# The Impasse



## DimitriX (Feb 20, 2009)

One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to "blindly" agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising.  How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers?

I think some of the threads have put their finger on the issue:  this is DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS.  If we were talking about Conan 2e or True20 or Mutants and Masterminds, then I don't think people would really be as bothered either way.  But, this is the game that many of us grew up playing.  for most of us, this was our first rpg.  This is also THE rpg in pop culture.  Most people don't know anything about roleplaying games, but they know DnD.  So, when we see DnD go through some changes it becomes much more personal because we have much more invested in it.

I think one of the issues is that some people are associating DnD with WotC and some are not.  I think those that associate DnD with WotC (whether consciously or not) are the ones that defend WotC the most adamantly even when WotC actions negatively affect them (albeit perhaps in minor ways).  However, the folks who do not associate WotC with DnD (and I'm one of them) believe that the game or something like it would exist if WotC disappeared tomorrow.  This belief may or may not be true, but I think it is what some people believe.

So, I think many of these discussions related to WotC corporate decisions and edition wars are just people talking past each other.  If you love DnD and you believe that DnD can't exist without WotC, then of course you have to love WotC too.  However, if you love DnD and you believe that it is YOUR game and not theirs, then WotC is merely a custodian of a legacy.  And, if you believe that the custodian is no longer acting in the best interest of DnD, then it must be time for a new custodian.

This might seem like nothing more than mental masturbation, but I feel that it is important to understand someone's perspective when getting in these kinds of discussions which can sometimes get heated.  And, my guess this is why some people will never be convinced one way or another.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 20, 2009)

rather then retype a whole bunch of stuff...I am quiteing myself from the orginal thread this came from:




GMforPowergamers said:


> Azgulor said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't get is the mentality of certain customers of always viewing the world through the business-oriented lens of the supplier (WotC in this case).  I may understand and appreciate their point of view, but to blindly support it even where it may cost me more money, give me fewer choices, etc. makes no sense to me from a customer's point of view.  And except for those on the WotC payroll, at the end of the day we're all customers.
> ...


----------



## DimitriX (Feb 20, 2009)

Yep.  That was one of the posts that put me on this idea.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 20, 2009)

But...prostitution is a victimless crime and marijuana isn't a drug, it's a plant.  It just grows like that.  You have to do things to drugs chemically, I don't know the recipe, I'm just saying.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 20, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> But...prostitution is a victimless crime and marijuana isn't a drug, it's a plant.  It just grows like that.  You have to do things to drugs chemically, I don't know the recipe, I'm just saying.



I think we both deserve a cookie.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 20, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> rather then retype a whole bunch of stuff...I am quiteing[_sic_] myself from the orginal thread this came from:




What DimitriX said.


----------



## Nightson (Feb 20, 2009)

Taking one person, then using them to draw a broad generalization about a large group of people is not sound.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

DimitriX said:


> How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers?



Are you saying that you don't see enough blind hatred of WotC? Or that you don't see enough people making hyperbolic stupid claims because they're upset with how a company changed their product?

What exactly is your point there? Because a class action lawsuit because the game changed is... there's not a polite way to really phrase how dumb that is.



> I think one of the issues is that some people are associating DnD with WotC and some are not.  I think those that associate DnD with WotC (whether consciously or not) are the ones that defend WotC the most adamantly even when WotC actions negatively affect them (albeit perhaps in minor ways).



I've seen many people who make the WotC=D&D connection be _against_ 4e, because they think WotC is corrupting what D&D is. That because WotC = D&D, and WotC is wrong, they're making D&D bad. 

You really want to see some hatred of WotC? Step over to Paizo's boards. You would think the decision to discontinue print Dragon and Dungeon was on par with running over someone's first pet.

I don't think WotC is an angel, or even "good". When I see WotC, I see _the designers_. And quite frankly, I think the designers are good guys. I like their ideas. They stop by here and post occasionally. So I consider harsh, vindictive, demonizing criticism an attack at the _them_. WotC may be a corporation, but it's _also_ a business run by gamers, for gamers. The people at WotC _like D&D_. I don't doubt their like of the game. So I don't see the point in attacking them for desiring to ruin D&D.

Criticize the content of the decisions, sure. But to attributing ulterior motives, that's unfair.

I also object to the demonizing of WotC for no reason than them doing something different or doing it badly. Take for instance the GSL. Many, many threads, people say that WotC just wants to kill third party publications, that they have no respect, don't want them to play, etc. That the neutered GSL is to kill all competition. That they're taking forever because they want 3PP to starve to death.

That's just uncalled for. Especially when people like Scott Rouse are working hard on it, but they get crapped on because he's not making it priority 1. Anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy knows how slow things move, especially when you have multiple departments involved.

I think there are legitimate grounds to criticise WotC over. In a reasonable manner. But I'll defend WotC when I see unreasonable, venomous criticism. And the lion's share of what I have seen has been unreasonable.



> However, if you love DnD and you believe that it is YOUR game and not theirs, then WotC is merely a custodian of a legacy.



And if you love D&D and believe it's YOUR game, nothing the custodian of a legacy can do to it to take that away from you. Nothing that the custodian can do can stop you from playing what you like, or enjoying it, or what memories it left with you. Like you said, it's personal. But no change can change what it means to you, what it meant to you, and what you did with it when you were a kid. For instance, no matter _what_ Disney does _now_, it won't change the memories you have of your first visit to Disneyland as a little kid.



> I think some of the threads have put their finger on the issue: this is DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. If we were talking about Conan 2e or True20 or Mutants and Masterminds, then I don't think people would really be as bothered either way. But, this is the game that many of us grew up playing. for most of us, this was our first rpg. This is also THE rpg in pop culture. Most people don't know anything about roleplaying games, but they know DnD. So, when we see DnD go through some changes it becomes much more personal because we have much more invested in it.



Like you said, this is personal. So how much of the objection is personal? How much of it is "This hurts my feelings"? 

How much of that objections is merely objection to change, any change? Mere traditionalism, regardless of the content of the new direction?

And, like you said, it's personal. Those who _like_ the current direction take it personal when they see accusations that D&D has been taken in the wrong direction. It's seen as being told "What you like is wrong, and we don't think you should play D&D that way".


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 20, 2009)

DimitriX said:


> How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers?




Never. I've never seen or heard of anything even remotely like this. It's not even particularly plausible. You might want to rethink your comparison here.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

There's an additional wrinkle to the matter.

On these boards, I have seen people give a reason for why they complain (sometimes very loudly) against some things that appear in the books/in the designs: they want WotC to be aware of their objection. Case in point: the Golden Wyvern Adept business. People saw something they did not like, and raised hell about it. WotC ended up not putting the Golden Wyvern Adept stuff in the core books. The objecters rejoice, claiming it is victory. Same with the decision to advance Eberron's timeline two years - the internet fans loudly objected, the designers chose to not update the timeline.

That is a two-sided coin. If someone _likes_ the direction, or the content, then _defending_ it would show that there is _support_ for that decision. Countering the complaints with compliments helps those who _like_ it try to get that decision to _stay put_.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> That is a two-sided coin. If someone _likes_ the direction, or the content, then _defending_ it would show that there is _support_ for that decision. Countering the complaints with compliments helps those who _like_ it try to get that decision to _stay put_.




thank you...that was my point


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

Finally, here's what I'd like to know.

Where do you distinguish the line?

How much does someone need to like the direction of D&D has went, or how much do they have to not have a problem with what WotC has decided, before they're blindly following/defending WotC? 

What proportion of dislike does someone _need_ to have?


----------



## jensun (Feb 20, 2009)

DimitriX said:


> One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to "blindly" agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising.



I have yet to see this happen.

I would be very surprised at a "huge customer uprising" against another publisher who took action against someone reproducing large chunks of their material and making them freely available, whether online or not.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 20, 2009)

Prostitution, _so long as it's legalized_, is indeed, ironically, a victimless crime.  It's when it's made illegal that there're problems.

Pot is not physically addictive.  It's a soft drug and it's as dangerous - if not less so - then chocolate.  It's illegal for stupid, illogical, and political (or perhaps I just repeat myself) reasons that have no base or touch in reality.  Also, Asprin is a drug.

WotC is a big boy that grosses more money then I could ever see in my life and doesn't need defending on the internet.  I truly doubt it cares what me, some random dickhead, truly thinks.

_So in other words, allow me to disagree_.

That doesn't mean I want WotC to fail, or that I want 4e to crash and burn.  Good grief, you're allowed to disagree with something and not hate it.  I dislike 4e, so I don't buy it.  I don't *hate* Wizards because of it, and I'd be happy if they continued business.  They're just going to do it sans a customer.

TSR didn't crash and burn because people said mean things about them.  TSR went down because it was utterly moronic with how it handled business.  That's the purpose of a market - the products that people like make money, the products people don't like do not make money.  Me sitting in front of a dinky laptop thinking "Boy I don't like 4e that much" isn't going to spark some giant revolution that destroys WotC, and quite frankly, _if it did_, then the product in question wasn't going to survive for very long in the first place.

It would suck if WotC went out of business, yes.  It sucked when Troika went out of business, but *that's how capitalism works*.  Just because I liked Troika doesn't mean everyone else did, and while I can sit behind previously mentioned laptop in my cramped and overcharged apartment while waiting for the next meagre and inatiquite paycheck to let me LIVE THE DREAM for a bit longer and think of the rest of the world as hooting morons who wouldn't understand the concept of taste even if I could telepathically force it into their brains, it doesn't change the fact that Troika did not offer what the market wanted.  And if D&D somehow vanished off the face of the earth, despite it sucking in an amazing manner, it would not change the fact that *this is how the world works*.  White knigting on the internet doesn't do anything but *stop* rational conversation.



Oh, and people have had those "Mass fan uprisings" against the _one company I can think of_ that tried to take down people who gave their stuff away for free.  It was called Cthulutech, and it lost a whole lot of support and ultimately - here's the best part - it trying to stop the free stuff _only made it happen more often_.  Meanwhile, most companies just don't care too much or, in some cases, openly accept it.  MaidRPG has a whole section in the back thanking people _for downloading it for free_, asking them to throw in a few bucks if they enjoyed it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2009)

DimitriX said:


> One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to "blindly" agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising.



I can't speak for persons or situations that I don't know.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> How much does someone need to like the direction of D&D has went, or how much do they have to not have a problem with what WotC has decided, before they're blindly following/defending WotC?
> 
> What proportion of dislike does someone _need_ to have?



It's quite simple, IMO. A person does not need to dislike D&D and/or WotC at all to _not_ be a "blind defender." They can love it 100%. The problem is when they cannot emphatize AT ALL with those who do not share their love and when they feel the need to jump up against EVERY criticism raised against D&D and/or WotC.

A "blind defender" will defend the WotC decisions to raise prices, lower page counts, cut functionality from DDI, intentionally remove content as a marketing move to get people to buy future books, as well as every single decision with respect to the game's direction and rules. They will defend the original rules which are so broken that they have been errata'd three times already, and the game hasn't even been out for a year.

As an opposite, a "blind hater" is someone who cannot see (at all) why someone can have a perfectly rational love for D&D and/or WotC.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 20, 2009)

I've supported WotC on these forums but I resent any implication that I "blindly" agree with anything. When I see *what I consider to be* irrational motives and hatred lobbed in their direction, I occasionally feel strongly enough to stand up and shout about it. I do this partly because I loathe the culture of corporate demonisation that has sprung up around us all over the last few decades, and which by its very nature the internet has exploded.

The thread which spawned this fork is a good example. WotC took what I see as a totally reasonable action, and you get people comparing them to the insanity that was TSR in its darkest days. Ludicrous.

I'm a long-time WoW player and I used to do the same on their official forums, but I quickly gave up because the ratio of unadulterated (and unmoderated) immaturity which, yes, did occasionally threaten to raise a law suit because a class as described on the box had been changed in subsequent patches, was so high as to simply not be worth the effort of fighting.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 20, 2009)

Sammael said:


> A "blind defender" will defend the WotC decisions to raise prices, lower page counts, cut functionality from DDI, intentionally remove content as a marketing move to get people to buy future books, as well as every single decision with respect to the game's direction and rules. They will defend the original rules which are so broken that they have been errata'd three times already, and the game hasn't even been out for a year.



Sammael can you not see that this kind of language is *exactly* the sort of thing that sets people off?


----------



## Sammael (Feb 20, 2009)

No, I really cannot. Why is this the case? For instance, can you not love 4E and WotC and disagree with WotC's decision (documented in a podcast) to not include frost giants in MM1 so that more people will buy MM2? I can understand that decision perfectly well from a business point of view, but I cannot agree with it.

EDIT: For the sake of clarification, the "original rules" I'm referring to are the skill challenge rules. I am not implying that all of 4E is broken, because it's not.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

The skill challenge rules are the best example for "blindly defending" at work. They were mathematically broken, and it was proven very quickly. Anyone who defended the original rules was doing so blindly, and irrationally.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

Sammael said:


> It's quite simple, IMO. A person does not need to dislike D&D and/or WotC at all to _not_ be a "blind defender." They can love it 100%.



There's another important distinction.

"Defense" can also mean "counter an argument made against WotC". 

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. But playing devil's advocate, or offering the "On one hand, on the other" isn't loving WotC 100%. But it can be accused as such.

Take for instance "raise prices". It has been pointed out on these boards a few times that, if you compare the prices of WotC books and adventures _today_ to how much D&D books/adventures cost during 1e and 2e, they are on par as far as inflation is concerned. That's not defending WotC's actions, but pointing out a fact, and thereby arguing against the initial argument that the raised price is unfair. 

Saying "this is the designer's explanation for that" or "I can see where they are coming from, as far as this decision is concerned" is not the same as saying "They're just utterly justified/right, and you're wrong for having a problem with that." 

Then there's the fact that people on the internet like to argue. You could have the most positive thread about how great cake is, and someone will come along and say "I don't really like cake. Pie is better."


----------



## Sammael (Feb 20, 2009)

I agree. I do not think that the current level of prices is unreasonable at all. What I believe is that it is unreasonable _when compared to the amount of content which was available in comparable products in previous editions_.

Some prices are more justifiable than others. Frex, I think the 4E Draconomicon and Open Grave are great value for the money, while the 4E MM1 is not.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Then there's the fact that people on the internet like to argue.



Not everyone wants to argue. Some just like making vaguely ironic statements.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

Sammael said:


> I agree. I do not think that the current level of prices is unreasonable at all. What I believe is that it is unreasonable _when compared to the amount of content which was available in comparable products in previous editions_.
> 
> Some prices are more justifiable than others. Frex, I think the 4E Draconomicon and Open Grave are great value for the money, while the 4E MM1 is not.



That enters into a whole other issue. What people consider content, and how much of it they want/need. It's more a personal taste issue.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

Another clue for "blindly defending" is when a rule is called perfectly fine, working as intended, etc. by a defender when it's criticised, and then later gets corrected by WotC.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 20, 2009)

Sammael said:


> EDIT: For the sake of clarification, the "original rules" I'm referring to are the skill challenge rules. I am not implying that all of 4E is broken, because it's not.



This would have been an extremely helpful clarification in your original post, and is exactly the sort of thing I wanted to draw attention to.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Another clue for "blindly defending" is when a rule is called perfectly fine, working as intended, etc. by a defender when it's criticised, and then later gets corrected by WotC.



Is it? Maybe the poster still found the old rule perfectly fine..

Reminds me of the Golden Wyvern debate. Okay, I disliked the name a lot, but the idea was awesome and the fact that WotC removed the entire concept is disappointing to me. I still see why they did it.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Is it? Maybe the poster still found the old rule perfectly fine..
> 
> Reminds me of the Golden Wyvern debate. Okay, I disliked the name a lot, but the idea was awesome and the fact that WotC removed the entire concept is disappointing to me. I still see why they did it.




I am talking about rules, not fluff. I see it a lot in MMOGs - people make up reasons why something that's pretty much clearly a bug or broken is ok, and imagine reasons why it would be designed that way. In the 4E example, it would be people claiming (hypotheticall, I doubt anyone did it there) that PCs are not supposed to pass most skill challenges.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I am talking about rules, not fluff. I see it a lot in MMOGs - people make up reasons why something that's pretty much clearly a bug or broken is ok, and imagine reasons why it would be designed that way. In the 4E example, it would be people claiming (hypotheticall, I doubt anyone did it there) that PCs are not supposed to pass most skill challenges.



Or, again, someone can prefer the old way the rule works.

Take for instance the 3e Harm spell. In 3.0, it reduced the target to 1d4 HP. In 3.5, it did 10 damage/caster level. Some liked the original, because it was _deadly_. Others thought it was anti-climactic (hit the dragon, reduce it to 3 hp, stab it with a rusty spoon). Just because people defended the 3.0 version, it doesn't make them defending WotC; they just _like that version better_. 

There's also the issue of WotC not being able to get the damn rule right. See: Wildshape/polymorph. New errata was issued every three months.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

I'd say anyone who simply defended each new rule from WotC, even if it changed the old rule he liked, is a blind defender.

In short: Blind defenders are those who change their opinions and preferences (or at least their stated ones) whenever WotC changes something.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Feb 20, 2009)

I can feel the nerd rage within you.  Now let it out!!  Use it to strike your enemies down, then your transformation to the dark nerd will be complete!  Together, you and I will rule!


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 20, 2009)

This has nothing to do with WotC or heck even D&D for that matter. What you call "blindly defending" is a rather common mentality that can be generally accepted as irrational and will come up in any form of argument were one side is somehow "official" or "sanctioned". It is about as rational a process as calling for nerfs on the WoW forums and threatening to sue Blizzard . . .

What I mean is, this discussion is pointless. This type of mentality is inherently resilient; you might have a small chance to reverse it with actual contact when you can stress some leverage but in the interwebs you are better off banging your head to the wall. The best you can do imo is to learn to actually tell the difference between such "blind defending" and logical argumentation and to avoid generalizing. It is a two sided coin. (And please, we do not need yet another thread that is thinly veiled version of an edition war).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I'd say anyone who simply defended each new rule from WotC, even if it changed the old rule he liked, is a blind defender.
> 
> In short: Blind defenders are those who change their opinions and preferences (or at least their stated ones) whenever WotC changes something.




That works as a definition to me. 

So, what might motivate this people? 

And are they common, or do people just attribute others as "blind defender", without noticing that the opinions are actually a little more complex?


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That works as a definition to me.
> 
> So, what might motivate this people?




The age-old (often subconscious, maybe genetic) wish to "follow the leader". You see it all around us - from fashion trends driven by stars to religious and political figures who can do no wrong in the eyes of their followers. 
There's also the "group effect" you often see in families - you may think your father is a stubborn old fool, but you'll not accept an "outsider" call him that, and defend him.
Then, once something you like gets critiqued by someone you feel not close to - like a member of your "group" - it's hard not to slip into "full defense" mode.
And then the "he started it" effect comes up - people oppose criticsm because it's voiced by someone who fought them in the past, and they want to strike back. Bloodfeuds in olden times, internet grudges today.
I'd say humans are naturally driven to blindly defend things, and it takes work to remain objective and impartial towards something one likes, seeing their faults as well as their qualities, when others attack it.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And are they common, or do people just attribute others as "blind defender", without noticing that the opinions are actually a little more complex?




Very common.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That works as a definition to me.
> 
> So, what might motivate this people?
> 
> And are they common, or do people just attribute others as "blind defender", without noticing that the opinions are actually a little more complex?




I'd say they are not so common here, though certainly common elsewhere. Certainly there will be people who use the "blind defender" card to ostensibly disqualify someone's arguments (call them "blind opposers"?). Doesn't change the fact that this behaviour exists. As for motivation, there is a sense of security in advocating what is sanctioned and official, one might be prompted to reactively defend anything that is attacked by people he percieves as separatists because he is predisposed to conservative thinking. It is a common pattern we are all familiar with, but maybe we are not apt or willing to identify it within our shared community. I am sure anyone with a degree in psychology or sociology can give you exact terms.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 20, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> I've supported WotC on these forums but I resent any implication that I "blindly" agree with anything. When I see *what I consider to be* irrational motives and hatred lobbed in their direction, I occasionally feel strongly enough to stand up and shout about it. I do this partly because I loathe the culture of corporate demonisation that has sprung up around us all over the last few decades, and which by its very nature the internet has exploded.
> 
> The thread which spawned this fork is a good example. WotC took what I see as a totally reasonable action, and you get people comparing them to the insanity that was TSR in its darkest days. Ludicrous.
> 
> I'm a long-time WoW player and I used to do the same on their official forums, but I quickly gave up because the ratio of unadulterated (and unmoderated) immaturity which, yes, did occasionally threaten to raise a law suit because a class as described on the box had been changed in subsequent patches, was so high as to simply not be worth the effort of fighting.





If greedy corporations that treat employees as numbers and customers as mindless sheep don't deserve to be demonized, then I guess no one does.  These corporations you are defending are often run by people who would lay employees off and ruin thier families financial futures so they can get bigger bonuses.  I'm sorry but I'm not going to feel sorry for people who are so greedy they will ruin other people's lives to fatten their already huge bottom line.  I suppose you want us to feel sorry for Bernie Maedoff (however it's spelled) and Kenneth Lay as well.  Give me a break.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

And of course, many see their own attacks as defense of the thing they like, which they feel was attacked first.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 20, 2009)

Shazman said:


> If greedy corporations that treat employees as numbers and customers as mindless sheep don't deserve to be demonized, then I guess no one does.  These corporations you are defending are often run by people who would lay employees off and ruin thier families financial futures so they can get bigger bonuses.  I'm sorry but I'm not going to feel sorry for people who are so greedy they will ruin other people's lives to fatten their already huge bottom line.  I suppose you want us to feel sorry for Bernie Maedoff (however it's spelled) and Kenneth Lay as well.  Give me a break.




I'm confused. Is the bottomline of the D&D department of WotC that big? I am under the impression that their market is hardly growing. And I find the greedy corporations pitch to be a dangerous generalization. Also nothing deserves to be demonized; to do so is to abandon logic and deal with something impulsively and emotionally.


----------



## FourthBear (Feb 20, 2009)

Shazman said:


> If greedy corporations that treat employees as numbers and customers as mindless sheep don't deserve to be demonized, then I guess no one does.



Even if your description of WotC were correct (I do not believe it is), WotC is simply a game company.  That's it.  It doesn't produce deadly weapons, unsafe vehicles or toxic foodstuffs.  I think terrorist organizations, tyrannical governments, fraudulent financial institutions, abusive religious cults and criminal groups all over the world deserve demonization far, far more than a game company that makes business decisions you disagree with.  Let's get some perspective, here.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 20, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I'd say anyone who simply defended each new rule from WotC, even if it changed the old rule he liked, is a blind defender.
> 
> In short: Blind defenders are those who change their opinions and preferences (or at least their stated ones) whenever WotC changes something.




As far as skill challenges go, I was fine with them before (I thought the DCs were too high, but no big deal, PCs fail a lot; and the strangeness with the complexity I didn't really care about), but I also like them now.  I like them better now because I'd rather see the PCs succeed more often than not.

So am I a blind defender because I liked both versions of the rules?

(I think skill challenges still have problems - procedural problems - but I don't think they were ever in the math.)


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

If you liked skill challenges because PCs failed a lot, or if you said PC's failing a lot is no problem, but then liked the new rules better since PCs did not fail that often anymore, then yes, you are or were a blind defender.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 20, 2009)

Fenes said:


> If you liked skill challenges because PCs failed a lot, or if you said PC's failing a lot is no problem, but then liked the new rules better since PCs did not fail that often anymore, then yes, you are or were a blind defender.




If I like skill challenges for reasons that have nothing to do with the rate of success for PCs, then I'm not a blind defender?

edit: What I'm trying to say with these leading questions is that you might read a post where a guy (me) defends the original skill challenge system.  Then there is errata and the same guy (me) defends the new system.  This might look like blind defense, but the reason I like the system isn't really impacted by the changes that were made.

The thing is, you don't really know why someone is defending the system.  Calling it blind defense is assuming a motivation for a person that might not exist.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 20, 2009)

Calling someone a blind defender or blind hater is, IMO, no different than calling someone a 4E "fanboi" or a 4E "H4TER". It is an attempt to remove the legitimacy of a person's arguments or opinions by attacking the person rather than their argument or opinion.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> The thing is, you don't really know why someone is defending the system.  Calling it blind defense is assuming a motivation for a person that might not exist.




If people state their reasons one knows. If someone says "PCs fail a lot, and that's good!" and then later says "PCs succeed a lot, and that's good!" when the rules changed, then that's a blind defender.

If someone says "PCs failing a lot is no big deal" and later "The new system is better because PCs do not fail a lot anymore", then that's a blind defender.

Usually we know people's motivations, since they answer the arguments of the critics in order to defend the rules.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 20, 2009)

Eh, maybe you're right.  I think my own defense of 4E has been a little too blind at times.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

Shazman said:


> If greedy corporations that treat employees as numbers and customers as mindless sheep don't deserve to be demonized, then I guess no one does.  These corporations you are defending are often run by people who would lay employees off and ruin thier families financial futures so they can get bigger bonuses.  I'm sorry but I'm not going to feel sorry for people who are so greedy they will ruin other people's lives to fatten their already huge bottom line.  I suppose you want us to feel sorry for Bernie Maedoff (however it's spelled) and Kenneth Lay as well.  Give me a break.



I don't really see WotC as "a greedy corporation", if for no other reason than it's such a _minor_ company.

WotC is owned by Hasbro. The amount of money Hasbro brings in from WotC is a _blip_. Compare D&D sales to say, Pokemon, or M:TG. Their market is small, and the number of customers (potential and otherwise) is fairly limited.

WotC caters to such a niche market that it's hard to see them as a greedy corporation. It's like being a "Greedy corporation targeting left handed coffee farmers".


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 20, 2009)

Calling a company greedy as an insult is like calling a duck a mammal as an insult.  Of course companies are greedy.  That's their damn purpose.  Go back to communist Russia, man!

_No seriously, someone explain this argument to me.  I'm not quite grasping the intent of getting upset at a company - which literally exists solely for profit gaining reasons - desiring to make a profit._


----------



## Admiral Caine (Feb 20, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> Calling someone a blind defender or blind hater is, IMO, no different than calling someone a 4E "fanboi" or a 4E "H4TER". It is an attempt to remove the legitimacy of a person's arguments or opinions by attacking the person rather than their argument or opinion.




I agree with you Mudbunny, as usual.

But.. I think this still goes hand in hand with what the Original Poster was getting at..

*It is not what is said, but the way in which it is said*... that perhaps makes the Original Poster feel that the 'defenders' were doing so blindly.

A perceived double standard if you will.

The law supports WOTC, so whatever is said in their defense is okay? Any opposing point of view can be called ridiculous, irrational, deserving of a smackdown, or just crap?

It is the manner in which some defenders chose to voice their opinion that probably prompted the Original Poster to dismiss them as 'blind.'

Which is exactly your point.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> _No seriously, someone explain this argument to me.  I'm not quite grasping the intent of getting upset at a company - which literally exists solely for profit gaining reasons - desiring to make a profit._



I think it has to do with a belief that gaming companies should exist only to make games for us, not to make money.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 20, 2009)

Patently false, of course. No one is saying that WotC should not make money. It's just that a lot of people are questioning the actual value of products vs their relative or perceived value.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I think it has to do with a belief that gaming companies should exist only to make games for us, not to make money.




I think there might be two extreme views:

1) WotC is (or at least should be) only there to make profit. They don't care about what they produce, toilet paper, rulebooks, or toilet paper concealed as rulebook, as long as it makes money. But those ignore that they are producing games, and there are more profitable things to produce.

2) WotC is (or at least should) only care about the games. It doesn't matter whether they make some money or not. But those ignore that if they don't make money, they will eventually have to stop creating games. 

So yeah, I think WotC should consider their bottom line. It is important to them. But they also want to make gaming products.

But WotC is not an individual. So there are people - like the designers and developers - that look out for WotC from a game system perspective - make the best game they can. And there are other people - maybe marketing or brand or however WotC is organized - that look out that WotC still makes money in the process. And these groups have to inform each other and sometimes have to make compromises.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 20, 2009)

Sammael said:


> Patently false, of course. No one is saying that WotC should not make money.



That's not what I said. Let me try to rephrase it. 

Some people believe that gaming companies raison d'être should be making games for us, making money should be a far second (or tenth for that matter).




> It's just that a lot of people are questioning the actual value of products vs their relative or perceived value.



I agree. As in this kind exists too. But these are not the people I was talking about.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> Calling someone a blind defender or blind hater is, IMO, no different than calling someone a 4E "fanboi" or a 4E "H4TER". It is an attempt to remove the legitimacy of a person's arguments or opinions by attacking the person rather than their argument or opinion.



Well, I for one will admit to being a fanboy. I love 4e. I adore it. There are some places I think could have been more polished out of the gate, I see some room for improvements, but by and large, it rocks my socks. Not my favorite system (Still waiting on the Dresden Files RPG), but I want to roll around naked on a bed of 4e DMGs and MMs.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Calling a company greedy as an insult is like calling a duck a mammal as an insult.



But... ducks aren't mammals. They're avians. 


> _No seriously, someone explain this argument to me.  I'm not quite grasping the intent of getting upset at a company - which literally exists solely for profit gaining reasons - desiring to make a profit._



Outside of the realm of gaming, in more a general sense, the issue is companies that try to make a profit at the expense of _everything else_. Safety, the environment, their employees, exploiting their customers, etc. So it leads to a level of distrust - "they're trying to get money at you, at what cost?"

Here is where also you get the inclusion of someone's personal politics, so that's about as far as I'll go on this board.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2009)

Rechan said:


> But... ducks aren't mammals. They're avians.
> Outside of the realm of gaming, in more a general sense, the issue is companies that try to make a profit at the expense of _everything else_. Safety, the environment, their employees, exploiting their customers, etc. So it leads to a level of distrust - "they're trying to get money at you, at what cost?"




And companies _aren't people_.  As fun as it is to pain a company or corporation as one evil looking Eastern European man in a business suit with a secret underground lair and a white fluffy cat*, that's not how the real world works.  People _inside_ of a company can be greedy.  A company cannot.  Literally, a company cannot be greedy.  People talk about the Enron scandal, but many people who got screwed by it were _either working with or for Enron._

*I do this too.  It makes reading about stock trading a thousand times more interesting, which, in retrospective, isn't difficult to do.


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 22, 2009)

Anytime something people have a lot of vested emotion in radically changes you get camps of people dedicated to defending tradition and camps dedicated to advocating for change. When it is the 'powers that be' that iniates the change it becomes even more muddled, as you get the traditionalist aligning with the revolutionaries and the liberals working for 'the man.'

And that's about the state of things here.

We've all run to our labels, found some strange bedfellows there, and tossed out the usual arguments at each other.

Nobody's happy.

In order to get around that shark without jumping it, you need to break tradition while appearing to conform, and you need to be 'the man' while appearing to be a pack of outsiders - ie: a new administration / regime change. Kind of like how WotC pulled off 3.0.

It was all about the timing, and a stream of adds proclaiming the return to the dungeon. They even carted Gygax out for a few hand waving moments. Yet they were the new kids on the block, and it definitely wasn't the same rock n' roll we grew up on. It just had the right wrapping - they got us all in the same bed for a few years.


Oh:
The other topic in this thread... 

Marijuana in its natural state might not be addictive or harmful, but more and more of the newer strains of the drug are getting produced to have a more potent effect. Some of those new strains end up being lethal. And if you're buying that crap on the street - you've got no idea what its been dipped or dosed in. You can be pretty sure the guy selling it to you wants to find a way to make it addictive, and whoever's growing his supply is probably working on that.

It could be argued that prostitution reduces victims, if you look at it from the PoV of reducing the spread of STDs and lowering human trafficking. On the other hand, human trafficking has gone -UP- in many places that legalized Prostitution, such as Germany and the Netherlands. But at that point its an immigration issue. Its going up for the same reason your local farmer is using illegal workers (Slavery lost out in the 19th century when it became cheaper to pay less than a living wage to a worker - giving the 'free' world stronger economic power. But in today's global world, it has become even cheaper to simply replace a dead slave... ergo human trafficking / slavery is once again profitable). On the other hand, if you look at prostitution from a moral PoV - it has victims in spouses, Johns, and workers. But when illegal these victims lack health checks and you get things like children born with AIDS from mothers who have never been with anyone other than their husbands...


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 22, 2009)

arcady said:


> Marijuana in its natural state might not be addictive or harmful, but more and more of the newer strains of the drug are getting produced to have a more potent effect. Some of those new strains end up being lethal.




There has never been a single documented case of someone dying from an overdose of marijuana. This reminds of old government propaganda about "devil weed" and nonsense like that.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2009)

arcady said:


> Marijuana in its natural state might not be addictive or harmful, but more and more of the newer strains of the drug are getting produced to have a more potent effect. Some of those new strains end up being lethal. And if you're buying that crap on the street - you've got no idea what its been dipped or dosed in. You can be pretty sure the guy selling it to you wants to find a way to make it addictive, and whoever's growing his supply is probably working on that.[/quote[
> 
> Doesn't that only give more weight to the argument that it's better off legal?
> 
> ...


----------



## Shazman (Feb 22, 2009)

FourthBear said:


> Even if your description of WotC were correct (I do not believe it is), WotC is simply a game company.  That's it.  It doesn't produce deadly weapons, unsafe vehicles or toxic foodstuffs.  I think terrorist organizations, tyrannical governments, fraudulent financial institutions, abusive religious cults and criminal groups all over the world deserve demonization far, far more than a game company that makes business decisions you disagree with.  Let's get some perspective, here.




I wasn't directing my ire at WotC, but at greedy and corrupt corporations in general.  Hasbro and WotC aren't "evil" to the same degree that many of the corrupt financial institutions that have helped to create the current economic crisis are.  They have done some things in the past few years that are pretty disrespectful to many fans of the D&D game, and some things that seem to be just plain stupid.  I wouldn't say that they are the epitome of evil, but I definitely have little enough respect for them and what they have done to one of my favorite pastimes that I no longer want to associate with them or give them any of my money.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2009)

Shazman said:


> I wasn't directing my ire at WotC, but at greedy and corrupt corporations in general.  Hasbro and WotC aren't "evil" to the same degree that many of the corrupt financial institutions that have helped to create the current economic crisis are.  They have done some things in the past few years that are pretty disrespectful to many fans of the D&D game, and some things that seem to be just plain stupid.  I wouldn't say that they are the epitome of evil, but I definitely have little enough respect for them and what they have done to one of my favorite pastimes that I no longer want to associate with them or give them any of my money.




Er.  You're being a bit naive here, I think.

Companies exist to make a bottom line.  That's the entire point of the market.  Of ANY market.  Of *A* market.  Make money.  Enron is no different from WotC is no different from the FLGS is no different from the guy selling roses on the corner.  They all have one goal.  Get money.  It may not sound romantic to think that, but in most cases, it's true.  That's not to say that money is 100% the most important thing at all times, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think it's on most peoples' minds.

Don't cast your blame at the company doing what they shareholders want them to.  The economic crises is, quite frankly, something we've been building up for some time.  I live in California and know quite a few people who work in various parts of the housing industry with a few of the giants, some of whom are still around, and THAT bubble burst was seen _years_ ago by people in the actual industry (Which in turn is why some of them are still around).  So why did more money get put in?  _Consumers and shareholders wanted it_.

A company, at the end of the day, isn't a Shadowrun-esque megalomaniac run country.  It is, at the end of the day, responsible for its actions to the consumers and to the shareholders.  Ask _them_ why the entire emphasis of business for the past decade (or two) has been increasingly put on short term profits with little to no long term plans.  Ask them why they took loans _they knew they couldn't afford_.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 22, 2009)

I am not as naive as you think.  I know that the corporations didn't create the economic crisis, but they sure haven't helped it.  I have nothing against them making money.  It's the means they use to get that money that I question.  As you said, the focus on short term profits at the expense of everything else seems to be the current trend in corporate culture these days.  In the end, it gives the CEOs some fat bonuses, but hurts everyone else.  It ends up hurting the customer, the company, and the shareholders.  Of course, the CEOs don't care about the economic destruction they cause because they have a golden parachute they can count on no matter how bad they mess things up. There seems to be no accountability for their actions. The problem I have with WotC/Hasbro is that they seem consumed with getting the short term profits of a new edition without regard for what it does to the game, the customers, or the company in the long run.  D&D is different from most prodcuts.  It is a game many people are passionate about.  It has history and traditions that many players believe should be respected.  WotC trambled all over that to get some WOW addicts to try their game for a short term increase in sales.  That is what has angered a lot of D&D fans such as myself.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 22, 2009)

Fenes said:


> The age-old (often subconscious, maybe genetic) wish to "follow the leader". You see it all around us - from fashion trends driven by stars to religious and political figures who can do no wrong in the eyes of their followers.
> There's also the "group effect" you often see in families - you may think your father is a stubborn old fool, but you'll not accept an "outsider" call him that, and defend him.
> Then, once something you like gets critiqued by someone you feel not close to - like a member of your "group" - it's hard not to slip into "full defense" mode.
> And then the "he started it" effect comes up - people oppose criticsm because it's voiced by someone who fought them in the past, and they want to strike back. Bloodfeuds in olden times, internet grudges today.
> ...






Nymrohd said:


> I'd say they are not so common here, though certainly common elsewhere. Certainly there will be people who use the "blind defender" card to ostensibly disqualify someone's arguments (call them "blind opposers"?). Doesn't change the fact that this behaviour exists. As for motivation, there is a sense of security in advocating what is sanctioned and official, one might be prompted to reactively defend anything that is attacked by people he percieves as separatists because he is predisposed to conservative thinking. It is a common pattern we are all familiar with, but maybe we are not apt or willing to identify it within our shared community. I am sure anyone with a degree in psychology or sociology can give you exact terms.




I would try to simplify this process in just the group effect. Groups create conflict and conflict creates the standards or leaders of each group. Yet the fighting ground is one. So it seems that we are destined to struggle, it is a natural law or something. The question or the problem is that we learn to choose the right battles. The battles for the less negative consequences possible for all of us.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 22, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Er.  You're being a bit naive here, I think.




It depends from the POV. An economic "system" may be considered something mechanic, something considered as a machine and corporations just a part of such system in the current capitalist economy. There are also various different mechanical structures or "machines" that can logically work. I am saying that in theory there are various economic systems. 
Can they work perfectly from theory to practice? It highly depends on the conditions we are facing. Could they ever enter an auto-pilot and function in perpetuity? I highly doubt so. So what it remains to think about is the morality of the system itself. What kind of morality it looks like it needs or aspires to as its driving force.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 22, 2009)

This is really getting off topic.


----------



## tenkar (Feb 22, 2009)

Rechan said:


> This is really getting off topic.




I thought the topic was about marijuana smoking evil companies that overextended on loans and employed Golden Wyverns riden by Blind Defenders.  Its not!?!

Damn...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2009)

tenkar said:


> I thought the topic was about marijuana smoking evil companies that overextended on loans and employed Golden Wyverns riden by Blind Defenders.  Its not!?!
> 
> Damn...




It might make a fine house rule.


----------



## avin (Feb 22, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I think it has to do with a belief that gaming companies should exist only to make games for us, not to make money.




/Disagree.

Making money is one thing. Making money releasing poor products such as MM4E (compare it to MM3.5) is bad. Promising "INCREASED PAINTSTEPS" miniatures when reducing numbers and raising prices, showing an excellent Goliath then releasing a GREEN CRAP (sorry DDM guys, that Goliath is crap compared to what you showed before) it's insulting.

Defending that kind of decision is nonsense


----------



## Shazman (Feb 22, 2009)

Edited.  Refer to following post.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 22, 2009)

Thank you Avin.  Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion.  Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous.  Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended. Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended.  Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended. Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended.  Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended. Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming, or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended. Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended.  Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended.  In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 22, 2009)

I like how all the people yelling "Blind defenders!" have an axe to grind about 4e.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 22, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Thank you Avin.  Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion.  Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous.  Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended. Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended.  Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended. Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended.  Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended. Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming, or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended. Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended.  Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended.  In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.




Good thing that nothing in this wall of text happened then.


----------



## avin (Feb 22, 2009)

Shazman said:


> In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.




Now it's my turn to disagree with you hehehe... 

Fourth edition is a matter of taste, like it or not. Things such as Character Builder and Compendium should have been done for 3.5 era, so I can't agree that all that has been made is silly.

It is not.

PS. Wall of text crits you for 587359832479 damage hehehe


----------



## Shazman (Feb 22, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Good thing that nothing in this wall of text happened then.




Really? If you believe that, then I'd like to sell you some ocean front property in Arizona and recommend you invest with a guy named Bernard Maedoff.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 22, 2009)

> One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to "blindly" agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising. How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers?




Well, that's probably because a lot of MMORPG fans (especially on the internet) make a lot of D&D fans seem like calm, rational, reasonable human beings. Being Blizzard's contact to the WoW forums has to be a much rougher job than even the craziest stuff the folks at WotC like The Rouse need to put up with. 



> I think some of the threads have put their finger on the issue: this is DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. If we were talking about Conan 2e or True20 or Mutants and Masterminds, then I don't think people would really be as bothered either way. But, this is the game that many of us grew up playing. for most of us, this was our first rpg. This is also THE rpg in pop culture. Most people don't know anything about roleplaying games, but they know DnD. So, when we see DnD go through some changes it becomes much more personal because we have much more invested in it.




I think this gets at it. For me, D&D isn't a tremendously emotional issue (but it is a very interesting one), but I think for a lot of fans it is.



> I think one of the issues is that some people are associating DnD with WotC and some are not. I think those that associate DnD with WotC (whether consciously or not) are the ones that defend WotC the most adamantly even when WotC actions negatively affect them (albeit perhaps in minor ways). However, the folks who do not associate WotC with DnD (and I'm one of them) believe that the game or something like it would exist if WotC disappeared tomorrow. This belief may or may not be true, but I think it is what some people believe.




D&D is not inextricably tied to WotC or Hasbro or even books with "Dungeons & Dragons" logos on the cover. It's got its own deal.



> So, I think many of these discussions related to WotC corporate decisions and edition wars are just people talking past each other. If you love DnD and you believe that DnD can't exist without WotC, then of course you have to love WotC too. However, if you love DnD and you believe that it is YOUR game and not theirs, then WotC is merely a custodian of a legacy. And, if you believe that the custodian is no longer acting in the best interest of DnD, then it must be time for a new custodian.




Eh...I'm not the biggest fan of 4e, but WotC has done a pretty awesome job of giving the game new life after 2e wound to a close. Which gives them bonus brownie points, even if I've got some problems with the direction they're taking currently.



> This might seem like nothing more than mental masturbation, but I feel that it is important to understand someone's perspective when getting in these kinds of discussions which can sometimes get heated. And, my guess this is why some people will never be convinced one way or another.




For the record, I think associating D&D with WotC and defending all WotC actions is as narrow minded and sycophantic as criticizing WotC at every opportunity and claiming that what they're doing rejects the tradition of the game.

There's ample middle ground for rational people to disagree, here. Irrational mania on either extreme is just counter-productive to an actual conversation about the game.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 22, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Thank you Avin.  Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion.  Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous.  Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended. Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended.  Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended. Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended.  Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended. Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming, or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended. Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended.  Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended.  In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.




Its goofiness like this that makes people who might like 4e think "WTF???" and be labeled as "blind defenders" when they try to dispute these apparently handed-down-from-on-high opinions.  Think about it, if people with an axe to grind against 4e (the "blind attackers") didn't spew nonsense and vitriol, the "blind defenders" wouldn't have to defend anything.

Some of the complaints against 4e are pure BS.  Things like "its an MMO", "4e is only a minis battlegame", "its impossible to roleplay in 4e", or "WotC destroyed what made it D&D" is patently untrue.  If you truly believe these things, then I submit the problem and limitation isn't with the system, but with the player/DM.  I have 9 months of story-rich, heavy RP with 4e to refute those arguements, so who is right?  The answer?  Neither of us.  The game is what it is- its how the DM and players use the game that determines what it can be, and some systems appeal more to certain playstyles than others.  I prefer a more freeform, less rules-regimented approach to gaming, so for me and my group, 3e was an inferior system that got in the way of playing due to system mastery and emphasis on builds.  Other people might like the regimented nature of 3e, and find 4e's philosophy on gaming to be too "out there" for them to embrace.   

Some aspects of 4e weren't handled as well as they should have been.  WotC could have been more diplomatic in their marketing of the game, and explained the logic behind the new game design better to make current players more at ease.  But 4e is a step forward in terms of being mechanically solid, conceptually and mechanically innovative, and modular- the system has a lot more potential than any previous version of D&D has if WotC decides to pursue it.  And WotC has been VERY good at admitting mistakes and keeping up to date with errata and correcting those mistakes as they happen in 4e, in contrast to 3e, where the system was extremely broken right on release, and we got a complete revision of the game three years later.  Also, while it was delayed, the DDI, the electronic magazines, character builder, and compendium are top-notch products and worth every penny- 3e should have been so lucky to be supported this well by WotC.

In the end, like or dislike of a game isn't an empirical or objective situation- its entirely subjective.  4e isn't perfect (no game is), but its also not going to cause the destruction of the hobby, and it doesn't deserve the vemon spewed at it and those who play it by bitter malcontents.  For me and my group, 4e is an awesome game, and far more fun for us than 3e ever dreamed of being.  Others may disagree with my opinion, and they are entitled to their own beliefs.  Play whatever you like, but trying to stir up trouble and dictate "badwrongfun" is small-minded, pointless, and ultimately more stress and worry than its worth.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 22, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Thank you Avin.  Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion.  Blindly defending WotC and 4E is ridiculous.



so is blindly bashing it...luckly I have my eyes wide open when I defend them...






> Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended.



  I still see a wonderfully rich diverse ropeplaying game...I just don't miss the 'tradition' of things just becuse they were always this way...(Example: fighters can't go toe to toe with wizards after level 8)




> Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended.



  so you would perfer they not listen, and learn...you want them to only produce perfection, or leave it as is??? I am not understanding this one bit...errata is fixing things so they work as intended...





> Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended.



  I will onlly say this...I like the new realms...but I wasn't a fan of the old one...




> Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended.




     agreed...they should have made no comments instead of lying..



> Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended.



  I like the new e mags better then I have likes the paper ones in 5 or 6 years...although late 80's through mid 90's dragons are my fav



> Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming,



 that is not insulting




> or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended.



  that is not what they said...they said you shouldn't have to spend resources that can be spent on useful things on RP only things...it creates a TAX on roleplayers and divides the fans...it is better if we keep RP and flavor away from costing usefulness...
        Now if you disagree that is fine...but they didn't insult you...



> Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended.



 I would perfer for prices to never go up too, but I don't think that will ever happen...



> Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended.



 I am not to happy with that eaither...



> In short, defending WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly.




  In short, bashing all of WotC's actions over the past two years just seems silly


----------



## Shazman (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so is blindly bashing it...luckly I have my eyes wide open when I defend them...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe silly to you, but it seems like a natural consequence of the horrible way they have handled killing the print mags, reinventing the Forgotten Realms, and making a completely new RPG with the Dungeons and Dragons label slapped on it to me.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 22, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Really? If you believe that, then I'd like to sell you some ocean front property in Arizona and recommend you invest with a guy named Bernard Maedoff.




You could try, but it would amount to the same results as spreading the twisted version of the truth that you did in your previous post.

Not much at all.

Some of your claims are based on your personal opinion, not facts, some are flat out wrong, and the rest are gross exaggerations. The only one that is anywhere near the truth is the last one, about the miniatures. Perhaps. But I think I will reserve judgement until we actually see the miniatures in the stores.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 22, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> Some of the complaints against 4e are pure BS.  Things like "its an MMO", "4e is only a minis battlegame", "its impossible to roleplay in 4e", or "WotC destroyed what made it D&D" is patently untrue.  If you truly believe these things, then I submit the problem and limitation isn't with the system, but with the player/DM.  I have 9 months of story-rich, heavy RP with 4e to refute those arguements, so who is right?  The answer?  Neither of us.  The game is what it is- its how the DM and players use the game that determines what it can be, and some systems appeal more to certain playstyles than others.  I prefer a more freeform, less rules-regimented approach to gaming, so for me and my group, 3e was an inferior system that got in the way of playing due to system mastery and emphasis on builds.  Other people might like the regimented nature of 3e, and find 4e's philosophy on gaming to be too "out there" for them to embrace.




As you point out not everyone is educated to play the same way and to have the same standard of preferences or expectations. So why are those complaints BS? To some people 4e may feel like this and they are free to state so and their opinion is respectable -as it is your opinion about the merits you see in the game.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 22, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> You could try, but it would amount to the same results as spreading the twisted version of the truth that you did in your previous post.
> 
> Not much at all.
> 
> Some of your claims are based on your personal opinion, not facts, some are flat out wrong, and the rest are gross exaggerations. The only one that is anywhere near the truth is the last one, about the miniatures. Perhaps. But I think I will reserve judgement until we actually see the miniatures in the stores.




Yes, some are opinion.  Others are completey true to the best of my knowledge.  Which ones that aren't "only my opinion" are not true?  Besides as Xechnao stated, my opinions are just as valid as yours.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> agreed...they should have made no comments instead of lying..




I didn't see or read one lie about the development of 4e, and no one, absolutely no one has been able to produce quotes to prove they did.

They skirted the issue and they engaged in some cunning corp-speak, and that led people to believe that they were saying they weren't working on 4e.

But they did never, as far as I know, flat out deny they did. So the lying bit is, again as far as I know, not accurate.

And if anyone has any proof to the opposite, I'd appreciate said proof presented. But I'm not holding my breath.

As for the other points ... yeah, statements lika that motivate me into defending WotC. Except for the errata thing, that was not a good thing in my book, and a serious letdown for me.

/M


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 22, 2009)

I was under the impression that people saying 4e was comeing were crazy...infact in the WotC board my sig said just that...I also remember (but have no qouties of developers fostering the idea that they were not...

    I have not herd the direct lie, but I have since two gen cons's ago herd the complaint that they did...if they did I agree reason to complain...


      I will say they did a good job convincing a big group of us on the web that they were not, how ever they did it...however about 4 weeks before the anouncment I do remember all the chatter and speculations...


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 22, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Yes, some are opinion.  Others are completey true to the best of my knowledge.  Which ones that aren't "only my opinion" are not true?  Besides as Xechnao stated, my opinions are just as valid as yours.




Well of course your opinion is as valid as mine. Problem is when you present your opinion as fact.

Anyway:



> Turning a wonderfully rich, diverse role playing game steeped in tradition into a mixture of a minis game and an MMORPG (in my opinion at least) to increase short term profits is not something to be defended.



Opinion, but at least you admit it here.



> Having an obscene amount of errata in your brand new edition you have been working on for over three years is not something to be defended.



Opinion / half-truth. The amount of errata is quite small. While skill challenges did get their share, most other errata was just minor stuff, less or at par with than most other companies produce. If they even bother.



> Completely destroying your most popular campaign setting to such a degree that even novels set in 4gotten Realms are distasteful to fans in an extremely silly, illogical way just to make it fit in with the mechancis of 4E is not something to be defended.



 Personal opinion/exagerration. Far from all fans find it distasteful. In fact, this fan is once again a fan after 3.5 butchered my beloved FR.



> Blatantly lying about working on 4th edition when asked about it is not something to be defended.



 They never lied. This has been proven about 100 times on these and other boards. It's a bit boring to keep hearing it.



> Killing the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon for the horrendously inadequate and overpriced DDI is not somethng to be defended.



Personal opinion/exagerration/false. While you may think of the quality as you wish, saying it is overpriced just makes you look silly. Also, by the way you have been posting about 4e since, well always, I am going to  hazard a guess and say that it's fair to assume that you do not subscribe. Well, as someone who does, I can tell you the eDragon and eDungeon rocks, and that a vast majority of their subscribes are very to extremely satisfied with what they get (around 85% according to a poll here on ENworld).




> Making insulting comments to their customers such as saying we can shake our fists at 4E like a farmer shaking his fist at clouds, but 4E is still coming



This is not an insult.



> or if our games use profession and craft skills they are not fun are not things to be defended.



Thats not what the book says. It says:



			
				Races & Classes said:
			
		

> But when’s the last time you saw a PC make a Profession check that had a useful effect on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be. Sorry.)



 It's called an exaggeration made to drive home a point. A hyperbole. Instead you chose to see it as a personal insult to your way of playing. I guess they overestimated the cleverness and maturity of their audience.



> Increasing the prices of DDM miniatures while reducing quality is not something to be defended.Also, as Avin said, showing us the picture of the fantastically painted goliath as an example of the increase in quality of future miniature sets, and then showing us the poorly painted goliath and other horribly painted minis they are actually producing is not something to be defended.



After re-reading this, I am not even sure what you mean.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I have not herd the direct lie, but I have since two gen cons's ago herd the complaint that they did...




The existance of a claim of lying is not proof of lying actually having been perpertated. 

I have read gamers on the Internet claiming 100% knowledge about gaming books and contents that they had no knowledge about. How did I know they were clueless?

I was writing the damn books, and only me and my editors knew the contents.

But not knowing will not stop some gamers from saying anything and claim 100% certainty. And accusing someone of lying is serious business, so any such claim should, IMO, be backed up by more substance than "I've heard some guy say it".

So to enable you to make a good and solid decision about this, those who accuse WotC of lying should present their evidence. It's as simple as that.

IMO, YMMV and all that.

/M


----------



## Campbell (Feb 22, 2009)

Here's the thing - if you want to engage in any sort of fruitful discussion of 4e (or any game) with fans or designers of the game it's probably best to refrain from statements that are designed to provoke hostile reactions. I know that when I see someone enter a discussion in attack mode I'm disinclined to treat them with any level of seriousness.

It is possible to discuss 4e in a critical manner. Posters like Kamikaze Midget, Lizard, and Reynard do it on a regular basis. The trick is to show respect for the experiences and insights of your fellow posters even when you disagree with them. It also helps if your criticism of the game is informed criticism.

Examples of Informed Criticism

4e's lack of Profession, Perform, and Craft skills messes with my sense of immersion because it makes me feel like my character has no life outside of adventuring.
4e's monster stat blocks don't tell me enough about a creature's overall abilities to use that creature in a simulationist way.
There aren't enough utility powers that have a use outside of combat.
Rituals take too long to cast. This limits my ability to use magic creatively in tense situations.
The 4e Monster Manual doesn't give me enough information to effectively use creatures, especially new creatures.
KM's Wrought Paper Tiger critique.

Of course, that's assuming discussion is your aim.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 23, 2009)

Maggan said:


> I didn't see or read one lie about the development of 4e, and no one, absolutely no one has been able to produce quotes to prove they did.



Same here. I do recall a quote from a WotC staff that they were not working on a 4th edition that would require the use of miniatures, but I can't find a link back to that quote either.

I've made a number of requests for links or other proof from people who claimed that WotC lied, but I've never received any responses.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 23, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Well of course your opinion is as valid as mine. Problem is when you present your opinion as fact.
> 
> Anyway:
> 
> ...




Whatever.  The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> As you point out not everyone is educated to play the same way and to have the same standard of preferences or expectations. So why are those complaints BS? To some people 4e may feel like this and they are free to state so and their opinion is respectable -as it is your opinion about the merits you see in the game.




The problem with these complaints is that they are usually stated as absolute fact, and that to disagree with them someone would have to be woefully uninformed and ignorant, or a "blind defender"....which clearly isn't the case.  Certainly some ideas from computer gaming, MMOs, and minis battle games were used in making 4e, but then again, that was true in 3e as well.  This is good for the game- taking ideas that worked well in other games allows the game to evolve and stay current with the public's interests.  But just because an idea or theme is used DOES NOT make the game simply an MMO or minis battle game.  4e does focus a lot on combat, but that doesn't mean that 4e can ONLY handle combat.  4e's design philosophy is that roleplaying doesn't need so many rules to handle character interaction as some other systems do, and that DMs and players should, you know, actually ROLEPLAY a situation rather than simply roll dice to solve the outcome.

Of course people are free to have their own opinions, but stating their opinions as incontravertible facts, then berating the game and its fans as sycophants of WotC shows their judgement and ability for rational discourse to be questionable at best.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 23, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Whatever.  The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.



So.... then.... basically you are saying that Jack99 is right, but "whatever". And then redirect to a "well, they do it to us more!" argument?


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Whatever.  The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.



Why are you saying that? Can you prove it at all? Why should irrational 4th edition haters be less irrational than the "irrational Wotc-defenders"? 

Or was this only to throw a fit? 

I would guess so...


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 23, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Whatever.  The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.




Heh.  This is highly amusing.  Jack99 answered every one of your problems, point by point, citing examples where needed and you're dismissing him as "blind".  You've made a very solid and convincing case for the existence of "blind h4ters".  Priceless.


----------



## tenkar (Feb 23, 2009)

So, Blind Defenders use which power source in 4e?

On that note, which 3.x splat book had 4ed Haters in it?  Is it OGL?

Sorry, I can't make a serious comment when an argument comes down to the school yard equivalent of "I know you are, but what am?"

So, who'se up for a game of Rolemaster?  We have Classic, Express, Fantasy Role Play, HARP, or should I dig out the original rules?  

"One Game to Rule Them All, and in the confusion blind them"


----------



## Rel (Feb 23, 2009)

Campbell said:


> Here's the thing - if you want to engage in any sort of fruitful discussion of 4e (or any game) with fans or designers of the game it's probably best to refrain from statements that are designed to provoke hostile reactions. I know that when I see someone enter a discussion in attack mode I'm disinclined to treat them with any level of seriousness.
> 
> It is possible to discuss 4e in a critical manner. Posters like Kamikaze Midget, Lizard, and Reynard do it on a regular basis. The trick is to show respect for the experiences and insights of your fellow posters even when you disagree with them. It also helps if your criticism of the game is informed criticism.
> 
> ...




Ladies and gentlemen of ENWorld, I would encourage each and every one of you to read and then re-read Campbell's excellent post here.  It is a succinct and insightful guide to the "best" way to post in matters such as these.  If you do this, engage in mutually respectful debate, underpinned with polite and thoughtful crtique, you will never invoke the wrath of the moderators.  And it matters not a whit where you fall upon the gaming spectrum regarding any edition of any game.

If you engage in personal insults, sweeping insults and petty jibes then things are likely to end poorly for you.

Read and re-read.  Then think before posting.  Thank you.


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 23, 2009)

I'm sorry, but there are a great chunk of companies out there that if you call them to ask about a rumored new product (or whatever), you will hear the token "Microsoft/Apple/etc does not comment on rumors".  If you are releasing a new edition in 3 years, do you really go ahead and tell people then "Hey it's 2009, we're gonna have a new edition out in 2012.  Not as backwards compatible as some would like, but we think it will be pretty fun.  Oh yeah, keep buying our current edition the next 3 years.  Kthxbai!".  Sorry, that is just asking to never sell another product until you release your new one.  

Rememebr, people started asking WotC "Hey are you gonan release a new edition next year" probably about 6 months after 3.5 went out the door.  Do you really expect them to address that?  

The shaking your fist comment wasn't an insult either.  They could have said something like "There are certain inevitabilities in life.  Death, Taxes, and a new edition of D&D.  It will happen when it happens".  The farmer shaking his fist at the sky is just an amusing image to me, one I've seen many times in various media.  IMO, if you can read that and see it as an insult, it's possible that you may just be looking for something to be insulted by.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 23, 2009)

You can disagree with someone or something or a vague decision without making it _bad_ or _evil_.

Do I think the MM4e is a bad deal compared to the 3.5 ones?  Sure.  That doesn't make it bad or evil.  There's tons of people who disagree with me, and they're the target audience, not I.  If anything WotC is giving it's consumers _exactly_ what it wants.  That's not bad or evil.  Quite the opposite; that's exactly what a "good" company should be doing.

Oh, and CEOs aren't all the Green Goblin.  Nor do they have some bizarre divine mandate to do whatever they want with the company.  Once again, they have a responsibility to the shareholders and consumers, _and_ to the board of directors.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 23, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Whatever.  The people that blindly defend WotC and 4E are often even more irrational than they claim us "4e haters" are.




Hating an edition of D&D is just silly. Posting to a messageboard about how much you hate it is even sillier.

What you need, is a cookie.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Hating an edition of D&D is just silly. Posting to a messageboard about how much you hate it is even sillier.
> 
> What you need, is a cookie.




We have cookies* on the d4rk side! 

*If you bake them.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 23, 2009)

Shazman said:


> I know that the corporations didn't create the economic crisis,




Not to get too political here, but actually, they did.  This "blame the consumer" nonsense is white noise from those that got us into this mess through staggering greed and unrestrained gambling.  Read up on the credit default swaps market.  

Blaming undereducated Dave the factory worker because he believed his banker when the banker said "we've got the perfect program created just for families like yours!" is ludicrous.  These programs were designed by the best and brightest highly educated financial minds in the world for the purpose of handing out high risk credit then trading and speculating with a balloon of fake wealth backed by air.  At one point, the value of the default swaps exceeded the combined GDP of every nation on the planet.  The more risky credit the banks handed out, the more "bets" they could place on default speculation, which they would then trade amongst themselves creating an artificial, completely unregulated market of fake wealth.  Uncontrolled, rampant corporate greed, and the world governments that allowed this to go on (principally, but not solely, the US government) are where exactly all the blame lies.

Sorry to get "political" in the thread, but this "blame the blue collar worker for wanting to own his own home and trusting the slick banker in his 3-piece suit and for not being an expert on international finance" thing really pisses me off.  It's a smoke and mirrors act engineered by the people responsible for this mess to try and redirect blame, and disseminated by people who still believe an unregulated market is self-correcting.  That's been soundly, terribly, and abruptly disproved.  Unless by self-correcting you mean - spirals out of control until it bursts, plunging the world into an economic crisis that was easily avoidable with a bit of regulation.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread... um, WotC good.  Fire bad.  As long as D&D is made by gamers, we are in good hands, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> *This is good for the game*- taking ideas that worked well in other games allows the game to evolve and stay current with the public's interests.  But just because an idea or theme is used DOES NOT make the game simply an MMO or minis battle game.  4e does focus a lot on combat, but that doesn't mean that 4e can ONLY handle combat.  4e's design philosophy is that roleplaying doesn't need so many rules to handle character interaction as some other systems do, and that DMs and players should, you know, actually ROLEPLAY a situation rather than simply roll dice to solve the outcome.
> 
> Of course people are free to have their own opinions, but stating their opinions as incontravertible facts, then berating the game and its fans as sycophants of WotC shows their judgement and ability for rational discourse to be questionable at best.




Yes, but even yourself you are presenting the premise I have highlighted above and what you expand on it as a fact. In my opinion this has not been good for the tabletop game. The choice of the source of influence that is. Some MMO are popular but perhaps the reason they are popular is because of their level of optimization for their medium and its capacities-personal computers online. Tabletops are another medium and have different strengths. Perhaps choosing a different source of influence, even one found in a video game but that its strength was some more general or universal idea of entertainment could be more appropriate. For example "the sims" is a game that such ideas could be found. Similarly in MMOs one could look for more universal things as for example research the fact that people like to form guilds. You would have to see what kind of people engage in this sort of activity and why, for what reasons. Research the engagement nature of the hardcore gamer and the casual gamer seperately. See then what game you want to build -with what kinds of various natures regarding the engagement or experience it offers. But this is something deep and not that simple as just trying to grab the most relevant on *first impact* gameplay mechanic of a game of a different medium that happens to work wonders there and try to import it to your game. IMO and IMO this has been a fail of 4e. 

Take original D&D. How it was developed. Yes, the original D&D game was developed through a different process. The research on its sources of influence was different -much more connected to the nature of the final product IMO.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Yes, but even yourself you are presenting the premise I have highlighted above and what you expand on it as a fact. In my opinion this has not been good for the tabletop game. The choice of the source of influence that is. Some MMO are popular but perhaps the reason they are popular is because of their level of optimization for their medium and its capacities-personal computers online. Tabletops are another medium and have different strengths. Perhaps choosing a different source of influence, even one found in a video game but that its strength was some more general or universal idea of entertainment could be more appropriate. For example "the sims" is a game that such ideas could be found. Similarly in MMOs one could look for more universal things as for example research the fact that people like to form guilds. You would have to see what kind of people engage in this sort of activity and why, for what reasons. Research the engagement nature of the hardcore gamer and the casual gamer seperately. See then what game you want to build -with what kinds of various natures regarding the engagement or experience it offers. But this is something deep and not that simple as just trying to grab the most relevant on *first impact* gameplay mechanic of a game of a different medium that happens to work wonders there and try to import it to your game. IMO and IMO this has been a fail of 4e.
> Take original D&D. How it was developed. Yes, the original D&D game was developed through a different process. The research on its sources of influence was different -much more connected to the nature of the final product IMO.




Do you imply that WotC did not research their audience and just "blindly" (to use the operative word in this thread) picked up everything from MMOs or CRPGs and tried to force it into D&D? 

I doubt that. I don't feel like that was the case. 
I think they looked at aspects that lead to interesting and engaging gameplay in games, and some examples of that can be found in MMOs or videogames, but a lot also exist in traditional RPGs. There are differences between these mediums, but that still does not mean that nothing can be transplanted. I am pretty certain that most RPG designers - including those at WotC - understand their medium pretty well. 

Stories can be told in movies or novels. You will have to adapt the story. Likewise, you can import mechanics from an RPG to an MMO or vice versa. You need to adapt the details of the implementation, but if the basic idea is sound, it is possible. (Whether your specific implementation works - just as with story adaptions to different media - is another matter.)


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

The main problem we have is that people simply cannot accept that not eveyone plays like they do, or has the same taste. And that's often compounded by a very narrow view of what is D&D - and made even worse by the crusading zeal many display when it comes to advertise their own playstyle. In short, the impasse is that too many people define D&D as "what I play as D&D".

Back pre-4E, we have had quite "lively" discussions whether or not a game where PCs could not die without the players consenting to it was D&D - or even fun. Despite many having fun playing that way. Some people simply could not even fathom that some other people have no fun worrying for their characters.

The same you can see with the edition wars. People need to accept that not everyone likes the new or old edition. And that, for a variety of reasons, the new or old edition is not for everyone.

I really don't get how we can gladly accept that playstyles differ when it comes to roleplaying relationships, evil campaigns, combat-heavy or combat-light campaigns, how we can advice people to pick compatible players for their groups, to make sure everyone wants simialr experiences from the ganme, yet when it comes to editions we act as if one edition fitted all, and take offense when others don't play by the same rules.

I once listed my reason for not playing 4E: It is not a single issue, nor a big issue, but rather a lot of little things that add up. Drop by drop, they weigh down on the "not for me" scale.

No perform skill.
No crafting skills.
No profession skills.
Fireball now a daily instead of a staple.
Martial powers do not recharge as well as they do in Bot9S, causing a card game feeling.
Martial powers require too much mental gymnastics to make sense, or drop to "do not think about it"
Game terms and grid instead of real measurements for movement.
Too much "shift".
System is set for far more combats per day than I want.
Skill Challenge system was not playtested, and came out bugged.
Not enough classes.
Lizardfolk as core race.
Too much limiting fluff (tieflings restricted to one appearance, and one origin).
Game terms that remind me of MMOGs (Striker, defender etc.).
Powers not having enough power. I want crits that can one shot enemies, sword attacks that take down half the enemies' hit points. I want a barbarian that can kill an equal-levelled pit fiend in two rounds (Pouncing charge, finishing blow), not a game where we need to grind down enemies MMO-style.

And I guess more I don't recall right now.

All those points, for themselves, are solvable. But together they amount to far too much work for far too little gain for me, and make me consider 4E as clearly "not for me".

Yes, I have no doubt I could form 4E into something that I could like with a lot of house rules and a lot of work - but why bother if it would turn it into something not many would recognize as 4E anymore? Far more sensible to pick what I like from 4E, and add it to my game (which is already pretty far from "standard" D&D 3.5).


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Do you imply that WotC did not research their audience and just "blindly" (to use the operative word in this thread) picked up everything from MMOs or CRPGs and tried to force it into D&D?
> 
> I doubt that. I don't feel like that was the case.
> I think they looked at aspects that lead to interesting and engaging gameplay in games, and some examples of that can be found in MMOs or videogames, but a lot also exist in traditional RPGs. There are differences between these mediums, but that still does not mean that nothing can be transplanted. I am pretty certain that most RPG designers - including those at WotC - understand their medium pretty well.



It was not blind but it looked at the wrong directions. It researched in a wrong way. It did the wrong experiments. If it had researched more perhaps it would have found out the right ones but this did not happen IMO. A kind of example follows bellow.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Stories can be told in movies or novels. You will have to adapt the story. Likewise, you can import mechanics from an RPG to an MMO or vice versa. You need to adapt the details of the implementation, but if the basic idea is sound, it is possible. (Whether your specific implementation works - just as with story adaptions to different media - is another matter.)




Literature is something very researched and developed. In our case I would say that importing mechanics would be like trying to import in a story written for a novel the animated features or sound effects of movies. It can be done but you will have to model and alienate the story. This means that your final goals will have to change too and in this case you are found in the position to have to start from the very base of things. But for what goal now? The original story developed on the sound models of literature is gone. You see you are at a dead end regarding your original goal or aim. This means that your original aim was a wrong one.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> The main problem we have is that people simply cannot accept that not eveyone plays like they do, or has the same taste.



I have to disagree. I think the primary reason is the lack of cookies.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2009)

*!*



xechnao said:


> It was not blind but it looked at the wrong directions. It researched in a wrong way. It did the wrong experiments. If it had researched more perhaps it would have found out the right ones but this did not happen IMO. A kind of example follows bellow.
> 
> 
> 
> Literature is something very researched and developed. In our case I would say that importing mechanics would be like trying to import in a story written for a novel the animated features or sound effects of movies. It can be done but you will have to model and alienate the story. This means that your final goals will have to change to and in this case you are found in the position to have to start from the very base of things. But for what goal now? The original story developed on the sound models of literature is gone. You see you are at a dead end regarding your original goal or aim. This means that your original aim was a wrong one.




Show me this with actual game mechanics that were "imported". Show me the euqivalent of your literary examples in game design of 4E. Show me the specific example. 

I only have counter-examples to your claim.

Fictional Example:  
- Guilds. Can you translate them from WoW to D&D? 
Not in the sense of a guild made of dozens or hundreds of player characters. You can translate the general idea, that players belong to a specific faction or create their own. A game mechanical representation might allow you to use the Guild to acquire resources (magical items, henchman or allies). 

Actual Examples: 
- Roles. A concept found in many MMOs, with various implementations. A concept also found in "classic" D&D, but more as an emergent principle than as a design guideline (incidentally, it seems the same is true for many MMOs. I remember comments on how people use different class builds in World of Warcraft to achieve a role of "DPS", "Debuffer", or "Tank" or "Healer"). In D&D, Cleric typically had a Healer role, Fighter typically had a Tank or a DPS role, and a Rogue tended towards DPS, and finally the Wizard always did a lot of area stuff and other things that shaped the battlefied (like just removing enemies from the combat via save or die.) But other classes had less defined focuses, and some complained about that, because they didn't work well in combat (lacking any specific role and designed with conflicting roles. The Monk was very fast, but could only use his attack/damage abilities well if he stood still, for example - and than lacked the AC and HP to survive long in combat). 
So, 4E decided to pick out these "emergent" concepts of roles and make them explicit, designing classes to fulfill these roles. Was that fundamentally wrong? Or is that not even something _really_ taken from online games and just something that was always somehow present in the game but never fully realized?

- Monster "Weights" - Minions, Elites and Solos: 
A common concept in many adventures if the final confrontation with the BBEG. After having brought down the defenses of the Dragons Lair, the adventurers finally confront the dragon. That's something found in CRPGs, MMOs and Tabletop/pen & paper RPGs. 
How to handle this? Just give the monster more hit points, higher defenses? That's what was often done in D&D, as it seems. (Just pick a higher CR in 3E). Many computer games do it differently - these "boss monsters" don't just have a boatload of hit points, they have special attacks, area effects and all that. 4E adapted this idea with its Elite and Solo Monster denominations, trying to adress problems inherent with merely using increased defenses and hit points - the action economy issue. 
Another simple concept found in many media (not just RPGs and MMOs) are weaker enemies, that the heroes encounter in big numbers but take down quick and dirty. A simple approach is just reducing the number of hit points of the monster, making it faster to kill. That alone might work, but there is still some unresolved issue - the processing power of the DMs brain required to keep track of more monsters. Just reducing hit points doesn't change this effort much, since you still keep track of conditions and hit point totals. So 4E went and removed most of the tracking process - monsters with just one hit point usually die and don't have time to suffer from conditions (most of the time.) I think this is a very clever adaption from other media and working in the specialities of online games. Not just looking at what is "simulated" with the rule, but also how it makes managing it easier!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> No perform skill.
> No crafting skills.
> No profession skills.
> Fireball now a daily instead of a staple.
> ...




The bolded part is really what makes 4E not "your" game. Handling the rest is easy, but that is a very fundamental design aspect of the game. You are not _supposed_ to take down your opponents so fast, it's expected that you maneuver around and work for synergies.


Or maybe it's not so hard after all? Maybe just double damage for encounters and tripple for dailiy powers? Nah, I don't trust this to work, the underlying design ideas are still incompatible with this idea...


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

I wouldn't mind grinding down monsters in the style of the manga "Berserk" of Kentaro Miura. 

I'd rather have a team-based game than playing a game about action-divas upping each another at the table when spending D&D-time.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The bolded part is really what makes 4E not "your" game. Handling the rest is easy, but that is a very fundamental design aspect of the game. You are not _supposed_ to take down your opponents so fast, it's expected that you maneuver around and work for synergies.
> 
> 
> Or maybe it's not so hard after all? Maybe just double damage for encounters and tripple for dailiy powers? Nah, I don't trust this to work, the underlying design ideas are still incompatible with this idea...




See, that's a big part of the problem right there - you telling me what's easy and what's not, as if you knew my taste. And this is what is it about: Personal preferences. And, honestly, you should not presume to know what's easy for me and what's hard.

I could handle the damage by simply using more minions, and reducing the monsters' HPs. Combat is not that big in my game.

I have a lot more trouble wrapping my mind about the fluff of the game, especially around the combat mechanics that center on shifting people this and that way. And of course the whole "dailies" and "encounters" for martial characters. I could handle that too - mainly by making everything encounter or at will, and banning stuff I can't reationalize, or by making everything "magical".

But again, why bother? 4E offers me nothing I want that I could not much, much more easily get by adding one or two things to my house rules instead of rewriting a game system (mechanics and background) that, summed up, rubs me the wrong way in way too many places.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> But again, why bother?




I've been asking myself that every time I read  your posts. Why are you bothering? Who are you trying to convince? Do you really think people who like 4e care about what you don't like about it? Are you doing it for validation from others who agree with you?

So you don't like 4e. Good for you. I don't like eating babies*, but I generally don't spend hours talking about it on forums across the internet.


*I do, however, like eating cookies.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

It was an example of what I hope is a way to discuss editions without causing an edition war, in the line of what Rel pointed at as an excellent example of discussing edition preferences.

Your hostile reaction shows that either my post was not as suited to that goal, or that you cannot take any disagreement with your edition choice, and would want me (and probably anyone else not playing your game) gone from these boards.


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

If you only have one combat per game evening, it wouldn't matter if the combat abilities of the characters are daily, encounter or at will, as they're still going to be only once a game evening, which will encompass several days up to several months. 

And of course, there are already daily non-magical abilities in 3rd edition. Be it "Defensive Roll" or "Barbarian Rage" (having several is useless if you only have one combat encounter per day because of your spellcasters needing to rest again after unleashing their arcane and divine spells), if people don't have problems with it in prior editions, they can't have problems with it in 4th, 5th or 22th edition, whenever these will be (unless a totally new system is devised, which I would hope).


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Show me this with actual game mechanics that were "imported". Show me the euqivalent of your literary examples in game design of 4E. Show me the specific example.
> 
> I only have counter-examples to your claim.
> 
> ...




In my POV your examples do not answer the medium problematic. Tabletop versus online. Of course communication and calculations are involved in both mediums but because the mediums are different they work in a different way. In tabletop rpgs the factor of direct human communication is a mechanic of the game - in-game. In MMOs this is not the case. So if you build for tabletops you have to expand on this mechanic. OTOH in MMOs you have to build feedback challenges by a pcomputer program. Then you compete and/or value performance of people on these challenges. This is very different than human communication experiences which is something inherent to the way we value reality. 

Having said that, you see that guilds in MMO serve a vastly different purpose than your parallelism of inserting guilds in the storytelling or narrative instance of tabletop rpgs. Regarding roles: you assume that in tabletop D&D they are a principle. I can accept this. But I cant accept that in tabletop they have to remain stable as a principle. As a guideline, perhaps yes, this is true. But each player each moment serves a different, his own purpose or role. These roles or purposes are not permanently stable. So they are more casual we could say. OTOH in MMOs roles are mechanicaly stable because things are limited by the fact of the artifical program. Now, instead of caring to limit things I would try to build and expand on the actual strengths of the tabletop medium to make players happy, to enhance their enjoyment and "fun" with the tabletop game. I would alter the way combat works in my D&D regarding character creation and the actual combat mechanics to suit the tabletop's strengths -I would rather build it like a dynamic programm that can reprogram itself with each player's input -rather than building a system that has to conform things the other way around.But this is just a thought. Regarding monsters and threats I would try to expand this more dynamically. Rather than focusing on one kind of goal (fight monsters) I would introduce mechanics for how permanent strategic goals are formed or modeled (love relationships, honor-duty, revenge, stuff like that)  aside from casual action. You are talking about other media but isnt't it what I describe here more akeen to the storytelling we find in them?

Anyway, I hope even if you do not agree that I managed to explain myself in a way that you can see my POV.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> It was an example of what I hope is a way to discuss editions without causing an edition war, in the line of what Rel pointed at as an excellent example of discussing edition preferences.
> 
> Your hostile reaction shows that either my post was not as suited to that goal, or that you cannot take any disagreement with your edition choice, and would want me (and probably anyone else not playing your game) gone from these boards.




You take questions as hostility? 0.o

All I did was ask why you bother arguing a point that has been made ad nauseam on these boards for almost a year now. If you consider that hostile, then that's really a problem on your part, not mine.

I don't care if you disagree with my edition preference. I really don't. You like what you like, I like what I like. What I'm trying to point out is that there's really no need to tell anybody the why's and wherefore's because it serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the antagonism between factions.

I also don't care if you keep posting or don't. I would, however, prefer if all the edition preference arguments went the way of the dinosaur and got wiped out of existence.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> If you only have one combat per game evening, it wouldn't matter if the combat abilities of the characters are daily, encounter or at will, as they're still going to be only once a game evening, which will encompass several days up to several months.




I am sorry to disagree, but this is not true. First, any combat ability of my game - we are using Tome of Battle mechanics - is rechargeable. Generally, those abilities are used several times during a combat. Second, a game session doesn't often cover several days in our game. Third, many abilities have uses outside combat as well - raging to break down a door, for example. Fourth, my main problem with those is that I don't see why whirlwind attack could not be used much more often than 1/encounter or 1/day, not without a lot of mental gymnastics that detract from my immersion (as in, I can create explanations, but I feel it's tiring to do so)



DandD said:


> And of course, there are already daily non-magical abilities in 3rd edition. Be it "Defensive Roll" or "Barbarian Rage" (having several is useless if you only have one combat encounter per day because of your spellcasters needing to rest again after unleashing their arcane and divine spells), if people don't have problems with it in prior editions, they can't have problems with it in 4th, 5th or 22th edition, whenever these will be (unless a totally new system is devised, which I would hope).




Again, I do have conceptual problems with many of the daily and encounter powers of 4E. Please do not tell me what I can't and can have.


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

> Rather than focusing on one kind of goal (fight monsters) I would introduce mechanics for how permanent strategic goals are formed or modeled *(love relationships, honor-duty, revenge, stuff like that) *aside from casual action. You are talking about other media but isnt't it what I describe here more akeen to the storytelling we find in them?



Why would you bring in rules for roleplaying stuff outside of combat? Isn't this the one thing which all edition players, be it old, first, second, third or fourth loathe?


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

Kzach said:


> You take questions as hostility? 0.o




I take your tone as hostility. A neutral question is not worded like your posts.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> Why would you bring in rules for roleplaying stuff outside of combat? Isn't this the one thing which all edition players, be it old, first, second, third or fourth loathe?




Not at all. Good mechanical rules for non-combat roleplaying actions are wanted by many. A way to handle bluffing or conning someone that does not rely on player oratory skills, for example, or a good way to handle verbal duels would be appreciated.


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Not at all. Good mechanical rules for non-combat roleplaying actions are wanted by many. A way to handle bluffing or conning someone that does not rely on player oratory skills, for example, or a good way to handle verbal duels would be appreciated.



That would reduce the game to roll-playing (which should only be a small part of the game), especially the things that xechnao mentioned, which I would adamantly oppose as being necessary or improving any game, if you really need to have rules to hate a character ingame, or need to love somebody, and other things...


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> Why would you bring in rules for roleplaying stuff outside of combat? Isn't this the one thing which all edition players, be it old, first, second, third or fourth loathe?




Can you give me a specific example of what they loathe? Something you know how it works in practice?
And perhaps we can work it out from there. 
But try to not generalize. What I am talking about here does not have to be the way you know you may loathe it to be. I see this "rules" you say here as a vast generalization that fails to describe any practical implementation so we know what we are talking about.


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

See above for stuff that shouldn't have rules. 

Also, these things you mentioned already have been done in *gasp* video games like Dating sims, and Romance-of-the-three-kingdom-games on SNES and other consoles (and certainly computer). 

If D&D 4th edition can't be accused, it's being too video-gamey, when such things haven't been incorporated (for now, I dread the day when something like that will find its way into core rulebooks, which will happen for sure, one way or another).


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> See above for stuff that shouldn't have rules.
> 
> Also, these things you mentioned already have been done in *gasp* video games like Dating sims, and Romance-of-the-three-kingdom-games on SNES and other consoles (and certainly computer).
> 
> If D&D 4th edition can't be accused, it's being too video-gamey, when such things haven't been incorporated (for now, I dread the day when something like that will find its way into core rulebooks, which will happen for sure, one way or another).




Unfortunately I am not aware of the games you are talking about. Do you know about "the sims"? But even if you do not you should certainly know of turn-based strategy games like "total war" or "jagged alliance". Do you lathe them? I am asking because I could very well draw a comparison on one's strategic position in these games with the permanent life (social?) goals I was talking about.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> That would reduce the game to roll-playing (which should only be a small part of the game), especially the things that xechnao mentioned, which I would adamantly oppose as being necessary or improving any game, if you really need to have rules to hate a character ingame, or need to love somebody, and other things...




You do not need rules to love someone, or hate someone in game. But rules to see how good your character is at seducing someone, or making someone so angry they lose their temper, that's a good thing to have. It's often as important to check whether or not your character can fool the guard as it is to check if your character can hit the bodyguard.


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I am not aware of the games you are talking about. Do you know about "the sims"? But even if you do not you should certainly know of turn-based strategy games like "total war" or "jagged alliance". Do you lathe them? I am asking because I could very well draw a comparison on one's strategic position in these games with the permanent life (social?) goals I was talking about.




The games you mentioned are preferably played on the computer, and not with other people in a pen-and-paper-manner on the gaming table, which is going to be far far more clunky, making everybody displeased with the product. Also, what would be the role of the game moderator there? Is the gm going to be reduced to a slower fleshy CPU again, like it was implied in 3rd edition? I hope nobody is going to defend that brain-fart from Wotc in 3rd edition. 

Not that I do like playing turn-based computer games, if I can have real-time alternatives.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

A bit off-topic, but I just had a small revelation that should help me explain/formulate how to use social skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive et.) without reducing the interaction to rolling dice, or making dice meaningless: The dice roll simulates the "face to face" factor.

Imagine the conversation between player and GM like it was an internet message forum. The textual content can be clearly read, but lacking the non-verbal clues, it can often be misinterpreted. The exact same lines can be taken as a friendly comment, or a snub. For example rolling well on Diplomacy means that the meaning the recipient attaches to the lines is more positive.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> The games you mentioned are preferably played on the computer, and not with other people in a pen-and-paper-manner on the gaming table, which is going to be far far more clunky, making everybody displeased with the product. Also, what would be the role of the game moderator there? Is the gm going to be reduced to a slower fleshy CPU again, like it was implied in 3rd edition? I hope nobody is going to defend that brain-fart from Wotc in 3rd edition.
> 
> Not that I do like playing turn-based computer games, if I can have real-time alternatives.




Well our experiences disagree. IMO there can be easily factored in tabletop games strategic positioning in the means of the requirements of player alliances or conflict in respect to resources for example. The role of the moderator is a different matter than needs to be discussed. And regarding real-time versus turn based, well there are some things that you simply can not do real time because of the mediums in each case -the way you can enter your input and the ways or possibilities of perceiving things and solutions.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> You do not need rules to love someone, or hate someone in game. But rules to see how good your character is at seducing someone, or making someone so angry they lose their temper, that's a good thing to have. It's often as important to check whether or not your character can fool the guard as it is to check if your character can hit the bodyguard.




I could find use of rules that tell you what happens when you love someone or when you do not love someone as "requirements" regarding your options. Something like "the sims". Of course freedom of choice or decision should be present but there should be some reasonable guidelines IMO. This way player feelings to direct things to the absurd can be avoided somehow in the games and in-game player relations by acquiring mechanical importance have a direct effect to actual players' relations in the game generaly.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I could find use of rules that tell you what happens when you love someone or when you do not love someone as "requirements" regarding your options. Something like "the sims". Of course freedom of choice or decision should be present but there should be some reasonable guidelines IMO. This way player feelings to direct things to the absurd can be avoided somehow in the games and in-game player relations by acquiring mechanical importance have a direct effect to actual players' relations in the game generaly.




If I decide my character hates or loves someone, then that's it. Barring magical mind control, no one else has a say in this. I never tell players what their character should feel, only what they see or otherwise perceive. How they react to that is entirely up to the player.


----------



## Shades of Green (Feb 23, 2009)

There's nothing in the world that forces you to buy and play the next edition of D&D (4E in this case) just because it is the next _official_ edition of _*D&D*_. If it fits your playing style, buy and play it. If not, stick with whatever floats your boat - 3.5E D&D, 3.0E D&D, 2E AD&D, 1E AD&D, BECMI, OD&D and so on. In fact, you don't even have to play something with _*D&D*_ written on its cover to have a gaming experience which is very similar to whatever D&D edition you like - there are commercial games such as Castles and Crusades and free games such as OSRIC, Mazes and Minotaurs, Labyrinth Lord or BFRPG that emulate the various pre-3E editions quite well.

Also, some editions (especially 3E/d20) have SO MANY books in existence that you could easily have a large enough book collection to play that edition for DECADES without too much repetitions.

In short, if you like 4E, buy it and play it; if you don't like it, simply ignore it. I didn't like the 4E previews so I am ignoring it (and 3.0E too, in fact) and I'm having quite a lot of fun DMing BFRPG.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> If I decide my character hates or loves someone, then that's it. Barring magical mind control, no one else has a say in this. I never tell players what their character should feel, only what they see or otherwise perceive. How they react to that is entirely up to the player.




I do not disagree with this. What I am saying is that the implications or requirements of deciding to hate someone should be represented somehow mechanically. If not and one could make really random decisions, crazy decisions he could potentially ruin the experience of the other players in the game table -I have seen stuff like this happen many times.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I do not disagree with this. What I am saying is that the implications or requirements of deciding to hate someone should be represented somehow mechanically. If not and one could make really random decisions, crazy decisions he could potentially ruin the experience of the other players in the game table -I have seen stuff like this happen many times.




If that's a problem, then having rules that try to control the players' actions won't really help. Remeber the alignment debates?


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> If that's a problem, then having rules that try to control the players' actions won't really help. Remeber the alignment debates?




If alignment was some kind of implementation to solve this problem it was not a good one IMO. But this does not mean that it can't be done a good one somehow. Beyond alignment various rpgs have taken their shots towards this direction.


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> If alignment was some kind of implementation to solve this problem it was not a good one IMO. But this does not mean that it can't be done a good one somehow. Beyond alignment various rpgs have taken their shots towards this direction.



Which various rpgs? Computer and console rpgs, where the chicks you try to woon are computer-controlled characters, and the purpose for doing so is to gain some item, special power, or accomplishment points for the end credits? 

Not helpful, and just a form of grind that I don't want to see at the game-table. Especially if you have to grind love...

Also, this entire debate is going off-topic.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> Which various rpgs? Computer and console rpgs, where the chicks you try to woon are computer-controlled characters, and the purpose for doing so is to gain some item, special power, or accomplishment points for the end credits?
> 
> Not helpful, and just a form of grind that I don't want to see at the game-table. Especially if you have to grind love...
> 
> Also, this entire debate is going off-topic.




Well I own "riddle of steel" which has its spiritual attributes mechanic if you are aware of it. Another one I have is Cadwallon, where the whole system is based upon this -although it ends up needlessly complicated and painful in implementation. I have read reviews of various rpgs that do have mechanic controls for guiding possibilities towards this end. One example "burning empires". But there are many. Note these are tabletop rpgs, not video games. But as you said I we have been going off-topic in this thread.


----------



## glass (Feb 23, 2009)

DimitriX said:


> One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to "blindly" agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising.



I haven't noticed that they do.



DimitriX said:


> How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers?



Never. Been in MMORPG forums, I mean.


glass.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> See, that's a big part of the problem right there - you telling me what's easy and what's not, as if you knew my taste. And this is what is it about: Personal preferences. And, honestly, you should not presume to know what's easy for me and what's hard.



You may be right. I am looking at it from a very technical perspective. Fluff is for me something you can change way too easy, especially with D&D that always had several settings where the fluff wasn't entirely consistent. If you want Tieflings with greatly differing looks, do it. It's nothing that is ingrained in the game mechanics. 

But you do not need to bother with any of it. If whatever your playing is fun and you do not encounter problems (and problems that 4E is supposed to fix and not add to  ), do not bother.


----------



## Rel (Feb 23, 2009)

Kzach said:


> You take questions as hostility? 0.o
> 
> All I did was ask why you bother arguing a point that has been made ad nauseam on these boards for almost a year now. If you consider that hostile, then that's really a problem on your part, not mine.




I'll tell you why I took them as hostile.

I, just recently in this thread, posted about how it's nice when people, if they feel they must be critical, will take the time to elucidate the reasons for their dislike.  This rather than a flat, "4e Sucks" or "3e was horrid" is much more productive to discussion.

Now if you don't care to read any discussion wherein people have differences of opinion about edition preference then I can understand (and even agree) with that desire.  But don't you dare go around telling people that they needn't bother posting reasons for their preferences when done in a respectful manner.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> In my POV your examples do not answer the medium problematic. Tabletop versus online. Of course communication and calculations are involved in both mediums but because the mediums are different they work in a different way. In tabletop rpgs the factor of direct human communication is a mechanic of the game - in-game. In MMOs this is not the case. So if you build for tabletops you have to expand on this mechanic. OTOH in MMOs you have to build feedback challenges by a pcomputer program. Then you compete and/or value performance of people on these challenges. This is very different than human communication experiences which is something inherent to the way we value reality.
> 
> Having said that, you see that guilds in MMO serve a vastly different purpose than your parallelism of inserting guilds in the storytelling or narrative instance of tabletop rpgs. Regarding roles: you assume that in tabletop D&D they are a principle. I can accept this. But I cant accept that in tabletop they have to remain stable as a principle. As a guideline, perhaps yes, this is true. But each player each moment serves a different, his own purpose or role. These roles or purposes are not permanently stable. So they are more casual we could say. OTOH in MMOs roles are mechanicaly stable because things are limited by the fact of the artifical program. Now, instead of caring to limit things I would try to build and expand on the actual strengths of the tabletop medium to make players happy, to enhance their enjoyment and "fun" with the tabletop game. I would alter the way combat works in my D&D regarding character creation and the actual combat mechanics to suit the tabletop's strengths -I would rather build it like a dynamic programm that can reprogram itself with each player's input -rather than building a system that has to conform things the other way around.But this is just a thought. Regarding monsters and threats I would try to expand this more dynamically. Rather than focusing on one kind of goal (fight monsters) I would introduce mechanics for how permanent strategic goals are formed or modeled (love relationships, honor-duty, revenge, stuff like that)  aside from casual action. You are talking about other media but isnt't it what I describe here more akeen to the storytelling we find in them?
> 
> Anyway, I hope even if you do not agree that I managed to explain myself in a way that you can see my POV.




Unfortunately you did absolutely not.


----------



## jensun (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> Which various rpgs? Computer and console rpgs, where the chicks you try to woon are computer-controlled characters, and the purpose for doing so is to gain some item, special power, or accomplishment points for the end credits?



Pendragon is probably the oldest example of a game including social and relationship mechanics but there are plenty more out there. 

oWoD had them as did Exalted although they were made much more explicit in Exalted 2e. 

They are common in a lot of indie games, see for example Spirit of the Century, Burning Wheel/Empires and various others.

Edit: I missed one of the key ones, Heroquest/Wars where the majority of the game is influenced by your relationship with your family, community or God.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Unfortunately you did absolutely not.




Will you help -elaborate- a bit more? By the mode of your answer I can't tell if this is just a dismissive motion or if there is something I could indeed try to explain better. Or is it so bad that nothing makes any sense? Which could very probably be the case.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Will you help -elaborate- a bit more? By the mode of your answer I can't tell if this is just a dismissive motion or if there is something I could indeed try to explain better. Or is it so bad that nothing makes any sense? Which could very probably be the case.




It is more the latter. You stay way too abstract so that I have no idea what you are talking about. (And it's unfortunately not the first time I noticed that on this forum). The only understandable thing was the "non-combat" mechanical abilities for characters. I get that, and to some extent I like that.

But the rest was not understandable. 

Give me a specific example where you think the WotC picked a MMO/Video Game mechanic and transplanted it to an RPG without considering the unique aspects of RPGs. I don't talk about mechanics they could have implemented in addition. (Unless that was what you were talking about all the time, and I just didn't get it the first time!)


----------



## Shazman (Feb 23, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You can disagree with someone or something or a vague decision without making it _bad_ or _evil_.
> 
> Do I think the MM4e is a bad deal compared to the 3.5 ones?  Sure.  That doesn't make it bad or evil.  There's tons of people who disagree with me, and they're the target audience, not I.  If anything WotC is giving it's consumers _exactly_ what it wants.  That's not bad or evil.  Quite the opposite; that's exactly what a "good" company should be doing.
> 
> Oh, and CEOs aren't all the Green Goblin.  Nor do they have some bizarre divine mandate to do whatever they want with the company.  Once again, they have a responsibility to the shareholders and consumers, _and_ to the board of directors.




Really.  No matter how bad they mess up, they get at least several million dollars a year for the rest of their life.  They can destroy their company, and rip off thousands for personal gain, and the worst that will happen is that they sit at home and collect more money in one month than most Americans will see in a lifetime.  That's not exactly much accountability.  They can shirk their responsiblity completely and still live high on the hog.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Give me a specific example where you think the WotC picked a MMO/Video Game mechanic and transplanted it to an RPG without considering the unique aspects of RPGs.




I will give it a try.

The specific example is the gaming (gamist?) challenge they have put as the basis of 4e. 

In MMO games are about two distinct things. An arcade part (which is the technical skill of hand-eye coordination) and tactical part (which is the knowledge of the secrets of the game and their mastery: being able to remeber them). You have to be successful in both but usually there is some space to compensate for non optimum performance in one if you perform perfectly in the other and still achieve an optimum overall result.

In tabletop rpgs there is no way for the arcade part to be transplanted -unless we start tossing darts to a target instead of throwing dice- but certainly there is a way to transplant the tactical part. And this is what 4e did. It made its way in transplanting the tactical design of MMOs. And lets assume for the sake of the discussion that it did a fine job, so fine that we could call what 4e achieved in this aspect a work of art.

Even in 3e there were tactics to master. Now lets assume for the sake of this discussion that they did not reach the artistic status of 4e's design on this matter. But 3e was not build with only this in mind. It was rather build with the possibility of giving the tools for running a world or setting through the various possibilities that one may have. So in 3e there was a possibility to toss out the deep tactical choices and buy more ways or possibilities of interaction with the setting-world and still be able to achieve optimum results but from a different approach -one of breadth. The problem with 3e now is that it lacked a basis to guide you on tracking how these things work together* -and it was solely left on the dungeon master. I agree that this is not enough. In practice it is extremely weak for the tremendously heavy logistics of 3e -and generally of D&D. This begs another question: why D&D builds so heavy logistics. Well this is a commercial thing and a design thing: it helps add content and drive sales. Would it be better a different approach? IMO yes, but this is a different matter entirely. 

*as for example in MMO the arcade mode works together with the tactics mode

Now lets take a step back and return to 4e. As I said above what 4e did is create a perfect structure of tactics regarding depth. BUT one should have to pay notice in this endeavour to not choke space for another quality to supplement it with- this quality should most preferably be the one tabletop rpgs have: the options of the verbal input we can have. Of course this is something neither 3e has built upon. I am not talking about making voices here -that should be something arcade (karaoke anyone?). I am talking about expressing choices that we can understand how they reflect personal or social relationships. Because the medium is personal and social on tabletop rpgs. To build a mechanic structure that can respect and run this well it must not be chocked by (incompatibility with) another mechanism that needs to be respected -one such as the balance structure of 4e's tactics.


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I will give it a try.
> 
> The specific example is the gaming (gamist?) challenge they have put as the basis of 4e.
> 
> ...



Can anybody translate or specify what xechnao just wrote? 

What's the beef in his message? More 3rd party supplements? More combat rules? More character creation options? A more detailed system for PC-to-NPC-relationship?


----------



## Shazman (Feb 23, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> Heh.  This is highly amusing.  Jack99 answered every one of your problems, point by point, citing examples where needed and you're dismissing him as "blind".  You've made a very solid and convincing case for the existence of "blind h4ters".  Priceless.





He point by point stated his opinions on the matter, which are no more valid than my own.  He even reiterated the insulting quote in Races and Classes and tried to say, "Oh it was just an exaggeration."  That is some serious blind defending.  How in the world does he know it's an exaggeration? Did he personally ask the desingers? Even if it was an exaggeration, they should have been smart enough to leave it out of the book.

I also pointed out how the intent for deception was obivious when they stated that they weren't working on a new edition that required the use of miniatures.  4E pretty much demands the use of miniatures, and do you really think they didn't know that most people would take their soundbite to mean that they were'nt working on 4E.  Of course they did.  If you don't think that they absolutely intended to deceive people about the status of 4th edition, then I think that is being pretty naive.  The least they could have done was show a tiny bit of integrity and respect for their customers and just stated that they wouldn't answer that question.


----------



## DandD (Feb 23, 2009)

Shazman said:


> 4E pretty much demands the use of miniatures



So does third edition, right? I mean, there are all illustrations of combat from above perspective, and how your character has to move in 5-feet wide squares around, and how movement in combat works, what combat spells like fireballs can affect, and other stuff... 

Yet, strangely enough, people easily play 3rd edition without miniatures, and these same people can also play 4th edition without the need of little tin-men and -monsters.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 23, 2009)

DandD said:


> Yet, strangely enough, people easily play 3rd edition without miniatures, and these same people can also play 4th edition without the need of little tin-men and -monsters.




Man I honestly can't play any game anymore without minis. Even games I never used minis for when I was a kid...

Old Man Scribble's brain just ain't what it used to be 14 years ago I guess.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 23, 2009)

Shazman said:


> I also pointed out how the intent for deception was obivious when they stated that they weren't working on a new edition that required the use of miniatures.  4E pretty much demands the use of miniatures, and do you really think they didn't know that most people would take their soundbite to mean that they were'nt working on 4E.  Of course they did.  If you don't think that they absolutely intended to deceive people about the status of 4th edition, then I think that is being pretty naive.  The least they could have done was show a tiny bit of integrity and respect for their customers and just stated that they wouldn't answer that question.



Of course the designers were being sly about the new edition.  Much like in the world of technology, tipping your hand early can completely kill business.  I don't blame Apple when they don't tell me about the new iPod before it's ready, and I don't blame WotC when they keep their cards to their vest until <1 year before release.

What's more, I would find it hard to believe that a single 3pp would have wanted WotC to announce the development of 4e all the way back in 2005 or what-have-you.  Really, there is an entire (small, but actual) industry for publishing D&D-compatible products - and that industry was still doing decently well back in 2005.

So here's what a 3-year early announcement would have gotten us and WotC:

* More time for their competitors to put out a competing Pathfinderesque product
* Less development and playtest time for the new edition of D&D
* 3pp's hemhorraging money as the entire d20 market starts to tank many years early
* Fewer sales and less revenue for WotC on its d20 books, leading to less income, leading to even less development and playtest time

Even as a customer, I'd be less than thrilled about these.  I also don't live in a rose-tinted world where every corporate decision is thought to be public knowledge...

...and going back many pages...



Fenes said:


> If people state their reasons one knows. If someone says "PCs fail a lot, and that's good!" and then later says "PCs succeed a lot, and that's good!" when the rules changed, then that's a blind defender.
> 
> If someone says "PCs failing a lot is no big deal" and later "The new system is better because PCs do not fail a lot anymore", then that's a blind defender.
> 
> Usually we know people's motivations, since they answer the arguments of the critics in order to defend the rules.



So if I thought 3.0 was the cat's pajamas, and then later loved 3.5's changes, and even later yet enjoyed 4e, that clearly makes me a blind defender because I like different things at different points in time for potentially different reasons.

Got it.  From here on out, I will never admit I was wrong, change my thinking about anything, or issue a statement that I like something in fear that my tastes will change later.  My tastes and preferences are officially frozen in time as of now.

-O


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So if I thought 3.0 was the cat's pajamas, and then later loved 3.5's changes, and even later yet enjoyed 4e, that clearly makes me a blind defender because I like different things at different points in time for potentially different reasons.
> 
> Got it.  From here on out, I will never admit I was wrong, change my thinking about anything, or issue a statement that I like something in fear that my tastes will change later.  My tastes and preferences are officially frozen in time as of now.
> 
> -O




You will have to realize your tastes on principles -independently of editions or what have you. Of course these tastes may change for various reasons. But these reasons have to do with principles. Based on the perceived principles of your tastes you may be convicted as follower or blind defender -
So remember, even when you are wrong what really matters is why, for what reasons you are wrong - on what principle you are wrong.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> You will have to realize your tastes on principles -independently of editions or what have you. Of course these tastes may change for various reasons. But these reasons have to do with principles. *Based on the perceived principles of your tastes you may be convicted as follower or blind defender* -
> So remember, even when you are wrong what really matters is why, for what reasons you are wrong - on what principle you are wrong.



No, actually, I really don't.

You're still treating peoples' tastes as things that are somehow incompatible with one another - that is, if I like one thing I cannot also enjoy another thing.  Or, that liking something means I'm somehow overlooking its flaws.  Or, that discussion of something's strengths necessarily entails a denial of its weaknesses.

Heck, I know that I can even enjoy two things which are exactly opposite one another.  Say, a 4e game with the older skill challenge mechanics vs. one with the new ones vs. one which uses Stalker0's system.  Each work in a certain way and it's possible that each has strengths and flaws.

Just because I can find things to both like and dislike about any given game/behavior/rule/system doesn't make me a blind anything.

And, as a side note, just because some folks are desperate to stick people into categories which begin with the adjective "blind" (thereby denying any potential rationality or the action of preference in their decisions) doesn't mean that the categorizing itself was done with any degree of rationality or objectivity.

-O


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So if I thought 3.0 was the cat's pajamas, and then later loved 3.5's changes, and even later yet enjoyed 4e, that clearly makes me a blind defender because I like different things at different points in time for potentially different reasons.
> 
> Got it.  From here on out, I will never admit I was wrong, change my thinking about anything, or issue a statement that I like something in fear that my tastes will change later.  My tastes and preferences are officially frozen in time as of now.
> 
> -O




No, plese read what I posted. If you defend something with one reason, and then make a 180 turn around just because WotC did, then you're a blind defender.

If say today you say "system mastery is bad, so WotC is right, I know that", and tomorrow WotC changes their view and you say "System mastery is good, so WotC is right" then you're a blind defender.

Chaning your opinion is most desired. Changing your opinion in sync with WotC makes you a blind defender.


----------



## avin (Feb 23, 2009)

One thing ripped from MMORPGS? Fighters now have abilities *similar* to World of Warcraft tanks abilities to hold aggro from mobs.

I don't recall that on any P&P RPGS (assuming, of course, I didn'ty play all of them).

Changing 4E structure for a recommended 5 man group comes right from Wow.

Guys, if you wanna defend 4E, that's fine, it's a very fun game, I DM and defend it myself... but using chosen words to avoid MMORPGs comparison is blind, and you know that... hehehe...


----------



## Scribble (Feb 23, 2009)

avin said:


> One thing ripped from MMORPGS? Fighters now have abilities *similar* to World of Warcraft tanks abilities to hold aggro from mobs.




He said without the designer looking at an RPGs unique elements when implementing the rules.

So yeah, the defender ability might have been inspired bya concept they saw working well in MMOs, but it wasn't just riped and added. They saw that they couldn't just make it: A monster attacks the defender (and take the ultimate choice away from the DM.) They took the concept, Defenders draw attacks away from squishier pcs, and pu the RPG bend on it, by making the CHOICE to attack them more sound. 




> Changing 4E structure for a recommended 5 man group comes right from Wow.




Are you sure? Or is it that both designers realized that most game groups seem to concentrate around 6 people alltogether?


----------



## Obryn (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> No, plese read what I posted. If you defend something with one reason, and then make a 180 turn around just because WotC did, then you're a blind defender.
> 
> If say today you say "system mastery is bad, so WotC is right, I know that", and tomorrow WotC changes their view and you say "System mastery is good, so WotC is right" then you're a blind defender.
> 
> Chaning your opinion is most desired. Changing your opinion in sync with WotC makes you a blind defender.



You're unfairly interjecting a lack of cognition on the person making their decisions.  You're also assuming that someone has changed their mind "just because WotC did" without any evidence to back up your position.  You're trying to categorize, but not acting rationally in your categorization.  Ironically, you're "blindly categorizing" based solely on perceived behavior, while ignoring any thought processes behind that behavior, and your own biases in perceiving that behavior.

Let's take the skill challenges example.  I liked them very much at first, as written.  I thought they were a great mechanic when I read them in the DMG, and the math looked fairly solid at first blush.  I came up with a lot of ideas on how to fit them in the game.

Then, Stalker0 posted an excellent thread about how the math behind them was just plain insanely wrong.  I read his arguments, and changed my mind - he made a compelling case with indisputable math supporting it.

Does that make me a blind follower of Stalker0?  Or is it only WotC who can have blind followers?

-O


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, actually, I really don't.
> 
> You're still treating peoples' tastes as things that are somehow incompatible with one another - that is, if I like one thing I cannot also enjoy another thing.  Or, that liking something means I'm somehow overlooking its flaws.  Or, that discussion of something's strengths necessarily entails a denial of its weaknesses.
> 
> ...




What you are saying makes sense. You may like and dislike different things at the same time. And something may have its strengths as weaknesses. At this point what matters is the standard of strengths or weaknesses that is put in place. If you defend something that regarding a certain standard of strength what we have is a weakness then you are convicted as a follower or blind defender. The question now remains on agreeing on the different standards we need to put.

If we do not do this but continue do things as you are saying we will never be able to criticize anything. We will end something like the myth of babel.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 23, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Of course the designers were being sly about the new edition.  Much like in the world of technology, tipping your hand early can completely kill business.  I don't blame Apple when they don't tell me about the new iPod before it's ready, and I don't blame WotC when they keep their cards to their vest until <1 year before release.
> 
> What's more, I would find it hard to believe that a single 3pp would have wanted WotC to announce the development of 4e all the way back in 2005 or what-have-you.  Really, there is an entire (small, but actual) industry for publishing D&D-compatible products - and that industry was still doing decently well back in 2005.
> 
> ...




Well, the statement was made in 2007, not 2005.  They also said (unless I am mistaken) they had 3.5 products planned through the end of 2008.  I'm not saying that they should have announced 4th edition immediately when asked about it, but there are many ways they could have answered the question without deception.  They could have said, "We aren't prepared to answer question about a new edition at this time."  "No comment."  We will let you know about 4th edition when the time is right." etc. etc.  There are many ways they could have gone about it without half-truths or outright lying.  There was going to be rampant speculation about 4th edition no matter what they said, so what was the harm in just avoiding the question?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2009)

avin said:


> One thing ripped from MMORPGS? Fighters now have abilities *similar* to World of Warcraft tanks abilities to hold aggro from mobs.
> 
> I don't recall that on any P&P RPGS (assuming, of course, I didn'ty play all of them).
> 
> ...



The question is not if there are common elements, it's not even who influenced whom. The question is was the "transplant" done without a look at the medium? 
WoW has an Aggro-Mechanic. That is nothing like the 4E implementation for Defenders. So they didn't just transplant a mechanical idea, they thought about how to make it work with a RPG.



			
				xechnao said:
			
		

> I will give it a try.
> 
> The specific example is the gaming (gamist?) challenge they have put as the basis of 4e.
> 
> ...



And you still haven't given me an example. You say that they took tactics from video games (as if they had never existed in RPGs before 4E, except that even you note that 3E had this aspect!) 4E did not implement the tactical part. What you denoted as "tactical" is something that happened in various forms in many role playing games, including previous editions. (Most notably 3E with its introduction of both system mastery - e.g. understanding the "tricks" of the system to create your optimum build - and tactical aspects like flanking and all the miniature related rules)

But after you noted this, you went on to a different topic that is not related to tactics. You talk about running a game world. You seem to be trying to make a connection to the tactical component, but I still don't get how this connection is supposed to work. At the moment I think it's immaterial to what you are actually talking about (without this lessening the relevance or interestingness of what you are talking about. It just doesn't make it any easier to understand what you are talking about.)

I am trying to get what you are talking about when you talk about "verbal input" or  personal or social relationships?
Are you talking about mechanics that model something like "NPC x is my nemisis?" or "I seduce the Princess" or even "I am in love with the Princess and I have a personal stake in anything regarding her well being and her relationship to me?" 

Generally I would say that no game constraints things it doesn't describe, of course it doesn't facilitate it either. But 4E design doesn't choke anything of this aspect. And it actually has - with its Quest Mechanic tools to describe social or personal relationships. Quest: "Kill Nemesis" and Quest "Marry the Princess" are of course very simple, but the few games I know in this regard have actually pretty similar concepts. If the player spends time on one of his "stakes", he gets mechanical benefits. (In some games, these are Hero Points or Possibilities, in 4E it's XP).


----------



## avin (Feb 23, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Are you sure? Or is it that both designers realized that most game groups seem to concentrate around 6 people alltogether?




After all those D&D years they just realized it? "It's copy and paste from Wow, period." *hyperbole*

Groups with clear DPS, tank and healers? Come on guys, let's get the thing straight.

4E is frankly MMORPG inspired. That's not bad per se, just is.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 23, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Not to get too political here, but actually, they did.  This "blame the consumer" nonsense is white noise from those that got us into this mess through staggering greed and unrestrained gambling.  Read up on the credit default swaps market.
> 
> Blaming undereducated Dave the factory worker because he believed his banker when the banker said "we've got the perfect program created just for families like yours!" is ludicrous.  These programs were designed by the best and brightest highly educated financial minds in the world for the purpose of handing out high risk credit then trading and speculating with a balloon of fake wealth backed by air.  At one point, the value of the default swaps exceeded the combined GDP of every nation on the planet.  The more risky credit the banks handed out, the more "bets" they could place on default speculation, which they would then trade amongst themselves creating an artificial, completely unregulated market of fake wealth.  Uncontrolled, rampant corporate greed, and the world governments that allowed this to go on (principally, but not solely, the US government) are where exactly all the blame lies.
> 
> ...




That is interesting. You make some good points and are obvioulsy more knowledgable about it than me. I know that the corporations had a hand in the creating the financial crisis, but I also know that a number of factors combined to create a "perfect storm" that led to our current situation.  Of course, I am by no means an expert on economics.  I do agree that D&D is in good hands as long as it's made by gamers as long as those gamers like and respect D&D, realize they are making the game for millions of fans and not just themselves, and aren't being pressured by the suits to make it more "market friendly" at the cost of quality.  Unfortunately, I believe that the developers of 4E do not meet any of those criteria apart from being gamers.  I do believe that the developers of Pathfinder meet all of those criteria which is one reason it is my D&D now.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 23, 2009)

avin said:


> After all those D&D years they just realized it? "It's copy and paste from Wow, period." *hyperbole*




Realized, vrs researched?

I don't know for sure, maybe it WAS a concept they took from WoW for some reason?

I DO know speaking for my own experience, my original 3e group consisted of about 8 people.  That was WAY too big.

That campaign ended and I started a new one later on a different day with 4 players, as per the book. It never seemed right. Not mechanically, mechanically it was spot on... It just felt like a weird gathering of people.

When it was at 5, it felt right for soem reason. Not too big to handle, but also not so small it felt weird. When we added a 6th player, it started to get overwelming feeling again.

Which is why, based on my own experiences, I think maybe they just realized the average group of dorks tends to flock towards 6? (5 players 1 DM?)


----------



## Obryn (Feb 23, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Well, the statement was made in 2007, not 2005.  They also said (unless I am mistaken) they had 3.5 products planned through the end of 2008.  I'm not saying that they should have announced 4th edition immediately when asked about it, but there are many ways they could have answered the question without deception.  They could have said, "We aren't prepared to answer question about a new edition at this time."  "No comment."  We will let you know about 4th edition when the time is right." etc. etc.  There are many ways they could have gone about it without half-truths or outright lying.  There was going to be rampant speculation about 4th edition no matter what they said, so what was the harm in just avoiding the question?



Seriously, how the heck would this have helped anything?

If they are saying "No, No, No" and all of a sudden they're saying "Maybe!" or the functionally-identical-in-this-case "No Comment" they might as well just come out and say it.

You're championing a very naive view of the whole development process.  When you weigh "Giving a statement open to misinterpretation" or "Answering questions in an evasive fashion" as a bigger sin than "Contributing to the potential collapse of D&D as a a product line and/or unemployment of most of WotC's staff and several third-party publishers" and weigh them evenly... well, I think you have some blinders on.

See the Osborne Effect for the general line of thought here.  Note, though, that even though it's called the Osborne Effect it may not have actually been what killed the Osborne's market share.  A better, modern-day example might be the Sega Saturn...  Its successor was announced prematurely, sales of the Saturn tanked, games were cancelled as a result, and it all spiraled out of control until all of these factors helped make the Dreamcast flop.

-O


----------



## Shazman (Feb 23, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Seriously, how the heck would this have helped anything?
> 
> If they are saying "No, No, No" and all of a sudden they're saying "Maybe!" or the functionally-identical-in-this-case "No Comment" they might as well just come out and say it.
> 
> ...




Exactly how do you get "maybe" from what I said.  Do you really think that just saying we are't going to talk about a possible new edition of D&D right now would have destroyed WotC and D&D?  D&D is a very small part of WotC, and 3.5 products continued to sell fairly well after the announcement and release of 4E.  Which one of us has the blinders on?


----------



## Maggan (Feb 23, 2009)

avin said:


> Groups with clear DPS, tank and healers? Come on guys, let's get the thing straight.
> 
> 4E is frankly MMORPG inspired. That's not bad per se, just is.




And MMORPGs are D&D inspired. That's not bad per se, it's just the way it is.

A quick question from someone who doesn't play MMORPGs. What is DPS?

/M


----------



## ppaladin123 (Feb 23, 2009)

Maggan said:


> And MMORPGs are D&D inspired. That's not bad per se, it's just the way it is.
> 
> A quick question from someone who doesn't play MMORPGs. What is DPS?
> 
> /M




D.P.S. = damage per second. It is quick measure of a striker's efficiency/performance.


----------



## tenkar (Feb 23, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I will give it a try.
> 
> The specific example is the gaming (gamist?) challenge they have put as the basis of 4e.
> 
> In MMO games are about two distinct things. An arcade part (which is the technical skill of hand-eye coordination) and tactical part (which is the knowledge of the secrets of the game and their mastery: being able to remeber them). You have to be successful in both but usually there is some space to compensate for non optimum performance in one if you perform perfectly in the other and still achieve an optimum overall result.




Can someone point out the actual Arcade Part of MMORPGs for me.  I click on hot keys and use wasd to move, but with the posible exception of Tabula Rasa I haven't experienced the arcade "twitch" skills needed in a true arcade game or first person shooter.

Just curious, as the OP lists this as one of the two distinct things of MMO games, and its one I haven't been seeing myself.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And you still haven't given me an example. You say that they took tactics from video games (as if they had never existed in RPGs before 4E, except that even you note that 3E had this aspect!) 4E did not implement the tactical part. What you denoted as "tactical" is something that happened in various forms in many role playing games, including previous editions. (Most notably 3E with its introduction of both system mastery - e.g. understanding the "tricks" of the system to create your optimum build - and tactical aspects like flanking and all the miniature related rules)




The example I have given you is the whole game design. I would also note that system mastery and the tactical aspects you are talking about are essentially the same thing -two different gears but of the same overall mechanism. It is true that 3e had this too in various instances -including an instance similar to WoW's direction but not only. Of course WoW's implementation was much deeper and made better -4e borrowed from the development WoW had achieved in that direction. So while the direction of classic D&D's tactics were forcing a balance (or were trying to) of various different events spread around on adventuring, WoW and 4e's are balanced against the same type of encounter: a collaboration of the note roles (DPS, healer, defender etch) against obstacles that favor this kind of collaboration to be beaten. 3e was trying to balance both: adventuring and encounters. It had to offer some kind of more concrete way of how performance in one could enhance performance in the other and the players could end up balanced -it did not and this was up to the DM.  



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But after you noted this, you went on to a different topic that is not related to tactics. You talk about running a game world. You seem to be trying to make a connection to the tactical component, but I still don't get how this connection is supposed to work. At the moment I think it's immaterial to what you are actually talking about (without this lessening the relevance or interestingness of what you are talking about. It just doesn't make it any easier to understand what you are talking about.)



Perhaps with my explanation above it could be more clear now. 




Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am trying to get what you are talking about when you talk about "verbal input" or  personal or social relationships?
> Are you talking about mechanics that model something like "NPC x is my nemisis?" or "I seduce the Princess" or even "I am in love with the Princess and I have a personal stake in anything regarding her well being and her relationship to me?"



People try to build or defend their relationships. One should have mechanics for these things in-game. Because people feel these things socialy and tabletop games are social games achieving to connect the two among the players (on the intra-player interactions) would be awesome IMO. 



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Generally I would say that no game constraints things it doesn't describe, of course it doesn't facilitate it either. But 4E design doesn't choke anything of this aspect. And it actually has - with its Quest Mechanic tools to describe social or personal relationships. Quest: "Kill Nemesis" and Quest "Marry the Princess" are of course very simple, but the few games I know in this regard have actually pretty similar concepts. If the player spends time on one of his "stakes", he gets mechanical benefits. (In some games, these are Hero Points or Possibilities, in 4E it's XP).



I am not sure about your point. Games have certain goals and games are structures. This means that one is predisposed to act in certain ways-choices are limited. If a game lacks a kind of structure it could very well be that the optimum choices of this hypothetical added structure are in conflict with the choices of the original structure because the final result or outcome has to be a shared one among the structures: one may make one choice/decision/input each time. To understand this think of how the arcade input and tactical input of MMOs can not give two different inputs in-game regarding what has happened.

Since 4e is build on collaborating in a certain way to beat certain obstacles and human social relationships run differently I see points of conflict or incompatibility here.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

tenkar said:


> Can someone point out the actual Arcade Part of MMORPGs for me.  I click on hot keys and use wasd to move, but with the posible exception of Tabula Rasa I haven't experienced the arcade "twitch" skills needed in a true arcade game or first person shooter.
> 
> Just curious, as the OP lists this as one of the two distinct things of MMO games, and its one I haven't been seeing myself.




I remember when I was playing Ultima Online I had to be quick on engaging disengaging, choosing and activating spells, moving around in respect to areas of effect and stuff like that. Everything that needs timing or synchronization is considered arcade more or less. Of course there are levels of difficulty and what I consider an arcadey challenge for myself, for you it could be a walk in the park.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 23, 2009)

What's laughable is that the same claims being made about 4th edition were made about 3e when it came out. There was a huge online upset between 2e and 3e players. The "Videogameness" was all there.

But, that's not going to get this anywhere. Well, I think there's no way to salvage this discussion anyhow, but I'm still going to add to the pile.

I understand those who dislike 4e because it doesn't suit their playstyle. Honestly, if 4e had come out _first_, and the 3e ruleset was the new edition, I would not switch. Because I _dislike_ the third edition system. The system, among other things, encourages a simulationist "The rules represent the physics", and that hard-rules feel has no appeal to me whatsoever. Setting the two systems beside eachother, and seeing their differences (plus my experience with 3e), I would not go from 4 to 3. 

But I do not have anything _against_ 3e players. If you've found what you enjoy and you know it, _good_; it's better than playing something you're _un_happy with.

In this very thread, not two pages ago, people were arguing whether game systems should have rules for social interaction. If people can't agree on _that_, then there's no way to get everyone to agree on one edition versus the other. 

Sometimes it feels not like a matter of "What game do you play", but a matter of _identity_. As a poster pointed out earlier, Rolemaster has five editions, and no one fights about those. But what people _do_ fight about are Mac vs. PC, or Politics, or Sports Teams. Instead of it being about _D&D_, it's about "Us" vs. "Them".


----------



## Obryn (Feb 24, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Exactly how do you get "maybe" from what I said.  Do you really think that just saying we are't going to talk about a possible new edition of D&D right now would have destroyed WotC and D&D?  D&D is a very small part of WotC, and 3.5 products continued to sell fairly well after the announcement and release of 4E.  Which one of us has the blinders on?



As soon as you announce a new product in an existing line, you are effectively competing with yourself.  If, tomorrow, Apple announced there'd be a new iPod in July, many consumers would either (1) bargain-hunt, or (2) wait for the new shiny.

Now, I know I stopped buying 3e books after the announcement.  I know at least some others did, too - and I'm tempted to say "many".  I also remember some post-Gen-Con wrap-up threads from 3pps which said, more or less, the 4e announcement cut their sales.  It's safe to say that 3e was losing more customers than it was gaining.

Now, of course the market didn't _completely_ dry up.  I never said it did.  It simply _shrank_ - which I think you acknowledge by saying 3e products sold "fairly well".  If your profit margin is small to begin with, like everyone in the RPG industry, you simply can't continue to have the same expenses while making less product.

That spells ruin.  If your profits shrink appreciably, you can't spend as much on research & development.  If you don't spend money on R&D, the final product is likely to be of lower quality.

That's what all of these doomsday scenarios amount to - a simple shrinking of profits, perhaps as "slight" as 10%-20%, can affect you for years to come.

And I get "Maybe" from your post because, if you go from saying "No" to saying something else, _anything else you say _is basically a Maybe and, in all likelihood a Yes.  This includes "No comment."

-O


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 24, 2009)

avin said:


> Changing 4E structure for a recommended 5 man group comes right from Wow.




I seem to recall the standard assumed D&D group of 2E being a DM and 5 players as well.  That way you could have one of each of the 4 core classes and still mix in a bard or paladin or whatever else.  My 2E PHB is in my daughter's room in a box, so I'm not about to risk waking her up to verify this


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 24, 2009)

ppaladin123 said:


> D.P.S. = damage per second. It is quick measure of a striker's efficiency/performance.




DPS is also a slang term for a character class with a high-DPS role. If you're Teh Hardcorez, it may also be pronounced "Deeps".

DPS = Striker
Tank = Defender
Healer = Leader
CC = Controller

CC stands for "crowd control". It's for effects which remove an enemy from combat without actually killing him, like polymorph or fear.

Is 4e derived, in part, from MMOs? Yup. They're directly derived from the MMOs that are directly derived from D&D. 4e fans like to pretend that 4e has absolutely no inspiration whatsoever from World of Warcraft. In my experience, they're pretending this to ward off attacks from people who have an axe to grind with 4e or WOTC. (Alternately, they may simply be ignorant of the obvious design similarities, which is likely the case if they've never played a contemporary MMO.) The issue here isn't if 4e share conceptual design ideas with MMOs. The issue here is this:

Why would that be a bad thing? You can't get a playerbase the size of Cuba to play your game if your basic conceptual game design isn't on the ball. Complaining about assimilating good ideas from MMOs strikes me as being a bit like saying that a movie can't be good if it was adapted from a book.

I don't think I've ever seen any compelling reasons why it's in any way problematic if 4e took a single idea from World of Warcraft.


By the way, this thread is hilarious. Keep it up, guys.


(P.S. - from what I've seen, party roles weren't lifted from MMOs, teamwork and tactics weren't lifted from MMOs, a five player party size wasn't lifted from MMOs, monsters of disproportionate power weren't lifted from MMOs, and powers weren't lifted from MMOs. So, then, what was? Discuss.)


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 24, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> 4e fans like to pretend that 4e has absolutely no inspiration whatsoever from World of Warcraft. In my experience, they're pretending this to ward off attacks from people who have an axe to grind with 4e or WOTC. (Alternately, they may simply be ignorant of the obvious design similarities, which is likely the case if they've never played a contemporary MMO.)




I would tend to say that 4E "blind supporters" like to pretend that no influence came from WoW (or other MMOs) or computer games. People who have a more realistic viewpoint say "Where the inspiration came from doesn't matter. What matters is what the devs *did* with the inspiration", as you mentioned above.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 24, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> (P.S. - from what I've seen, party roles weren't lifted from MMOs, teamwork and tactics weren't lifted from MMOs, a five player party size wasn't lifted from MMOs, monsters of disproportionate power weren't lifted from MMOs, and powers weren't lifted from MMOs. So, then, what was? Discuss.)




Roles have been around since always.  MMOs got the term 'tank' from us tabletop players.  It's a natural term for a heavy armor clad killing machine.  Party roles have been with us always as well.

D&D began as an extension of tactical minis games.  Teamwork has always been one of the defining attributes.  Buffs and debuffs existed long before the first MMO, as did "sheeping", offtanking, focus fire.  MMOs codified the terminology but the concepts came from an analysis of how we've been playing fantasy since the beginning.

4-6 has always been the default party size, the design assumption falling somewhere in that range.  As editions have evolved, they've gotten more specific.  3e was the first edition that "showed it's work" in regards to the math, so they explained a baseline party size.  4e did the same.  So did MMOs as the restraints of programming required limits.  With no DM to adjust things, a cap is necessary so content isn't simply zerged.

Monsters of disproportinate power are the reason why you bring 4 friends with you.  It was always thus.

Powers were not lifted from MMOs, they are the same suites of powers the classes have always had.  What was "lifted" from MMOs, particularly WoW, was the framework for class powers.  Balance has long been a stated, but unachieved goal of D&D design.  MMOs require a strong balance among the classes, it is essential to MMO design.  The way many achieve this, again particularly WoW, is with a rigid framework in which class powers are "plugged" into.  They can easily be balanced by role and power level as just a function of math.  Damage expressions fit a range, are modified based on the mathematical worth of other effects of the power, and are easily adjusted by role.  

This is what the 4e designers "lifted" from MMOs, the basic framework to inform class balance.  It's not nearly as rigid as it is in MMO design, it doesn't need to be, but it serves as the means to achieve some real class balance in the game.  There is a second benefit as well, one which MMOs enjoy.  When something is inevitably found to be out of whack, it is an easy fix, you change the power, the damage expression, the secondary effect, whatever and its done.  Little adjustments can easily be made as needed.  This results in an increase in errata in a pen and paper system, perhaps, but it's a valuable check and balance.  The system can respond when player's inevitably break it, as they always do.

Compare this to 3e where the designers at first denied the gulf between casters and melee classes and were then unable to really address it because the system had already been built and could not be easily tweaked.  How could you easily change something so fundamental?  It was only towards the end of the editions cycle that they really made meaningful progress with Tome of Battle, which, of course, went a long way to informing the design of 4e and was also "lifted" from MMOs in the conception of its mechanics.

Lastly, you can't be too hard on 4e players for being defensive about the MMO thing, it's been an absurd "accusation" thrown about by ignorant "haters" since before the game even came out.  Not as an informed analysis, but in a "4e sux becuz itz a mmo now dude" manner.


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 24, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> I would tend to say that 4E "blind supporters" like to pretend that no influence came from WoW (or other MMOs) or computer games. People who have a more realistic viewpoint say "Where the inspiration came from doesn't matter. What matters is what the devs *did* with the inspiration", as you mentioned above.




Exactly.  There's plenty of influences on 4E that should be praised and discussed, rather than swept under the rug.  Tactical miniatures games and MMOs come to mind.

For some reason, these two topics just aren't really discussed in a positive light here on ENworld in regards to 4E, and it's a shame.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Exactly.  There's plenty of influences on 4E that should be praised and discussed, rather than swept under the rug.  Tactical miniatures games and MMOs come to mind.
> 
> For some reason, these two topics just aren't really discussed in a positive light here on ENworld in regards to 4E, and it's a shame.




I do not cite them as positive influences since I dislike the typical MMOG experience and don't really like tactical miniatures in an RPG either.


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I do not cite them as positive influences since I dislike the typical MMOG experience and don't really like tactical miniatures in an RPG either.




Which is fine.  I happen to be in the funny position of not playing all that many MMOG or miniatures games (excluding 4E), but 4E's embrace of these influences has made me quite happy.  

I just wish they were discussed more, civilly.  What miniatures games influenced 4E the most?  Now that roles are concrete, are there any MMOs that have found a "role" that's not in 4E?

Maybe I should start a few threads, but honestly, I think they'd just devolve into madness.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Which is fine.  I happen to be in the funny position of not playing all that many MMOG or miniatures games (excluding 4E), but 4E's embrace of these influences has made me quite happy.
> 
> I just wish they were discussed more, civilly.  What miniatures games influenced 4E the most?  Now that roles are concrete, are there any MMOs that have found a "role" that's not in 4E?
> 
> Maybe I should start a few threads, but honestly, I think they'd just devolve into madness.




In video game rpgs and MMOs there are mechanics to distinct roles based on the grind. You may have strikers be more effective as a role versus weaker/normal guys by doing massive damage in a second and dispatching them right away. 
And you might have strikers that do not unleash so much damage at first impact but the overall damage in the long run, when grinding versus enemies with more hit points surpasses that one of the previous type of strikers. To see where the difference of damage output stands you will have to see the function of time.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 24, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Powers were not lifted from MMOs, they are the same suites of powers the classes have always had.  What was "lifted" from MMOs, particularly WoW, was the framework for class powers.




I _like_ this guy. He knows his stuff.

I'd also say that there's a second thing that 4e took from MMOs, and it's important, too, but not as important, and that's language. D&D always had disproportionally tough monsters and class roles, yes, but it wasn't until MMOs and 4e that we had language to _describe_ these roles, and having a name for something always makes it easier to understand. MMOs have a rich, specialized vocabulary that developed organically, and a lot of those words can be every bit as useful to the rich, specialized vocabulary of D&D. 4e helps to bridge that gap.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I do not cite them as positive influences since I dislike the typical MMOG experience and don't really like tactical miniatures in an RPG either.




I am not sure how to express this, but this attitude is problematic, because you seem to assume that just because there is an influence, it will change the entire experience to something like an MMO or tactical miniature game. But that doesn't follow. 

Do you have a problem with hit points in D&D? Hit points can also be found in MMO and CRPGs (and probably tactical mini games, though I am not familiar with tem). But apparantly that didn't lead to you liking those games more, right? So why do you assume that the opposite is automatically true? A mechanic found in an MMO automatically makes the role-playing game experience worse? 

The trick is lifting mechanics and concepts in a way that makes sense for the type of game you're working on. 

Of course, you don't have to discuss these topics, but just going in with an attitude "it's always bad" won't contribute to it.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 24, 2009)

However, two issues with the rich, specialized vocabulary are (1) it makes the game even more unfriendly for new users to learn (because it increases the already hefty D&D vocabulary) - this is alleviated somewhat by the fact that many new gamers are familiar with MMOs and, hence, already know the vocabulary; and (2) it encourages metagaming. 

Interestingly enough, for years, computer RPGs were striving to get as close to the pen-and-paper experience as possible, since the pen-and-paper experience provides freedom which can never* be matched by a computer. Sure, the balance wasn't perfect, but the human factor (i.e. the DM) was always there to make judgment calls and adjust the rules as needed.

3.x made the first step in the opposite direction, trying to take away the need for DM's judgment calls and ad hoc rulings, and empowering the players through the myriad of rules, sub-rules, and sub-systems (some of which worked, and some which didn't work). 4E takes another step further, completely removing the DM from the picture when it comes to rulings which concern PC abilities (by making those abilities simple, clear, and without any need for interpretation) while, at the same time, claiming to return some power to the DM by means of world-building and preparation flexibility. This is not a direction I like; I want some ambiguity in the "powers," I want the "powers" to be able to do more than 2[W]+Int damage and push the target 1 square. By balancing the powers so carefully (and making them so easy to balance), the designers have removed a certain layer of creativity from the game. Sure, it's easy to say that "DMs should encourage player stunts," but, in my experience, with the advent of 4E "powers," many players are now focused on choosing the optimal power for every situation and are no longer interested in in-game logic, prefering to use metagame tactical reasoning. This is straight out of tactical miniature games and MMORPGs, and has never been as ingrained in the system as it is in 4E.

*in the foreseeable future


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Exactly.  There's plenty of influences on 4E that should be praised and discussed, rather than swept under the rug.  Tactical miniatures games and MMOs come to mind.
> 
> For some reason, these two topics just aren't really discussed in a positive light here on ENworld in regards to 4E, and it's a shame.




I have no problem with what you are talking about. What I have a problem with is when it happened to me to express my opinion on 4e by saying that it is not a roleplaying game but rather a board game -in the kinds of "descent" or "warhammer quest" or what have you- I felt by the reactions as I was committing heresy or something.
I have played those games with friends in the past extensively and they were fun. After some time I(we) got bored of them but till that moment we were having a blast. 

I think that when people are open to a new method when they get exposed to it the experienced innovation draws interest and people are having fun to discover what it really is about there-what is the nature of the new method -what it may serve and what not, what it may do and what it may not do.
Board games and miniature games and video games are like that. I put 4e in this category too. And in this category, as a game to learn, if you are open to it -and this depends on its capacity to inspire which is rather an artistic merit- I think 4e is top notch. You can have a blast with it.

Having said that I distinguish it from a roleplaying game which in my opinion they are games about decisions on the intra-person relations factor. They need game mechanics or rules but of a more universal nature whith the function of guiding you to focus on this kind of interaction. So based on how I judge this -how I see the game works- I distinguish a game as a board game or roleplaying game. 

The way 4e took influence from MMOs had the result to make the game less of a roleplaying game and more of a board game. And to this I believe it failed as I believe that the designers had not this in mind -did not see this that is. Of course I may very very well be wrong here and the designers really wanted this kind of result for D&D. 

Anyway as you said the important thing is taste and preference. There are people who want the merits of 4e and there are people who want something more of a roleplaying game (and what I mean by this is explained above and its my opinion here so please do not see this as an attack towards you). Certainly both are to be respected. I do not know if things change, if the type of criticism seen here will be ever more constructive -this kind of thread is kind of hilarious as a poster above mentions but you never know.


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> And you might have strikers that do not unleash so much damage at first impact but the overall damage in the long run, when grinding versus enemies with more hit points surpasses that one of the previous type of strikers. To see where the difference of damage output stands you will have to see the function of time.




See, there we go!  A damage-over-time Striker.  I could see a Monk build for that, where something like a Quivering Palm class feature does damage (or some other minor effect) over a series of rounds, with the length based on the PC's tier.  Definitely a secondary Controller role in there, too.

I was wondering about a Debuffer, since I've seen that pretty prevalent in MMOs.  Would it translate to enough of a difference in 4E to get its own role, or could you make "debuffing" versions of all the roles?

MMOs bring so much to the table, and definitely fit with 4E's focus on character balance and monster design.

This stuff can be discussed, analyzed, and applied to every game in existence, but when it comes to D&D, it's like its quietly regarded as taboo, or something to tout out in a negative manner.


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I have no problem with what you are talking about. What I have a problem with is when it happened to me to express my opinion on 4e by saying that it is not a roleplaying game but rather a board game -in the kinds of "descent" or "warhammer quest" or what have you- I felt by the reactions as I was committing heresy or something.  I have played those games with friends in the past extensively and they were fun. After some time I(we) got bored of them but till that moment we were having a blast.




Well, here I gotta disagree with you, buddy.  I definitely feel 4E is a roleplaying game.

Still, though, if you feel 4E is a great board game, then you should probably pick up Dungeon Delve, since I hear it's basically more of what you've enjoyed out of 4E.  And no, WotC isn't paying me.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not sure how to express this, but this attitude is problematic, because you seem to assume that just because there is an influence, it will change the entire experience to something like an MMO or tactical miniature game. But that doesn't follow.



Well I think it may follow based on implementation. See my post right above here.  


Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Do you have a problem with hit points in D&D? Hit points can also be found in MMO and CRPGs (and probably tactical mini games, though I am not familiar with tem). But apparantly that didn't lead to you liking those games more, right? So why do you assume that the opposite is automatically true? A mechanic found in an MMO automatically makes the role-playing game experience worse?



Again it depends on implementation. The same feature in different structures is not the same thing -in terms of comparability. You are right that it is wrong to assume that an inclusion of a feature makes something automatically in a certain way.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The trick is lifting mechanics and concepts in a way that makes sense for the type of game you're working on.



I am not sure about that. Remember the analogy about trying to adapt movie features to a novel written for a book? This trick may be very tricky in the sense of altering the sense of the game you are working on and so you will have to readapt the whole game structure for the specific type you are aiming for. But as I said above I am not sure any more about what type of game the designers really wanted. You helped me think about this -I was in a defensive anti-mode regarding the type that I wanted and ended about accusing the ability of the designers here.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not sure how to express this, but this attitude is problematic, because you seem to assume that just because there is an influence, it will change the entire experience to something like an MMO or tactical miniature game. But that doesn't follow.
> 
> Do you have a problem with hit points in D&D? Hit points can also be found in MMO and CRPGs (and probably tactical mini games, though I am not familiar with tem). But apparantly that didn't lead to you liking those games more, right? So why do you assume that the opposite is automatically true? A mechanic found in an MMO automatically makes the role-playing game experience worse?




Well, when I first encountered Everquest I saw a lot of similarities to D&D, and my attitude was very positive. Then I saw what the positive D&D experience I had ended up like in EQ - a tedious grind with enforced grouping, and repetitive combat that felt very much like an exercise in optimisation of a given set of mechanics without any thought to realism, immersion or roleplaying. Most new powers and spells one got were just "more of the same", without adding anything new and original. Generic flame, ice and electricity spells alternated every 4 levels as the "most effective" for example. The main attraction of roleplayed combat for me - creative fighting, stunts, and tactics - was reduced to a set-piece battle each time, where math was king (manage aggro, nuke every X seconds, hit hate reducer every y seconds, complete heal all z seconds, etc.) and risk was all but removed by player choices.

There are very few mechanics in MMOGs that enhance roleplay, in my opinion. And those that do are not found in the combat system. When I hear about "striker, tank, dps, controller", I see PvE MMOGs. And trying to compete with them in that aspect is futile - MMOGs do "grid" combat much better than pen and paper can, since it's faster, and graphically more pleasing.

Where pen and paper can shine is with creative things you cannot do in an MMOG. Throwing a cloak over the enemies eyes. Dropping a chandelier on enemies. Making a wall crumble, hack down a door and use it as a battering ram. Using and changing the enviroment, the entire battlefield.

In my opinion, the game should have moved away from all the detailed and limited powers, instead concentrating on the "stunts" aspect, capitalizing on the enormous flexibility and options a human DM has, instead of a computer in an MMOG.

Instead we got the MMOG mechanics, without the graphics. If I just want to battle a dozen goblins yardtrash mobs with my powers, then kill goblin leaders for loot with my special moves before raiding the goblin king for items, I'd log on to an MMOG.

If I play a pen and paper game, I want to focus on stuff I can't in an MMOG. Redirect a river and drown the goblin keep. Make an alliance with the orc tribe against them. Parlay and intimidate them into attacking the ogres. Poison their wells. Kill their champion in single combat and make them my followers. If I do combat, it'll have to do better than MMOG combat - and duplicating their - very balanced and sound - mechanics won't help me there.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Well, here I gotta disagree with you, buddy.  I definitely feel 4E is a roleplaying game.



Yes but I tried to explain this here, to elaborate on what a roleplaying game means and draw comparisons and judgment on the matter. I would prefer if you disagree that you showed me where you disagree with my points. But even if you do not, there is no problem really. 
If it feels like this to you, then till something that feels better is actually presented (a new edition, a new game maybe) what it the point to argue about in the end, aint I right?


----------



## glass (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> If say today you say "system mastery is bad, so WotC is right, I know that", and tomorrow WotC changes their view and you say "System mastery is good, so WotC is right" then you're a blind defender.



Classic example of a _post hoc_ fallacy. Say it with me, "correlation does not prove causation".


glass.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> This stuff can be discussed, analyzed, and applied to every game in existence, but when it comes to D&D, it's like its quietly regarded as taboo, or something to tout out in a negative manner.




Here is where the problematic lies. How application is implemented it can change the type of nature of games -if not the game itself. The D&D in the past could seem more of a toolbox and the DM applied common sense to direct the game to his taste. But game design is something more tricky. Do not fall in the old school mindset, having that POV and trying to judge game design considering this common sense applicability as a standard.


----------



## glass (Feb 24, 2009)

ppaladin123 said:


> D.P.S. = damage per second. It is quick measure of a striker's efficiency/performance.



A measure that is utterly meaningless in the non-real-time environment of a P&P RPG... 


glass.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 24, 2009)

Maybe it should be changed to D.P.R. - damage per round?

And to be fair, the dreaded character optimization boards were full of people focused on optimizing the D.P.R. output in the height of 3.x, so that's not a 4E construct at all.


----------



## glass (Feb 24, 2009)

Sammael said:


> Maybe it should be changed to D.P.R. - damage per round?
> 
> And to be fair, the dreaded character optimization boards were full of people focused on optimizing the D.P.R. output in the height of 3.x, so that's not a 4E construct at all.



Indeed. But changing DPS to DPR may only be one letter, but it signified a vast difference in how the game feels in play. The only way to make D&D 4e an MMO would be to actually make it an MMO. They didn't; they made it a P&P RPG with character sheets and dice, just like it has always been.

_EDIT: Not arguing with you Sammael, just building on the point._


glass.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 24, 2009)

I am not sure this is the case. A MMO can just as easily be turn-based as it is real-time; the only reason why most (not all) MMOs are real-time is the convenience of faster play.

In other words, I don't think turn-based and real-time combat is what distinguishes a pen-and-paper RPG and a CRPG.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> As soon as you announce a new product in an existing line, you are effectively competing with yourself.  If, tomorrow, Apple announced there'd be a new iPod in July, many consumers would either (1) bargain-hunt, or (2) wait for the new shiny.
> 
> Now, I know I stopped buying 3e books after the announcement.  I know at least some others did, too - and I'm tempted to say "many".  I also remember some post-Gen-Con wrap-up threads from 3pps which said, more or less, the 4e announcement cut their sales.  It's safe to say that 3e was losing more customers than it was gaining.
> 
> ...




Let's get some prespective here.  As I already pointed out, the statement was not made three years in advance but approximately 6 months prior to the official anouncement of 4E.  Also, they continued to produce and sell 3.5 products for many months after the announcement of 4E.  In fact,t he last I heard, 3.5 PHB's are still selling well, and Paizo's 3.5 sales really took off after the announcement of 4E.  According to you, they should have never released any 3.5 products after the announcement of 4E, but they did and it seemed to work out well for them and 3rd party publishers.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 24, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Also, they continued to produce and sell 3.5 products for many months after the announcement of 4E.



With the false pretext that those products would be updated to 4E upon the new system's release. I'm honestly surprised that more people aren't bitching about this, but perhaps the sales performance of those products was so minor that they decided updating them would cost more than it would be worth.

Still, it's what is technically called "false advertising" and is punishable by law in many countries.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Sammael said:


> Maybe it should be changed to D.P.R. - damage per round?
> 
> And to be fair, the dreaded character optimization boards were full of people focused on optimizing the D.P.R. output in the height of 3.x, so that's not a 4E construct at all.




Yes, this might be the reason that Wotc made 4e the way it is. It catered to balance out the optimization efforts of 3.x. I would like to see next edition to take a totally different design direction than try to just ease the "pain" that the tendencies of the focus of the previous ruleset can cause.
The problem is that this "pain" is what the hardcore gamers end to be about and I doubt we will ever see such a daring move by Wotc.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Yes, this might be the reason that Wotc made 4e the way it is. It catered to balance out the optimization efforts of 3.x. I would like to see next edition to take a totally different design direction than try to cure the "pain" that the tendencies of the focus of the previous ruleset can cause.
> The problem is that this "pain" is what the hardcore gamers end to be about and I doubt we will ever see such a daring move by Wotc.




Which brings up another pet peeve of mine: That MMOGs by and large cater to hardcore grinders, not to roleplayers. There hasn't been any support for roleplaying (other than some token "RP server" tag) in most of the big MMOGs.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Which brings up another pet peeve of mine: That MMOGs by and large cater to hardcore grinders, not to roleplayers. There hasn't been any support for roleplaying (other than some token "RP server" tag) in most of the big MMOGs.




If you think about the fan resistance to change in the new edition of Starcraft the challenge of the hardcore exploitation of the original ...yep, Blizzard has some problems there to face.
But I never really understood this hardcore gaming -I do play classic games like chess and I would be pissed if one day they decided to change the rules of chess but I cant but scratch my head when I see this happening to fans of video games or what have you. So I see it is my fault here. OTOH video games and modern mini and card games are so complicated and build with a consumerism mind set that I feel it is very hard to feel about them like one could feel about a classic and less "materialistic" game like chess.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> If you think about the fan resistance to change in the new edition of Starcraft the challenge of the hardcore exploitation of the original ...yep, Blizzard has some problems there to face.
> But I never really understood this hardcore gaming -I do play classic games like chess and I would be pissed if one day they decided to change the rules of chess but I cant but scratch my head when I see this happening to fans of video games or what have you. So I see it is my fault here. OTOH video games and modern mini games are so complicated and build with a consumerism mind set that I feel it is very hard to feel about them like one could feel about a classic and less "materialistic" game like chess.




I wasn't talking about resistance to changes but about the completely lack of anything that would support roleplaying in the majority of the games.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 24, 2009)

Sammael said:


> With the false pretext that those products would be updated to 4E upon the new system's release. I'm honestly surprised that more people aren't bitching about this, but perhaps the sales performance of those products was so minor that they decided updating them would cost more than it would be worth.
> 
> Still, it's what is technically called "false advertising" and is punishable by law in many countries.




I had forgotten about that particular lie.  Considering their inability to deliver on most of their promises concerning 4e, it would be more surprising if they actualy did something they promised.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I wasn't talking about resistance to changes but about the completely lack of anything that would support roleplaying in the majority of the games.




You are right, I got carried away. But I could see a common point here. Roleplaying is about change: it is about the individual input one brings to the table and each this happens it brings something new -it innovates the situation. 
So I guess it is even harder to have a hardcore mind set and be a roleplayer


----------



## DandD (Feb 24, 2009)

It's always funny to read how 4th edition is accused of the very same thing in 3rd edition. 
Although, isn't 3rd edition the MMORPG-like system, and 4th edition the Console-RPG-emulating thingie? How comes people suddenly give 4th edition all the bad reputation-stuff that belongs to 3rd edition? 
In 3rd edition, you have professions to mine, gather herbs, fish and craft leathery, jewels, brew potions, and other non-important stuff. That can appearently be a good thing, as some people seemingly like this stuff. Also, clerics are absolutely needed to survive a battle. 
In 4th edition, you don't. You only have what is necessary, like fight, special ability, item and run, like in all Final Fantasy titles (barring XI, the MMO-version). That surely is a good thing, as the stuff above never ever found its way in like 99.99999.... percent of all games anyway. Clerics and other healer-classes are really nice, but a tad less important than prior edition (still nice if you have a dedicated healer).

5th edition is surely going to be accused of being too handheldy, hehe...


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

DandD said:


> It's always funny to read how 4th edition is accused of the very same thing in 3rd edition.
> Although, isn't 3rd edition the MMORPG-like system, and 4th edition the Console-RPG-emulating thingie? How comes people suddenly give 4th edition all the bad reputation-stuff that belongs to 3rd edition?
> In 3rd edition, you have professions to mine, gather herbs, fish and craft leathery, jewels, brew potions, and other non-important stuff. That can appearently be a good thing, as some people seemingly like this stuff. Also, clerics are absolutely needed to survive a battle.
> In 4th edition, you don't. You only have what is necessary, like fight, special ability, item and run, like in all Final Fantasy titles (barring XI, the MMO-version). That surely is a good thing, as the stuff above never ever found its way in like 99.99999.... percent of all games anyway. Clerics and other healer-classes are really nice, but a tad less important than prior edition (still nice if you have a dedicated healer).
> ...



You are mixing two different things. The combat and non combat. IMO there should be a connection among the two but neither MMOs nor 4e (which focuses solely on combat) neither 3e which has non combat elements has managed to achieve this. But in 3e the Dungeon Master has a mechanical basis to try to achieve this. Of course it is very difficult to cater for this in published adventures since they must take under consideration to be compatible with most adventuring party builds possible. 

The accusation for 4e (from a 3e POV) is that while its combat is a better copy of the combat that happens in MMO it leaves out the non combat elements and there is no mechanical base to build on the possibilities I was talking about above by the Dungeon Master (at least in theory that is). Also MMOs do not have dungeon masters (the way tabletops have) and there is no such possibility in them at all, at least from what I know.

My personal problem is one not explained here but I would say that both 3e and 4e have their merits -I believe that how they stand out, unless 3e manages to add some kind of meta-system to help the DM achieve on (and with the logistics of 3.x to succeed in this without alienating the logistics it seems impossible) what I was talking about, in practice 4e is a better game because it achieves better its own purpose -it can exploit its strengths because it focuses them at one point (and this is easier to do with the D20 system). Of course many people do not want to be limited in these strengths and 3e is seems a better fit for this -albeit with the need of fixing it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> You are mixing two different things. The combat and non combat. IMO there should be a connection among the two but neither MMOs nor 4e (which focuses solely on combat)



This time I understand what you are saying, just note that you are wrong. 4e does not focus solely on combat. (And neither does WoW, as far as I know. There are also crafting elements in the game - while this can affect combat, for many players it doesn't.)
It is hard to discuss with people if you already disagree on fundamental aspects, and it tends to create "mini-discussions" that are not the actual topic both sides are interested in. 

But that aside - what kind of connection between combat and non-combat do you want? What are you envisioning? (Yes, that means I am still not getting what you really talk about. If anyone else is, please feel free to post your understanding and xechnao can say if you got it right.)


----------



## DandD (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> You are mixing two different things. The combat and non combat.



No, I'm definitely not, but you are, because you try to build a connection where there isn't, and shouldn't either, especially in D&D, which has always been about combat, and treats non-combat secondary, no matter what edition.  

Roleplaying stuff outside should never be the same as rolling battles, where you come up with special maneuvers and fierce attacks to defeat an enemy. You only roll stuff in the non-combat section if you don't want to play it out all the time and simplify it with a die roll, which stops the whole thing right at the moment where the result is told. It's only a necessary evil because there is nothing better, and there won't be any good alternatives to it. Systems that do try to emulate non-combat interaction sequences with combat rules only make the non-combat interaction sequences non-important too, as everything is then reduced to some kind of hit points and special maneuvers, which are only viable once and then at the gaming table (else, you might as well go and play computer and console games like Ace Attorney, which can do that stuff far superior to a human, and have graphics to oogle at). OBJECTION!


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

DandD said:


> Roleplaying stuff outside should never be the same as rolling battles, where you come up with special maneuvers and fierce attacks to defeat an enemy. You only roll stuff in the non-combat section if you don't want to play it out all the time and simplify it with a die roll, which stops the whole thing right at the moment where the result is told. It's only a necessary evil because there is nothing better, and there won't be any good alternatives to it. Systems that do try to emulate non-combat interaction sequences with combat rules only make the non-combat interaction sequences non-important too, as everything is then reduced to some kind of hit points and special maneuvers, which are only viable once and then at the gaming table (else, you might as well go and play computer and console games like Ace Attorney, which can do that stuff far superior to a human, and have graphics to oogle at). OBJECTION!




That brings up the question if combat should be handled with just dice rolls.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> This time I understand what you are saying, just note that you are wrong. 4e does not focus solely on combat. (And neither does WoW, as far as I know. There are also crafting elements in the game - while this can affect combat, for many players it doesn't.)
> It is hard to discuss with people if you already disagree on fundamental aspects, and it tends to create "mini-discussions" that are not the actual topic both sides are interested in.
> 
> But that aside - what kind of connection between combat and non-combat do you want? What are you envisioning? (Yes, that means I am still not getting what you really talk about. If anyone else is, please feel free to post your understanding and xechnao can say if you got it right.)




Let me first make clear that the problems I was noting in our previous discussion, regarding 4e's limitations due to the implementation of MMO combat is not the same problem with the problematic of this discussion. It might be connected but it is not the same thing.

Having said that I will try to clarify by what I meant with the connection of combat and no combat or lack thereof.
It is a matter of expanding the battlefield: does confrontation really starts and ends at a local point or is it something that can be extended to a bigger web or net of sorts? By the power one has to move on the web he can defend himself. Someones may be able to reach a higher speed towards a given direction and so due to their superior momentum win others in this direction. But someones may have a bigger flexibility at changing directions. And since we are dealing with a web here conflict can happen from various directions. 
The D20 system is not build with this in mind. It is rather build on the idea of local confrontations (regarding victory or defeat) and utilizes a number of different localities -and the choice of specializing for them- to make the game interesting. Those who choose to specialize in more than one but cannot reach the levels of a more focused specialization end up to be subpar in practice (they will face more defeats than their counterparts-without intervention of the DM to try to build by himself a web of sorts to balance things out). 
In fact the measure of time in the D20 system uses a standard of absolute values rather than relative ones. Everything is balanced againt a standard of rounds and the economy of actions and the balance of the economy of actions is build around this standard to help with the managment of the model of different localities I was talking about.    

So what a web has to do with non combat? It is about the specialization I was talking about. Non combat abilities are the less local ones in relation to the combat abilities which seem more local. This means that if one attacks you at a certain local point his attack trumps your diplomacy. This is the way the system is build. Of course in a web like system the distinction among combat and non combat would make no sense. So I was trying by using the standards of the 3e model to describe an effort towards the different web like model.

EDIT: To make it more clear: one in a web like model could manage his resources to gain some leverage from diplomacy to gain a better position in combat -if he has such a resource and wants to resort to that resource: to what resource one resorts has to do with his position on the web. And here is where the game takes place (it is a game where positioning matters so I would call it a game of strategic positioning )


----------



## glass (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Let me first make clear that the problems I was noting in our previous discussion, regarding 4e's limitations due to the implementation of MMO combat is not the same problem with the problematic of this discussion. It might be connected but it is not the same thing.



4e has not 'implemented MMO combat', because such a thing is nonsensical on it's face! 


glass.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

glass said:


> 4e has not 'implemented MMO combat', because such a thing is nonsensical on it's face!
> 
> 
> glass.




If your problem is about acknowledging who influenced who first I agree with whatever you want to believe. But since 4e had the choice to build on different elements (as a tabletop game), elements that were not used in this inter-influencing evolution I think I can say that 4e "implemented MMO combat" -as its choice that is. If it had made a different choice any MMO elements that would appear they would appear in a more revolutionary way. IMO.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 24, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Let's get some prespective here.  As I already pointed out, the statement was not made three years in advance but approximately 6 months prior to the official anouncement of 4E.  Also, they continued to produce and sell 3.5 products for many months after the announcement of 4E.  In fact,t he last I heard, 3.5 PHB's are still selling well, and Paizo's 3.5 sales really took off after the announcement of 4E.  According to you, they should have never released any 3.5 products after the announcement of 4E, but they did and it seemed to work out well for them and 3rd party publishers.



Yes, they of course continued to sell 3.5 products past the announcement of 4e.  Did you expect them to stop?  Just - you know - cease all production of their existing product line and turn the revenue dial all the way down to zero?

How well do you think this would have worked if the waiting period was a few years rather than just a few months?

Again, I am not talking about sales turning to zero.  I am talking about a shrinking market.  Yes, Paizo is doing fairly well right now - but in a very real sense, they _are_ the 3e market.  How many other 3pp's are publishing _non-PDF_ 3e D&D material?  Paizo is the biggest fish in a now-smaller pond, and they have already eaten the competition.

As far as I can see, you're not looking at this situation rationally.

-O


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Let me first make clear that the problems I was noting in our previous discussion, regarding 4e's limitations due to the implementation of MMO combat is not the same problem with the problematic of this discussion.




There is no MMO combat in 4e, anymore than there is MMO combat in 3e.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> There is no MMO combat in 4e, anymore than there is MMO combat in 3e.




Yes, regarding the solid rules that there are in 3e and 4e I can not disagree with this. The fact that I agree with what you are saying here, I believe should have been clear in my posts so far. No need to repeat the same things.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Where pen and paper can shine is with creative things you cannot do in an MMOG. Throwing a cloak over the enemies eyes. Dropping a chandelier on enemies. Making a wall crumble, hack down a door and use it as a battering ram. Using and changing the enviroment, the entire battlefield.
> 
> In my opinion, the game should have moved away from all the detailed and limited powers, instead concentrating on the "stunts" aspect, capitalizing on the enormous flexibility and options a human DM has, instead of a computer in an MMOG.
> 
> Instead we got the MMOG mechanics, without the graphics. If I just want to battle a dozen goblins yardtrash mobs with my powers, then kill goblin leaders for loot with my special moves before raiding the goblin king for items, I'd log on to an MMOG.



I think I understand some of where you come from, but in what other edition of D&D were there mechanics to allow for the creative things you mentioned above?  I think that 4e was the first to actually have a set of usable rules for improvised stunts or maneuvers.

And, FWIW, many of the "great" adventures of the P&P era could be boiled down to:  1. fight mobs and avoid traps, 2. Kill the sub-leaders and get treasure, then 3. attack the "king" and plunder the lair.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> <snip>
> 
> EDIT: To make it more clear: one in a web like model could manage his resources to gain some leverage from diplomacy to gain a better position in combat -if he has such a resource and wants to resort to that resource: to what resource one resorts has to do with his position on the web. And here is where the game takes place (it is a game where positioning matters so I would call it a game of strategic positioning )




Don't you think this system might be a little too ... abstract? 

I would say you can implement parts of this in 4E, combining skill challenges and Quests and encounter design. Your in-game resource is not described by a position on the web, but basically by XP. 

For example, if the PCs run a succesful skill challenge with a potential ally, they get XP for that challenge -at the same time, this XP is deducted from the XP from an encounter where they use this ally as an asset. He is using his own power to divert some of the enemy forces from combat, or he is directly accompanying the PCs to aid them, or he is giving them advice how to avoid some enemy troops. 

And the other way around, a combat might help the PCs to satisfy a quest ("Get back my daughter out of the Kobold Lair") to gain the new ally (or the opportunity for a skill challenge to make this man even more thankful than just giving you some GP and a magical trinket).

Your "web" approach is interesting, and seeing an actual implementation might be even more so. But I am still not convinced that it "works" to facilitate a good role-playing game experience, and doesn't just introduce the general problem of mechanics for non-combat - replacing verbal interactions between players and DMs with dice rolls.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I think I understand some of where you come from, but in what other edition of D&D were there mechanics to allow for the creative things you mentioned above?  I think that 4e was the first to actually have a set of usable rules for improvised stunts or maneuvers.
> 
> And, FWIW, many of the "great" adventures of the P&P era could be boiled down to:  1. fight mobs and avoid traps, 2. Kill the sub-leaders and get treasure, then 3. attack the "king" and plunder the lair.




In D&D of old times you could do stat checks and you would either succeed or fail in what was the consensus of the common sense of the DM and player of what it could be achieved. There were also the "climb walls" ability of thieves that I believe it was used for cases like that. 
But I agree with you that mechanically we are long way for something solid towards this matter. I think one needs a system that is build around directly using relativistic values than absolute standard values.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I think I understand some of where you come from, but in what other edition of D&D were there mechanics to allow for the creative things you mentioned above?  I think that 4e was the first to actually have a set of usable rules for improvised stunts or maneuvers.
> 
> And, FWIW, many of the "great" adventures of the P&P era could be boiled down to:  1. fight mobs and avoid traps, 2. Kill the sub-leaders and get treasure, then 3. attack the "king" and plunder the lair.




I never thought they were great adventures at all. Rules for stunts are not really helpful if they do not produce combat effects that are better than powers - not many will do a stunt if it's more effective to use a power.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Don't you think this system might be a little too ... abstract?



Well systems are abstarct. When you are trying to evolve a well experienced system towards a certain direction that you have spotted due to your experience (and this can happen in open ended systems fairly easily) your POV becomes less abstract and more substantial. But if your approach is not focused like this, then to someone with the focused mind set you will sound too abstract -of course system design is about making substantial theoretic and abstact qualities so what it is missing here is a designer to design the system I am talking about in something more substantial.   




Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Your "web" approach is interesting, and seeing an actual implementation might be even more so. But I am still not convinced that it "works" to facilitate a good role-playing game experience, and doesn't just introduce the general problem of mechanics for non-combat - replacing verbal interactions between players and DMs with dice rolls.



It is good you are not convinced because neither am I. In fact this is what I was trying to say to you with my disclaimer (the first sentence) on my post above. The verbal interaction problematic is a different one. Even an implementation of this web of sorts could be designed in an incompatible way with the tabletop social possibilities I am advocating for.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Yes, they of course continued to sell 3.5 products past the announcement of 4e.  Did you expect them to stop?  Just - you know - cease all production of their existing product line and turn the revenue dial all the way down to zero?
> 
> How well do you think this would have worked if the waiting period was a few years rather than just a few months?
> 
> ...




You seem to keep saying that I think that they should have publicly announced 4th edition the instant they started working on it.  I never said such a thing.  I also never said that they should have announced 4E when they were asked about it.  All I am saying is a simple "We are not going to discuss rumors about 4th edition." or something to that effect would have been better than using deception to strongly imply that they weren't even considering working on 4th edition when they, in fact, had already been working on it for approximately two years.  Your insistance on twisting my words to say something I did not say seems far more irrational, than anything I have said.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I never thought they were great adventures at all.



OK.  Fine.  I was simply stating that the things you said you would rather do in an MMO weren't invented by them. They were deeply ingrained staples of early edition D&D.  And implying that they were bad mmo tropes is a strawman.



Fenes said:


> Rules for stunts are not really helpful if they do not produce combat effects that are better than powers - not many will do a stunt if it's more effective to use a power.




But all of the things you mentioned:



> Throwing a cloak over the enemies eyes. Dropping a chandelier on enemies. Making a wall crumble, hack down a door and use it as a battering ram. Using and changing the enviroment, the entire battlefield.




Can be achieved through this codified system.  I am not saying it's perfect, but you were claiming that these are the things you want from a system, not the mmo-isms that you dislike.  And its exactly these kinds of things that were intended when the mechanics for improvised maneuvers were created.  They weren't intended to be replacements for powers, just as throwing a cloak over your enemies eyes was intended to replace your swashbuckler's rapier attack.



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.






			
				DMG said:
			
		

> *Example*: Shiera the 8th-level rogue wants to try the classic swashbuckling move of swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it.




Aren't these the kinds of things you are talking about?


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

Yes, and those kind of stunts should do more than powers. The brazier stunt should do more than the best daily a character has. Otherwise players are discouraged from using stunts - a lesson we learned in MMOGs.

Which is what I stated: The focus should have been not on dozens of very limited powers, but on dozens of examples of stunts that foster creativity and use the freedom P&P offers to the fullest.


----------



## Sadrik (Feb 24, 2009)

You need to look no further than the reward mechanics for a game to determine what type of game it is intended to be.

D&D reward mechanics are: loot, XP for killing monsters, renewed action points after killing monsters twice, and some XP thrown in after killing a series of monsters.

D&D is a combat game if anyone is trying to claim otherwise is not playing it as it was intended to be played.

My gripe is, minor things aside, that combat is mixed into the game at higher level of actual game time resolution than I would prefer.

If I game for 4 hours I don't want half of that to be one encounter.

This whole MMO thing is a misnomer because fantasy MMOs took a very blatant page from D&D. Additionally, D&D is a turn based game and MMOs are real time, so how they play is completely different. They don't cross pollinate much on mechanics.


----------



## Rel (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Yes, and those kind of stunts should do more than powers. The brazier stunt should do more than the best daily a character has. Otherwise players are discouraged from using stunts - a lesson we learned in MMOGs.
> 
> Which is what I stated: The focus should have been not on dozens of very limited powers, but on dozens of examples of stunts that foster creativity and use the freedom P&P offers to the fullest.




I disagree.  Certainly with the right group of players and GM this can work well.  And it is in fact the basis of many RPG's out there.

But this kind of "stunting on the fly" requires a lot more adjudication from the GM and a lot more creativity from the players.  Not all GMs are skilled or comfortable with that amount of adjudication and not all players are that creative.  Especially if you require this level of adjudication and creativity in every single battle.

I think that the structure of 4e is such that you've got the powers as the "bread and butter" of the combat system while still allowing for stunts for those special creative moments.


----------



## garyh (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Yes, and those kind of stunts should do more than powers. The brazier stunt should do more than the best daily a character has. Otherwise players are discouraged from using stunts - a lesson we learned in MMOGs.
> 
> Which is what I stated: The focus should have been not on dozens of very limited powers, but on dozens of examples of stunts that foster creativity and use the freedom P&P offers to the fullest.




See, you want to be able to make things up that basically eclipse the system.  At that point, why have the system?  What stunting can and should do is give options that are useful in the situation without always trumping regular powers.  If you can always just make up some wacky attack that does more than your best daily, how does the DM prevent that from happening every round?

Here's an example of stunting I DM'ed:

The party triggers a whirling blade trap just as an ooze attacks them.  The rogue asks if he can stick his dagger in the wheels of the trap to immobilize it.  I looked at the powers, decided a reasonable equivalent that'd do immobilize (Attack -2 vs AC, no damage, immobilized, save ends).  It worked, and they party ended up with several rounds where they could focus on the ooze as the trap was unable to move.  The rogue got what he wanted, and the party benefited.

Is this not exactly like the stunts you're looking for?  And I was encouraged by the design of 4e and the ability to estimate how such a trick should work based on existing powers.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 24, 2009)

Rel said:


> But this kind of "stunting on the fly" requires a lot more adjudication from the GM and a lot more creativity from the players.  Not all GMs are skilled or comfortable with that amount of adjudication and not all players are that creative.  Especially if you require this level of adjudication and creativity in every single battle.
> 
> I think that the structure of 4e is such that you've got the powers as the "bread and butter" of the combat system while still allowing for stunts for those special creative moments.



And this is the perfect moment for Rel to show us the goods behind his Power Stunts mechanic.


----------



## Harlekin (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Yes, and those kind of stunts should do more than powers. The brazier stunt should do more than the best daily a character has. Otherwise players are discouraged from using stunts - a lesson we learned in MMOGs.




I disagree. The fact that you only have a limited number of daily/ encounter powers are more than enough encouragement to do stunts. After all, there will be combat left after you have used all those powers. Stunts do have to be better than At-will powers to be encouraged, that is all.


----------



## Rel (Feb 24, 2009)

Sadrik said:


> You need to look no further than the reward mechanics for a game to determine what type of game it is intended to be.
> 
> D&D reward mechanics are: loot, XP for killing monsters, renewed action points after killing monsters twice, and some XP thrown in after killing a series of monsters.




...and XP for Quests.  And XP for Skill Challenges that might have nothing to do with combat.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Rel said:


> ...and XP for Quests.  And XP for Skill Challenges that might have nothing to do with combat.



I would accept this the day a character could reach level 30 by mostly these stuff and say that he is having fun with these rules provided to him. Unfortunately Sadrik is right on this one.


----------



## Harlekin (Feb 24, 2009)

Rel said:


> I think that the structure of 4e is such that you've got the powers as the "bread and butter" of the combat system while still allowing for stunts for those special creative moments.




Honestly, I see powers and stunts as two sides of the same thing.

After all you could interpret Encounter- and Daily powers as pre-packaged stunts. If you actually read the description of most of these powers, they sound pretty stunty to me. And if you get your players to actually describe what they do, rather than just say I use Power X, you will have the cool effect of a stunt as well. 

The advantage of powers as stunts is that the player can do cool stuff without having to think to hard or asking the DMs permission. The disadvantage is that the cool stuff they do is somewhat repetitive. 

So adding ad hoc stunts adds variability to the game, but requires certain levels of pixel-bitching by the players.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 24, 2009)

Shazman said:


> You seem to keep saying that I think that they should have publicly announced 4th edition the instant they started working on it.  I never said such a thing.  I also never said that they should have announced 4E when they were asked about it.  All I am saying is a simple "We are not going to discuss rumors about 4th edition." or something to that effect would have been better than using deception to strongly imply that they weren't even considering working on 4th edition when they, in fact, had already been working on it for approximately two years.  Your insistance on twisting my words to say something I did not say seems far more irrational, than anything I have said.



And all I've been saying from the very beginning is that changing your wording from "No, we're not working on 4e" to "We won't comment on 4e" is _exactly the same as an announcement that they are, in fact, working on 4e_.  Yes, there's wiggle-room, but frankly, the gig is up at this point.  Come on, you know this even from talking with your friends.

So, what it comes down to is a matter of timing, not of wording.  Hence, my concentration on timing.

-O


----------



## Rechan (Feb 24, 2009)

Anyone else notice that the last *eight pages* has been everyone arguing with two posters?

Talk about The Impasse.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> I disagree. The fact that you only have a limited number of daily/ encounter powers are more than enough encouragement to do stunts. After all, there will be combat left after you have used all those powers. Stunts do have to be better than At-will powers to be encouraged, that is all.




Well, it goes without saying that without long detailed lists of limited powers we'd not have dailies or encounter powers either. 

Yes, I want unlimited stunts instead of limited powers.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Yes, and those kind of stunts should do more than powers. The brazier stunt should do more than the best daily a character has. Otherwise players are discouraged from using stunts - a lesson we learned in MMOGs.
> 
> Which is what I stated: The focus should have been not on dozens of very limited powers, but on dozens of examples of stunts that foster creativity and use the freedom P&P offers to the fullest.




They don't need to be stronger as dailies or encounter powers. (Though in fact, the DMG example of a stunt goes on to say that this stunt would have a similar effect to an encounter power and that wouldn't be a problem, so they are already en par with encounter powers). 

The trick with dailies and encounter powers are that they have a system limit on how often and how many you are allowed to use them. And many powers are also not best used at first opportunity, but at the right opportunity. So you will have enough rounds where you'd just want to use an At-Will power - or try a stunt that is as powerful or better than an at-will, with the added benefit of being cool and giving you the effect you want in the scenario. 
Of course, stunts are also limited, but not by system, only by your creativity (and your DMs willingness to "say yes" to your creativity).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 24, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> I disagree. The fact that you only have a limited number of daily/ encounter powers are more than enough encouragement to do stunts. After all, there will be combat left after you have used all those powers. Stunts do have to be better than At-will powers to be encouraged, that is all.




I agree.  The thing I found was difficult about running 2e was that the ONLY attack you could make was just...attack.  Because of that, people would either: 
a) get bored and try "stunts"
b) try "stunts", not knowing there were no rules for them.

Then, the game slowed to a halt as I'd have to think about a rule that seemed balanced, finish the resulting argument about whether that rule was "realistic" enough, and eventually resolve the action.

The arguments pretty much always went like this:
Player: "I attempt to leap off the ledge an on to the Ogre's back and hold on to him."
DM: "Alright, make me a Dex check to see if you can grab on to the Ogre."
Player: "Dex check?  But I have a 6 Dex.  Shouldn't it be a Strength check?  It's not like the Ogre is very small or anything.  I can easily hit it, it's just a matter of holding on."
DM: "No, you need to first aim correctly while it is moving around and you are jumping, it requires a lot of coordination."
Player: "Then I don't want to try it."
DM: "Too bad, you said you were doing it, you don't know the chance of success before you try something."
Player: "Woo hoo, I rolled a 2, I made it by 4!"
DM: "Sure, you are holding on to its back, and it can't hit you since it can't reach back there.  You'll need to make a Dex check to hold on every round, though.  You can attack as normal."
Rogue Player: "So, if I succeed in a Dex check, I can grab on to the back of enemies and they can't hit me?  And I can backstab them every round?  I have an 18 Dex, that's awesome."
DM: "Umm, yeah...that's what I just ruled....mind you, I wasn't really thinking of an 18 Dex rogue doing it in every combat when I ruled that....maybe this wasn't such a good idea.  I can't think of a better way of doing it.  Sorry, I'm going to have to rule that the Ogre is moving around too much, it's just impossible to grab on to him."
Player: "Fine, I just attack him."

And that was one of the simple ones.  If you got a couple of players who had a vested interest in making sure a new rule worked well for them, an argument could easily take 2-3 hours.  I remember one argument where 4 people and the DM were out of their chairs demonstrating a stunt to prove to their DM that it wasn't impossible and the DM pointing out reasons they weren't doing it right for hours.


----------



## The Highway Man (Feb 24, 2009)

I think there's some blame on all sides as far as WotC's behavior is concerned. 

Some people will deliberately search for any possible occasion to bash them, and others will hunt down all threads criticizing them to counter everything they can.

In both cases, there is a blatant lack of fairness. Not that there is any expectation regarding the objectivity of people posting on the usenet. I think that everyone should chill, realize that nobody will change anyone else's mind, and just go from there. 

Personally, I've had it with WotC. Sure, I could see myself playing 4e and having fun, but everything that has to do with WotC nowadays just confirms me in the stance that I will not give them any of my business.

I've got my mind made up. I'm an adult able to make decisions on my own, just like all of you are. My decision does not stop you from making your own, different mind. That's perfectly fine with me. Is it with you?


----------



## Shazman (Feb 24, 2009)

The Highway Man said:


> I think there's some blame on all sides as far as WotC's behavior is concerned.
> 
> Some people will deliberately search for any possible occasion to bash them, and others will hunt down all threads criticizing them to counter everything they can.
> 
> ...




I pretty much feel the same way.  For some reason, some part of me would like for some of the  "blind followers" of WotC to at least admit some of the failings of WotC and 4E.  I guess it's an exercise in futility, but sometimes I'm just in the mood for a lively discussion/arguement. I could see my self having fun playing 4E with a group of friends, but I could say the same for chess or any number of games.  Of course, I really don't like chess enough to drive a decent distance  to a friend's house and spend a good chunck of my free time playing it.  I'll do it for a "true "edition of D&D because I love D&D, but 4th edition isn't fun enough and isn't D&D enough for me to be worth the time and expense.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Where pen and paper can shine is with creative things you cannot do in an MMOG. Throwing a cloak over the enemies eyes. Dropping a chandelier on enemies. Making a wall crumble, hack down a door and use it as a battering ram. Using and changing the enviroment, the entire battlefield.
> 
> In my opinion, the game should have moved away from all the detailed and limited powers, instead concentrating on the "stunts" aspect, capitalizing on the enormous flexibility and options a human DM has, instead of a computer in an MMOG.




When you say things like this I really have to question if you've ever played 4e, DMed it or even read the books, because this statement shows a lack of knowledge of the 4e system.  4e has better mechanical support for creative stunts than any prior edition.  The mechanics require one table and can cover just about any single action a player wishes to take.  The table on pg. 42 of the DMG allows the DM to quickly and accurately assign a DC and determine an appropriate damage expression for the stunt or action.  The way it works is by utilizing the framework already put into place with powers, skills, and opposed checks.  It is simple and elegant and covers practically anything without having to have a whole series of individual subsystems to cover a bunch of different things.



> There hasn't been any support for roleplaying (other than some token "RP server" tag) in most of the big MMOGs.



A game system doesn't force you to roleplay, that has always been up to and come from the players involved.  Some of the best roleplaying I've experienced in my long gaming life has been on an RP server in WoW.  And it was a dedicated group of roleplayers who created that environment.  If a group wants to roleplay, they do so.

4e has better mechanical support, by far, for roleplay elements than 3e did.  Craft/profession was not some awe-inspiring roleplaying mechanic.  It was a poorly realized attempt at making everything about a character, PC or NPC, have to have a number or you couldn't do it.  It was limiting roleplaying, not supporting it.  With that gone, 4e has the same "RP" skills that 3e had in bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy, but they add a system in which to apply those and all skills in a complex, mechanically supported framework that allows noncombat scenes to really be played out and not just come down to a single die roll.

4e's approach was to make noncombat encounters really meaninful.  Skill challenges allow you to take your time with them, give many options and paths to victory or defeat, set goals and consequences and not hinge everything on a single die roll.  Skill challenges also give xp, so they are more completely integrated with the whole system and engaging in them has the same potential rewards as a combat encounter.  

Xechnao puts himself in the same boat as you when he ignores all this and goes about 4e being a boardgame or being solely combat focused.  These positions are simply not supported by even a cursory examination of the books and certainly don't bear out in actual gameplay, which leads me to question the degree of actual experience either of you have with the game.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> If your problem is about acknowledging who influenced who first I agree with whatever you want to believe. But since 4e had the choice to build on different elements (as a tabletop game), elements that were not used in this inter-influencing evolution I think I can say that 4e "implemented MMO combat" -as its choice that is. If it had made a different choice any MMO elements that would appear they would appear in a more revolutionary way. IMO.




By this rationale, 4e also implemented "MMO characters", since 4e utilizes attributes, levels, hit points, armor class, defenses, and other stats.  4e also implemented "MMO magic" since it has spells, "MMO magic items" since it has magic items that grant bonuses to those "MMO stats", "MMO Monsters" since MMOs have orcs and trolls and goblins, "MMO xp system" since MMOs use xp as a leveling mechanic.  

In other words, I find your logic highly flawed.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 24, 2009)

Shazman said:


> I pretty much feel the same way.  For some reason, some part of me would like for some of the  "blind followers" of WotC to at least admit some of the failings of WotC and 4E.



There have been MANY threads where people who like/love 4e have noted things about it that rubbed them wrong, but instead of pounding on WOTC, they decided to make a houserule and share it.  More productive, less anger and unnecessary bashing.  And I believe there are much fewer "blind followers" by your definition than you think there are.  



Shazman said:


> Of course, I really don't like chess enough to drive a decent distance  to a friend's house and spend a good chunck of my free time playing it.  I'll do it for a "true "edition of D&D because I love D&D, but 4th edition isn't fun enough and isn't D&D enough for me to be worth the time and expense.



A "true" edition of D&D?  Why would you make this kind of statement unless you were trying to start a flamewar or ruffle the feathers of someone who likes 4e? 

There is no "true" edition.  There are only different editions.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 24, 2009)

Shazman said:


> I pretty much feel the same way.  For some reason, some part of me would like for some of the  "blind followers" of WotC to at least admit some of the failings of WotC and 4E.  I guess it's an exercise in futility, but sometimes I'm just in the mood for a lively discussion/arguement. I could see my self having fun playing 4E with a group of friends, but I could say the same for chess or any number of games.  Of course, I really don't like chess enough to drive a decent distance  to a friend's house and spend a good chunck of my free time playing it.  I'll do it for a "true "edition of D&D because I love D&D, but 4th edition isn't fun enough and isn't D&D enough for me to be worth the time and expense.



When someone calls someone else a "blind" anything, what they mean is that the other has not thought through their position.  ("Knee-jerk" is closely-related.)

It's an effort to discredit a person's arguments by asserting that those arguments have no thought or reason behind them - or, more generally, that the person themselves is neither thoughtful nor reasonable, simply reacting rather than thinking.

More insidiously, by applying the "blind" label to another poster, you are in turn asserting that your own position is a well-reasoned and thoughtful one - possibly the _only_ well-reasoned and thoughtful one.

It's anathema to productive discussion.  Instead, it's a way to cut off any productive discussion by asserting the superiority of your own, implicitly non-blind position.

So, how about instead of slinging around the "blind" label, you ask for a poster's reasoning and then engage that reasoning - rather than assert that there's no reasoning there in the first place?

Let's look at this thread for an example.  Would you say that I'm "blindly following" WotC?

Are you "blindly criticizing" WotC?

Would you assert that I think 4e/WotC have no flaws?  What leads you to this conclusion?

-O


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> By this rationale, 4e also implemented "MMO characters", since 4e utilizes attributes, levels, hit points, armor class, defenses, and other stats.  4e also implemented "MMO magic" since it has spells, "MMO magic items" since it has magic items that grant bonuses to those "MMO stats", "MMO Monsters" since MMOs have orcs and trolls and goblins, "MMO xp system" since MMOs use xp as a leveling mechanic.
> 
> In other words, I find your logic highly flawed.




The fact that you may not like the way I will answer these questions does not mean that my logic is flawed. The characters in 4e are mostly mechanically defined as their combat abilities (this includes magic, levels, stats whatever). Same about magic and the rest. By my logic 4e implemented MMO characters. This is not flawed logically since it agrees with what I defined that I mean with "implementation"

But I see your point. If these are MMO characters then what are the "non MMO" characters? Well characters that their mechanicas are (also?) about tracking and running things such as relationships: contacts, bonds, enemies in relation to everyone's respective positions. Mechanics for example that do not track how much strength one has but track who is stronger. This is just an example here to see that there can be "non MMO" characters.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> But I see your point. If these are MMO characters then what are the "non MMO" characters? Well characters that their mechanicas are (also?) about tracking and running things such as relationships: contacts, bonds, enemies in relation to everyone's respective positions. Mechanics for example that do not track how much strength one has but track who is stronger. This is just an example here to see that there can be "non MMO" characters.



If this is your definition, then there haven't been "non MMO" characters in any edition of D&D.  Are you still talking about D&D here or now are you brainstorming about another non d20 based abstract RPG?

If you aren't talking about D&D, then we've strayed FAAAAAR off topic.  The OP brought op "blindly following" WOTC and their decisions around 4e.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> But I see your point. If these are MMO characters then what are the "non MMO" characters? Well characters that their mechanicas are (also?) about tracking and running things such as relationships: contacts, bonds, enemies in relation to everyone's respective positions. Mechanics for example that do not track how much strength one has but track who is stronger. This is just an example here to see that there can be "non MMO" characters.



So if I have a 4e character who has a list of contacts, a personality, the Diplomacy skill, and some long-term enemies, they're no longer an MMO character?

If I add on a new system that tracks these mechanically, is it no longer an MMO character?

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> The fact that you may not like the way I will answer these questions does not mean that my logic is flawed. The characters in 4e are mostly mechanically defined as their combat abilities (this includes magic, levels, stats whatever). Same about magic and the rest. By my logic 4e implemented MMO characters. This is not flawed logically since it agrees with what I defined that I mean with "implementation"
> 
> But I see your point. If these are MMO characters then what are the "non MMO" characters? Well characters that their mechanicas are (also?) about tracking and running things such as relationships: contacts, bonds, enemies in relation to everyone's respective positions. Mechanics for example that do not track how much strength one has but track who is stronger. This is just an example here to see that there can be "non MMO" characters.



So combine The Sims with World of Warcraft, and you have no longer an MMO? Or now suddenly every RPG (character) is an MMO (character)?

Neverwinter Nights 2 has a hint of that, too, depending on whether you go the "evil" route or the "good" route, meaning you were allied with different people and fought different people. Temple of Elemental Evil (the PC game) also allowed you to cooperate with some evil factions. Likewise, The Witcher allowed you track your relationship to NPCs (though the relationships that were tracked explicitely where your relationships with women.  )
World of Warcraft has its big relationship - Alliance vs Hordes and its Guilds as a "relationship" mechanic.
Jagged Alliance 2 had a model for (static) relationships between Mercenaries - some Mercs worked well together, others hated each other.

So something in those game already tracked these "relationships". Maybe with a very crude way, and far from what you might want. But if you want to see a more or less "elegant" solution, The Sims already exists, add a combat system, and you're set.

But then, maybe MMOs shouldn't even need to bother tracking relationships mechanically and via rules. One of the most important features of MMOs is in there name: Massive Multiplayer Online game. There are still NPCs, but there are also tons of players running around and you have relationships with them, often by being in the same guild and/or cooperating to fight some monsters. 

This mostly comes to my conclusion that it's just wrong to look at MMOs and look at stuff like hit points or roles and claim these are features of MMOs. They aren't. They are features found in many games. The thing that makes an MMO a MMO is the massive multiplayer part (maybe that's why it's in their name?  ). Only mechanics that exist to facilitate the multiplayer component are really relevant for defining MMO feature.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> A game system doesn't force you to roleplay,



A game system forces you to roleplay situations or conditions that the system tries to emulate. If not you would never be inspired by it to use it as a roleplaying medium.




Thasmodious said:


> 4e has better mechanical support, by far, for roleplay elements than 3e did.  Craft/profession was not some awe-inspiring roleplaying mechanic.  It was a poorly realized attempt at making everything about a character, PC or NPC, have to have a number or you couldn't do it.  It was limiting roleplaying, not supporting it.  With that gone, 4e has the same "RP" skills that 3e had in bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy, but they add a system in which to apply those and all skills in a complex, mechanically supported framework that allows noncombat scenes to really be played out and not just come down to a single die roll.



That is your opinion I do not find your examples-arguments convincing enough here. The system you are talking about is the same D20 system. That you make 3 rolls instead of 1 does not change the system. You could do these things in 3e.



Thasmodious said:


> Xechnao puts himself in the same boat as you when he ignores all this and goes about 4e being a boardgame or being solely combat focused.  These positions are simply not supported by even a cursory examination of the books and certainly don't bear out in actual gameplay, which leads me to question the degree of actual experience either of you have with the game.




That's your opinion. If I would agree I would guess by a cursory examination of the books and gameplay of the core mechanics and rules of 4e that I am far from dungeon delve and nearer to...what?


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> If this is your definition, then there haven't been "non MMO" characters in any edition of D&D.  Are you still talking about D&D here or now are you brainstorming about another non d20 based abstract RPG?
> 
> If you aren't talking about D&D, then we've strayed FAAAAAR off topic.  The OP brought op "blindly following" WOTC and their decisions around 4e.




The way you put it here I would say we've strayed FAAAAAR off topic.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So if I have a 4e character who has a list of contacts, a personality, the Diplomacy skill, and some long-term enemies, they're no longer an MMO character?
> 
> If I add on a new system that tracks these mechanically, is it no longer an MMO character?
> 
> -O




But how would you achieve to track its influence in combat without avoiding intermixing problems with the already balanced rule system of your combat prowess you have? I think it would be a serious headache. Better build from the ground up with this in mind.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I would accept this the day a character could reach level 30 by mostly these stuff and say that he is having fun with these rules provided to him. Unfortunately Sadrik is right on this one.




Show me any system and set of players that manage that. 

I suspect the people that manage that don't use all that much of their rules systems at all. I suppose the closest poster I know to this ideal would be Fenes, but it appears he and his group are still running one combat or so per session, and really enjoy that part, too.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> But how would you achieve to track its influence in combat without avoiding intermixing problems with the already balanced rule system of your combat prowess you have? I think it would be a serious headache. Better build from the ground up with this in mind.




Do it. Publish it. Profit.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But if you want to see a more or less "elegant" solution, The Sims already exists, add a combat system, and you're set.



Mustrum, I have been mentioning this many -or at least a couple- times lately. I have explicitly mentioned "the sims" in a forum I started here and on the indie forums as well as a source for research regarding ideas for tabletop rpgs. I am feeling now that people may understand me some times. This is good.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Show me any system and set of players that manage that.




Something like "the sims"??
No really, there is something out there. "Reign" might be an example, although perhaps not very good.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Mustrum, I have been mentioning this many -or at least a couple- times lately. I have explicitly mentioned "the sims" in a forum I started here and on the indie forums as well as a source for research regarding ideas for tabletop rpgs. I am feeling now that people may understand me some times. This is good.




You need to learn to get to the point quicker and easier. 

"Marry The Sims with World of Warcraft". And than go into the specifics (because this description doesn't go on with the specifics of your "web" idea or how social interaction influences combat.)


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 24, 2009)

You confuse the issue, xech, when you are really arguing about what you see as the flaws of D&D in general and couch it as criticism of the current edition.  D&D is what it always was.  If that is not what you want in a game, you have a lot of choice out there in the hobby.  But to criticize 4e for not going off in a totally different direction and abandoning all the D&D things because MMOs have used some of those things is a bit... out there.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Something like "the sims"??
> No really, there is something out there. "Reign" might be an example, although perhaps not very good.




I don't play The Sims with multiple players and/or at a game table.

I am not familiar with Reign.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> But to criticize 4e for not going off in a totally different direction and abandoning all the D&D things because MMOs have used some of those things is a bit... out there.



I understand this. The problem of the confusion is mostly if not totally myself I guess. But I find that this happens frequently so I am not surprised.


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not familiar with Reign.




Supposed to be pretty cool, a friend of mine owns it.  I might read it just because I've been yearning for something RP related that's not D&D.

Don't mind me, just contributing to the thread drift.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't play The Sims with multiple players and/or at a game table.



Neither do I. I mentioned it as an example of regarding what it could be done towards this direction.


Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not familiar with Reign.



Give it a look:
RPGnet : Review of REIGN
RPGnet : Review of Reign
RPGnet : Review of Reign
And if a review of a supplement just in case it draws your interest
RPGnet : Review of Reign Supplement One


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao said:


> A game system forces you to roleplay situations or conditions that the system tries to emulate. If not you would never be inspired by it to use it as a roleplaying medium.




There's no such thing as a system that "forces" roleplaying; there's no way to mechanically enforce roleplaying, save for DM fiat that "you aren't roleplaying enough".

People don't roleplay in an RPG because the system incentivizes them to do so; they roleplay because they enjoy roleplaying, which is why they're playing an RPG in the first place.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 24, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I do not cite [MMOs] as positive influences since I... don't really like tactical miniatures in an RPG either.




Oooh, bad news, champ.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> There's no such thing as a system that "forces" roleplaying; there's no way to mechanically enforce roleplaying, save for DM fiat that "you aren't roleplaying enough".
> 
> People don't roleplay in an RPG because the system incentivizes them to do so; they roleplay because they enjoy roleplaying, which is why they're playing an RPG in the first place.




Then why do they choose to play in an rpg or rather why do they choose an rpg if they want to roleplay? I would say that rpsystems are modelers of a certain kind of situations so if you use a system you use it to roleplay in the situations it models. You can roleplay without a system but you cant use a rpsystem and not roleplay. Of course a system that is not universal cant be used to roleplay in and for all possible situations. But you could still try to roleplay situations that remain untouched by a given system. There is a "problem" here though that a system may limit the various possible situations by the choices it directs you to make if you want to follow it. But I think I have been analyzing things again too much.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 24, 2009)

xechnao, I don't want to be a jerk here, but it seems like you're whole argument against 4E is that "its not simulationist enough".


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> xechnao, I don't want to be a jerk here, but it seems like you're whole argument against 4E is that "its not simulationist enough".



There have been a lot of arguments and this might be a way to put it but by certain standards that have been discussed here even 3e or classic D&D would not be simulationist enough. So if you are saying this by the standard of 3e I do not believe that it gets me covered.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 25, 2009)

4e not simulationist enough?  That's ridiculous.  I mean in the real world, people regenerate their wounds completely after 6 hours of rest. Don't they? Real world archetypes of paladins were known to challenge enemies and punish them with laser beams if they backed down.  Let's not forget that real world archetypes of clerics are known for throwing around laser beams and healing with equal proficiency.  In the real world a drill seargeant can convince a mortally wounded soldier to shrug it off and keep fighting by yelling at him, right?  Let's face it.  4e embraces gamism at the extreme with hardly a hint of realism.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 25, 2009)

Shazman said:


> 4e not simulationist enough?  That's ridiculous.  I mean in the real world, people regenerate their wounds completely after 6 hours of rest. Don't they? Real world archetypes of paladins were known to challenge enemies and punish them with laser beams if they backed down.  Let's not forget that real world archetypes of clerics are known for throwing around laser beams and healing with equal proficiency.  In the real world a drill seargeant can convince a mortally wounded soldier to shrug it off and keep fighting by yelling at him, right?  Let's face it.  4e embraces gamism at the extreme with hardly a hint of realism.




I don't think any version of D&D has ever really embraced "realism" as a design/play goal.

That said, I think your definition of "simulationist" is incorrect. (From what I know of it.) Simmulationist doesn't = realism. (It might be another goal of a game that is built with the simulationist mindset, but one does not have to include the other.)


----------



## Fenes (Feb 25, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> Oooh, bad news, champ.




Yeah, I'd have hated playing chainmail. I never used minis in any RPG.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 25, 2009)

As far support for stunts is concerned: MMOGs showed us that if an option is less efficient, it'll not get used often. As long as stunts are not better than powers players are discouraged from making stunts.


----------



## Rel (Feb 25, 2009)

Fenes said:


> As far support for stunts is concerned: MMOGs showed us that if an option is less efficient, it'll not get used often. As long as stunts are not better than powers players are discouraged from making stunts.




That is only true if stunts do the exact same sorts of things that your powers do.  My players use stunts every session.  But it is always to do something that they couldn't do with one of their powers.


----------



## garyh (Feb 25, 2009)

Fenes said:


> As far support for stunts is concerned: MMOGs showed us that if an option is less efficient, it'll not get used often. As long as stunts are not better than powers players are discouraged from making stunts.




And what about my point that if stunts trump powers, why have powers?  And my example that stunts can be used to come up with something roughly equal to a power, but more useful to the circumstances at hand?


----------



## Scribble (Feb 25, 2009)

Fenes said:


> As far support for stunts is concerned: MMOGs showed us that if an option is less efficient, it'll not get used often. As long as stunts are not better than powers players are discouraged from making stunts.




I think that has less to do with MMOs and more to do with human nature.

I mean I could take my coffee to work in a giant bucket everyday. A thermos is more efficient and keeps it warm longer... So I use that, and not the aforementioned bucket.

But yeah, if you want to encourage stunts to be used, you need some incentive for them to be used. 

In some cases "the chance is better then my at-will" might be enough. In others maybe not?


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 25, 2009)

Shazman said:


> 4e not simulationist enough?  That's ridiculous.  I mean in the real world, people regenerate their wounds completely after 6 hours of rest. Don't they? Real world archetypes of paladins were known to challenge enemies and punish them with laser beams if they backed down.  Let's not forget that real world archetypes of clerics are known for throwing around laser beams and healing with equal proficiency.  In the real world a drill seargeant can convince a mortally wounded soldier to shrug it off and keep fighting by yelling at him, right?  Let's face it.  4e embraces gamism at the extreme with hardly a hint of realism.




As opposed to other editions with wishes, time stop, meteor swarm, super hero prestige classes, transforming weapons, immovable rods, magic liquids, otyughs, demons...


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> As opposed to other editions with wishes, time stop, meteor swarm, super hero prestige classes, transforming weapons, immovable rods, magic liquids, otyughs, demons...



Druids becoming tornados, Jedi (Soul Knives), scry-buff-teleport, summoned monsters as trap finders, golf bags full of magical swords, Pun-Pun...


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 25, 2009)

Pet cats running wild, killing 1st level wizards...


----------



## Njall (Feb 25, 2009)

Shazman said:


> 4e not simulationist enough?  That's ridiculous.  I mean in the real world, people regenerate their wounds completely after 6 hours of rest. Don't they? Real world archetypes of paladins were known to challenge enemies and punish them with laser beams if they backed down.  Let's not forget that real world archetypes of clerics are known for throwing around laser beams and healing with equal proficiency.  In the real world a drill seargeant can convince a mortally wounded soldier to shrug it off and keep fighting by yelling at him, right?  Let's face it.  4e embraces gamism at the extreme with hardly a hint of realism.




Sorry, man, I don't really see how 4e's way of handling HP can be deemed more gamist than 3e's way.
Hit points have always been a measure of your standing power; they've got very little in common with actual physical health. 
Until you have at least 1 HP, you can still barely parry an opponent's blow so it isn't deadly; when your HP hit the 0 mark, you're exhausted, and your opponent can now score a killing blow. 
So, since you're not actually injured ( at least, not in a way that would incapacitate you ) you can easily replenish your hit points reserve overnight.
3.x isn't really more realistic, in this sense. 
For one, you can literally heal any injury without any real medical treatment. Sleeping, or even just resting, is enough. How realistic is that?
Furthermore, the sturdier you are, the more HP you'll have. And that's fine. However, given how things work in 3.x, natural healing is proportionally slower the higher your constitution score gets. 
Don't trust me, just do the math: 
in 3.5, a 10th level wizard with 10 con has about 27 HP. If he's reduced to 0 HP, he'll be fine in 3 days. 
A 10th level fighter with 18 con has about 97 HP. If he's reduced to 0 HP, he'll be back to full in 10 days.
Really, I don't see how anyone can claim this is realistic ( or even just simulationist...).YMMV.


----------



## DandD (Feb 25, 2009)

Okay, now it has been shown that simulationism doesn't have to equal realism at all, so what's next on the accusations toward 4th edition? That it was made from the skin of little human children?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2009)

I believe, and I could be wrong here, that simulationism means that the mechanics of a game actually try to represent (or simulate) a specific thing.  As an example in 3e,  to "trip" someone is a mechanic but it is also concerned in  representing to an extent someone or something actually being tripped in the simulated world.  Thus certain things cannot be tripped or are harder to trip, etc...

While in 4e, the gamist mechanic of being knocked prone is less concerned with  simulating any particular thing within the simulated world, but instead focuses on supplying a set of rules that create a mechanical effect when said condition is inflicted upon anything.

I could be wrong though.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 25, 2009)

DandD said:


> Okay, now it has been shown that simulationism doesn't have to equal realism at all, so what's next on the accusations toward 4th edition? That it was made from the skin of little human children?




4E has two simulationist faults. First, it is more up front about not being realistic than previous editions. Second, it takes cares more about good gameplay than keeping the rules consistent in the sense of modeling a game world where the "reality" of the rules system applies equally to the PCs and the rest of the game world.


----------



## Sadrik (Feb 25, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> There have been MANY threads where people who like/love 4e have noted things about it that rubbed them wrong, but instead of pounding on WOTC, they decided to make a houserule and share it.  More productive, less anger and unnecessary bashing.  And I believe there are much fewer "blind followers" by your definition than you think there are.




This is where the blind truly shine.


----------



## DandD (Feb 25, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> First, it is more up front about not being realistic than previous editions.



But being less realistic does not equal being more simulationistic, does it? It's how the rules are applied for world-building, where they do emulate fictional physics (a very very dumb idea, of course, but somehow, it found its way into some kind of simplistic and overblown "theory" about roleplaying in general).  


> Second, it takes cares more about good gameplay than keeping the rules consistent in the sense of modeling a game world where the "reality" of the rules system applies equally to the PCs and the rest of the game world.



Inconsistent rules disqualify a ruleset to be "simulationistic". And 4th edition is packed up with tons of exceptions, like player characters, and how they interact with foes and environment, or the infamous no-sense-making economy, where only player characters characters walk around in equipment worth several baronies.  

So how are these simulationist faults, if they disregard the basis of a simulated world?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 25, 2009)

I think you are misreading me. I'm commenting on people who favor simulation being angry at 4E. As far as me, 4E and simulationism go, I say good riddance.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I believe, and I could be wrong here, that simulationism means that the mechanics of a game actually try to represent (or simulate) a specific thing.



Yep, you're wrong. (But don't worry; it's a common mistake.)

"*simulationist*" is a style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 25, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 4E has two simulationist faults.



I assume you mean "4E has two faults, from a simulationist perspective."



			
				thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> First, it is more up front about not being realistic than previous editions.



Right.  It has explicitly embraced gamism over simulationism.



			
				thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> Second, it takes cares more about good gameplay than keeping the rules consistent in the sense of modeling a game world where the "reality" of the rules system applies equally to the PCs and the rest of the game world.



Right again.  It has explicitly embraced gamism over simulationism.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> Yep, you're wrong. (But don't worry; it's a common mistake.)
> 
> "*simulationist*" is a style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.




What if these meta-game considerations become game-world considerations? People know about risks, know they can die for example and they live and react according to that.

EDIT: Of course this will make what worked as was meta-game more in-game but I see only benefits in this.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2009)

Fenes said:


> As far support for stunts is concerned: MMOGs showed us that if an option is less efficient, it'll not get used often. As long as stunts are not better than powers players are discouraged from making stunts.



I am not sure if you missed my post regarding that, but: 
4E stunts are not weaker than powers.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 25, 2009)

garyh said:


> And what about my point that if stunts trump powers, why have powers?  And my example that stunts can be used to come up with something roughly equal to a power, but more useful to the circumstances at hand?




I do not want powers (at least not martial encounter/dailies). I'd much prefer more at-wills and have the martial encounter/dailies be replaced by stunts (which would also be only limited by DM fiat/description).


----------



## Fenes (Feb 25, 2009)

DandD said:


> Okay, now it has been shown that simulationism doesn't have to equal realism at all, so what's next on the accusations toward 4th edition? That it was made from the skin of little human children?




It's not about accusations, it's about stating why one does not like 4E. For me, it's lots of little things that turn me off. Others may have no trouble with them, and as I posted, I could probably solve any single of them with a number of house rules, but it's simply not worth the effort.

That doesn't mean it's not a good game - but it's not to my taste. And for my take on simulationism, 4E's martial encounter and daily powers (as one example) is a much bigger hurdle to overcome than 3E's economy (which I basically house-ruled away by turning to an abstract wealth system). 

It might be different if I had to judge between 3.0 and 4.0 and not between my own version of 3.0 and the out-of-the-box 4.0.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not sure if you missed my post regarding that, but:
> 4E stunts are not weaker than powers.




If stunts were not weaker than daily powers, people wouldn't use encounter powers much less at-wills. I am sorry, but even without playing 4E myself, that's not the case or these forums would be drowned in "powers are useless!" threads. 
If stunts were not weaker than encounter powers, no one would use at-wills, and people would complain about at-wills being useless and a waste of space. 
If stunts are equal to at-wills, they are pretty much useless from an efficiency point of view - which is, as human nature and the MMOGs taught us, all that counts for the majority of gamers.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Fenes said:


> And for my take on simulationism, 4E's martial encounter and daily powers (as one example) is a much bigger hurdle to overcome




3e combat rules (or D&D in general) are not simulationist either though. The I go you go timing economy system, the way movement works is not something that reflects how the world works does it?
Of course 4e dives into even deeper waters but they are the same waters. My problem is not the depth it achieved -this is a quality IMO in respect to 3e. My problem is that it did not change waters. Perhaps I want something more than D&D but if you consider 3e as D&D then IMO 4e is a better D&D. 
But perhaps if you do not like 4e this means that you do not like 3e either -this could be true because 3e is not so optimized for its merits and the actual strength and weaknesses of the system are less apparent -
I would say that 3e is the presentation or introduction of the D20 system and 4e its optimization. So if you do not like 4e, perhaps you do not like the D20 system.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> So if you do not like 4e, perhaps you do not like the D20 system.




No. I like d20. Likes and dislikes you can't fully rationalize. That people try to anyway is part of why we have edition wars.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Fenes said:


> No. I like d20. Likes and dislikes you can't fully rationalize. That people try to anyway is part of why we have edition wars.




I understand that preference or favor of something can have many causes or reasons. But we are trying to see it here from a purely mechanics functional standpoint :the merits of D20 as a system. We are judging the mechanics as mechanics and not as the fun you have had with them.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I understand that preference or favor of something can have many causes or reasons. But we are trying to see it here from a purely mechanics functional standpoint :the merits of D20 as a system. We are judging the mechanics as mechanics and not as the fun you have had with them.




As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Fenes said:


> As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.




Well the mechanical aspect may make part of it. It may not be the reason, but this does not mean it may not be a part of the reason or that it wont be the reason if you are able to have a different look and consider it in a different way.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2009)

Fenes said:


> If stunts were not weaker than daily powers, people wouldn't use encounter powers much less at-wills. I am sorry, but even without playing 4E myself, that's not the case or these forums would be drowned in "powers are useless!" threads.
> If stunts were not weaker than encounter powers, no one would use at-wills, and people would complain about at-wills being useless and a waste of space.
> If stunts are equal to at-wills, they are pretty much useless from an efficiency point of view - which is, as human nature and the MMOGs taught us, all that counts for the majority of gamers.



Well, you are still wrong. Going by the math for power damage and by stunt damage, the damage is en par with at-wills, encounter and daily powers (depending on which column you take - Low, Moderate or High damage, and if you use "Limited Damage Expressions" or regular damage - the former indicates a stunt that can't be repeated easily). 

I think the reason why people don't use stunts is because they have their powers and it's easier to look those up than to think of a stunt in any given scenario.



Fenes said:


> As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.



Agreed.


----------



## glass (Feb 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> If your problem is about acknowledging who influenced who first I agree with whatever you want to believe.



Please highlight where I used the word 'influenced'. You can't, because I didn't. I was responding to your assertion that they had implemeted MMO combat in 4e.

Implementing MMO combat requires code, and hardware to run it on. IOW, it requires an MMO. Thus 'implementing MMO combat' in D&D is impossible by definition.


glass.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

glass said:


> Please highlight where I used the word 'influenced'. You can't, because I didn't. I was responding to your responding to your assertion that they had implemeted MMO combat in 4e.
> 
> Implementing MMO combat requires code, and hardware to run it on. IOW, it requires an MMO. Thus 'implementing MMO combat' in D&D is impossible by definition.
> 
> ...




Ahh, ok. Did not realize what your argument was back then. I was not trying to use the word to intend that technical kind of meaning. Thanks for clearing out and correcting me


----------



## Shazman (Feb 25, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I don't think any version of D&D has ever really embraced "realism" as a design/play goal.
> 
> That said, I think your definition of "simulationist" is incorrect. (From what I know of it.) Simmulationist doesn't = realism. (It might be another goal of a game that is built with the simulationist mindset, but one does not have to include the other.)




Maybe not, but it had enough realism so I could buy into it.  Even if the explanation was "It's magic" it's still better than trying to covince me that a warlord can heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk.  I can't buy into that, but I can buy into someone bing healed of a serious wound with divine magic.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Maybe not, but it had enough realism so I could buy into it.  Even if the explanation was "It's magic" it's still better than trying to covince me that a warlord can heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk.  I can't buy into that, but I can buy into someone bing healed of a serious wound with divine magic.




Let's not take this as an opportunity to go into the discussions of hit points and what they used to represent, what they represent now, or into "Schrödingers Hit Points" and all that...

If you can't buy it, don't buy it. My Warlords don't heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. They convince people that they need to fight on, even if they suffer pain and exhaustion. And besides, "Today is a good day for someone else to die!"


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Maybe not, but it had enough realism so I could buy into it.  Even if the explanation was "It's magic" it's still better than trying to covince me that a warlord can heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk.  I can't buy into that, but I can buy into someone bing healed of a serious wound with divine magic.




But how do you buy hit points then? Any sword or axe strike could maim any man. So by the "realism" perspective hit points should not represent material toughness but rather the physical stamina, the stamina of focus and the training of somebody to avoid danger. Of course physical toughness may help in this by alleviating some of the danger hence the constitution bonus.
D&D has no morale but now it seems it has entered hit points too. If you are eager to play with the rules of combat based on hit points what is the problem to insert morale into the fray?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> Yep, you're wrong. (But don't worry; it's a common mistake.)
> 
> "*simulationist*" is a style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.




Quick question, where is this from?  I'm not trying to call you out, but you just stick a definition up without citing where it's from.  On the other hand I went to wikipedia and got this under "GNS Theory"

*[edit] Simulationist*

*Simulationist* refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, *or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working*.

Emphasis mine, this seems to support my interpretation and seems to show that there are two seperate aspects of simulationist rpg's.  I'm not saying 3.5 is the best simulationist rpg evah... but it tries much, much harder than 4e to be so.


----------



## rounser (Feb 25, 2009)

> If you can't buy it, don't buy it. My Warlords don't heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. They convince people that they need to fight on, even if they suffer pain and exhaustion. And besides, "Today is a good day for someone else to die!"



That's a pep talk.

I guess your "warlord" doesn't give orders either, and doesn't undermine the D&D adventuring party conceit of a band of heroes without hierarchy _at all_.  I can't get over how illegitimate an excuse for a core class that thing is.  Even a ninja core class would have been more appropriate.  Man do I hate that thing, whether it's named Marshal, Hunter, White Raven, Warlord, or Motivational Speaker.  It is The Core Class That Should Not Be.


----------



## Gimby (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine, this seems to support my interpretation and seems to show that there are two seperate aspects of simulationist rpg's.  I'm not saying 3.5 is the best simulationist rpg evah... but it tries much, much harder than 4e to be so.





It does.  Its worth considering however, whether or not it did a good job at it.  

Personally, I find that the Sim leanings of 3rd serve to highlight where it produces non-intuitive results; healing (both natural and magical) being an obvious one.  

Its a little like the Uncanny valley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - consider the CGI films Beowulf and Shrek - while Beowulf attempts a more photo realistic style it comes off as wooden and a bit *off*.  Shrek on the other hand has no pretensions towards realism but the characters feel more natural.  

To me, if a game is going to be sim then it needs to be a really good sim - just nods in that direction are jarring as the abstraction layer leaps around.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Quick question, where is this from?  I'm not trying to call you out, but you just stick a definition up without citing where it's from.  On the other hand I went to wikipedia and got this under "GNS Theory"
> 
> *[edit] Simulationist*
> 
> ...



3E ties and fails, 4E doesn't try and succeeds its own goals. Doesn't help you if you don't agree with the goals.

GNS terms are tempting to use, but people don't agree on the definitions. The Forge definitions don't appeal to everyone and seem sometimes overly specific and artificial. I would very much be in favor of starting over with theorycraft.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 3E ties and fails, 4E doesn't try and succeeds its own goals. Doesn't help you if you don't agree with the goals.
> 
> GNS terms are tempting to use, but people don't agree on the definitions. The Forge definitions don't appeal to everyone and seem sometimes overly specific and artificial. I would very much be in favor of starting over with theorycraft.





3e fails at what exactly, because I haven't run across a roleplaying game yet that perfectly simulates anything to everyone's satisfaction.  I think it succeeds for many (not all) in giving enough simulation that it is satisfying to many... and really that is all a roleplaying game can strive for.

As far as 4e "succeeding"... again at what exactly?  I see this thrown about but really what are it's goals and how are the level of success in which they have been achieved not as subjective or even moreso than 3e?  You're telling me there aren't roleplaying games that do tactical combat better than 4e?  Or have players solve problems through the interaction of mechanics better then 4e?  Not so sure it's any different than 3e in that respect.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> 3e fails at what exactly, because I haven't run across a roleplaying game yet that perfectly simulates anything to everyone's satisfaction.  I think it succeeds for many (not all) in giving enough simulation that it is satisfying to many... and really that is all a roleplaying game can strive for.
> 
> As far as 4e "succeeding"... again at what exactly?  I see this thrown about but really what are it's goals and how are the level of success in which they have been achieved not as subjective or even moreso than 3e?  You're telling me there aren't roleplaying games that do tactical combat better than 4e?  Or have players solve problems through the interaction of mechanics better then 4e?  Not so sure it's any different than 3e in that respect.



Why do you assume that tactical combat was THE goal of 4e? 

Of course you should ask right back, why do I assume that simulation was THE goal of 3e.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why do you assume that tactical combat was THE goal of 4e?
> 
> Of course you should ask right back, why do I assume that simulation was THE goal of 3e.





I didn't assume that, I actually asked and then threw that and another example out (both broadly based on "gamist" conceits). I honestly don't know what this goal is that by most fans accounts 4e succeeded at so well... but I'm willing to hear what others believe it to be.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I would very much be in favor of starting over with theorycraft.




A vote from me too for starting over


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> 3e fails at what exactly, because I haven't run across a roleplaying game yet that perfectly simulates anything to everyone's satisfaction.  I think it succeeds for many (not all) in giving enough simulation that it is satisfying to many... and really that is all a roleplaying game can strive for.
> 
> As far as 4e "succeeding"... again at what exactly?  I see this thrown about but really what are it's goals and how are the level of success in which they have been achieved not as subjective or even moreso than 3e?  You're telling me there aren't roleplaying games that do tactical combat better than 4e?  Or have players solve problems through the interaction of mechanics better then 4e?  Not so sure it's any different than 3e in that respect.




4e succeeds in using the D20 system at its best. The structure it has build of the D20 system is more focused toward playability. It is "boardy" but theoretically it could not represent fantasy melee at all but a totally different thing -and if you wish it is not a perfect simulation of realistic melee combat -it might not even be a good one -it certainly is not towards certain instances/situations/conditions that make part of it.

But it succeeds more modeling what it models than 3e -this depends on the use of the D20 system.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I didn't assume that, I actually asked and then threw that and another example out (both broadly based on "gamist" conceits). I honestly don't know what this goal is that by most fans accounts 4e succeeded at so well... but I'm willing to hear what others believe it to be.



Without claiming this to be an exhaustive list: 

- Playability at the table. 

- "Challenging" the player when making "mechanical" decisions, e.g. when to use powers and abilities. Tactical Combat and the resource management are the means to this end, but not the goal itself. 

- Easier to DM.


----------



## rounser (Feb 25, 2009)

Hasn't it been confirmed that compromises for CRPG compatibility (e.g. ease of powering up) and selling miniatures are part of why 4E has turned out the way it has?  And the exceptions based design and "everything is core" seems a clear effort to emulate M:tG's infinite expandibility.  The admitted deliberate omission of iconic D&D features like frost giants to sell books down the track could be interpreted cynically, as could branding exercises like tieflings and dragonborn on the cover to establish new brand identity.  Handing magical items to a player audience to sell more books could also be interpreted cynically.

Or is that all just rumour?

But I'm probably being too cynical.  WOTC is a business, after all, and lives in the shadow of Hasbro's demands for performance.  I just suspect that creating a good D&D for purposes of being a good D&D for it's own sake - rather than as a proxy for selling miniatures, books and CRPGS - is at cross purposes to a lot of these goals - if they are goals.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> - "Challenging" the player when making "mechanical" decisions, e.g. when to use powers and abilities. Tactical Combat and the resource management are the means to this end, but not the goal itself.




In fact 4e would be to my very very taste if the challenge means was the natural social "challenge" of "socialzing" that happens to be our real inherent goal too on tabletop-as social beings we are. This is what I was talking about before, some pages ago.

Of course for the sake of not ruining the discussion here I want to repeat that no edition covers this ground.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> In fact 4e would be to my very very taste if the challenge means was the natural social "challenge" of "socialzing" that happens to be our real inherent goal too on tabletop-as social beings we are. This is what I was talking about before, some pages ago.
> 
> Of course for the sake of not ruining the discussion here I want to repeat that no edition covers this ground.




If you mean by "real inherent goal" that this is what we all want most, then I think you would be wrong. It is one of many things people gain from playing RPGs. But I like combat and wouldn't want my RPGs without it. But I don't want to miss the story motivations behind them, either, which can - but does not have to - include "socializing".


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

rounser said:


> And the exceptions based design and "everything is core" seems a clear effort to emulate M:tG's infinite expandibility.



How 3e was not the same thing? This is the D20 system. It is a standard system -a relativistic system (one of relative values) for example would work differently towards this end.



rounser said:


> Or is that all just rumour?
> 
> But I'm probably being too cynical.  WOTC is a business, after all, and lives in the shadow of Hasbro's demands for performance.  I just suspect that creating a good D&D for purposes of being a good D&D for it's own sake - rather than as a proxy for selling miniatures, books and CRPGS - is at cross purposes to a lot of these goals - if they are goals.




This is true. But what is a good D&D? I mean even these things have their merits towards the end consumer. Perhaps you do not have or agree with the money and/or the time they require from you for the value they offer but this is a subjective thing. Many people may agree with you here. Many others may not.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If you mean by "real inherent goal" that this is what we all want most, then I think you would be wrong. It is one of many things people gain from playing RPGs. But I like combat and wouldn't want my RPGs without it. But I don't want to miss the story motivations behind them, either, which can - but does not have to - include "socializing".




By real inherent goal I mean that it is something within us, something that makes part of our nature. Think of the process that happens on the table among the people that participate -we are social beings. And we can be in-game too: it is inevitable. Even combat, risks, facing threats could be seen through this "real" perspective. I do not know if you still get the meaning of what I want to say here. When what happens on tabletop-regarding our relationships as players is reflected in-game and vice versa, well I find it awesome to play it out. It feels more "real" because it is reflected on and reflects a real situation.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Without claiming this to be an exhaustive list:
> 
> - Playability at the table.
> 
> ...




And yet I have to ask... how are these things not subjective?  When fans of 4e can trot out "there are better rpg's out there that do simulationism better than 3e...".  Why can't the same be said for any of these goals. 

 I certainly have played games that have, IMO, better playability at the table (much less to track on a round by round basis), no use to pull out grided representation of the battlefield and positional markers, etc.

I have played games I would argue "challenge" the player more/better when they are making a mechanical decision, especially since 4e's balance mitigates some of the inherent risk in certain choices thus reducing the actual "challenge". 

Finally, easier to DM... I love 4e compared to 3e as far as this aspect of it, but again there are other games that are still easier to prep for than 4e.

I gues what I'm saying is it's still all subjective and based around personal likes and dislikes, not some objective measurement where 3e "failed" and 4e "succeded".


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And yet I have to ask... how are these things not subjective?  When fans of 4e can trot out "there are better rpg's out there that do simulationism better than 3e...".  Why can't the same be said for any of these goals.
> 
> I certainly have played games that have, IMO, better playability at the table (much less to track on a round by round basis), no use to pull out grided representation of the battlefield and positional markers, etc.
> 
> ...




It is subjective. And it can be said the same -that is, for the goals that Mustrum said. If you are aware of games you like and consider good enough to recommend for certain goals as you are talking about you should recommend them.


----------



## Rel (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And yet I have to ask... how are these things not subjective?  When fans of 4e can trot out "there are better rpg's out there that do simulationism better than 3e...".  Why can't the same be said for any of these goals.
> 
> I certainly have played games that have, IMO, better playability at the table (much less to track on a round by round basis), no use to pull out grided representation of the battlefield and positional markers, etc.
> 
> ...




I think that you are exactly correct that there are games that do these things better, or at least more fully, than 4eD&D.  I would suggest that 4e does these things better than other editions of D&D (except I'm not sure what "playability" means in this context - but I'd say the rules are more streamlined than recent editions, particularly 3.x).

The bad news is that those games don't have as much support as D&D has.  The good news is that they probably don't need it as much.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2009)

Rel said:


> I think that you are exactly correct that there are games that do these things better, or at least more fully, than 4eD&D. I would suggest that 4e does these things better than other editions of D&D (except I'm not sure what "playability" means in this context - but I'd say the rules are more streamlined than recent editions, particularly 3.x).
> 
> *The bad news is that those games don't have as much support as D&D has.* The good news is that they probably don't need it as much.




Thanks Rel, you've hit on what I've been getting at...

This along with player base, recognition, ease of purchasing, etc.  may be why some prefer 3.5 for their "simulationist" fix as opposed to a lesser known, but arguably better (at simulationism) game, and my point is that for these people 3.5 doesn't fail.  It also speaks to the fact that regardless of what some may think the level of gamist/abstraction/etc.  is actually important to those fans who enjoyed this aspect and hit points are not just hit points to them (note I am not arguing what hit points are just using them as an example of levels of abstraction, so pleas let's not go there.) the abstraction level does actually affect their enjoyment of the game.


----------



## garyh (Feb 25, 2009)

rounser said:


> That's a pep talk.
> 
> I guess your "warlord" doesn't give orders either, and doesn't undermine the D&D adventuring party conceit of a band of heroes without hierarchy _at all_.  I can't get over how illegitimate an excuse for a core class that thing is.  Even a ninja core class would have been more appropriate.  Man do I hate that thing, whether it's named Marshal, Hunter, White Raven, Warlord, or Motivational Speaker.  It is The Core Class That Should Not Be.




Ah, yes.  It had been a while since I'd seen a "rounser hates warlords" post.  At first I was disappointed you'd neglected to rip dragonborn and tieflings, but I see you corrected that error in a later post.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Try to make more popular the game that suits you best as a game not as its support. I think this is the right thing to do -for yourself and for everybody else.


----------



## Sadrik (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And yet I have to ask... how are these things not subjective?  When fans of 4e can trot out "there are better rpg's out there that do simulationism better than 3e...".  Why can't the same be said for any of these goals.
> 
> I certainly have played games that have, IMO, better playability at the table (much less to track on a round by round basis), no use to pull out grided representation of the battlefield and positional markers, etc.
> 
> ...



I am going to agree, here there are other games that do everything better.

Where 4e succeeds by my estimation is it brings the largest rpg community to the next chapter. I know that is not saying much but where 3e failed on numerous things 4e succeeds in its fundamental core mechanics, with a few core mechanical problems (stat polarity). It is the superior core game. Outide the core - fluff and sub-systems, I think it drops the ball shockingly quite a bit but has some gems in the rough.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Sadrik said:


> it brings the largest rpg community to the next chapter




this sounds epic


----------



## Scribble (Feb 25, 2009)

Imaro said:


> 3e fails at what exactly, because I haven't run across a roleplaying game yet that perfectly simulates anything to everyone's satisfaction.  I think it succeeds for many (not all) in giving enough simulation that it is satisfying to many... and really that is all a roleplaying game can strive for.
> 
> As far as 4e "succeeding"... again at what exactly?  I see this thrown about but really what are it's goals and how are the level of success in which they have been achieved not as subjective or even moreso than 3e?




Here is how it succeeds with me: I have no doubt in my mind that others might dissagree with my opinions, but I'll state them none the less. 

First a little background:

I think the fundamental strength of a tabetop RPG over a computerized RPG is that the tabletop RPG is processed and implemented by the human mind. Since the human mind can adapt to just about any situation change it needs to, the game in a sense can do likewise.

Example, in a computerized RPG if I'm fighting an ogre, and decide to say, poke him in the eyes 3 stooges style, unless there is a specific code that says, here is how to poke in the eye, I can't do it. No matter how many times I say "I poke him in the eyes woop wooop wooop!" it won't happen. 

But with a Tabletop RPG, processed by the human mind, if I'm a DM and a player says "I poke him in the eyes" I can adapt to the situation even if there is no specific "poke in the eyes" ability.

Similarily if the game has a "poke him in the eyes" attack power, unless the computer has been specifically told DO NOT allow it at X point, the computer will ALWAYS alow me to eye poke. 

A Human brain can think, "no that's silly, if you try to poke him in the eyes Y bad thing might happen..." 

So in my own opinion, a game needs to concentrate less on the "How to do X" and instead concentrate more on "What happens when someone does X."

And now that's where 4e comes in, because in my opinion, I think it does this for me far better then 3e ever did. 

4e feels like it concentrates on giving me the basics (this is how to attack) without getting overly concerned with trying to give me specific types of "attack" like actions (this is how to attack by poking in the eyes.) The game assumes as a human I can adapt the basic attack to fit the poke attack if need be. In addition it gives me a basic framework to "balance" my adaptations so the results are less unexpected. It also asks me to verify if "poke to the eyes" is a viable option in the first place, rather then trying to anticipate every possible time "poke to the eyes" would be invalid.

What about the powers you ask? Aren't they specific types of attack like actions?

Yes and no. Yes, they are, but in my mind, they're mainly just DM shortcuts. They keep me from having to adapt to every idea a player comes up with on the fly. I have no doubt in my mind, that I could run the game without them just yusing the rules on 42, but the powers give me an "autopilot" in a sense.

It's like another DM saying hey I tested this as a rule, it works well.They in turn can be (and probably should be) adpated to fit the specific situation as warrented. (If for instance there are no eyes to poke.)

Monsters are similar. I don't need the rules to show me HOW the Goblin can shoot a fireball, I already know it can because I decided for some reason it can (with whatever backstory I gave it.) I just need a basic framework for what happens when it DOES shoot that fireball.

These are concepts I had when I started gaming back in BD&D and AD&D times... I always felt the game was giving me basic guidelines, and asking me to modify as I saw fit. (And most of the examples seemed to support that.)

The problems I had with it were mostly centered around it not giving me enough of the basics. (No skills, monsters weren't adaptable enough, classes seemed a bit TOO set in stone, no easy way to feel confident a ruling wasn't way off track damage/challenge wise...)

3e fixed a lot of these issues for me, but because it seemed built in the other way "This is HOW a Goblin can shoot firebals" it opened up a host of new problems for me down the line. It made things more difficult for me, and made things feel more like autopilot was the norm, and not the fallback.

4e seems like a better match for me. It fixes pretty much all the issues I had with earlier editions, but doesn't add the problems I found I had with 3e. So 4e is a more successfull update to D&D for ME then 3e was.

Others may (and probably do) dissagree.


----------



## Rel (Feb 25, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Others may (and probably do) dissagree.




No way, mister.  I agree with you like a super lot.


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 25, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Others may (and probably do) dissagree.




See, this is why I don't post that often.  People like you do all the talking for me.  Exp for you!

EDIT:  "You must spread some experience points around before giving it to Scribble again."  Effin' eh, I'll get you some other time.


----------



## Rel (Feb 25, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> See, this is why I don't post that often.  People like you do all the talking for me.  Exp for you!
> 
> EDIT:  "You must spread some experience points around before giving it to Scribble again."  Effin' eh, I'll get you some other time.




If it makes you feel better I gave him XP.  And I'm kind of a Monty Haul DM in that regard...


----------



## Scribble (Feb 25, 2009)

Well it's the thought that ounts bean? 

Thanks Rel!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 26, 2009)

Sadrik said:


> catsclaw227 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am sorry, but I am not sure what you mean by this.

Are you calling someone blind because they decide to houserule something they don't like and then move on, instead of waving a fist at WOTC?

Or were you just being snarky for snark's sake?


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Quick question, where is this from? I'm not trying to call you out, but you just stick a definition up without citing where it's from.



No problem.  It's from the Threefold Model FAQ.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> On the other hand I went to wikipedia and got this under "GNS Theory"



Yeah, sorry for the confusion.  I forgot to consider the GNS definition (because it's crap, IMO).  GNS theory "evolved" from the GDS model.  And by "evolved" I mean Ron Edwards took the GDS model, redefined the terms to make simulationism ridiculous/irrelevant, then declared victory and walked off the field.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I'm not saying 3.5 is the best simulationist rpg evah... but it tries much, much harder than 4e to be so.



I agree with you completely.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 26, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> No problem.  It's from the Threefold Model FAQ.
> 
> Yeah, sorry for the confusion.  I forgot to consider the GNS definition (because it's crap, IMO).  GNS theory "evolved" from the GDS model.  And by "evolved" I mean Ron Edwards took the GDS model, redefined the terms to make simulationism ridiculous/irrelevant, then declared victory and walked off the field.




They are both crap.  GDS was a theory pushed by people who were, to the person, hardcore simulationists arguing that simulation was the one correct way to play.  GNS was a theory that redefined gamism and simulationism as bad and narrativism as the One True Game.

Both need to be taken out in someone's back yard, put down, and buried.

As for 3e and simulationism, its "nods" were the chief source of the problems of 3e, they brought more inconsistency to the game and made the game world less coherent, not more.  Things from the needlessly over structured grapple rules to the disarm/trip/sunder "options" to the failure of craft/profession to stand in for freedom of character to polymorph and its abuses...  as they developed more subsystems to deal with more situations, the system just developed more holes and less internal consistency.  The class system is another example.  It didn't have real freedom, only a huge list of multiple choice answers that had to keep expanding both to provide new content and to cover new ideas/player interests.  

I understand that if you think "simulationism" is important and that you wish to play D&D because of its status, popularity, support, player base, etc., then 4e is problematic for you and that you are left with 3e.  It's also important to note that it was 3e that went in this direction from older editions and that 4e is much more in line with those editions than 3e is.  Placing the game world back firmly in the hands of the DM is the primary reason.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 26, 2009)

Hmm...

See, I hate that WotC created a fundamentally different fantasy RPG and called it D&D. I really dislike the fact that the game created by Gygax & Arneson -- while it may continue to be published due to the blessing of the OGL -- will no longer be the game that new players get when they pick up the books branded with the D&D trademark.

But, on the flip-side, I've defended WotC in the recent furor over their completely justified C&D letters.

Are there fanboys of all stripes? Sure. But there are also plenty of people who can keep an open mind.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 26, 2009)

When you said "threefold model", I immediately thought of the "pretentious/retro/stupid" model.

It's a flawless model, as far as I'm concerned. I loves me some stupid gaming, with a garnish of retro.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 26, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> Hmm...
> See, I hate that WotC created a fundamentally different fantasy RPG and called it D&D. I really dislike the fact that the game created by Gygax & Arneson -- while it may continue to be published due to the blessing of the OGL -- will no longer be the game that new players get when they pick up the books branded with the D&D trademark.



I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "the game created by Gygax & Arneson" predates the OGL by some 26 years, and hasn't been published in 30 years.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 26, 2009)

garyh said:


> Ah, yes.  It had been a while since I'd seen a "rounser hates warlords" post.  At first I was disappointed you'd neglected to rip dragonborn and tieflings, but I see you corrected that error in a later post.




Attacking other people? Not acceptable. Banned for 3 days


----------



## Fenes (Feb 26, 2009)

We'd have no edition wars if there were not too many people who think they know best what is fun for others.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> As for 3e and simulationism, its "nods" were the chief source of the problems of 3e, they brought more inconsistency to the game and made the game world less coherent, not more.  Things from the needlessly over structured grapple rules to the disarm/trip/sunder "options" to the failure of craft/profession to stand in for freedom of character to polymorph and its abuses...  as they developed more subsystems to deal with more situations, the system just developed more holes and less internal consistency.  The class system is another example.  It didn't have real freedom, only a huge list of multiple choice answers that had to keep expanding both to provide new content and to cover new ideas/player interests.
> 
> I understand that if you think "simulationism" is important and that you wish to play D&D because of its status, popularity, support, player base, etc., then 4e is problematic for you and that you are left with 3e.  It's also important to note that it was 3e that went in this direction from older editions and that 4e is much more in line with those editions than 3e is.  Placing the game world back firmly in the hands of the DM is the primary reason.





See I don't think you do understand, read the first paragraph above... again objective statements about "real freedom"...when, in both, 4e and 3e anything can (and sometimes has to) be improvised.  Or this little gem of a statement... "They brought more inconsistency to the game and made the game world less coherent, not more."  For who because IMHO, it's alot more consistent than 4e is... again subjective =/= objective.  Or your commment on disarm/trip/etc... where in 4e it's better to be limited to once per day or some other arbitrary measurement than to have a low chance to succeed at it anytime you want... neither seems especially different, it's all in what you prefer.  I guess this is the problem, all of your "truths" about the problems of 3.5 aren't really truths at all, yet you state them like they are.  Anything that can be improvised in 4e can be in 3.5, but if you don't want to 3.5 provides a much more robust rules structure to draw examples from.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> See I don't think you do understand, read the first paragraph above... again objective statements about "real freedom"...when, in both, 4e and 3e anything can (and sometimes has to) be improvised.  Or this little gem of a statement... "They brought more inconsistency to the game and made the game world less coherent, not more."  For who because IMHO, it's alot more consistent than 4e is... again subjective =/= objective.  Or your commment on disarm/trip/etc... where in 4e it's better to be limited to once per day or some other arbitrary measurement than to have a low chance to succeed at it anytime you want... neither seems especially different, it's all in what you prefer.  I guess this is the problem, all of your "truths" about the problems of 3.5 aren't really truths at all, yet you state them like they are.  Anything that can be improvised in 4e can be in 3.5, but if you don't want to 3.5 provides a much more robust rules structure to draw examples from.




3E is more coherent, only if you can't immerse yourself in the game without that nod towards simulationism. You either require some sort of simulationism or you don't. If you require it, its existence is more important than the negative consequences simulation invariably has on game mechanics. For those of us who don't require simulationism, 3.5E's nods to it were an anchor dragging the game down. As far as improvisation, it depends on what you want from the game in terms of simulationism. If you care about the why and how about how something works and how you came to succeed or fail, 3.5E's nods to simulation provide a more robust rules structure. If you don't care about the why or how and only care about the end result, 4E's focus on gameplay with no regard for simulation is more robust. 

What he was saying was largely "true", from the perspective of people who don't require simulation with their RPG.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 3E is more coherent, only if you can't *immerse yourself in the game* without that nod towards simulationism. You either require some sort of simulationism or you don't. If you require it, its existence is more important than the negative consequences simulation invariably has on game mechanics. For those of us who don't require simulationism, 3.5E's nods to it were an anchor dragging the game down. As far as improvisation, it depends on what you want from the game in terms of simulationism. If you care about the why and how about how something works and how you came to succeed or fail, 3.5E's nods to simulation provide a more robust rules structure. If you don't care about the why or how and only care about the end result, 4E's focus on gameplay with no regard for simulation is more robust.
> 
> What he was saying was largely "true", from the perspective of people who don't require simulation with their RPG.




Emphasis mine, I just wanted to ask you a question... do you believe there is a difference between immersing oneself in the game and immersing oneself in the game world?  As an example, I can play DC vs. Mortal Kombat on my Xbox and be immersed in the game (rememebering and deciding what combos to use at a particular moment, for a particular character in a particular scene)... but I am not immersed in the pseudo-world that DC vs. Mortal Kombat takes place in during this time, or really anytime I am playing the game (even the storyline).  It doesn't in anyway affect my decisions or reactions. 

As a counterpoint (so no one claims I'm using videogamey to only describe 4e.)  I find Fable, a game with some nods to simulationism much more enjoyable on a game world immersion level (though less so in the game immersion category).  I make decisions in Fable (beyond the main storyline) dependent upon how I wish my character to interact with the world around him as opposed to what is mechanically the best choice.

 My players and I can readily immerse ourselves in the game of D&D 4e, and (this is even fun at times, though it often feels lacking in a way I cannot fully explain at this time) in fact this is particularly easy... what we find less so is immersing ourselves in the game world that is created with the rules of D&D 4e. YMMV of course.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine, I just wanted to ask you a question... do you believe there is a difference between immersing oneself in the game and immersing oneself in the game world?  As an example, I can play DC vs. Mortal Kombat on my Xbox and be immersed in the game (rememebering and deciding what combos to use at a particular moment, for a particular character in a particular scene)... but I am not immersed in the pseudo-world that DC vs. Mortal Kombat takes place in during this time, or really anytime I am playing the game (even the storyline).  It doesn't in anyway affect my decisions or reactions.
> 
> As a counterpoint (so no one claims I'm using videogamey to only describe 4e.)  I find Fable, a game with some nods to simulationism much more enjoyable on a game world immersion level (though less so in the game immersion category).  I make decisions in Fable (beyond the main storyline) dependent upon how I wish my character to interact with the world around him as opposed to what is mechanically the best choice.
> 
> My players and I can readily immerse ourselves in the game of D&D 4e, and (this is even fun at times, though it often feels lacking in a way I cannot fully explain at this time) in fact this is particularly easy... what we find less so is immersing ourselves in the game world that is created with the rules of D&D 4e. YMMV of course.




Needing immersion in the game world sounds pretty close to what I described as "needing simulationism". The trick is, you either care or you don't. What is happening behind the curtain really doesn't have much bearing on the game being played as it is being played. Its existence is independant, and is largely something you are interested in for its own sake, not in connection to the game being played. If it isn't important to you, it is a distraction that slows things down and diverts things away from the real fun.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Needing immersion in the game world sounds pretty close to what I described as "needing simulationism". The trick is, you either care or you don't. What is happening behind the curtain really doesn't have much bearing on the game being played as it is being played. *Its existence is independant, and is largely something you are interested in for its own sake, not in connection to the game being played.* If it isn't important to you, it is a distraction that slows things down and diverts things away from the real fun.




Emphasis Mine: I disagree here, Those that are concerned with world-immersion/simulationism definitely don't view it as a separate thing to actual gameplay.  Again refer back to my example with Fable...  certain choices in the game are made by some, not because they are optimal or because they are the best tactically... but because it is enjoyable to interact with those elements of the world in a pseudo-realistic (realistic for the fantasy world being simulated) way.  

With mechanics that simulate one can make decisions based upon interacting with the world as opposed to interacting with the rules/mechaincs and it in fact it becomes inseperable from gameplay when the rules support this.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 26, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> It's a flawless model, as far as I'm concerned. I loves me some stupid gaming, with a garnish of retro.



Hey, don't sell pretentious short! 

(says the guy who likes to name minor NPC's after character from Finnegan's Wake and Ezra Pound poems...)


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis Mine: I disagree here, Those that are concerned with world-immersion/simulationism definitely don't view it as a separate thing to actual gameplay.  Again refer back to my example with Fable...  certain choices in the game are made by some, not because they are optimal or because they are the best tactically... but because it is enjoyable to interact with those elements of the world in a pseudo-realistic (realistic for the fantasy world being simulated) way.
> 
> With mechanics that simulate one can make decisions based upon interacting with the world as opposed to interacting with the rules/mechaincs and it in fact it becomes inseperable from gameplay when the rules support this.




I have stated that I view this sort of thing as objectively indepenant while saying that some players require this world consistency to immerse themselves in or enjoy the game.

It either matters or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, its existence is a drag on things.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Those that are concerned with world-immersion/simulationism definitely don't view it as a separate thing to actual gameplay.



Though there are gamers who are concerned with immersion and a _kind_ of simulation that view those things are separate from the game mechanics. 

For me and my group, immersion/simulation depend on the characters we meet in the game, the stories we get involved with, and through our actions, tell. The mechanics behind task resolution (ie, most of the rules) don't play a big part. Immersion is a product of _story_, not _rules_.

A game that hypothetically has a perfect physics engine, that modeled the world accurately, would be non-immersive if the DM didn't populate it with interesting NPC's and believable plot hooks.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I have stated that I view this sort of thing as objectively indepenant while saying that some players require this world consistency to immerse themselves in or enjoy the game.
> 
> It either matters or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, its existence is a drag on things.




So how can it be "objectively" independent... when it's inclusion in many roleplaying games, even outside of D&D, is intertwined and meshed to create  gameplay.  It is subjectively independent, since one can have an rpg with or without simulationism that people will like and play, but it is not an objectively  independent thing...  If so it is no more objectively independent than both gamism and narrativism... right?  The fact that only if it "doesn't " matter is it a drag on things seems totally subjective.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So how can it be "objectively" independent... when it's inclusion in many roleplaying games, even outside of D&D, is intertwined and meshed to create  gameplay.  It is subjectively independent, since one can have an rpg with or without simulationism that people will like and play, but it is not an objectively  independent thing...  If so it is no more objectively independent than both gamism and narrativism... right?  The fact that only if it "doesn't " matter is it a drag on things seems totally subjective.




It is objectively independant because of a couple of factors. First is the fact that simultationist mechanics are inherently more cumbersome and complex than ones that are not. Second is my continued statement that simulationist game mechanics are either important to a given player or they aren't. If simulationist game mechanics are important to you, you get something out of them and your game experience is improved. If they are not, the game is more cumbersome and complex for no benefit. It is also objectively independant because of the simple fact that it is possible for simulationist mechanics to be completely important to a given player. 

In other words, it is certainly possible for simulationism to be integral to _*you*_. The fact that it can be a non-issue for some people means that it is not objectively integral to RPG gaming as a whole, especially when you consider that it carries baggage.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> It is objectively independant because of a couple of factors. First is the fact that simultationist mechanics are inherently more cumbersome and complex than ones that are not. Second is my continued statement that simulationist game mechanics are either important to a given player or they aren't. If simulationist game mechanics are important to you, you get something out of them and your game experience is improved. If they are not, the game is more cumbersome and complex for no benefit. It is also objectively independant because of the simple fact that it is possible for simulationist mechanics to be completely important to a given player.




1.  Simulationist mechanics are not inherently  more complex and cumbersome than ones that are not.  It depends on what one is trying to simulate and how one goes about it.   As an example, BRP is a very simulationist style game that is more elegant and less complex than 4e.

2. If simulationism is important to a given player (and/or roleplaying game system, since you fail to acknowledge this possibility) they are again... subjectively good or bad depending on the player and rpg, not objectively.

3.  Something being important to a particular player, again supports a subjective thing as opposed to an objective one.



thecasualoblivion said:


> In other words, it is certainly possible for simulationism to be integral to _*you*_. The fact that it can be a non-issue for some people means that it is not objectively integral to RPG gaming as a whole, especially when you consider that it carries baggage.




  Oh, I see what you did here.  I'm sorry but taking such a broad category as "RPG gaming as a whole" makes any and every possible parameter  "not objectively integral".  I mean what exactly is objectively integral to RPG gaming as a whole?  I'm sure almost (and only because I haven't played every rpg out there) any thing you list here I can find an rpg that doesn't conform to it...especially when speaking about simulationism, gamism and narrativism.  If being a non-issue for some people is the standard of whether something is objectively integral or not to an RPG... then it becomes meaningless.

I am more concerned with taking a particular game on it's own and deciding what is integral to that game, since simulationism can certainly be integral to the gameplay for a particular rpg.  I think this narrows it down enough that suddenly there are distinct things that become integral to that rpg's style and gameplay.  Thus now we can have an actual meaningful discussion of whether something is integral or not, as well as if it is objectively good or bad vs. subjectively good or bad.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis Mine: I disagree here, Those that are concerned with world-immersion/simulationism definitely don't view it as a separate thing to actual gameplay.  Again refer back to my example with Fable...  certain choices in the game are made by some, not because they are optimal or because they are the best tactically... but because it is enjoyable to interact with those elements of the world in a pseudo-realistic (realistic for the fantasy world being simulated) way.
> 
> With mechanics that simulate one can make decisions based upon interacting with the world as opposed to interacting with the rules/mechaincs and it in fact it becomes inseperable from gameplay when the rules support this.




Only that 3e does not have these mechanics. It has the bricks but for every situation, for every instance the DM has to take them and build the structure himself. Building though needs to be correct so to not fall down. I do not know any human being that can achieve in this task on functional playability terms with the bricks 3e provides and the structures than need to be build.

4e does not bring just bricks. It provides walls. It is functional with walls because you can build things that do not fall down. In theory you can build fewer things with ready-made walls than you can do with bricks but not in practice if you consider the limits of the gametable.

If you want to be able to build whatever you wish in respectable playability terms you need a different model entirely. Neither bricks nor walls but relativistic principles: there can be a small house and a big house. To make the small house I need to pay X, to make the big house I need to pay Y. This is just an example. If this is what you want I believe you need to search for a different system than D20.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 26, 2009)

Mallus said:


> For me and my group, immersion/simulation depend on the characters we meet in the game, the stories we get involved with, and through our actions, tell. The mechanics behind task resolution (ie, most of the rules) don't play a big part. Immersion is a product of _story_, not _rules_.
> 
> A game that hypothetically has a perfect physics engine, that modeled the world accurately, would be non-immersive if the DM didn't populate it with interesting NPC's and believable plot hooks.



This.  For our group, immersion is more about the fluff part of the game world and not the mechanics.  We can still be immersed in the game world and not feel stress of how/why damage and healing surges work in 4e.  The mechanical level of immersion is not as important as the way the game rules flow.  The story immersion is much more important to us than the need for the rules to reflect every possible circumstance.  In times when the rules "don't work", such as with craft or profession skills, we just give the PCs this information as a fluff item and RP it accordingly when we play.  We don't necessarily need a game mechanic to represent this.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> 1.  Simulationist mechanics are not inherently  more complex and cumbersome than ones that are not.  It depends on what one is trying to simulate and how one goes about it.   As an example, BRP is a very simulationist style game that is more elegant and less complex than 4e.




I'm not familiar with that game, so I can't comment on this. That being said, I find this statement hard to believe, since in my experience in 15+ years of RPG gaming, simulationism has always equalled complex and cumbersome. It was certainly true for 3.5E compared to AD&D 1E/2E and 4E.



Imaro said:


> 2. If simulationism is important to a given player (and/or roleplaying game system, since you fail to acknowledge this possibility) they are again... subjectively good or bad depending on the player and rpg, not objectively.




I never said simulation was good or bad, I said it was unnecessary and came with consequences. 



Imaro said:


> 3.  Something being important to a particular player, again supports a subjective thing as opposed to an objective one.




I still say the fact that simulationism can be completely unimportant to a given player goes a long way to showing that objectively it isn't necessary.



Imaro said:


> Oh, I see what you did here.  I'm sorry but taking such a broad category as "RPG gaming as a whole" makes any and every possible parameter  "not objectively integral".  I mean what exactly is objectively integral to RPG gaming as a whole?  I'm sure almost (and only because I haven't played every rpg out there) any thing you list here I can find an rpg that doesn't conform to it...especially when speaking about simulationism, gamism and narrativism.  If being a non-issue for some people is the standard of whether something is objectively integral or not to an RPG... then it becomes meaningless.




I really don't get your point here. I'm not talking about RPG gaming as a whole, just simulationism and its relation to that. Simulation is a subjective consideration, you either care or you don't. Much of the RPG and D&D community don't care, and therefore simulation isn't integral to either on the whole. Simulation is integral to certain players however. This isn't hard.



Imaro said:


> I am more concerned with taking a particular game on it's own and deciding what is integral to that game, since simulationism can certainly be integral to the gameplay for a particular rpg.  I think this narrows it down enough that suddenly there are distinct things that become integral to that rpg's style and gameplay.  Thus now we can have an actual meaningful discussion of whether something is integral or not, as well as if it is objectively good or bad vs. subjectively good or bad.




We're talking about D&D here, and D&D has never been a simulationist RPG. AD&D was a hodgepodge of arbitrary and unrelated mechanics that didn't add up to any coherent whole, but on the whole it was a simple, rules lite, gamist enterprise. 4E is unashamedly and admittedly non-simulationist. 3E added a veneer of simulationism over a very solid gamist core(and the simulationist nods conflicted with the gamist core, making the game slower, more combersome, and unnecessarily complex), and this appealed to people who didn't like their games without it. Its never been integral to D&D as a whole.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine, I just wanted to ask you a question... do you believe there is a difference between immersing oneself in the game and immersing oneself in the game world?  As an example, I can play DC vs. Mortal Kombat on my Xbox and be immersed in the game (rememebering and deciding what combos to use at a particular moment, for a particular character in a particular scene)... but I am not immersed in the pseudo-world that DC vs. Mortal Kombat takes place in during this time, or really anytime I am playing the game (even the storyline).  It doesn't in anyway affect my decisions or reactions.
> 
> As a counterpoint (so no one claims I'm using videogamey to only describe 4e.)  I find Fable, a game with some nods to simulationism much more enjoyable on a game world immersion level (though less so in the game immersion category).  I make decisions in Fable (beyond the main storyline) dependent upon how I wish my character to interact with the world around him as opposed to what is mechanically the best choice.
> 
> My players and I can readily immerse ourselves in the game of D&D 4e, and (this is even fun at times, though it often feels lacking in a way I cannot fully explain at this time) in fact this is particularly easy... what we find less so is immersing ourselves in the game world that is created with the rules of D&D 4e. YMMV of course.




Imaro that's kind of an unfair comparison. The DC vs Mortal Kombat Universe really doesn't allow you to in any way explore the universe of the game. 

This has nothing to do with gamism vrs simulationism. 

You can have a "gamist" game where your actions effect the universe, and where you explore the world around you and meet new people, and become imersed in the game world.

For some the "simmulationists" the game system needs to show them HOW things can happen. How one is able to make a trip attack, how one is able to craft a bow, how a goblin can summon acid storms. If it's not there this type of player feels like he can't imerse himself in the game. It feels artificial.

On the other hand:

For others, the "gamists" (which I guess I am)  only want to know what happens AFTER the trip attack is made, after the bow is crafted, after the goblin summons the acid storm. We don't need or even want it to tell us how it's possible, because we already know it is. In fact if the game concentrates too much on the HOW the world feels too clockwork, and we feel like we can't immerse ourselves in the world. It feels artificial.


It always confuses me when people talk about how "gamist" style games feel like videogames... Because to me it's the exact opposite. The more simmulationist the game is to me, the more I feel it looses that thing that makes TRPGs great, and the more it starts to feel videogamey to me. But that's just my personal thoughts.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 26, 2009)

Scribble said:


> It always confuses me when people talk about how "gamist" style games feel like videogames... Because to me it's the exact opposite. The more simmulationist the game is to me, the more I feel it looses that thing that makes TRPGs great, and the more it starts to feel videogamey to me. But that's just my personal thoughts.




I think the biggest problem with "simulationismn" is that I have to resolve it mechanically. I have to go through every step of the simulation, determine bonus and DC, roll dice, tick of whatever resource it needs. It's (in its extreme) like having every subconsciously made move being moved to concious activity.

The number-crunching for example required to determine at my current attack bonus after several buffs and debuffs cast on my character means a lot of handling the details - what type of bonus is this, does it stack, what's my new modifier. It is logical, but it reminds me: "You are playing a game." 

But also every adventuring day, there is a time where it comes to cast the big buffs. The fact that every spellcaster is announcing his prepared buffs or asks which buffs to prepare reminds me I am operating on a very mechanical, level. It reminds me that I am in a very mechanical environment, playing a game, because I do not feel immersed if I think so consciously about the precise number of spell slots and buff types I could do. I mean, if the D&D world was "real", that might be what it is, but it also reminds me it is a world I can't relate to, a world where people basically know all the detailed numbers on how they affect the world. In my real life, I don't even know my IQ, and I certainly couldn't tell me whether it would help if coffee followed by pepsi would help me stay awake or not and what other side effects it might have. I wouldn't know if it the effects lasts 10 minutes or one hour (so should I drink it now for breakfast or when I arrived at work?)


Another, grossly exaggerated example: 
"Oh, my eye itches. I raise my forearm and lower my head until my index finger is a the height of my eye. Now I carefully adjust my arm so that my index finger touches the edge of my eye. Now I move my index finger backwards and forwards until the itch stops..."

That's not how I "really" works for me. It itches, I scratch myself, I don't think about the individual things that happen. I am not aware of how I am doing it exactly, I just know I am doing it. I can figure out if it worked, but not how, unless I stop myself and go through my actions step by step.

But this is actually not the "Gamist" vs "Simulation" part, in my opinion.

I think the difference might be better described as something like "imperative or procedural" vs "declarative". That would be the terms one might use for programming languages. One explains the step-by-step process, and the other just describes the outcome. The "how" is implemented hidden from the developer.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 26, 2009)

Scribble said:


> For others, the "gamists" (which I guess I am)  only want to know what happens AFTER the trip attack is made, after the bow is crafted, after the goblin summons the acid storm. We don't need or even want it to tell us how it's possible, because we already know it is. In fact if the game concentrates too much on the HOW the world feels too clockwork, and we feel like we can't immerse ourselves in the world. It feels artificial.
> 
> 
> It always confuses me when people talk about how "gamist" style games feel like videogames... Because to me it's the exact opposite. The more simmulationist the game is to me, the more I feel it looses that thing that makes TRPGs great, and the more it starts to feel videogamey to me. But that's just my personal thoughts.




I agree, completely.  A video game requires internal consistency and player knowledge of the working of the game world (the rules) because your choices are so limited and your interaction with that game world defined.  I love turn based strategy games and am playing a lot of Galactic Civilizations 2 lately.  A good strategy game has lots of options because, in a video game, options stand in for freedom of action.  You choose your civilizations government, but that choice has a defined set of results.  You choose your alignment and it has specific game system results, things you can do with this alignment that you can't do with the others.  You choose how to allocate your economic resources to achieve consistent adjustments to the overall resources of your empire.  If you have enough options, the game feels very open when it really isn't.  

For me, this is what 3e attempted to do.  A lot of fans of that edition trump its "open" character design as a feature and attack 4e for its lack of "freedom".  That's not the way I see it.  4e, like previous editions, does not insist that the system fully define your character and class is just one choice of several.  With 3e, if you wanted your character to do something, you had to pick an option from the menu.  It was a large menu, 175 base classes, 782 prestige classes, 3304 feats (according to WotCs indexes), but it had to grow large because there was little real freedom of character, everything had to be defined.  You couldn't just say - "my dwarf fighter is a talented blacksmith" and have that be part of your character.  You had to justify it mechanically, and that meant a trade off in your effectiveness at your class.  In the end, if you really wanted that option and didn't want to be gimped (not that fighter wasn't already gimped), you have to search through the options like it was a multiple choice test with thousands of possible answers to the question "how can I make a character that is a strong melee fighter and a master crafter?" and find a viable set of options.    

I'm with scribble, in that this is much more videogame like to me than the way 4e handles it, which is "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined."  4e embraces (within a D&D system anyway) freedom both for players, who mechanically define their characters abilities as adventurers but are unrestricted elsewhere and don't have to give up effectiveness as adventurers to color their character; and for DMs in putting the game world back in their hands as opposed to the "hands" of the rules system.  

That's not to say 3e is "videogamey", just that video games, by necessity, are all about the simulationism, so when a game system makes simulationism its goal, to me, it feels forced and restrictive to me.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 26, 2009)

I think a lot of people in this thread haven't got the slightest idea what the term "simulationism" means.

And no, I am not going to define it in detail. Suffice it to say, simulationism does not mean that every single aspect of the world needs to be defined in game terms. It merely means that the game logic must follow some sort of internal consistency and map (at some level) to the world logic. 

For instance, to me, removing craft skills from the game is perfectly acceptable. But you cannot write down "bestest blacksmith in the world" and then have a character with a Strength 4 and Dexterity of 5. Or, rather, you can, but it will be a lie. That's really all simulationism entails - internal consistency. Which 4E does not have and, according to its designers, does not need. Fine for some people, not fine for me.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 26, 2009)

Can you describe in detail how 4E lacks this internal consistency?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> I agree, completely.  A video game requires internal consistency and player knowledge of the working of the game world (the rules) because your choices are so limited and your interaction with that game world defined.  I love turn based strategy games and am playing a lot of Galactic Civilizations 2 lately.  A good strategy game has lots of options because, in a video game, options stand in for freedom of action.  You choose your civilizations government, but that choice has a defined set of results.  You choose your alignment and it has specific game system results, things you can do with this alignment that you can't do with the others.  You choose how to allocate your economic resources to achieve consistent adjustments to the overall resources of your empire.  If you have enough options, the game feels very open when it really isn't.




No, a videogame has a set of limited options, usually based around  the type of videogame it is (fighting, shooter, etc.).  Now the difference all rpg's have is that a human as GM/DM can modify, add to, trim or whatever those rules... so really 4e has the more limited out of the box options focused on one type of play.  Take from that what you will.



Thasmodious said:


> For me, this is what 3e attempted to do.  A lot of fans of that edition trump its "open" character design as a feature and attack 4e for its lack of "freedom".  That's not the way I see it.  4e, like previous editions, does not insist that the system fully define your character and class is just one choice of several.  With 3e, if you wanted your character to do something, you had to pick an option from the menu.  It was a large menu, 175 base classes, 782 prestige classes, 3304 feats (according to WotCs indexes), but it had to grow large because there was little real freedom of character, everything had to be defined.  You couldn't just say - "my dwarf fighter is a talented blacksmith" and have that be part of your character.  You had to justify it mechanically, and that meant a trade off in your effectiveness at your class.  In the end, if you really wanted that option and didn't want to be gimped (not that fighter wasn't already gimped), you have to search through the options like it was a multiple choice test with thousands of possible answers to the question "how can I make a character that is a strong melee fighter and a master crafter?" and find a viable set of options.




And here we disagree you could do exactly that ( just say - "my dwarf fighter is a talented blacksmith" and have that be part of your character.) in 3.5 and just like in 4e whatever effect it had would be up to the DM... now what's the difference again?  

Yes if you wanted it to have the mechanical effects exactly according to the game rules for that skill, then you had to spend points (of course a DM could again change these rules as well)... however there was no rule that a DM couldn't institute a Blacksmith background and come up with his own rules for it (I actually think later supplements did come up with backgrounds.), ultimately it comes down to exactly the same as 4e... making some stuff up, but for those not comfortable with this option, 3e also gave a default method to integrate it into the game, a common basis beyond "mother may I" ... how again does 4e handle this in the rules, I mean is anything like a character being able to blacksmith even addressed in 4e or are you drawing from your own experiences to make things up ? 



Thasmodious said:


> I'm with scribble, in that this is much more videogame like to me than the way 4e handles it, which is "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined."  4e embraces (within a D&D system anyway) freedom both for players, who mechanically define their characters abilities as adventurers but are unrestricted elsewhere and don't have to give up effectiveness as adventurers to color their character; and for DMs in putting the game world back in their hands as opposed to the "hands" of the rules system.




Where does 4e state "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined.".  Seriously, I see fans of 4e state this like there is a section in the book that states this when there isn't.  It is a houserule not a part of the actual game.



Thasmodious said:


> That's not to say 3e is "videogamey", just that video games, by necessity, are all about the simulationism, so when a game system makes simulationism its goal, to me, it feels forced and restrictive to me.




IMO, videogames are definitely more concerned with mechanics and how said mechanics affect and balance against whatever is the opposition than any type of  simulation... unless it is specificly a sim-game.  In Tekken why can Eddy Gordo fight for the whole round on his hands but my Law character can't attempt to learn or even try that?  Or why can't any character if they fight another enough learn new counters or styles based on countering that opponenets style?  IMO this is much more similar to 4e's specific combat "powers" and restricted multi-classing than 3e's learn anything mentality.  YMMV of course.


----------



## rjdafoe (Feb 26, 2009)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Where does 4e state "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined.". Seriously, I see fans of 4e state this like there is a section in the book that states this when there isn't. It is a houserule not a part of the actual game.




Page 42 of the DM's Guide:

Under the section titled Actions the Rules Don't Cover.

If the action is related to a skill....... use that check

If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. ​

The above pretty much states that. ​ 
Just the title pretty much says everything except "write it down".​


----------



## xechnao (Feb 26, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That's not how I "really" works for me. It itches, I scratch myself, I don't think about the individual things that happen. I am not aware of how I am doing it exactly, I just know I am doing it. I can figure out if it worked, but not how, unless I stop myself and go through my actions step by step.




You are not aware of it in language processing terms (german or english or in the language you are used to think) but other senses are aware of it. The economy of language communication and the economy of perception are not the same thing. Of course game mechanics of tabletop rpgames run on language and arithmetic but there are also other signs to be calculated. These signs belong to the players' socializing input - an input that utilizes body language among other things for example. A system could be able to consider this kind of input -lets call it the players' social feelings- by allowing player's to input their creativity. Traditionally the best example is the Dungeon Master, but I wish there was a mechanically supported way for everyone to partecipate in some kind of way: this is what I was exploring on with the "verbal" term mentioned some post ago.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> Page 42 of the DM's Guide:
> 
> Under the section titled Actions the Rules Don't Cover.
> 
> ...




So first, just to get this straight, it doesn't actually say... "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined."

Instead for any action without a skill that pertains to it you... "use an ability check".  How does, using this system,  having Blacksmith on your character sheet mean anything.  You can do this for any action you don't have a skill in right?  So again you're as good a blacksmith as anything else without a skill that you try... in other words it's pointless.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 27, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Can you describe in detail how 4E lacks this internal consistency?



Not being a 4E player, I cannot describe it in great detail, but I can give at least one example which immediately springs to mind: minions.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 27, 2009)

Sammael said:


> Not being a 4E player, I cannot describe it in great detail, but I can give at least one example which immediately springs to mind: minions.




Minions are those weaklings that if you do not focus on them they will harass you, but if you do they are no match if you manage to put them in difficulty. At least this my understanding of them. Perhaps they could have instead of one hp, 1HD and perhaps this was the initial design intent.
Why would they drop it to 1 hp? They could have seen a playability benefit on making it more simplistic. If you do not like it just give them 1HD per tier or something like that.


----------



## rjdafoe (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So first, just to get this straight, it doesn't actually say... "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined."
> 
> Instead for any action without a skill that pertains to it you... "use an ability check". How does, using this system, having Blacksmith on your character sheet mean anything. You can do this for any action you don't have a skill in right? So again you're as good a blacksmith as anything else without a skill that you try... in other words it's pointless.




The point you made was that it wasn't part of 4E. It didn't say that in the books. Well, It does. Let's keep this part of the discussion about that.

This was not what you think of the rule, this was proving that it exists.

The whole page says, if the rules don't cover it, and you need to make it random, make it up using one of these methods. It is clearly part of 4E.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Instead for any action without a skill that pertains to it you... "use an ability check".  How does, using this system,  having Blacksmith on your character sheet mean anything.  You can do this for any action you don't have a skill in right?  So again you're as good a blacksmith as anything else without a skill that you try... in other words it's pointless.




Again this goes back to the strengths of a tabletop RPG idea.

I don't look at that and think "Oh this guy can do anything equaly well!" I'm not a computer bound to that logic. I look at that and say, if this guy is attempting something he can logically do, here is a system that can help me determine the outcome, that stays in check with the rest of the system.

Writing "backsmith" on a sheet doesn't need to give him some kind of math bonus to seperate him from a non blacksmith. It's just a way for me, as a human DM, to help determine if this character could logically make said check.

Again I don't need the game to tell me how he's able to make the check in the first place. The player and I have already determined he's a blacksmith. It just needs to give me a way to determine what happens when he needs to make some kind of check in relationship to his blacksmithery.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Again this goes back to the strengths of a tabletop RPG idea.
> 
> I don't look at that and think "Oh this guy can do anything equaly well!" I'm not a computer bound to that logic. I look at that and say, if this guy is attempting something he can logically do, here is a system that can help me determine the outcome, that stays in check with the rest of the system.
> 
> ...




So are you saying you would only allow someone who can "logically" (whatever this means) do something attempt the ability check?  If so you are modding what is actually in 4e (even though this is not what was being addressed by me, as actual claims had been made to what was in the 4e corebooks, not what someone could make up.).  

Again I ask, what prevents one from modding 3e in the same manner, if we are disregarding RAW and making our own rules up... then 3e isn't anymore or less a straightjacket than 4e (in fact it becomes meaningless to compare)...however if we are comparing the actual systems...4e is a less robust system than 3e in such matters.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> The point you made was that it wasn't part of 4E. It didn't say that in the books. Well, It does. Let's keep this part of the discussion about that.
> 
> This was not what you think of the rule, this was proving that it exists.
> 
> The whole page says, *if the rules don't cover it, and you need to make it random, make it up using one of these methods.* It is clearly part of 4E.




Emphasis mine: This was not what was stated...I didn't argue there wasn't a rule for ad-hoc actions, what I argued was that no where in 4e was there a rule that stated... write a skill on your sheet and allow the DM to make up a random way of resolution if it ever comes up.  Skills besides those listed and how a player attains them are not addressed in 4e was my point.  An ad-hoc action resolution system does not address being "skilled" in something.


----------



## rjdafoe (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine: This was not what was stated...I didn't argue there wasn't a rule for ad-hoc actions, what I argued was that no where in 4e was there a rule that stated... write a skill on your sheet and allow the DM to make up a random way of resolution if it ever comes up. Skills besides those listed and how a player attains them are not addressed in 4e was my point. An ad-hoc action resolution system does not address being "skilled" in something.




Are you saying that making a sword is not considered an action not covered by the rules?

Or weaving a basket, or any thing else that you might need to know wether you have a success or not?

It says, if there is no skill for it, use an ability check. It says it on page 42 of the DMG.
paraphrased:

If the action is related to a skill use that check. If it is not obvious, use an ability check. Consult the table , and set the DC what you think it should be.​

I really don't know how you cannot see that the page says if you think that a character should be able to do what they are asking, make it up. Here are the guidelines to keep everything (sort of) balanced.

It says, if there is no skill for it, make it up!​


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 27, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Again I don't need the game to tell me how he's able to make the check in the first place. The player and I have already determined he's a blacksmith. It just needs to give me a way to determine what happens when he needs to make some kind of check in relationship to his blacksmithery.




Exactly.  The reason why PC-A can do it and PC-B can't is because PC-A made that choice already, PC-B did not.  

And really, how often does a situation where you need to roll really come up in a campaign?  Does a smith really need to roll every time he makes a horseshoe or repairs a bit of armor?  Does a cook need to roll to fix a tasty breakfast?  Does a musician need to roll to see if he successfully plays music?  Of course not.  The only time a roll is really needed is to do something extraordinary or in opposition to another.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So are you saying you would only allow someone who can "logically" (whatever this means) do something attempt the ability check? If so you are modding what is actually in 4e (even though this is not what was being addressed by me, as actual claims had been made to what was in the 4e corebooks, not what someone could make up.).




HELL YES! That's exactly the point. The tabletop beats the computer because as a human I don't have to folow the rules as written. I understand that just because something is written down doesn't mean that's the one true answer. Rules Lawyers be damned! (IE because I'm human I understand that just because the rules give me a way to solve actions not covered by the rules doesn't mean I have to allow EVERY action to be attempted.)

Disregarding "RAW" is one of the key stregths of tabletop RPGs vrs computer RPGs. I can and do disregard RAW whenever appropriate. (And in fact I kind of hate the idea of discussing "RAW" because part of those rules as written is essentially make stuff up so following the rules as written means not always following the rules as written.)



> Again I ask, what prevents one from modding 3e in the same manner, if we are disregarding RAW and making our own rules up... then 3e isn't anymore or less a straightjacket than 4e (in fact it becomes meaningless to compare)...however if we are comparing the actual systems...4e is a less robust system than 3e in such matters.




I never said you couldn't did I? 

For me, it felt like 3e was an attempt to placate rules lawyers by giving the hows and specifics of everything they could think of, rather then leave it to the  DM. I thought that was a cool idea at first. I could use the rules to back up descisions I made, and it would calm the rules lawyers down, and I could modify whatever I wanted.

 Instead, in my experience it always led to just more rules lawyering. "But the rules on page blah blah blah..." and didn't help at all, while layering on a bnch of extra rules. 

In addition most of the rules seemed linked together in ways that if you removed them or changed them would have effects in other unexpected places.

For someone like me, 4e is a more successful update to the rules of D&D because at it's heart it seems to return to the simple set of rules and outcomes the game I grew up with had, while correcting the issues I had with it. It's like the old game to me again, with the corrections I wanted, and some I didn't think of.

I find the rules themselves seem much more designed with the idea of being able to manipulate them easily. IE if I change one part it's not going to have as huge an effect throughout the system. 

IE the rules parts make use of eachother, but do not rely on eachother to function.

If 3e works for you? Awesome! I'm not trying to argue that 4e is a more sucessful game update for everyone. It is for me though.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 27, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> Are you saying that making a sword is not considered an action not covered by the rules?
> 
> Or weaving a basket, or any thing else that you might need to know wether you have a success or not?
> 
> ...




Yeah well this does not solve much really. Depending on the specialization or knowledge needed for a task the DC should change according to the abilities of the PC. But this is just a tip of the iceberg. In fact if you really want to track down your possibilities (and not from a simulationist POV but rather from an effects or results POV) you need a different kind of system. Systems like spirit of the century could do a better job (although I am not an expert of the system this is the impression I have). 
Perhaps background options could be a better idea than skills. Blacksmith's apprentice, library custodian etch could seem more functional IMO.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2009)

As an added thought:

4e seems to be built with the idea of a smal set of well designed rules, being "core."

The other parts rely on that core, but the core does not rely on the other parts.

IE there is a way that healing in the game is achieved. 

The Divine Power source taps into this element. The divine source adds onto the healing element. I don't, however, need the divine power source though for the healing rule to function.

Therefore as the DM I can drop the divine power source pretty easily without effecting the way the game runs.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Again this goes back to the strengths of a tabletop RPG idea.
> 
> I don't look at that and think "Oh this guy can do anything equaly well!" I'm not a computer bound to that logic. I look at that and say, if this guy is attempting something he can logically do, here is a system that can help me determine the outcome, that stays in check with the rest of the system.
> 
> ...




Scribble,

I have no beef with you liking 4e... this whole line of conversation came up because unlike you, some people in this thread (thecasualoblivion, who seems strangely absent now) claimed that simulationism is objectively instead of subjectively a bad thing for a rpg.  Now I can understand someone prefering simulationism or not, what I can't get behind is blanket statements like simulationism is objectively bad for rpg's.  Granted the conversation has gotten a little detached from the original argument, but that's what it started about.  I think alot of people jumped in without knowing exactly what the argument sprang from.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Scribble,
> 
> I have no beef with you liking 4e... this whole line of conversation came up because unlike you, some people in this thread (thecasualoblivion, who seems strangely absent now) claimed that simulationism is objectively instead of subjectively a bad thing for a rpg.  Now I can understand someone prefering simulationism or not, what I can't get behind is blanket statements like simulationism is objectively bad for rpg's.  Granted the conversation has gotten a little detached from the original argument, but that's what it started about.  I think alot of people jumped in without knowing exactly what the argument sprang from.




Are you sure you didn't misread what he said? 

I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that he wasn't saying simmulationism is objectively bad for RPGS but that it was objectively uneeded in a game for that game to be still considered good. It seemed like an awkward way of kind of agreeing with you...

IE: Since tastes are subjective, the only objective thing is neither side is NEEDED to make a good game.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Are you sure you didn't misread what he said?
> 
> I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that he wasn't saying simmulationism is objectively bad for RPGS but that it was objectively uneeded in a game for that game to be still considered good. It seemed like an awkward way of kind of agreeing with you...
> 
> IE: Since tastes are subjective, the only objective thing is neither side is NEEDED to make a good game.




Perhaps, but when I go back and read our posts it doesn't seem that way.  I do agree with your last sentence though, it's a purely preference thing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 27, 2009)

Stepping away from the nara-wahtever and simu-whatsit discussion, I'm going to use a word some people here *really* hate.

4e lacks verisimilitude.

I'm not going to say previous editions were totally realistic, but they gave the impression that they at least cared about making it seem that way.  4e doesn't.  4e is an action movie.  You don't care about the random schmucks on the street as you jog to the building being held hostage by terrorists, and neither does 4e.  Action heroes never run out of bullets, and neither do 4e characters.  It's not built around the idea of a concrete world and setting, it's built around bare ideas that you put together to make the scenes.

And that's not a bad thing.  It's just not what some people want.

In my experience, players are fickle, random creatures.  I'm one of them.  The DM adage goes, "Give something enough description, it becomes an artifact."  The problem with 4e is that it doesn't care about that.  If *all* editions are video games, then 4e is very much a modern one, with new and cutting edge graphics.  They can see the light reflecting off the water, and important things LOOK important, and also awesome.  In fact, it's cyclical - the important things are awesome, and the awesome things are important.  Dialogue is a means of getting to an end, the fighting scenes are fast paced and filled with action (Or they should.  I don't think the muddiness that sometimes occurs in combat is meant to be there)

I perfer playing older style games.  Maybe I'll go REAL old school and play a simple dungeon crawl, and that's cool.  Replacable PCs, big death rate, slow accumilation of power for the casters, but when they DO accumilate the power, they're rather powerful indeed.

Usually, I like my video games from the 90's the msot.  Baldur's Gate series, Fallout, Arcanum, or Planescape: Torment.  The dialogue was important.  Fighting scenes were much slower paced.  The graphics weren't much, but lush text descriptions did the job better then any amount of bloom could for us.  Sure, it's not *awesome*.  And it's definately not for everyone.  But I think it's a huge mistake to just dismiss it entirely.  It's a part of your history.  And for some of us, it's far, far more enjoyable then the stuff that came later.

I'm not stating that this is how AND ONLY HOW the editions can be played.  You can most definately play a 4e campaign where the emphasis is on dialogue and storyline and player choice.  I just don't think that's what the edition itself really wants you to do.  This list is where I think the developers intended to put the emphasis.

Edit: Or at least, where I see the emphasis being put.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 27, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 4e lacks verisimilitude...
> 
> And that's not a bad thing. It's just not what some people want.



I agree completely.

4E is a very good game.  It's just not the kind of very good game I really want to play.

3E is _also_ a very good game.  (And it just happens to be much more the kind of very good game I really want to play than 4E is.)


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 27, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 4e lacks verisimilitude.




Verisimilitude is subjective.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 27, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Verisimilitude is subjective.




Lots of things are.

But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 27, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Lots of things are.
> 
> But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.




Change it to people who strongly like 4E tend not to care about verisimiliitude coming from the game mechanics or system, and prefer to get it from the story and the interaction between the DM and the players, and you might be on to something. Particularly when versimilitude being built into the game system bears consequences in terms of gameplay.


----------



## darjr (Feb 27, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Lots of things are.
> 
> But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.




I care about my ability to suspend disbelief. I care about immersion. I do care about verisimilitude, but not as much as some seem to. I think, though, that verisimilitude isn't quite used the right way in RPG's. In this hobby people seem to mean immersion. Maybe I'm wrong, but verisimilitude is kind of the opposite of that. It's finding reality or what is real and true in the game. verisimilitude - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary I don't think there are very many rpgs that do that well.

To me immersion and suspension of disbelief are king. It's subjective, I know, but 4e allows that for me in spades.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And here we disagree you could do exactly that ( just say - "my dwarf fighter is a talented blacksmith" and have that be part of your character.) in 3.5 and just like in 4e whatever effect it had would be up to the DM... now what's the difference again?



In 4E, I spend some ink, an out-of-game resource.
In 3E, I spend skill points, an in-game resource (plus the ink, probably). The cost of the Craft Skill is the same as the cost for a  Intimidate, Climb, Jump, Handle Animal, Ride or Swim skill. I am gambling which of these skills will be made more important in this campaign. And if it turns out Craft is not relevant, but Climb is, I wasted a game resource on it, making my character less effective. 
In 4E, all I did was waste the ink, my character is just as efficient as he would have been if I had decided against writing down a craft in his background.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 27, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.




So what you are saying is not that 4E lacks verisimilitude, but some people who strongly like 4E tend not to care about verisimilitude?

I can agree with the second statement, though I'd word it differently.  (People who strongly like 4E tend not to derive as much satisfaction from prioritizing verisimilitude.)

The first I can't agree with, because verisimilitude is subjective.  I don't know how you'd prove it.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 27, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.




To me verisimilitude is the same as simulationist.  The idea is that you are trying to design a world that seems like a "realistic" living, breathing, world where everyone it it acts like you expect them to.

To me, it's not about being "realistic" or "immersive".  It's about being interesting and fun.  Sometimes interesting isn't the same things as immersive.  I mean, I expect the average person on the street to ignore me and go about their business.  I don't expect them to come up to me and offer a quest filled with danger and treasure.  But I WANT them to in a D&D game, even if it strains my sense of verisimilitude because people just don't do that.

I don't expect it to be possible to walk into a dragon's lair and kill him. He's huge, has magical powers, is smarter than me, and lives so long to have ages to plan for this situation.  On the other hand, I want it to be possible, because it's more fun to kill the dragon and get his treasure than to die as soon as I enter a cave to a trap.

Things ARE contrived in a D&D game.  They are supposed to be.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 27, 2009)

For me, it's not about people acting as expected, but about the world reacting in a consistent way that defines verisimilitude. Internal consistency, so to speak.

If herb A cured disease B when the PC got it then that same herb should cure the same disease B when a village catches it. If the GM wants the PCs to defeat some evil necromancer to save the village, and not gather the herbs, then he should not just handwave the herb's curing abilites away.


----------



## Rel (Feb 27, 2009)

Verisimilitude is very important to me and I really like 4e (for the record verisimilitude was important to me when I ran 3e as well and it worked fine then too).  I just happen to think that very little verisimilitude flows from the rules of a game.

To me it's much more about the plot details, the motivations and actions of the NPC's and the consistancy of things like the herb example Fenes gives above.  I'll give an example of my own:

My PC's just got done venturing through a mine that used to be a prison.  They discovered that it was partly infested with kruthiks but mostly inhabited with these shadowy creatures.  Along they way they found some bones they identified as the hand of a dragonborn.  Neaby on a wall was something written in draconic.  The shadow guys they fought were armed with picks, with handles made of chitin.  Finally they battled their way through to their primary lair and found a sculpture made of bone in the semblance of a dragon.  The PC's determined that these bones were dragonborn bones also.

To me verisimilitude was achieved there because things made sense.  The dead dragonborn miner carved the screed on the wall in his native tongue.  The shadow guys were armed with old picks found in the mines but the handles were replaced with locally available raw materials (Kruthik chitin).  They revered a dragon creature and they made their shrine out of the best approximation to dragon-like bones:  Those of the dragonborn miner.

Almost none of that relates to the rules of 4e.  I could have (and did) do similar things with 3e, WFRP or Rolemaster and it would still meet my requirements for verisimilitude.


----------



## rjdafoe (Feb 27, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Yeah well this does not solve much really. Depending on the specialization or knowledge needed for a task the DC should change according to the abilities of the PC. But this is just a tip of the iceberg. In fact if you really want to track down your possibilities (and not from a simulationist POV but rather from an effects or results POV) you need a different kind of system. Systems like spirit of the century could do a better job (although I am not an expert of the system this is the impression I have).
> Perhaps background options could be a better idea than skills. Blacksmith's apprentice, library custodian etch could seem more functional IMO.




I understand what you are saying, but I am not discussin wether you think the rule is good, bad or indifferent.  Just that they exists.  What I was responding to was that it was no where in the rules for 4E.


----------



## rjdafoe (Feb 27, 2009)

Fenes said:


> For me, it's not about people acting as expected, but about the world reacting in a consistent way that defines verisimilitude. Internal consistency, so to speak.
> 
> If herb A cured disease B when the PC got it then that same herb should cure the same disease B when a village catches it. If the GM wants the PCs to defeat some evil necromancer to save the village, and not gather the herbs, then he should not just handwave the herb's curing abilites away.




This is where there is a difference in 3E and 4E.  3E tried to codify the consistency by trying to define everything.  4E tells the DM to define everything and it is up to the DM wether he is consistent or not.  2 different ways of approaching things, but the outcome is the same if the DM cares that the world is consistent.

So, with saying that, It is not the system, it is the way the system is used.  in 3E the same thing you say above could happen if the DM doesn't have it written down what herb A does and doesn't remember what it did or any of the details of it.  One system tries to tell you what it does, the other tries to have you come up with it on your own.  Whichever one you preferr is up to you.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> Are you saying that making a sword is not considered an action not covered by the rules?
> 
> Or weaving a basket, or any thing else that you might need to know wether you have a success or not?
> 
> ...





Nowhere in the book does it say make a skill up, write it on your sheet and the DM will make up a  way to resolve it's usage randomly if it comes up.  You wanted to be pedantic and discuss exactly what was said... well that is what was said.


----------



## rjdafoe (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Nowhere in the book does it say make a skill up, write it on your sheet and the DM will make up a way to resolve it's usage randomly if it comes up. You wanted to be pedantic and discuss exactly what was said... well that is what was said.





No not exactly what was said, but that the rules you said that did not exist, actially do exist. You started discussing the merits of the rules, not that the rules exist or not. You asked where people got the idea that it was in the rules in 4E, and I showed you where in the rules that tells DMs how to handle things that the rules do not cover.

In fact, there is a small section on how to make houserules in the DMG as well.  Clearly, that is what is intended, to make the game to your liking, is it not?

This has nothing to do with  editions or other games.  The rules support what you said they did not.

In fact, the page clearly states that if a situation comes up that we do not cover, here is how to handle that.

The page shows the DM how to handle a character that has written that he was a Blacksmith prior to adventuring if that where to come up in the coruse of the game.  Are you saying that they page does not do that at all?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 27, 2009)

I think the statement:

"It is difficult to achieve verisimilitude when you dislike the rules of a game system"

is more true than:

"4E lacks verisimiliitude"


----------



## rjdafoe (Feb 27, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I think the statement:
> 
> "It is difficult to achieve verisimilitude when you dislike the rules of a game system"
> 
> ...




I agree 100%.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 27, 2009)

Rel said:


> Verisimilitude is very important to me and I really like 4e (for the record verisimilitude was important to me when I ran 3e as well and it worked fine then too).  I just happen to think that very little verisimilitude flows from the rules of a game.



Same here. 

While I've frequently gamed with people who enjoyed extrapolating from the rules for fun and profit, in the end it was story and character that made the campaign believable to them.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2009)

Just so you can follow what was posted and what is being argued...



Thasmodious said:


> I'm with scribble, in that this is much more videogame like to me than *the way 4e handles it, which is "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined."* 4e embraces (within a D&D system anyway) freedom both for players, who mechanically define their characters abilities as adventurers but are unrestricted elsewhere and don't have to give up effectiveness as adventurers to color their character; and for DMs in putting the game world back in their hands as opposed to the "hands" of the rules system.







Imaro said:


> Where does 4e state "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined.". Seriously, I see fans of 4e state this like there is a section in the book that states this when there isn't. It is a houserule not a part of the actual game.




I have seen quite a few proponents for 4e claim that this exact method is how 4e handles skills that are not listed in the gamebooks... I am arguing it is not how 4e officially handles PC's having skills that are not in the book, plain and simple it is a houserule.  You seem to be arguing that it gives rules for ad-hoc actions... again, not what I am arguing against.  Now that that is clear I will respond to your post...



rjdafoe said:


> No not exactly what was said, but that the rules you said that did not exist, actially do exist. You started discussing the merits of the rules, not that the rules exist or not. You asked where people got the idea that it was in the rules in 4E, and I showed you where in the rules that tells DMs how to handle things that the rules do not cover.




 No, the rules as stated above in the post I was arguing against is not a rule in 4e... you are showing something totally different than what Thasmodius stated was the way they were handled in 4e.  As far as the merits, I started discussing them because they are not the same thing as stated above, and was trying to, perhaps poorly, show you that.  I never said 4e doesn't tell one how to handles actions the rules do not cover.



rjdafoe said:


> In fact, there is a small section on how to make houserules in the DMG as well.  Clearly, that is what is intended, to make the game to your liking, is it not?




Yep, and I stated the rule Thasmodius stated was not in 4e, and that it was a houserule... I don't see how this in anyway goes against what I said.



rjdafoe said:


> This has nothing to do with  editions or other games.  The rules support what you said they did not.
> 
> In fact, the page clearly states that if a situation comes up that we do not cover, here is how to handle that.




Sure does and it does not state ... *"write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined."*




rjdafoe said:


> The page shows the DM how to handle a character that has written that he was a Blacksmith prior to adventuring if that where to come up in the coruse of the game.  Are you saying that they page does not do that at all?




Now, my question is does it handle it in the same way that Thasmodius states above... if not I rest my case.  Does it in fact state if you want a background skill, write it on your sheet and the DM will come up with a system to determine it's effectiveness in gameplay... or does it say hey, here's a way to resolve any ad-hoc action you might want to try that there's no skill for.  There's a subtle difference there.

EDIT:  The funny thing is that I have rpg's where it is an actual rule that a PC can have a "specialized" skill they made up that gives them the same advantage (bonus to a roll) as a normal skill, but then if D&D 4e had that as an actual rule... a character might end up unbalanced in gameplay.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> _snip_




I think you're taking this way too seriously. Its better to just lighten up and enjoy life.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I think you're taking this way too seriously. Its better to just lighten up and enjoy life.




You know what... you're absolutely right...


----------



## rjdafoe (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Sure does and it does not state ... *"write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined."*
> 
> Now, my question is does it handle it in the same way that Thasmodius states above... if not I rest my case. Does it in fact state if you want a background skill, write it on your sheet and the DM will come up with a system to determine it's effectiveness in gameplay... or does it say hey, here's a way to resolve any ad-hoc action you might want to try that there's no skill for. There's a subtle difference there.
> 
> EDIT: The funny thing is that I have rpg's where it is an actual rule that a PC can have a "specialized" skill they made up that gives them the same advantage (bonus to a roll) as a normal skill, but then if D&D 4e had that as an actual rule... a character might end up unbalanced in gameplay.




You seem to want the rules to say exactly what you stated. I will grant you that it does not say what you EXACTLY, word for word state. The fact that this section deals with what you want, is why it fits. What i am explaining is this is why 4E people say what you arrtibute them to saying.  The subtle different, to me, does not matter.  The rules do, what the rules do.  

But I guess we will agree to disagree. I see openeness, where I think , you see narrowness.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Yep, and I stated the rule Thasmodius stated was not in 4e, and that it was a houserule... I don't see how this in anyway goes against what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are too hung up on looking for RAW, bullet pointed statements.  If my using quotes threw you off and you thought I was quoting the DMG, I apologize, I was not.  I was using quotes to mark off the thought process.  The DMG does not explicitly state "make up skills and add them to the sheet".  What it does is lay out the intent of the flexible rules system of 4e throughtout the DMG.  Some highlights:

pg 10-11, in Party Background, Campaign Details and Using Character Backgrounds, DMs are encouraged to work out a great number of details with the players and to reward them for those details by creating situations where they will see value in gameplay.  



> If your players create detailed backgrounds for their characters and their group, reward their efforts. Use their backgrounds to craft quests and adventures. Invent situations where their backgrounds are useful. Let the character who was raised by a blacksmith charm some important information out of the baroness’s blacksmith— or notice an important fact how a metal lock was forged. Give the characters important information they know because of their past history, such as the location of a particular shrine or magical location that appears in the lore of their original homeland. - DMG 11




pg 28 is about Improvisation and saying "yes" to your players.  ("I want my character to be an accomplished blacksmith."  "YES")

pg 42 entirely covers HOW to resolve any situation relating to background details that needs a die roll to resolve.  

pg 72 Skill challenges for multiple die rolls, utilizing the system or using aspects of your background in skill challenges, where rolls are required.  For example, does the blacksmith know something relevant to the challenge only a blacksmith migh tknow?  Does said blacksmith gain the group a success by charming the baroness's blacksmith.

pg 189 Creating Houserules encourages their use and gives guidelines for building good houserules when needed.


----------



## avin (Feb 27, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> But I guess we will agree to disagree. I see openeness, where I think , you see narrowness.




And I see more work for the DM (me) improvising rules.

Dear Wotc, put back professions in my 4E game, kthxbai...


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2009)

avin said:


> And I see more work for the DM (me) improvising rules.
> 
> Dear Wotc, put back professions in my 4E game, kthxbai...




Did yo honestly have characters routinely making profession checks for some reason? (I really want to know... it seems odd to me.)


As far as more work for the DM though... I don't agree. Again for someone like me (and maybe it's because I grew up in the earlier game doing it this way) it seems like more work having to account for the "official" suggestions for things that don't come up as often?


----------



## avin (Feb 27, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Did yo honestly have characters routinely making profession checks for some reason? (I really want to know... it seems odd to me.)
> 
> 
> As far as more work for the DM though... I don't agree. Again for someone like me (and maybe it's because I grew up in the earlier game doing it this way) it seems like more work having to account for the "official" suggestions for things that don't come up as often?




In fact, yes. 

Last 3.5 campaign, for example, my brother was a blacksmith and insisted in doing small fixes to his armor at night, on their camp. He wanted to roll dice every single night. Well, his taste...

Another player, a druid, insisted to be a baker. 

My last 3.5 char, a FIGHTER, (always caps for D&D Fighters!) was a gladiator who finished up in Sigil as a Chef. I tested my skills for pleasing high costumers. The DM allowed me to use this as as a class skill.

In my experience, professions help a lot from the roleplaying point of view and I miss having it on 4E instead of improvising all the time. This is more work for me. I hate to improvise rules (except in GURPS) and rather spend my time improvising roleplaying and forked paths on my campaigns.

By the way, the players I'm DMing now (4E) are more of the kick in the door kill and loot type and they don't miss 3.5 professions.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2009)

avin said:


> In fact, yes.
> 
> Last 3.5 campaign, for example, my brother was a blacksmith and insisted in doing small fixes to his armor at night, on their camp. He wanted to roll dice every single night. Well, his taste...
> 
> ...




That's the craft skill though... Profession lets you spend a week doing your "trade" to earn a 1/2 your roll in GPs.

Which seems contrary to the whole reason people become adventurers... They'd rather find treasure then be a shop keep earing a few gold a week! 

But it goes to show again how different tastes are... To me those skills end up hindering RP... I can't RP a character who repairs his own armor without the profession/craft skill. (Also after a certain level doesn't rolling to repair armor become a moot point?)

So in your campaign could you characters do anything else? Like say playing cards? How did they play cards? Or Dice games? Or Chess or Checkers? What about building a campsite? Or cooking? Or wine tasting? Could any of them do any kind of math? 

Just seems once you go down that road, you have to have an enormouse amount of skills, otherwise things seem... whacky.

To each his own though!


----------



## Rel (Feb 28, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Did yo honestly have characters routinely making profession checks for some reason? (I really want to know... it seems odd to me.)




I did.  And I still do in 4e.  I'll be happy to explain but I'm up WAY later than I should be and I've gotta get up with my daughter in the morning.  I'll post about it over coffee.


----------



## Rel (Feb 28, 2009)

*sips coffee*  Ah.  That's better.

So yeah, in my various 3.x games I had players who took Profession skills.  They didn't do it (generally) in order to make extra money, although I recall a few times when they did that when they were in a town for a few weeks.  They usually took some ranks in it as a way to describe a profession that their character was engaged in prior to starting their adventuring careers.  If that strikes you as the mark of somebody to whom backstory and characterization is more important than PC optimization, you'd be right.  That's just how they role. (haha)

However, since that was important to them, I would make sure to include opportunities for those professions to come into play.  The PC who used to be an inkeeper would notices that the guy who was supposed to be the inkeeper wasn't doing the job right (cuz he was an assassin).  Now of course in 3.x that PC had ranks in Innkeeper.  And if another PC also used to be an inkeeper then we'd know which one had the better chance to notice that assassin based on who had a higher skill.  So there was a mechanical representation of a trait that wasn't essential to adventuring.

Now obviously 4e did away with this.  And I understand why.  I just happen not to like it.  I'm not a stickler for mechanical representations of everything, which is a big reason that I like the more open architecture of 4e.  But in this instance I wanted that.  Luckily for me this was the easiest house rule I think I've ever come up with for any game (and I've come up with quite a few):

_At character creation the player answers two questions.

"What did your character do for a living before taking up a life of adventure?"

"What does your character do to pass the time when not adventuring?"

The answer to each of these questions becomes an additional Trained skill.  The stat appropriate to this skill will be agreed upon between player and GM.  At the discretion of the GM the player may, at each 4th level (4th, 8th, 12th, etc.), add another such skill or take Skill Focus in an existing background skill._

That's it.  It gives me a mechanical representation, a number to roll with, if needed.  It also gives me a way to map things that the PC has a reason to be good at in the case where I want to add a circumstance bonus to another skill.  For example if the PC is attempting a History check by doing research in a library and one of the PC's used to work in a library, I may give them a +2 to the roll.  Because I've given it structure and not just left it up to the player to describe their employment history, it assures that they have roughly equal chances for these skills to come into play.

And they do!  I've got one PC who used to work as a stonecutter in a quarry.  His character has been able to discern all kinds of things about how and when the passageways were dug in a mine the PC's recently travelled through.  Obviously the same effect could be achieved without having an exact skill bonus determined.  But I've learned that my group has the most fun when things like these are determined by rolling because with the chance for failure comes the greatest sense of reward.


----------

