Allow me to add that most of WotC's IP names are stupid and I personally wish we had "high elves" and "Faerie"/"The Greening" rather than "eladrins" and "the Feywild." But that's more a matter of aesthetic preference than anything else.



And in that we are oddly in complete opposition.  But I think that argument is for another thread (because gods above, I do not want to have _yet another_ Golden Wyvern argument.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Never disputed that.  Note that when Gygax trotted out his "warlords" like the paladin and cleric, he at least had the sense to redefine a disused english word rather than jar by trying to use one still in mainstream use (i.e. warlord) or contrived (i.e. "eladrin").



On the other hand, he subsituted "Magic User" and "Fighting Man" for more appropriate names like "Wizard" and "Warrior". And don't forget the level titles, like "Superhero" for a Fighting Man. Was superhero not in mainstream use in the 70s?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with that acronym.



Googling suggests "Want to Buy".


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> They're just names. Call them whatever you want.



And pretend not to read them in the PHB and tens of other books?  I'd really rather they just got it right the first time and not harm D&D's IP in an attempt to humour lawyers, but whatever.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> No.  It just means try and have a mythological resonance to stuff in the core, and don't use poorly chosen, unintuitive names or contrived archetypes (again, "warlord") in the core.



To be clear, are you suggesting things such as beholders and gelatinous cubes should be excluded from the core? Those are definitely D&D, and the game would be much less D&D without them. With so many generic games out there, what would be the point of another one?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> And pretend not to read them in the PHB and tens of other books?  I'd really rather they just got it right the first time and not harm D&D's IP in an attempt to humour lawyers, but whatever.



Yes. Pretend to read them as something else. Just like pretending the Greyhawk gods are not in the 3.X PHB, or pretending Mordenkainen's spells are called something else. Not a big deal.

But whatever.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I believe he means that he sees D&D as a good "high fantasy" RPG construction set that allows you to build your own homebrew "high fantasy" world with the usual elements (elves, dwarves, battleaxes, etc). He thinks the bits that are specific to D&D-branded worlds - stuff like "tieflings" and "dragonborn" that nobody would recognize without picking up a TSR- or WotC-branded book - should not be embedded into the core rules, so that people who want to use the core rulebooks as a basis for their own gameworlds have an easier time of it.



Which makes no sense to me. 

Nothing stops you from saying "Hey, no dragonborn. They don't fit my campaign." I mean, the race isn't forced on your setting. I highly doubt a party can't function without the dragonborn present.

So the only way that the Dragonborn being in the book upsets your campaign is when a player says "I want to play a Dragonborn". Well, the thing to do is tell that player "No." 

What am I missing?

If the books are a toolkit, then why is there the complaint that the tools are being included in there in the first place?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> And pretend not to read them in the PHB and tens of other books?  I'd really rather they just got it right the first time and not harm D&D's IP in an attempt to humour lawyers, but whatever.



So your problem is that you just don't want to *look* at it? 

Dude, I am _sick and tired_ of elves and dwarves. I want to take the 5' tall bearded scotsmen out to the chemical shed and shoot them in the back of the head, in hopes they'll disappear _just for one year_. 

But I'm not going to yell at WotC for putting them in books and continually referencing them and such, because I'm aware that too many people like them. Their perpetuation doesn't upset me; I just move on.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> To be clear, are you suggesting things such as beholders and gelatinous cubes should be excluded from the core?



It's a matter of screentime.  Core races and classes will turn up in all campaigns, whereas there are hundreds of monsters to choose from.  Beholders are thus much easier to ignore (if you choose) than a core class, which NPCs will belong to in published materials even if you go to the bother of banning them from PC use every campaign.  And there are many alternative foes to beholders which you can put in your world.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> So your problem is that you just don't want to look at it?



If they're not going to get decent names and archetypes in the core, then yes, that will be annoying and difficult to overlook IMO.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> If they're not going to get decent names and archetypes in the core, then yes, that will be annoying and difficult to overlook IMO.



IMO they are decent names and archetypes.

Where do we go from here?


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> Nothing stops you from saying "Hey, no dragonborn. They don't fit my campaign." I mean, the race isn't forced on your setting. I highly doubt a party can't function without the dragonborn present.



They'll turn up as NPCs all through published material anyway, even if you ban them.  The core permeates the game.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 8, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Dude, I am _sick and tired_ of elves and dwarves. I want to take the 5' tall bearded scotsmen out to the chemical shed and shoot them in the back of the head, in hopes they'll disappear _just for one year_.




THis would be the point at which someone would tell you to play another game -- pretty much what happens to people that say they don't want Dragonborn or whatever in the core.  It's a reasonable suggestion in either case, of course, but it totally ignores the fact that we like D&D and we want to play D&D.

Here's the thing about the changes in flavour that 4E is presenting: at this point, they seem so pervasive, so random and so extreme that it suggests that 4E will in fact not support playing D&D in the manner that [any given person] has been playing for 30 years.  It isn't that D&D hasn't undergone change before, it is that it has never undergone such drastic change before, particularly in both "fluff" and "crunch" simultaneously.  While the mechanical changes to 3E were significant, for example, the flavour changes weren't particularly significant.  The 4E changes probably aren't as significant as they feel to some of us neo-grognards for those that have been buying and liking the last 2 years worth of (IMO only; totally subjective) drek that has been put out by WotC -- since it has all been testbed for 4E.  But if you have been playing even 3.5 by the core in Greyhawk or FR or Krynn, 4E looks hella different and not in a good way.

Ultimately, what D&D "is" is entirely subjective and varies from group to group and person to person.  That said, though, I think it is an entirely acceptable opinion that it "won't be D&D anymore" if 4E -- and no one can know this yet, but we can make as educated guesses as WotC allows us given they are the ones educating us -- doesn't allow a person or group to continue playing in their hombrew world or in their preferred playstyle without massive amounts of effort.  I mean, if my understanding is correct, FR is going to require an event on par with the _Crisis on infinite Earths_ to make the transition to 4E.  If you have to do that with your flagship setting, which is probably more recognized and beloved a brand than D&D itself, it is safe to say that you are "doing it wrong".

When it comes down to it, the massive flavor changes are wholly unneccesary.  The proposed mechanical changes alone would have warranted a new edition and would likely have not caused such a rift in the existing fanbase.  It is a strange thing to imagine why it is that they are making such sweeping flavor changes, and what benefit they think they will get out of it, and who exactly is going to replace the existing-customer attrition, no matter how large or small, that is going to inevitably follow.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> They'll turn up as NPCs all through published material anyway, even if you ban them.  The core permeates the game.




Hrm, you might have some issues anyway then, because WotC is now pushing the PHB2+ as "core" too. So you may well be seeing psionic warforged NPCs a couple years down the road...


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> Where do we go from here?



Traditionally, a duel with pistols at dawn, but I think you're too far away for a glove slap to get proceedings underway.  And too far away for roh sham bo, tiddlywinks, mud wrestling or rock-paper-scissors...hmmm...


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> They'll turn up as NPCs all through published material anyway, even if you ban them.  The core permeates the game.



And? Do you get upset when a cleric of Pelor pops up in a module as an NPC? How do you handle that?

You swap out the God for the one that suits your game the most. Or, if the module deals too much with that God that doesn't correlate with any in your setting, _you don't use it_. I mean, if there are no dragons in your setting, you're not going to buy a module that revolves around fightin' dragons, are you?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Ultimately, what D&D "is" is entirely subjective and varies from group to group and person to person.  that said, though, I think it is an entirely acceptable opinion that it "won't be D&D anymore" if 4E -- and no one can know this yet, but we can make as educated guesses as WotC allows us given they are the ones educating us -- doesn't allow a person or group to continue playing in their hombrew world or in their preferred playstyle without massive amounts of effort.



So if your preferred setting was Dark Sun, then 3E was no longer D&D? Massive amounts of effort were needed to play 3E in Dark Sun, since it was not converted.

And as to the changes to FR - what if they had made these massive changes to the setting, without there being a new edition of the rules? What if they simply decided a major upheaval was necessary? Would this have made the game stop being D&D?

Edit: Of course, the answer to that second one is if you don't like the changes, you ignore them. Just like now.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Traditionally, a duel with pistols at dawn, but I think you're too far away for a glove slap to get proceedings underway.  And too far away for roh sham bo, tiddlywinks, mud wrestling or rock-paper-scissors...hmmm...



You have me at a disadvantage, sir, as your location is not given below your username.

_My_ pistol is large enough to reach anywhere is the world, if that helps.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> THis would be the point at which someone would tell you to play another game -- pretty much what happens to people that say they don't want Dragonborn or whatever in the core.  It's a reasonable suggestion in either case, of course, but it totally ignores the fact that we like D&D and we want to play D&D.



And yet: 

When I'm the DM:
1) Allow Elves and Dwarves in my campaigns because other people like them, 
2) Remove them and put something in there that takes the place.

When I play:
3) Say nothing, play them. 

See? I don't expect WotC to throw them out because I'm bored with them. I don't get upset when I see "Elf PrC in Book X" or "Elf in Module Y". I either use it (option 1,3), or I reflavor it to suit my needs (option 2). And I don't think less of people for liking them. (This doesn't stop me for disliking people who are obnoxious when playing them.)



> Here's the thing about the changes in flavour that 4E is presenting: at this point, they seem so pervasive, so random and so extreme that it suggests that 4E will in fact not support playing D&D in the manner that [any given person] has been playing for 30 years.



That just blows my mind. I don't see, at all, how anyone could say that and be serious.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 8, 2007)

> Hrm, you might have some issues anyway then, because WotC is now pushing the PHB2+ as "core" too. So you may well be seeing psionic warforged NPCs a couple years down the road...



Yes, good start, but I think it needs more "wahoo" factor.  Can we arm it with a sentient dancing spiked chain, have it riding a diplodicus, and have it be a paragon ninja/pirate/warlord?

Getting there.  Still not 4E enough, though - needs more trademarkable IP.  Okay, riding a forestravager, then, and wielding a spikevorpaliser.

Kewl.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 8, 2007)

> A bit of everything - including, for instance - Golden Wyvern Adepts?




I think the main issue with this, at least now, is that no one can imagine what a Golden Wyvern Adept *is*, other than a feat name. No one has been clamoring to include one in their games. No one wanted this, yet we're getting it (at the expense of things we want, such as druids or polymorph!)

People want to be Conan or the Grey Mouser or Achilles or Inu Yasha or Ash from Pokemon.

No one has ever in the history of fantasy ever wanted to be a Golden Wyvern Adept. 

4e meets a lot of resistance with it's new flavor because it's largely meaningless. 

Once we know what a Golden Wyvern Adept is, maybe it will make perfect sense and everyone will want to be one. As it is, it lacks everything Disney and Squaresoft and the human history of imagination has desired.

Here, I'm feeling punchy, so I even illustrated the Grand Plan... You could probably replace Golden Wyvern Adept with almost ANY of the core setting's flavor and have just about the same reaction.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 8, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> That just blows my mind. I don't see, at all, how anyone could say that and be serious.




Seriously?  I mean, no snark intended,: you can't click on the collection of proposed 4E changes and see why some people look at that list and say, "Oh my god, they have completely changed the game."?

Because if you honestly can't, if you honesty shrug and say "meh" to the apparent changes to both fluff and crunch, the slaughtering of sacred cows and the alienation of the existing fanbase, I can only surmise that you aren't particularly invested in D&D as it is written.  That's not a dig, just an observation.

But, the thing is, many people play D&D "out of the box" with thier own bits and pieces, rules and fluff, sprinkled on top and mixed in a little.  Most people don't craft whole fantasy universes -- they create some maps and some cities and some NPCs and anything they don't outright create, they call "per core".  While these elements might not be mytho-historical archetypes like Tquirky has suggested, they are D&D archetypes and, as archetypes, they provide "picture is worth a thousand words" level of detail in a world that would otherwise be a few pages in a notebook.

If you change the definition of the Dryad, for example, then you change the corner of the world of the homebrew where the dryad(s) dwell(s).  Start stacking up those changes and suddenly 4E doesn't look like D&D _*because*_ your world doesn't look like it did.

I hope that helps you understand what I mean.

As to Dark Sun (and this goes for Spelljammer and Planescape and Ravenloft, too): total strawman.  those worlds were created specifically to show that D&D was more than "vanilla fantasy" and not only did they require a lot of work and fiddling (which happens to show off D&D's versatility, but that's neither here nor there), the reason that 3E was still D&D was because legions of dedicated fans could do roughly equivalent work to recreate them for the new D&D.  That isn't the same thing as being able to crack the book and carry on, but you couldn't have done that with those settings in any edition, either; you couldn't just crack open the AD&D2 books and play Dark Sun with the AD&D2 Dark Sun campaign setting, so why would you expect it to be any different with 3E.  But you could crack open the 1E, 2E or 3E books and play Greyhawk, FR or even Krynn without much more than a list of place names and "monsters that don't exist here".


----------



## belgarath97 (Dec 8, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The complaint is that DMs who _want_ to flesh out every corner of their world _don't_ want to include it, and thus feel forced because it's shackled to the mechanics. Maybe there is no gold or no wyverns or no adepts or no this or that, but because it's right there in the mechanics, well they just have to put it in.
> 
> At least to my understanding.




Yeah but they don't.  There isn't a single thing in any edition of D&D that you _have_ to include.  If I wanted I could rewrite the whole damn thing.  But in general I don't want to.

To anyone still hung up on this naming convention, I really have only this to say:

"Really?  I mean REALLY?  This is it, huh?  All the new and interesting things we're learning, and you're getting hung up on 'Gonden Wyvern Adpept'?  REALLY?"


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 8, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But if you have been playing even 3.5 by the core in Greyhawk or FR or Krynn, 4E looks hella different and not in a good way.





I have, and it doesn't.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Seriously?  I mean, no snark intended,: you can't click on the collection of proposed 4E changes and see why some people look at that list and say, "Oh my god, they have completely changed the game."?



Yes, I'm completely serious.



> Because if you honestly can't, if you honesty shrug and say "meh" to the apparent changes to both fluff and crunch, the slaughtering of sacred cows and the alienation of the existing fanbase, I can only surmise that you aren't particularly invested in D&D as it is written.  That's not a dig, just an observation.



I'm confused what you're saying.

Are you saying that I'm not in love with the Fluff as Written? No, no I'm not, simply because I think it's too limiting, stagnant, dull, and that the slaughter of the sacred cows is _great_ because it's allowing the game to Grow and experiment. 



> If you change the definition of the Dryad, for example, then you change the corner of the world of the homebrew where the dryad(s) dwell(s).  Start stacking up those changes and suddenly 4E doesn't look like D&D _*because*_ your world doesn't look like it did.



I don't see the change with the dryad forcing that change - the change appears to be expansion, meaning "The dryad can also do this, and this, and it's also this". 

As it was said above, Darksun takes a _lot_ of tap dancing to make function in 3e because it didn't get converted. Does that mean that 3e is no longer D&D because it negated the campaign? 

It seems like just a whole lot of upset over Nostalgia. That it _feels_ different but the change in the rules doesn't _change_ anything. It doesn't change the memories, it doesn't change you from being able to do what you did before. It just means that Elves aren't their own class, they are just a race and you can Take classes. 



> But you could crack open the 1E, 2E or 3E books and play Greyhawk, FR or even Krynn without much more than a list of place names and "monsters that don't exist here".



Because those settings are generic enough to fit it no matter what the core was, and I've yet to see anything in the core that makes it even inconvenient to do with 4e.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 8, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Seriously?  I mean, no snark intended,: you can't click on the collection of proposed 4E changes and see why some people look at that list and say, "Oh my god, they have completely changed the game."?




No more than I can see why people looked at 3e and said the same thing. It appears as untrue to me now as it did back in 1999.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 8, 2007)

> I've yet to see anything in the core that makes it even inconvenient to do with 4e.




Well, for one:

*No Bards, Druids, or Gnomes*. Inconvenient or dang near impossible in some ways (at least going by the core alone).

For two, *dragon weirdness with alignments*. If the recent preview is anything to go on, being hired by green dragons and fighting copper dragons will not raise many eyebrows in the new edition. I'm pretty sure it WOULD, in Dragonlance.

For three, *Golden Wyvern Adepts*. Certainly spell-shaping exists on all these worlds, but Golden Wyverns do not, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.

Just a few examples of things in the 4e Core that don't mesh with, as you say, some of the most generic settings conceived.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

belgarath97 said:
			
		

> Yeah but they don't.  There isn't a single thing in any edition of D&D that you _have_ to include.  If I wanted I could rewrite the whole damn thing.  But in general I don't want to.



To which the response has been "Yeah well, it's annoying how every time I see 'Golden Wyvern Adept', and an inconvenience when someone says 'I'm using my Googum ability" "What's that?" 'What you renamed Golden Wyvern Adept'.

To an extent, I can understand the frustration. I like the psionics system, but I utterly _hate_ the sci-fi/1920s parapsychology naming conventions, and the ectoplasm nonsense. But I accept it, to get information across, and to use it. When I style my homebrew, I'll just reflavor it. Similar to Incarnum.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, for one:
> 
> *No Bards, Druids, or Gnomes*. Inconvenient or dang near impossible in some ways (at least going by the core alone).



Gnomes will be in Core. The MM1 is core, from what I can tell. 

And yes, bards and druids are temporarily out of commission. Sort've like how there wasn't immediate replacement for all the 2e kits.  



> For two, *dragon weirdness with alignments*. If the recent preview is anything to go on, being hired by green dragons and fighting copper dragons will not raise many eyebrows in the new edition. I'm pretty sure it WOULD, in Dragonlance.



Because that's Chris Perkins *Homebrew setting*. You know, with goblins sailing ships, and gun powder? 

The other playtest is set in Eberron. That doesn't mean that warforged are going to be the standard, you know?



> For three, *Golden Wyvern Adepts*. Certainly spell-shaping exists on all these worlds, but Golden Wyverns do not, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.



This is just such a non issue. It meshes with them. Just because it hasn't existed _before_ doesn't mean it the School over There doesn't teach it, or the master your wizard apprenticed to didn't teach it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *No Bards, Druids, or Gnomes*. Inconvenient or dang near impossible in some ways (at least going by the core alone).




God, a day doesn't go by without having to point out this fallacy.

Gnomes are in the Monster Manual 1, a core book. Therefore, gnomes are in the core.



> For two, *dragon weirdness with alignments*. If the recent preview is anything to go on, being hired by green dragons and fighting copper dragons will not raise many eyebrows in the new edition. I'm pretty sure it WOULD, in Dragonlance.




Oh noes, Dragonlance might have to add a line in it's dragon entry that particular dragons are always good or evil. You're right, that's a total deal breaker right there. Dragonlance is now, officially, impossible to reproduce with 4e.



> For three, *Golden Wyvern Adepts*. Certainly spell-shaping exists on all these worlds, but Golden Wyverns do not, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.




Pelor is in the PHB, but not in my world, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 8, 2007)

> Gnomes will be in Core. The MM1 is core, from what I can tell.
> 
> And yes, bards and druids are temporarily out of commission. Sort've like how there wasn't immediate replacement for all the 2e kits.




Gnomes are in the MM. It's inconvenient. That's the threshold you posed.

Character class defines a character more than a kit ever did. This makes it inconvenient. If I want to be a shape-shifting nature with elemental magic or a song-weaving spellcaster and enchanter, what, in the 4e core, should I choose?



> Because that's Chris Perkins Homebrew setting. You know, with goblins sailing ships, and gun powder?
> 
> The other playtest is set in Eberron. That doesn't mean that warforged are going to be the standard, you know?




You don't know this any more than I do, and I posted it as an "if," whereas you're saying "it's definately not."

In the abscence of evidence for either of these positions, my statement, than "IF this is how it is, THEN it is a problem" remains true.

We have no argument, here.



> This is just such a non issue. It meshes with them. Just because it hasn't existed before doesn't mean it the School over There doesn't teach it, or the master your wizard apprenticed to didn't teach it.




Changing the name is an inconvenience. That was the threshold that you posted.



> You're right, that's a total deal breaker right there.




Not necessarily. But it is an inconvenience. That's all that was asked, so that's what I delivered. If you want to escalate the demand for "deal breakers," that's a different question.

I've got more inconveniences if you want them. 

It's not hard to find them.

Some are worse than others, but they all make it horribly *inconvenient*.


----------



## rounser (Dec 8, 2007)

> Yes. Pretend to read them as something else. Just like pretending the Greyhawk gods are not in the 3.X PHB, or pretending Mordenkainen's spells are called something else. Not a big deal.



Again - a single specifically named spell or magic item is going to have very limited screentime.  A spiked chain, double weapon, eladrin or warlord is going to have a lot.

Designers understood this with regard to "invisibility at will" having a whole lot more effect on the game in the hands of a PC versus in the hands of an NPC, because the NPC will last a round or two and die.  Limited scope of that ability on the game.

On the other hand, a PC with this ability can stay invisible (or shapechanged, enlarged etc.) all campaign.  And a monster PC will have a lot more effect on the game's tone and feel than encountering NPC monsters would - i.e. they stay freaky all campaign.

It's strange to me that either the designers don't make this distinction, or don't care about it when it comes to "fluff" when they're so aware of it when it comes to "crunch".


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think the main issue with this, at least now, is that no one can imagine what a Golden Wyvern Adept *is*, other than a feat name. No one has been clamoring to include one in their games. No one wanted this, yet we're getting it (at the expense of things we want, such as druids or polymorph!)
> 
> People want to be Conan or the Grey Mouser or Achilles or Inu Yasha or Ash from Pokemon.
> 
> ...




How many people wanted to play a Drow pre-Unearthed Arcana?

How many wanted to play a Drow after that?

How many bards did you see in your 3e campaigns?   I saw one in six years.  Losing the bard is a total non-issue for me.

Druids?  Never saw one played.  Non-issue.  Total waste of space in my games.

((Although, I do have a sneaking suspicion that druids were a tad more popular than bards.  ))

The thing that blows my mind is that Golden Wyvern Adept is ONE FEAT.  That's it.  There were three other feats in that preview with totally normal names.  Now everyone seems to be utterly convinced that WOTC is going to ram this huge bolus of flavour into the core books.  We simply don't know.

Heck, if I previewed the 1e DMG with a look at artifacts, reactions would be "Who the heck is Dalver-Nar?  Saint Cuthbert?  What?  Who beautified this guy?  I don't have a Pope or Catholic Church in my campaign.  Who is this Tuerney the Merciless guy?  I have to add in a named despot into my campaign?  I don't think so."

And on and on.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, for one:
> 
> *No Bards, Druids, or Gnomes*. Inconvenient or dang near impossible in some ways (at least going by the core alone).




Gnomes are in the Monster Manual.  The classes Bard and Druid may not be in PHB1, but that doesn't mean their concepts can't be recreated.  Nature priests are probably doable with either Clerics or Fey Warlocks.  3E inspirational and knowledgeable heroes are probably doable with Warlord, or you can go more old fashioned and do a jack of all trades with multiclassing.  Really, the 3E Bard wasn't my 2E Bard, which wasn't my cousin's 1E Bard, so maybe there's a reason why they're spending a little more time on it.



> For two, *dragon weirdness with alignments*. If the recent preview is anything to go on, being hired by green dragons and fighting copper dragons will not raise many eyebrows in the new edition. I'm pretty sure it WOULD, in Dragonlance.




Really?  How many times have they mentioned that they're downplaying the mechanical effects of alignment, and now you're going to point at somebody's homebrew's dragons' alignments as a sign of the game changing in some great way?  If you dig any further, you might end up in China, my friend.



> For three, *Golden Wyvern Adepts*. Certainly spell-shaping exists on all these worlds, but Golden Wyverns do not, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.
> 
> Just a few examples of things in the 4e Core that don't mesh with, as you say, some of the most generic settings conceived.




Here's three simple ways you can deal with Golden Wyverns.

1) Incorporate it.  Just because your setting doesn't have Golden Wyverns doesn't mean that it can't have Golden Wyverns.  It's just a name.  You're a creative DM right?  You can figure out a cool way to make it fit.

2) Gloss it.  Really, how is writing "Golden Wyvern Adept" down on a character sheet and saying during the course of the game, "I use Golden Wyvern Adept" any different than writing down "Power Attack" or "Improved Evasion" and declaring their use during the course of the game?  Granted, the name could include a descriptor of what it does, but this is D&D; we're going to remember what weird esoteric stuff means.

3) Make like Dave and cut it out.  It's D&D.  You're allowed to cut out the bits you don't want.  It's only going to affect you're game if you make it affect your game.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you stop thinking in terms of number and name of classes, and instead look at the number of concepts and tropes presented, 4E D&D is going to open up more than any previous edition.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Gnomes are in the MM. It's inconvenient. That's the threshold you posed.



It's about as inconvenient as magical items and PrCs being in the DMG. 



> Character class defines a character more than a kit ever did. This makes it inconvenient. If I want to be a shape-shifting nature with elemental magic or a song-weaving spellcaster and enchanter, what, in the 4e core, should I choose?



PHB2, which will be core? 





> *You don't know this any more than I do*, and I posted it as an "if," whereas you're saying "it's definately not."
> 
> In the abscence of evidence for either of these positions, my statement, than "IF this is how it is, THEN it is a problem" remains true.



I'm sorry, I must have missed the if. Because the impression was that you were using that as an example of it just being all screwed up. 

In the first mention of Chris Perkins' playtest (back before we knew Dragonborn was the new race), it was specified that this was his homebrew setting. So I'm taking everything with a grain of salt, fluff wise.

I don't see WotC making Green and Red dragons all warm and snuggly. That would upset _too_ many people. If anything WotC is business conscious. 

Besides, I don't think it's fair to compare one setting to the other. Case in Point: Eberron versus Dragonlance. The way Dragonlance treats its dragons is vastly different from how Eberron treats its dragons. I could just easily say "They fought a dragon in that playtest. 4e isn't going to accommodate Eberron because there's an emphasis on fighting dragons, and you just don't do that in Eberron." 

And seriously, if you just want to continue waving the banner of "That's Inconvenient", I could just as easily say "Saying _BAB_ instead of _THACO_ is inconvenient, thus 3e does not facilitate easy transition for 2e."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How many people wanted to play a Drow pre-Unearthed Arcana?
> 
> How many wanted to play a Drow after that?




Well, playing as a dark elf has some weight. People know what drow are, the concept isn't alien, and it's an easily grokked archetype. 

But, regardless, I don't think many people wanted to play drow period until Drizzit slashed onto the scene.



> How many bards did you see in your 3e campaigns? I saw one in six years. Losing the bard is a total non-issue for me.
> 
> Druids? Never saw one played. Non-issue. Total waste of space in my games.
> 
> ...




Blah blah blah *inconvenience for playing a DL, FR, or GH game*. Quit takin' my stuff outta context, Context Thief!



> Heck, if I previewed the 1e DMG with a look at artifacts, reactions would be "Who the heck is Dalver-Nar? Saint Cuthbert? What? Who beautified this guy? I don't have a Pope or Catholic Church in my campaign. Who is this Tuerney the Merciless guy? I have to add in a named despot into my campaign? I don't think so."
> 
> And on and on.




Right, but D&D was more than just it's own IP. The more heavily D&D leans on it's own inventions, excluding the richness of the fantasy worlds outside of it, the more obtuse it becomes. Golden Wyvern Adept references NOTHING in ANYONE'S mental database. Yet.



			
				PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Gnomes are in the Monster Manual.




Yes, and it's inconvenient for them to be there instead of in the PHB. Inconvenience. I've gone over this above. I don't particularly feel like repeating myself on these points.




			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> PHB2, which will be core?




HA!

Okay, seriously, now, what page of the PHB is the Druid on? Because if we have that, I guess it's not so inconvenient.



> And seriously, if you just want to continue waving the banner of "That's Inconvenient", I could just as easily say "Saying BAB instead of THACO is inconvenient, thus 3e does not facilitate easy transition for 2e."




Sure thing, chicken wing, but then you've gotta convince me that some soul somewhere in the world thinks this is true. 

Plus, I've never once said that shifting from 1e to 2e wasn't even inconvenient.

You, on the other hand, did say that shifting from 3e to 4e wouldn't even be inconvenient. So now I showed that it is. I shall expect your apology for propagating this gross misinformation to come in the form of cookies, promptly, or I am forced to assume you are a cad and a knave.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 8, 2007)

I can say this: The amazing amount of heated debate over "Golden Wyvern Adept" means that if _that_ is the biggest thing getting people riled up about 4e at the moment, then this game is looking to be great!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 8, 2007)

> I can say this: The amazing amount of heated debate over "Golden Wyvern Adept" means that if that is the biggest thing getting people riled up about 4e at the moment, then this game is looking to be great!




True enough!

It's just an easy target, though, a symbol of a lot of things that people don't like about 4e summed up in three little words.

It stands out, which means it gets knocked around. At least until something else rears it's head.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It stands out, which means it gets knocked around. At least until something else rears it's head.




Until the next design and development article, I bet. They're about due for another controversial one (not that they aren't all).


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2007)

> Well, playing as a dark elf has some weight. People know what drow are, the concept isn't alien, and it's an easily grokked archetype.




People know what Drow are now.  Way back when, before Drow appeared in the modules, if you asked a player what a Drow was, they'd likely have no idea.  Drow are about as far removed from dark fairy as elves are removed from light fairies.  Drow are almost entirely an invention of D&D.  Other than a very, very basic veneer that is.



> Right, but D&D was more than just it's own IP. The more heavily D&D leans on it's own inventions, excluding the richness of the fantasy worlds outside of it, the more obtuse it becomes. Golden Wyvern Adept references NOTHING in ANYONE'S mental database. Yet.




Neither did most of D&D in any edition.  Either people were a hell of a lot more classically educated than I was when I started playing D&D or there's some creative history going on.  Most of the artifacts, none of the proper nouns, large swaths of the monster manual, gnomes, clerics - that's just a few things that are purely D&D.  Yeah, they might have their genesis in obscure Western Civ classes, but, for the most part people had no idea where they came from.  

The most iconic elements of D&D are pure D&D, not drawn from anywhere else.  The Rust Monster, the Beholder, on and on.  

This idea that D&D has ever been generic fantasy role play is just strange to me.  D&D has always been its own thing.  It works best when you let it be its own thing.  That's not edition dependent.  Why not start from that baseline then?  Every other edition did.  Yes, D&D has always borrowed heavily from various sources.  But, there is no evidence that 4e won't as well.

People complain about the Feywild (to pick an example).  If you cannot see the existence of a dangerous, fairy "otherland" sort of plane in fantasy, I gotta wonder what kind of fantasy you read.  It certainly draws as heavily on the sources of D&D as Mechanus or the Astral plane.


----------



## rounser (Dec 8, 2007)

> The most iconic elements of D&D are pure D&D, not drawn from anywhere else. The Rust Monster, the Beholder, on and on.



These things are indeed iconic D&D monsters.  But monsters are a different kettle of fish from core races and classes: They get nowhere near the screentime, and influence the tone and feel of the game far differently from the make-up of your heroes.

As a thought experiment, the logic of your argument suggests rust monster as a core PC race.  Rust monsters in taverns all over the D&D multiverse, squeaking out orders for ale, just as dragondudes now will be (well, hissing out orders for ale).  That's how much "doesn't apply here" the comparison is.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

> You, on the other hand, did say that shifting from 3e to 4e wouldn't even be inconvenient. So now I showed that it is. I shall expect your apology for propagating this gross misinformation to come in the form of cookies, promptly, or I am forced to assume you are a cad and a knave.



I was using inconvenient, I guess, in the way Reynard was. I didn't mean that it would be as smooth as diving into a pool, because changing from one system to another is going to be a bit bumpy.

But from the way it's being portrayed, 4e is like going to a new planet. I don't think the transition will be at _all_ hard. None of it looks problematic to me. 

You done bein' silly?  I'm aaaaall outta cookies.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2007)

> These things are indeed iconic D&D monsters. But monsters are a different kettle of fish from core races and classes: They get nowhere near the screentime, and influence the tone and feel of the game far differently from the make-up of your heroes.




Ok, ignore monsters for the moment, I was only using that as an example anyway.  How about classes?  I mean, cleric doesn't appear anywhere in fantasy as "Dude with a mace that can heal you while wearing armor".  Heck, the archetypes for a priestly character are pretty bloody far removed from the cleric as written.

Or, go even more basic - the arcane/divine split.  There's a solid piece of flavour that's entirely D&D and has its roots in pretty much pure gamist terms.  Yet, no one is up in arms about the fact that clerics and wizards MUST have separate spell lists.  

The entire cosmology, which is locked hard and tight into the rules in all editions, is a purely D&D creation.  It's a mash of a bunch of different cultural concepts.  After all, look at the tap dancing they have to do to shoehorn gods and arch devils into the same planes.  

Pretty much every aspect that makes D&D well, D&D is rooted pretty solidly IN D&D.  Monsters, classes, magic, cosmology, you name it.  This idea that D&D used to be this generic game ignores how much of D&D is hardwired into the game.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Pretty much every aspect that makes D&D well, D&D is rooted pretty solidly IN D&D.  Monsters, classes, magic, cosmology, you name it.  This idea that D&D used to be this generic game ignores how much of D&D is hardwired into the game.



But you can just ignore those parts of old editions, so they're generic games.

Unfortunately, every copy of the 4e PHB will now come with a WotC-Approved Co-DM who will oversee flavor issues in the game.






"*HALT. Unauthorized refusal of Dragonborn. You have 20 seconds to include them in your setting.*"


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Dec 8, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, every copy of the 4e PHB will now come with a WotC-Approved Co-DM who will oversee flavor issues in the game.



If that's included in the $35 cost of the DMG, I'm buying twelve.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2007)

> But you can just ignore those parts of old editions, so they're generic games.




Heh, I know that was tongue in cheek, but I'd like to take it seriously for a second.

Some of the flavor stuff you can ignore.  That's true.  But, some of it is pretty solidly hard wired.  Take 1e thieves for a second.  Here's a totally non-magical class with no magic training that can suddenly use scrolls at a certain level (or at least try to).  Now, I know the source material for that, fine, but, that's beside the point.  That's hard coded flavor in the classes.  No other class can do that.  Could rangers, who actually COULD cast Magic User spells at some point, use magic user scrolls?  Someone with better 1e rules fu can tell me.

Think about it for a second.  People are jumping up and down about fighters having the possibility of slightly fantastic effects - not really magic, but, magical.  Yet, thieves get to pick up wizard scrolls and blast away with fireballs and no one bats an eye.


----------



## Ty (Dec 8, 2007)

Hmm, I'm going to have a hard time outbeating non-adopters with my bat in comparison to that thing...


Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with creating tons of fluff for D&D.  However, it's called a "campaign setting."  That way, see, it's all official for users of that one campaign setting as opposed to trying to shoehorn Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, and Points of Light into FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Homebrew, Dungeon Adventures, etc.  This is not a "core game system" problem as I see it.  What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I do not excuse Gary Gygax for throwing parts of his original campaign setting into 1st edition, etc., because "News Flash," there was only one official campaign setting back then; his.  The argument here on the boards apparently is that because he did it first, Mearls and Co. can do it now.  A substantial number of people are saying no, stick with the format of 3.X SRD and keep it the generic game system.

Can we rephrase the question as to which choice is better given the two listed above, with the goal as originally stated by Mearls that it is made in order to bring new players into the game?


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 8, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> Hmm, I'm going to have a hard time outbeating non-adopters with my bat in comparison to that thing...
> 
> 
> Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with creating tons of fluff for D&D.  However, it's called a "campaign setting."  That way, see, it's all official for users of that one campaign setting as opposed to trying to shoehorn Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, and Points of Light into FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Homebrew, Dungeon Adventures, etc.  This is not a "core game system" problem as I see it.  What we have here is a failure to communicate.
> ...



One of the reasons identified by Mike Pondsmith for the failure of Mekton Zeta to catch on in the marketplace during the mid-90s anime explosion was its complete lack of a setting in its rules. And so the next edition of Mekton is going to use Algol as its default setting.

I have never played a single game using the Algol setting, my own homebrew setting doesn't even have the same assumptions as Algol. But who cares? If it gets the game a second look (or third), I'm all for it.

Gamers new to a game - and in this case, new to the hobby, since D&D is the hobby's gateway drug - seem to prefer it to have a setting, at least an implied one, to hang the crunchy bits on. "Golden Wyvern Adept" is actually a rather nice bit of implied setting: It implies there's something called the Golden Wyvern, that it's something rather important to do with magic, and that it relates to how spells are shaped.

Beyond that, it's up to you how it applies to your setting.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> Hmm, I'm going to have a hard time outbeating non-adopters with my bat in comparison to that thing...
> 
> 
> Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with creating tons of fluff for D&D.  However, it's called a "campaign setting."  That way, see, it's all official for users of that one campaign setting as opposed to trying to shoehorn Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, and Points of Light into FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Homebrew, Dungeon Adventures, etc.  This is not a "core game system" problem as I see it.  What we have here is a failure to communicate.
> ...




But, we've been over this time and again.  3.x has a great deal of game flavor hard coded into the rules.  Probably even more so than 1e simply because 1e's more modular design makes ignoring elements easier.  The wealth/level metric, being able to buy and sell magic items, cosmology, I can go on and on, but, the first two are very hard wired into the game.

Do you honestly think that being able to trade in magic items isn't flavour?

My problem is, I simply don't agree that any version of D&D has ever been a generic game system.  D20 is generic, but, that's simply a task resolution system.  D&D =/= D20.


----------



## Ty (Dec 8, 2007)

Actually, I'd propose that D&D / D20 have an inherent game setting; whatever the heck is the popular fantasy literature/cinema at the time; be it LotR, World of Warcraft or the Golden Compass.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Dec 8, 2007)

Yeah. And what makes you a Grognard is to state that the main inspiration in your preferred "period" of D&D should be the dominant one / is the one TRUE inspiration.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 8, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> One of the reasons identified by Mike Pondsmith for the failure of Mekton Zeta to catch on in the marketplace during the mid-90s anime explosion was its complete lack of a setting in its rules. And so the next edition of Mekton is going to use Algol as its default setting.



Woah there, back it up a sec.
There's to be a new Mekton Zeta edition? *deeply in forbidden love with his Advanced Technical Manual*
Now the kicker if yes: Is Mike Pondsmith actually involved in the *writing* or *designing* the game?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 8, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I hate to single this out, but, well, it's something I just don't like to read anymore and I think that is actively damaging the quality of a post for me, even if it is undeserved.
> 
> Don't "hide" behind using a shorthand like "video game" (or "anime"), or something like that.
> Say what you think it's wrong, in as precise terms as possible to you. People use the term _Video Game_ as a synonym for "inferior" or "something else I don't like much as the thing I really want". It is in danger of becoming a new variant of _Godwyn's Law_.



It is not in danger of becoming one.  It has.  I have written the definition (a year ago, I think), and Remathalis has put it into his sig.  Video games, anime, and various other "I don't like this, but I either can't be bothered to explain why or I know that my reasons are spurious so I won't state them" placeholder terms are the new Hitler, as far as RPG messageboard posts are concerned.


----------



## Ty (Dec 8, 2007)

Dr. Awkward,

I understand your theorem but you also missed the part of my original post wherein the shorthand was not used in a vacuum, nor my subsequent explanation, nor the proposition as originally stated, wherein I stated:

Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book.  I'd rather play a video game.

I did not state that it was a video game.  And the original poster citing me is a typical type of political attack by quoting a portion of a statement rather than the entire statement in it's whole or in the context it was written.  But that would be a shorthand / placeholder argument backed by potentially spurious opinions correct?


----------



## Ty (Dec 8, 2007)

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> Yeah. And what makes you a Grognard is to state that the main inspiration in your preferred "period" of D&D should be the dominant one / is the one TRUE inspiration.




I think D&D in whatever edition is served best by which the mechanics allow for the creation of a campaign based on whatever setting you want, be it LotR, WoW, Golden Compass, your own, etc.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> I think D&D in whatever edition is served best by which the mechanics allow for the creation of a campaign based on whatever setting you want, be it LotR, WoW, Golden Compass, your own, etc.



And as far as we know nothing in 4E will inhibit this any more than in previous editions. D&D has always had its own flavour built in to the rules. If your argument is that 4E has finally crossed the line (whatever that means), well, we don't have 4E yet so any assumptions of that kind are just that, assumptions.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 8, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Woah there, back it up a sec.
> There's to be a new Mekton Zeta edition? *deeply in forbidden love with his Advanced Technical Manual*
> Now the kicker if yes: Is Mike Pondsmith actually involved in the *writing* or *designing* the game?



Yes and yes.

He would have to be - as of 2007, RTG is Mike and Lisa Pondsmith, plus assorted freelancers. And you don't farm out the development of a new edition of one of your core RPG lines (Mekton was actually RTG's first RPG) to freelancers.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 8, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Which makes no sense to me.
> 
> Nothing stops you from saying "Hey, no dragonborn. They don't fit my campaign." I mean, the race isn't forced on your setting. I highly doubt a party can't function without the dragonborn present.



Totally with you there.  You can add and subtract discrete elements easily.  The problem is when things are embedded in elements you want to use, and removing them is more difficult.  Golden Wyvern is the case in point.  If you want to use wizards, they come packaged with Golden Wyvern.  You can remove the reference from your campaign, but it'll be there in the core books, and presumably in future publications.  If you want to call them "Spellmaster Mages" or something, the likely response is "which ones are they again?  Do you mean Golden Wyvern?"  I expect that it'll be an uphill battle to strip it out.

However, this isn't the case with names like Mystic Theurge, which sound like they mean something, but don't.  Golden Wyvern refers to an implied (but apparently not detailed, according to Mearls), organization.  Mystic Theurge refers to the game element, and doesn't carry any baggage that you either have to shoehorn into your campaign or cross out and rewrite.  Even if they replaced Golden Wyvern with "Gold Wizards" or "Wyvern Mages" (as part of a series of metal-themed or monster-themed names) and dropped all the references to an implied organization, it would be easier to overwrite the given name with your own organization name.  The less implied baggage, the better.  

That's why the Mystic Theurge was a better DMG inclusion than the Red Wizard was.  The Red Wizard comes with a bunch of organization baggage that takes more dedicated effort to remove, since many players think they know what a Red Wizard is supposed to be like, having played or read FR material.  And that organization isn't even a core organization.  If Golden Wyvern is in the core books, it'll be more difficult to divest them of the association with the implied setting organization.



> If the books are a toolkit, then why is there the complaint that the tools are being included in there in the first place?



It's kind of like if you buy a table saw, and plan to use it to cut metal rods.  You take off the wood cutting blade it came with, and put on a metal cutting blade; but every time you go away and come back, the metal blade is gone and the original wood blade is back on, so you have to take off that blade and put on the one you want.  It would be a great tool, if only you didn't have to worry about it reseting to the default all the time.  To borrow, and misuse, an R&D-ism, Golden Wyvern has too much inherent traction.  It needs less traction, so that you can scrape it off if you don't want it.

Obligatory Simpsons reference to finish:
"Spellmaster mage."
"Golden Wyvern?"
"No, Spellmaster."
"Golden?"
"S. P. E..."
"G. O. L..."


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You can remove the reference from your campaign, but it'll be there in the core books, and presumably in future publications.  If you want to call them "Spellmaster Mages" or something, the likely response is "which ones are they again?  Do you mean Golden Wyvern?"  I expect that it'll be an uphill battle to strip it out.



"He's a cleric of Hundaggan."

"Which one is that again?"

"The god of the sun."

"Oh, you mean Pelor?"


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> However, this isn't the case with names like Mystic Theurge, which sound like they mean something, but don't.  Golden Wyvern refers to an implied (but apparently not detailed, according to Mearls), organization.



I doubt it's an "Organization". I really do.

Okay, let me put it like this.

Is there an Organization of Tai Kwan Do? How about an organization of Kung Fu? There are schools that _teach_ Tai Kwan Do, and there are Masters of Tai Kwan Do, but there isn't a building somewhere that says "Tai Kwan Do Headquarters" or "Official The Tai Kwan Do School"*.

If that's too anime, then we could just talk about fencing styles, or whatever.

The point is: It's not an organization so much as a style, a _tradition_ that emphasizes this or that. So you can have the wizard out in the middle of no where who teaches an apprentice, but he teaches him Golden Wyvern because His master was a Golden Wyvern and his... It's a list of techniques, and likely little else.

*This is different for Shaolin kung fu, because it's trademarked. But I hope you get my point. 



> That's why the Mystic Theurge was a better DMG inclusion than the Red Wizard was.  The Red Wizard comes with a bunch of organization baggage that takes more dedicated effort to remove, since many players think they know what a Red Wizard is supposed to be like, having played or read FR material.  And that organization isn't even a core organization.  If Golden Wyvern is in the core books, it'll be more difficult to divest them of the association with the implied setting organization.



See, that's where I feel your argument falls flat. I just... I fail to grok that "Red Wizard of Thay" = "Oh god it's an implied setting". It's _a PRC_. Just call it a Red Wizard, or use the mechanics, or _something_.. 

How many times are you referencing 'Red Wizard OF THAY'? Even if that's your PrC, you're not at every turn saying 'Hey, I'm a red wizard of - oh right, no Thay'.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 8, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Yes and yes.
> 
> He would have to be - as of 2007, RTG is Mike and Lisa Pondsmith, plus assorted freelancers. And you don't farm out the development of a new edition of one of your core RPG lines (Mekton was actually RTG's first RPG) to freelancers.



You do after squeezing Cyberpunk v3 onto the market, in a complete inability to understand what made one's own games popular.

I mean, I'll grab the construction manual whenever it hits because I convert some designs to Interlock for a homebrew 'firm' sci-fi setting, but....yag.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 8, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> You do after squeezing Cyberpunk v3 onto the market, in a complete inability to understand what made one's own games popular.
> 
> I mean, I'll grab the construction manual whenever it hits because I convert some designs to Interlock for a homebrew 'firm' sci-fi setting, but....yag.



I'm not exactly certain how much of this I should be yakking about; on the other hand Mike did put this info out into the Mekton Z ML, so hey, if he didn't want it to be yakked about, he should have asked us to sign an NDA first.

At any rate: Mekton 0 is to be the first new edition of Mekton in, by the time it's out it will probably be a decade and a half. This is about 10 years longer than Mike originally planned, by the way; if he had not withdrawn from the RPG industry from 1997-2005, it would have been released (as Mekton Double Zeta) in 1999 or 2000. He said game mechanics changes are going to be rather small, primary difference being that the cinematic combat rules (Mekton Z: The Movie in the current edition) are to be more tightly integrated into core, tracking damage totals on six to thirteen different hit locations being a royal pain in the @$$. Algol will be again primarily integrated into the core rules but not as part of the crunch; the timeline is advanced again and it's now two decades after the flight of the _Rimfire_. The Axis are, as usual, up to no goddamned good and the Kargans after twenty years of relative peace are up to their old tricks.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 8, 2007)

These DMG design notes are some of the most promising elements I've heard yet for 4e:



			
				Lenaianel said:
			
		

> *"When a player puts forward what you consider a plausible countermeasure for a trap, the next step is to determine the best resolution method and a suitable action cost for the countermeasure—even if that countermeasure doesn’t exist in the trap’s presentation....
> In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes to traps and hazards."
> 
> "Corollary to the Second Principle: Thinking players are engaged players: reward clever ideas.
> ...



The part that seems obviously incorrect, imo, is this: *"We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be."*  3e made its money selling supplements for every PrC, feat, and new cool power for the game.  4e says it will be adding these for every level and every class.  How is this not needless complication?  ...or is it a complication which makes the game profitable?

To keep the quote in context however, Mr. Mearls does go on:







> Roleplaying is not some sacred hobby that requires a minimum mental or creative requirement. There are few enough outlets for creativity in the world that I'd never stoop to make D&D less accessible.
> 
> The core of D&D is roleplay and the DM as creator/judge/actor/storyteller. Those two tools are the advantage that we have over every other form of game out there. They are awesome advantages, powerful enough to keep D&D going for over 30 years. We'd be insanely stupid to get rid of them or de-emphasize them.



That's definitely right on target.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 8, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Is there an Organization of Tai Kwan Do? How about an organization of Kung Fu? There are schools that _teach_ Tai Kwan Do, and there are Masters of Tai Kwan Do, but there isn't a building somewhere that says "Tai Kwan Do Headquarters" or "Official The Tai Kwan Do School"*..




There might not be one, but there are organizations for TaeKwonDo. The International TaeKwonDo Federation and World TaeKwonDo Federation  are the two largest governing organizations of TKD and each has their own headquarters with schools in many different countries. The former was founded by General Cho, who organized the main kwans. The latter is responsible for getting TKD into the olympics (although the ITF also was pursuing the same). Then, there are other organizations like the American TKD Association, North American TKD association, and others (e.g., American Korean TKD Association) with their own associated schools.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 8, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> There might not be one, but there are organizations for TaeKwonDo. The International TaeKwonDo Federation and World TaeKwonDo Federation  are the two largest governing organizations of TKD and each has their own headquarters with schools in many different countries. The former was founded by General Cho, who organized the main kwans. The latter is responsible for getting TKD into the olympics (although the ITF also was pursuing the same). Then, there are other organizations like the American TKD Association, North American TKD association, and others (e.g., American Korean TKD Association) with their own associated schools.



Actually, that does help my point, in a different kind of way.

See, you can have _multiple organizations_ that still use the _same dang thing_: TaeKwonDo. So you can have 'The Wizardly Wizards of Wizen Asskickers" that practices Golden Wyvern, and the "Eldrich Education Emporium" that teaches Golden Wyvern - and neither has to call themselves "Golden Wyvern Inc".


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 9, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> And as far as we know nothing in 4E will inhibit this any more than in previous editions. D&D has always had its own flavour built in to the rules. If your argument is that 4E has finally crossed the line (whatever that means), well, we don't have 4E yet so any assumptions of that kind are just that, assumptions.




All we know about 4E so far seems to actually encourage this more than earlier editions.  There's a greater range of archetypes playable, and the lessened dependence on magic items creates a greater range of magic "power levels."

As for the Golden Wyvern thing, why is it so hard to just gloss over it?  When it comes down to it, using the golden wyvern adept feat is no different than using power attack, cleave, or spring attack.  It can be as behind the scenes as hit points and levels if you want it, or you can build something around the fluff the name implies; it's up to you, and it's not difficult to ignore the name and keep the feat if you find it so bothersome.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 9, 2007)

> As for the Golden Wyvern thing, why is it so hard to just gloss over it? When it comes down to it, using the golden wyvern adept feat is no different than using power attack, cleave, or spring attack. It can be as behind the scenes as hit points and levels if you want it, or you can build something around the fluff the name implies; it's up to you, and it's not difficult to ignore the name and keep the feat if you find it so bothersome.




My basic question is this: does it add anything for the minor annoyances it causes?

Right now, in the preview stage, it doesn't. As I illustrated above, no one WANTS a Golden Wyvern thing.

But that's mostly because no one knows what it is in context yet. That might change.

Basically, they have to prove to me that it's worth it. They haven't. Ergo, at the moment, I'm kind of critical of it, because from where I'm standing, it's a hassle without a hook, just a problem, not a benefit.

When I see everything in context, it's entirely likely that, given new insight, I will change this tune. I hope I will.

To say that right now all we have to do is "gloss over it" is ignoring the fact that, as far as we know, there's no REASON for it to be there in the first place.

So it basically boils down to faith. If you have faith in WotC to make it worthwhile, you're cool with it. You'll gloss over it for the promise that it might provide something. If you lack that faith, if you're more agnostic about the whole affair, you probably don't see the value in it yet.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The part that seems obviously incorrect, imo, is this: *"We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be."*  3e made its money selling supplements for every PrC, feat, and new cool power for the game.  4e says it will be adding these for every level and every class.  How is this not needless complication?  ...or is it a complication which makes the game profitable?



Adding spells, feats, classes and so on doesn't have to make a game complicated. The only complicated thing canl be deciding what to pick (and that's a good complication in my eyes)

If the game is overly complicated, it doesn't help the game at all. People will not buy supplements because things got more complicated. 
Supplements that make things more complicated are like the 3rd edition Shadowrun expanded cyberware rules in "Man & Machine". Previously (Core rulebook only), you implanted your cyberware and subtracted the essence cost. If you replaced the cyberware, you didn't get essence back, but you could spend the lost essence for something else. With the cyberware rules in a supplement, the doctor had to make multiple skill checks (planning operation, performing operation, providing after-operation health care), and the essence loss couldn't just be filled up with something else, you first had to "re-enable" the lost points, so to speak. _That_'s complicating rules with supplements. It was certainly not a mandatory rule, but, well, it was there...

But adding a new type of cyberware didn't make the system more complicated (at least not per se). Nor did adding a new spell. 

But you're certainly right on one point: Feats, Talents, Spells, and Classes can make the game more profitable. 
But that's not only reason to do it. All these rules exist to provide players a possibility to express their character in mechanical terms. It depends a lot on personal play style how important (and thus how needed) this is, but I think often enough people want the possibility to do exactly this. Roleplaying Games are not just playing a role, they are also playing a game, and it's nice if the game enforces the role we want to play instead of glossing over it.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 9, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> The core should preferably keep the number of D&Disms in it to a minimum, because too many D&Disms alienate D&D from the generic fantasy worldbuilding which is it's core strength.




Bigby (famous for his hand spells)
Pelor
Red Wizard's of Thay
The Hand and Eye of Vecna
The Nine Hells of Baator

NONE of those things are in my current campaign setting. Yet all are in the core books. My setting? *Eberron!* (seem's even WotC has learned to ignore the core fluff when necessary, even with the "If its in D&D, its in Eberron" sales point)

I've been ignoring core-prescribed fluff in my games for years. I've changed names, adapted concepts, tweaked origins, and outright banned things. None of my players have ever complained, and I've gamed with well over 30 different people throughout my time. I will take Warlord, Emerald Frost, Golden Wyvern, Icefire Griffon, Plaguespew Zombie, Dragonborn, and all the other new WotC names tossed at me the same way I took Monk, Tenser, Heironious, Inevitables, Arrowhawk, Half-Orc, and all the other fluffed stuff 3.5 dumped on me, and 3e before that, and 2e before that...

Lighten up. D&D without "D&Disms" is like picking the chocolate chips out of Chocolate Chip Ice Cream and saying its "Vanilla".


----------



## rounser (Dec 9, 2007)

> Bigby (famous for his hand spells)
> Pelor
> Red Wizard's of Thay
> The Hand and Eye of Vecna
> The Nine Hells of Baator



It's a matter of scope.  Single spells?  Artifacts?  Very little screentime.  Easy to ignore.  Negligible impact on worldbuilding.  Easy to exclude or rename.

Core races, core classes? Massive amount of screentime.  In your face.  Everywhere.  Hard to rename, because referenced so much.  World-defining.


----------



## Simon Marks (Dec 9, 2007)

How about "Magic User" (possibly the worst name in D&D history)?

I survived that, I'll survive almost anything.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 9, 2007)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> How about "Magic User" (possibly the worst name in D&D history)?
> 
> I survived that, I'll survive almost anything.



Oh, to be back in the days of Fighting Men and Magic-Users, when halflings were hobbits and treants were ents...


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> It's a matter of scope.  Single spells?  Artifacts?  Very little screentime.  Easy to ignore.  Negligible impact on worldbuilding.  Easy to exclude or rename.
> 
> Core races, core classes? Massive amount of screentime.  In your face.  Everywhere.  Hard to rename, because referenced so much.  World-defining.




Yes and no though.  How often, in game, do you ever refer to your character's class?  Even out of game, you don't repeatedly state that you are class X or Y.  You say it once and that's it.  Same goes for feats.  Except for a few like Power Attack, how often do you actually reference a feat by name.  You simply roll your dice, add the modifier and away you go.  

No one actually specifically calls out Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization on each and every attack, even though it has an effect each time.  GWA only comes into play when you modify the area of a spell.  How much screen time it sees is very variable, and, even when it's used, will likely not be referenced by name.  You simply shape the area of your attack and move on.

Heck, I'd actually like it if race DID get referenced more often.  I've played with far too many gamers who pick Race X and then never reference it again.  When you get one player turning to another and saying, "You're an elf?  I didn't know that." after six months of gaming.  Maybe by making the races a little more overt they'll actually spur people into playing more than bumpy headed humans or humans with pointy ears, or short humans.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> Yes and no though. How often, in game, do you ever refer to your character's class? Even out of game, you don't repeatedly state that you are class X or Y. You say it once and that's it. Same goes for feats. Except for a few like Power Attack, how often do you actually reference a feat by name. You simply roll your dice, add the modifier and away you go.



It turns up in NPC stats, it's part of the shorthand of thinking about characters, it affects world development etc. etc. I could write an essay about the importance, but I can't really be bothered...and it's so easy to get right, that it seems such a shame to do it wrong in the core.  I'm not sure why WOTC are settling for less, except that they have their priorities in the crunch (i.e. "we need a leader class, and hey these abilities are cool, let's stack them on in there"), and are just railroading the flavour to suit those needs.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> It turns up in NPC stats, it's part of the shorthand of thinking about characters, it affects world development etc. etc. I could write an essay about the importance, but I can't really be bothered...and it's so easy to get right, that it seems such a shame to do it wrong in the core.  I'm not sure why WOTC are settling for less, except that they have their priorities in the crunch (i.e. "we need a leader class, and hey these abilities are cool, let's stack them on in there"), and are just railroading the flavour to suit those needs.




I think you're going to have to write that essay, because I just don't see it.  Who cares if it appears on the NPC statblock?  Again, it's never referenced in game and, well, if monsters or artifacts don't count, then NPC's shouldn't either.  After all, they aren't getting any more screen time either.

As far as world building goes, again, who cares?  If planar cosmologies, dieties, etc didn't slow people down, I don't know why this would.  After all, the cosmology of D&D affects every core spellcaster to a fair degree.  

I think people are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> I think people are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.



Maybe.  But if you downplay the importance of something as fundamental as core classes and races, then what flavour's important to the game at all?  Nothing?  Is it only the crunch which is important?  How many dice you roll for task resolution?  The number of "steps" in combat? Yes, that must be it...


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Maybe.  But if you downplay the importance of something as fundamental as core classes and races, then what flavour's important to the game at all?  Nothing?  Is it only the crunch which is important?  How many dice you roll for task resolution?  The number of "steps" in combat? Yes, that must be it...




Well, I play almost exclusively from the SRD, so, obviously flavour doesn't mean a whole lot to me.  

But, besides that, how often do your players actually stick to the flavour that's actually IN the 3.5 books.  Do your elf players wax longingly about the forests?  Or, are they like my players and play the characters they envision for themselves and pretty much ignore the books.

My problem is that people are saying that the books were generic.  They're not.  3.5 hardwires flavour into the game.  The races of D&D are only generic because D&D made them generic.  I mean, how often do you see elves in S&S fantasy?  Halflings only appear in the works of one author, they're hardly generic.  D&D made all these races generic fantasy.

The same way that D&D will make Golden Wyvern Adepts generic fantasy.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> My problem is that people are saying that the books were generic. They're not. 3.5 hardwires flavour into the game. The races of D&D are only generic because D&D made them generic. I mean, how often do you see elves in S&S fantasy? Halflings only appear in the works of one author, they're hardly generic. D&D made all these races generic fantasy.
> 
> The same way that D&D will make Golden Wyvern Adepts generic fantasy.



You've lost me there.  Elves are from mythology, and fantasy draws heavily on that for the kind of mythic resonance that makes fantasy so popular in the first place.  Golden Wyvern Adepts are arbitrary and sound like they're from a specific campaign world, whereas elves are "public domain fantasy", and thick with archetype and assumed knowledge.  Therein lies the difference.  

WOTC even admits that this is _why_ they're proper nouning things and turning to specific D&Disms rather than fantasy conventions - purely for legal reasons, and obviously they see no harm to the game in it.  There are some compelling reasons not to do this, IMO, and I do see it harming the game's overall worth.  

It goes from "Sim Fantasy Worlds" to "Sim This Quirky Specific Fantasy World" moreso than it already is.  (I mean, admittedly we have clerics and other, more minor core D&Disms already, but they're adding a whole lot of fuel to the fire this time around with a bunch of new classes and races made core.  Warlock fits, it has a strong archetype, whereas Warlord appears to be a bunch of abilities strapped to a misnomer, in search of an archetype.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> It's a matter of scope.  Single spells?  Artifacts?  Very little screentime.  Easy to ignore.  Negligible impact on worldbuilding.  Easy to exclude or rename.
> 
> Core races, core classes? Massive amount of screentime.  In your face.  Everywhere.  Hard to rename, because referenced so much.  World-defining.



Sparking your imagination. 

Not "WoW, did you see what Spell Shaper does! Cool, I want it for my Wizard. Only 500 XP and counting!"
"Gold Wyvern Adept. Who are these gold wyvern? I want to know more about them!"


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> Not "WoW, did you see what Spell Shaper does! Cool, I want it for my Wizard. Only 500 XP and counting!"
> "Gold Wyvern Adept. Who are these gold wyvern? I want to know more about them!"



Actually, I don't want to know about them.  They have a silly name.


----------



## Dalamar (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> You've lost me there.  Elves are from mythology, and fantasy draws heavily on that for the kind of mythic resonance that makes fantasy so popular in the first place.  Golden Wyvern Adepts are arbitrary and sound like they're from a specific campaign world, whereas elves are "public domain fantasy", and thick with archetype and assumed knowledge.  Therein lies the difference.



The first thing that most people think of when you say "elf" is the guys who help Santa Claus. Does that mean we should make elves into crafters? Many mythologies have them as tiny, sprite-like spirit creatures, yet DnD elves are clearly from tolkien's vision of them.


			
				rounser said:
			
		

> WOTC even admits that this is _why_ they're proper nouning things and turning to specific D&Disms rather than fantasy conventions - purely for legal reasons, and obviously they see no harm to the game in it.  There are some compelling reasons not to do this, IMO, and I do see it harming the game's overall worth.



Where have they confirmed this? I have only seen people theorizing that this is the case, not anybody at WotC confirming it.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> The first thing that most people think of when you say "elf" is the guys who help Santa Claus. Does that mean we should make elves into crafters?



I think you're being facetious.


> Many mythologies have them as tiny, sprite-like spirit creatures, yet DnD elves are clearly from tolkien's vision of them.



Tolkien didn't come up with elves in this form.  There's celtic mythology (the Tuatha De Danan or something) and at least one fantasy book I know of that predates him.  I'd like to know of these "many mythologies" you refer to.


> Where have they confirmed this



There's a quote from Mearls to this effect.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Maybe.  But if you downplay the importance of something as fundamental as core classes and races, then what flavour's important to the game at all?  Nothing?  Is it only the crunch which is important?  How many dice you roll for task resolution?  The number of "steps" in combat? Yes, that must be it...



Yes, that IS the important thing in the game, strangely enough.  That's why I buy a game system and not make it up myself.  I could run generic fantasy in GURPS, Paladium Fantasy, Hero System, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Rolemaster, or any number of other games.

I buy D&D because I like the rules in it better than the other games.  In each and every one of those games if I want to run a fantasy game I'm going to have to make a lot of changes to the rules to get away from some of the default setting elements unless I want to run a game in the implied setting that each game supports.  And because of the math involved, it will assume people in that world miss a certain percentage of the time(and the amount that it varies from creature to creature).  A world in which the PCs hit 95% of the time and kill most enemies in 1 hit will come across as an entirely different game that one where PCs hit 5% of the time and require 20 hits to kill an enemy.  Elves may have the ability to see in the dark in GURPS and not in Paladium Fantasy.  This changes the implied setting.

Rules of a game HEAVILY define an implied setting.  From the big to the small.  I could see getting just as worked up about the fact that there are rogues in the game(implying that some people sneak around and use stealthy tactics when such a thing might not exist in my game world) as I could getting annoyed at Golden Wyvern.  It's simply a matter of taste and tradition.  Golden Wyvern hasn't existed before but rogues have.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> Yes, that IS the important thing in the game, strangely enough.



That is, indeed, very strange.  D&D's rules have always been one of it's weaker points, IMO, and yet other things attract people to the game.  I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> It goes from "Sim Fantasy Worlds" to "Sim This Quirky Specific Fantasy World" moreso than it already is.  (I mean, admittedly we have clerics and other, more minor core D&Disms already, but they're adding a whole lot of fuel to the fire this time around with a bunch of new classes and races made core.  Warlock fits, it has a strong archetype, whereas Warlord appears to be a bunch of abilities strapped to a misnomer, in search of an archetype.)




Sounds to me that you don't want to play a game of D&D, you want of game of "Generic Fantasy Role-Playing Simulator d20." 

I play D&D to play D&D. I don't whine about the appropriateness of the name "cleric" (why not priest? its what is it) or "fighter" (warrior, warrior, warrior) or anything like that any more than being upset garlic doesn't effect a _World of Darkness_ Vampire or that my Jedi can't throw fireballs in _Star Wars Saga_. D&D is drifting away from being catch all of every possible fantasy trope and moving toward a unique (if slightly generic) setting that all the core books will support. 

After playing the absolutely dirt-bland 2e core and the slightly-more flavored (Greyhawk) 3e, I'm interested to see what this moderately spicy 4e will taste like. So far, I'm liking it. YMMV.


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> Sounds to me that you don't want to play a game of D&D, you want of game of "Generic Fantasy Role-Playing Simulator d20."



No, that doesn't come with enough implied setting.

I like D&D's implied setting, but I want it to stay like a comfy sofa, table and chairs - usable, comfortable, but also somewhat in the background - and solid fantasy tropes like elves and dwarves deliver on that.  Not like an elephant in the living room, blocking out the other furniture I want to put in there, just because someone at WOTC really likes elephants (or dragonmen, or whatever).  It does have the odd D&Dism in the core, but a little ungraceful design which is there for purely gamist reasons (i.e. cleric) is not an invitation to open the gates to a lot of it. 

And you try to make me sound like I'm an isolated outsider, when the surveys suggest that for once I'm in the majority.  Do you really, truly think that D&D would be anywhere near as popular as it is if it shut out homebrews?  A strongly flavoured implied setting will by definition do that.  Sure, some will have no problem and just incorporate the kitchen sink into their setting, while the rest of us will be left bailing out material we don't want or need.


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> No, that doesn't come with enough implied setting.
> 
> I like D&D's implied setting, but I want it to stay like a comfy sofa, table and chairs - usable, comfortable, but also somewhat in the background - and solid fantasy tropes like elves and dwarves deliver on that.  Not like an elephant in the living room, blocking out the other furniture I want to put in there, just because someone at WOTC really likes elephants (or dragonmen, or whatever).  It does have the odd D&Dism in the core, but a little ungraceful design which is there for purely gamist reasons (i.e. cleric) is not an invitation to open the gates to a lot of it.
> 
> And you try to make me sound like I'm an isolated outsider, when the surveys suggest that for once I'm in the majority.  Do you really, truly think that D&D would be anywhere near as popular as it is if it shut out homebrews?  A strongly flavoured implied setting will by definition do that.  Sure, some will have no problem and just incorporate the kitchen sink into their setting, while the rest of us will be left bailing out material we don't want or need.




I've always had to bail out material that didn't fit my home game. Gnomes, out! Halflings, out! That's part of running a homebrew campaign IMNSHO.

For the first time since 1980 I may have fewer things in the PHB that I don't have to write out of my games. So far it is only halflings this time around. Although the less they resemble hobbits, the more likely I am to leave them in.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> And you try to make me sound like I'm an isolated outsider, when the surveys suggest that for once I'm in the majority.



Please tell me that you're not referring to any surveys on ENWorld or any other gaming site. Those surveys are worse than worthless. They're misleading. They are a self-selecting sample of a minority of board dwellers who just happen to feel strongly enough about whatever the survey is about to actually take part in it. Depending what site you go to, you could get a survey that shows that most of the voters want to be fire engines.

Those surveys mean squat; I wish people would stop referring to them.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> A strongly flavoured implied setting will by definition do that.  Sure, some will have no problem and just incorporate the kitchen sink into their setting, while the rest of us will be left bailing out material we don't want or need.




I guess I don't understand how POL is a strong setting. From what I've read, and from what Mearls said, POL is deliberately vague. *Anything* could be out there in the darkness... including light! It's all up to the DM, and the players.

Compare to, say, Krynn. Or good grief, the Forgotten Realms where every square inch is mapped out, and advanced nations have huge standing armies and assembly lines for magic items. The default D&D setting sounds a lot like the setting from Keep on the Borderlands and In Search of the Unknown: menacing, full of old ruins and dungeons, and as undefined as possible.

Are you talking about the Tieflings, Dragonborn, Elves, Dwarves, and other races? The available classes? D&D is still very much a game made of packaged selections--it's not point buy, like GURPS--so those elements have to be in there. Obviously you can cut out anything you don't like. My last 3E campaign didn't have any elves, or the Fly & Teleport spells. Easy as pie. I don't see how 4E will be more difficult to customize. If anything, the vague POL setting makes it easier to tweak. Don't like Dragonborn, and their ancient empire? Cut the race entirely (make the old empire a Human one), or make Dragonborn extinct. Keep the ruins and dungeons (PCs need places to adventure). 

-z


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 11, 2007)

Doc_Klueless said:
			
		

> Please tell me that you're not referring to any surveys on ENWorld or any other gaming site. Those surveys are worse than worthless. They're misleading. They are a self-selecting sample of a minority of board dwellers who just happen to feel strongly enough about whatever the survey is about to actually take part in it. Depending what site you go to, you could get a survey that shows that most of the voters want to be fire engines.
> 
> Those surveys mean squat; I wish people would stop referring to them.




You, sir, have been quoted for truth.


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> I guess I don't understand how POL is a strong setting.



I think you misunderstand: The implied setting is not just POL (although that's part of it), it's dragonborn, "warlords", and whatever else they deign to put in the core (the real core of PHB1, not the "core sells better, so everything is core" core which is going to be everything under the sun by the look of it).  Unless you specifically exclude it.

I think POL is a great idea; it seems just be putting into words what has always been the D&D default, more or less - the odd town, village or city and wilderness in between full of roaming monsters.  This has long been implied by wandering monster tables for the great outdoors, so it's not really much new, just spelled out.

It'll be interesting to see if they can nut out some logic as to why the local cave full of trolls just plain doesn't raze the local village to the ground within half an hour, though.  I've toyed with the idea of rings of dolmens or standing stones with antipathy vs monsters on them, maintained by the local druids, but concluded that that was overthinking things.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 11, 2007)

I agree with Zara.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 11, 2007)

Doc_Klueless said:
			
		

> Please tell me that you're not referring to any surveys on ENWorld or any other gaming site. Those surveys are worse than worthless. They're misleading. They are a self-selecting sample of a minority of board dwellers who just happen to feel strongly enough about whatever the survey is about to actually take part in it. Depending what site you go to, you could get a survey that shows that most of the voters want to be fire engines.



QFMFT. Sig'ed, even.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 11, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> My last 3E campaign didn't have any elves, or the Fly & Teleport spells. Easy as pie. I don't see how 4E will be more difficult to customize. If anything, the vague POL setting makes it easier to tweak.



Most certainly true.

Customization will be very easy.

And with GWA it will be something like this:

DM: I've removed Elves.
Player:  OK
DM: I've removed Fly.
Player: OK
DM: I've removed Teleport.
Player: OK
DM: Fireball is called Jack's Flaming Revenge.
Player: OK
DM: Golden Wyvern Adept is called Spell Tactics.
Player: What was that again?  Was that the one that gives you a +2 to overcome spell resistance if you move first?
DM: No, no, that was Purple River Sage, though in my game it is called Spell Placement.
Player:  ohh..  I thought the River thing was the one that gave you +3 to hit when you jump.  
DM: No, that was...  Ah crap, Let's play GURPS.

Exaggeration?  Yeah.  But there is a fundamental difference between communicating changes built on a simple descriptive system and communicating changes in a system that requires memorization of random nomenclature.  Renaming or removing GWA will be no harder than renaming or removing elves.  Which is to say it will be trivially easy.  Expecting a group of casual players to keep up with changes around GWA will be significantly harder than expecting them to keep up with "no elves".  If they kept elves in 4E but instead of elves they called them Hoos Hoos, you could tell a player that you have removed Hoos Hoos and it wouldn't be unreasonable for a casual player to say, "ok, thats fine.  As long as I can play an Elf I don't care."


----------



## IanB (Dec 11, 2007)

I like everything - everything! - he says in his response, but for one thing: I just can't get past the "golden wyvern" type stuff working its way into so many subsystems. If it was just in the "description" paragraph of the wizard class description or whatever, fine, but my players are *never* going to remember when I tell them "OK guys, in my game "Golden Wyvern" is actually "<something actually appropriate to my setting>", they're just going to keep calling it Golden Wyvern until I crack and change my game to match their fluff.

That = annoying. Otherwise, great stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> It goes from "Sim Fantasy Worlds" to "Sim This Quirky Specific Fantasy World" moreso than it already is.  (I mean, admittedly we have clerics and other, more minor core D&Disms already, but they're adding a whole lot of fuel to the fire this time around with a bunch of new classes and races made core.  Warlock fits, it has a strong archetype, whereas Warlord appears to be a bunch of abilities strapped to a misnomer, in search of an archetype.)




See, there's the difference.  You're calling it minor core D&Disms.  I say that D&D is loaded with D&Disms.  The races are NOT mythologically based, they're D&D creations based on Tolkien.  They might have a very tenous link back to myth, but, sieved through so many reinterpretations that they are purely D&D.  



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> And you try to make me sound like I'm an isolated outsider, when the surveys suggest that for once I'm in the majority. Do you really, truly think that D&D would be anywhere near as popular as it is if it shut out homebrews? A strongly flavoured implied setting will by definition do that. Sure, some will have no problem and just incorporate the kitchen sink into their setting, while the rest of us will be left bailing out material we don't want or need.




You are making the mistake that homebrewers are all world builders and I think that's completely false.  I think the majority of homebrewers are patchwork DM's.  They use whatever they can steal from whatever source and only create when forced to.  The true world builders are actually in a very, very small minority.

This also fits perfectly with the polling.  The huge popularity of articles from Dragon like the Core Beliefs articles.  If homebrew DM's were world builders, then these articles would be largely useless - they wouldn't fit.  But, these are some of the most popular articles Dragon had done in years.  Because they fit best with the patchwork DM's.


----------



## Drammattex (Dec 11, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> but my players are *never* going to remember when I tell them "OK guys, in my game "Golden Wyvern" is actually "<something actually appropriate to my setting>", they're just going to keep calling it Golden Wyvern until I crack and change my game to match their fluff.




heh heh. Yeah... 

Coincidentally, this is also one of the big reasons I love 4e right now. 4e has changed to more accurately reflect MY game. Soon, many of the rules & flavor I've been tweaking & house ruling will have "official" versions and I'll have to house rule and tweak a whole lot less... er, hopefully.


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> The races are NOT mythologically based, they're D&D creations based on Tolkien.



I'm saying this till I'm blue in the face, but Tolkien didn't come up with this stuff, and he's not the first one to use it in fantasy either.  Go read some celtic mythology, or norse mythology.  To say that mythology and fantasy in general doesn't own elves, dwarves, wizards etc. is simply ignorance.  


> You are making the mistake that homebrewers are all world builders and I think that's completely false. I think the majority of homebrewers are patchwork DM's. They use whatever they can steal from whatever source and only create when forced to. The true world builders are actually in a very, very small minority.



You're simply speculating, here.  I could just as easily be right as you.  Anecdotal experience suggests I am, but that's not going to stand up in court.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> I'm saying this till I'm blue in the face, but Tolkien didn't come up with this stuff, and he's not the first one to use it in fantasy either.  Go read some celtic mythology, or norse mythology.  To say that mythology and fantasy in general doesn't own elves, dwarves, wizards etc. is simply ignorance.
> 
> You're simply speculating, here.  I could just as easily be right as you.  Anecdotal experience suggests I am, but that's not going to stand up in court.




Sure, mythology has elves and dwarves and the like.  What it doesn't have is elves and dwarves in the same story standing side by side.  And the elves and dwarves of fantasy resemble D&D elves and dwarves in name only.  I mean, come on, elf as woodsy archer type?  That's not mythological.  Dwarves should be very powerful sorcerers if they were myth based.  After all, dwarves in stories are almost always hugely powerful magic users.  Turn straw into gold.  Turn people into stone.  etc.  etc.

That's my point.  While D&D may have borrowed the names, they've certainly put them in a very D&D context that has little or no relation to their original sources.


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> Sure, mythology has elves and dwarves and the like. What it doesn't have is elves and dwarves in the same story standing side by side.



You're really stretching here, I'm pretty sure that wasn't a Tolkien first either.  Tolkien wasn't even the first to have trolls and elves in the same story, for instance, and that's norse crossed with celtic.  Admittedly dwarves are more likely to hang out with giants in mythology, so you do have something there perhaps, but no, these are not Tolkienisms, nor are they D&Disms.  

Are they mythologically resonant, though, thick with fantasy flavour, implication and assumed knowledge in a way that the term "eladrin" isn't?  You bet.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstand: The implied setting is not just POL (although that's part of it), it's dragonborn, "warlords", and whatever else they deign to put in the core (the real core of PHB1, not the "core sells better, so everything is core" core which is going to be everything under the sun by the look of it).  Unless you specifically exclude it.
> 
> I think POL is a great idea; it seems just be putting into words what has always been the D&D default, more or less - the odd town, village or city and wilderness in between full of roaming monsters.  This has long been implied by wandering monster tables for the great outdoors, so it's not really much new, just spelled out.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if they can nut out some logic as to why the local cave full of trolls just plain doesn't raze the local village to the ground within half an hour, though.  I've toyed with the idea of rings of dolmens or standing stones with antipathy vs monsters on them, maintained by the local druids, but concluded that that was overthinking things.




How is dragonborn and "warlords" any different than the monks, half-orcs, and psionics that Gary put in the AD&D Players Handbook? Only difference I see is 20 years of "acceptance". 

Fact is, D&D has always had fluff dictate crunch.

Dwarves cannot be magic users because dwarves hate magic.
There is only one 14th level druid in the whole world at any given time. They all belong to the same super-secret organization, even the local wild hermit in the grotto over yonder.
Elves cannot be brought back from the dead, as they have spirits, not souls.
Paladin's only ever keep 10 magical items on them: a suit of armor, a shield, 2 weapons and six misc (excluding potions). 
Due to there long lives and alien mindsets, the most powerful elven magic user can only reach 15th level in experience.
Magic doesn't work in armor. Unless you are also trained as a fighter.
The Gods frown on priests who use sharp objects, even the Gods of War, Destruction and Death.
Rangers who cease to uphold goodness in their hearts loose the ability to track. 
Gnomes have no interest, aptitude or desire to learn magic unless it belongs to the "illusion" school.
Humans alone can dual-class, unless your a half-elf who is attempting to become a bard...

As dumb as they seem now, they dictated game rules. I fail to see how "Golden Wyvern" is any more ridiculous...


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> How is dragonborn and "warlords" any different than the monks, half-orcs, and psionics that Gary put in the AD&D Players Handbook? Only difference I see is 20 years of "acceptance".



You make the mistake of assuming that I think these things aren't D&Disms, and that they automatically belong in the core because I'm engaging in edition wars.  You assume wrong.

I've always thought psionics didn't fit (Gygax agrees in retrospect), monks to be too oriental not to be a D&Dism amongst so many occidental archetypes, and that half-orcs were borderline D&Disms (being half-breeds), and perhaps too monstrous.

They're indeed there in the core, though.  My point is that just because we have some D&Disms in the core as classes and races, that doesn't imply a blank cheque to overrun the core with them.


> Fact is, D&D has always had fluff dictate crunch.



And that's as it should be! (Within reason.)  Some of the aesthetically worst monsters I've seen for D&D are in the 3E MM, and come from reversing this equation.  WOTC seem all too willing to leave flavour as an afterthought, bowing to some crunch need. This is bad news if not done in moderation IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 11, 2007)

> They're indeed there in the core, though. My point is that just because we have some D&Disms in the core as classes and races, that doesn't imply a blank cheque to overrun the core with them.




I guess that's where the disconnect comes.  You see these as minor elements in the game.  I think that D&D has always been overrun in the core with D&Disms.  

And, no matter how many we point out, people refuse to budge from this position.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> You make the mistake of assuming that I think these things aren't D&Disms, and that they automatically belong in the core because I'm engaging in edition wars.  You assume wrong.
> 
> I've always thought psionics didn't fit (Gygax agrees in retrospect), monks to be too oriental not to be a D&Dism amongst so many occidental archetypes, and that half-orcs were borderline D&Disms (being half-breeds), and perhaps too monstrous.
> 
> They're indeed there in the core, though.  My point is that just because we have some D&Disms in the core as classes and races, that doesn't imply a blank cheque to overrun the core with them.




I'm missing your point.

You either

a.) Want a absolutely generic core-book which is flavored via supplements (Forgotten Realms) or homebrew.
b.) Want 4e to only carry "legacy" fluff (gnomes and clerics) but not "new fluff" (dragonborn and warlocks) (and legacy has to be accepted legacy, so no monks or barbarians)
c.) Want only fluff that has some historical/mythological pedigree (elf yes, eladrin no)
d.) Want only fluff you personally like and damn the rest. (j/k)
e.) Other

Otherwise, I fail to see your pain.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> You're really stretching here,




Dude, and you're really stretching if you're trying to equate D&D Elves, Dwarfs, etc to their mythological namesakes.  Tolkien may not have been the first to put them in the distinct forms that D&D's versions are drawn from, but he definitely codified the coexistence of them in those forms.  In mythology, Elf and Dwarf mean a whole plethora of different things depending on which mythological source and what translation you're reading.  You can point to an Elf that precedes Tolkein's Elves, and say, "this came first," but that doesn't mean it didn't first go through the lens of Tolkien before becoming a D&Dism.

I still don't understand why people think the Golden Wyvern is going to force definitions upon their homebrewed fluff.  Seriously, it's a feat; you can gloss the name without trouble.  You don't have to rename it to fit your fluff because it doesn't have to exist in your fluff at all.  It's just a damn feat, like power attack or mobility.

I can't comprehend the argument that all this new stuff is somehow limiting you're ability to play generic fantasy with the D&D rules.  Tieflings, Dragonborn, Eladrin, Warlords, and Warlocks do nothing but add to the range of generic fantasy you can play with D&D.

Finally, to all the people who are saying warlord is a bunch of abilities in search of an archetype, what about King Arthur, Odysseus, Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Guan Yu?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 11, 2007)

> I still don't understand why people think the Golden Wyvern is going to force definitions upon their homebrewed fluff. Seriously, it's a feat; you can gloss the name without trouble. You don't have to rename it to fit your fluff because it doesn't have to exist in your fluff at all. It's just a damn feat, like power attack or mobility.




To put it in context, the objection, again, isn't that you can't gloss over it. It's that people don't understand why they should have to when the words "golden wyvern" don't add ANYTHING to the game, as far as can be seen from the previews thus far. I made a diagram, even -- people didn't ask for it, while things people DID ask for are being ignored.

And having to gloss over it is a little bump. It's not a game-breaker per se, but if this is representative of many of the feats in the PH, then there will be many more little bumps, and those will be much more annoying en masse. But more to the point right now, that little bump has no justification for being there. I adds NOTHING to the game, as far as is evident from the previews. 

This could all be revealed later, and perhaps it will be worth the annoyances when seen in context, but the trust isn't high amongst those with a problem with the feat. 



> I can't comprehend the argument that all this new stuff is somehow limiting you're ability to play generic fantasy with the D&D rules. Tieflings, Dragonborn, Eladrin, Warlords, and Warlocks do nothing but add to the range of generic fantasy you can play with D&D.




It's not necessarily limiting the ability to play generic fantasy. It's limiting my ability to take the rules and do _whatever I want_ to them.

Again, the comparison that crops up in my head is that the original 3e rules were locked up and transplanted anywhere from Africa to the Wild West to Rome to the biblical era to the age of pirates to colonial America without, largely, changing the words around. 

I think the tell for this will be the 4e SRD. Check the 3e SRD against the 3e core books -- that's how much "D&D" was in 3e (e.g.: not that much. Some wizard's names and a few monsters). If the 4e SRD has more changes in it than the 3e SRD, then 4e will be "less generic" than 3e, and thus less easily portable to somewhere else just out of the box.

Perhaps that's part of the intent, but from where I'm sitting, making it harder to disentangle 4e from 4e's implied setting works against one of the major strengths of tabletop gaming: that is, the ability of the gaming group to OWN how they play the game. That I could be playing a french elf paladin in mythic colonial america and you could be playing a dwarf samurai in mythic japan and next week we could be playing a group of people going against a vampire lord in Ravenloft in a third game, and we're all playing it as D&D and referencing the same Power Attack feat is a very very strong element of 3e D&D, and of D&D in general (which has always be kludged into new shapes, even if it didn't entirely fit comfortably). 4e's ability to support that, if things like "golden wyvern adept" feats are the norm, is reduced from that of 3e. The more 4e has it's own 4e-isms, the less easily I can inject my own group's -isms. 

It's not GWA per se, it's more the fact that it can represent a whole approach that threatens one of the best things about D&D. That is, if you're inclined to be suspicious of WotC. And given that "making new IP" is a voiced consideration, but "supporting your ability to play the game outside of our core assumptions" isn't, it's not an unreasonable suspicion to have.

We won't know for sure 'till the books get here, but these are entirely valid concerns that spring out of Golden Wyvern Adept, and none of them are about how hard it is to remind your players that GWA has a different name in your campaign. They're all about how hard WotC is pushing their own pet setting fluff that, it must be said, _no one really groks_ at the moment. If the books come out and it's still as obtuse as it seems now, we have a problem in the way that the 1e grappling rules were a problem: no one will really use it.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 11, 2007)

Thank you, Kamikaze Midget. I think I get it now. GWA doesn't *add* anything. It's doesn't make the game better. And it pisses off some people. A net negative. So why not replace it with a more generic, content-neutral descriptive term? A net zero?

Is that about right? 

Still don't see how "warlord" hurts anything, though. That's just a cool, generic name for a guy who leads a warband. No more or less descriptive than fighter, wizard, etc. That can stay, certainly. Dragonborn and Tiefling are wholly different names. "Dragonborn" is WotC's relatively new infatuation with compound names (Frostburn, Stormwrack, etc.), while "Tiefling" is just a made-up name. So, "Dragonborn" could just as likely have been "Hooha" (or whatever), and "Tiefling" could have been "Hellspawned" (or whatever). I'm fine with either. They're new, and they fill gaps made from half-orc (tough, militaristic) and gnome (weird, mystical).


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Dec 11, 2007)

I don't think that GWA hurts the generic feel of D&D, not more than the fact that there are Dragons and Armor and bows, not more than the fact that in 1st edition druid had to fight other druids to get beyond 12th level, not more the fact that bard in 1st edition had to be fighters than thief and then found a lot of bardic colleges (the horror the horror, so little genericity)

the GWA fits perfectly to the PoL they are "tradition" in the sense that in that specific part of the world the mages that like that spell call themselves GWA

don't like it? it takes 1 line of a campaign note to say "GWA are called Black Mamba Dancer in the Darkflame Campaign Setting", much less work than creating a new pantheon

so please keep Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil and Hidden Flame


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 11, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Thank you, Kamikaze Midget. I think I get it now. GWA doesn't *add* anything. It's doesn't make the game better. And it pisses off some people. A net negative. So why not replace it with a more generic, content-neutral descriptive term? A net zero?



Though here is a part where I'd disagree. GWA does add something to the game. It reinforces the idea that your character is more than a set of powers. It makes you think about "where do these powers come from? How did I pick them up? Who else does it? How does it link me to them?" 

Sure, you could have always done this. "I take the feat Power Attack, and pretend that I picked the technique up from my Half Orc Trainer at the Military Academy". But how many people ever considered that? And how many of them did it at all? And did any DM ever try to create a homebrew in where such abilities where linked to traditions or schools? Wouldn't it be cool if you could say - ah, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Rapier), and Dodge? Did that guy also train Fabornaccis "Contemplations on the Art of Duels"? "Extend Spell, Spell Focus (Abjuration), and Spell Pentration? You would right fit into our Order of Silver Mage". 
The only time this _might_ have happened where in case of Prestige Classes. But that felt pretty heavy-handed, and if you wanted to follow that implication, you were forced to pick up certain abilities that you might not been interested in. 

"Fluffy" feat names invite you to explore such concepts.


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> Still don't see how "warlord" hurts anything, though. That's just a cool, generic name for a guy who leads a warband.



No, it's a misnomer, and IMO it's an overblown lame one.  An adventuring party is not an army, and the name isn't generic, it has a specific meaning that doesn't apply in a D&D party context.  "Champion" is an example of a generic name, and lacks all the implications and baggage that don't apply of the term "warlord".  They really need to go back to the thesaurus on this one, IMO.


----------



## Simon Marks (Dec 11, 2007)

Specifically, the names - Golden Wyvern, Secret Fire et al. _force_ you to consider a concept in regards to the Wizard.

Namely who trained them.

Force is the issue.

Even 3.5 clerics didn't actually need to worship something. I feel this is a weakness of 3.5 - along with the multiclassing rules that obviated the concept of 'training' to join a class.

In 3.5 anyone could in theory become a wizard at any time, in 4e it asks a number of tricky questions.

Still, I'm as hopeful as every that the Traditions will be like Pantheons.

*edit, removed Domains. I actually want Traditions to work like Pantheons*


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 11, 2007)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Specifically, the names - Golden Wyvern, Secret Fire et al. _force_ you to consider a concept in regards to the Wizard.
> 
> Namely who trained them.
> 
> Force is the issue.




If you learn and use Fourier transformations, does that imply that you've been taught by Fourier Adepts?


----------



## Simon Marks (Dec 11, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> If you learn and use Fourier transformations, does that imply that you've been taught by Fourier Adepts?




No, but that's not what is meant.

If you learn to use Fourier transformations (Wizard powers) in a specific way (a tradition), that does imply you have been taught by someone who uses Fourier transformations in the same way.

Doesn't insist on it, just implies it.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 11, 2007)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Specifically, the names - Golden Wyvern, Secret Fire et al. _force_ you to consider a concept in regards to the Wizard.
> 
> Namely who trained them.
> 
> ...




Um, what does that strip prove exactly. Elan was simply dressing up as a wizard.

In all editions of D&D, you had to be "trained" by someone to be a wizard. In the fluff for the 1e/2e wizard it's mentioned that you are sent off by your master with a few spells.

The _SORCEROR_ though. That didn't need a trainer.


----------



## Simon Marks (Dec 11, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Um, what does that strip prove exactly. Elan was simply dressing up as a wizard.




You have to read the strip before to get the full context.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 11, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Perhaps that's part of the intent, but from where I'm sitting, making it harder to disentangle 4e from 4e's implied setting works against one of the major strengths of tabletop gaming: that is, the ability of the gaming group to OWN how they play the game. That I could be playing a french elf paladin in mythic colonial america and you could be playing a dwarf samurai in mythic japan and next week we could be playing a group of people going against a vampire lord in Ravenloft in a third game, and we're all playing it as D&D and referencing the same Power Attack feat is a very very strong element of 3e D&D, and of D&D in general (which has always be kludged into new shapes, even if it didn't entirely fit comfortably). 4e's ability to support that, if things like "golden wyvern adept" feats are the norm, is reduced from that of 3e. The more 4e has it's own 4e-isms, the less easily I can inject my own group's -isms.
> 
> It's not GWA per se, it's more the fact that it can represent a whole approach that threatens one of the best things about D&D. That is, if you're inclined to be suspicious of WotC. And given that "making new IP" is a voiced consideration, but "supporting your ability to play the game outside of our core assumptions" isn't, it's not an unreasonable suspicion to have.





Wow.  Great post.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Dec 11, 2007)

KM said:
			
		

> Again, the comparison that crops up in my head is that the original 3e rules were locked up and transplanted anywhere from Africa to the Wild West to Rome to the biblical era to the age of pirates to colonial America without, largely, changing the words around.




You keep saying this like it should be a given.

350 pages of rules which strip out every class, spell, and monster, add in new mechanics for alignment, honor, damage reduction, feats, and several other changes gives me Oriental Adventures.  That's not minor changes, that's HUGE.  The only similarities here is the d20 mechanics.

Even Scarred Lands, which is far more generic fantasy than Oriental Adventures, rewrites all the races, rewrites clerics and druids, completely changes the spells, adds in Ritual Magic, completely replaces magic items (and adds in the mechanic for magic items to be randomly cursed on creation), changes wizards, and I'm sure there's stuff I'm missing.

That's not minor changes, that's very, very large changes.

To play low magic (as in low powered, rare magic) D&D is very difficult, claims otherwise notwithstanding.  To play in an African campaign, which I assume you're pointing to Nyambe, requires several hundred pages of rules changes.

Your definition of minor changes to handle a broad range of themes differs greatly from mine.



> No, it's a misnomer, and IMO it's an overblown lame one. An adventuring party is not an army, and the name isn't generic, it has a specific meaning that doesn't apply in a D&D party context. "Champion" is an example of a generic name, and lacks all the implications and baggage that don't apply of the term "warlord". They really need to go back to the thesaurus on this one, IMO.




Again, and this has been mentioned numerous times, the terminology of D&D will always be seen through the lense of D&D.  A Barbarian is a misnomer too.  Barbarians certainly don't have to be berserker's - yet mechanically, we're locked into that.  What exactly does an Invoker do?  What mythic traditions is that pulling from?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 11, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> If you learn and use Fourier transformations, does that imply that you've been taught by Fourier Adepts?



No, but you might wonder: Who was this Fourier guy anyway? Why did he come up with such a transformation? I am pretty sure that many "classical" concepts of math and sciences are also taught with the context (especially the famous experiments). 

Most of the time when you use the Fourier Transformation, you don't care about the background of M.Fourier. But if you learn it the first time, you might want to know more.

And this is even more so appropriate for a role playing game. Because you know so little about the world (since it's entirely made up!), such things give you some starting points what to ask first about.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> No, it's a misnomer, and IMO it's an overblown lame one.  An adventuring party is not an army, and the name isn't generic, it has a specific meaning that doesn't apply in a D&D party context.  "Champion" is an example of a generic name, and lacks all the implications and baggage that don't apply of the term "warlord".  They really need to go back to the thesaurus on this one, IMO.




Except the champion is so generic, its non-informative. 



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> cham·pi·on      /ˈtʃæmpiən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cham-pee-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> 1.	a person who has defeated all opponents in a competition or series of competitions, so as to hold first place: the heavyweight boxing champion.
> 2.	anything that takes first place in competition: the champion of a cattle show.
> ...




By that definition, a champion implies a winner, a fighter, a cleric or a paladin. It certainly doesn't imply "a guy who leads, inspires, or direct his allies to victory". 



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> war·lord      /ˈwɔrˌlɔrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wawr-lawrd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> *1.	a military leader, esp. of a warlike nation.*
> 2.	a military commander who has seized power, esp. in one section of a country.
> 3.	tuchun.




Sounds like a good fit for me, especially in a world constantly under siege under the forces of darkness...


----------



## jasin (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> No, [warlord]'s a misnomer, and IMO it's an overblown lame one.  An adventuring party is not an army, and the name isn't generic, it has a specific meaning that doesn't apply in a D&D party context.  "Champion" is an example of a generic name, and lacks all the implications and baggage that don't apply of the term "warlord".  They really need to go back to the thesaurus on this one, IMO.



From what we know of the class' abilities, a member-of-the-class-WotC-calls-warlord could easily be a guy with no convictions other than that his four allies and himself need to win whatever fight they're currently in, and that they'll be doing it through teamwork and certainly not by him stepping forward as a sole representative.

How is "champion" an more appropriate name for that?


----------



## jasin (Dec 11, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> If you learn and use Fourier transformations, does that imply that you've been taught by Fourier Adepts?



No, but if you learn to manipulate and enhance digital photos, you might very well be called a Photoshop expert... even if you learned on and use some other application.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 11, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> My basic question is this: does it add anything for the minor annoyances it causes?
> 
> Right now, in the preview stage, it doesn't. As I illustrated above, no one WANTS a Golden Wyvern thing.
> 
> ...



Given the response to and subsequent backpedalling from Dragon's Tail Cut, I get the impression that a lot of these fluff names are just whatever throwaway fluff they felt they had time to come up with, in order to pack the book with fluff based a perceived need to fluffify things.  I doubt that they've got much invested in these names, except that they're attempting to finalize the book, but they don't expect the particular names for things to be a deal-breaker.

As much faith that I have that the game itself will be solid, I've seen nothing to convince me that this stock of writers has the ability to put together a charismatic colour for the new edition.  I sort of wish they had hired it out to the Paizo guys, or another company known for their great fluff.  Of course, I've always thought that the fluff in WotC books was kind of gorpy.  Just look at Races of Destiny.  Tome of Magic is a notable exception, but most of the time I feel like the flavour text is just filler.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 11, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And having to gloss over it is a little bump. It's not a game-breaker per se, but if this is representative of many of the feats in the PH, then there will be many more little bumps, and those will be much more annoying en masse.



It's the question of whether we're making a mountain out of a molehill, or whether we're seeing the tip of an iceberg.  Remains to be seen, but I'd hate to fail to convey our concerns and then run into something unpleasant that could have been avoided.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 11, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> No, but if you learn to manipulate and enhance digital photos, you might very well be called a Photoshop expert... even if you learned on and use some other application.



Reminds me of something: http://xkcd.com/331/


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 11, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Perhaps that's part of the intent, but from where I'm sitting, making it harder to disentangle 4e from 4e's implied setting works against one of the major strengths of tabletop gaming: that is, the ability of the gaming group to OWN how they play the game.




Is it a strength for the introductory game to the hobby?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 11, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Is it a strength for the introductory game to the hobby?




It is when the method of introduction is still to be taught by existing players.  Let's face it, so long as WotC holds on to the 3-book model, getting new players is going to be largely depoendent upon induction.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 11, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> As much faith that I have that the game itself will be solid, I've seen nothing to convince me that this stock of writers has the ability to put together a charismatic colour for the new edition.  *I sort of wish they had hired it out to the Paizo guys, or another company known for their great fluff.*  Of course, I've always thought that the fluff in WotC books was kind of gorpy.  Just look at Races of Destiny.  Tome of Magic is a notable exception, but most of the time I feel like the flavour text is just filler.




To be fair, Paizo is only known for their great fluff if you happen to like the fluff Paizo writes. The "goodness" of fluff is highly subjective. Paizo has spent a few years getting people used to their kind of fluff while they ran _Dragon_ and _Dungeon._ There are people who love the fluff Monte Cook writes (_Ptolus_, anyone?). But if you're not fond of it, then it's not so great.

Personally, I find the Great Wheel, the Blood War, Sigil and a lot of the rest of D&D's legacy fluff pretty crappy. I haven't seen a whole lot of inspiring fluff in Paizo's works, and, nice artwork aside, _Pathfinder_ doesn't really "do it" for me. _Eberron_, on the other hand, which was done by Rich Baker and James Wyatt, among others, has some awfully nice fluff. Now I know some of that is Keith Baker, but he's had a lot of help from the other guys at WotC who are the "story team" for 4e. So I'm optimistic.

I think where they occasionally have trouble is being original while treading the line between "evocative" and "non-cheesy" - a not insignificant task.


----------



## La Bete (Dec 11, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> It is when the method of introduction is still to be taught by existing players.  Let's face it, so long as WotC holds on to the 3-book model, getting new players is going to be largely depoendent upon induction.





TBH, As an experienced player who has introduced a number of newbies to D&D, I'd LOVE for the default rulebooks to have a moderate implied etting (ala Basic/Expert). It's hard enough for me to get players to read the rules, let lone read any relevant bits of a campaign setting. If they can absorb the setting via osmosis, so to speak, yay!


_edit - Duh..._


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 11, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I can say this: The amazing amount of heated debate over "Golden Wyvern Adept" means that if _that_ is the biggest thing getting people riled up about 4e at the moment, then this game is looking to be great!




As much as i dislike the GWA, you're right! If that's the worst 4e has to offer, we are in for a Golden Age of Gaming -- that's GAG to the rest of you.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 11, 2007)

In a way I do think we are making a mountain out of a molehill. But then, as players/critics, we only focus on the outlying targets.

Similar to the cries of "D&D is becoming too anime", while there are D&D images that do have the anime look, the VAST, VAST majority of it is "normal". You can look at Bo9S as well. Many decry it is too supernatural/wuxia but of the schools presented, only 2 of the 9 were wuxia-derived schools.

Same thing with this feat. There _WERE_ 4 other feats presented. IF that holds true, then in a list of 20 feats, only 4 of them will be like GWA.


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> Sounds like a good fit for me



It's a terrible fit.  An adventuring party is not an army, not a military organisation, not a nation, and doesn't "declare war".  It simply doesn't fit.  The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> It's a terrible fit.  An adventuring party is not an army, not a military organisation, not a nation, and doesn't "declare war".  It simply doesn't fit.  The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.




It is no more comical than stating they "need another rogue, wizard, druid, fighter, sorcerer, paladin and druid ". Not only that, some "adventuring parties" are not parties; they're mercenary companies, they're robber-barons, they're a group of princes and royalty. There isn't any single definition of what a party is (unless the game centers purely around module-driven dungeon romping).

Levels, class names, feats, abilities and the like are abstractions to define game mechanics. In-game, the characters can call it whatever they want, whichever they will.

_"We need another resource, someone who can help lead us in combat! We need someone strong of mind, not too shabby with a sword but sensible and logical to help coordinate our fight. We need a seasoned veteran; we need a young and fresh captain to lead our crew"._


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> It is no more comical than stating they "need another rogue, wizard, druid, fighter, sorcerer, paladin and druid at seventh level".



Actually it is, because none of these are purely battlefield/political archetypes.  They have precedent in fantasy literature for turning up in dungeons and meddling, vigilante heroics as individuals akin to Indiana Jones (well, except for paladins by name, but their "holy knight" archetype fits the adventurer role, and "druids" by borrowing from Merlin and nature spellcasters in general as being meddling free agents - maybe Radagast?)...without an armed force at their beck and call, nor fighting by proxy through soldiers or guerillas for political reasons or genocide.  

As for "warlord" in fantasy?  If you were being generous, an example of "warlord" is Conan at the end of his career, a king, leading an army, and arguably his adventuring days were over then, except in a political sense.  Or Aragorn at the gates of Mordor.  And that's being generous - these guys were kings, not "warlords".  Look to orc horde chieftans for a much better fit.  Most fantasy warlords are villains, because frivolous declaration of war implies evil or chaos...effectively, the guys who our party of rag-tag adventurers should be taking _down_, mostly.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.



I will once again assert that the name of a rules element does not, and in most cases *should not*, correspond to its name in the setting.

Fighters don't learn "Power Attack" in-character. Rogues don't learn "Open Lock" in-character. They learn to make powerful, yet less-accurate attacks, or they learn to open locks of various types, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that these characters think of these things as discrete, capitalised phenomena from which they must pick and choose.

After all, the reason it's funny when the Order of the Stick makes in-character reference to game mechanics is because that's *not* how it bloody well works!

Likewise with class names, including the warlord. It would be ridiculous to refer to characters of the fighter class as "fighters" only, as opposed to "warriors" or "mercenaries" or "soldiers" or "knights" or whatever other in-character term would be appropriate to a given fighter character. The same applies to rogues (thieves, scouts), clerics (priests, templars), wizards (mages, witches, sorcerers), bards (troubadours, minstrels, lorekeepers) . . . any class you can name.

If you honestly play a game where fighters are referred to as "fighters" in-character, then I have to say I'm shocked and somewhat appalled, because it's a terribly stupid term for that purpose.

So the name of the warlord *class* doesn't matter one damn bit. Your own warlord PC will probably be called something which reflects his background and experiences; when I played a member of the armsman class in a d20 Wheel of Time campaign, I referred to him as a "cavalryman" because that's what his military experience was, or a "mercenary" because that's what he did now, or a "captain" when he entered the service of a border noblewoman and led her household guard. Calling him an "armsman" would have been really silly.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 11, 2007)

I'm mostly with this guy - ooc terms are not always to be in game. Use common sense.

Albeit a fighter is avery generic term, it could be used.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 11, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.



Na. My PC won't have that problem. He'll take Leadership and start an entire army of nothing but warlords. Dozens of 'em. Hundreds. With all those warlord peons, he'll never "need a new warlord" again.


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> So the name of the warlord class doesn't matter one damn bit.



And that's where we end the reasoned debate for this thread.  Tune in next post when our posters try and argue that the numbers behind the names are the only thing that matters, and that D&D is equivalent to suduko.

Keep smiling and bye for now.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Dec 11, 2007)

A rose by any other name...


----------



## Hussar (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> It's a terrible fit.  An adventuring party is not an army, not a military organisation, not a nation, and doesn't "declare war".  It simply doesn't fit.  The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.




I realize you did mention it later, but, do you have the same problem with paladin?  I mean, paladin has nothing to do with a holy warrior.  Nor is a paladin a 1st level character.  It's also solidly grounded in a VERY specific historical period.

Except, and this is the point I've been hammering on for a while, D&D has defined paladins for itself.  Paladin=holy warrior in D&D.  I can make a lightly armored, feathered, tatooed, handaxe wielding paladin and no one would bat an eye, despite the fact that what I've created is NOT a paladin of history.  But, it's a perfectly acceptable (if perhaps underpowered) D&D paladin.

I can make a druid focused on Underdark creatures, without any ties to trees and that's perfectly acceptable.  The only connection between D&D druids and real world druids is the name.  There really aren't any other similarities.  Merlin as druid?  Sure, if you're up on your Romance Literature.  Most people usually peg Merlin as a wizard.  Merlin's the archetypal wizard for most people.

There's absolutely no difference with the flavour being presented here.  It will be defined by use within the game.  Any real world connections will be sent to the background because people won't want those connotations in their game.  Warlords will mean "Leader type that fights better than a cleric".  Golden Wyvern will simply mean "Type of magic that controls area of effect spells" with the Adept tacked onto the end for those who take the feat.

One of the best selling versions of the game - Basic/Expert locked in flavour tight with the rules.  What's wrong with going in that direction?  The easiest version to learn and the gateway game into D&D for a great number of gamers.  Not a bad inspiration.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 12, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I will once again assert that the name of a rules element does not, and in most cases *should not*, correspond to its name in the setting.
> 
> Fighters don't learn "Power Attack" in-character. Rogues don't learn "Open Lock" in-character. They learn to make powerful, yet less-accurate attacks, or they learn to open locks of various types, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that these characters think of these things as discrete, capitalised phenomena from which they must pick and choose.
> 
> ...




This is also exactly why I have no problem with GWA.

Also, if we stop dwelling on the name, Warlord, and instead look at what they do, there are numerous fictional archetypes that they draw from.  King Arthur, Faramir, Tanis, Jon Snow, Odysseus, the list goes on.


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> I realize you did mention it later, but, do you have the same problem with paladin?



Paladin is a D&Dism, yes, but at least it is a disused word they're redefining (Charlemagne's knights don't get referenced much), not one with currency and meaning in the here and now, appearing on the headlines.

And just because a D&Dism or three exists in the core is not carte blanche to alienate D&D further from solid fantasy archetypes.  D&D is popular despite these, IMO, not because of them (and how people substitute "holy white knight" in their head for paladin and "fighting healer priest" for cleric, generally.  The weaker archetype is the cleric, because it borders on incoherent, with little in the way of mythological touchstones.  Warlord even lacks a basic archetype, the closest being "fighting cheerleader" or "drill sergeant", neither of which float in an adventuring party).  

Get as D&Dism and world-specific as you like in specific settings, go beserk, just leave the core relatively accomodating of fantasy worldbuilding in general, not just WOTC's idea of a cool fantasy world.  Strong, general fantasy archetypes support that; weak, contrived or world-specific ones damage it.

The evolution of the "warlord" probably goes something like this:
Bard in AD&D 1E appendix, proto-prestige class.  Super-tough, celtic-flavoured and legendary, reflects mythological bard to a degree.  Strong archetype.
Rogue needs sub-class for design symmetry in 2E.  Bard gets promoted, loses way, becomes musician.  Archetype becomes jack-of-all-trades minstrel, about as appropriate as a jester core class.
3E design team tries to fix bard.  Becomes poster boy for their ideas on spell failure in armour.
3.5 tries to fix the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't relationship the class has with spell use and armour.
4E design team agrees with Order of the Stick that lutes in a dungeon is ridiculous.  Tries to fix bard by removing instruments, renames Marshal to Warlord.  Forgets to include a viable archetype, being focused on cool crunch possibilities.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 12, 2007)

First of all, Warlord has an archetype to me. Its someone who a decent warrior but a master at command and control. We'd call him a general in the modern world (or an admiral, etc) but "warlord" is more evocative of a time of swords and sorcery. 

What's he doing in a D&D party? The same damn thing a man of the cloth, a weak-bodied book-learner, and a pseudo-eastern mystic is doing: not making any sense but being a fun archetype to play. 

And he can be versatile: a orc chieftain, a dwarven captain, a halfling sheriff, a human border guard commander. To use the military analogy: West Point trains officers, not simple grunt soldiers. A D&D warlord is simply a recently graduated West Point officer: trained but not tested, and adventuring is a strong way to earn you stripes. 

And really, all D&D class names are terrible. Each is divorced from their cultural or historical reference (bard, druid, monk, barbarian, paladin, cleric) or just a simple descriptor of profession or aptitude (fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, beguiler, scout). Some are names for the sake of needing a name (duskblade, sorcerer, hexblade, warmage). Getting hung up on Warlord seems minor when 3.5 graced us with class names like "Spellthief" and "Favored Soul" Least Warlord SOUNDS like its trying to fit in with fighter, wizard, and ranger...


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> First of all, Warlord has an archetype to me. Its someone who a decent warrior but a master at command and control.



Then you don't know what the term means.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Then you don't know what the term means.



So are you saying the Name or the Class has no archetype?


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> So are you saying the Name or the Class has no archetype?



Name doesn't fit a D&D adventuring party, doesn't mean what WOTC wants it to mean, and is also a poor choice because the word is still in common use, meaning something else entirely.  A D&D party is not a mobile war or army, nor is it political or prone to "declare war".

The archetype, being "fighting cheerleader" or "drill sergeant", is both unrelated to the name and doesn't belong in an adventuring party.  Neither archetype fits there.

So it's a triple or quadruple whammy of inappropriateness.  It's too dodgy to be worthy of inclusion in the core, IMO, but perhaps good supplement fodder.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 12, 2007)

Then perhaps you need to expand your notion of what fits in an adventuring party.


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> Regardless of the class's name, the class still fills an archetype.



Drill sergeant/cheerleader?  It's definitely not a core D&D archetype, doesn't fit in an adventuring party.


> Then perhaps you need to expand your notion of what fits in an adventuring party.



Or perhaps WOTC should refine theirs.  Look, I'd be happy if they just changed the darn name, something without baggage (military or otherwise).  It would notch it down one level of "bad" for me.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> A D&D party is not a mobile war or army, nor is it political or prone to "declare war".




Haven't we already covered this? DnD isn't just about dungeon romping, dragon slaying or module play. It covers all aspects; class names are mechanical definitions of role-playing abstractions.

Parties can be entirely political, a mobile army and certainly "declare war" (Birthright and a bevy of home brews out there). Haven't you ever played in a war-themed or even a deeply political DnD role-playing game? Do your gaming groups address each other in the party by third person and call each other by their class names? Have you ever even role-played beyond an arch type before? 

I'm convinced you're purposefully being obtuse, because you know that you are completely wrong.


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> I'm convinced you're purposefully being obtuse, because you know that you are completely wrong.



LOL, "teh troof" comes out!  Wow, you've got me there!  How could I possibly disagree with your opinion, when it's obviously "teh troof"?   

No, I think I'm just locking horns with those who have a more...disingenious vision of what D&D's core is, and should support.  It's not your fault.  You've been groomed to think like this by 3E's warblades and mystic theurges and the like, most probably.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> LOL, "teh troof" comes out!  Wow, you've got me there!  How could I possibly disagree with your opinion, when it's obviously "teh troof"?
> 
> No, I think I'm just locking horns with those who have a more...disingenious vision of what D&D's core is, and should support.  It's not your fault.  You've been groomed to think like this by 3E's warblades and mystic theurges and the like, most probably.




Crack open your first edition Dungeon Master's Guide about world building. Hit up the second edition while you're at it in the Dungeon Master's Guide with the robed wizard opening a suit of bronze doors, specifically on the section for world and campaign building. Pull out old Greyhawk boxed sets regarding campaigns settings that were meant to be ran during the Greyhawk Wars. Hell, root through old brown and grey boxed editions of Forgotten Realms. Pop open the blue boxed edition of Birthright. For that matter, take a look at the old manilla folder-colored Chainmail rules that were the very foundation of the DnD game.

Do that for yourself, then revisit the thread. That's your core, buddy - dungeon romping, war settings, castle and keep management, leading soldiers, owning land, mercenary corps companies, wartime games and fighting monsters en masse. It's everything beyond the straightjacket in which you'd like DnD to be constrained within.

Cheers~


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> Do that for yourself, then revisit the thread. That's your core, buddy - dungeon romping, war settings, castle and keep management, leading soldiers, owning land, mercenary corps companies, wartime games and fighting monsters en masse. It's everything beyond the straightjacket in which you'd like DnD to be constrained within.



If what you're implying made sense, then sergeants, generals, marshals, legionairres, sappers, cavalry riders, soldiers, marines etc. would all be core classes.  And they're not.  For very good reason, because your vision of D&D is just as skewed as mine.

Conan may lead an army at the end of his career, but he's not a king without one.  Same with the "warlord".  And armies generally don't belong in dungeons (except perhaps the underdark), and tend to fill up the corridors and get in the way of the PCs, generally.  Wilderness? Okay.  Urban?  Erm...maybe if there was a siege on...

I'm glad you're not in charge.  Or are you, having joined in August this year?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 12, 2007)

Moniker said:
			
		

> A rose by any other name...



No one is debating the smell of the rose.  The quality of the other name is what is in question.

Just as the rose still smells sweet, this feat is mechanically fine no matter how flawed the name.  Calling a rose rat droppings doesn't change it's smell, but it is still dumb and would be a bad way to clearly communicate.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Name doesn't fit a D&D adventuring party, doesn't mean what WOTC wants it to mean, and is also a poor choice because the word is still in common use, meaning something else entirely.




Using that definition, we need to get rid of "Barbarian" (someone who does not speak Greek), "Cleric" (Muslim Holy Man), "Druid" (a member of a pre-Christian religious order of ancient Celts), "Monk" (still used in reference to Shaolin Practitioners), "Ranger" (refers to a member of a military organization or Texas State Police) "Knight" (people today are still knighted, including rock stars and politicians), etc...


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> Using that definition, we need to get rid of "Barbarian" (someone who does not speak Greek)



Ask someone off of the street about barbarians, and they'll think of something like the Goths, or a fantasy barbarian like Conan (bingo!  desired effect!) most probably.


> "Cleric" (Muslim Holy Man)



Not in common use.  Someone off the street would go "what's that?" at this word or confuse it with clerk, unless they were in religious circles maybe.  Rising in awareness thanks to terrorism, islamism and Iraq media coverage, perhaps.  D&Dism in it's game form.


> "Druid" (a member of a pre-Christian religious order of ancient Celts)



Not in common use, but indeed a well known word, and very mythologically evocative.  Don't see it in the headlines except perhaps as re-enactments, very little known about them in the real world.


> "Monk" (still used in reference to Shaolin Practitioners)



In a D&D context, I think the default is to think of Benedictine monks, which makes this one a weird one.  Occidental association, oriental flavour.  A D&Dism most definitely.


> "Ranger" (refers to a member of a military organization or Texas State Police)



Tolkienism, but you're right, still sees contemporary use.  D&Dism, not ideal.


> "Knight" (people today are still knighted, including rock stars and politicians), etc...



Archetype too strong for that to matter, but correct.  Core class?  Would be a good replacement for the term "paladin", IMO (which I'm surprised didn't make your list).


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> And that's where we end the reasoned debate for this thread.




Your snark is not appreciated.  Please don't bring it in here again.  Thank you.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 12, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> "Cleric" (Muslim Holy Man)



Cleric is the English word for "holy man of unspecified denomination".  It is not restricted to muslims.  Since nobody knows what to call various types of muslim priests (and since muslims swear up and down that they don't have priests) we call them clerics.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Drill sergeant/cheerleader?  It's definitely not a core D&D archetype, doesn't fit in an adventuring party.




Never read Dragonlance, huh?  Tanis is nothing but a drill sergeant/cheerleader.  Tanis is about as core D&D archetype as you can get.



> Or are you, having joined in August this year




Oh snap, sorry internet veteran.  What's next?  You gonna tell us YOUR GIRLFRIEND agrees with you?  Let me guess, this is all part of your elaborate plan to work us up.  You're playing us like puppets in your masterful web.  Listen chief, the only thing your post count is evidence of is that you need to get outside more.


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> Never read Dragonlance, huh? Tanis is nothing but a drill sergeant/cheerleader. Tanis is about as core D&D archetype as you can get.



Tanis would baulk at being called a "warlord".  He's a fighter, and a friend, and the others look to him as their default decision maker (you can't just take a class for that, and others will tell you to pull your head in if you think it gives you the right to be party decision-maker based purely on crunch).  He's not what you're implying - he's not a smidgen of being a drill sergeant, nor is he a cheerleader.

Tanis was fighting the dragonarmy warlords.  In the REAL meaning of the term - proper warlords, warmongering villains with armies.  Verminaard comes to mind.  Yet another example of it being a bad name and archetype for the D&D core.

Oops, that example of yours backfired a bit, didn't it?


> Oh snap, sorry internet veteran. What's next? You gonna tell us YOUR GIRLFRIEND agrees with you? Let me guess, this is all part of your elaborate plan to work us up. You're playing us like puppets in your masterful web. Listen chief, the only thing your post count is evidence of is that you need to get outside more.



August was the month 4E got announced, wasn't it?  That's all that was meant.  I'm not "drawing rank" as you seem to have assumed, because (as you snarkily point out), there is none to draw upon.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Tanis would baulk at being called a "warlord".  He's a fighter, and a friend, and the others look to him as their default decision maker.  He's not what you're implying - he's not a smidgen of being a drill sergeant, nor is he a cheerleader.
> 
> Tanis was fighting the dragonarmy warlords.  Verminaard comes to mind.  Yet another example of it being a bad name and archetype for the D&D core.
> 
> Oops, that example of yours backfired a bit, didn't it?




Nope, you're just blind.  Tanis is always dealing with the issue that he's the group's leader.  He questions why they follow him, not realizing it's because he's an inspirational commander and has a good hand at tactics.  He doesn't fight near as well as Caramon, Sturm, or Riverwind, but he's still a better fighter than a Bard would be.  The only reason why Tanis was a fighter was because fighter was the closest match for what he did.  Now we have Warlord, which is a closer match.

We can always go outside of D&D if you'd like: King Arthur, Odysseus, Fafrd and the Mouser at the end of their career, Faramir, Liu Bei, Guan Yu, etc.

Also, they were Dragon _Highlords_.



> August was the month 4E got announced, wasn't it?  That's all that was meant.  I'm not "drawing rank" as you seem to have assumed, because (as you snarkily point out), there is none to draw upon.




Well, that's good.


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> Nope, you're just blind.



Nope, you're just engaging in wishful thinking and revisionism.  He's about "which road do we take, where do we go next, Tanis", not "feather me yon oaf".  The latter sounds like a Dragon Highlord talking about targeting Caramon with draconian archers.


> Also, they were Dragon _High_lords.



LOL

Yes, yes they were.  But if you think "warlord" describes Tanis as well as it describes Verminaard, then that's rich.  Very rich.

I don't know if it's possible to get the themes of the War of the Lance more backwards than you have just managed.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> Yes, yes they were.  But if you think "warlord" describes Tanis as well as it describes Verminaard, then that's rich.  Very rich.
> 
> I don't know if it's possible to get the themes of the War of the Lance more backwards than you have just managed.




Verminaard was a Cleric.  That's his class because that's what describes his abilities.  Tanis would be a 4E warlord because that's the class that best describes his abilities.  The real world meaning of "warlord" has nothing to do with it, but since you're argument is based solely on the connotation of the word in the real world and not what it means in D&D terms, we'll just stop.

You really think that "guy who's good in a fight, but his real strength lies in his leadership and ability to inspire" isn't a common archetype in fantasy and adventure stories?  That's what a D&D Warlord is.

Also, the theme that Good will triumph over Evil because it bickers amongst itself just a little less than Evil is pretty weak and has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but I'm glad you were able to get a LOL out of it.


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> The real world meaning of "warlord" has nothing to do with it, but since you're argument is based solely on the connotation of the word in the real world and not what it means in D&D terms, we'll just stop.



Yes, it's a bad choice of class name for core D&D.  I'm glad your example highlighted that so readily, Dragonlance's War of the Lance really shows up what's wrong with it.


> Also, the theme that Good will triumph over Evil because it bickers amongst itself just a little less than Evil is pretty weak and has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but I'm glad you were able to get a LOL out of it.



Yes, I read that in the prologue to DL Adventures too.

Here's another one: a group of friends can triumph _over_ the warlords.  To describe Tanis _as_ a warlord is thematically backward.


----------



## Belorin (Dec 12, 2007)

Isn't there a thread for this discussion?

Bel


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 12, 2007)

I'm not actually sure there *is* an Internet Nerd Slapfight Thread.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 12, 2007)

So, some people don't like the name Warlord. 
I never liked that Paladins were a Core Class. It didn't reduce my enjoyment of the game (at least not noticeably). 

So, the only interesting question on that specific topic is: 
Does the archetype exemplified by the Warlord fit into a D&D game? 

Well, I think it does. Feel free to disagree.

Personally, I'd like if the discussion went to other interesting topics discussed in Mike Mearls post. (Though it's possible that there is not much more to discuss)


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Oh snap, sorry internet veteran.  What's next?  You gonna tell us YOUR GIRLFRIEND agrees with you?





Hm.  Deja vu?

*Your snark is not appreciated.  Do not bring it into this thread again. * 

Having said it twice, it should be abundantly clear that _everyone_ should take the hint - keep it civil, keep it respectful.  If you need, please review The Rules.  Thanks, all!


----------



## ferratus (Dec 12, 2007)

We all know that Laurana "The Golden General" is the real Warlord of the Heroes of the Lance.

It really really fits.

Tanis main job he had in the Chronicles was to act angsty and assassinate Ariakas.  Also, while Laurana retrieved a Dragon Orb, helped weld an alliance between what tattered remnants of the forces of good, and coordinated a successful defense of the last citadel of freedom... Tanis got his party buried under an inn, trapped in a magical nightmare, had sex with a Dragon Highlord, and ended up at the bottom of the ocean.  I think he stays a ranger striker.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Yes, it's a bad choice of class name for core D&D.




I was never saying it was a good name for the archetype, but Warlords (in 4E D&D terms) are a fairly common archetype.

Ferratus, that's a great point about Laurana. Her and Tanis were both pretty big suck asses in a fight compared to Caramon, Sturm, Riverwind, and even Gilthanas; their real strength lay in their charisma and leadership abilities.  AD&D didn't have a class that covered that better than fighter, but 4E does.  It's called Warlord, which isn't a very good name, but neither are any of the other names that have been bandied about for the class.

Umbran, I apologize, but if a poster bases the validity of their argument on their post count or reg date (which, after clarification, I realize that rounser wasn't doing), they should get ridiculed for it.  Please don't take this as mod sass.  I won't do it again.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Umbran, I apologize, but if a poster bases the validity of their argument on their post count or reg date (which, after clarification, I realize that rounser wasn't doing), they should get ridiculed for it.  Please don't take this as mod sass.  I won't do it again.





Peter,

    Next time, if you have commentary on moderation, please take it to e-mail.  It kind of derails the discussion in here.

    My last comment on the subject is - no.  No user should ridicule another user on EN World.  Respect and civility are in the Rules I referenced above, that you agreed to in signing on to post here.  If you'd like to discuss that further, please e-mail a moderator - our e-mail addresses are in a post stickied at the top of the Meta forum.


----------

