# A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been



## Mercurius

A thought came to me a couple days ago that I was planning on posting about, but got distracted by Snowpocalypse. A common question and ongoing point of debate is why 4E hasn't been as popular as it should/could have been, what the root causes are, etc. I don't want to re-hash this endless debate except to bring forth a possibility that I have not seen discussed. To put it another way, this is another factor among a few core ones that I think has crippled 4E from early on.

4E doesn't have an ongoing, supported setting. It has the default Nentir Vale setting that is touched upon in various products; it has three settings that have received minor support in the form of three books each; it also has a kind of default vibe or atmosphere, a "meta-setting" that includes the new planar structure and the mythology that's been presented in the "theme" books (e.g. _Underdark, Plane Above, _etc). But it doesn't have a setting that is supported in an ongoing way, that is being explored and developed through supplements.

I know, I know, this has been proven to be financially lacking - setting books are just too specific; you have a diehard core that will buy most of everything for a given setting (setting junkies and DMs using that setting), but the vast majority of players don't buy anything. But I was thinking about how businesses often have products on huge sales that they don't make a profit on but serve the purpose of bringing customers in. Think of the Best Buy "Black Friday" sales - they always have a few items on sale for dirt cheap that you know they aren't making anything on, but what they are doing is bringing people in, softening them up with a good deal, and potentially selling them other items that aren't on sale. Obviously settings don't work quite that way, but my point is that every product that a game company produces doesn't have to generate the same profit margin to serve a larger purpose.

It is my opinion--or rather more like a hypothesis--that a setting that is provided with ongoing support generates secondary and tertiary sales that aren't easy to track. It brings the game alive and provides a kind of exemplar of what the game looks like from those that produce it. 4E has the Nentir Vale but it doesn't go far enough. IMO, they should have produced a short gazetteer in 2008 that gives the bare bones of the setting, then come out with a hardcover (or box set) the following year, with ongoing supplements and adventures equating to as many as roughly one product per month.

I would argue that part of the success of Pathfinder is its support of Golarion. I have no idea how many copies the Chronicles books sell, and they are probably much less than, say, the _Advanced Player's Guide _or the _Bestiary I _or _II. _But it isn't about raw sales, it is about bringing the game world alive and keeping it alive. I also think that Paizo has proven the old adage wrong, that producing setting material and adventures is not profitable. They have struck gold with their subscription model and backed it up with quality products, and quality - if it is marketed well - _always _does well.

Wizards of the Coast has teased us with Nentir Vale, most recently with the vanishing of the _Nentir Vale Gazetteer. _I don't even think Nentir Vale is that great of a setting - I like it, it is fine, but for one we simply don't have enough to go on to compare it to Golarion or Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun. It hasn't really come alive yet.

The _Neverwinter Campaign Guide _may be a step in the right direction. Why? Because one of the biggest mistakes WotC made with their 4E treatment of the Forgotten Realms, imo, was not to explicate it much. They came out with a few books and had some ongoing Dragon articles, but they didn't really show us why this new Realms was a good idea, what potential it had as a D&D setting. They have us a brief sketch with some crunch, and essentially said, "Here's the new Realms, like it or not this is what we're giving you this time around, no more or less." My sense is that if they had been willing to develop it a bit, maybe even just a supplement once a quarter, it would have done better and potentially generated more secondary and tertiary sales.

Maybe it isn't too late. Maybe Neverwinter can bring the new Realms alive, and maybe WotC pulled the _Nentir Vale Gazetteer _because they've got something larger planned for later this year or next (can we hope for a box set?). As with most things WotC these days, I'm not counting on it but one can hope...


----------



## Moleculo

4E isn't as popular as it could have been because it doesn't smell like D&D. I'm not sure if that's really the fault of the lack of setting, though the absence of a touchstone certainly could contribute to its sterility.


----------



## Nagol

Regarding Neverwinter, the campaign guide is tied to two other cross media projects: a boardgame and a MMO.

I wouldn't expect more from that campaign supplement than any other provided by WotC.  In fact, I'd expect less future development as the tie-ins might suffer.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Moleculo said:


> 4E isn't as popular as it could have been because it doesn't smell like D&D. I'm not sure if that's really the fault of the lack of setting,




It's largely because of the cheap Chinese ink.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur

I'm not sure why people continue to post these types of threads other than a sick fascination with watching the edition wars start all over again. People just start to flame on the editions, which leads to people flaming on each other, which leads to the threads being closed.

I personally like all editions of D&D, they are all fun to me and each has it's own flavor. Role playing is role playing to me and the edition is just about different mechanics. I won't say anything disparaging about anyone here nor will I say anything disparaging about various editions.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Moleculo said:


> 4E isn't as popular as it could have been because it doesn't smell like D&D.




Thanks for the drive-by post. 


On topic:

I think there is something for this. 4E, adventure wise, is a really mixed bag. An AP, three campaign worlds, the Chaos Scar, Nentir Vale (a pseudo campaign setting, but getting better)  but none of them is really really done, to the level previous editions have done them. Now I am the first to say I don't want to see an old campaign world redone again, I am pretty happy with how much has been put out for the three campaign settings.

What 4E needs is a new campaign setting, one that uses more 4E stuff. FR works in 4E, and I guess Eberron does to(really don't follow it at all) and Dark Sun is very god with the new cosmology. Really really good, but I would like to see a campaign setting made up of 10-12 books including a DM guide, Player's guide (with Themes!!!!!), 1-2 monster books, and then a few books focusing n different areas. 

WOTC has great designers, and I would like to see what they can do. 

Also, I said and mean BOOKS, not just DDI stuff.  Putting stuff like this on DDI only is like selling to the choir.


----------



## 1Mac

> I'm not sure why people continue to post these types of threads other than a sick fascination with watching the edition wars start all over again.



If this thread denigrates into a river of flame, it's not the OP's fault. It's an interesting observation, and I don't see it as a criticism of 4E itself.


> What 4E needs is a new campaign setting, one that uses more 4E stuff.



I remember this line from when 4E Forgotten Realms was announced. It's seemingly not a bad idea, and I wonder why we haven't heard of a new setting.


----------



## NewJeffCT

I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and have never really been wedded to any setting in particular, and most of the groups I have gamed with have been that way as well (though, one ongoing campaign in one group was set in the Forgotten Realms)  So, I don't know if setting is it.

While I am currently DMing a 4E game and love that it is much easier on the DM than 3E/3.5, I also don't like that they sacrificed a lot of the sacred cows from 30 years of prior editions - alignment, Vancian magic, etc - and, also made some monster abilities less immediately deadly (i.e., the Medusa is you get hit and you're slowed; first failed save you're immobilized, then finally on the second failed save, you're petrified...)  I'm also not sure how much I like the concept of X number of healing surges per day, or healing surges in general.

So, I agree with _*Moleculo*_ above - it doesn't *smell* like D&D to an old timer like me.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I'd agree somewhat with the OP, but with a slant.

1.
I don't think 4e needs a setting, but I do think it needs to be written to feel as though it's for a setting. Too often, and mostly by WotC (3pps are much better about this) 4e seems to be treated as a set of rules and not as elements of storytelling and roleplaying. 

I'm not saying the sytem itself is gamist/simulationist/narrativist here, but I'm saying that the books _FEEL_ like it's written to be a game, rather than rules to describe a magical world.

2. 
I do think that good adventures make for good gaming, and poor adventures the opposite (if your group uses adventures). Because of the way they released 4e (and the whole GSL debacle), 3pps were highly discouraged and inhibited from releasing adventures from the start. WotC released Keep on the Shadowfell, generally regarded by many as not a stellar adventure.

I think that there were very few good adventures early on in 4e's lifecycle, and I think that bad experiences turned a lot of people away.


----------



## pawsplay

I don't think it's a lack of a supported setting. I play Pathfinder and I don't even support the Golarion setting, after all. I would identify:

- Lack of Gygaxian Naturalism
- Competing with a recently published, successful version of the game rather than the degenerate, overpublished gasps of a game in its waning years
- Monomaniacal focus on combat and skill set pieces instead of continuity
- Indigestible rules bulk even at 1st level


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur

I hope you are right about that 1Mac, but it takes a lot less than that to start an edition war in the forums. 

As far as more stuff for 4E to make it more popular, perhaps bring back some of the other settings that people used to play in and love. Ala Ravenloft as not only a board game, but as an actual campaign setting. A few others off the top of my head would be Dragonlance, the Oriental adventures settings, and the Arabian setting. I remember back in the day when I played AD&D 2E and loved those settings along with my old staple of FR.

I know we can always home-brew stuff, but bringing back the classic old settings and worlds would be pretty sweet without having to convert them over from the older editions.


----------



## Nebten

I do agree with a new 4th ed orginal campaign setting. Sadly with FR and DS, the books were so skimpy that many people went back to previous edition to put some meat on those bones. While the argument out there is that WotC didn't plan out every detail so the DM could do it is fine, but some settings have a certain feel to them. For a DM to obtain that "feeling" other sources of information would be useful. In my observation, in FR games I've been in, the DM has a stack AD&D campaign suppliments next to him. For a DS game I'm currently in, the DM went through my old box set and re-read the novels. 

One (of many) hang ups is that we maybe trying to shoe-horn old memories into new mechanics.


----------



## DaveMage

I don't think a setting has anything to do with why many 3.5 fans failed to embrace 4E.

However, I *do* think a 4E based setting would have helped keep 4E players more interested.  

What they should have done is another setting search.  That was fun!


----------



## Greg K

NewJeffCT said:


> While I am currently DMing a 4E game and love that it is much easier on the DM than 3E/3.5, I also don't like that they sacrificed a lot of the sacred cows from 30 years of prior editions - alignment, Vancian magic, etc




It is going to depend on individual groups and players.  Among the people I know, the above was not an issue for staying away.  Many of the sacred cows 
being removed was viewed as a good thing.


> - and, also made some monster abilities less immediately deadly (i.e., the Medusa is you get hit and you're slowed; first failed save you're immobilized, then finally on the second failed save, you're petrified...)  I'm also not sure how much I like the concept of X number of healing surges per day




The SSSOD for the Medusa is getting into the things that kept all, but a couple of people I know.
Other things include:
a. over consolidation of skills (in our opinion)
b. the removal of skill points
c. a lot of the exception based design elements that come across as completely gamist (e.g., The Warden's con bonus to AC or a certain style using Con bonus to hit, etc.)
d. hit points becoming more abstract
e. prestige classes and epic destinies needed to play above in  those tiers
f. Things like CAGI
g. different martial classes having different powers to represent similar things (e.g, two weapon fighting) and other martial classes having to wait for appropriate powers to represent fighting styles

and, now with essentials
e. magic missile going back to no hit roll
f. save for half damage
g. some of  the classes


----------



## Dannager

pawsplay said:


> - Indigestible rules bulk even at 1st level



Huh, that's actually one of the reasons I switched to 4e; teaching new players the 3.5 rules right out of the gate was becoming a pain. Teaching the 4e rules, on the other hand, was very straightforward.

I don't think that this is really a supportable position for one to take. If the 4e rules were indigestible at low levels, the 3.5 rules (and, by extension, Pathfinder rules) must be seen as downright unpalatable.


----------



## Diamond Cross

And also not abandoned 3.5e so soon after the release.

Despite the flood of material from other producers. there should be more than just a couple of years of support for each edition.

Changing things so soon only encourages the pressure to buy things just to have it to complete a set because it's trendy to do the new and shiny thing.

And at those prices it's pretty expensive to keep buying books.


----------



## Greg K

Dannager said:


> Huh, that's actually one of the reasons I switched to 4e; teaching new players the 3.5 rules right out of the gate was becoming a pain. Teaching the 4e rules, on the other hand, was very straightforward.




I don't know. Outside of magic, 3.5 is pretty easy to teach.  The player  describes what they want to do (e.g, attack, bullrush, disarm, dodge) and the DM can apply the appropriate maneuver.  Since there are no powers, the DM does not have to worry how one class fights two handed vs. how another does it.


----------



## Stormonu

I don't think *not* having a default setting beyond the nebulous Nentir Vale has hurt 4E (I bought Pathfinder but have not interest in Golarion as a comparison), but I would think that a strong setting would have helped it.

Still, part of the reason many folks choose D&D in the first place is to make their own stuff up - including their own game world.  Or at least, that was one of my reasons.

And WotC's had plenty of chances to hit gold with a 4E campaign setting already - FR, Eberron & Dark Sun.  If they haven't "been a success" already (and from posts its sound like all but FR were well-accepted), I doubt WotC's going to have much luck with the next world they put out - original or relaunch.


----------



## Steel_Wind

1.    You cannot sell over 80 hardcover books to people in the space of six years -- then come right on back to the same market -- and try to sell them similar books (often titled the same), which are incompatible with the 80+ books you just sold.  You can try it – but you should not be surprised when a large number of them say “no, and HELL no.” Those fans now believe that you are doing to do it to them again in about four to five years, too.

2.    The game was released too early for a large segment of the existing customer base. That is not a mere "opinion"; based upon the market results -- it is clearly an objective fact. By releasing 4th ed too early, WotC created an opening that a well positioned competitor could take advantage of using the OGL against Wizards.

3.    It gets worse when your first announced plan for the new edition involves cancelling the print edition of _Dungeon_ and _Dragon _magazine. You just antagonized the hell out a large segment of your existing hardcore customer base  with that announcement and the game isn't due out for a year.

4.    Matters aren’t improved when the company you licensed to publish _Dungeon_ and _Dragon _magazine, who by virtue of their monthly columns, quality product  and prominent participation on the community message forums at both ENWorld and Paizo.com, developed a closer and more personable relationship with fans than WotC's own employees and designers did. WotC didn’t (and still does not) make those same efforts to cultivate their  customers’ goodwill to the degree that Paizo does. That is an objective fact. 

We can argue over the why later -- but the facts are real. This is the largest fan site for D&D on the internet. I have not seen the current brand manager for D&D post here. *Not even once*. Not even after we called her out on it. 

In contrast, Lisa Stevens, Erik Mona, James Jacobs, and Jason Bulmahn ALL post on ENWorld regularly. They make themselves accessible to their fans as a corporate priority. It's even in the job description that Paizo puts on their website. It matters to them.

5.    When the GSL essentially deep-sixed third party product support for 4th edition? Things went from bad to worse, very quickly. Suddenly, 3rd Edition went from an over-supported game with a glut of products on the market -- to a 4th edition which was a poorly supported game in terms of adventures and setting material. This transformation occurred essentially overnight, I might add.

6.    When the company that was previously publishing  _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ – and who as official licenses had significant credibility as “real owners of D&D”, leveraged their customers’ goodwill and came out with a product that DID NOT wipe out the usefulness of those 80+ hardcover books? That was going to inevitably split the market, no matter what WotC did or would do.

Based on the above six factors, 4th edition could have been the greatest and best designed role-playing game of all time. It didn’t matter. There were too many missteps on the marketing front before the thing had even been released. WotC hobbled the brand out of the gate with poor decisions at a management level. 

You will note I have not yet even talked about the changes to the underlying game. As it happened, the changes were perceived by SOME fans of prior editions of D&D as being too sharp a break with the traditions of the game. In and of itself, this might not have turned into a huge issue had  the third parties come on board and had Paizo not moved from being their largest accessory publisher to their biggest competitor. 

But that didn’t happen. When the design differences of the game are added to the six reasons numerated above, WotC found it had lost a third  -- and now going on about one-half of its customers from the 3rd edition era. 

If I lost half my clients? I’d be fired on the spot. And I’d deserve it, too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> To put it another way, this is another factor among a few core ones that I think has crippled 4E from early on.




The reason nobody brings this up as a potential factor in 4Ed's popularity or lack thereof is simple: I don't think most non-adopters see it as a factor at all.  (It wasn't for me, anyway.)

We've been pretty clear about our likes and dislikes Re: 4Ed (see above)- and if setting support had been a meaningful factor, I'm certain someone would have mentioned it at some point in the edition wars.


----------



## BryonD

I don't think the setting issue has anything to do with it.
And I can't think of anyone else who doesn't like 4E that has even ever mentioned this as an issue.


----------



## avin

It has nothing to do with setting.

Lots of 3.5 fans were pissed with initial 4E PR "3.5 is bad and wrong". Wotc fault.

And 4E killed a lot of disbelief suspension, changed classical lore, etc etc etc.

Like or not I think most people think lack of a setting wasn't what keep some people away from it.


----------



## Steel_Wind

BryonD said:


> I don't think the setting issue has anything to do with it.
> And I can't think of anyone else who doesn't like 4E that has even ever mentioned this as an issue.




I've mentioned it. Often.

Most of the fans of Paizo's Adventure Paths have mentioned it too.

Lack of a robust third party support (and that is very much a part of the adventure/setting material) is frequently mentioned in threads of this kind. It's lumped in and is a subset of the "OGL vs GSL" discussion. 

Usually, you move to a new edition for fear of the prior edition being marooned and no longer supported.

Near as I can discern, the prior edition of the game is currently better supported than its sequel. 

That's a distinction with a difference.


----------



## Dannager

I think people are looking for rational business explanations where none exist. If 4e is not as popular as it could have been (and, really, who is to say how popular it could have been?), I wager it's because they changed some stuff, some people didn't like those changes, and pretty soon it became sort of internet cool for those "in the know" to bash WotC. It's easy to hate on the big guy, but then again, it merely serves as continued evidence that the big guy is in fact still the big guy.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Steel_Wind said:


> Usually, you move to a new edition for fear of the prior edition being marooned and no longer supported.
> 
> Near as I can discern, the prior edition of the game is currently better supported than its sequel.
> 
> That's a distinction with a difference.




Agreed (again).

I know when Necromancer Games was a strident supporter of 4e I was looking forward to it. I love their stuff.

When they, and almost every other 3pp supporter, bailed due to WotC's mismanagement of the GSL in a timely manner and lack of what they saw as reasonable terms for publishing...well, I wasn't very excited for opportunites to play.



Add that to everything you mentioned (and throw in shoddy quality of the emags, especially at the beginning and "greasy gamer hands" smudging their low quality ink) and basically, the whole launch was a disaster.



I like how you point out that it's not about the GAME of 4e. So often, people tend to assume that 4e and WotC are the same. I remember when 4e launched that I was moderately interested, and was a potential customer. But all the behaviors mentioned (and there are more) basically drove me away from WotC moreso than the actual edition. 

Hell, I own more 4e products from 3pps than I do from WotC. That's not by accident.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Dannager said:


> I think people are looking for rational business explanations where none exist. If 4e is not as popular as it could have been (and, really, who is to say how popular it could have been?), I wager it's because they changed some stuff, some people didn't like those changes, and pretty soon it became sort of internet cool for those "in the know" to bash WotC. It's easy to hate on the big guy, but then again, it merely serves as continued evidence that the big guy is in fact still the big guy.




Or you could hate the big guy because he turned from the cool guy that got along with everyone into a giant bully.


----------



## Phat Lute

I think it's a combination of many, many things.  You can't break it down to just one major contributing factor.

They sacrificed a lot of sacred cows.  And really, I think the tree of D&D gaming needed to be watered in the blood of a few of those cows.  I like 4E, and don't know if I would have if they had changed it _less._  But there were a lot of abrupt changes that were probably jarring for some other longtime fans or players.

Yes, the default setting is less of a setting and more a default collection of themed ideas.  Which is good for the basic game, but then they carried that default collection of ideas over to all of the versions of other settings for this edition of the game.  I understand not wanting to do the same thing they did last time for, say, Forgotten Realms but they basically gave it the points of light treatment of the default game.  So all of the settings have a certain sameness to them.  Dark Sun is different in that it takes "points of light" to the extreme, which is probably why it's so well regarded for this edition.  But even there they just took the default collection of themed ideas and carried them over to a certain degree.

Those two things together would be bad enough for an established brand.

But really, I don't know about the rest of you, but the way that they present and "sell" the game grates on me sometimes.  WotC relies a lot on their game developers to market the game, new products, and changes to the line.  

Which is fine to a point, because gamers like to talk about games with gamers.  They trust the opinion of someone who understands, plays, and genuinely likes the game rather than a stuffed suit.  But there's a reason why these people didn't_ just_ become salespeople, marketing gurus in some other field, or even customer service people.  They just don't seem to think about how things sound sometimes, or about how what they say is going to be parsed bit by bit and come back to haunt them. Or perhaps they're not as adept about thinking in those terms.  Or perhaps it's that they are proud of their work, or utterly convinced that their direction is the best one, and so there's a degree of arrogance in what they say that turns some people off.  

For some reason WotC line developers for D&D seem to me like they get stuck in this weird place between "director of marketing" and "game-developing gamer" that looks a lot like someone stuffing both feet in their mouth at the same time while inviting random people to walk up and kick them in the kidneys.  I think the responsibility for promoting the game needs to be in better hands, and in other hands, rather than in the hands of the same person who is responsible for the changes the company is trying to sell.  Really, for D&D, WotC handles marketing and communication like a mom-and-pop operation.  The "owner/operator" of the game line is handling all of the hype and explanation of the product.

Now, combine this with my first two points, about sacred cows and not having a default setting but a default set of assumptions exported to all settings, and it's an uphill battle they're fighting.  Things can very easily take a turn for the worse with these problems.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Mercurius said:


> I would argue that part of the success of Pathfinder is its support of Golarion. I have no idea how many copies the Chronicles books sell, and they are probably much less than, say, the _Advanced Player's Guide _or the _Bestiary I _or _II. _But it isn't about raw sales, it is about bringing the game world alive and keeping it alive. I also think that Paizo has proven the old adage wrong, that producing setting material and adventures is not profitable. They have struck gold with their subscription model and backed it up with quality products, and quality - if it is marketed well - _always _does well.




I am NOT a setting person. Well that's not true, I liked Greyhawk but that was about it. I liked FR when it was a series of Elminster articles in Dragon Magazine and the first grey box. One of the reasons that I'm invested in Golarion is that I got in on the ground floor so to speak. The other reason is that the world is defined / fleshed out via the AP's more than anything. 

I tend to read the complete AP's over and over again in preparation for running them and the Paizo crew really does give you a very good feel of whatever part of the world the AP's are taking place in. There's a lot of good background stuff there that yes, some of which the PC's may never know or find out about. But a good DM will make the material his own and find a way to disseminate that info so that it's relevant to your players. Not all of your  players will retain this stuff, but for the ones that do? You have something with which to feed their curiosity and interest in the world. 

Best part it's not stuff that I had to write myself, so I'm only so vested in it. If the players dont give a crap about the details I dont feel like I've wasted my time developing something that no one really gives a crap about. 

That's what I love about Golarion. And I'm not a big settings guy at all.


----------



## Ahnehnois

A large percentage of gamers use homebrewed settings or rule-free setting books.

With regards to Pathfinder, I'm sure it's a good quality setting, but Golarion is of no use to me and seeing references to it in rpg products is a mild turnoff. For the broader market, I think it does make some difference however, given the fairly common reports of people converting PF material to 4e rules (who's doing the opposite?).

When you get down to it, 3e didn't have a real strong setting either. (How many people played in Grayhawk? How many books for it specifically were released? Not big numbers on either count). Some rpgs might be strongly tied to their setting, but D&D has so many successful settings in its history that it has transcended any one fantasy world. I doubt creating better settings would have changed things. The success or failure of an rpg is more tied to the substance of its rules than the style of its settings, and it will succeed or fail on the merits of those rules (and other business factors; marketing, price, et cetera).


----------



## korjik

I do believe that the lack of setting support is a problem getting new players into D&D. It is made a much worse problem by the lack of good adventures.

I doubt that many starting players are players coming into an established game/group. Alot of them are going to be someone who wants to try out something new (to them) so they pick up D&D. Giving a good starter world to use as a framework, and a couple good dungeons to hack things up in will give the DM time to learn to run the game. 

There is also the ability of a campaign world to be a source of ideas for a new DM or player. Good art, good stories, and good descriptions can all be catalysts for creating a character or an adventure, or even be the core of an entirely new world. One of the biggest parts of a D&D campaign setting is the example it provides as to what a DM can do.

The Nentir Vale was a good example of this. It had a fairly well detailed out town to base out of and to build up, and it had a wide open area with alot of little campaign hooks to make dozens of adventures out of. That could have, should have, been made into dozens of good adventures. It wasnt, and isnt going to be.

My personal opinion is that anything that makes it easier to DM is something that gets players into the game and adds to the total numbers of players. People who try out D&D and have a bad experience will not come back. That is why I have been saying that D&D needs a 'good how to make an adventure' guide and a 'how to make a campaign world' guide far far more than it needs plant-people and crystal-people. Wilden dont get people into D&D, DMs who's group goes 'That was fun, when are we playing again!' do.


----------



## korjik

Aberzanzorax said:


> Agreed (again).
> 
> I know when Necromancer Games was a strident supporter of 4e I was looking forward to it. I love their stuff.
> 
> When they, and almost every other 3pp supporter, bailed due to WotC's mismanagement of the GSL in a timely manner and lack of what they saw as reasonable terms for publishing...well, I wasn't very excited for opportunites to play.
> 
> 
> 
> Add that to everything you mentioned (and throw in shoddy quality of the emags, especially at the beginning and "greasy gamer hands" smudging their low quality ink) and basically, the whole launch was a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you point out that it's not about the GAME of 4e. So often, people tend to assume that 4e and WotC are the same. I remember when 4e launched that I was moderately interested, and was a potential customer. But all the behaviors mentioned (and there are more) basically drove me away from WotC moreso than the actual edition.
> 
> Hell, I own more 4e products from 3pps than I do from WotC. That's not by accident.




I would give you xp, but I gots to spread it around first.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I dont have anything particularly against the ruleset, it has some quirks that could use revising, but it is easy to run at least. It is the attitude that the management of D&D has consistently shown that really grates on me. From the announcement, where 3.5 was bad n'kay, to the not delivering on the products announced, to the rather poor support the game has seen, I just dont feel like I want to spend my money on a low quality product from a company that used to put out good books.


----------



## Mercurius

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'd agree somewhat with the OP, but with a slant.
> 
> 1. I don't think 4e needs a setting, but I do think it needs to be written to feel as though it's for a setting. Too often, and mostly by WotC (3pps are much better about this) 4e seems to be treated as a set of rules and not as elements of storytelling and roleplaying.
> 
> I'm not saying the sytem itself is gamist/simulationist/narrativist here, but I'm saying that the books _FEEL_ like it's written to be a game, rather than rules to describe a magical world.
> 
> 2. I do think that good adventures make for good gaming, and poor adventures the opposite (if your group uses adventures). Because of the way they released 4e (and the whole GSL debacle), 3pps were highly discouraged and inhibited from releasing adventures from the start. WotC released Keep on the Shadowfell, generally regarded by many as not a stellar adventure.
> 
> I think that there were very few good adventures early on in 4e's lifecycle, and I think that bad experiences turned a lot of people away.




Yes, these are good points - I think you may be right. Actually, your first point is very much along the lines of what I was trying to get at in terms of "secondary" and "tertiary" impact on sales. This also goes for creativity; one of the reasons _The Lord of the Rings _was so good was that the setting was/is very alive, very dense and layered. Even though only a small fraction of the world was exposed in the actual book, it "carried" it, like the tip and body of an iceberg. 

On the other hand, I think this is what they've _tried _to do but evidently it hasn't worked out that well, which is why I am suggesting that it would have been wiser to actually explicate the default setting rather than just imply its contours.



DaveMage said:


> I don't think a setting has anything to do with why many 3.5 fans failed to embrace 4E.
> 
> However, I *do* think a 4E based setting would have helped keep 4E players more interested.
> 
> What they should have done is another setting search.  That was fun!




Yeah, that would have been good. As for your first point, I think you are largely correct, but it might also be a momentum thing: the more people like and play a game, the more people try it out (and like and play it). The reviews were so mixed from the get-go that it was like trying to reach your hand into a beehive to taste the honey while the bees were swarming - any "honey" that you might taste is tempered by getting stung.



Stormonu said:


> I don't think *not* having a default setting beyond the nebulous Nentir Vale has hurt 4E (I bought Pathfinder but have not interest in Golarion as a comparison), but I would think that a strong setting would have helped it.
> 
> Still, part of the reason many folks choose D&D in the first place is to make their own stuff up - including their own game world.  Or at least, that was one of my reasons.
> 
> And WotC's had plenty of chances to hit gold with a 4E campaign setting already - FR, Eberron & Dark Sun.  If they haven't "been a success" already (and from posts its sound like all but FR were well-accepted), I doubt WotC's going to have much luck with the next world they put out - original or relaunch.




My point is that they didn't develop any 4E setting enough, and they didn't create anything new. There were all pretty much just hit and runs, except for Nentir Vale, and that hasn't really been explicated.

4E _is _a new take on D&D, but WotC hasn't really created and published a setting that exploits its strengths. I have never used a pre-published setting but I buy tons of setting material because I both like to read and browse it, but it is also good for "idea-mining." WotC tried a very different route with 4E but instead of developing an intricate setting to say "This is how we see the game being, this is what 4E means to us" they just implied and teased at the edges of the Nentir Vale.


----------



## Mercurius

And just to be clear, because I've seen repeated misunderstandings of my original post: I am *not *saying that this is the only or biggest factor, but that it is one of many core factors, but one that has been little discussed because it is rather subtle and, as I said, has more of a "secondary" or "tertiary" impact on sales and the game's popularity.


----------



## Diamond Cross

I do know that Greyhawk was barely mentioned in the core 3.5 books, but I don't remember if there was any books published for the setting like there was for Forgotten Realms.


----------



## jimmifett

I'll go ahead and get out of the way that I disagree with the initial premise that it's not popular as it could be, at least in my neck of the woods it is pretty big, with pathfinder in second due to lack of DMs for whatever reason.

As for having it's own setting... Nentir Vale is a nice small area that can be dropped into just about anywhere, and I personally think it's lack of definition helps DMs try thier hand at world building. At the same time, there were plenty of vocal ppl that disliked the plethora of books for 3.x. Do we really want a repeat of having a bunch of books for a setting you may not be interested in? Potential wasted development efforts when there is already plenty of material for existing settings, and some of the most popular have been condensed to the important crunch parts of 4e. For fluff, hit up ebay for old books.

I really think wotc took a decent enough minimalist job with a setting approach for 4e's points of light. It's really idea books to help you create your own world. You have 1 book for each major region, sometimes 2 or more packed in a book. You have the 3 planes books cover the elemental chaos, the astral sea, and the feywild/shadow dark in just enough detail to get you thinking your own stuff up. You've got the underdark covered with a book.

There are those that loved Eberron when it was new bc it didn't have every little niche filled in already like FR. Eberron is still widely open. Now bc PoL doesn't have _enough_ detail pre-filled in, ppl dismiss it and 4e?

I've been tempted to use the PF in 4e just to throw some new stuff at my players.

Experienced DMs, and really, how many of us aren't at LEAST 30 by now (if not mid to late 20s), don't need all the details filled in for them. A plot hook here, a interesting bullet point in a player backstory there, and the world takes off from there.

I see it all as a case of someone moving someone else's cheese


----------



## Mercurius

Steel Wind, post #19 is a really good summation. Actually, I think Dragon is a good example of what I was talking about in terms of products that a company produces that have low "primary" (and obvious) impact, but a huge secondary/tertiary (and thus subtle) impact. My guess is that Hasbro came in and looked at a bunch of "bottom lines" and said, "Cut everything that doesn't make X-percentage of profit." So there goes Dragon, nixed by the Hasbroian vorpal sword.

And yes, that was a mistake imo.


----------



## Janx

seriously?  Setting support?

I only recently played 4e for a few encounters.

Here's why I didn't buy 4e:

I had already upgraded to 3.5, somewhat begrudgingly

I was playing less than I had been, didn't see the point in investing

I liked the spirit of the pre-4e change talk, but when it came out, there was a lot of "these changes weren't good design" talk that further discouraged me and my friends.

Nobody else I knew was keen to upgrade either (common platform is crucial)

I almost never buy settings books.  I did tend to buy generic splat books.

In 2e (which lasted 12 years) I bought darn near every non-setting specific rule book.  I had thousands of $$$ in books.

In 3e, I only bought what I was actively going to use.

In 3.5, I bought even less.

Chief among the reason was I had enough books.  I didn't need more.

I bet you at least 2 of my reasons apply to other non-4e adopters.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> I don't think that this is really a supportable position for one to take. If the 4e rules were indigestible at low levels, the 3.5 rules (and, by extension, Pathfinder rules) must be seen as downright unpalatable.




Well, goodness, I must be stupid or delusional. Boy, do I have egg on my face.


----------



## Dannager

Aberzanzorax said:


> Or you could hate the big guy because he turned from the cool guy that got along with everyone into a giant bully.



Yeah, see, no, I'm pretty sure that this exact attitude is the result of the internet doing a marvelous job of exaggerating perceptions. WotC has, by and large, made very reasonable business decisions that would be seen as practical and would be supported were they in just about any other industry. There have been a couple of questionable decisions, from a business standpoint, but there have been no cases of WotC swinging its big gorilla arms around and knocking competitors or fans to the ground without due cause.

The fact that you perceive WotC's actions as those of a bully, rather than those of a business operation with the difficult decisions that come along with a business to make is, I'd argue, evidence in favor of my argument rather than evidence against it.


----------



## Dannager

pawsplay said:


> Well, goodness, I must be stupid or delusional. Boy, do I have egg on my face.



See, this is interesting. Someone tells you that they don't feel that your position is supportable, and you jump to playing the victim of an implicit accusation of either being stupid or delusional.

Why isn't your response something along the lines of, "And I disagree: here's why,"?


----------



## Henry

I think Steel Wind's post was an excellent analysis, and one that I happen to agree with, both as a player of Pathfinder AND 4th edition. 

The first two issues? I think WotC could have overcome them, quite frankly. The last four? Those you CAN'T overcome, not in a hobby whose existence depends on grass roots and proselytizers to continue. Lack of a new heavily supported setting? I can't see it, though. What I CAN see, is WotC gutting their OGL support, trying to capture the majority of the market again, going it alone, and getting terrible sales as a result.

I don't consider WotC as TOTALLY ignoring their fanbase, though. People like Chris Perkins & Mike Mearls have made great pains to talk to fans, be visible, and promote through social media the past two years - they haven't been silent. However, it's mostly from the developers we hear -- not the publishers, the brand managers, etc. Hell, the TWO BRAND MANAGERS who actually did come on and try to be accessible... well, I won't say they got canned for doing so, but frankly the timing made WotC as a whole look like jerks. First, WotC acts like they got caught with their proverbial pants down when they realized just how "open" the OGL was; then, Linnae and Scott pushed for a friendlier GSL in the absence of OGL, and get almost no concessions; then, BAM, Linnae's gone, and later BAM, Scott's gone. Yeah, not really friendly to a fanbase of grognards and die-hard kitbashers that they need as their proselytizers. Anyway, I digress on an old issue.

The main cause I see is that the more the holder of D&D does to encourage trust from its fanbase, then the more that fanbase returns that respect with sales and popularity. The more they dodge their fan communities, and do things to shore up piracy and IP rights at the expense of convenience of paying customers, then the more that group of mouthpieces says, _"screw you, we're going where we're appreciated."_

I enjoy the system of 4E, I was a regular book buyer, monthly subscriber at my ten bucks a month -- but over the course of my support, they stopped producing anything but essentials-based stuff, they redesigned very useful web resources to be difficult to use, stopped updating material, and finally took a useful tool and turned it online-only. I canceled in November and haven't looked back. They don't offer me convenience and a reason to see them as more than a business, I don't offer money. Simple.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Dannager said:


> <snip>
> There have been a couple of questionable decisions, from a business standpoint, but there have been no cases of WotC swinging its big gorilla arms around and knocking competitors or fans to the ground without due cause.
> 
> The fact that you perceive WotC's actions as those of a bully, rather than those of a business operation with the difficult decisions that come along with a business to make is, I'd argue, evidence in favor of my argument rather than evidence against it.




You seem like a cool guy, and I'd like to keep this thread civil (I don't think the two of us will have issues with that...I hope that's true of others).

"Knocking competitors to the ground?" "Knocking fans to the ground?"
Are you familair with the GSL initial release and the secondary release (really really really close to the release of the actual sytem)? Do you realize that the 3pps (who admittedly are somewhat parasitic or symbiotic with WotC...I'd argue symbiotic for myself) were pretty well screwed with WotC policies tied to 4e?



It's funny, but, as far as I can tell, WotC's PRIOR EDITION competitor (PAIZO) is doing better than any other CURRENT edition competitor. That tells me they've done a bad job with considering the need and value for a new edition, and/or tells me that a company like Paizo who actually engages with fans has better marketing than the uber $$$ company does.



But, okay, how about "knocking fans to the ground"? Where are the 4e fansites? Dead, or nonexistent, IMO because of WotC's policy of shutting people down. 

Not worth creating a 4e fansite. The legality is harsh, the effort is substantial. The bully might take it away.

I've looked into 4e fansites. I wanted them to exist. They are so minimal, it's embarrasing.  


I'm not using hyperbole here. 

I truly believe that WotC have become a giant bully.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Henry said:


> They don't offer me convenience and a reason to see them as more than a business, I don't offer money. Simple.




THIS is so spot on.

People want to defend WotC as a company with the trite phrase "they're there to make money." 

But what people don't understand is that when they portray themselves as money grabbers without real interest in the game then I DON'T WANNA GIVE THEM MY MONEY.


Be good to your customers, and they just might be good to you back. 

Screw them, and they'll go elsewhere.


Justify abominable corporate practices as much as you like, but customers aren't as stupid as companies believe them to be.


----------



## Matt James

_The popularity of 4e_. The title of the thread is where I had to stop and read closely the contents within the post. Where is the data that supports the popularity (or lack thereof) regarding the edition? What assumptions are being applied to start the conversation this way? I need solid metrics. Anything otherwise is a clear cheap shot at the organization and those who choose to support the game (via buying their products).


----------



## Dannager

Aberzanzorax said:


> "Knocking competitors to the ground?" "Knocking fans to the ground?"
> Are you familair with the GSL initial release and the secondary release (really really really close to the release of the actual sytem)?




Rather familiar, yes.



> Do you realize that the 3pps (who admittedly are somewhat parasitic or symbiotic with WotC...I'd argue symbiotic for myself) were pretty well screwed with WotC policies tied to 4e?




I realize that 3rd party producers became limited in the number of options that they had in terms of producing products for 4th Edition. You are looking at this, however, from the perspective of a disenfranchised fan, or disenfranchised 3pp developer. Without consideration given to the reasons WotC made the choice they did, I'm sure it could appear punitive if that's the perception you're trying to achieve.

The problem is, WotC made the decision to develop the GSL as they did from a business and legal standpoint. Their decision to create the OGL and push the 3rd-party inclusiveness of the d20 system unfortunately created their most significant competitor in quite some time. WotC did a good thing with the OGL - they made their system very open, very accessible. This good thing bit them in the rear. No, the GSL isn't as delicious at the OGL from a developer's standpoint. And that's by design. There is a reason that we very rarely see blanket licenses like the OGL pop up in the interactive entertainment industry. Hell, even the GSL is a rarity by that standard.

If you see this decision as bullying, you need to give yourself a bit of perspective. If you believe that anyone in WotC wanted to see the 3pp market shrink, you're mistaken. If you believe they wanted the inevitable fan backlash that came with a more limited license policy, you're mistaken. The decision to produce and release the GSL (on both occasions) was intended to protect them. It's really quite unfair to take such a negative bent towards a company trying to protect itself from the downsides of its own goodwill.



> It's funny, but, as far as I can tell, WotC's PRIOR EDITION competitor (PAIZO) is doing better than any other  CURRENT edition competitor.




The idea of "current" and "prior" editions dies at the level of support. Both editions of the game are current, in the sense that both are receiving active support (though, you could argue, Paizo's edition isn't 3.5, but then Paizo wouldn't really qualify as a prior edition competitor anyway, would it?).

It really doesn't matter from a business standpoint which one has the higher number stamped on it (though, notably, Pathfinder doesn't have a number stamped on it anyway). One company created a game, and that company and another company built evolutions of that game. Both of these evolutions are currently supported.



> That tells me they've done a bad job with considering the need and value for a new edition, and/or tells me that a company like Paizo who actually engages with fans has better marketing than the uber $$$ company does.




You cannot simultaneously make the argument that there was no value in a new edition while also making the argument that Paizo is engaging in solid business. Paizo's current success is predicated on the consumer adoption of what they present as a new edition. If there wasn't enough value in a new edition, you wouldn't be able to say that either company is doing well.



> But, okay, how about "knocking fans to the ground"? Where are the 4e fansites? Dead, or nonexistent, IMO because of WotC's policy of shutting people down.




You're posting on a 4e fansite. This is certainly a site for other parts of the tabletop gaming community to, but you cannot make the case that this is not a very active site where fans of 4e can come to discuss their game of choice.

There are countless other 4e fansites. Plenty of blogs, plenty of forum communities, plenty of active if amateur news reporting sites. The fact of the matter is that more fansites aren't really needed because the current array is sufficient. This isn't the old internet, where everyone and their mother felt justified in running their own Geocities fansite. We only need so many distinct subcommunities.

But the real question is: if WotC's policy of shutting people down is to blame for a perceived lack of fansites, why is it that Pathfinder, despite its extremely ardent internet supporter base, has a merely comparable fansite presence? The answer is, of course, that WotC's policy of shutting people down _isn't_ to blame, because it doesn't really exist. WotC has shut down a couple of sites because of significant infringement concerns (again, something that is totally legitimate for a business to do, and something that it would be silly to hold against them for). These instances have gotten a rather large amount of coverage among the fan community because, obviously, the people who ran the sites were fans, and fans _love_ controversies within their hobby. Let's not pretend a policy exists where one does not, though. No one in WotC is running a company-sponsored vendetta against fans.



> I'm not using hyperbole here.




And, yet, you are. You have applied radicalized language to a company, giving them the traits (and subsequent mental image) that one might normally attribute to a person.



> I truly believe that WotC have become a giant bully.




I'm sure that, in your eyes, WotC is indeed a giant bully. I'm not going to delve into the psychology of why that might be the case, but it's certainly worth asking yourself if your decision to view WotC as a bully is something that necessarily follows from their actions, or if that is simply a convenient image to apply to them that gives their actions a _motivation_, and a _sinister purpose_ that they do not actually possess.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Dannager said:


> Huh, that's actually one of the reasons I switched to 4e; teaching new players the 3.5 rules right out of the gate was becoming a pain. Teaching the 4e rules, on the other hand, was very straightforward.
> 
> I don't think that this is really a supportable position for one to take. If the 4e rules were indigestible at low levels, the 3.5 rules (and, by extension, Pathfinder rules) must be seen as downright unpalatable.



*Shrug* I have been teaching new players how to play 3.X (and now Pathfinder) for years. Some of the folks I have introduced were not even in their teens, so it can't be as hard as you think. And they are still playing, so.... Maybe you just aren't that good at explaining things? 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannager

Aberzanzorax said:


> THIS is so spot on.
> 
> People want to defend WotC as a company with the trite phrase "they're there to make money."
> 
> But what people don't understand is that when they portray themselves as money grabbers without real interest in the game then I DON'T WANNA GIVE THEM MY MONEY.
> 
> 
> Be good to your customers, and they just might be good to you back.
> 
> Screw them, and they'll go elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Justify abominable corporate practices as much as you like, but customers aren't as stupid as companies believe them to be.



See, the words that you include here are telling.

"Money grabbers," "Screw them," "Abominable corporate practices."

They are a company who enjoy what they do, and like the things they make. They are not money grabbers, they are not screwing their customers, and they are not engaging in anything abominable. There are things the word "abominable" ought to be reserved for. A hobby game company doing something that serves as an inconvenience for your personal entertainment enjoyment is _not_ one of these things.

No one is saying that because they're a company, it's okay that they engage in abominable practices. We're saying that because they're a company, it's okay for them to make decisions that allow them to stay in business. There are no abominable practices taking place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mercurius said:


> And just to be clear, because I've seen repeated misunderstandings of my original post: I am *not *saying that this is the only or biggest factor, but that it is one of many core factors, but one that has been little discussed because it is rather subtle and, as I said, has more of a "secondary" or "tertiary" impact on sales and the game's popularity.




I don't even see it as a "quaternary" or "quinary" factor. How many persons in this thread have said it was important to them?  Two?

I'm not saying its not a factor at all- those two clearly feel it was- but for most non-adopters, it was issues of marketing and mechanical/fluff changes they didn't like that kept them away from day one...IOW, LONG before lack of setting support could even be considered to be a factor.


----------



## Dannager

TheAuldGrump said:


> *Shrug* I have been teaching new players how to play 3.X (and now Pathfinder) for years. Some of the folks I have introduced were not even in their teens, so it can't be as hard as you think. And they are still playing, so.... Maybe you just aren't that good at explaining things?
> 
> The Auld Grump



That's _definitely_ a possibility. It could be that I'm terrible at explaining things.

However, if that were the case, I'd be pretty bad at explaining 4e too, and would not see an improvement unless 4e were inherently easier to explain. Unless 4e were actually easier to explain for people who are bad at explaining things. Which is sort of a plus, isn't it?


----------



## TarionzCousin

I think that everyone* would have loved 4E if they had only followed through with their original idea for the 4E setting.








* Yes, even you.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Hello Mercurius,

If 4e had a heavily popular setting that was continually supported, it would perhaps make it harder for those playing and DMing 4e to get off the train. I agree that if this was the case, it would have a minor effect but as the settings produced for 4e have little continuing support I think it hard to gauge what effect if any there is in reality. What works for Paizo would not necessarily work for WotC and vice versa I suppose.



Matt James said:


> _The popularity of 4e_. The title of the thread is where I had to stop and read closely the contents within the post. Where is the data that supports the popularity (or lack thereof) regarding the edition? What assumptions are being applied to start the conversation this way? I need solid metrics. Anything otherwise is a clear cheap shot at the organization and those who choose to support the game (via buying their products).



The OP had an idea and expressed it with care and consideration for people to ponder and discuss (even if almost everyone has disagreed with it). I think it is safe to say that any game could fit into the premise of "not as popular as it could have been", even if there is only a small gap between its popularity and it's possible popularity. And even then with the extreme difficulty of even measuring such a gap, are such metrics truly mandatory for discussion on EN World?

So anyway, I think it safe to put the OP's post into the "spitballing" category rather than the "clear cheap shot" variety that you seem to indicate. Do you think 4e is/was as popular as it could have been? What is your opinion? Or is the topic of discussion of no interest to you and thus not worth your while posting to?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> * Yes, even you.




Nope, not me.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Dannager said:


> I think people are looking for rational business explanations where none exist. If 4e is not as popular as it could have been (and, really, who is to say how popular it could have been?), I wager it's because they changed some stuff, some people didn't like those changes, and pretty soon it became sort of internet cool for those "in the know" to bash WotC.



So the things that WotC did to upset some of their customer base (outlined thoroughly in Steel Wind's post) was irrelevant compared to looking cool on the interwebs by laying into WotC? Are you sure that this upset portion of their customer base was really that shallow?


			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> It's easy to hate on the big guy, but then again, it merely serves as continued evidence that the big guy is in fact still the big guy.



Or it could be that they made a handful of marketing mistakes that they would be wise not to repeat in a couple of years time if they want D&D as a pen and paper RPG to have some measure of relevance.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Dannager

Herremann the Wise said:


> Hello Mercurius,
> 
> If 4e had a heavily popular setting that was continually supported, it would perhaps make it harder for those playing and DMing 4e to get off the train. I agree that if this was the case, it would have a minor effect but as the settings produced for 4e have little continuing support I think it hard to gauge what effect if any there is in reality. What works for Paizo would not necessarily work for WotC and vice versa I suppose.
> 
> The OP had an idea and expressed it with care and consideration for people to ponder and discuss (even if almost everyone has disagreed with it). I think it is safe to say that any game could fit into the premise of "not as popular as it could have been", even if there is only a small gap between its popularity and it's possible popularity. And even then with the extreme difficulty of even measuring such a gap, are such metrics truly mandatory for discussion on EN World?
> 
> So anyway, I think it safe to put the OP's post into the "spitballing" category rather than the "clear cheap shot" variety that you seem to indicate. Do you think 4e is/was as popular as it could have been? What is your opinion? Or is the topic of discussion of no interest to you and thus not worth your while posting to?
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise



I think it's a matter of language choice. Rather than something like "They should have done this for 4e!", which doesn't make any implication regarding the success of the venture, the topic title was "A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been."

I don't think it's difficult at all to see how this can be taken as a cheap shot at 4e, especially given the "To put it another way, this is another factor among a few core ones that I think has crippled 4E from early on" line, which goes a fair ways beyond implying. The OP clearly begins with the premise that 4e has somehow done poorly, but given that we know shy of nothing about the business success of any of the major tabletop gaming players right now, I think the only real trend is that people continue to assert that D&D is somehow in trouble despite a lack of evidence to that effect. I'm sure there would be just as many people talking about how they think D&D has done reasonably well for itself, if it weren't for the fact that a company performing as expected isn't really the sort of thing that gets people chatting on internet forums.


----------



## MerricB

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nope, not me.




Yes, even you! 

(Sharktopuses do not have Immune: My Little Pony RPG).

Cheers!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sharktopuses eat Ponies as a topping on their Crunchy Co-Ed Surfer w/Snicker Puffs breakfast cereal.  The RPG seems...pointless.


----------



## Dannager

Herremann the Wise said:


> So the things that WotC did to upset some of their customer base (outlined thoroughly in Steel Wind's post) was irrelevant compared to looking cool on the interwebs by laying into WotC?




Hardly. I think a handful of people might have had really solid reasons for wanting to dislike the decisions WotC was making. I think, past a certain point, they became drowned out by people who had latched onto anti-WotC "talking points" without really giving any serious consideration as to what they were railing against.

The inevitable result of this is, of course, what we see today: WotC can't announce or discuss _any_ plans, really, without provoking an internet backlash based on nothing but speculation and worst-case-scenario crisis-mongering. Some of that backlash is grounded in genuine mistrust, certainly. A lot of it, however, is silliness.



> Are you sure that this upset portion of their customer base was really that shallow?



There is an active thread on these very forums where members of the "upset portion of their customer base" have discussed, in entirely serious tones, the possibility of pursuing a lawsuit against WotC for producing and supporting 4e in the way they have.

Never again will I underestimate the potential for that "upset portion of their customer base" to display shallow behavior.

What's always intrigued me about the supposed division in the D&D community, though, is _why are those people upset_, and _why are we not_?



> Or it could be that they made a handful of marketing mistakes that they would be wise not to repeat in a couple of years time if they want D&D as a pen and paper RPG to have some measure of relevance.



You know what is going to make WotC relevant as an RPG publisher in a couple of years' time? Their continued performance as an industry leader, and the innovation that they push for in that capacity. 4e's legacy will be DDI, the tight structure of its rules, and its focus on making the game accessible. These traits will carry forward into wherever D&D goes next, and those traits will keep it relevant. If you think that putting their entire rules database, character creation system, monster creation system and _play tabletop_ online for subscription access doesn't trump the fact that we no longer have PDFs, you don't understand where this industry is going.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> See, this is interesting. Someone tells you that they don't feel that your position is supportable, and you jump to playing the victim of an implicit accusation of either being stupid or delusional.




I'm not "playing the victim," I'm gently mocking you.



> Why isn't your response something along the lines of, "And I disagree: here's why,"?




Why didn't you begin with, "I disagree: here's why?" instead of "I find your opinion *unsupportable*?" Not merely unsupported, but unsupportable. If you give someone no reason to assume good faith on your part, don't be surprised if they don't take you seriously.

Feel free to start over. I hold no grudge.


----------



## Dannager

pawsplay said:


> I'm not "playing the victim," I'm gently mocking you.



Ahhhhhh, that makes a lot more sense.


----------



## billd91

Dannager said:


> The problem is, WotC made the decision to develop the GSL as they did from a business and legal standpoint. Their decision to create the OGL and push the 3rd-party inclusiveness of the d20 system unfortunately created their most significant competitor in quite some time. WotC did a good thing with the OGL - they made their system very open, very accessible. This good thing bit them in the rear.




Right now, I'm trying to figure out who this competitor could have been who convinced WotC to make the GSL so restrictive. When Paizo made the shift to competitor, it was because license was already a no-show and the writing on the wall wasn't favorable. Until then, I would have described Paizo as a very close ally.
Paizo may be one of WotC's biggest competitors now, but saying that Paizo's competition drove WotC to make the GSL so restrictive looks like putting the cart before the horse to me. I'd be more inclined to say that mishandling the GSL development and launch was a major factor in driving the wedge between WotC and Paizo's relationship.

Unless you're thinking of someone else...


----------



## MerricB

Mercurius said:


> 4E doesn't have an ongoing, supported setting.




A counterpoint is that original D&D and AD&D didn't have an ongoing, supported setting until after 1987, by which time I believe they were already in decline from their sales peak. (1982-5)

Greyhawk was a setting "by default" more in the early days than something that was strongly supported setting, though it was just beginning to move out of that obscurity when Gygax left TSR and "good" support of the setting ceased for a number of years. Dragonlance wasn't really an ongoing setting (and has had many problems in later years because the initial release really told the story of the setting). It was only with the release of the Forgotten Realms in 1987 that you really get to the conception of the supported setting with sourcebooks, adventures and novels appearing.

The trouble here is that the Forgotten Realms, twenty years on, are no longer the sales engine they used to be. Wizards got ample proof of that through the 3E era. The decision for only 3 books per setting isn't something that was decided on just to be different; it was a reaction to the poor sales of ongoing campaign supplements in mid-to-late 3E. 

The idea of having a well-selling campaign setting is a good one, but what campaign setting are we talking about? Forgotten Realms is played out, and I'm guessing Eberron - for all its merits - doesn't come close either. 

From my perspective, they have actually produced a new campaign setting: Nentir Vale. In a lot of ways, it is more developed than Greyhawk was in 1985. I know that a key component of my enjoyment of 4E derives from the mythology of the Nentir Vale setting, as expressed through the adventure and later 4E supplements.

If we look at Pathfinder, how much of their sales are due to Golarion? How many people are buying their products mainly due to the setting? While I don't buy Pathfinder RPG products, I have been getting the Adventure Paths, and now I'm in my fifth AP with them, I have a hard time believing they're all in the same setting: they're just too diverse. 

A popular setting is a welcome bonus, but I don't think it is (a) essential or (b) easy to manufacture.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB

billd91 said:


> Right now, I'm trying to figure out who this competitor could have been who convinced WotC to make the GSL so restrictive.




If you look at the history of 3E and the OGL, you'll find a number of d20/OGL-based products that were very well received that basically took their design precepts straight from D&D: Iron Heroes, Mutants and Masterminds (although that one was more innovative), World of Warcraft RPG, Spycraft, Arcana Unearthed, etc.

A few of these games were very much in the same design space as 3E. Then too, you also have products such as the Mongoose Quintessential books which were in the space of Wizards' most successful supplements and thus (obviously) reducing Wizards sales (whether that was true or not).

I have little doubt that people like Ryan Dancey see this as a great success on the part of the OGL. For other people, it's a failure: the OGL is there to allow other companies to make less successful products (i.e. Adventures) and not compete with Wizards directly! 

When that faction won, you got the GSL out of it: something Wizards could control more strongly, and that made it pretty much impossible to create games that competed with D&D directly. (The GSL works best when you create a lot of original material, rather than the bare minimum some OGL products did, which might be seen as a point in its favour.)

Or, at least, that's how I see it. 

Cheers!


----------



## Dannager

billd91 said:


> Right now, I'm trying to figure out who this competitor could have been who convinced WotC to make the GSL so restrictive. When Paizo made the shift to competitor, it was because license was already a no-show and the writing on the wall wasn't favorable. Until then, I would have described Paizo as a very close ally.
> Paizo may be one of WotC's biggest competitors now, but saying that Paizo's competition drove WotC to make the GSL so restrictive looks like putting the cart before the horse to me. I'd be more inclined to say that mishandling the GSL development and launch was a major factor in driving the wedge between WotC and Paizo's relationship.
> 
> Unless you're thinking of someone else...



I wasn't. I'm sorry if it came across as me saying that Pathfinder prompted the GSL. I'm sure that isn't entirely true. The OGL, however, made it possible for anyone to compete with WotC directly in a number of arenas, using their own work against them. Even during the buildup to 4e, Paizo was releasing Pathfinder adventures that were clearly a step above what WotC was offering at the time, especially from a story standpoint. If anything, reining in the OGL like that ended up being a little prescient (perhaps not prescient enough, but whatever). Their concern was justified soon afterward with the release and subsequent popularity of Pathfinder.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Dannager said:


> Hardly. I think a *handful *of people might have had really solid reasons for wanting to dislike the decisions WotC was making.



Only a handful? Really? I suggest entertaining the thought that there was more than a handful.



			
				Danniger said:
			
		

> I think, past a certain point, they became drowned out by people who had latched onto anti-WotC "talking points" without really giving any serious consideration as to what they were railing against.



I think you might have mixed your ratio around with the former here. There was a vocal minority of idiots on both sides of the divide posting for no other reason than to stir up trouble. Fortunately, most of them are now elsewhere.



			
				Danniger said:
			
		

> The inevitable result of this is, of course, what we see today: WotC can't announce or discuss _any_ plans, really, without provoking an internet backlash based on nothing but speculation and worst-case-scenario crisis-mongering. Some of that backlash is grounded in genuine mistrust, certainly. A lot of it, however, is silliness.



WotC for good or bad upset a lot of people I suppose.



			
				Danniger said:
			
		

> There is an active thread on these very forums where members of the "upset portion of their customer base" have discussed, in entirely serious tones, the possibility of pursuing a lawsuit against WotC for producing and supporting 4e in the way they have.
> 
> Never again will I underestimate the potential for that "upset portion of their customer base" to display shallow behavior.



I have not seen such a thread. Such shallowness is not something I would be painting the entire "portion of their customer base" that I was talking about though. Particularly the people who have expressed such views on this thread anyway.



			
				Danniger said:
			
		

> What's always intrigued me about the supposed division in the D&D community, though, is _why are those people upset_, and _why are we not_?



I am assuming you are a 4e "supporter" here from posts you have made but unlike some, I will not make the co-assumption that you do not like 3.x (a mistake a lot of people make and which in fact highlights the counterpoint to your post). As a 4e supporter, you (and I as I am a DDI subscriber) have the entire weight of support from the industry's 800lb. gorilla supporting us. You are therefore not upset because you are happy with the direction that WotC has taken the game (and perhaps cannot see from the counter-perspective). Imagine though, that 4e rather than becoming more "gamist" that it become more "simulationist" and for whatever reason you hated what they did with the game you were enjoying and the "improvement" you were hoping for. Then you would find yourself as part of the crowd who was "upset". 



			
				Danniger said:
			
		

> You know what is going to make WotC relevant as an RPG publisher in a couple of years' time? Their continued performance as an industry leader, and the innovation that they push for in that capacity. 4e's legacy will be DDI, the tight structure of its rules, and its focus on making the game accessible. These traits will carry forward into wherever D&D goes next, and those traits will keep it relevant.



Or perhaps they will further fracture their customer base with a glut of versions of the game (similar to the glut of settings that some believe hurt 2e so much). All fine and dandy if you like what they are doing but a great opportunity to be yet another customer jumping off the edition wagon if you don't. Personally, I think a 5e cast too soon will come close to killing D&D as a game (if not a brand).



			
				Danniger said:
			
		

> If you think that putting their entire rules database, character creation system, monster creation system and _play tabletop_ online for subscription access doesn't trump the fact that we no longer have PDFs, you don't understand where this industry is going.



And thank you for pointing out to me my lack of understanding of where the industry is going. Perhaps following the advice you gave to a previous poster may have been more appropriate.


Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I have not seen such a thread. Such shallowness is not something I would be painting the entire "portion of their customer base" that I was talking about though. Particularly the people who have expressed such views on this thread anyway.




While there IS a thread entitled something like "Do you think WotC be sued", the premise was _largely_ disagreed with, and the bulk of the thread is discussing other lawsuits...IOW, its pretty much off-topic and out of control.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade

I cant believe these debates are still going on.
Im not reading 5 pages of responses. But does anyone actually have any sales figures from 4e?
Me im a 3.5 player all the way when it comes to D&D, though I plan to buy Pathfinder and adopt some of the rules for my homebrew campaign setting, like the sorcerer and the magic item creation rules.

My personal opinion based on only my own experiences from living in three places since 4e came out and looking for gamers in all places, is that only one person ive ever met has liked it. And only because he said it was "easy." Easy to level up, challenges were easy, rules and builds were easy. All around easy. 
Now my personal opinion is that it hasnt been as popular because its simply not a quality game. Sure it looks nice, and i admit I own 5 4e books, and ive read them all. They arent good. Not nearly as good as some of WOTC more boring or 3.5 products. Course this is all my opinion. But since 4e came out, I know of two hobby shops that quit carrying D&D because they couldnt move the 4e products, and two others that quit selling roleplaying games altogether. But on the other side, I know of one that sells 4e very well and another than only sells 4e as a special request by customers. Like you have to ask them to order it for you. 

Either way. It could be as a whole people just dont think its a good product, but at the same time, think about this. The United States is in a recession, there is still very little recovery, or none if you live where I do, and people just dont have the money to spend. It could all just be timing. But unless we ask every gamer in the world or see some sales figures no one will ever know why 4e hasnt been the success that 3.5 was.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While there IS a thread entitled something like "Should WotC be sued", the premise was _largely_ disagreed with, and the bulk of the thread is discussing other lawsuits...IOW, its pretty much off-topic and out of control.



Disagreed with and _roundly_ mocked.

It was in fact a rather silly thread and going off topic is the only reason that it is still there. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Disagreed with and roundly mocked.




And pretty much right out of the gate.  (I was there.)


----------



## pemerton

Greg K said:


> Outside of magic, 3.5 is pretty easy to teach.  The player  describes what they want to do (e.g, attack, bullrush, disarm, dodge) and the DM can apply the appropriate maneuver.  Since there are no powers, the DM does not have to worry how one class fights two handed vs. how another does it.



While this is true, I think it isn't the whole truth.

First, 4e has rules for attacking (basic attacks plus class-specific powers), bullrushing, dodging (total defence), grappling (grab) etc. Unlike 3E it doesn't have a generic trip or disarm manoeuvre - although I'm one of those who think these can be adjudicated using p 42 - but then 3E doesn't have a generic power-strike manoeuvre (you need the appropriate feat) whereas HARP (one of ICE's fantasy RPGs) does.

So the difference isn't actually that marked. The 4e player says "I grapple!" The GM in 4e responds the same as the GM in 3E, by applying the rules. The 4e player says "I trip!". The 4e GM responds the same as the GM in 3E does to "I powerstrike!" from a player without the Power Attack Feat - maybe s/he disallows it, maybe s/he wings it (using p 42 in the 4e case - and in the 3E case presumably relying on intuition).

Second, what if a new 3E player says "I want to use my kit shield to push away the one on my left, while stabbing the one on my right!". Within the framework of 3E's PHB, this is a two-weapon attack which has almost no chance of success for a standard 1st level Fighter, and is pretty sub-optimal even for well-designed Rangers.

Likewise for bullrushing, disarming etc. Most of these are mechanically pretty complex and unlikely to be sensible actions for any PC not at least modestly optimised in favour of them.

If the game provides formal options that are pretty suboptimal for typical approaches to play (like _use efficient atttacks against the monsters if you want to avoid TPK_), then they not so much genuine options as traps for newbies.

Now it's true that 4e's equivalent of this is the basic attack, which is likely to come into play more often. But the PHB makes it pretty clear that most PCs most of the time won't be relying on basic attacks.


----------



## Dannager

Herremann the Wise said:


> I am assuming you are a 4e "supporter" here from posts you have made but unlike some, I will not make the co-assumption that you do not like 3.x (a mistake a lot of people make and which in fact highlights the counterpoint to your post). As a 4e supporter, you (and I as I am a DDI subscriber) have the entire weight of support from the industry's 800lb. gorilla supporting us. You are therefore not upset because you are happy with the direction that WotC has taken the game (and perhaps cannot see from the counter-perspective).




I, like everyone else, had a choice early on to make of whether I would support the next edition of D&D. I did.

But what I want to know is why, of all the people who were happy with and played 3.5, some of them went to 4e and some didn't. Clearly, some of them made the decision based on the design direction. Some, however (even most, I might assert), decided based on some other factor: perceived PR mishaps, canceled features, etc. These things bothered some people, and they didn't bother others. So what was the factor that drew the line? What was it about some people who were okay with these things, and didn't let them affect their choice in game, and what was it about the others who did?



> Imagine though, that 4e rather than becoming more "gamist" that it become more "simulationist" and for whatever reason you hated what they did with the game you were enjoying and the "improvement" you were hoping for. Then you would find yourself as part of the crowd who was "upset".




I don't think I _would_ be upset, that's the thing. I'm pretty confident in my ability to enjoy a well-crafted game, and honestly sliding a bit one way or the other on the simulationist-gamist scale isn't going to affect that. If, however, a company like WotC _were_ to suddenly go in a direction that I couldn't stand, I don't think it could get me riled up even then. I'd still have whatever I was into before, and undoubtedly other opportunities from other companies would present themselves.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons I'm so curious about that sort of person.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And pretty much right out of the gate.  (I was there.)



No you weren't! You didn't show up until page *post* six!

Welcome once again to the Silly Arguments Department, have a mint, they're free.

The Auld Grump, in a Pythonian mood at the moment.


----------



## Mircoles

Moleculo said:


> 4E isn't as popular as it could have been because it doesn't smell like D&D. I'm not sure if that's really the fault of the lack of setting, though the absence of a touchstone certainly could contribute to its sterility.




If your going to say something lke that then you should also mention that 3.x smells even less like D&D than 4e.

I never felt like I was playing D&D when I played 3.x. 

With 4e though, the feeling is there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But what I want to know is why, of all the people who were happy with and played 3.5, some of them went to 4e and some didn't. Clearly, some of them made the decision based on the design direction. Some, however (even most, I might assert), decided based on some other factor: perceived PR mishaps, canceled features, etc. These things bothered some people, and they didn't bother others. So what was the factor that drew the line? What was it about some people who were okay with these things, and didn't let them affect their choice in game, and what was it about the others who did?




There is no one factor...but from what I've read (and my personal perspective), PR gaffes, design decisions and abandoning the OGL were the Big 3.  Things like disappearing features merely put the signet ring into the wax seal.

And the thing is, EVERYONE let these factors help decide their decisions.  They just weighted them differently; they just liked or disliked different things.

Our choices in RPGs are like what we choose to eat: I love beef, pork, chicken, alligator, turtle, turkey, quail, ostrich, buffalo, mutton, venison, and seafood of all kinds; I have friends who are vegetarians.  I know some Columbians who swear by Big-Ass Ants, and Africans who love termites. Its all good. 

No one tastes appeal to everyone...nor should it.


----------



## Dannager

Mircoles said:


> If your going to say something lke that then you should also mention that 3.x smells even less like D&D than 4e.
> 
> I never felt like I was playing D&D when I played 3.x.
> 
> With 4e though, the feeling is there.



And the conclusion we can walk away from this with is that there is no such thing as that fresh D&D smell. D&D is any number of things to any number of people, and the idea of proclaiming that D&D X isn't enough like _real_ D&D is silly on its face.

Of course, the idea of holding up any game against any other game as a way of measuring its worth is a silly one to begin with. Whatever happened to judging things on their own merits?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Welcome once again to the Silly Arguments Department, have a mint, they're free.




Oh, no they're not!


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> 4E doesn't have an ongoing, supported setting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it also has a kind of default vibe or atmosphere, a "meta-setting" that includes the new planar structure and the mythology that's been presented in the "theme" books (e.g. _Underdark, Plane Above, _etc). But it doesn't have a setting that is supported in an ongoing way, that is being explored and developed through supplements.



In this respect 4e resembles a game like The Dying Earth. I've never read the Vance stories, but feel that I could run a game of Dying Earth from the rulebook. It gives me the "vibe" and "meta-setting", plus tips on how to set up situations/scenarios that will exploit that vibe to produce a fun session.

My feeling is that 4e was written with the intention to be GMed in this sort of way. I say this because (i) it fits with the game's emphasis on the encounter - combat or non-combat as the basic unit of play; (ii) it fits with the obvious effort to create that default atmosphere, with the gods, race backgrounds and so on in the PHB and the little sidebars in the Power books; (iii) when you look at the original MM (with most of the campaign info located in skill check results), plus think about how skill challenges should play out (with the GM having to make calls about NPC responses, and other elements of the gameworld, on the fly in response to unpredictable player actions), and even look at the whole emphasis on "situations" rather than "world exploration" as the focus of play, the game seems intended to support "just in time" creation of world details, using "points of light" and the default atmosphere as a framework for doing this in; (iv) it fits with the absence of a developed setting.

Unfortunately, though, the rulebooks don't do much to support GMing this sort of game. A contrast is provided by The Dying Earth rulebook, which does offer tools to help the GM with this sort of situation-based preparation and play.



korjik said:


> There is also the ability of a campaign world to be a source of ideas for a new DM or player. Good art, good stories, and good descriptions can all be catalysts for creating a character or an adventure, or even be the core of an entirely new world.



For 4e, this is really provided by Worlds and Monsters. Good art, interesting stories, and (most importantly for a GM) good discussions of the way in which those stories have been designed to help make an interesting game.Big chunks of this book should have been incorporated into the 4e DMG, in place of (what are in my view) unnecessary or overlong parts of it like the tedious discussion of giving adventure locations personality and the random dungeon generation. If they had been, that would have gone some way - though not all the way - to helping GMs run games in the sort of fashion that the rulebooks seem to intend.



ShinHakkaider said:


> I tend to read the complete AP's over and over again in preparation for running them and the Paizo crew really does give you a very good feel of whatever part of the world the AP's are taking place in. There's a lot of good background stuff there that yes, some of which the PC's may never know or find out about. But a good DM will make the material his own and find a way to disseminate that info so that it's relevant to your players. Not all of your  players will retain this stuff, but for the ones that do? You have something with which to feed their curiosity and interest in the world.



For better or worse, this is the type of play that 4e does not seem to have been designed to support (although later books like The Plane Above, MM3 and Monster Vault are heading in a somewhat different direction).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not saying its not a factor at all- those two clearly feel it was- but for most non-adopters, it was issues of marketing and mechanical/fluff changes they didn't like that kept them away from day one...IOW, LONG before lack of setting support could even be considered to be a factor.



I tend to agree with you _and_ with Mercurius, because for the reasons I've given I think that the lack of a setting _isn't a coincidence_ relative to the mechanical and flavour changes, but rather fits with them as part of a coherent (but, as it turns out, perhaps not so popular) overall design.

When 4e game out, I posted on these forums that WotC apparently agreed with Ron Edwards that a narrativist-oriented RPG focusing on situation and character-driven play would be more popular than a simulationist RPG focused on the players exploring the world and/or stories that the GM creates for them. Such a belief seems the only way to explain the presence, in 4e, of all the features I've mentioned above.

At the time I tended to assume that WotC weren't just speculating but actually _knew_- unlike Ron Edwards, for example, they have marketers and market researchers on their payroll. But it seems they may have got it wrong.

For someone like me, who wanted a game like the one they produced, it's turned out to be a lucky error. The tone of Essentials, though, plus the release of Nentir Vale, suggests that WotC might be pulling back, and trying to turn 4e into a more traditional RPG.


----------



## innerdude

jimmifett said:


> As for having it's own setting... Nentir Vale is a nice small area that can be dropped into just about anywhere .....
> 
> .... You have 1 book for each major region, sometimes 2 or more packed in a book. You have the 3 planes books cover the elemental chaos, the astral sea, and the feywild/shadow dark ... in just enough detail to get you thinking your own stuff up. You've got the underdark covered with a book.




I don't want a "set of planes." 

I don't want a scattered smattering of "major regions."

I don't want an underdark "concept." 

 I want a _world_ for my RPGs. 

And the baseline "setting," such as it is for 4e, comes nowhere close to creating the needed level of vision, consistency, and let's face it, passion. People create settings because they're passionate about creating something that provides great action, storytelling, and emotional resonance. 

And I don't think WotC really grasped that concept with the 4e setting.


----------



## Dannager

pemerton said:


> For better or worse, this is the type of play that 4e does not seem to have been designed to support (although later books like The Plane Above, MM3 and Monster Vault are heading in a somewhat different direction).



Whether it was designed to work well with Pathfinder-style APs or not, in my experience it seems to run them just fine.


----------



## pemerton

Dannager said:


> There is an active thread on these very forums where members of the "upset portion of their customer base" have discussed, in entirely serious tones, the possibility of pursuing a lawsuit against WotC for producing and supporting 4e in the way they have.



Link? You've got me curious - in a watching-the-train-wreck kind of way!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While there IS a thread entitled something like "Do you think WotC be sued", the premise was _largely_ disagreed with, and the bulk of the thread is discussing other lawsuits...IOW, its pretty much off-topic and out of control.






pemerton said:


> Link? You've got me curious - in a watching-the-train-wreck kind of way!




See the link in the above quoted post.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> Right now, I'm trying to figure out who this competitor could have been who convinced WotC to make the GSL so restrictive.





MerricB said:


> If you look at the history of 3E and the OGL, you'll find a number of d20/OGL-based products that were very well received that basically took their design precepts straight from D&D
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have little doubt that people like Ryan Dancey see this as a great success on the part of the OGL. For other people, it's a failure: the OGL is there to allow other companies to make less successful products (i.e. Adventures) and not compete with Wizards directly!



Adding to what MerricB said - I'm not at all surprised that WotC tried to move away from the OGL.

Ryan Dancey's original conception, as I remember it, was that the OGL, operating in combination with network externalities, would generate momentum towards d20 as a common ruleset. That idea seems to have worked out to an extent, although perhaps not to the extent the Dancey anticipated. I think that Dancey may have underestimated the interest that RPGers have in the different play experiences that different mechanics produce, which aren't always easily obtained using d20 (a more-or-less simulationist mechanic by default).

But from the point of view of WotC as a business, Dancy must also have imagined that increased momentum for d20 would support if not increase sales of D&D core rulebooks. I can only assume that this didn't work out, because if it did then the business case for 4e would not have been made out (assuming that WotC has even somewhat rational internal processes).

So when 4e was released, one has to assume that the business prospects, for WotC, of sticking with 3.5 weren't that rosy. So from WotC's point of view 4e may well have been rational, even if not as successful as they anticipated.

What Paizo's rise does tend to suggest is that, if WotC had abandoned the whole 3.5/4e model of rulebooks and the odd setting book and instead gone into adventure publishing in a wholesale way, they might have found an alternative way to move forward. But I can think of at least two reasons why WotC didn't take this route: (i) they seem to lack the capacity to produce compelling adventures (not that I know Paizo's adventures, but a lot of people seem to like them); (ii) they would still have been stuck with the OGL - and thus the _potential_ for being crowded out of the d20 market - hanging over their head like Damocles' sword.


----------



## pemerton

Dannager said:


> I'm pretty confident in my ability to enjoy a well-crafted game, and honestly sliding a bit one way or the other on the simulationist-gamist scale isn't going to affect that. If, however, a company like WotC _were_ to suddenly go in a direction that I couldn't stand, I don't think it could get me riled up even then. I'd still have whatever I was into before, and undoubtedly other opportunities from other companies would present themselves.



My experience has been the same. When I switched from D&D to Rolemaster because I didn't like 2nd ed AD&D, it wasn't a big deal. I just switched. When ICE ceased to exist for a while (and then returned in an utterly anaemic form) I just made do with what I had, plus continued to adapt material from other game systems to my RM game. When I decided to switch from RM to 4e I just switched. If WotC continues in its current direction it's likely I'll not be buying so much stuff from them anymore. But I'll still keep running 4e while I and my players are enjoying in (at the moment I'm adapting The Demon of the Red Grove from the original HeroWars Narrator's Book to use in my 4e game).


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> Second, what if a new 3E player says "I want to use my kit shield to push away the one on my left, while stabbing the one on my right!". Within the framework of 3E's PHB, this is a two-weapon attack which has almost no chance of success for a standard 1st level Fighter, and is pretty sub-optimal even for well-designed Rangers.




Which is at it should be. It took about four weeks of combat sports to convince me you never want to expose your middle, even against two opponents. It's a maneuver that so rarely pays off it shouldn't even be practiced, on the off chance you might be tempted to try it.


----------



## pemerton

Pawsplay, I think what you say tends to reinforce my point - or, at least, it seems to me quite consistent with it.

The only way in which that sort of simulationism makes a game newbie-friendly is if the newbie has an excellent grasp of real world probabilities, _and_ the GM gives a rich enough description of the ingame situation for the newbie to be able to apply his/her knowledge.

I don't think this is likely to be a very common state of affairs.

I think the typical newbie to a fantasy RPG is more likely to declare actions based on a sense of fictional/cinematic appropriateness. (We're assuming here that the newbie in question hasn't already mastered the mechanics, and so isn't guided by considerations of mechanical optimality.) And a system that processes those declarations by rendering them as mechanically sub-optimal isn't one that I see as especially newbie-friendly.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Pawsplay, I think what you say tends to reinforce my point - or, at least, it seems to me quite consistent with it.
> 
> The only way in which that sort of simulationism makes a game newbie-friendly is if the newbie has an excellent grasp of real world probabilities, _and_ the GM gives a rich enough description of the ingame situation for the newbie to be able to apply his/her knowledge.
> 
> I don't think this is likely to be a very common state of affairs.
> 
> I think the typical newbie to a fantasy RPG is more likely to declare actions based on a sense of fictional/cinematic appropriateness. (We're assuming here that the newbie in question hasn't already mastered the mechanics, and so isn't guided by considerations of mechanical optimality.) And a system that processes those declarations by rendering them as mechanically sub-optimal isn't one that I see as especially newbie-friendly.



The answer, of course, is to not try to have all possibilities hard-coded into the rules, but to instead simply give the DMs some decent guidelines and let 'em wing it from there.

Player: "I want to try <_cinematic move x not found in any rulebook_>."
DM: "OK, describe what you want to do then roll a d20 - probably with some minuses - and we'll figure out what comes of it."

This worked just fine in 1983.  It utterly staggers me that 28 years of so-called development have managed to render the above conversation essentially a non-starter using RAW in either 3e or 4e.  By accident or intention, the philosophy of game design seems to have gone from "encourage players to think outside the box; force them to if necessary" to "here's the limit, play within it".  Very sad.

Lan-"chaos is your friend"-efan


----------



## BryonD

Lanefan said:


> The answer, of course, is to not try to have all possibilities hard-coded into the rules, but to instead simply give the DMs some decent guidelines and let 'em wing it from there.
> 
> Player: "I want to try <_cinematic move x not found in any rulebook_>."
> DM: "OK, describe what you want to do then roll a d20 - probably with some minuses - and we'll figure out what comes of it."
> 
> This worked just fine in 1983.  It utterly staggers me that 28 years of so-called development have managed to render the above conversation essentially a non-starter using RAW in either 3e or 4e.



No comment on 4E, but obviously I would strongly disagree with this in regard to 3X.

But there are two points that are quite real and enhance the perception that this is true.  (Maybe more, two seem immediately clear to me)

First, that conversation was happening long before anyone every heard of D20/OGL.  Under 3E there are more mechanics for "whatever" activities.  And it becomes easier for a DM to fall into the trap that the mechanics should follow the game and forget to simply use good sense.  It makes it easier for a DM to make a mistake.  But it is still not a new hazard of 3E and if you assume the game works best with a good DM, as I presume, it absolutely is not a problem of the game experience itself.

Second, there is so much designed material out there.  And a lot of it IS crap. And again, this really pre-dates 3E.  One day the character can do something.  The next day a new NWP is published and the character DOESN'T have it.  Suddenly by a poorly thought through plan to "give characters a new option" the players are forced to choose which things they can do, at the expense of other things.  That has always been a bad thing and the OGL allowed the amount of bad design to grow even faster than the good.  But, the solution is to recognize bad rules and not use them.  Since I don't see this problem in Core 3X, it is only a result of optional elements.  Just as it was a result of optional elements in prior editions.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> I'm pretty confident in my ability to enjoy a well-crafted game, and honestly sliding a bit one way or the other on the simulationist-gamist scale isn't going to affect that.



I gotta say, don't you make a big deal out of how much effort you put into converting PF APs over to 4e? (rhetorical question there)

If it doesn't make any difference to you, then clearly the FAR wiser course of action would be to save all that effort and just play the, well crafted, Pathfinder game.

But, clearly, your ability to enjoy some well crafted games is not equal to your ability to enjoy other well crafted games.  

And neither is mine.  4E is a well crafted game.  But I don't really enjoy it because it is not crafted to my taste.  Nothing wrong with that.  But your statement is significantly biased in favor of your own view and gives you credit for being above us simple opinionated folk.

It is clear that a change on that scale already HAS affected you.


> If, however, a company like WotC _were_ to suddenly go in a direction that I couldn't stand, I don't think it could get me riled up even then. I'd still have whatever I was into before, and undoubtedly other opportunities from other companies would present themselves.



It's called people.  
Is it easy to throw stones for being emotionally invested in a game based hobby?  Absolutely.  

But, these days the hottest and most numerous threads of contention are in the 4E forums.  Every change WotC has made lately has had the various pro-4e factions at each other's throats.  Which isn't to call them any better or worse or anything.  It is just to note that people are people.

4E fans didn't accept 4E because they were the open-minded accepting fans who didn't care.  They embraced 4E because it fit their tastes.  It is easy to draw a line between 4E fans and non-4E-fans and label that line, "people who do/don't accept change".  But the label is wrong.  The correct label is simply, "people for whom 4E fits or doesn't fit their tastes".

But neither group is particularly accepting of change for change's sake.  Look in the 4E forums and look in the Pazio playtest forums.  You will see the same stuff.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> It utterly staggers me that 28 years of so-called development have managed to render the above conversation essentially a non-starter using RAW in either 3e or 4e.



Well, as a bit of a 4e partisan, I would say that 4e doesn't render your conversation a non-starter. The (in?)famous page 42 gives some fairly detailed mechanical advice for how to handle it - at least, detailed by the standards of D&D.

That said, page 42 could be better - in particular, it could give more guidance on how threats of damage (or similar loss) to the PC can be used as a balancing factor. (The skill challenge rules could also benefit from a bit more guidance in this respect - but they're not quite as underdeveloped in this respect as is page 42.)


----------



## pemerton

Double post deleted.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> So when 4e was released, one has to assume that the business prospects, for WotC, of sticking with 3.5 weren't that rosy. So from WotC's point of view 4e may well have been rational, even if not as successful as they anticipated.



I posted a longer discussion about this recently, but in short, there is a fundamental mistake in comparing 3E to 4E here.

3E was done.  (Obviously Paizo have demonstrated that new life could be put into it, but it was done.)  But that reality of needing to leave 3E does not mean that the 4E path taken was a good choice.   There could have been other 4Es that in no way resembled the 4E we know.

And that is unrelated to the whole OGL argument.

3E was a huge success and the OGL was part of that.  IMO saying that WotC could have had a larger slice of the pie without the OGL is poorly considered becuase it ignores that a larger slice of a much smaller pie is still less pie.

Moving on to the 4E/OGL part of the discussion, yes, WotC needs to compete with the OGL.  What WotC needed to do was make a game that a vast portion of the gaming community wanted to play.  If WotC released a non-OGL game, but everyone wanted to play it, the OGL would be nearly meaningless to the popularity.  If wotC released an OGL game that everyone wanted to play, the old OGL game would die and the new game would get to repeat the OGL benefits.

But either way you slice it, it is the overall desire of the market at large to play the game that matters.

We can talk about settings or lack there of.  We can talk about OGL.  We can talk about all kinds of tangents.  But those are just refinements around the core issue and the core issue is, no pun intended, the core rules.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Well, as a bit of a 4e partisan, I would say that 4e doesn't render your conversation a non-starter. The (in?)famous page 42 gives some fairly detailed mechanical advice for how to handle it - at least, detailed by the standards of D&D.



Heh, I really dislike "page 42".  For me it is because it smacks far too much of "one size fits all".

BUT, you are right that it addresses this particular concern.


----------



## Nikosandros

BryonD said:


> And again, this really pre-dates 3E.  One day the character can do something.  The next day a new NWP is published and the character DOESN'T have it.  Suddenly by a poorly thought through plan to "give characters a new option" the players are forced to choose which things they can do, at the expense of other things.



Indeed. With the introduction of NWP in AD&D, suddenly a "standard" adventurer was assumed to be unable to ride, swim, start a fire, skin a rabbit and bandage a wounded comrade. As a kid I immediately embraced NWP because they "gave more options", but I have long since removed them from my AD&D games.


----------



## Mercurius

Matt James said:


> _The popularity of 4e_. The title of the thread is where I had to stop and read closely the contents within the post. Where is the data that supports the popularity (or lack thereof) regarding the edition? What assumptions are being applied to start the conversation this way? I need solid metrics. Anything otherwise is a clear cheap shot at the organization and those who choose to support the game (via buying their products).




This is simply wrong. Saying something is not as popular as it could be has _absolutely nothing _to do with its merits or lack thereof, nor is it in any way an insult towards those that support the game. I am not sure where the "cheap shot" is by saying what I'm saying. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't even see it as a "quaternary" or "quinary" factor. How many persons in this thread have said it was important to them?  Two?
> 
> I'm not saying its not a factor at all- those two clearly feel it was- but for most non-adopters, it was issues of marketing and mechanical/fluff changes they didn't like that kept them away from day one...IOW, LONG before lack of setting support could even be considered to be a factor.




I think you're missing what I am saying, Danny. It is not the setting support itself as a sales driver that I am talking about, and in a sense it doesn't matter whether people in this thread say that setting support is or is not a factor in their interest in 4E. I'm talking about something else, something a bit more subtle than the degree to which setting support is important to someone.

To try another angle at expressing what I'm trying to get at, let's look at Dragonmagazine. Dragon was almost certainly not very profitable (which is likely why they shelved it), yet it had what I am calling a secondary or tertiary impact on sales, as well as the health and vitality of the game. The idea being that you produce a product that doesn't in itself generate much profit, but supports the rest of the line in making more profit. 

I'm saying that setting support is much the same. Having an ongoing, supported setting gives the game a place where its ideas and concepts can become embodied. It is an opportunity for WotC to say, "This is how we envision 4E."

What I hear people disagreeing with is not really what I'm talking about. I am not talking about the direct and obvious impact of setting support on sales and the game's popularity (this is what I'd call "primary" impact), but the in-direct and subtle impact that setting support has on the game by making it come alive, which in turn influences the game's popularity and overall sales.



MerricB said:


> A counterpoint is that original D&D and AD&D didn't have an ongoing, supported setting until after 1987, by which time I believe they were already in decline from their sales peak. (1982-5)




Interesting point. I think of all of the adventures that TSR published at this time, that served a similar purpose to what I'm talking about - making the game come alive through story. Early D&D and AD&D didn't have much in the way of setting support, but they did have tons of adventures. Later on in 2E it was both adventures but especially settings, and then in 3E the adventures waned but there were a few settings that were strongly supported. 4E has neither - there are few adventures and weak setting support, and thus no real way to bring the game to life in the way that I'm talking about.



MerricB said:


> The idea of having a well-selling campaign setting is a good one, but what campaign setting are we talking about? Forgotten Realms is played out, and I'm guessing Eberron - for all its merits - doesn't come close either.
> 
> From my perspective, they have actually produced a new campaign setting: Nentir Vale. In a lot of ways, it is more developed than Greyhawk was in 1985. I know that a key component of my enjoyment of 4E derives from the mythology of the Nentir Vale setting, as expressed through the adventure and later 4E supplements.




Yes, exactly - and in some sense what I am saying is that we need _more _Nentir Vale. Pemerton mentioned _Worlds & Monsters _which, strangely enough, is the closest thing to a 4E default setting book. My opinion is that they should have gone further with this. Actually, it may have been much wiser to have shelved the Forgotten Realms treatment and just gone with Nentir Vale from the get-go. They would have avoided the collateral damage from glutting a well-loved classic fantasy setting and they could have explicated similar themes in a new setting more clearly, and without the distraction of the Simbul's corpse.



MerricB said:


> If we look at Pathfinder, how much of their sales are due to Golarion? How many people are buying their products mainly due to the setting? While I don't buy Pathfinder RPG products, I have been getting the Adventure Paths, and now I'm in my fifth AP with them, I have a hard time believing they're all in the same setting: they're just too diverse.
> 
> A popular setting is a welcome bonus, but I don't think it is (a) essential or (b) easy to manufacture.




As I've been saying, my view is that the impact of a setting like Golarion is subtle and hard to track. It isn't just how many books the Chronicles series sells - I can't imagine that _City of Strangers _was a big cash-cow for Paizo, but I don't think that's the point. I think the point of having and supporting a setting like Golarion is to bring a kind of life and vitality to the game, to bring it alive. Even if the APs seem like they could be in any setting they all still arise within the same world; Golarion provides a living, breathing back-drop for not only the APs but the elements of the core game itself, whether the monster fluff of the _Bestiary _or the classes of the _Advanced Player's Guide _or the GM advice in the _Gamemastery Guide. _

In some sense I'm talking about something similar to cross-training. Going for a walk is good for you, it has a positive impact on your physical health, but it also impacts other aspects of your life. This, again, is the difference between "primary" and "secondary" impact. The primary impact is the benefit to one's cardiovascular health. The secondary impact might be the benefit one's psychological health, or the creative inspiration that many get from going for walks. Or it might impact other aspects of one's life; let's say you go for a walk with your significant other - it has a positive impact on your relationship.

So my view is that if we only look at the primary impact of carrying a given product, we lose sight of the big picture and we limit ourselves to the "bottom line" - how much profit this product generates on its own. With both setting support and Dragon magazine, WotC has really missed the boat, imo.



pemerton said:


> In this respect 4e resembles a game like The Dying Earth....
> 
> ....Unfortunately, though, the rulebooks don't do much to support GMing this sort of game. A contrast is provided by The Dying Earth rulebook, which does offer tools to help the GM with this sort of situation-based preparation and play.
> 
> For 4e, this is really provided by Worlds and Monsters....
> 
> For better or worse, this is the type of play that 4e does not seem to have been designed to support (although later books like The Plane Above, MM3 and Monster Vault are heading in a somewhat different direction).




Interesting points - I like what you say here. In some ways it seems that 4E advocates a sandbox approach to the game, yet doesn't offer enough tools and support for running a sandbox-style game. So in the end 4E has been in a kind of in-between state, between its original "points of light" sandbox approach and its half-baked settings.

See, I don't see why they can't do both - advocate a sandbox approach, provide support for running a sandbox game, but also create and support and ongoing setting (like Nentir Vale). Now what might have been _really _interesting is if they had developed and published the Nentir Vale in a similar fashion as a sandbox setting is developed. There wouldn't have been a world map and a general outline of the world, at least not at first, but instead it would have been developed piecemeal. Maybe first a Nentir Vale Gazetteer, then further gazetteers on the bordering lands and a gradual exploration of the world outward.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

[quoteI'm saying that setting support is much the same. Having an ongoing, supported setting gives the game a place where its ideas and concepts can become embodied. It is an opportunity for WotC to say, "This is how we envision 4E."][/quote]

No, I got your argument.

IMHO, settings don't make or break a game, but they may make or break a company.  I come to this conclusion by looking at the 60+ RPGs on my shelf, purchased over 34 years in the hobby.

For some, I buy setting materials, for some I don't.  For game's like D&D, which supports multiple settings, I pick & choose.  Heck, I know gamers with nearly as many systems on their shelves as mine who have NO settings books.  A buddy of mine had some space issues and gave me his 1Ed-2Ed collection to safeguard- he had a Greyhawk box and a FR box as his sole settings purchases (and yes, he is a long-time DM).  He's nearly as big a 3.5Ed nut as I am, yet owns only a few settings books (FR).

So to my way of thinking, based on my observations, RPG settings may affect  the quantity and quality of a company's revenue streams, but they don't affect the popularity of the game itself in a significant fashion.

In fact, I'd argue the driver works the other way: popular games can drive sales of settings, but if a game is unpopular, even a great setting won't save it.


----------



## 1Mac

Traveon Wyvernspur said:


> I hope you are right about that 1Mac, but it takes a lot less than that to start an edition war in the forums.



The apparent history of this thread has largely vindicated this position!

Let's just say that I _wish_ we could discuss the OP's point without edition wars, and that I don't blame the OP for trying.


----------



## 1Mac

Mercurius said:


> As I've been saying, my view is that the impact of a setting like Golarion is subtle and hard to track. It isn't just how many books the Chronicles series sells - I can't imagine that _City of Strangers _was a big cash-cow for Paizo, but I don't think that's the point. I think the point of having and supporting a setting like Golarion is to bring a kind of life and vitality to the game, to bring it alive.



As I understand it, Paizo is really in the business of selling Adventure Paths, and the Pathfinder RPG is just a way to make sure people are buying and playing APs. So to reframe what you said above:

1.) Paizo enriches the world with setting books,
2.) which only a few GMs buy,
3.) which they use to create a more enriched experience for players in their Pathfinder campaigns,
4.) which makes more people want to play Pathfinder,
5.) which increases the sale of Pathfinder Adventure Paths.

Something like that?

Basically you are losing money or breaking even in one area to make money in another more targeted area. This sort of reminds me of the Apple Store: I'm pretty sure any one Apple Store isn't very profitable, but it enriches the experience of being an Apple customer, so more people want to become Apple customers.

Come to think of it, that seems to be their approach to rules as well: make everything open content to hook more players to sell more APs. It's giving away Barbie dolls to sell accessories.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Except the heavy lifting was already done by WotC in creating the 3.XEd ruleset.  Paizo didn't have to popularize the game with it's setting because the game already had a built-in, built-up market to grab.

WotC's vinyard was planted and harvested fruitfully for many years, then abandoned it; Paizo merely came onto the property and resumed harvesting after doing a little pruning.

Or to continue the Barbie analogy, Paizo merely picked up the keys to the factory WotC left behind- they can afford to give away dolls to sell accessories because the market for the dolls was pre-established.  The availability of the accessories isn't making the dolls popular, they were popular beforehand.


----------



## Nikosandros

1Mac said:


> Basically you are losing money or breaking even in one area to make money in another more targeted area. This sort of reminds me of the Apple Store: I'm pretty sure any one Apple Store isn't very profitable, but it enriches the experience of being an Apple customer, so more people want to become Apple customers.



Losing money or breaking even? The Core Book for the RPG is in its 4th printing and several other books are in the 2nd printing. I believe that the RPG line is doing very well indeed for Paizo...


----------



## Mallus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IMHO, settings don't make or break a game, but they may make or break a company.



This sounds right to me. It also leads (again) to the question: is WotC/Hasbro the right size company for the D&D brand in the current market?

Personally, 4e is right for my group, for the time being (which is currently being over 2 years). We use a homebrew setting and all our adventures are custom written, save for the occasional swiped map. 

What interests me more is why Pathfinder is selling so well. Paizo's core products are their AP's, correct? Are there really _that_ many Pathfinder DM's out their running _that_ many Pathfinder campaigns? What's driving their sales?

It seems what Paizo's done --and more power to them for doing so-- is to successfully steal a big portion of the "D&D completist" segment away from WotC. People who are now buying adventures they won't get to run instead of books of class crunch for PC's they won't get to play.


----------



## 1Mac

> Losing money or breaking even? The Core Book for the RPG is in its 4th printing and several other books are in the 2nd printing. I believe that the RPG line is doing very well indeed for Paizo.



There I was referring to books like _City of Strangers, which Mercurius mentioned above. I'm only assuming it was a weak seller because Mercurius did.



			Except the heavy lifting was already done by WotC in creating the 3.XEd ruleset. Paizo didn't have to popularize the game with it's setting because the game already had a built-in, built-up market to grab.
		
Click to expand...


Good point. With the Advanced Player's Guide they've certainly moved beyond it that base, however.

I don't recall that other OGL games have embraced open content the way Paizo does with, for example, it's cooperation with the Pathfinder SRD site. The closest thing I can think of is the Grand OGL Wiki, and those are for rules that are officially out of print.



			The availability of the accessories isn't making the dolls popular, they were popular beforehand.
		
Click to expand...


This gets my point backwards: I'm saying that the popular dolls are making the accessories popular, and that selling the accessories is the business model._


----------



## Aeolius

I don’t see this as an Edition War, but more of a neighborly squabble, instead. We all agree to disagree. I picked up the 4e books the day they were released, read through them, and made an informed choice to remain with 3.5e. I made a similar choice the day that 2e was released, choosing instead to remain with 1e.

Others embraced the new edition. The reasons why really don’t concern me but I hope they understand I will never play 4e, just as they will never return to 3.5e. And of course there are others who play both editions fluidly. So here we are, walking that fine line between “whatever floats your boat” and “get off of my lawn”.

Personally, 4e did not present itself as a viable step forward from 3e because of the manner it was presented. I was in the middle of running a 3.5e game, when 4e was announced. It was strongly suggested that players and DMs alike finish their current campaigns to prepare to begin anew with 4e. That seemed strange, as my game at the time had gone from using the 1e ruleset to the 3e ruleset with minimal effort. Further information began to chip away at my preferred style of play, in favor of what the designers thought was “fun”.

And no, 4e does not smell like D&D, to me. It killed far too many sacred cows that had been preserved throughout prior editions; the World of Greyhawk, etheral plane, succubus/erinyes, undersea critters and hags, etc. Those changes might well have drawn others to 4e, but it turned me into a leap-grognard.

Still, I considered trying a 4e game. But, given the initial rules provided, the game I wanted to run, which required druids, greenhags, and the Awaken spell, was not supported. Sure, I could have converted them from a prior edition, but why bother when one could simply run such a game with the prior ruleset?

And yet, while I have have never had the desire to invest my interest in a setting other than GH, it turns out setting can play a role in attracting one to a different edition. Alluria Publishing released Cerulean Seas for the Pathfinder RPG, though it did not use Golarion as the campaign setting. I had never considered Pathfinder, as it was close enough to 3.5e not to warrant a second glance. Yet, as my 3.5e game is set underwater, the undersea aspects of Cerulean Seas piqued my interest.

So, I downloaded the book (PDF only, hardcopy due in April). I liked what I saw. It made references to Pathfinder’s Advanced Player’s Guide. I downloaded that PDF and liked what I saw. The next thing I know I had 5 Pathfinder PDFs and had picked up a few hardcopies at Amazon and Books-a-Million. Now I find myself wondering if a Pathfinder/Cerulean Seas campaign would find a wider audience than my 3.5e campaign. 

We shall see.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> Pawsplay, I think what you say tends to reinforce my point - or, at least, it seems to me quite consistent with it.
> 
> The only way in which that sort of simulationism makes a game newbie-friendly is if the newbie has an excellent grasp of real world probabilities, _and_ the GM gives a rich enough description of the ingame situation for the newbie to be able to apply his/her knowledge.




That is certainly NOT the only way. RPGs will tell you what is doable or not, primarily through what there are rules for. If you want to take this action, and the GM explains the penalties and modifiers, it will be clear this a sub-optimal action. That is the beauty of rules. It is also the downfall of GM improvisation, unless the GM and the players all agree on what is feasible. 

I'm a big fan of using systems in loose and creative ways, but that can easily go too far. If you find yourself thinking, "Why do I need rules at all?" the answer is probably that you don't. But I like having rules.



> I don't think this is likely to be a very common state of affairs.
> 
> I think the typical newbie to a fantasy RPG is more likely to declare actions based on a sense of fictional/cinematic appropriateness. (We're assuming here that the newbie in question hasn't already mastered the mechanics, and so isn't guided by considerations of mechanical optimality.) And a system that processes those declarations by rendering them as mechanically sub-optimal isn't one that I see as especially newbie-friendly.




I have no idea where you are getting your assumptions. Seeing newbies as wide-eyed "cinematic" roleplayers with a romantic view of combat is, I think, a narrow view of the newbie population, extremely narrow. Someone who reads LOTR isn't necessarily going to have the same view of the fantasy genre as someone who saw the film first. Someone who grew up playing WoW is not necessarily going to expect that any and all "cool" actions are going to be effective; a few tough raids will rub off any such misunderstandings. Someone who prefers Kingdom of Heaven to Conan the Barbarian is going to have a different view. Someone who prefers The Matrix to CTHD is probably likely to intuit that the actions in the Matrix are linked to specific powers that must be learned. 

Decades of history suggest you are wrong. Vampire was extremely newbie friendly. It had a flexible game system, but what really drew people in were the sourcebooks. The New Word of Darkness is probably less newbie-friendly, precisely because it is more abstract, less codified; more optional, less core.

It is a common myth that newbies love improvisation and rules-lite gaming. A certain minority do; they temperamentally prefer it, and figure that out early on. But most do not. Rules-lite gaming is the equivalent to writing blank verse; anyone can do it, but doing it well requires considerable skill. To be able to act intuitively, to respond realistically or cinematically, to be able to produce narration on the fly... those are the skills of an advanced player. They require practice, and they require building blocks. And most often, those building blocks are things like pre-built encounters to study, playing and experiencing games of various types to learn about tone and philosophy, mastering rules so you can understand how different actions relate to each other. 

To most newbies, introducing them to gaming through rules-lite gaming is like inviting someone out to a fantastic new restaurant, then taking them to one of the restaurants where you have to pick your own ingredients. If they know what the ingredients do and how to combine them, great! If not... shoot, they'd probably rather just grab some cheese fries.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Mallus said:


> What interests me more is why Pathfinder is selling so well. Paizo's core products are their AP's, correct? Are there really _that_ many Pathfinder DM's out their running _that_ many Pathfinder campaigns? What's driving their sales?
> 
> It seems what Paizo's done --and more power to them for doing so-- is to successfully steal a big portion of the "D&D completist" segment away from WotC. People who are now buying adventures they won't get to run instead of books of class crunch for PC's they won't get to play.




Well I do remember reading that a lot of people who buy stuff like APs and adventures are those who just read them them.  They can't get a group together or something so they do the next best thing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Good point. With the Advanced Player's Guide they've certainly moved beyond it that base, however.



Certainly, but that's like BMW's work with the Cooper Minis- those cars had a huge following before BMW bought the company and returned them to production with modern features.

Pathfinder would die if it didn't make SOME changes.


> I'm saying that the popular dolls are making the accessories popular, and that selling the accessories is the business model.




Actually, what I said:


> The availability of the accessories isn't making the dolls popular, they were popular beforehand.




...echoes your point, and is a refutation of the OP's point.  The accessories (campaign settings, adventure paths, etc.), are only selling because of the popularity of the underlying ruleset; they are not a significant reason why the underlying ruleset fails or succeeds.


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> It seems what Paizo's done --and more power to them for doing so-- is to successfully steal a big portion of the "D&D completist" segment away from WotC.



How do you think they did this?






> People who are now buying adventures they won't get to run instead of books of class crunch for PC's they won't get to play.



Don't agree here.  Adventure and story and flavor are absolutely the foundation of Paizo's reputation and their success built up from there.  And they do continue to prove that strength.  

But their crunch sells very well also.



(I also chuckle at the ease of presumption of buying stuff and not ever using it, but I'll just tack that to the list of our differences and save it for a more fitting thread)


----------



## BryonD

pawsplay said:


> It is a common myth that newbies love improvisation and rules-lite gaming.



My experience strongly agrees with this.   (at least the "rule-light" part)

However, I would temper that with "different strokes..."

I would not be at all surprised to find that a survey of 3X fans who don't care for 4E would reflect your (and my) view and a survey of 4E fans who don't care for 3X would support the "myth".


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> How do you think they did this?



By producing products the higher-spending segment of the market wanted to buy. 

Personally I don't have any use for Paizo products. My group uses homebrew settings exclusively, and our DM's custom-create adventures, mostly in response to PC actions, pretty much the opposite of a published adventure path series. However, I can see the allure of their products, because adventures and their attendant setting details are much more like fiction than the (mostly) mechanics-focused 4e books. Paizo's offerings have an additional utility as inspiration and pure reading material that WotC's don't. 



> Adventure and story and flavor are absolutely the foundation of Paizo's reputation and their success built up from there.  And they do continue to prove that strength.
> 
> But their crunch sells very well also.



I agree with this. But, as you say, they made their reputation selling adventures, and their crunch supports their adventure line, not vice-versa. And this proved to be a smart choice. 



> (I also chuckle at the ease of presumption of buying stuff and not ever using it, but I'll just tack that to the list of our differences and save it for a more fitting thread)



It may be fodder for another thread, but let's touch on it here. I don't think it's very presumptuous at all. There is a segment of gaming market that's completist. You'll find plenty of people around here who happily admit to being a part of it. 

But more importantly, how many adventure paths does your average, aging, time-pressed D&D group have time to actually play out? Given the volume of material Paizo publishes, it's hardly a stretch to suggest that a portion, if not a significant portion, is, at best, being read and not played. And the same is true for WotC's books full of additional PC mechanics.


----------



## radferth

Wow, this is my favorite new thread in quite some time.  To address the OP, I am not sure sure if it is important for WotC to have a single, well-supported setting, but I do think think they are hurt by the relative dearth of setting material and adventures available for 4e.  I know not every DM uses either of these, but I know they are a big part of the draw for me to use a given system.

Maybe it isn't specifically the lack of setting materials, or adventures, but the lack of variety of stuff available.  IMHO, WotC has never been great at putting out adventures.  There a few 3.x adventures a like, and that second one for 4e seems pretty good, but they have never put out many, and only a subset of those are very good.   Under the OGL, this didn't particularly matter, and there were plenty of 3rd-party adventures, as well as splatbooks, setting books, and whatever else you wanted.

Now many (most, I would say) of these 3rd-party products were crap, but there were still quite a few that were good.  If you are someone who says "I like a system that has X available for it," chances are 3.x had that.  Fast forward to today.  If X in anything other than company-approved splat books, or delves, you are out of luck, and are probably playing something else.  (Although I admit, if X is computer support, 4e has that much better than 3x in its heyday, although less so than 6 months ago).

Now, I can certainly understand why WotC would have wanted a more restrictive license this time. They were probably happy to have Goodman and Necromancer and Paizo making adventures for their system.  But I am sure they saw variant d20 games like Spycraft and Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas line as folks taking a free ride at best, lost sales at worst.  But they made it so restrictive (and released it so late), it gave even the module-producers second thoughts.  And something about the system (tight integration? constant release of new feats and powers?) chased away the third-party splatbooks as well.

The end result is a system where WotC is making all the potentially big-selling items, but for which no one is making all the other stuff.  I don't know if they meant to chase off the third-party guys quite so thoroughly, or if it was just a case of "think you used enough dynamite there, Butch", but in an effort stop losing sales to third-party products, they put themselves in a situation where they are losing sales by having a system that is "not as popular as it could have been" because it lacks those very 3rd-party products.

Given that they pulled PDF sales, and pulled the character-builder online, they seem almost obsessive in trying to make sure no one freeloads off their IP, whether it be due to piracy, infrequent DDI subscribing, or lazy 3rd-party products.  We have no way of knowing whether this was a conscious decision by Hasbro to have tighter control over a possibly smaller segment of the market, or just someone higher up the corporate ladder tying WotC's hands in a very short-sighted way.

I'm not entirely sure where I am going with all this, I guess just that given WotC's business plan of a tightly-integrated game system with limited 3rd-party support, 4e is about exactly "as popular as it could have been."  Whether Hasbro expected those results or not, only they can say.


----------



## Steel_Wind

MichaelSomething said:


> Well I do remember reading that a lot of people who buy stuff like APs and adventures are those who just read them them.  They can't get a group together or something so they do the next best thing.




*All* of their subscribers follow this "adventures are read for entertainment" model to one extent or another; moreover, it's not hard to see why.

Consider for a moment the sheer volume of adventure material that Paizo puts out in a given year:

12 x 96 pp. Adventure Paths
6 x 32 pp. stand alone Modules
~25 x 16 pp. Pathfinder Society Scenarios

That's ~ 1,744 pages of adventure material per year that Paizo publishes. The setting material which Paizo publishes is in addition to thie material, and approaches an additional 300-400 pages per year, exclusive of hardcover content.

2,150 pages + per year. That's a LOT.

You could be an extremely busy GM with gamers camped outside your front door _begging_ to play at your table every night of the week. And you would still have a very hard time using all of that adventure material in one year.

More frequently, customers will be playing one AP for 12-24 months, while at the same time they continue to purchase the other APs that are published during their campaign. That adventure material is read as it is acquied monthly (to varying degrees). That GM may return to it when the current campaign is over -- and it may not be. Some other AP may get the nod for the "next campaign."

If a campaign last 24months, there will have been at least three (and maybe four) other APs the GM has collected during the course of the length of time it takes to play that campaign. It is extremely difficult to "keep up" with each AP -- and few even try to do so.

Now, it *is* true that for a minority of customers, the ability to collect and read APs is as close to gaming as they get in their current circumstances (for a variety of personal reasons). But the fact that many  adventures are only read (and rarely actually run) has been true for decades. It isn't something new to Paizo or Pathfinder. 

What is new, is that Paizo recognizes that reality and openly acknowledges that the AP format inherently develops greater "reader interest" from issue to issue than non- AP issues of _Dungeon_ Magazine did.  That's one of the reasons the AP format was so successful.

The point to take away is that there is no shame in recognizing that there is *great* *value-in-use* in terms of how well an adventure reads. To be a great adventure you have to: (1) Look good, (2) Read Well and (3) Play Well. 

All three factors are important. It's *not* just about the gameplay.

When you look at the sheer mass of hardcvoer material that was put out for 3.xx, I expect that the adventures of that era that were read at least once was at a frequently higher than the cornucopia of rules wihch were read at least once during the same time line.  The broad mass of those rule books were flipped through, glanced over, and put on a shelf.

The ability of a gamer to purchase FAR more material than they can read (let alone use at the table) in a given period of time is one of the main things which keeps this hobby going.




*
*


----------



## Mallus

Steel_Wind said:


> *
> 12 x 96 pp. Adventure Paths
> 6 x 32 pp. stand alone Modules
> ~25 x 16 pp. Pathfinder Society Scenarios
> 
> That's ~ 1,744 pages of adventure material per year that Paizo publishes.*



*
Thanks for the facts and figures, SW! And Bryon scoffed at presumption that some Paizo customers might not be playing the adventures they purchased...*


----------



## Bluenose

Mallus said:


> What interests me more is why Pathfinder is selling so well. Paizo's core products are their AP's, correct? Are there really _that_ many Pathfinder DM's out their running _that_ many Pathfinder campaigns? What's driving their sales?




Crunch. My estimate is that in virtually all RPGs half the games are run in homebrew settings, and the rest in a variety of published settings. For Paizo, they're selling Pathfinder rules materials to GMs & players, and they're selling it to people playing in Golarion, FR, Greyhawk, and a lot of other settings.



BryonD said:


> Don't agree here.  Adventure and story and flavor are absolutely the foundation of Paizo's reputation and their success built up from there.  And they do continue to prove that strength.
> 
> But their crunch sells very well also.




I'm absolutely convinced their crunch sells massively more than their adventures/setting material. Consider how surprised they seemed at the success of the Pathfinder rules; if it was selling at the same levels as their fluff material then there'd be no cause to get excited.


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> By producing products the higher-spending segment of the market wanted to buy.



I agree, but that just leads to the same question of "How did they do THAT?"



> Personally I don't have any use for Paizo products. My group uses homebrew settings exclusively, and our DM's custom-create adventures, mostly in response to PC actions, pretty much the opposite of a published adventure path series. However, I can see the allure of their products, because adventures and their attendant setting details are much more like fiction than the (mostly) mechanics-focused 4e books. Paizo's offerings have an additional utility as inspiration and pure reading material that WotC's don't.
> 
> I agree with this. But, as you say, they made their reputation selling adventures, and their crunch supports their adventure line, not vice-versa. And this proved to be a smart choice.



The problem here is you are simply ignoring how well their crunch sells.  Your assessment does not adequately describe events.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Bluenose said:


> I'm absolutely convinced their crunch sells massively more than their adventures/setting material. Consider how surprised they seemed at the success of the Pathfinder rules; if it was selling at the same levels as their fluff material then there'd be no cause to get excited.




At retail it does. However, you need to appreciate that Paizo was founded as a magazine company and their Adventure Path subscriptions are still, far and away, the largest product category that Paizo sells directly to the end consumer.

Direct sales for Paizo? The Adventure Path is king. And there is a lot of money to be made there.

This is important, as this *probably* generates for Paizo an amount of revenue per Adventure Path unit (when sold directly) as Paizo earns off most of their hardcovers when sold through a  distributor. This is not a small point, ok?

To the extent that the hardcovers might earn a little more per unit when sold through a distributor than Paizo earns off an AP direct sale (and I'm not privy to hard data)  then I *strongly suspect* that the lower printing costs of an AP issue makes up for any revenue difference the hardcover brings. 

What does this mean in real terms?

At 8,000 issues sold directly to subscribers per month (to be clear: I have ZERO confidence in that number and I am pulling that out of my butt) that would mean that the Adventure Path product line generates for Paizo about the same gross revenue as selling ~100,000 hardcover rule books in a given year. 

But, importantly, that money comes in predictably *every month* and pays the rent, utilities and some of the staff. Every month. *Like clockwork.*

If we increase that subscriber amount and double it (and while I have no hard date, based on the subscriber base for _Dungeon_, about 16,000 per month seems a reasonable subscriber base for the AP line) then that is the same as the gross revenue they would make on 200,000 hardcovers sold in a given year. That's $225,000 per month in drect AP sales. Like clockwork. You can pretty much run most of the company off of that revenue alone -- and they do.

That's big money in the RPG business. Not only that, it's evergreen money, too. The 40,000 subscribers that are causually discussed for DDI? On a net revenue basis, those numbers and Paizo's AP sales revenue are relatively close to one another.  That's how important the Adventure Path sales are to Paizo. 

And we have not yet even counted in the _other products_ that Paizo sells directly to its customers.  Direct sales, whether at Gencon or through a webstore, are highly profitable.  And as has been discussed on ENWorld in other threads, Paizo sells a LOT more to its customers directly in terms or revenune per customer, per month, than WotC does.

Now we don't have hard data for Paizo's sales -- but we do have the gem below recently published on the blog of Black Diamond Games. The revenue at retail at that one store (and it IS just one store folks so we need to be careful when projecting this result across the whole market) is somewhat surprising. 

Black Dimond Games currently earns just about the same amount of money off of five Paizo hardcover rulebooks as it earns off of ALL of WotC hardcovers and essentials line according to the owner. That makes Pathfinder a more profitable RPG to sell -- at least at this stage -- for both Paizo and for the retailer (as that means bigger sales from less rack space)

The below chart indicated that the APs do sell reasonably well at retail. The stand-alone adventures for Pathfinder, however, clearly do not sell well.  There is magic in the AP line that is not found elsewhere in adventure gaming.

One last surprising note: the Flip-mat and Gamemastery Map Tiles published by Paizo are surprisingly brisk sellers for those stores that stock the complete lines.  Paizo is making a lot of money off of those accessories. That's why they are increasing the lines, not cutting them back as WotC is doing with their own dungeon tiles.


----------



## Primal

Mallus said:


> What interests me more is why Pathfinder is selling so well. Paizo's core products are their AP's, correct? Are there really _that_ many Pathfinder DM's out their running _that_ many Pathfinder campaigns? What's driving their sales?
> 
> It seems what Paizo's done --and more power to them for doing so-- is to successfully steal a big portion of the "D&D completist" segment away from WotC. People who are now buying adventures they won't get to run instead of books of class crunch for PC's they won't get to play.




Well, I think it has a lot to do with awesome production values and customer relations; Paizo has, IMO, far better art direction than WoTC does, and their products look pretty damn good. And, as Paizo fans often point out, Paizo employees and freelancers are very forthcoming and have a really good rapport with their customers. However, WoTC staffers comment only rarely on their own forum, and they like to keep a lid on things as long as possible. Also, Paizo listens to their fans; not only do they respond to feedback, but every now and then they also ask: "What do you want us to publish?" or "What do you want to see in X and Y?". As we know, public playtests are also linked to this, and AFAIK at least 'Cities of Golarion' and 'Dungeons of Golarions' were originally suggested by posters on the Paizo forums.

But, gorgeous art and layouts, plus openness and vigorous communication with their fans are just one part of the story; if you ask me, it's their high standard of quality, writing and attention to detail that has grabbed a lot of the former and current WoTC customers (at least among the 25+ crowd). For example, APG is in my opinion the best D&D supplement I've ever bought, and this single book contains enough material for years and years of play. And not only do their adventures read well, most of them play very well, too -- at least in my experience -- and Golarion is to me what FR used to be, i.e. a detailed setting with a lot of elements from my favorite literary genres. 

Speaking as a librarian, boxed sets are not ideal material for public libraries; Paizo's books are, and that is why Pathfinder is getting more attention at the library I work at (and other city libraries as well, I guess). In fact, as far as I know, there aren't too many 4E groups in my country, but I personally know several groups that are playing Pathfinder; I even have several Pathfinder GMs among my co-workers. I don't know about US, but if I had to guess, I'd say Pathfinder is definitely more popular than 4E in Europe.

Finally, Paizonians know exactly what they're doing, what their fans want to see and where they should be heading; WoTC, on the other hand, seems to be flailing around in darkness and desperately trying to hit _something_. I would actually *want* to try running 4E, and I guess I'm one of those people who they tried to hook with Essentials, but I'm not interested in Fortune Cards or boardgames or "4.5-ish" revised books with added options; I want minis and new printings of core rulebooks with errata (and I dislike digital products, so DDI is not an option for me). I still buy Dungeon Tiles (which is, IMO, their only product line that still has great production values and usability), but as I'm looking at their product catalogue for this year, I feel sorely disappointed.


----------



## BryonD

To echo parts of Steel Wind's points,

I am highly confident that, at this point, growth in their story based product is being strongly supported by their recognition as the home of 3X roleplaying.  Just because the adventures got the ball rolling does not mean that the benefits always flow in the direction.


And, the one thing I think is clearly the big point of common success between 4E and PF is the subscription model.  The details are way different, but the economic core is the same.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> I posted a longer discussion about this recently, but in short, there is a fundamental mistake in comparing 3E to 4E here.



I think I basically agree with you.

I posted upthread that, when 4e was released, I assumed that WotC had the market research to confirm Ron Edwards' specualtion that a well-supported RPG that departed from "simulationism-by-habit" could really take off.

It seems, however, that WotC were taking a bit of a punt, and that Edwards' speculation was wrong. (Although I think WotC didn't do as good a job as they might have in writing their rules texts - see below for more on this.)



Mercurius said:


> In some ways it seems that 4E advocates a sandbox approach to the game, yet doesn't offer enough tools and support for running a sandbox-style game. So in the end 4E has been in a kind of in-between state, between its original "points of light" sandbox approach and its half-baked settings.
> 
> See, I don't see why they can't do both - advocate a sandbox approach, provide support for running a sandbox game, but also create and support and ongoing setting (like Nentir Vale).



My response to this - and it's just my intuition, it's not coming from any deep insight into either RPG business or RPG design - is twofold.

On "why not both" - I think it's actually a bit of a challenge to come up with action resolution mechanics that suit both "just in time" GMing of a situation-driven game, and that suit "world/story" GMing of the sort that a developed setting supports.

I'm not saying it's impossible - HeroWars, for example, is a game that tries to combine both approaches using Glorantha as the gameworld.

But just one example as to why it might be tricky - in a "world/story" game, the GM is likely to know the obstacles in advance, and to present them in some detail to the players, and the players will then be looking for action resolution mechanics that really let them enage with the detail of those challenges. And those action resolution mecanics have to produce results that put the players on the same page as the GM - otherwise the game won't run smoothly.

On the other hand, in a "just in time" game the GM is more likely to be adding details to a situation in response to ideas and interest expressed by the players as play is going on. So the action resolution mechanics have to be ones that encourage the players to produce those sorts of ideas, and that let them pursue their interests - otherwise the GM will be left with nothing to build on.

Skill challenges are, in my view, a good attempt at a mechanic for the second sort of play - and that is how the _rules_ for skill challenges are presented in the DMG and PHB (I can provide quotes if desired). But skill challenges are a fairly poor mechanic for the first sort of play - they tend to produce the "exercise in dice rolling" experience, as the GM describes the situation to the players, and tells them their options, and the players roll the dice. And this is how the _examples_ of skill challenges both in the DMG and in the WotC adventures have tended to be experienced (not by everyone, but I think at least by a majority of the posts I've read on these forums).

Second response: I think Ron Edwards is right when he says that authors of non-simulationsist RPGs mechanics are often afraid to explain, in plain language, how they intend their mechanics to be used. They fall back into the language of simulationist RPGs. And this makes the rulebooks for their games at least moderately incoherent. And in my view 4e has this problem. (Worlds and Monsters is an honourable exception, but its candidness about the way in which monsters and other game elements are intended, by the designers, to be used by a GM in running adventures is reflected in only one part of the core 4e rules that I can recall - namely, in the DMG's brief discussion of languages. EDIT TO THIS: of course the DMG makes it very clear how monsters are to be used in combat encounter design and resolution - but I'm talking about the use of game elements to create an FRPG experience - indeed, the fact that the DMG goes metagame _only in relation to combat, but not in relation to GMing overall_ is part of the problem.)

When I look at the rules in a book like Hubris's Maelstrom Storytelling, or Robin Laws HeroQuest II - which are both sterling exceptions to Edwards' generalisation about non-simulationist game texts -  and compare them to WotC's efforts, it makes me cry (well, not literally!). If only WotC had actually explained to readers of the rulebooks _how the sort of game that the 4e mechanics support is played and GMed_, maybe 4e would not have so easily fallen victim to the "dice rolling"/"minis game"/"WoW" critiques. Instead WotC left this as an exercise for the reader - and those who tried to play the game in the typical sort of way that 2nd ed AD&D or 3E was played had, I assume, a fairly mediocre experience, of rolling a few dice and making a few tactical decisions but not really experiencing the evocative power of gaming in a fantasy world.

But like I said upthread, and earlier in this post in response to BryonD, maybe the sort of game that 4e exemplifies is just not going to be popular in any event. In which case I fully agree with you that the problem for 4e's popularity is the setting issue, _but precisely because_ this is (in my view) a symptom of deeper features of the mechanics which it turns out many RPGers seem not to want.


----------



## pemerton

Mallus said:


> It seems what Paizo's done --and more power to them for doing so-- is to successfully steal a big portion of the "D&D completist" segment away from WotC. People who are now buying adventures they won't get to run instead of books of class crunch for PC's they won't get to play.





Mallus said:


> I can see the allure of their products, because adventures and their attendant setting details are much more like fiction than the (mostly) mechanics-focused 4e books. Paizo's offerings have an additional utility as inspiration and pure reading material that WotC's don't.



Good posts that make sense to me. What is a little frustrating to me is that, in my experience, the closer an RPG product is to fiction, the harder it is for me to incorporate into my game. I want outlines of situations that are ready for me to drop my party into, perhaps with a few general possibilities for resolution sketched out, and perhaps with some backstory that is engaging and likely to make a difference in the actual play. These tend to be more like encyclopaedia entries and less like readable fiction.


----------



## pemerton

Aeolius said:


> Others embraced the new edition. The reasons why really don’t concern me but I hope they understand I will never play 4e, just as they will never return to 3.5e.



And some of us weren't playing 3E or 3.5, and came back to D&D because of 4e. But, it seems, perhaps not enough of us.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> That is certainly NOT the only way. RPGs will tell you what is doable or not, primarily through what there are rules for.
> 
> <snip details>
> 
> It is a common myth that newbies love improvisation and rules-lite gaming.



Pawsplay, I don't really disagree with anything you say here, and I feel that you may have misunderstood my post(s).

Someone upthread suggested that 3E handled newbies unfamiliar with the mechanics well, because all the newbie had to do was describe an action, and then the GM used the rules to resolve it.

4e, on the other hand, was said to be less friendly in this respect because its power-based/exception-based design means there are no clear underlying substystems that the GM can turn to in a similar fashion.

My point was that I think this exaggerates the newbie friendliness of 3E, because in fact many of those underlying subystems in the 3E rules will produce mechanically sub-optimal results, which are likely to lead to the newbie having a less-than-satisfactory experience (at least in combat).

I believe that the point made in the last paragraph stands _regardless of whether or not_ 3E's systems are good simulations (you suggested that they are - I'm in no position to dispute you on that) and _whether or not_ newbies like rules-lite. Furthermore, if a newbie is eager to learn the rules, than s/he will likely have no more trouble learning the mechanics that govern her low-level 4e PC than the mechanics that govern her low-level 3E PC.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> If only WotC had actually explained to readers of the rulebooks _how the sort of game that the 4e mechanics support is played and GMed_, maybe 4e would not have so easily fallen victim to the "dice rolling"/"minis game"/"WoW" critiques. Instead WotC left this as an exercise for the reader - and those who tried to play the game in the typical sort of way that 2nd ed AD&D or 3E was played had, I assume, a fairly mediocre experience, of rolling a few dice and making a few tactical decisions but not really experiencing the evocative power of gaming in a fantasy world.



I can only speak for myself.  But I am comfortable presuming that my own view is fairly typical.

I understand how 4e plays and is intended to be played.  And well before 4E was released I knew that it was not a game that appealed to my tastes.  

In the last months leading up to 4E's release a very common arguement was that those of us not interested simply did not "have everything in context".  This turned out to be untrue.

So I really don't think having it explained better was the problem at all.

In contrast, I look at Andy Collins comment to the effect that prior editions tried to make classes the way they would be in a fantasy world and 4E instead looked to make compelling game mechanics.  To me that puts "mini games" squarely in front, to the expense of "the evocative power of gaming in a fantasy world".  

That isn't to argue right or wrong.  But the perceptions are not based on understanding or playing 4E differently than intended.


----------



## 1Mac

> The accessories (campaign settings, adventure paths, etc.), are only selling because of the popularity of the underlying ruleset; they are not a significant reason why the underlying ruleset fails or succeeds.



I wouldn't group setting materials in the same category as the adventure paths. APs (I believe) are where the money is for Paizo. The rules make Paizo money as well, but they also exist to perpetuate the adventure paths by making sure there are players.

If the OP is right, the setting materials do the same, but in a subtler way. They don't have as big an impact on the balance sheet, but they ultimately enhance the play experience, so that people enjoy playing Pathfinder games more, and in a hazy way make more people want to have that enjoyable experience. I think that's the OP's theory.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> If only WotC had actually explained to readers of the rulebooks how the sort of game that the 4e mechanics support is played and GMed, maybe 4e would not have so easily fallen victim to the "dice rolling"/"minis game"/"WoW" critiques.




Nah.

Personally, 4Ed's Healing Surges reminded me of arcade combat games...and still do.

For some of the guys in my group, they were already familiar with parts of 4Ed's mechanics/terminology from the CRPGs they played and from working in the computer game programming biz.

It wasn't a lack of understanding, but rather a feel of intimate familiarity.  And it was familiarity with things that simply didn't have the right "D&D" feel to us.

Besides, if you have to explain "how the sort of game that the 4e mechanics support is played and GMed", you have a problem.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

pemerton said:


> And some of us weren't playing 3E or 3.5, and came back to D&D because of 4e. But, it seems, perhaps not enough of us.



I suspect, but have no real proof beyond personal experience, that more people came back to D&D because of 3e - I was one of them, and I know maybe another dozen or so old timers who did the same.

3e resonated with our tastes and added the support via skills and feats that was lacking from 2e. (I had quit by the time Powers and Powers showed up - not a negative comment about those books, I never played a game using them, they could have been awesome and I would not know.)

4e... not so much - I know more folks who stopped playing D&D completely than I do folks who switched to 4e. I know even more who either switched to Pathfinder or are still running their 3.X games with the tottering mountains of material they picked up before/just after 4e was announced. And I know two who are retro-converting Pathfinder adventures to 3.5.

I think that I know one person who converted to 4e, and he plays Pathfinder too.

Ages, for the most part, 35 plus.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Lanefan

TheAuldGrump said:


> I suspect, but have no real proof beyond personal experience, that more people came back to D&D because of 3e - I was one of them, and I know maybe another dozen or so old timers who did the same.



'Round here we noticed a significant upsurge in interest in the game shortly after 3e came out, but I don't think it was specifically because of the 3e ruleset.  I say this purely from seeing the wave of players our 1e games took in around that time, after a severe fallow period in the late '90's.

It was because the game had become relevant again.  WotC, in their marketing for 3e, had dragged the whole hobby out of the shadows it had been hiding in; and people saw it and either remembered it or wanted to try it and learn it.  Regardless of edition.



> 4e... not so much - I know more folks who stopped playing D&D completely than I do folks who switched to 4e. I know even more who either switched to Pathfinder or are still running their 3.X games with the tottering mountains of material they picked up before/just after 4e was announced. And I know two who are retro-converting Pathfinder adventures to 3.5.



In our lot there's two - well, one-and-a-very-wobbly-half - 3.x campaigns, one of which is due to reboot using Pathfinder by year's end; and two 1e-variant campaigns.  None of us have tried playing 4e, though I've got more than enough material to do so should I ever want to...which I don't.

I will say I'm extremely keen to see what they do with this projected 5e in terms of both design and marketing; particularly marketing, as if they can generate an upsurge in interest like what happened at 3e release that's good for everybody no matter what we're playing.

Lan-"some of the adventures I buy never get played mostly because it's only on reading them that I realize just how bad they are"-efan


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> My point was that I think this exaggerates the newbie friendliness of 3E, because in fact many of those underlying subystems in the 3E rules will produce mechanically sub-optimal results, which are likely to lead to the newbie having a less-than-satisfactory experience (at least in combat).




I just don't get that. "Both your attacks will take a huge minus to hit," for instance, is about as unambiguous as you can get. Suboptimal results happen. "I try to jump the chasm, how far is it?" "Ten feet. Roll your Jump skill." "What do I need to roll?" "You need a 15." "Oh."



> I believe that the point made in the last paragraph stands _regardless of whether or not_ 3E's systems are good simulations (you suggested that they are - I'm in no position to dispute you on that) and _whether or not_ newbies like rules-lite. Furthermore, if a newbie is eager to learn the rules, than s/he will likely have no more trouble learning the mechanics that govern her low-level 4e PC than the mechanics that govern her low-level 3E PC.




There are some people that are naturally drawn to 4e's tropes. I believe most people, though, are put off right from the beginning from having to learn what funny little symbols mean just to use your abilities. Once you grasp what a "Daily" is, then you can activate it, but there isn't any clear guidance to a new person as to when you should do that. 4e has a semblance of simplicity, because most of its tactical resolution can be described as "I use X on Y," but that conceals a multitude of sub-systems that make 4e work. In actuality, 4e is quite complex. Not as complex as Rolemaster, but IMO probably moreso than 3e. 3e asks you to learn maybe twenty new words to make it through your first encounter; 4e requires double that, plus a familiarity with weird symbols. The notecard format of a power might say "push an opponent two squares" but that requires you know what pushing is and what a square means in tactical terms. Even though the information is compacted, it's the same level of detail 3e requires. But it's not as flexible. Way too often, 4e is going to say, "Sorry, we don't know how to do that."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm with you there, pawsplay: i was REALLY annoyed that the algebra of 4Ed powers wasn't explained right out of the gate.  Yeah, after decades of gaming, I could suss out that [W] meant weapon, but that might not be immediately obvious to a new player.


----------



## shadzar

4th edition does have a setting, Points of Light, but the problem is nobody understand and/or likes it as much as something more...well designed.

All the angst towards Forgotten Realms, it had a  large following.

Now sure what the setting of 3rd was, but previously Greyhawk pretty much worked for D&D as the main setting becaue it was based on Earth (Oerth) where we ourselves live and could accept the world that is human-centric with fantastic elements.

I really don't understand PoL, but it has no real focus. It tries to be all encompassing but at the same time offers nothing to explain itself. How can one related to that when you don't even know what it is.

4th edition's setting is like a plate of crackers, where just a few more ingredients you could have a cake instead.

It is there, just it is a generic and flavorless as can be so that all the elements of 4th edition could fit. The only real place you notice it is up front with dragonborn and tielfling as playable races while gnomes were a monster. But doesn't explain why these beasts are accept int he world and you now have a big nosed yellow kobold to fit.

Going back the the cracker and PoL, most of 4th edition is just as flavorless as they are.

It has simple concept to play as a gaming, but beyond the game, there is not much offered to new players to help them tell a story due to its lack of flavor in many forms.

So it strove to capture new gamers, but left out anything, as you feel a setting but I say flavor (mostly the same), to really inspire new players.

There is a lot of good stuff and ideas in it, but it isn't what many look for in an RPG, as they may have heard about RPGs from the past.


----------



## pemerton

TheAuldGrump said:


> 3e resonated with our tastes and added the support via skills and feats that was lacking from 2e.



I was playing Rolemaster when 3E came out, and kept playing it. I paid attention to 3E - especially because of the Monte Cook authorship - but didn't feel that it offered anything to me that I wasn't getting out of Rolemaster.



TheAuldGrump said:


> I had quit by the time Powers and Powers showed up - not a negative comment about those books, I never played a game using them, they could have been awesome and I would not know.



Not awesome in my experience - rather, hideously unbalanced. But others might have found them different.



TheAuldGrump said:


> 4e... not so much - I know more folks who stopped playing D&D completely than I do folks who switched to 4e.



I only know my own group - GM plus 2 players RM>4e, 2 players 3E>4e, and 1 player RM & 3E > 4e (we merged two groups as some personnel moved overseas at the end of 2008).



TheAuldGrump said:


> Ages, for the most part, 35 plus.



Ages in our group(s) 39-42(or maybe he's 43?).

None of the above is suggested as representative - apart from anything else, I think there aren't very many RM players left - just as another anecdote.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I'll say, speaking for myself, that the terminology of 4e (that Pemerton and ByronD) were discussing on the prior page was one of, if not THE biggest, one of the biggest turnoffs for me.

Had they released the exact same system but changed the wording quite a bit, I think that would have "felt" more like D&D to people that don't feel 4e is similar enough to prior editions.

Things like "push the target 2 squares" immediately pull me out of the roleplaying feel and put me in the "chess style" feel. I'm not saying you can't roleplayin 4e at all, but I am saying the wording of 4e pulls you out of a roleplaying style just how it was written.

I think, had it been written with "push the target 10 feet" (and numerous other examples I don't think we need to hash out) there would have been far fewer arguments about "4e isn't a roleplaying game" and "you can't roleplay in 4e".


But, honestly, I think there are perhaps half a dozen to a dozen things that could have made 4e more popular. It's not a single issue. Many of these reasons have nothing to do with the game itself, either. Several are drawn from poor marketing and poor publicity (like pulling pdfs) and others include the digital tools not being ready at launch (which I think, had they been, would have made 4e more popular as well).


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> just as another anecdote.



Anecdotes are certainly just anecdotes.

But if you are claiming that the overall impact of 3E was not huge, then I think you are either in denial or just unaware.

"3E was truly a golden age of D&D, a revival of all that was great from the early years of the game. Its too bad that same feeling and fervor couldnt happen for 4E." - Clark Peterson

"Is 4E doing as well as 3E sales in 2001? Definitely not. That was the high point in a generation." - Joseph Goodman

And these quotes are from over a year ago.  (nearly two years)   The goalposts of the debate have moved a long way since then.

You can, of course, just declare these quotes equally meaningless.  If you want to, knock yourself out.  The quotes don't prove anything, common sense and open eyes do that in this case.  But the quotes go much further than simple random gamer anecdotes.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> I just don't get that. "Both your attacks will take a huge minus to hit," for instance, is about as unambiguous as you can get.



OK, I follow you, your interpolating a step that I hadn't taken the first poster to be suggesting - namely, that before implementing the newbie's action in mechanical terms, the GM paraphrases, in simple language, what that mechanical implementation will be.



pawsplay said:


> In actuality, 4e is quite complex. Not as complex as Rolemaster, but IMO probably moreso than 3e.



I think it's tactically richer than Rolemaster - a type of complexity. The actual search and handling time on action resolution is quite a bit less - a type of simplicity. Character build is quicker to start up but probably more complex to manage - I'd call it a wash.

I can't compare to 3E very well, because I have only limited experience of 3E, but I personally found the 4e PHB and DMG made it clearer to me how 4e was going to run (when I first GMed it) than is true of the 3E rulebooks. But that could easily be a fact about me rather than a fact about the books.

If I actually had to recommend a fantasy RPG to a newbie, I'd suggest Moldvay Basic, or if they are playing with an experienced GM, then either Runequest or HeroQuest. Surprisingly, RM can also work for newbies provided the GM is prepared to do the search-and-handling work and the newbie only looks after the basics of character building. This is because there aren't very many traps in RM, so if you set out to build a PC with big numbers where you want them you'll probably do OK.

I think a newbie building a 4e PC would benefit from a bit of coaching - unlike RM, it's not just about building up big numbers where you want them.



pawsplay said:


> Way too often, 4e is going to say, "Sorry, we don't know how to do that."



This is the only point of yours I really differ on. I'm not sure how much experience with 4e you're basing it on, or what sorts of things you have in mind, but in my experience this hasn't proved true at all.

To give a bit more content to that - I'm not thinking so much of minutiae of combat manoeuvres, but improv/stunt stuff more generally - jumping over swarms, using prayers in combat to get advantages against undead, concealing magic, using fire magic in a library without destroying the books. I've found 4e handles this sort of stuff cleanly and evocatively - certainly better than RM (speaking from a lot of experience) and I feel also better than 3E - with the 3E rulebooks, I really wouldn't know where to start for a lot of this stuff.


----------



## cyderak

4e wasn't as popular as it could have been because 4e took D&D and turned it on its head.

1.) Instead of re-imagining the characters we all came to know and love,  they fast forwarded 200 years into the future.  And unless those characters were an immortal race and somehow avoided being killed in a fantasy-based world for 200 years,  they went the way of the Condor.  There goes the nostalgic attachments anyone had to the D&D world of old.

2.)For me personally I thought it lost its likeness to D&D.  From info I have gathered from talking in casual conversations with other gamers the concensus seems to be the same.  4th edition was a good game system but it wasn't D&D.  



I'll leave it at that.  I have a knack for pissing people off when I go on rampages about 4e and giving atta-boy's to Paizo's PATHFINDER.


Later.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Missed this thread due to Snowpocalypse and don't feel like reading it all to catch up.

The one and only reason I  believe 4E is not as popular as it could be is that the previous edition is still fully supported by a company with a reputation for good material. Past edition switches have "forced" people to convert if they wanted new material. No need to this time.


----------



## BryonD

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Missed this thread due to Snowpocalypse and don't feel like reading it all to catch up.
> 
> The one and only reason I  believe 4E is not as popular as it could be is that the previous edition is still fully supported by a company with a reputation for good material. Past edition switches have "forced" people to convert if they wanted new material. No need to this time.



There are (at least) two problems with that.

The first is that the division was clear before PF was even announced.  Certainly it has grown since, but it was already there.  It makes more sense to point out that the reason a company with a reputation for good material decided to support a previous edition is because they realized a lot of the market was up for that.

Second, a lot of people did switch and subsequently left.  So clearly the option to not switch was moot in their case.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> To give a bit more content to that - I'm not thinking so much of minutiae of combat manoeuvres, but improv/stunt stuff more generally - jumping over swarms, using prayers in combat to get advantages against undead, concealing magic, using fire magic in a library without destroying the books. I've found 4e handles this sort of stuff cleanly and evocatively - certainly better than RM (speaking from a lot of experience) and I feel also better than 3E - with the 3E rulebooks, I really wouldn't know where to start for a lot of this stuff.




You call it minutiae, but to me the lack of a defined disarm maneuver is kind of a big deal. It bugged me in Basic D&D, it annoyed me that AD&D couldn't figure out how to do it, and I was glad 3e laid it out for me. As for those specific examples, 3e will give you a nice clean difficulty for clearing the area of a swam, prayers versus undead generally aren't effective unless you're a cleric, using fire magic depends on the context (rays require you to hit an AC, areas are not easily controlled without feats, and the rest is probably a Reflexes save vs. X), and you can conceal magic through a combination of Bluff and Sleight of Hand checks. 

Just as a somewhat amusing tangent, the solo adventure in the original Red Box will kill you for trying to use prayers against undead if you are not a cleric. 

I don't claim to be an expert on what 4e will and won't do, but a surprising number of questions have "page 42" as answer, considering there is like a whole page of 1st level powers for each class.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Lanefan said:


> This worked just fine in 1983.




Actually, it didn't work fine in 1983.

Well, okay, maybe it did; I was 4 at the time, and certainly wasn't playing RPGs.

Rather, in the far distant mists of time, I ran into many, many DMs for whom, "I want to do this cool thing!" resulted not in the rosy-tinted exhibition of martial prowess you remember, but a "No - you can't do that."

Sometimes, it resulted in, "Sure, go ahead; roll your normal attacks."  In such a case, my prosy description was merely that, and had no mechanical effect - and _that_ sort of rules interpretation works equally fine now as it did then.

What works better now is, when I have the Improved Shield Bash feat, and the TWF feats, and the Improved Bull Rush feat, I can say, "I attempt to stab the guy on my right and knock the guy on my left back with my shield," and I _know_ that the rules will support the attempt.


----------



## LostSoul

pawsplay said:


> You call it minutiae, but to me the lack of a defined disarm maneuver is kind of a big deal.




This is why I don't really understand 4E.

As far as I can tell, 4E is supposed to be a cinematic game.  PCs are heroes and they do heroic things.  It's hard to kill them and they get right back up at the end of the episode.  Evil characters are frowned upon.  The system makes heroic acts easy for the DM to resolve, with the damage expressions on page 42 and how actions are resolved.

I don't understand why they built a system that tends to make players focus on the "rule space" instead of the heroic acts the PCs are taking.  If they wanted a cinematic system, why focus on "Push 2" and other such effects?

(It's not really page 42 that makes resolution easier - though the damage expressions help - it's how action resolution works.  You make an attack: relevant ability modifier + item modifier + 1/2 level + class features.  If it's greater than or equal to the relevant defence, the action succeeds.  If you need to assign an ad-hoc damage value, use the table on page 42.

That's why grapple in 4E is just a Str attack against Fort instead of a complex chain of melee touch attacks and opposed rolls.  Disarm would be just as easy to resolve, but the power system seems to suggest it's a bad idea...)


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> But if you are claiming that the overall impact of 3E was not huge



Not at all. It seems to have been huge. I'm just a person who didn't play it, and didn't want to play it - I had Rolemaster, a game that I prefer for simulationist play - but who did come to D&D to play 4e.

Part of what I've been saying is that I think WotC must have thought there were enough people like me, and enough people who, having been playing 3E, would like 4e better, that 4e would take off. That is, they must have (roughly) agreed with Ron Edwards about the potential for a non-simulationist game.

And as I posted upthread (twice) it seems that WotC were wrong.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul, to suggest an answer to your 3rd para:

I can only assume that WotC thought that there were many players like my group, who want a crunchier/more tactical play experience than a game like HeroQuest is going to deliver (half of us are ex-Rolemaster, after all) _but_ who also were looking for a much less simulationist approach to world design, scenario design, scene framing, and action resolution. 

So it's not just that they agreed with Ron Edwards, but also that they thought that the players who would flock to a narrativist-leaning game would be drawn from the ranks of those who love Runequest, Rolemaster and collectable card games.

And OK, when I put it that way, it looks like a pretty implausible hypothesis from the start!


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Not at all. It seems to have been huge. I'm just a person who didn't play it, and didn't want to play it - I had Rolemaster, a game that I prefer for simulationist play - but who did come to D&D to play 4e.
> 
> Part of what I've been saying is that I think WotC must have thought there were enough people like me, and enough people who, having been playing 3E, would like 4e better, that 4e would take off. That is, they must have (roughly) agreed with Ron Edwards about the potential for a non-simulationist game.
> 
> And as I posted upthread (twice) it seems that WotC were wrong.



Fair enough.

I think they thought that the vastly larger number of people who play WOW represented a better audience than the people who were already playing D&D.  Maybe that overlaps with your view, maybe not.  But that is how I see it.

[Standard obligatory disclaimer:  I do NOT think 4E is WOW.  I do think 4E is a tabletop RPG designed with a goal of attracting non-tabletop playing WOW players.]


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nah.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It wasn't a lack of understanding, but rather a feel of intimate familiarity.  And it was familiarity with things that simply didn't have the right "D&D" feel to us.





BryonD said:


> I can only speak for myself.  But I am comfortable presuming that my own view is fairly typical.
> 
> I understand how 4e plays and is intended to be played.  And well before 4E was released I knew that it was not a game that appealed to my tastes.



My comment about the rules not explaining how the game is to be played aren't meant to suggest that those with ENworld postcounts in the 1000s can't work it out. I assume you guys are familiar with the indie games that influenced these aspects of 4e's design.

But a lot of RPGers probably are not.

And it's not as if WotC _can't_ write these sorts of rules - Worlds and Monsters has pages and pages telling a GM what sort of play points of light will support, how it can be used, how the different fantasy elements - fey, demons, undead etc - can be used to create a fantasy game experience using the "just in time" techniques that 4e's situation-based design works well with.

But for some reason they chose not to include this sort of stuff in the DMG. The DMG has a lot of advice on the metagame of building combat encounters, but almost none on the metagame of building and running a skill challenge (there are general guidelines, but no almost no details at all), of designing and resolving a non-railroaded scenario, etc.



shadzar said:


> 4th edition does have a setting, Points of Light, but the problem is nobody understand and/or likes it as much as something more...well designed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> most of 4th edition is just as flavorless as they are.



Well flavour obviously is in the eye of the beholder. But after reading Worlds and Monsters I was very keen to run a points-of-light game. I find it well-designed for running the sort of game I want to run - one in which there is a loose framework to inject the "vibe"/"atmosphere" described by Mercurius in the OP, but in whicht the details are built up over the course of play.

I also found the monster lore in the MM was good for this - a bit more than is typical in a Rolemaster or Runequest monster entry, about the same as an AD&D 1st edition monster entry, and less than the 2nd ed entries which I found a bit over-the-top, and tending to answer all the questions in advance of play rather than leaving them to be answered during play.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> LostSoul, to suggest an answer to your 3rd para:
> 
> I can only assume that WotC thought that there were many players like my group, who want a crunchier/more tactical play experience than a game like HeroQuest is going to deliver (half of us are ex-Rolemaster, after all) _but_ who also were looking for a much less simulationist approach to world design, scenario design, scene framing, and action resolution.
> 
> So it's not just that they agreed with Ron Edwards, but also that they thought that the players who would flock to a narrativist-leaning game would be drawn from the ranks of those who love Runequest, Rolemaster and collectable card games.
> 
> And OK, when I put it that way, it looks like a pretty implausible hypothesis from the start!




Really, someone should have pointed out from the beginning that Mike Mearls was trying to recruit himself.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> I think they thought that the vastly larger number of people who play WOW represented a better audience than the people who were already playing D&D.  Maybe that overlaps with your view, maybe not.  But that is how I see it.



Well, my view evolved a little bit in my last reply to LostSoul.

Let me evolve it a bit more in replying to this.

I think WotC may have thought that, by using a few superficial WoW-isms, they could lure WoW players into fantasy RPGing.

But I don't think that 4e is a game that will give a WoW experience, for all the reasons that many others have pointed out many times before. Some of the members of my group are among the most hardcore MMO/WoW players in Melbourne (based on online hours clocked up, early adoption etc) but play D&D for a very different experience.

I really do think that WotC thought that these people - WoW players, CCG players, etc - would enjoy a non-simulationist, situation-based RPG. Like WoW it would have fantasy colour. Like CCG it would have a strong build-and-tactics element. Like an indie RPG it would use this colour and these mechanical features to drive situation-based play.

Anyway, that for me is the best way of trying to understand the game. But I think they squibbed/flaked a bit in the DMG (like I posted upthread) and to a much greater extent in their modules (whereas I might be Robinson Crusoe in my diagnosis of the DMG, I think nearly everyone agrees on the modules).


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> Really, someone should have pointed out from the beginning that Mike Mearls was trying to recruit himself.



Pawsplay, I'm not sure how much - if at all - you're having a dig at me, but I thought this was clever, true and funny!


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> My comment about the rules not explaining how the game is to be played aren't meant to suggest that those with ENworld postcounts in the 1000s can't work it out. I assume you guys are familiar with the indie games that influenced these aspects of 4e's design.
> 
> But a lot of RPGers probably are not.



Well, the ones with post counts of zero are not here to state their case.
But I've known quite a few and I really don't think the people you are talking about have a meaningful impact on the conditions.


I don't think it was a question of can't.  (For the record, I still consider Mearls to be the best game designer going, despite 4E)
I think it comes down to what the goal of the design was.


----------



## LostSoul

pemerton said:


> LostSoul, to suggest an answer to your 3rd para:
> 
> I can only assume that WotC thought that there were many players like my group, who want a crunchier/more tactical play experience than a game like HeroQuest is going to deliver (half of us are ex-Rolemaster, after all) _but_ who also were looking for a much less simulationist approach to world design, scenario design, scene framing, and action resolution.




I think their problem was that their reward systems don't function that well for the design goals of the game.  

Imagine the difference in the game had they lowered XP from killing monsters (by 1/2 or 1/4) and boosted Quest XP by a like amount; couple that with changes to Short and Extended Rests - to get a Short Rest, complete a Minor Quest; to get an Extended Rest, complete a Major Quest.

Then they could give DM advice about how to structure an adventure by using Quests, building different Quests for the different player types, different Quests for different classes, tying Quests to "magic items", having conflicting Quests at the same time, the difference between exploration Quests, strategic Quests, heroic Quests, moral dilemma Quests, that sort of thing.

edit: I have no idea how many people like that sort of thing and it's pointless for me to guess.  What I'm saying is that they didn't do a good job of 1. building the system to support it and 2. explaining how it works.  It's easy enough to drift the system to make it work like that (my early KotS campaign and your own), but we already knew how to make that work!  Because of that I don't think we'll know if people actually like that sort of system or not.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul, the more I think about it the more I think that XP in 4e are not really a reward system at all.

Per Essentials, skill challenges yield rewards regardless of success or failure. Per DMG2, roleplaying yields rewards based on 1 hour = 4 monsters. Combat encounters will yield rewards even if the players flee or are otherwise defeated, depending on how many monsters they take down.

It seems to me that the XP system is mostly, therefore, just a way of pacing the character build system. And the function of the character build system, and the corresponding changes in encounter composition that will go with it (assuming the GM is following the guidelines and using published monsters) will mean that the campaign, whatever its actual story, will have as its overall structure "the story of D&D" - we started with Kobolds and ended with Tiamat!

Real rewards have to come from elsewhere - not the XP for quests, for example, but the story that achieving a quest results in.

That said, I think more guidance on quest structure and use of the quest idea could help. That's one aspect of the sort of gaps in the rulebooks that I'm talking about.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Imagine the difference in the game had they lowered XP from killing monsters (by 1/2 or 1/4) and boosted Quest XP by a like amount; couple that with changes to Short and Extended Rests - to get a Short Rest, complete a Minor Quest; to get an Extended Rest, complete a Major Quest.




That would pretty much eliminate the "problem" of PCs "going nova" (OR would shorten the "15 Minute Workday" to 5), to be sure- with no real gauge on how many encounters makes up a particular Quest, players would be a lot stingier with their resource management.

However, with the breadth of 4Ed resources being rather narrow as compared to 3.5 (due to their more rapid recharge), that could lead to a fairly humdrum game in 4Ed as players repeatedly spam their At-Wills and hoard EVERYTHING else.

I'm not saying the idea of Plot Driven Recharges is without merit, just that it would perforce require a slightly different structure than 4Ed's current makeup...probably more Encounter & Daily powers per level.  Maybe even more At-Wills per PC.


----------



## LostSoul

pemerton said:


> LostSoul, the more I think about it the more I think that XP in 4e are not really a reward system at all.
> 
> Per Essentials, skill challenges yield rewards regardless of success or failure. Per DMG2, roleplaying yields rewards based on 1 hour = 4 monsters. Combat encounters will yield rewards even if the players flee or are otherwise defeated, depending on how many monsters they take down.
> 
> It seems to me that the XP system is mostly, therefore, just a way of pacing the character build system. And the function of the character build system, and the corresponding changes in encounter composition that will go with it (assuming the GM is following the guidelines and using published monsters) will mean that the campaign, whatever its actual story, will have as its overall structure "the story of D&D" - we started with Kobolds and ended with Tiamat!
> 
> Real rewards have to come from elsewhere - not the XP for quests, for example, but the story that achieving a quest results in.
> 
> That said, I think more guidance on quest structure and use of the quest idea could help. That's one aspect of the sort of gaps in the rulebooks that I'm talking about.




I agree with that.  I'm not sure I understand Ron Edward's use of the term "reward system", but I think what he means is something really basic: a cycle of play that changes (and deepens the complexity of) the decisions that players make.

Expending Healing Surges and Daily Powers are a reward system in the way that I understand it.

In terms of "rewards" like an award for good or smart play, no, I don't think that XP work that way.  XP change the characters based on play, thus changing the decisions players make.  (I would personally prefer changes more closely tied to actual play - getting rid of builds.  I do like the fact that you can retrain powers and feats, so if you know that you're facing Orcus cultists, you want to deal with necrotic damage and undead.)

(I recall hoping that each roll of the d20 would grant PCs some XP, way back in '08.  That would highlight that what you do in the game should be important and each action would add up to change the PC.)

I think you're bang-on when you say that real rewards have to come from somewhere else - the story.  That's why I think they should have pushed more for Quests to become a central aspect of play.  Since 4E characters don't really need magic items, they could tie Quests to specific bonuses.  "Once per day, as a free action, you can change the type of damage you deal to Radiant." - a Quest Reward after having a Skill Challenge with an altar of the Raven Queen.

I guess what I'm saying is that - in my opinion - they should have tied each swing of the sword, each Perception check to find secret doors, each skill challenge, to the "story" of the game that they were aiming for.  Everything you do changes your character's relationship to whatever the game is about (probably heroic derring-do).  That's what I've tried to do in my hack: create a cycle of play where actions that take only a heartbeat trickle up all the way to the end result, which is seeing if the player has what it takes to achieve his (personally-authored) Goal.


----------



## LostSoul

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That would pretty much eliminate the "problem" of PCs "going nova" (OR would shorten the "15 Minute Workday" to 5), to be sure- with no real gauge on how many encounters makes up a particular Quest, players would be a lot stingier with their resource management.
> 
> However, with the breadth of 4Ed resources being rather narrow as compared to 3.5 (due to their more rapid recharge), that could lead to a fairly humdrum game in 4Ed as players repeatedly spam their At-Wills and hoard EVERYTHING else.
> 
> I'm not saying the idea of Plot Driven Recharges is without merit, just that it would perforce require a slightly different structure than 4Ed's current makeup...probably more Encounter & Daily powers per level.  Maybe even more At-Wills per PC.




Good analysis.  

I hate to do this, but...

Page 42. 

I think that, if you put pressure on Powers, you might see a little more use of improvised actions.  You'd need to include a section - a sidebar for different classes, perhaps? - that details some improvised actions PCs could try, reminding them that they don't have to rely solely on their Powers.  Combine that with good DM advice on how to build and use Terrain Powers (DMG2 is good, but I think you'd need a different emphasis with what I proposed above), and I think you'd be able to keep the current system and get more "immersion" (whatever that means!) at the action-to-action level in your game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I think some players* could play 4Ed with Plot Driven Recharges as-is, but I get the feeling most wouldn't care for it, even with the adaptations you mention.



* esp. those who favored non-casters in previous editions.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul said:


> I'm not sure I understand Ron Edward's use of the term "reward system", but I think what he means is something really basic: a cycle of play that changes (and deepens the complexity of) the decisions that players make.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that - in my opinion - they should have tied each swing of the sword, each Perception check to find secret doors, each skill challenge, to the "story" of the game that they were aiming for.  Everything you do changes your character's relationship to whatever the game is about (probably heroic derring-do).



I don't know about literally "everything" - sometimes a skill check in my game is just a means to an end, and even the occasional combat is also - but I try and get something like what you describe happening in my game.

I like some aspects of your hack - especially the skills - but I don't feel that I _need_ to depart from 4e's mechanics to get what I'm looking for. What would help me would be better guidance on the GM's side - on how to build and run scenarios, for example, and better guidance on the resolution of skill challenges.

To sum up what I would like: give me the right tools and guidelines as a GM, and I'll build encounters where "everything you do changes your character's standing as a hero in the gameworld." At the moment I feel that, to the extent that I'm doing this, it's because I've read other rulebooks (Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, not to mention many visits to the Forge) and not because of what I got out of the 4e books. They've given me the mechanical tools and the game elements, but not the techniques. And at least for me, these GMing techniques are crucial.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Well flavour obviously is in the eye of the beholder. But after reading Worlds and Monsters I was very keen to run a points-of-light game.




Which section of the PHB, DMG, or MM is this *Worlds and Monsters* in so that a new player picking up one of these books has access to read it as part of the game?


----------



## Dannager

cyderak said:


> 2.)For me personally I thought it lost its likeness to D&D.  From info I have gathered from talking in casual conversations with other gamers the concensus seems to be the same.  4th edition was a good game system but it wasn't D&D.



Years after the game's release, this argument _still_ annoys the dickens out of me. The idea that there are gamers out there whose definitions of D&D are a) so tight that this holds true, or b) so rules-oriented that this holds true is just mind-boggling. I can't imagine how those who think like this must view change in the rest of the world they live in. An inflexible mind is an awful thing to have to nurture.


----------



## BryonD

Dannager said:


> Years after the game's release, this argument _still_ annoys the dickens out of me. The idea that there are gamers out there whose definitions of D&D are a) so tight that this holds true, or b) so rules-oriented that this holds true is just mind-boggling. I can't imagine how those who think like this must view change in the rest of the world they live in. An inflexible mind is an awful thing to have to nurture.




As someone who *doesn't* care whether the game I play feels like old school D&D, I still find your reply rather closed minded.

I like D&D Vancian(ish) magic.  I can live without it perfectly fine.
But it clearly resonates as "in the key of D&D".

But if that is someone's taste, that should be respected.
It is not "inflexible" to have a preference.
Rather, I'd say it is much more a question of being closed minded if you call differing tastes "inflexible"

To put a different spin on a comment I already made to you, if you are so "mind-boggled" and annoyed at inflexibility, then why do you waste so much time converting material from one system to another.  If you would simply be flexible and use the intended system, you could put all that time into other things.  But you are so mind-bogglingly inflexible that this isn't an option.

Now, I'll immediately counter that last by clarifying that I do understand and respect that you get a lot more fun out of 4E and the effort is worth it to you.  But that is giving you a fairer shake than you offered.

And the magic system is just a random example out of dozens available.

It is cool for people to like what they like.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannager said:


> Years after the game's release, this argument _still_ annoys the dickens out of me. The idea that there are gamers out there whose definitions of D&D are a) so tight that this holds true, or b) so rules-oriented that this holds true is just mind-boggling. I can't imagine how those who think like this must view change in the rest of the world they live in. An inflexible mind is an awful thing to have to nurture.




Speaking as one who both holds that view of 4Ed and is surrounded by all kinds of tech...and who in my professional capacity often touts the virtues of being on the cutting edge, I can say my view of 4Ed has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with fear of change.

I currenly own 60+ RPGs (most of which have gone through their own edition revisions), and have played another 40 or so I didn't bother buying.  I won't go into the litany of things that brought me to this conclusion, but the bottom line for me is this: while 4Ed is a fine FRPG, it has lost many things that (IMHO) set D&D apart from the other fine FRPGs out there; it's not D&D_ to me_.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BryonD said:


> There are (at least) two problems with that.
> 
> The first is that the division was clear before PF was even announced.  Certainly it has grown since, but it was already there.  It makes more sense to point out that the reason a company with a reputation for good material decided to support a previous edition is because they realized a lot of the market was up for that.
> 
> Second, a lot of people did switch and subsequently left.  So clearly the option to not switch was moot in their case.




I disagree. The division was clear before PF because Paizo could continue to support 3E D&D through the OGL. Also, it was quite clear from people like Erik Mona that Paizo's first choice was to support 4E, but WotC's mishandling of the 3rd party agreement pushed them down another path and by the time the issue was cleared up Paizo had put too much time and effort into a project that was subsequently doing well.

People that left after adopting 4E might not have left if their was no support for 3E from a reputable company.


----------



## BryonD

Dannyalcatraz said:


> it's not D&D_ to me_.



heh. exactly

I like GURPS.  GURPS does NOT feel like D&D to me.
I like 3E.  3E DOES feel like D&D to me.
I don't (much) like 2E.  2E feels like D&D to me.
I don't (much) like 4E.  4E kinda feels like D&D to me.
I like Warhammer 1E and 2E.  They don't feel like D&D to me.
I don't like Warhammer 3E.  It doesn't feel like D&D to me.

There are games that feel like D&D to me and games that don't.
There are games I like and games I don't.

The two are not correlated.

I see some D&D in 4E, but it is very easy for me to see the differences.  Those differences are not the key differences in my taste, so no big deal.  But it is easy to see how someone else would, very reasonably, have a different view.


----------



## BryonD

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I disagree. The division was clear before PF because Paizo could continue to support 3E D&D through the OGL. Also, it was quite clear from people like Erik Mona that Paizo's first choice was to support 4E, but WotC's mishandling of the 3rd party agreement pushed them down another path and by the time the issue was cleared up Paizo had put too much time and effort into a project that was subsequently doing well.



They have made a lot of comments that they were never thrilled with the 4e mechanics, nor with some of the cosmology changes, etc...

The GSL played a role.  But so did the game itself.  And, further, the market demand MUST lead the choice to invest.  They heard the market loud and clear and they answered it.

I think your statement of "first choice" is just flat wrong.  There may have been a point in time when it was a default presumption.  But hell, there was a point in time when me going to 4E was the default presumption.  Disillusion with the game itself led the path to change in both cases.



> People that left after adopting 4E might not have left if their was no support for 3E from a reputable company.



If they preferred 4E to 3E, no amount of support for 3E would draw them back away.  If they prefer 3E, well, there's your problem.


----------



## pemerton

On "D&D to me" - If D&D is meant to be a historically relevant category, then I would reserve that to Basic and AD&D (I don't have experience with OD&D).

3E is not D&D to me - it feels sort of like a Rolemaster/D&D hybrid.

Of course I describe 4e as D&D, but it doesn't feel like Rolemaster, or like A/BD&D. It is it's own game.

And just for clarity - all of the above refer to mechanical feel and the sort of play those mechanics produce. As for themes/tropes, I GM 4e much the same way as I GMed Rolemaster - kitchen-sink fantasy ecology with a world backstory to try and rationalise this, and with that backstory also being drawn on to support a fairly serious moral/mythical tone.


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> Which section of the PHB, DMG, or MM is this *Worlds and Monsters* in so that a new player picking up one of these books has access to read it as part of the game?



Like I posted upthread, one of my complaints is that a lot of the good stuff in Worlds and Monsters was not reproduced in the core books.

But even the core books have quite a bit of flavour - more world background in the 4e DMG than the 3E one, for example, and more world background in the 4e MM monster entries than in the 3E ones (just some random examples - in the demon entry I get the history of the Abyss, in the spider entry I learn that Lolth was once a god of fate, in the goblin entry I learn about the religious and cultural practices of hobgoblins). And the 4e PHB gives more details on the gods than does the 3E one, and it gives us bits of world history scattered throughout the race descriptions.

Anyway, I know from my own experience that it's not true that "nobody understands it or likes it as much as something well designed" (which is what you said) - I understand it and think it is well-designed (and Worlds and Monsters explains the design) and I like it. I like it as much as Greyhawk (which I've GMed in for many years) and better than FR or Eberron, neither of which I have any interest in running a game in.


----------



## mattcolville

I feel as though this is relevant to the discussion.

Why D&D Sucks | SquareMans

In order to understand the reaction to 4E, we need some historical perspective. What was 4E a reaction to? Who was the target audience?


----------



## Aberzanzorax

The more things change...the more they...



...change.

4e might be D&D, or it might not. Same with 3e. Same with Retroclones. Same with hybrids. Same with other games that happen to be similar, but really have nothing to do with D&D.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254968-experts-other-systems-why-arent-they-d-d.html


Call a bird a bird. Call a cow a cow. Or call a cat a catfish. Names matter less than impressions. Impressions are not identical, but they are often shared, especially by groups. 


To many, 4e is perfect D&D...even the best D&D. (They are not wrong in their impressions.)

To many others, 4e is no longer D&D. (They are also not wrong in their impressions.)


I think, overall, if WotC had minimized group 2 (the people who think 4e is no longer D&D) that 4e would have been more popular overall, and that there would be fewer edition wars on this and other forums.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Like I posted upthread, one of my complaints is that a lot of the good stuff in Worlds and Monsters was not reproduced in the core books.
> 
> But even the core books have quite a bit of flavour - more world background in the 4e DMG than the 3E one, for example, and more world background in the 4e MM monster entries than in the 3E ones (just some random examples - in the demon entry I get the history of the Abyss, in the spider entry I learn that Lolth was once a god of fate, in the goblin entry I learn about the religious and cultural practices of hobgoblins). And the 4e PHB gives more details on the gods than does the 3E one, and it gives us bits of world history scattered throughout the race descriptions.
> 
> Anyway, I know from my own experience that it's not true that "nobody understands it or likes it as much as something well designed" (which is what you said) - I understand it and think it is well-designed (and Worlds and Monsters explains the design) and I like it. I like it as much as Greyhawk (which I've GMed in for many years) and better than FR or Eberron, neither of which I have any interest in running a game in.




I see there DOES seem to be some stuff that I had never seen in the MM because it is hidden from the rest of the same information.

You have a blurb about the monster at the front of the list of monster entries, then AFTER those you have the DC checks for lore...which i ignored. All that should be in one place. When running a game I would set up what information is gathered from such an attempt to gain information on them from a character perspective.  So MM does have stuff but hidden or broken up so that I would have never looked for it.

I really don't understand what the whole PoL setting is other than a generic litter box. It looks to me as pretty much saying "Here is all the stuff there exists, use what you want/need to in your games". That isn't much of a setting for me beyond what that one poster in a previous thread was saying D&D wasn't much of medieval because it wasnt finite on the detail of the medieval era.

"Nobody" is coming form a very new TTRPGer POV.

When talking of previous edition you can hear of rich settings and such, even if only the medieval front of it all, but 4th edition "core setting" leaves me wondering what and where the heck it is?

I have never heard anyone say that 4th has a rich setting it is built on/in.


----------



## MrGrenadine

Dannager said:


> Years after the game's release, this argument _still_ annoys the dickens out of me. The idea that there are gamers out there whose definitions of D&D are a) so tight that this holds true, or b) so rules-oriented that this holds true is just mind-boggling. I can't imagine how those who think like this must view change in the rest of the world they live in. An inflexible mind is an awful thing to have to nurture.




4e is D&D, for sure--says so right on the books.  But to me, aspects of 4e just aren't D&D, and that has nothing to do with being inflexible.

D&D captured my imagination when I was young because it wasn't like anything else I had ever come across.  It was distinctive, and certain things about it--6 attributes, Armor Class, hit points, and more--add up to that special D&D-ness that I love.  You want to make an RPG where the abilities are Power, Speed and Smarts?  Go ahead.  Want to use Wound points, and "Armor level"?  Be my guest.

But that wouldn't be D&D to me.

Now, did 4e deviate THAT much from previous versions?  In its entirety, no.  But aspects of it did, so I understand the feeling.

And I would bet there's SOMETHING about the game that--if changed--even you would think is too much of a deviation to be called D&D.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BryonD said:


> I think your statement of "first choice" is just flat wrong.  There may have been a point in time when it was a default presumption.




But if they had decided to support 4E, once the resources were devoted to it there would have been no turning back. And they didn't really like the 3E rules much either, did they? Otherwise why bother "fixing" it with Pathfinder.



BryonD said:


> If they preferred 4E to 3E, no amount of support for 3E would draw them back away.  If they prefer 3E, well, there's your problem.




I agree 100% with the first comment. My point was that if someone who preferred 3E, but liked new material and 3E was no longer supported might be more likely to stick with 4E.


----------



## Mercurius

mattcolville said:


> I feel as though this is relevant to the discussion.
> 
> Why D&D Sucks | SquareMans
> 
> In order to understand the reaction to 4E, we need some historical perspective. What was 4E a reaction to? Who was the target audience?




Interesting read - it could really inspire its own thread. I tend to agree with him, and felt the same way about 3.5 that the WotC person's fiancee did ("30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours"). But the problem is, I don't think 4E really fixed the problem, or rather it was a two steps forward, one step back kind of thing: they replaced old problems with new ones, although ones that I don't think are quite as bad.

In some ways I think the main difference between 3.5E and 4E is _not_ which sacred cows were slain or healing surges or Vancian magic or powers or any number of the many things that people kvetch about; rather, I think it has to do with system mastery, and the degree to which people like that approach to gaming or not. 3.5E is all about systems mastery; 4E is not. 4E seems to have become _more_ about it deeper into the edition cycle because WotC just couldn't resist the urge to come out with endlessly boring and pointless feats. But, by and large, 4E is a game that is generally balanced; it doesn't as much reward system mastery as _tactical _mastery, especially in relationship to the group.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Dannager said:


> Years after the game's release, this argument _still_ annoys the dickens out of me. The idea that there are gamers out there whose definitions of D&D are a) so tight that this holds true, or b) so rules-oriented that this holds true is just mind-boggling. I can't imagine how those who think like this must view change in the rest of the world they live in. An inflexible mind is an awful thing to have to nurture.




And your response to that particular opinion is just as narrow minded, if not more so. 

It's just as easy to say "well that's his opinion and I disagree" than to label anyone who disagrees with you to be a narrow minded and inflexible. You're calling into question a person's basic character based on their opinion on what "is" or "isnt" D&D? 

What kind of human being are YOU? I think is the real question here. 

I've actually ran and played 4E and NO it doesn't feel like any other edition of D&D that I've played since Red Box basic. Your next step in is to get me to quantify what it "feels like" in order to prove myself and many others wrong. 
Because we're all a hive mind, see? We all solely listen to each other and our own experiences and feelings don't matter because we didn't jump on the 4E bandwagon.  

I know what it "feels" like and it feels like I'm playing a glorified miniature skirmish game. Which is not a bad thing. I LIKE miniature skirmish games, but not as my main fantasy RPG. I like and own the Castle Ravenloft Board game. I like it as a board game. I play it with my son. As a board game 4E is amazing as an RPG it's not what I want and doesnt feel like anything before it. It has nothing to do with fearing change. I work in an IT dept. I know EXACTLY what resistance to change looks like. 

I look over at my gaming shelf and I see Mutants & Masterminds, SpyCraft, FantasyCraft, Hero System, Gurps and Rolemaster along side my 3rd Edition, 4th Edition (no, I didn't burn them) 1st Edition and Basic books, I really dont think I'm resistant to change. I'm the guy who went from VHS & Beta, to Laserdisc (I still have my player by the way and the OT on laserdisc) to DVD to Blu-Ray so no I dont think I'm resistant to change. 

SO the next time you think to type / insinuate something as patently asinine as someone who says that 4E dosent feel like D&D to them is narrow minded or inflexable, you might want to consider that you yourself might be narrow-minded and inflexible as well in pitching out that response?


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I agree 100% with the first comment. My point was that if someone who preferred 3E, but liked new material and 3E was no longer supported might be more likely to stick with 4E.




I'll tell you flat out that this would not have been the case with me. I have enough 3x material to choke a donkey about 10 times over. And if I grew tired of that? I'd find a different system, like FantasyCraft or maybe M&M modded to fantasy? 

If Paizo had decided to support 4E, as much as I love their material? I would have probably moved on from Paizo as well.


----------



## Diamond Cross

So if I took off my shirt, got in a rowboat, rowed all the to Australia from Sacramento CA, using only my hands to row, do you think it'd make 4e more popular?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> And I would bet there's SOMETHING about the game that--if changed--even you would think is too much of a deviation to be called D&D.




Example: Even though D&D is my favorite _game_, HERO is my favorite system.  And using it, I can do an amazing approximation it 1Ed-3.5Ed D&D.

But I still wouldn't call it D&D- as the PCs gained XP, there would be no semblance of a class/level game, for instance.  Alignments (and everything linked to them) would be a massive add-on...as would creature types, etc.  And the magic system?  Given the D.I.Y. nature of HERO system, items, spells, psionics, SLAs and the like would be a LOT more varied.  In fact, you might not see anything resembling iconic spells at all.

It may _start_ like a D&D game...but it won't finish like one.


----------



## billd91

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But if they had decided to support 4E, once the resources were devoted to it there would have been no turning back. And they didn't really like the 3E rules much either, did they? Otherwise why bother "fixing" it with Pathfinder.




If I fix or upgrade my house, does it mean I don't like it much? That's silly. I just want to make it better. Clearly, they liked the 3e rules enough to make them better, but also liked them enough to leave most of the structure intact.


----------



## Aeolius

billd91 said:


> Clearly, they liked the 3e rules enough to make them better, but also liked them enough to leave most of the structure intact.




Though now if you want to enter the bathroom, you have to climb through the oven door. Also, changes in planar cosmology led to the deletion of hot water heaters - plenty of cold water though. In short, yes it's playable, but I like my house the way it was.


----------



## billd91

Aeolius said:


> Though now if you want to enter the bathroom, you have to climb through the oven door. Also, changes in planar cosmology led to the deletion of hot water heaters - plenty of cold water though. In short, yes it's playable, but I like my house the way it was.




What significant changes in planar cosmology? Are you talking about the Golarian campaign setting's planar cosmology? Because that's not core Pathfinder RPG. The 3e (and earlier) planar cosmology works just fine with the PF RPG. 
Of course, most of the 1e-3e planar cosmology not being OGL, it's not like Paizo could really touch it.

And if there's a change in PF that, when compared to a house renovation, is anything like getting into the bathroom by going through the oven door, I can't find it. If you're going to use an analogy, it helps to use one that makes sense.


----------



## Aeolius

billd91 said:


> What significant changes in planar cosmology?




My mistake. I misread the quoted text and thought we were comparing 3e to 4e. 3e to Pathfinder is a no-brainer, especially with the available conversion guide.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Example: Even though D&D is my favorite _game_, HERO is my favorite system.  And using it, I can do an amazing approximation it 1Ed-3.5Ed D&D.
> 
> But I still wouldn't call it D&D- as the PCs gained XP, there would be no semblance of a class/level game, for instance.  Alignments (and everything linked to them) would be a massive add-on...as would creature types, etc.  And the magic system?  Given the D.I.Y. nature of HERO system, items, spells, psionics, SLAs and the like would be a LOT more varied.  In fact, you might not see anything resembling iconic spells at all.
> 
> It may _start_ like a D&D game...but it won't finish like one.




The thing is, I think I could use HERO to play something more "D&D" than anything 4e can do for me. I can include character options, spells, and creatures pretty much as I remember and understand them. Converting the original spells (there were, what, a hundred of them?) would be trivial, and the GM could certainly state you could not stray from the canonical spell list. 

You can actually graft a level system onto HERO easily enough, similar to M&M's Power Levels; his approach has been used by systems converters for years.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pawsplay said:


> The thing is, I think I could use HERO to play something more "D&D" than anything 4e can do for me. I can include character options, spells, and creatures pretty much as I remember and understand them. Converting the original spells (there were, what, a hundred of them?) would be trivial, and the GM could certainly state you could not stray from the canonical spell list.
> 
> You can actually graft a level system onto HERO easily enough, similar to M&M's Power Levels; his approach has been used by systems converters for years.




I'm with you...actually I'm a bit ahead: I've done much if what the two of us are talking about.  However, I never went to the point of setting up the game to do a levels system- I always let the players spend their XP at their own pace.

I also didn't convert all the spells.  After doing a few- and relying on HERO's own write-ups- I let players do their own.  If they so chose.  I helped others with conversions.

Ditto classes.

And, like you said, it had the right feel...until the players exercised the freedom HERO granted.


----------



## billd91

Aeolius said:


> My mistake. I misread the quoted text and thought we were comparing 3e to 4e. 3e to Pathfinder is a no-brainer, especially with the available conversion guide.




No sweat. I was wondering if that was what was going on.


----------



## Dannager

ShinHakkaider said:


> SO the next time you think to type / insinuate something as patently asinine as someone who says that 4E dosent feel like D&D to them is narrow minded or inflexable, you might want to consider that you yourself might be narrow-minded and inflexible as well in pitching out that response?




This really isn't tough, guys.

Imagine a man named Bob. Bob likes his pies. Pies are an important part of Bob's life. One day, Bob notices a new pie listed on his favorite pie restaurant's menu: Boston Cream Pie. Bob has never had this pie before, and his curiosity compels him to order one.

When Bob is served his Boston Cream Pie, he is outraged. "This isn't pie!" he bellows, "It's missing some of the things I like about pies! It's way too much like a cake to be a real pie! It just doesn't _feel_ like pie to me."

Bob's view of pies, as a concept, is very narrow. He has created a personal definition of what a pie is, and anything that falls outside that definition is not a pie as far as he is concerned. His definition of pie-hood is not open to revision; no matter how many thoroughly enjoyable desert pastries he samples, he will not expand his personal conception of the essential nature of a pie.

I appreciate your passionate defense of your own mindset, but let's not overextend ourselves, hmm? The creation of a rigid personal definition for what D&D is and isn't does not strike me as flexible.

It would be nice if we could put this particular flavor of gripe to bed. It's a silly one to begin with, and very nearly pointless when it comes to any sort of discussion ("I don't like 4e, it doesn't feel like D&D to me," doesn't explain your position any better than simply saying, "I don't like 4e," and tends to confuse things, because you're the only person who knows what your own personal definition of D&D looks like).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> It would be nice if we could put this particular flavor of gripe to bed. It's a silly one to begin with, and very nearly pointless when it comes to any sort of discussion ("I don't like 4e, it doesn't feel like D&D to me," doesn't explain your position any better than simply saying, "I don't like 4e," and tends to confuse things, because you're the only person who knows what your own personal definition of D&D looks like).




We're perfectly capable of expressing every little thing we don't like about 4Ed.  Indeed, we've done so many times.

"It's not D&D to me" is usually just the last one in the litany.  A summation of how our dislikes make us feel about the game in general.

To examine your analogy, you claim that Bob's claim that Boston Creme Pie "isn't pie" to him means he has a narrow definition of "pie."
_*
The problem is- to use a phrase from my profession- your conclusion assumes facts not in evidence*_.  You have no idea if Bob's tasted pies from 189 different cultures of the world or just the 5 previous pies from his favorite eatery.

Likewise, dismissing someone's complaint of 4Ed "not being D&D" to them as "narrow minded" or "inflexible" (not to mention "silly" or "pointless") is similarly flawed- you have _*ZERO*_ concept of their experiences in gaming.  Someone with my aforementioned experience - 100+ different systems, remember- might even take that as an insult or as a sign of ignorance, neither of which does your POV any favors.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> This really isn't tough, guys.
> 
> Imagine a man named Bob. Bob likes his pies. Pies are an important part of Bob's life. One day, Bob notices a new pie listed on his favorite pie restaurant's menu: Boston Cream Pie. Bob has never had this pie before, and his curiosity compels him to order one.
> 
> When Bob is served his Boston Cream Pie, he is outraged. "This isn't pie!" he bellows, "It's missing some of the things I like about pies! It's way too much like a cake to be a real pie! It just doesn't _feel_ like pie to me."
> 
> Bob's view of pies, as a concept, is very narrow. He has created a personal definition of what a pie is, and anything that falls outside that definition is not a pie as far as he is concerned. His definition of pie-hood is not open to revision; no matter how many thoroughly enjoyable desert pastries he samples, he will not expand his personal conception of the essential nature of a pie.
> 
> I appreciate your passionate defense of your own mindset, but let's not overextend ourselves, hmm? The creation of a rigid personal definition for what D&D is and isn't does not strike me as flexible.
> 
> It would be nice if we could put this particular flavor of gripe to bed. It's a silly one to begin with, and very nearly pointless when it comes to any sort of discussion ("I don't like 4e, it doesn't feel like D&D to me," doesn't explain your position any better than simply saying, "I don't like 4e," and tends to confuse things, because you're the only person who knows what your own personal definition of D&D looks like).




Your analogy is flawed. 

How about this scenario? Bob goes to his favorite pie restaurant and orders a Boston cream pie. He gets something entirely unlike what he is used to, and rather than being one of the most delicious Boston cream pies he's ever had, that brought him back to Boston cream pie-eating after a decade long hiatus of eating only cherry pies and the occasional eclair, it is now a fairly serviceable example of a pie that departs so far from what he expected that it does not fulfill his Bostom cream pie craving.

In short, Bob is going to have to find a new pie restaurant. Fortunately, a local bakery that used to supply the filling, has decided to open their own restaurant and bake pies in the style he is used to. 

I think it would be unkind to say Bob's view of a Boston cream pie is unreasonably narrow. He was perfectly content with the pie available to him; it was the pie maker who suddenly decided the pie was insufficient to fulfill its pastry destiny.


----------



## Dannager

pawsplay said:


> Your analogy is flawed.



No, actually, both analogies are pretty faithful, albeit for different purposes. Notably, however, in your analogy Bob isn't declaring that the new pie isn't a pie, nor is he declaring that it isn't a Boston Cream Pie, which was the entire point of setting up this analogy in the first place. 

Your Bob is just switching bakeries. Which is more or less what I'm advocating: enjoy your pie/cake/whatever, and let's not whine about how this pie isn't _real_ pie because it uses 77% cocoa chocolate instead of 70%.


----------



## Dannager

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Likewise, dismissing someone's complaint of 4Ed "not being D&D" to them as "narrow minded" or "inflexible" (not to mention "silly" or "pointless") is similarly flawed- you have _*ZERO*_ concept of their experiences in gaming.  Someone with my aforementioned experience - 100+ different systems, remember- might even take that as an insult or as a sign of ignorance, neither of which does your POV any favors.



I think you might be confused. It doesn't matter how many different systems you've played. The fact that you have constructed a personal mental definition (based on arbitrarily-crafted requirements) for exactly what D&D is and isn't is the issue. It looks to me like you may be overthinking this.


----------



## Lanefan

shadzar said:


> Which section of the PHB, DMG, or MM is this *Worlds and Monsters* in so that a new player picking up one of these books has access to read it as part of the game?



It's not.

Worlds and Monsters was its own stand-alone softcover book put out a few months before 4e's full release, as a primer and introduction to what they were doing and why.  I'm not at all sure how easy it'd be to find a copy now; but if you can it's worth it if only for the art.

There was also a second such book, Races and Classes.

Lanefan


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Lanefan said:


> It's not.
> 
> Worlds and Monsters was its own stand-alone softcover book put out a few months before 4e's full release, as a primer and introduction to what they were doing and why.  I'm not at all sure how easy it'd be to find a copy now; but if you can it's worth it if only for the art.
> 
> There was also a second such book, Races and [something I forget].
> 
> Lanefan



Or possibly good only for starting campfires - W&M had several of the 'the game that you used to play isn't fun' statements that have come back to haunt WotC - in particular the one about 'isn't a game about traipsing through the fairy gates and talking to the little people, it's about combat!' or words to that effect. That one sentence is where I decided that 4e was looking like something to make a pass on.

And for the record - Boston Cream Pie really isn't a pie. It is a pastry, specifically a cake, but not a pie. I like them, I think that they are tasty, but no, they really aren't a pie. If you want a pie then you will have to get something else.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Tuft

TheAuldGrump said:


> Or possibly good only for starting campfires - W&M had several of the 'the game that you used to play isn't fun' statements that have come back to haunt WotC - in particular the one about 'isn't a game about traipsing through the fairy gates and talking to the little people, it's about combat!' or words to that effect. That one sentence is where I decided that 4e was looking like something to make a pass on.





Yep, that quote _really_ drove home that 4E was not for me. I kept trying to find something to like about 4E for a year after that in our tryout campaign (lvl 1-26) since my GM was so insistent, but that initial quote had really made me lose all hope from the start. 

There were other things, like the infamous "lets dump dragon dung on the critics" official promotion video. (Man! WoTC must really have gotten a hefty PR budget from Hasbro for the 4E launch, if they could blow money on commissioning that one!) or a local player's gleeful chortle about "finally getting rid of all wussy wizards", but that quote is really the pure, distilled quintessence.


----------



## pemerton

Aberzanzorax said:


> 4e might be D&D, or it might not. Same with 3e. Same with Retroclones. Same with hybrids. Same with other games that happen to be similar, but really have nothing to do with D&D.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Call a bird a bird. Call a cow a cow. Or call a cat a catfish. Names matter less than impressions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To many, 4e is perfect D&D...even the best D&D. (They are not wrong in their impressions.)
> 
> To many others, 4e is no longer D&D. (They are also not wrong in their impressions.)



For people who focus on tropes and themes, then presumably 4e feels like D&D. But I think so would Rolemaster.

But for those who focus on mechanics, I think it would be surprising if 4e felt much like AD&D or 3E. I mean, RM and Runequest both use d%, but they play pretty differently in mechanical terms.



Mercurius said:


> 4E is a game that is generally balanced; it doesn't as much reward system mastery as _tactical _mastery, especially in relationship to the group.



I think this is true, and quite a difference from many other fantasy RPGs.

But is this something that many people _dislike_ about 4e?



Diamond Cross said:


> So if I took off my shirt, got in a rowboat, rowed all the to Australia from Sacramento CA, using only my hands to row, do you think it'd make 4e more popular?



I doubt it. But it would probably make you popular in Australia - we've just appointed a round-the-world solo sailor Young Australian of the Year!


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> I see there DOES seem to be some stuff that I had never seen in the MM because it is hidden from the rest of the same information.
> 
> You have a blurb about the monster at the front of the list of monster entries, then AFTER those you have the DC checks for lore...which i ignored.



I'm a bit surprised that you would post about the lack of flavour in a game when you haven't read the entries in the Monster Manual labelled "Lore".



shadzar said:


> I really don't understand what the whole PoL setting is other than a generic litter box.



It's not a "setting". It's a framework/set of guidelines to support a GM in running a game. The framework is set out in the DMG ("The World is Ancient", etc).



shadzar said:


> When talking of previous edition you can hear of rich settings and such, even if only the medieval front of it all, but 4th edition "core setting" leaves me wondering what and where the heck it is?
> 
> I have never heard anyone say that 4th has a rich setting it is built on/in.



Well, like I said upthread, 4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM. It seems intended to support "just in time" GMing - ie the GM sets up situations and the players play through them. This sort of play doesn't need a rich setting. It does need an "atmosphere" and "vibe" - as the OP noted. And this is what PoL supplies.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> I think this is true, and quite a difference from many other fantasy RPGs.
> 
> But is this something that many people _dislike_ about 4e?




I dislike the (positional) tactical mastery of 4e.  It's one of the the design choices that leaves me cold towards the system as a whole.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I quoted this thread before, but I want to bring up a few points from it.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...experts-other-systems-why-arent-they-d-d.html

Saying 4e isn't D&D is mainly problematic because it is a volatile way of saying it. However, the conclusion in that thread was basically "D&D can't really be definied beyond personal preference, feel, and the Name Brand (TM)".

4e is D&D officially because the owners of the name brand call it that. If they call the ravenloft board game D&D, so it will be. But the ravenloft board game is not D&D to me.

How can I say such outrageous things? Well if you think about it not as a defense of 4e, but actually make an attempt to define what D&D is as your starting point, you'll see some interesting themes emerge.


I ask people who know more about other systems why they AREN'T D&D. It's easy to see that World of Darkness isn't D&D. What about Castles and Crusades? What about Rolemaster? What about Pathfinder? 

When you start exploring the boundaries of "what is D&D" starting from OD&D roots, and then extrapolating out, it becomes harder and harder to justify certain things (including 3e and 4e) as D&D without also claiming that other games, games that no one would ever really call D&D, are D&D as well.

Need to roll a d20? Kult.
Needs fantasy themes? Warhammer Fantasy.
Needs levels? WOW.

Or the converse...
Needs Vancian Magic? No to 4e.
Needs Thac0? No to 3e.


In the end, I think it is perfectly justifiable to say 4e (or 3e, or Castles and Crusades, or Pathfinder, or Osric) doesn't feel like D&D to me.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Dannager said:


> I think you might be confused. It doesn't matter how many different systems you've played. The fact that you have constructed a personal mental definition (based on arbitrarily-crafted requirements) for exactly what D&D is and isn't is the issue. It looks to me like you may be overthinking this.




No, it looks to me as that your own narrow minded inflexibility has gotten the better of you and you are either incapable or unwilling to admit as much. Your rabidly blind defense of all things 4E is admirable but your inability to see that people have points different from your own on 4E doesn't help any argument that you might put forth. It just makes you the worst kind of edition warrior, the one who blasts or is dismissive of someone else's (in this case quite a few people's) opinion and then is completely incapable from walking away.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Dannager said:


> It would be nice if we could put this particular flavor of gripe to bed. It's a silly one to begin with, and very nearly pointless when it comes to any sort of discussion ("I don't like 4e, it doesn't feel like D&D to me," doesn't explain your position any better than simply saying, "I don't like 4e," and tends to confuse things, because you're the only person who knows what your own personal definition of D&D looks like).




If it's so silly and pointless, then STOP DISCUSSING IT. 

It doesn't confuse things at all. It would only be confusing to someone who honestly isn't trying to understand what the other person is saying and just wants that other person to STOP EXPRESSING THAT PARTICULAR OPINION. 

Seriously, it would be nice if you feel that you didn't have to mount a spirited defense of 4E whenever YOU felt it was being attacked. Saying that "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" isn't an attack, it's an opinion. There is no logical, rational argument that you can make that would reinforce that that feeling is "Silly" or "pointless". 

No one here is saying that it's a bad game or that it sucks (at least I'm not) but you're determined to turn this into some sort of conflict by insulting the people who dont feel the same way as you do. And that's exactly what you've done in your posts (in a passive agressive way no doubt...). 

Let me make this clear. I dont hate 4E. I've played it and run i for a short while and to me it doesnt feel like D&D. Considering that I've played every iteration of D&D from Red Box Basic TO 4E and they ALL of differences from one another, saying that my framework for D&D is narrow is well...short sighted and a bit self serving. 

Big differences between Red Box Basic and Advanced D&D, Not huge changes between AD&D and 2nd ED at the beginning (then Kits and what not). Some big changes between 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed. Minor changes between 3x and 3.5. Big changes between 3.5 and 4E. 

I've played all of these types of D&D. They all have different flavors but in the end they all felt like I was playing basically the same game. Except for 4E. 

Narrow I think not.

Also? I dont know about the rest of you but I only use analogies when I'm trying to explain a concept to a layman who may not have a context for what I'm talking about. None of us here are laymen so we can actually talk about what were talking about. there's no need to try and seem to be smarter than we actually are. We know the truth. We're actually just smart enough to hold a conversation with one another. No more and no less. So please no more analogies?


----------



## shadzar

Dannager said:


> Which is more or less what I'm advocating: enjoy your pie/cake/whatever, and let's not whine about how this pie isn't _real_ pie because it uses 77% cocoa chocolate instead of 70%.




But the DM doesn't like Boston Cream Pie so doesn't allow it in his game.

Same concept different thread. People have a personal taste. That is their subjective view.

Subjective: facts from the subject
Objective: facts about the object

Since the object remains the same the facts about it will remain the same, and as the subject viewing it changes, the fact form that subject will vary.

Bob doesn't se it as a pie, because pies have a top and bottom crust and this thing doesn't have a top crust, but is only a bottom crust.

The thing however is still called a pie.

Who is right, Bob of the one naming it? Bob is of course. He has to accept the name. The one naming it also is right, because of the failure for common ground and any kind of setup that forces things to be named correctly. Some sort of naming convention.

So long as there is an absence of a set of rules for naming things, and its creator can name anything what it wants from the bakery to Julliard. Someone so inclined can put boiled cabbage in it and still call it a Boston Cream Pie, since there is not a list of what can and cannot be added until it no longer becomes what the name applies to.

Both will always be right so long as anyone can name anything what they want and stick D&D on the cover of any book they have legal rights to do so with, and Bob will always be right to think it is not D&D if he does not accept the name as being what defines the thing.

The DM, the Devil, and Bob, can each like what they want, and not like what they want without needing anyone else's permission or approval such as if personal taste, be it something to allow or not in a game based on those likes and dislikes, or accepting Boston Cream as a type of pie.

I could easily say one is narrow-minded for accepting something to be D&D just because it has the name D&D on the cover, because how many people sit down and have a game with just the Dungeons and Dragons for Dummies?

The definition being change by putting the name on something that diverges further and further away form the root that held the name brings us also to the "dilution" thread. How wide can a chair be before it becomes a couch?

On that note I will leave this argument for everyone to contemplate this rectangle:


----------



## BryonD

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But if they had decided to support 4E, once the resources were devoted to it there would have been no turning back.



That is a huge if.  And, it also doesn't follow.  Clark Peterson turned back.  Fantasy flight turned back.  Goodman hasn't turned all the way back, but they are focusing their resources on their own game.




> And they didn't really like the 3E rules much either, did they? Otherwise why bother "fixing" it with Pathfinder.



This comment just shows you don't even know what you are talking about.




> I agree 100% with the first comment. My point was that if someone who preferred 3E, but liked new material and 3E was no longer supported might be more likely to stick with 4E.



OK, so, at best, your theory is that people would be denied their preference and their loss MIGHT be 4E's gain.....

Again, I was helping develop "3.75" rules before I heard of Pathfinder.  I think the fraction of people who would have settled for a game they didn't like is way small.

And that ignores that there are a great number of people still playing 3E, not PF.  I think if PF was removed from the equation, PF fans would go back to 3E far more readily than to 4E.

Your position seems to be founded on lack of clarity of how things went, wrapped in a bow of wishful thinking.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Well, like I said upthread, 4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM. It seems intended to support "just in time" GMing - ie the GM sets up situations and the players play through them. This sort of play doesn't need a rich setting. It does need an "atmosphere" and "vibe" - as the OP noted. And this is what PoL supplies.




As your previous reply right before this one, the "tactical mastery" is why it doesn't need those things, because MANY miniature wargames don't need a rich story to be enjoyed.

Strangely there are MANY miniature wargames that have much more setting to them than 4th edition does with its PoL setting. Yes WotC called it a setting.

Most other RPGs have more of a setting in/with them as well, and certainly the CRPGs and MMOs have a setting.

The way you say it about "on time GMing", seems like there shouldn't even be a GM and just a deck of cards to draw an encounter from then go back and make a story out of whatever happened. Make sure they are mixed proportionally for the group with the proper amounts of combat and non-combat encounters.


----------



## BryonD

Aberzanzorax said:


> In the end, I think it is perfectly justifiable to say 4e (or 3e, or Castles and Crusades, or Pathfinder, or Osric) doesn't feel like D&D to me.



Exactly right.

I already said that I am a fan of PF and it feels like D&D to me.  But I am also not a fan of older versions of D&D.  So the differences between old D&D and PF are, in my book, very good things.  Losing things I didn't like doesn't make it not D&D to me.  But, to someone else for whom those things were important, it certainly COULD ruin that connection.


It is perfectly valid for Dannager to claim that 4E feels just like D&D to him.
But it is laughably wrong when he starts insisting that other views not only are invalid, but are inflexible and annoying.

Pathfinder feels like D&D to me.  If someone said it did not to them, then cool.  I can't imagine finding THAT statement even confrontational, much less "annoying the dickens out of me".  It seems more a matter of trying to avoid a losing argument by insulting it.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Well, like I said upthread, 4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM.



Early on Mearls said that 4E may not be the system of choice for people who like to world build.


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> Early on Mearls said that 4E may not be the system of choice for people who like to world build.



It was for my group. I'll pit our 4e homebrew against all comers in an Iron Setting competition, if something like that should ever happen on ENWorld.

It could be that we're just exceptional world-builders! 

I can see 4e not _inspiring_ people to world-build. That can't be argued. But the practical difficulties in world-building for 4e (still) elude me.


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> It was for my group. I'll pit our 4e homebrew against all comers in an Iron Setting competition, if something like that should ever happen on ENWorld.



OK, I don't for a second doubt there are people who see it that way.  But I hope you will accept that I put both my view and Mearls view ahead of yours in ranking that apply to me.



> It could be that we're just exceptional world-builders!



Perhaps.  Or perhaps your expectations just don't exceed the limitations.



> I can see 4e not _inspiring_ people to world-build. That can't be argued. But the practical difficulties in world-building for 4e (still) elude me.



Well, if they elude you they elude you.  So be it.  I can see how others systems offer more.  

And that is a fundamental difference.  Saying that other systems provide more is different than saying this particular system can't do it.  Mearls did not say that it couldn't be done.  I didn't say it couldn't be done.  The statement is that it would not be "the system of choice" if that is a primary focus.

Restating other people's positions in ways that change the meaning seems to be a frequent theme in 4E defense.


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> I'll pit our 4e homebrew against all comers in an Iron Setting competition, if something like that should ever happen on ENWorld.



As a further note, if we are comparing fluff to fluff, then I don't doubt this in the least.

But, since fluff has nothing to do with system of choice, I'd be judging a comparison of editions on a basis of mechanical representation.  In your 4E homebrew the AC of a knight in armor and a bare chested pirate will both be based primarily on their challenge level.  That, as one tiny example among a million other related issues, are why I have no doubt that even if I LOVE your homebrew, I'd (personally) enjoying playing in it VASTLY more using a less gamist mechanical system.

But, the story and flavor of your homebrew just might be the most awesome ever, as far as I know.


----------



## Mercurius

ShinHakkaider said:


> No, it looks to me as that your own narrow minded inflexibility has gotten the better of you and you are either incapable or unwilling to admit as much. Your rabidly blind defense of all things 4E is admirable but your inability to see that people have points different from your own on 4E doesn't help any argument that you might put forth. It just makes you the worst kind of edition warrior, the one who blasts or is dismissive of someone else's (in this case quite a few people's) opinion and then is completely incapable from walking away.




You know, Shin, pretty much no one considers themselves an "edition warrior" yet it is exactly these kinds of statements that are most exemplary of "Edition Hatred" and that keep the fires burning. 

It is a rather ironic statement considering that you always seem to pop up in these sorts of squabbles. Maybe it is time to take a step back and look at your own involvement in the "edition wars"? Hey, I don't even have a problem with you engaging in this conversation, just as I don't really mind "edition wars" if they can remain relatively civil, but I find it rather hypocritical for you to throw out accusations of others being "the worst kind of edition warrior."

You can't have it both ways, Shin.


----------



## Mercurius

I don't think Dannager's pie analogy has been adequately negated, btw. And no, AuldGrump, it doesn't matter that Boston Cream Pie isn't really pie (or was that entirely a non sequitur?); cut-and-paste in Blueberry or Key Lime and the analogy works the same. And I think Dannager accurately answered Pawsplay's reply - not to mention that what he is protesting against is not the reaction of people like the Bob in Pawsplay's analogy who don't say "I don't like this Boston Cream Pie therefore it is not Boston Cream Pie."

As I see it, the point that Dannager is trying to make (afaict), and which I agree with, is that everyone is completely free to think and feel what they want about 4E (or pie, for that matter), but that there is a funny kind of psychology in holding to a view such as "4E isn't real D&D" or "4E isn't D&D to me." Why not just say "4E isn't my preferred form of D&D" or "I don't like how 4E does D&D"?

To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D? You don't lose anything by acknowledging that it is, in fact, D&D, but just not your preferred version. 

I mean, I get not liking it. It is my D&D of choice but I find it to be deeply flawed. I'm one of those seemingly rare birds that likes _all _forms of D&D, although prefers some to others (as the saying goes, all editions of D&D are equal, some more than others).

Of course everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, and I'm not going to say that you have no right to believe that "4E is not real D&D to me." I also have the right to believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist or that the government is trying to poison us through chem-trails or that homosexuality is a sin. The problem becomes in the impact it has on one's mentality and experience of life, and relationships with others. If you're on an online forum that is dedicated to _all _forms of D&D and recognizes all forms as valid, and you go around saying that one form is not real D&D then there are going to be consequences.


----------



## billd91

Mercurius said:


> To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D? You don't lose anything by acknowledging that it is, in fact, D&D, but just not your preferred version.




But there's nothing to really lose by acknowledging people's opinions that 4e isn't D&D to them, either. 



Mercurius said:


> The problem becomes in the impact it has on one's mentality and experience of life, and relationships with others. If you're on an online forum that is dedicated to _all _forms of D&D and recognizes all forms as valid, and you go around saying that one form is not real D&D then there are going to be consequences.




Just as there are going to be consequences for not acknowledging other people's opinions. Or dismissing them as close-minded. Or calling them wrong. I'd even say that the consequences are more serious because they indicate that lines of communication and understanding are being willfully shut down. And that's the real problem with edition wars, not debates over the merits of particularly game mechanics, marketing strategies, or game styles and focus. The real problem and driving force behind edition warring is bad behavior.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D? You don't lose anything by acknowledging that it is, in fact, D&D, but just not your preferred version.
> 
> I mean, I get not liking it.




As both ByronD and I have pointed out, there is no neccessary correlation between like/dislike of 4Ed and being of the opnion that it doesn't feel like D&D.  We've been clear on this: I myself have stated IN THIS THREAD that I find 4Ed to be an enjoyable game to play.  It still doesn't feel like D&D to me.  ByronD noted that even though he harbors some dislike of 2Ed, it still feels like D&D to him.

(And we both managed to do so without insulting, dismissive language.)

There is also no real way to be more precise about "feel" because it is entirely subjective: the change of one element may disrupt that perception for one consumer while alterations of hundreds may not.  In fact, the change of hundreds of elements may not make one feel that way while one _particular_ change may.

You see discussions of "feel"'all the time in product reviews, especiallmthings like cars.  When a car reviewer says a particular model doesn't have the "feel" of a Ferrari (or Porsche, Fiat, Ford, etc.), it's pretty much understood that he is NOT negating the car's identity, but rather that something about the car is at perceptible variance with his expectations of what he expects from the badge.  (And in fact, that may even be a positive- context matters).


----------



## shadzar

Mercurius said:


> Why not just say "4E isn't my preferred form of D&D" or "I don't like how 4E does D&D"?




Because for communication to happen you must have common ground understanding the terms another is speaking.

If one asks if you play D&D, and you are then interested in the dialog about it, then get hit with things about powers and healing surges, but you don't think 4th edition is D&D, the dialog then can go nowhere for you. It is no longer about D&D.

By stating "4th edition isn't D&D to me", you can prevent useless conversations about things you have no interest in. Just like in a forum someone not wanting to talk about say, alingment, can jsut avoid such threads on the subject knowing in advance that that is what is being talked about.



> To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D? You don't lose anything by acknowledging that it is, in fact, D&D, but just not your preferred version.




Actually you do lose things, as you lose that common ground again which is the basis for communication.

The above discussion about D&D can start the same way, and then someone go on to talk about Castle and Crusades, or Lejendary Journeys.

Neither of these could be considered D&D with the definition that it has the name on it as neither of this does have the name on it.

In order to communicate, you must be able to define your terms. Something as simple as "4th edition is not D&D to me" sets up your definition of the term D&D at least in regards to one parameter. If the other party wishes to continue discussing D&D, then they must either accept that definition and its parameter, or must find someone else with whom they can agree upon the language with.

No communication or discussion can be had until all parties are speaking the same language.

Someone had to learn English first, or Japanese first in order for the two to communicate. Until at least one learns the language of the other, then you might as well be talking to a wall because neither will be able to understand what the other is saying.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I think you might be confused. It doesn't matter how many different systems you've played.



_Nice_ choice of neutral, non-inflammatory language there.

Experience _most certainly_ matters.

Whose opinion would you trust more on the definition of pie: 5 year old Bob, 25 year old Bob who has never left Twin Peaks, or Bob the 55 year old, world renown pastry chef, restaranteur and founder of the global chain, "Bob's International House of Pies" (which has earned mentions in Zagat's and a Michelin Star)?

Please.


----------



## BryonD

GURPS fantasy does not feel like D&D to me.  It is a great RPG, IMO.
D&D is to fantasy role playing like Rocky Road is to ice cream.
Not all fantasy role playing is D&D and not all ice cream is Rocky Road.
Saying Strawberry is not like Rock Road does not make Strawberry not ice cream, nor not very good.  But saying you must accept Strawberry as being like Rocky Road because they are both ice cream is just silly.

It won't happen in a million years, but hypothetically, Steve Jackson Games could buy the rights to D&D.  If they did that tomorrow, they could slap a new cover on GURPS Fantasy and put "Dungeons and Dragons, 5th Edition" on the cover the next day.  GURPS fantasy doesn't feel like D&D today, GURPS fantasy won't feel any different in two days whether it becomes 5E or not.

Different fantasy RPGs feel different than each other.  That feeling is not subject to the whims of what brand name is slapped on the cover.

There are enough differences between 4E and other games with the D&D brand name, particularly those old school versions, that saying they don't feel the same is highly reasonable.

Or, someone can just insist that all ice cream is close enough to Rocky Road.


----------



## MrGrenadine

Dannager said:


> Your Bob is just switching bakeries. Which is more or less what I'm advocating: enjoy your pie/cake/whatever, and let's not whine about how this pie isn't _real_ pie because it uses 77% cocoa chocolate instead of 70%.




You insist on making up arbitrary conditions that prove your illogical point.  

Of COURSE 77% cocoa isn't that different than 70%.  How about if instead of 70% cocoa, the pie maker decides to use 0% cocoa and 85% strawberry--would THAT be sufficiently different for you?

Not that it matters either way.  It would be just terrific, though, if you'd stop setting up imaginary situations in an effort to prove why other folks' opinions are badwrong.


----------



## BryonD

Mercurius said:


> To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D?



Simple.  Because some people find that it is not a valid system for creating the feeling that they expect from D&D.

Why do some people seem to be unable to see the difference between "4E doesn't provide the same feeling to me." and "4E is invalid as a game."?

Can you accept the idea that 4E doesn't produce the same gaming experience that some people expect from the specific idea of D&D?  If not, why not?  

As a huge 3E fan, I realize that a lot of people don't think 3E feels like D&D.  That has been true for a very long time.  My reaction to this is: ok.


----------



## Mircoles

Considering how heavily house-ruled AD&D was, saying 4e isn't D&D is infantile. 

If it makes you feel better then think of it as a heavily house-ruled version of D&D, which pretty much is what it is.

And whether you like it or not it is the current version of D&D and is therefore D&D which pathfinder isn't.

Reality won't change just because you don't like it.


----------



## BryonD

Mircoles said:


> Considering how heavily house-ruled AD&D was, saying 4e isn't D&D is infantile.
> 
> If it makes you feel better then think of it as a heavily house-ruled version of D&D, which pretty much is what it is.



Is GURPS fantasy a heavily house-ruled version of D&D?



> And whether you like it or not it is the current version of D&D and is therefore D&D.
> 
> Reality won't change because you don't like it.



Do you not understand the difference between "it doesn't feel like D&D.", which is being said, and "it is not the current version of D&D.", which is beyond obvious and in no way being argued?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Considering how heavily house-ruled AD&D was, saying 4e isn't D&D is infantile.




Again, a nice use if neutral, non-escalatory language.  Would you like a match with your Molotov?

(Also, note your pre-conceived notion about how HRed _EVERYONE's_ AD&D experience was.)



> If it makes you feel better then think of it as a heavily house-ruled version of D&D, which pretty much is what it is.




That doesn't help because...wait for it...it still doesn't feel like D&D to me.  Not even HRed D&D because it contains elements I've never seen in HRs before AND excises things I consider essential.  It feels like a completely different (and this is key) _*but perfectly fine FRPG*_...that isn't D&D.


> Reality won't change just because you don't like it




Aaaand still missing the point that "4Ed doesn't feel like D&D." /= "I hate 4Ed."

_Please_ try to understand that.


----------



## bouncyhead

To flip this whole "feels like" thing around: Take a (hypothetical) player who has come to the game through the latest edition. She has nearly three years under her belt. At her local club (common here in the UK) she joins in a 2e game one week. 

If her take was: "This is great fun, but it doesn't feel like d&d to me. There's much that's familiar but many things are weirdly different. It doesn't match my expectations." Is she being narrow-minded or unreasonable?

Seems to me that this disconnect is just a question of expectations, and nothing whatsoever to do with 4e or any other edition. Nor is she challenging 2e's right have 'Dungeons & Dragons' on the cover.


----------



## Bluenose

BryonD said:


> Exactly right.
> 
> I already said that I am a fan of PF and it feels like D&D to me.  But I am also not a fan of older versions of D&D.  So the differences between old D&D and PF are, in my book, very good things.  Losing things I didn't like doesn't make it not D&D to me.  But, to someone else for whom those things were important, it certainly COULD ruin that connection.




That's interesting. The implication is that Pathfinder (and presumably 3e) are somehow more like proper D&D than earlier editions were. This might be considered controversial.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Bluenose said:


> That's interesting. The implication is that Pathfinder (and presumably 3e) are somehow more like proper D&D than earlier editions were. This might be considered controversial.




I think you have it backwards.

He was saying that he likes it more than earlier versions of D&D, but that those were D&D first.

And not to put words in his mouth, I think he's assuming the other versions WERE/ARE D&D...and that pathfinder is also D&D.


AND THE POINT THERE WAS NOT THAT PATHFINDER IS "MORE" D&D, JUST THAT HE LIKES IT MORE.

The point, which seems to repeatedly be missed, despite repeatedly being stated very clearly, is that ENJOYMENT AND ADMIRATION OF A SYSTEM OR EDITION IS NOT NECESSARILY CORRELATED WITH WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OR IS NOT D&D.



Edit: and once again, someone is twisting words (and being passive aggressive).


----------



## BryonD

Bluenose said:


> That's interesting. The implication is that Pathfinder (and presumably 3e) are somehow more like proper D&D than earlier editions were. This might be considered controversial.




I'd think your bizarre interpretation of what I said is probably more controversial than what I actually said.  

But, hey, it is just yet another iteration of a 4E fan misrepresenting something in lieu of actually making their own case.


----------



## shadzar

bouncyhead said:


> Seems to me that this disconnect is just a question of expectations, and nothing whatsoever to do with 4e or any other edition.




But it does have to do with every edition. Those expectations have changed in part because of a lack of focus.

How many other games have shifted focus so much that the only thing linking them still may be their name?

Specifically 4th edition, for ill or good, caused a change in focus that shifted expectations greatly. D&D is half an identity crisis. It may come out ok in the end, but no matter what happens in solving that crisis it loses something that it really wouldn't have lost from editions shifting prior to 4th edition.

Each edition has had the disconnect with a previous, but even fans of specific older editions would consider them to be D&D, while 4th edition completely makes some just flat out feel and state "This isn't D&D".

For some, that it is not D&D similar to anything before, is a good thing, while to others it is not.

It also goes to show that in "her" case, as a proof, first interaction with something colors all future reactions to it.

If D&D keeps changing to find a new format or set of expectations, then no one will know what to expect. D&D can only suffer from such as people will come to expect that D&D is not a stable system and those staying with older editions when a new one comes out will become larger numbers, and the new players may not be able to compensate for their loss. Likewise without a system change, people may gravitate to where a system/game is stable so they now what to expect from it.

So while in the past you sort of knew what you were going to get as each edition prior to 4th had a lot of associated focus, 4th edition has completely shifted the focus and expectations of them, such that "she" was quite confused by the game not meeting the same or even having the same expectations from play.

So what is the current expectation from a game of D&D from a player only ever having used 4th edition?


----------



## Mercurius

This thread has devolved like a post-apocalyptic proto-simian. ;-)

Seriously though, to answer some of the various replies, I have no real problem with the statement "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me," although what that person is really saying is "4E doesn't feel like what I personally identify as D&D." Might as well take it all the way; if we are talking about the _feeling _of D&D, that is highly personal - I'm fine with that. But let's at least be honest and extend that completely but recognizing that what we are referring to as "D&D" is one's own personal identification and feeling-sense of D&D.What I do find to be problematic is "4E isn't real D&D" because A) It is just a ridiculous thing to say, and B) It leads to major interpersonal issues, especially on a website like ENWorld. And I'm not sure if anyone is saying that in this thread, but I have heard such statements - and on this website.

And this goes for shadzar's point which I think is a bit misplaced - if you are on EN World you damn well better accept that 4E is a valid form of D&D and not play the sort of semantic games you're advocating. I mean, come _on. _The common ground is that all forms of D&D, all editions, are valid forms of D&D. 4E might not feel like what you consider D&D to be, but it certainly does to many thousands of people. 

I mean, how annoying would be it be if you were talking about your 3.x campaign and I asked you, "What edition are you playing?" And you said "3.5" and I said "Oh, so we're talking about 3.5 and not real D&D."


----------



## Bluenose

Aberzanzorax said:


> I think you have it backwards.
> 
> He was saying that he likes it more than earlier versions of D&D, but that those were D&D first.
> 
> And not to put words in his mouth, I think he's assuming the other versions WERE/ARE D&D...and that pathfinder is also D&D.
> 
> AND THE POINT THERE WAS NOT THAT PATHFINDER IS "MORE" D&D, JUST THAT HE LIKES IT MORE.




He likes Pathfinder. He doesn't like older versions of D&D. Something doesn't feel the same. Perhaps it's Pathfinder that isn't really like D&D? But that would require accepting that people who don't like it could be anything other than 4e fanboys, and it's much easier to disregard an opinion you don't like by criticising the messenger rather than the message.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I haven't seen anyone in this thread state that 4Ed isn't "real" D&D, so let's just not discuss that strawman any further.


----------



## shadzar

Mercurius said:


> And this goes for shadzar's point which I think is a bit misplaced - if you are on EN World you damn well better accept that 4E is a valid form of D&D and not play the sort of semantic games you're advocating. I mean, come _on. _The common ground is that all forms of D&D, all editions, are valid forms of D&D. 4E might not feel like what you consider D&D to be, but it certainly does to many thousands of people.




Woah there take your sedative and relax.

I am saying if you want to discuss things you must accept the terms being used by the other party. If one says for whatever reason "4th isn't D&D", then discussing 4th in the context of D&D isn't going to work with that person. It is only begging to create a conflict rather than a discussion.

You can try to change their mind, but in doing so your conversation about D&D is likely to turn into an argument or edition war...such as happens here on EN World. Best thing to do is disagree mentally or politely and vocally, and move on to a discussion where the term D&D does include 4th if you want to talk about it, or discus it using the term as defined by the other party and not include 4th edition in the context of D&D.

If you say soy milk is milk, and I refute that saying it is juice as soy has no teet, then we won't be having a discussion about soy milk, as we don't both agree on. Like the pie example floating around. You would go from having a discussion to having a debate over whether "soy milk" is milk or juice.

This will in no way shape or form help you converse about soy milk. So best to find someone who does consider it milk to carry on your discussion of "soy milk", unless both parties want to debate "soy milk" vs "soy juice".

Quite frankly I don't know where you get off telling me what I have to accept or not. There is the precise thing I was saying about discussion with someone who can agree on the terms, or you will only be starting an argument. Now were you wanting to start a fight with me? Because I will tell you flat out, you mean nothing to me, and I make my own decisions. You will not be likely to sway them in the slightest, especially with that approach telling me what I "damn well better" do.

So you have to agre on the terms used in order to common ground to work with.

Where is Danny and that other lawyer? Is that not the case and reasons for LOOOONG draw out contracts and such to DEFINE the terms so that all participating parties can understand them in the context they are being used?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Depending on your style as a lawyer, drafting is either about clarity to avoid misunderstanding or obfuscation to create loopholes & traps.

And some of us can do one while making it look like the other...I've seen some very consise contracts that were nonetheless quite deceptive.  I reviewed an HMO contract that was pretty short, and most of the language was lifted right from the relevant Texas statutes about reviewing insurance claims, so it looked good.  Until you realized there was no clause in the contract stating the HMO ever had to PAY anything on those claims...


----------



## BryonD

Bluenose said:


> He likes Pathfinder. He doesn't like older versions of D&D. Something doesn't feel the same. Perhaps it's Pathfinder that isn't really like D&D? But that would require accepting that people who don't like it could be anything other than 4e fanboys, and it's much easier to disregard an opinion you don't like by criticising the messenger rather than the message.




Yeah, but it is pretty easy to disregard the messenger when the message is both of his own creation and as completely confused as yours.

Seriously, if this is as well as you understand the conversation, then, there is not much point in worrying about any of the particulars of what you said.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Bluenose said:


> He likes Pathfinder. He doesn't like older versions of D&D. Something doesn't feel the same. Perhaps it's Pathfinder that isn't really like D&D? But that would require accepting that people who don't like it could be anything other than 4e fanboys, and it's much easier to disregard an opinion you don't like by criticising the messenger rather than the message.




Lol, no.

(Once again, both twisting and escalating the language in inflammatory ways? Thanks.)


----------



## pawsplay

Dannager said:


> No, actually, both analogies are pretty faithful, albeit for different purposes. Notably, however, in your analogy Bob isn't declaring that the new pie isn't a pie, nor is he declaring that it isn't a Boston Cream Pie, which was the entire point of setting up this analogy in the first place.
> 
> Your Bob is just switching bakeries. Which is more or less what I'm advocating: enjoy your pie/cake/whatever, and let's not whine about how this pie isn't _real_ pie because it uses 77% cocoa chocolate instead of 70%.




What if the bakery replaced the pudding with marshmallow fluff, because it's light and fluffy and not so heavy and creamy? Is it still a Boston cream pie? The analogy holds pretty well; I just didn't see any reason to extend it into tangents, as you insist on doing.

You can claim all you like it's "silly" to argue over definitions, but in that case there is a whole of silliness out there, from copyright law to child custody to Passover dietary laws to birthright citizenship to... well, playing D&D. It would be a pretty sorry game if we couldn't agree if a given character were a fighter or not. Let's be totally be clear. You are claiming that words do not have definitions at all. I really wonder how you reconcile that with posting on a message board, considering that nothing you type will signify anything at all except what I choose to read into it. 

The whole subjective/objective thing is a trap: language isn't evidential. Read some Wittgenstein, some Chomsky, then come back if you think you're ready to argue a radical subjectivist viewpoint. If you want to take the position that D&D is anything someone calls D&D, you're going to have a real problem if you can find two people who don't agree on what is and isn't. Simply because two people can't agree on a definition doesn't mean they couldn't use one. There are one or more useful definitions of D&D for any given conversation.

When someone says, "4e isn't D&D to me," they are telling you something important. You may or may not be able to persuade them to believe otherwise, but you can't make them, and you certainly can't prove they are wrong. If enough people say it, the working definition of D&D falls into contention.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Let's also add Heidegger's "Thingness of Things" and the philosophy of the asian tea house to the "definitions are meaningless and way more complicated than we give them credit for." I mean, sure, it is true. Meanings are like mathematical "sets" with unions and intersections and all that...and even so, they have "non permeable" boundaries that are more akin to bell curves than solid lines, as a whole.


Or we could talk about our own impressions, realistically, on a non-philosophical level.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> I dislike the (positional) tactical mastery of 4e.  It's one of the the design choices that leaves me cold towards the system as a whole.



Interesting. Can you say more about why? (eg is it the maps/minis baggage that comes with it?)


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> As your previous reply right before this one, the "tactical mastery" is why it doesn't need those things, because MANY miniature wargames don't need a rich story to be enjoyed.



But 4e isn't a wargame. It's an RPG. And - judging from the copy on the back of the PHB - "The World Needs Heroes!" - and from the text of the PHB and DMG, which talk about the players creating PCs who are heroes who become paragons who go on to realise epic destinies, it is an RPG which is focused on the players realising the stories of their heroic PCs.



shadzar said:


> The way you say it about "on time GMing", seems like there shouldn't even be a GM and just a deck of cards to draw an encounter from then go back and make a story out of whatever happened. Make sure they are mixed proportionally for the group with the proper amounts of combat and non-combat encounters.



This comment suggests to me that you don't have a lot of experience in playing non-simulationist RPGs. It's also pretty dismissive, suggesting to me that (as a GM) I'm not able to produce any more interesting, engaging or coherent play than would arise from a deck of combat scenarios. I don't know whether or not the RPG sessions you run bear much resemblance to a game of Talisman. Mine don't.

"Just in time" GMing - I'm borrowing the phrase from a poster on these boards whose username I can't recall at present - or, as it's called on the Forge boards, "No Myth" RPGing - is about the GM setting up a situation and letting it unfold in response to the players' decisions. While there might be a general backstory that sets the parameters of that unfolding, plus mutually understood genre conventions that impose further limits, the details are worked out _during the course of play_ and _in response to play_. It's a non-sandbox alternative to the railroad.

Here is a link to an actual play report of a "just in time" exploration scenario that I GMed. I think you'll see that it couldn't have been run without a GM, and bears no connection to GMing from a deck of cards.

And here is a favourite quote of mine from Paul Czege, describing GMing in this style (assuming that he's not exaggerating too much, his game is a bit more hardcore than mine). You'll see that there's bascially no resemblance between the sort of experience that players get out of situation-based GMing, and the sort of experience that you get from playing a game of Talisman:

Let me say that I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive . . .

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​
I think it very effectively exposes, as Ron points out above, that although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.

How does it feel? I suspect it feels like being a guest on a fast-paced political roundtable television program. I think the players probably love it for the adrenaline, but sometimes can't help but breathe a calming sigh when I say "cut."​


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Well, like I said upthread, 4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM. It seems intended to support "just in time" GMing - ie the GM sets up situations and the players play through them. This sort of play doesn't need a rich setting. It does need an "atmosphere" and "vibe" - as the OP noted. And this is what PoL supplies.



With this short paragraph you've just crystallized something that's bugged me about 4e since before Day 1 but that I just couldn't quite put a finger on until now.

"the GM sets up situations and the players play through them" works only as long as a) the DM can keep finding situations to set up, and b) the players are willing to play through them and not bother with the rest of the game world.  It falls apart if [a) the DM runs out of situations and turns the players loose] and-or [b) the players want to step outside the presented situations] and the DM can't or won't world-build on the fly. (very few can)

For a single-path-down-the-rails campaign or a one-off adventure this is fine; what more do you need?  But for a campaign where the players and-or DM actually want to engage with the game world beyond the adventures, it's not enough.  And to make it enough a DM not only has to do the usual world-building she'd have to do anyway but also has to fight the game's system at the design level in order to do it.

This is even more disappointing in that to me Worlds and Monsters set 4e up to be a world-builder's game.

Lan-"just-in-time DMing only works until the party gets there early"-efan


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> Early on Mearls said that 4E may not be the system of choice for people who like to world build.



Well, it's nice to know that when I read the system I reach the same conclusions as it's designers!



pemerton said:


> 4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM. It seems intended to support "just in time" GMing - ie the GM sets up situations and the players play through them. This sort of play doesn't need a rich setting. It does need an "atmosphere" and "vibe" - as the OP noted. And this is what PoL supplies.



In case this was amiguous or incomplete - of course "just in time" play will deliver a rich setting _at the end of play_. It's just that the richness results from play. It's not an input into play.

A fairly trivial example from my game yesterday: The PCs have been opposing the minions of a yellow-robed wizard for some levels now. They have known him as "Golthar". In yesterday's session they learned from some witches of a yellow-robed wizard named "Paldemar". Those same witches told them that "Golthar" sounds like a Goblin name.

One of the PCs speaks Goblin and Common, and has a strong History skill. The player of that PC asked me whether the roots of "Golthar" in Goblin are the same as the roors of "Paldemar" in Common. I hadn't though about this before, but answered "yes" - thus, in effect, confirming the players' hypothesis that the two yellow-robed wizards are one-and-the-same person.

I made this decision because I felt, at this stage of the campaign, there was little to be achieved by keeping the players in the dark. I had introduced the dual identity into my background notes thinking that it might produce some interesting play. For various reasons, however, it has never come up until now, and at this point the PCs have access to divination magic that would make a question of dual identity nothing more than a bit of a gp sink for them (component costs) and a bit of a time sink at the table (as we lose play time solving a problem whose solution is foregone). Hence my decision to make the call that I did, and in the process to add a minor detail to the linguistic facts of my gameworld.

Over the course of multiple sessions, decisions like this produce a rich gameworld. But they are the result of play. They are not a prelude to it. This is what I think 4e is best suited to.



Mallus said:


> I'll pit our 4e homebrew against all comers in an Iron Setting competition, if something like that should ever happen on ENWorld.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I can see 4e not _inspiring_ people to world-build. That can't be argued. But the practical difficulties in world-building for 4e (still) elude me.



4e inspires me to design scenarios and situations - more, probably, than my party will get to, though the levelling-up rules help keep some of my designs viable for future use. But more and more these days I play with only some broad background ideas, filling in the details as I play (in the way described above).

Can you say more about how you approach your world design, and how it relates to your actual play?


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I myself have stated IN THIS THREAD that I find 4Ed to be an enjoyable game to play.  It still doesn't feel like D&D to me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When a car reviewer says a particular model doesn't have the "feel" of a Ferrari (or Porsche, Fiat, Ford, etc.), it's pretty much understood that he is NOT negating the car's identity, but rather that something about the car is at perceptible variance with his expectations of what he expects from the badge.  (And in fact, that may even be a positive- context matters).



If by "D&D" we mean something along the lines of Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert or 1st ed AD&D (the two editions of D&D that I happen to be most familiar with, and also two editions that in my view play somewhat similarly, the mechanical baroqueness of AD&D notwithstanding), then I will say that 4e doesn't feel like D&D to me.

If it did, I wouldn't be playing it.

So in this particular point I think I agree with Danny (although our tastes in RPGs obviously differ to an extent).

(For the curious: 4e doesn't, to me, feel like those earlier editions because (i) it doesn't lean towards simulationism in its approach to action resolution and scenario design, and (ii) it doesn't lean towards dungeon exploration, and particularly the operational minutiae of dungeon exploration, in its approach to the themes of the game.)



shadzar said:


> Each edition has had the disconnect with a previous, but even fans of specific older editions would consider them to be D&D





BryonD said:


> I realize that a lot of people don't think 3E feels like D&D.  That has been true for a very long time.  My reaction to this is: ok.



I'm one of the people BryonD refers to. To me, 3E feels like an unstable blend of AD&D and Rolemaster. I'd rather play one or the other. But I would say that 3E does not feel, to me, as different from AD&D as does 4e.



Mircoles said:


> And whether you like it or not it is the current version of D&D and is therefore D&D which pathfinder isn't.



I think this is true only in the sense of D&D the brand name. But in most of these conversations I don't think that that is how "D&D" is being used.

If someone asked me to come and join an RPG group, and I said "Fine, but no 3rd ed D&D, I really don't like its build rules, and I'm not a big fan of its action resolution either" I wouldn't expect the response "OK, then, let's play Pathfinder (or Arcana Unearthed, or Conan d20)". These are all 3E variants. Yes, they vary the build and action resolutin mechanics in minor ways, but from my point of view they're still all 3E games.



pawsplay said:


> Read some Wittgenstein
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Simply because two people can't agree on a definition doesn't mean they couldn't use one.



Well, Wittgenstein in the _Philosophical Investigations_ does launch a pretty strong attack on the notion of definitions. Part of the point of Witt's deployment of the notions of "family resemblance", "lanugage games" and "forms of life" is that some terms - perhaps most of the terms of a natural language - get their meaning not from a shared definition, but from shared practices of use.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> With this short paragraph you've just crystallized something that's bugged me about 4e since before Day 1 but that I just couldn't quite put a finger on until now.



Cool!



Lanefan said:


> "the GM sets up situations and the players play through them" works only as long as a) the DM can keep finding situations to set up, and b) the players are willing to play through them and not bother with the rest of the game world.  It falls apart if [a) the DM runs out of situations and turns the players loose] and-or [b) the players want to step outside the presented situations] and the DM can't or won't world-build on the fly. (very few can)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> for a campaign where the players and-or DM actually want to engage with the game world beyond the adventures, it's not enough.



I half agree and half disagree with this.

As to your point (a): agreed, but the actions of the PCs will tend to set up many future situations, so it's not quite as difficult as you suggest.

As to your point (b), which I see as continuing into the post-snippage quoted sentence: you're right that this won't work for players who are mostly interested in world exploration - but as long as they're mostly interested in playing out conflicts that their PCs find themselves in, then even when they "go off the edge of the map", they will be provoking new situations, or will engage in the ones you (as GM) present - so the solution to (a) is also the solution to (b).

To see how I actually run this sort of game, and to see how it avoids railroading, have a look at the actual play report I've linked to a couple of post up.  



Lanefan said:


> This is even more disappointing in that to me Worlds and Monsters set 4e up to be a world-builder's game.



Whereas to me, W&M gives me all the info I need to run 4e as a "just-in-time" game, because as well as the ingame info about the world and it's monsters, it tells me how the designers see them being used. And this helps me solve the "world creation on the fly" problem that you point to in your post.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Well, it's nice to know that when I read the system I reach the same conclusions as it's designers!



And that is cool.  Clearly you are in the target audience.



> Over the course of multiple sessions, decisions like this produce a rich gameworld. But they are the result of play. They are not a prelude to it. This is what I think 4e is best suited to.



The statement "4e is best suited..."  is a bit ambiguous.  If you mean that it is better suited to that than it is to other approaches, ok.  If you mean it is better suited to that than other editions are, then I would strongly disagree.  

This type of thing works great in almost any RPG, in my experience.  I really can't think of any that don't support it.  Certainly there may be some, but in the end it is pretty fundamental.  To me it is kinda like bragging that your car has seat belts.  

4E certainly has strengths.  And resilient mechanical balance and consistent "easy to DM" elements are front and center.  But, as with everything, there are trade-offs for these strengths.

3E has strengths as well.  And those strengths speak much more to me.  And reaching all the way back to the OP, a whole lot of people agree.  Plenty disagree, but far from enough.  Way far from enough.


----------



## Lanefan

Mercurius said:


> You know, Shin, pretty much no one considers themselves an "edition warrior" ...



I do.

But the edition I fight for is one most have never heard of unless they've either played in our games or read our website, so it really doesn't matter very much. 


			
				shadzar said:
			
		

> I am saying if you want to discuss things you must accept the terms being used by the other party. If one says for whatever reason "4th isn't D&D", then discussing 4th in the context of D&D isn't going to work with that person. It is only begging to create a conflict rather than a discussion.



If one says for whatever reason "4th isn't D&D" then there's no point in continuing any discussion with the speaker, because like it or not (and note that I don't yet am defending it anyway) 4e *is* D&D every bit as much as 3e, 2e, 1e, and all the other various e's; and if the speaker can not or will not realize this you're probably wasting your time.

Why is this?  Because there's a *massive* difference between the statement "4e isn't D&D" (an objective statement and also an outright lie) and "4e doesn't feel like D&D" (a subjective statement likely true from the speaker's point of view).

From what I've seen/read of 4e it certainly doesn't look like D&D to me, and I'm not interested in playing or running it.  But I cannot deny that 4e has become part of the D&D family and that there's lots of people who do like it for what it is.  

Lan-"the black sheep of the family is still part of the family"-efan


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Is this a fair statement?

"4e is D&D, but it sure doesn't feel like it to me, and I wish they'd gone in another direction after 3e (possibly something like Star Wars SAGA or Pathfinder)?"

If it is a fair statement, why?

If it is not a fair statement, why?


...Because, honestly, it's how I actually feel.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"the black sheep of the family is still part of the family"-efan




I find this discussion of what is D&D rather sad, overall. If it served a point for enjoying the game, I would not mind it so much, but I cannot see where it will lead to better or more fun play.  

As for the above quote, all editions of D&D (as well as every game ever created) are black sheep, it just depends on what table you are looking at.


----------



## shadzar

just-in-time means that something is done only when needed to be done in most other areas, so never heard it applied differently or to RPGs before.

4th seems like a great next step for DDM though.


----------



## pawsplay

Lanefan said:


> Why is this?  Because there's a *massive* difference between the statement "4e isn't D&D" (an objective statement and also an outright lie) and "4e doesn't feel like D&D" (a subjective statement likely true from the speaker's point of view).




It depends on the context. If you are talking a published continuity, then 4e is D&D. If, on the other hand, you are talking about something that feels like other D&Ds (it has similar characteristics), then there is no difference between the two statments. "4e is not D&D" is not a lie; it's a clear and unambiguous statement that on the criteria the speaker considers most salient, it is not sufficiently similar to other D&Ds to qualify. 

You are claiming there is only one definition of D&D, only one thing that is D&D, and that its characteristics are objective. You are incorrect. D&D is a label, that is, a linguistic phenomenon.


----------



## Lanefan

Aberzanzorax said:


> Is this a fair statement?
> 
> "4e is D&D, but it sure doesn't feel like it to me, and I wish they'd gone in another direction after 3e (possibly something like Star Wars SAGA or Pathfinder)?"
> 
> If it is a fair statement, why?



It's fair.

It states the obvious fact that 4e is D&D, but then gives some opinions regarding said fact; and regardless of whether or not a given reader agrees with said opinions the act of stating them is still valid.

The opinions can, of course, be argued and debated until the next ice age strikes; and that's what forums like this are for.  Local pubs are even better for it. 

Lan-"when the GenCon planning forum shows up I'll be calling a pub night"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

pawsplay said:


> It depends on the context. If you are talking a published continuity, then 4e is D&D.



Does it (legally) say D&D on the cover?  If yes, then it's D&D.  Objective non-negotiable fact. 







> If, on the other hand, you are talking about something that feels like other D&Ds (it has similar characteristics), then there is no difference between the two statments. "4e is not D&D" is not a lie; it's a clear and unambiguous statement that on the criteria the speaker considers most salient, it is not sufficiently similar to other D&Ds to qualify.



Feels like = subjective, and thus open to interpretation and debate.

Let's take some examples:

1. 4e is D&D.  
2. 4e to many does not feel like D&D.
3. Pathfinder is not D&D.  
4. Pathfinder to many feels like D&D.

All four statements are true, but only 1 and 3 are objective facts.  2 and 4 are built on common opinion and are open to debate.

See the difference I'm getting at?  Someone who says 4e is not D&D is merely stating an opinion, not a fact; and sometimes this needs to be pointed out.

Lan-"just the facts, ma'am"-efan

p.s. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] I had a long reply to one of your posts here and lost it -


----------



## Aldarc

*Re Worldbuilding with 4E:* To provide some background, I tend to do a lot of worldbuilding, and rarely do I actually have the chance to play in these worlds that I design. I frequently just want to preserve an idea for a world that I can potentially use later to some degree or another. At other times, I design just as a sort of "RPG thought experiment" of world creation. I admit to coming into D&D by means of 3E, at least seriously, as I have played a few sessions of AD&D, though I recall little of the mechanics on an experiential level. 

I do agree that 4E is far more challenging to customize and makes world-building more difficult in some respects. One of 4E's greatest strengths in regards to world-building is its modularity that allows for certain flavors of classes to be used or removed without a fear of losing an "essential" role and risk the integrity of an ideal party composition. For example, 4E demonstrated this through the removal of divine power source classes in Dark Sun, a feat that was practically impossible or impractical to do in either 2E or 3.XE mechanical assumptions. But 4E's modularity allows for an arguably "truer" Dark Sun in 4E than the original in 2E, at least when it comes to classes. Much like in Dark Sun, I found this to a breath of fresh air when it comes to world-building, as I do not feel compelled to retain a divine, psionic, arcane, or primal power source. But the mechanics of 4E also sometimes come with their own set of "world assumptions," that could be frustrating to the DM. For example, the eladrin's fey step assumes the existence of a Fey Wild. But in this respects, this may not be all that different from assumptions regarding an ethereal plane with respects to ghosts or a far realm with respect to abominations. Or in like turn, 3E also had its own set of assumptions regarding classes that sometimes vexed my world-building, such as rangers with divine spells (or any spells for that matter). 

(As an aside, I greatly prefer 4E's more "mythological cosmology" than the Great Wheel of old. The new cosmology has actually been more conducive in my idea generation for world-building than the old cosmology.) 

*Re "Feels like D&D":* Both 3E and 4E "feel like D&D" to me, but they seem to be aimed at different markets and attempting to address different "problems" and issues. While I like both and both "feel like D&D" to me, I am not truly satisfied with either. Hearing people say "it does not feel like D&D" in regards to any edition irks me on some level. Behind this statement seems to be the qualifying question of what would make it "true D&D." So the statement "it doesn't feel like D&D" seems to be a step removed from committing what could be considered a "no true D&D" fallacy. I would not mind the statement "it doesn't feel like D&D" as much if the point was elaborated and qualified more fully. "What would make it feel more like D&D?" 

(IMO, while Pathfinder may be a more polished variant of 3.5, it fails to address many of the problems - such as fighter vs. wizard power scaling - of 3.X. If anything, it seems to accentuate some of those problems. I do agree with Aberzanzorax that I wish that 4E had taken its cues more so from SW Saga, which itself is obviously built on the customizable d20 Modern. One of my own problems with 4E is its "square-dancing" tactical combat system that practically requires minis. And it seems that neither Pathfinder nor 4E learned from highly praised alt systems such as Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, or True20, etc.)


----------



## BryonD

Dice4Hire said:


> I find this discussion of what is D&D rather sad, overall. If it served a point for enjoying the game, I would not mind it so much, but I cannot see where it will lead to better or more fun play.



If you like 4E as it is AND you don't care how popular the game is then this discussion can not possibly contribute to more fun for you.

Not that I have any delusions of changing things by posting on a website, but if the reality of 4E losing a lot of fanbase is something you care about, then the conversation may contribute to progress. Besides, it is fun.



> As for the above quote, all editions of D&D (as well as every game ever created) are black sheep, it just depends on what table you are looking at.



But we are not fixated on "tables", the overall marketplace is important.  And your statement is not equal across all editions for that scale.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Aldarc said:


> (As an aside, I greatly prefer 4E's more "mythological cosmology" than the Great Wheel of old. The new cosmology has actually been more conducive in my idea generation for world-building than the old cosmology.)




Yes, I have found this also. The Great Wheel was more where and what, not so much who, or why (history of the cosmology). It just was what was there.  

I really like the different power groups in the 4E cosmology, Primordials, demons, gods, Nature spirits, etc. It is really easy to see how they work off of each other, from the beginnings of time to the present day. 

Plus, one reason Dark Sun is so good in 4E is the simplicity of its main history. The Primordials won the Dawn War. Simple enough. What would happen if the nature spirits were able to be the 'winners"?


----------



## pawsplay

Lanefan said:


> Does it (legally) say D&D on the cover?  If yes, then it's D&D.  Objective non-negotiable fact.




For some versions of "it's D&D." If by "it feels like D&D," then according to some people, you are wrong. You are committing a logical error known as equivocaton. For instance:

1. A bird is a warm-blooded saurian that can fly.
2. An ostrich is a bird.
THEREFORE, an ostrich can fly. 

You can argue till you're blue in the face, and 4e still won't fly.



> Feels like = subjective, and thus open to interpretation and debate.
> 
> Let's take some examples:
> 
> 1. 4e is D&D.
> 2. 4e to many does not feel like D&D.
> 3. Pathfinder is not D&D.
> 4. Pathfinder to many feels like D&D.
> 
> All four statements are true, but only 1 and 3 are objective facts.  2 and 4 are built on common opinion and are open to debate.




Actually, I would argue the opposite. What is or isn't D&D is arguable, but arguing about what someone thinks or feels is a non-starter.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Aldarc said:


> *<snip, while what I'm cutting is interesting, it's not what I want to bring attention to in this particular post. Well said, though - Aberzanzorax.>*
> 
> *Re "Feels like D&D":* Both 3E and 4E "feel like D&D" to me, but they seem to be aimed at different markets and attempting to address different "problems" and issues. While I like both and both "feel like D&D" to me, I am not truly satisfied with either. Hearing people say "it does not feel like D&D" in regards to any edition irks me on some level. Behind this statement seems to be the qualifying question of what would make it "true D&D." So the statement "it doesn't feel like D&D" seems to be a step removed from committing what could be considered a "no true D&D" fallacy. I would not mind the statement "it doesn't feel like D&D" as much if the point was elaborated and qualified more fully. "What would make it feel more like D&D?"
> 
> (IMO, while Pathfinder may be a more polished variant of 3.5, it fails to address many of the problems - such as fighter vs. wizard power scaling - of 3.X. If anything, it seems to accentuate some of those problems. I do agree with Aberzanzorax that I wish that 4E had taken its cues more so from SW Saga, which itself is obviously built on the customizable d20 Modern. One of my own problems with 4E is its "square-dancing" tactical combat system that practically requires minis. And it seems that neither Pathfinder nor 4E learned from highly praised alt systems such as Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, or True20, etc.)




There is a lot of wisdom in this post. 
I disagree with some points, just the same.

I understand the irksomeness, but I also experience the same irksomeness when someone tells me that my feelings are somehow wrong. 4e just doesn't feel like D&D to me. For others to be bothered by my feeling seems weird. I think of it as a flavor issue, and I think of 4e as not having enough of the ingredients of prior editons for it to to taste similar enough to D&D for me.

On the other hand, I sort of both agree and disagree on the "true D&D" comment you make. On the one hand, I think there are "essential elements" that are central to D&D that really, it cannot exist without (e.g. fantasy roleplaying....if I EVER see a version of D&D without fantasy roleplaying and someone defends it as "D&D" I'm going to laugh at the game and them...it's just plain central to the game)...

....but on the other hand, I'm going to say that all versions (yes, every single one, including my favorite, which still has problems) have problems. Of course they do. They're complex gaming rules/almost theoretical machines? I'm with you that Pathfinder is imperfect (despite attempting-sometimes succesfully, sometimes not- to fix issues/problems with 3e). 




> "I would not mind the statement "it doesn't feel like D&D" as much if the point was elaborated and qualified more fully. "What would make it feel more like D&D?""




This is also well said. To say "4e isn't D&D" is weird and vociferous. But to say 4e feels too different from prior editions for me to engage with it...feels more natural and real. It's also a more sophisticated way to describe a phenomenon...something that not all people have within them. You are asking for a level of maturity that is higher than the average level of maturity for most American adults. People on these boards usually are slightly higher (just by virtue of an interest in a hobby that involves imagination and math)...but also due to investment and interest in the "philosophy of gaming" here on these boards.

Here I'm just saying that people have varying levels of sophistication. I'm not saying any group or team or camp or whatever is more or less sophisticated than another. I am saying that most people don't have a very clear division between their emotions and their decisions and their logic and their ideal. That takes a lot of work...So much so that religions seeking Nirvana emphasize this work. Rare individuals may succeed in being perfectly clear in their words. 

I'm aware of this myself, and I sure as hell know that I don't meet this standard. Other rare people may meet it. Many are like myself, in failing to meet this goal. But most are not aware that this distinction or goal even exists in the first place, and do not have a distinction of these properties as they live their lives, nor do they have goals to achieve what they are not yet aware of. 

Regarding wishing people would be highly clear in what they want: Ask for the impossible, and you will be dissapointed.

I think most people have an idea, but not a solid construction, of what they want (myself included).

I realize I sound a bit elitist there...and quite possibly a bit of a jerk, though I do not intend to be. I really don't mean to place myself or others above or below one another. Not everyone understands the world in the same way. I don't want to elevate one way of understanding over another...but I do want to point out that there are differences. An art critic and a sports broadcaster have very specific tastes, refinements, and predilictions. The art critic will fail to understand the nuances of sports, as will the sportscaster fail to understand some of the nuances of the arts.

So I am saying that not everyone can be truly expressive in a literary and perfectly logical and eloquent way. I don't think I can, and I think I'm better than some (but certainly not all, or even most).

So people are going to flub their imperfect explanations (even myself, right now, where I'm trying really hard to be as clear as I can, I will fail partly....and not through any intentional obfuscation...I'm just going to fail because meanings are not solid...they're fuzzy).

People might say "4e isn't D&D" and they'll be imperfect in such a statement. I'm with you, it's inflammatory and wrong. But to ask every person to speak on a message board to be more perfect, to politically and emotionally, as well as linguistically and poetically state their opinion?

I can try to translate the imperfect, and perhaps unintentionally inflammatory, "4e isn't D&D". Here are some options:
"4e doesn't feel right to me"
"4e doesn't feel like D&D to me"
"4e is missing this _one important game element_" that made D&D awesome, or just defined it, to me.
"4e is a poor/adequate/ok/good/great game, but it diverges too much from what I've played in the past"
"4e is missing this one thing from prior D&D. Without that one thing, it just isn't D&D. I won't play fantasy roleplaying without x."
"4e just makes me sad. Too many changes too soon make my emotions erupt...into sadness. Other D&D doesn't make me feel this way. Something is wrong."
"4e is really, really fun! I love it! I hated every version of D&D until this one came out! AWESOME, WotC!"


I can come up with one or two dozen more "perspectives" to describe/translate how someone might say "4e isn't D&D to me" if you like. But I hope it's clear to all how big changes in the game can cause big changes in impressions about the game.


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> just-in-time means that something is done only when needed to be done in most other areas, so never heard it applied differently or to RPGs before.



Well, in the case of a gameworld, you don't _need _fictional elements until the players engage with them at the gametable. So "just in time" GMing means coming up with those elements when they're needed, ie, _during the course of play as the players engage with them_. In a D&D game, that engagement mostly happens via the PCs.

The _point_ of just in time GMing is that the gameworld that results is one that is highly responsive to and engaging of the players. This is achieved because the gameworld is built by the GM around the players' activities at the table (including especially the things they do with their PCs). The quote from Paul Czege that I posted upthread gives an example of this. So does the actual play report from my own game that I linked to. At the forefront of this approach is that the game is a _game_ - it is not the players exploring a pre-existing world, but rather the players and the GM playing a game together in which the story of the PCs is created. (Of course in this sort of gaming there can be a type of experience of "discovering" rather than "creating" the story - but that is just a metaphor, as when an author says of a book that "it wrote itself". The literal truth, at which the metaphor gestures, is along the lines of the creation being a less-than-fully conscious process.)

Just in time GMing can also save on prep time, but not necessarily very much- I find that I spend a lot of time planning and tweaking and revisiting situations, thinking about the direction the next few sessions might take and making notes on possible permutations and developments. And because the parameters for all this change after each session, there is always room to come back to this stuff and revise it. (In some ways, this is not unlike the way in which a sandbox GM might have to make notes after each session to make sure that any on-the-fly decisions made get incorporated into his/her formal setting notes.)



BryonD said:


> The statement "4e is best suited..."  is a bit ambiguous.  If you mean that it is better suited to that than it is to other approaches, ok.  If you mean it is better suited to that than other editions are, then I would strongly disagree.
> 
> This type of thing works great in almost any RPG, in my experience.



I had in mind both of your disambiguations (4e is not the best "no myth" RPG ever, but is I think the best "no myth" edition of D&D), and I don't agree that this is not a point of distinction.

Many of the features of 4e that you seem not to like - the linking of mechanical difficulties of challenge, for example, to metagame considerations like encounter level rather than to ingame considerations like armour worn; or the skill challenge structure for resolving conflicts out of combat - are in my view precisely the ones that support "no myth" play.

They do so in more than one way.

First, these structures set a baseline that gives the players a degree of confidence in putting their PCs forward _without_ engaging in the sort of operational world-exploration that characterises classic dungeon play. In a classic D&D game it is generally regarded as madness just to set off into a dungeon without checking for rumours, scouting out, having a clear objective to which the party sticks, avoiding wandering monsters etc. (All the stuff Gygax discusses at the end of the 1st ed AD&D PHB.) If you don't want your game to feature this sort of operational play, you need to offer the players some sort of reassurance that not scouting out won't get them killed. The more-or-less railroady solution is the notorious Dragonlance "no death" rule. An alternative solution is the 4e solution - a metagame understanding about the way challenges are constructed, which leaves the players in charge of decision-making and risking their PCs, but makes clear where and how those risks will be located. (Robin Laws' second edition of HeroQuest does something similar with the pass/fail cycle being used to set difficulties.)

A second but closely related point is that "no myth" play isn't just about winging it as a GM. It's about presenting the players with situations that will engage them from the start, and keep engaging them as they (via their PCs) resolve them. This is an obvious feature of the 4e combat mechanics, which are very carefully engineered to give combat a certain dynamic, of the PCs starting on the ropes but then, if the players play cleverly, coming back to win as they gradually deploy the various resources to which they have access. But the broader encounter-build mechanics of 4e, including page 42 and it's cousins, provide tools that help get good results in pacing, engagement, challenge etc across the whole game, and not just in tactical combat encounters.

Third, and still related, once you have these sorts of mechacanics in play, activities can be handled in multiple mechanical ways (a bit like HeroQuest's distinction between extended and simple contests). For example, if the players want to have their PC's scout in order to increase their chances of survival, but no one at the table thinks that there is any profit in actually playing out the scouting - for example, the players don't care about the actual lay of the land except as a means to the end of being better prepared for any fights they get into, and the GM doesn't have any situation to initiate based on the lay of the land - then you can simply make a Nature or Stealth or Dungeoneering or Perception check (as appropriate) and award a bonus or penalty to future action on that basis (eg +2 or -2 to the next initiative check). Thus the players still get to engage with the fiction, and the PCs get the benefit of that engagement, but it can be handled at the table in a way that reduces its prominence in relation to the overall content of a session of play.

Fourth, and building on the third point, the "looseness of fit" between mechanics and gameworld - that is, and as discussed in the previous paragraph, on any given occassion there can be multiple mechanical options for resolving something within the fiction, and similarly any given mechanical subystem can have different ingame meanings from instance to instance - opens up greater flexibility in scene framing and scene closing. A very simple example - when resolving overland travel using a skill challenge, it is easy to have a result like one in my most recent actual experience of this, where as a penalty for failure the PCs are denied the opportunity to get an extended rest. This in turn enabled multiple days worth of combat encounters to be combined into a single "day" of adventuring - in the sense that, having failed to get an extended rest, the PCs hadn't recharged their powers, surges etc. In Rolemaster this would be much harder to handle, because overland travel is treated purely on a "miles per day" basis, and the only way to interfere with the PC's rest would be to work out, in detail, the conditions of the ground, the difficulty of falling asleep in a boggy hollow, etc etc (and I'm sure some RM player somewhere has come up with a "Getting a good night's rest" static action table) or else interrupting them with an overnight attack. But the first of these options is not interesting for me - like the example of scouting, it gives an element of the gameworld undue prominence in terms of time taken at the gaming table - and the second option would undo the whole point of balancing verisimilitude of encounter frequency with availability, to the players, of their PC's daily resources.

For me, these differences aren't just theory craft. While reading and thinking about RPG design theory has helped me crystallise them, I experience them regularly when I GM my 4e game, and compare it to the GMing of my previous RM game. My reason for switching to 4e was that, based on reading about it design in the lead up and then subsequent to its publication, I thought that it would deliver what I wanted better than RM: richly characterised PCs, with mechanics that reflect this (so far 4e is no better than RM), with action resolution mechanics that will regularly produce experiences at the table that reflect and build on those characters (I think 4e is marginally better at this than RM, but it's a pretty close call - if 4e wins here, it is for its non-combat action resolution), and with an approach to scene framing and scenario design that helps, rather than hinders, building encounters that will bring all these mechanical features to the fore (and here is where 4e is a huge win over Rolemaster).

And after all this, you're wondering why I don't just play HeroQuest - which is, in turn, better for No Myth than is 4e, because it has no real _tactical_ element at all in its encounter design - the answer is one that I gave upthread: me and my players enjoy a game with crunchy mechanics and tactical options. The only other FRPG I know that combines indie game play with crunch to satisfy RM players would be The Burning Wheel. But for better or worse, I run 4e instead.



shadzar said:


> 4th seems like a great next step for DDM though.



Have you read what I've posted upthread about "just in time" GMing? Or the example of play that I linked to? What has any of that got to do with DDM?


----------



## Aberzanzorax

If I understand your post, Pemerton, and I think I might, I agree with you.


4e, by virtue of balance and strategic focus, is really, really good at off the cuff exploration in, not just a "hack and slash way" but also a high adventure swashbuckling way or a barbaric mercenary way, or even a evil infiltrate and destroy way.


I definitely think 4e is different from prior editions (and others may paint this in a good or bad way, but I don't, myself).

Here I think you've pointed out some excellent strengths, strengths that WotC hasn't really done a great job of pointing out.



I mean, part of the argument of "4e isn't D&D" is really just "the goals, playfeel, and intent of 4e are different from prior editions". So, if WotC wants to change the goalposts, they should at least be clear to the customers where we should "kick the ball" (sorry, superbowl Sunday).

I think WotC played their cards too close to their chest when saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same".


4e IS different, in many wonderful ways. If they wanted to change the game that much, I think they really should have showcased what the changes could offer...not make sweeping, broad, and intense changes and then pretend they never happened?

Those changes are BIG...and they can offer a lot.

But not everyone will like them.

Right, wrong? Agree, disagree?


----------



## Mercurius

billd91 said:


> But there's nothing to really lose by acknowledging people's opinions that 4e isn't D&D to them, either.




True - and I've tried to clarify that I don't have a problem with the statement "4E isn't D&D to me," although I find it to be both _problematic _and, as Abezanzorax said, lacking a certain degree of sophistication. In other words, unpack that sentiment a bit. And try to differentiate fully what is your own and what is not. 

On the other hand, I think it is OK to debate opinions, otherwise we end up in weird little Citadels of Subjective Impenetrability - as if by stating that something is one's own opinion it becomes impervious from criticism. If I go around saying "Aboriginal Australians aren't real human beings to me" I would hope that someone would call me on my "opinion." (Now of course I'm _not _equating the two statements but using an extreme example to illustrate my point).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I haven't seen anyone in this thread state that 4Ed isn't "real" D&D, so let's just not discuss that strawman any further.




Uh, I just said the exact same thing - that I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that "4E isn't real D&D." Way to followup up there, Danny . That said, some have come awfully close.



shadzar said:


> Woah there take your sedative and relax.




? I think you're reading more emotionality than was there, shadzar. Or, as the saying goes, making titans out of titmouses 



shadzar said:


> I am saying if you want to discuss things you must accept the terms being used by the other party. If one says for whatever reason "4th isn't D&D", then discussing 4th in the context of D&D isn't going to work with that person. It is only begging to create a conflict rather than a discussion.




Are you saying that there are no common, interpersonal understandings and agreements that we can fall back upon? I mean, can we at least use the dictionary as a general agreement?



shadzar said:


> You can try to change their mind, but in doing so your conversation about D&D is likely to turn into an argument or edition war...such as happens here on EN World. Best thing to do is disagree mentally or politely and vocally, and move on to a discussion where the term D&D does include 4th if you want to talk about it, or discus it using the term as defined by the other party and not include 4th edition in the context of D&D.




As somebody pointed out, I think if you're having a conversation with someone who refuses to recognize 4E as a form of D&D then it is probably just best to move along. That sort of willful negation of something that has a pretty weighty body of objective evidence probably speaks of some kind of psychological hang-up. 



shadzar said:


> If you say soy milk is milk, and I refute that saying it is juice as soy has no teet, then we won't be having a discussion about soy milk, as we don't both agree on. Like the pie example floating around. You would go from having a discussion to having a debate over whether "soy milk" is milk or juice.
> 
> This will in no way shape or form help you converse about soy milk. So best to find someone who does consider it milk to carry on your discussion of "soy milk", unless both parties want to debate "soy milk" vs "soy juice".




I agree that a lot of time gets wasted on these little side issues and prevents us from going into more meaningful territory. That said, your example of milk is an apt one because it well illustrates why saying 4E is not D&D is, at the least, a highly problematic statement, and more realistically, simply an erroneous statement. There are a few definitions of the word "Milk" via Dictionary.com and by saying that soy milk is not milk then you are saying that the first two definitions are right and the third is wrong. This, I think, well illustrates the question of whether 4E is D&D or not - those that see it as _not _D&D are choosing to ignore or disagree with one or more definitions. This is why I think Dannager was calling that perspective close-minded: it is consciously choosing to ignore or disagree a broader umbrella of the term.



shadzar said:


> Quite frankly I don't know where you get off telling me what I have to accept or not. There is the precise thing I was saying about discussion with someone who can agree on the terms, or you will only be starting an argument. Now were you wanting to start a fight with me? Because I will tell you flat out, you mean nothing to me, and I make my own decisions. You will not be likely to sway them in the slightest, especially with that approach telling me what I "damn well better" do.




Umm...who needs the sedative, shadzar? No one is telling you what you "Damn well better do". Relax. I don't care about changing your mind. But in the context of this thread, we're disagreeing. In the 12,457,546,133,343,337 internet debates to date, only in 0.000472% of them has someone actually changed their mind, because very few people are ever willing to admit that they're wrong or limited in their perspective. I don't expect this conversation to be any different. In the end, _all of us _are limited in our perspective and a good reason to engage in these sorts of conversations is to find ways to become less limited, to open and evolve our perspective. 

But anyhow, no harm, no foul, OK? We're all dice-rollers after all 



Aberzanzorax said:


> Let's also add Heidegger's "Thingness of Things" and the philosophy of the asian tea house to the "definitions are meaningless and way more complicated than we give them credit for." I mean, sure, it is true. Meanings are like mathematical "sets" with unions and intersections and all that...and even so, they have "non permeable" boundaries that are more akin to bell curves than solid lines, as a whole.
> 
> Or we could talk about our own impressions, realistically, on a non-philosophical level.




Well yeah, in the larger sense all definitions are inherently muddy, with permeable edges. Not to mention that words can be used poetically, with metaphoric or symbolic meanings. In the example cited by shadzar, the word _milk _can mean the elixir of life, the essence of a mother's love. There is also the simple, practical level of utility - what does a word mean in a practical sense. Etc.



Aberzanzorax said:


> Is this a fair statement?
> 
> "4e is D&D, but it sure doesn't feel like it to me, and I wish they'd gone in another direction after 3e (possibly something like Star Wars SAGA or Pathfinder)?"




Yeah, it is a fair statement but more importantly, it is a kind and generous one. Why? Because you are included 4E within, to quote Meet the Parents, the "circle of trust" that is the D&D family. 4E may be the black sheep to you, but you are saying that it is still part of the family. 

And to be honest, I agree and feel similar - although to a lesser degree. 4E feels like D&D to me partially because I _make it _feel like D&D. I think that is a key component that hasn't been really touched upon in these conversations - the fact that what D&D is, and what feels like D&D, is at least partially (I would say largely) dependent upon our conscious choice, whether and how we decide to make it D&D, make it our own.


----------



## pemerton

Dice4Hire said:


> The Great Wheel was more where and what, not so much who, or why (history of the cosmology). It just was what was there.
> 
> I really like the different power groups in the 4E cosmology, Primordials, demons, gods, Nature spirits, etc. It is really easy to see how they work off of each other, from the beginnings of time to the present day.



Upthread I had some posts about 4e supporting "situation play" rather than "world/story exploration play".

For me, this point about the old vs new cosmology perfectly captures what I had in mind. The main point of 4e's cosmology isn't to provide a series of worlds for the players to explore. (That's not to say that their PCs won't go there. They will. But they'll go there _because they know what they're going to find_. There is not the obscurity of many of the elements of the Great Wheel.)

The point of 4e's cosmology is to help make play dynamic, by giving the GM and the players ready made elements to use and react against. They _work off each other_. So if there is a priest of the Raven Queen in the party, I (as GM) can place a statue of Orcus into the game and _get a result_. I don't know what that result will be - not until we actually sit down and play - but I can be pretty sure there will be one.

And that's just a simple example. I know from my own game that these elements can be combined to produce complex dynamics and seed complex situations.

I think that in this aspect of the game 4e D&D has finally caught up to Runequest (I posetd last year about the Gloranthafication of D&D.)


----------



## Aldarc

Aberzanzorax said:


> There is a lot of wisdom in this post.
> I disagree with some points, just the same.
> 
> I understand the irksomeness, but I also experience the same irksomeness when someone tells me that my feelings are somehow wrong. 4e just doesn't feel like D&D to me. For others to be bothered by my feeling seems weird. I think of it as a flavor issue, and I think of 4e as not having enough of the ingredients of prior editons for it to to taste similar enough to D&D for me.



I agree with the non-quoted portion, but I would like to address this portion. I do not think that it's a matter of our feelings somehow being wrong, so much as it is a case of being irked by the disconnect in a shared vision of D&D. It would be much easier if we all shared the same conception of what D&D _should be_ or how it could be improved, but we do not. And therein lies the rub. This is true for both 3E and 4E supporters; there are gaming factions within gaming factions that puts Planescape to shame. It would probably help if we all looked at the player disconnect that exists in both 3.X and 4E. 



> This is also well said. To say "4e isn't D&D" is weird and vociferous. But to say 4e feels too different from prior editions for me to engage with it...feels more natural and real. It's also a more sophisticated way to describe a phenomenon...something that not all people have within them.  You are asking for a level of maturity that is higher than the average level of maturity for most American adults. People on these boards usually are slightly higher (just by virtue of an interset in a hobby that involves imagination and math)...but also due to investment and interest in the "philosophy of gaming" here on these boards.
> 
> Here I'm just saying that people have varying levels of sophistication. I'm not saying any group or team or camp or whatever is more or less sophisticated than another. I am saying that most people don't have a very clear division between their emotions and their decisions and their logic and their ideal. That takes a lot of work...So much so that religions seeking Nirvana emphasize this work. Rare individuals may succeed in being perfectly clear in their words.
> 
> I'm aware of this myself, and I sure as hell know that I don't meet this standard. Other rare people may meet it. Many are like myself, in failing to meet this goal. Most are not aware of this distinction or goal in the first place, and do not have a distinction of these properties as they live their lives, nor do they have goals to achieve what they are not yet aware of.
> 
> Regarding wishing people woudl be highly clear in what they want: Ask for the impossible, and you will be dissapointed.
> 
> I think most people have an idea, but not a solid construction, of what they want (myself included).
> 
> I realize I sound a bit elitist there...and quite possibly a bit of a jerk, though I do not intend to be. I really don't mean to place myself or others above or below one another. Not everyone understands the world in the same way. I don't want to elevate one way of understanding over another...but I do want to point out that there are differences. An art critic and a sports broadcaster have very specific tastes, refinements, and predilictions. The art critic will fail to understand the nuances of sports, as will the sportscaster fail to understand some of the nuances of the arts.
> 
> So I am saying that not everyone can be truly expressive in a literary and perfectly logical and eloquent way. I don't think I can, and I think I'm better than some (but certainly not all, or even most).
> 
> So people are going to flub their imperfect explanations (even myself, right now, where I'm trying really hard to be as clear as I can, I will fail partly....and not through any intentional obfuscation...I'm just going to fail because meanings are not solid...they're fuzzy).
> 
> People might say "4e isn't D&D" and they'll be imperfect in such a statement. I'm with you, it's inflammatory and wrong. But to ask every person to speak on a message board to be more perfect, to politically and emotionally, as well as linguistically and poetically state their opinion?
> 
> I can try to translate "4e isn't D&D". Here are some options:
> "4e doesn't feel right to me"
> "4e doesn't feel like D&D to me"
> "4e is missing this _one important game element_" that made D&D awesome, or just defined it, to me.
> "4e is a poor/adequate/ok/good/great game, but it diverges too much from what I've played in the past"
> "4e is missing this one thing from prior D&D. Without that one thing, it just isn't D&D. I won't play fantasy roleplaying without x."
> "4e just makes me sad. Too many changes too soon make my emotions erupt...into sadness. Other D&D doesn't make me feel this way. Something is wrong."
> "4e is really, really fun! I love it! I hated every version of D&D until this one came out! AWESOME, WotC!"
> 
> I can come up with one or two dozen more "perspectives" on 4e if you like. But I hope it's clear to all how big changes in the game can cause big changes in impressions about the game.



Well spoken. It's a tough issue to be sure, but such discussions are necessary if we want to find a D&D that pleases the largest market. (One thing that all D&D players want regardless of edition wars is for D&D to succeed.) Even if "4E does not feel like D&D" for a group of gamers, I hope that 4E (and the controversy surrounding it) can be used as a staging point for making a "better D&D" through discussing what elements of the different systems work best for the widest number of D&D gamers (old and new alike). Again, I am curious regarding the question of "What would make it feel more like D&D?" but that may be off-topic and already addressed in other "edition war" threads.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> What would make it feel more like D&D?




As I recall, there was a thread on that last year.  While I won't rehash, its contents probably wouldn't surprise anyone...nor would the fact that nearly every poster's list included things others didn't want.

And as I recall, it didn't end well (though I could be misremembering).


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As I recall, there was a thread on that last year.  While I won't rehash, its contents probably wouldn't surprise anyone...nor would the fact that nearly every poster's list included things others didn't want.
> 
> And as I recall, it didn't end well (though I could be misremembering).



Sadly, I figured as much. (I may recall the thread now that I'm thinking about it.) There a number of elements to 4E that I like (e.g., new cosmology, static defenses, removal of Vancian magic) that many others would find abhorrent to remove from D&D. There is no pleasing everyone, but D&D should aim at trying to please most by providing a system that can be used by its target market.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

bouncyhead said:


> To flip this whole "feels like" thing around: Take a (hypothetical) player who has come to the game through the latest edition. She has nearly three years under her belt. At her local club (common here in the UK) she joins in a 2e game one week.
> 
> If her take was: "This is great fun, but it doesn't feel like d&d to me. There's much that's familiar but many things are weirdly different. It doesn't match my expectations." Is she being narrow-minded or unreasonable?
> 
> Seems to me that this disconnect is just a question of expectations, and nothing whatsoever to do with 4e or any other edition. Nor is she challenging 2e's right have 'Dungeons & Dragons' on the cover.



Pretty much - the feeling of disconnect would work both ways. A young whippersnapper who has been spoon fed 4e will feel differently than an old man who had OD&D as his pablum.

And both _would/will_ feel that disconnect, regardless of which edition they like.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton

Aberzanzorax said:


> If I understand your post, Pemerton, and I think I might, I agree with you.
> 
> 4e, by virtue of balance and strategic focus, is really, really good at off the cuff exploration in, not just a "hack and slash way" but also a high adventure swashbuckling way or a barbaric mercenary way, or even a evil infiltrate and destroy way.



This is the sort of thing I have in mind. What I'd want to add is that: if you really care about the minutiae of swashblucking or infiltrating, 4e probably won't do it for you. But if you care about the _emotions_ of swashbuckling - you want a game where you _will[_ have to fight your pirate nemesis on the high seas - or if you care about the _intrigue_ of infiltrting - you want a game where, whatever the secret truth turns out to be, it's not a banal one - then 4e is (in my view) a good system.

And it's a good system because it lets the GM and players increase or decrease focus by mechanically engaging at the right level of detail (like I tried to explain in the post upthread) and it makes it easy for the GM to introduce new and responsive elements while assuring everyone at the table that the challenges won't be overkill or underkill (this is the encounter design stuff).

There are other bits as well that I didn't mention upthread, like paragon paths and epic destinies. Every player _has_ to choose what his/her PC's paragon path is - a GM who can't manufacture compelling situations out of this isn't worth his/her salt, in my view. For example: I had one player tossing up between Pit Fighter and War Priest. His PC found himself in an encounter with some witches, who said "So, you think you might be a pit fighter, do you?" and then dropped him in a pit full of giant spiders. At first he tried to take them solo, but then had to call in the rest of the PCs to save him. In the upshot the player decided to go Warpriest instead. (This isn't about railroading or steering the player. It's about setting up situations that make the player choose, and reflect upon those choices. Also, I'd already built the spider encounter, but introducing the "pit fighter" jibe was a spur-of-the-moment thing.)

In yesterday's session I introduced some stuff to do with another PC who is getting ready to become a Demonskin Adpet: dreams of the Queen of Chaos, waking up with strange sigils burned on his demonskins and on the inside of his eyelids (Demonskin Adept has a class feature that involves self-blinding), the other mage PC sensing the chaotic power before he'd even noticed the runes, etc. At the moment this is all just flavour stuff and a tiny bit of intraparty tension, but when the PCs meet servants of Demogorgon and Dagon, as they are soon likely to, I will be able to push it a bit further.

And then there is the planar stuff.

In all sorts of ways, 4e seems to me well-designed - both mechanically and in its "vibe"/"atmosphere" - to support this sort of play.



Aberzanzorax said:


> Here I think you've pointed out some excellent strengths, strengths that WotC hasn't really done a great job of pointing out.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I mean, part of the argument of "4e isn't D&D" is really just "the goals, playfeel, and intent of 4e are different from prior editions". So, if WotC wants to change the goalposts, they should at least be clear to the customers where we should "kick the ball" (sorry, superbowl Sunday).
> 
> I think WotC played their cards too close to their chest when saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
> 
> 4e IS different, in many wonderful ways. If they wanted to change the game that much, I think they really should have showcased what the changes could offer...not make sweeping, broad, and intense changes and then pretend they never happened?
> 
> Those changes are BIG...and they can offer a lot.
> 
> But not everyone will like them.
> 
> Right, wrong? Agree, disagree?



Agree with this 100%. This is why I'm complaining upthread that the rulebooks don't really tell you how the designers envisage the game being played.

Because I read the interview with Rob Heinsoo I linked to above, and because I'm familiar with the rulebooks for a few indie RPGs, and because I read The Forge from time to time, I think I've got a pretty good idea of how the designers envisaged 4e working. (It's resemblances at various points to those indie games are really pretty obvious, in my view.)

But with the exception of combat - which is covered in detail in the DMG - WotC don't tell you how to use all these tools they've provided. Worlds and Modules talks about the game function for a whole lot of creatures, but it's not core and was sold as a preview rather than a guidebook. And the DMG talks about making encounters meaningful, and about linking paragon paths and epic destinies to the fiction, but doesn't actually give any advice on how to do this.

Did WotC think that they could trick people into liking the game? There is an idea that Ron Edwards mentions in one of his essays about a game that starts out simulationist/exploration-focuse, but over the course of play leads its players to discover the joys of, and engage in, the sort of character and situation focused play I'm talking about here. Edwards is pretty sceptical that this sort of game is possible. Maybe WotC thought, in effect, that 4e could be that gameL write sim-sounding rulebooks so as not to scare anyone off, but write a game that will work best when played in a non-sim fashion, and then rely on the players stumbling into that alternative approach.

If that was their plan, though, it doesn't seem to have worked!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> There is no pleasing everyone, but D&D should aim at trying to please most by providing a system that can be used by its target market.



Back when I joined this site, I used to see a lot of threads about how to HR this or that...and a lot of responses along the lines about "Why are you trying to do that in D&D- try System __________."  Now some of those changes are in 4Ed.

I bring this up because it is actually illustrative of your point- WotC may have been aiming at those gamers as a way to grow the game.  The market share held by competitors' FRPGs had to be appealing...

Unfortunately, that meant leaving some behind.  Whether they have more, less, or roughly the same # of players or market share I can't say, though.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz, adding to what you've just said: we don't know what there market share is (although there is some reason to suspect it might have dropped, certainly from the heyday of 3E).

We also don't know what there market share is _relative to their projections_. For example, if part of the reason for going to 4e was because they had already projected an OGL-driven loss of market share arising from good 3pp competing with 3E, then it may be that they are now better off than they feared - or worse off than they hoped. Until we know this, it's hard to tell whether the move to 4e was rational from WotC's point of view.

Another complexity is how the changes in the game are taken into account by the business side of 4e trying to project their impact. I'm sure they're sophisticated enough to rely on more than just designers' intuition as to whether a particular mechanical approach will be popular, but I'm also pretty sure that market research into RPGs is not as sophisticated as into many other entertainment products. For example, how sophisticated is their marketing analysis of gamer demographics, and of RPG rulesets, and of the popularity of different rules with different demographics? Again, I don't know, but without those sorts of analytical tools I imagine it is fairly hard to predict how changes to the game are likely to fare in the market place.


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Back when I joined this site, I used to see a lot of threads about how to HR this or that...and a lot of responses along the lines about "Why are you trying to do that in D&D- try System __________."  Now some of those changes are in 4Ed.
> 
> I bring this up because it is actually illustrative of your point- WotC may have been aiming at those gamers as a way to grow the game.  The market share held by competitors' FRPGs had to be appealing...
> 
> Unfortunately, that meant leaving some behind.  Whether they have more, less, or roughly the same # of players or market share I can't say, though.



Good points here. And this may have been one of the dividing points of the OGL. Many 3pp tried to address "problems" of 3E and the d20 system, and it created an increasingly diverse market that made it harder for WotC to retain its target market. No one could quite agree what the problems were or how to properly address them. I sometimes find myself agreeing with what 4E tried to fix, but simultaneously at odds with 4E for how they attempted to fix it. The same is also true for other 3pp game systems in regards to 3E. 

Others in this thread have also observed how a number of WotC's later 3.X products seemed to be a reaction to other 3pp that proved popular. I think it can be argued that 4E tried to accomplish too many things and accommodate too many people in its design, which left many of those same people unsatisfied with 4E for either doing too much or not enough in its changes. For example, I think that WotC likely tried to bring their D&D tabletop game more inline with their miniatures line. The "square-dancing" combat system of 4E makes accessories such as tabletop squares and minis somewhat required for play. (Though I think one of the reasons behind the use of a "square" measurements instead of "feet" or "meters" is to simplify international releases without the need of imperial and metric conversions.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Just as a point of clarity: I was referring to more than just 3PP variants of 3.5, but other RPGs as well.


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just as a point of clarity: I was referring to more than just 3PP variants of 3.5, but other RPGs as well.



I got that, but many of the popular RPG variants seemed to skyrocket as a reaction to 3.5. Arcana Unearthed, for example, was released in 2003 around the same time as WotC was releasing 3.5. It was also clear from Monte Cook's design diaries that he was aware of the upcoming 3.5 changes. Blue Rose, True20, Iron Heroes all came out in 2005.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> * I do agree that 4E is far more challenging to customize and makes world-building more difficult in some respects. One of 4E's greatest strengths in regards to world-building is its modularity that allows for certain flavors of classes to be used or removed without a fear of losing an "essential" role and risk the integrity of an ideal party composition. For example, 4E demonstrated this through the removal of divine power source classes in Dark Sun, a feat that was practically impossible or impractical to do in either 2E or 3.XE mechanical assumptions. But 4E's modularity allows for an arguably "truer" Dark Sun in 4E than the original in 2E, at least when it comes to classes.*



*Except keep in mind that 2e was itself pretty modular; if for some reason you wanted to get rid of divine classes you could, provided you could inject a suitable replacement for healing and-or were prepared to have your parties spend lots of downtime recovering from injuries.




			Much like in Dark Sun, I found this to a breath of fresh air when it comes to world-building, as I do not feel compelled to retain a divine, psionic, arcane, or primal power source. But the mechanics of 4E also sometimes come with their own set of "world assumptions," that could be frustrating to the DM. For example, the eladrin's fey step assumes the existence of a Fey Wild.
		
Click to expand...


It also assumes the existence of eladrin.  Not all of 4e's base assumptions are mechanical. 




			(As an aside, I greatly prefer 4E's more "mythological cosmology" than the Great Wheel of old. The new cosmology has actually been more conducive in my idea generation for world-building than the old cosmology.)
		
Click to expand...


I'm not a real fan of any version of as-written D+D cosmology, truth be told, and quite some time ago designed my own.  That said, I am a fan of the 9-alignment model and wasn't impressed to see it reduced to 5.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		


			Well, in the case of a gameworld, you don't need fictional elements until the players engage with them at the gametable. So "just in time" GMing means coming up with those elements when they're needed, ie, during the course of play as the players engage with them. In a D&D game, that engagement mostly happens via the PCs.

The point of just in time GMing is that the gameworld that results is one that is highly responsive to and engaging of the players. This is achieved because the gameworld is built by the GM around the players' activities at the table (including especially the things they do with their PCs). The quote from Paul Czege that I posted upthread gives an example of this. So does the actual play report from my own game that I linked to. At the forefront of this approach is that the game is a game - it is not the players exploring a pre-existing world, but rather the players and the GM playing a game together in which the story of the PCs is created. (Of course in this sort of gaming there can be a type of experience of "discovering" rather than "creating" the story - but that is just a metaphor, as when an author says of a book that "it wrote itself". The literal truth, at which the metaphor gestures, is along the lines of the creation being a less-than-fully conscious process.)

Just in time GMing can also save on prep time, but not necessarily very much- I find that I spend a lot of time planning and tweaking and revisiting situations, thinking about the direction the next few sessions might take and making notes on possible permutations and developments. And because the parameters for all this change after each session, there is always room to come back to this stuff and revise it. (In some ways, this is not unlike the way in which a sandbox GM might have to make notes after each session to make sure that any on-the-fly decisions made get incorporated into his/her formal setting notes.)
		
Click to expand...


From this it sounds to me like the only actual difference between us when it comes to world-building is that you're willing to do all the heavy lifting as you go along, where I want as much of it as possible (within reason) to be done and locked in before I drop the puck so I don't have to worry about it later.

We still end up with rich deep worlds by campaign's end; they're just created in different ways and at different times before or within the campaign.


			
				Aldarc said:
			
		


			I sometimes find myself agreeing with what 4E tried to fix, but simultaneously at odds with 4E for how they attempted to fix it. The same is also true for other 3pp game systems in regards to 3E.
		
Click to expand...


People complain about 1e mechanics, but there were so many things (e.g. clerical turning, polymorph, combat fluidity) that worked in that system that didn't work in 3e and that 3.5e and 4e failed to fix.  But going back was completely taboo to the designers (ego?) yet was so obviously the best answer - or at least an answer - when looked at from a broad perspective.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - I've bit the bullet and just launched a party into Night's Dark Terror...let's see how this goes...I'm already in major rejigging mode both to make the map fit my world (I'd forgotten the adventure covers such a huge swath of territory; and yes this does count as world-building on the fly!) and to get rid of some of the needless little side quests e.g. rescuing Stephan...

Lan-"if you get rid of divine classes, the gods ain't gonna save you"-efan*


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Except keep in mind that 2e was itself pretty modular; if for some reason you wanted to get rid of divine classes you could, provided you could inject a suitable replacement for healing and-or were prepared to have your parties spend lots of downtime recovering from injuries.



As I said, I came into D&D through 3E, so I'm only vaguely familiar with the mechanics of 2E. Good to know. 4E's modularity however is quite purposeful in terms of designing classes around a particular combat role and delineating classes by power source. 



> It also assumes the existence of eladrin.  Not all of 4e's base assumptions are mechanical.



True, but that's essentially the same for all editions. Dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs are equally "base assumptions" of the system that can interfere with world-building. I have homebrewed many a setting that sought to give these assumed player races the old heave-ho. 



> I'm not a real fan of any version of as-written D+D cosmology, truth be told, and quite some time ago designed my own.



I often design my own as well, but the "simplified" cosmology of 4E is a bit more flexible for me to adjust to my liking. And when it comes to "as-written" cosmologies, the 4E version is just easier for me to work with conceptionally. I especially like the parallel Shadowfall and Feywild planes as those frequently have parallels in myths of "otherworlds" and "underworlds."  



> That said, I am a fan of the 9-alignment model and wasn't impressed to see it reduced to 5.



If we are talking about preferences, I prefer to disregard alignments altogether. But using alignments as general guidelines, I prefer the 5 alignment system, as that's generally how alignments played out in my campaigns. NE and LE were often played as a more general E alignment, while CG and NG were often played out as a more general G alignment. And CN was frequently played out as "CE in all but name" in many groups of mine. I also prefer the new "unaligned" over the neutral alignment. I particularly like how it made devils and demons a bit more compelling to me, while not also having to resort to creating nearly identical creatures for the different alignments. So I can see where these changes to alignment are coming from. But I can also see how people would prefer the symmetrical 9-alignment model.


----------



## LostSoul

pemerton said:


> snip




That was an awesome post!


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Well, in the case of a gameworld, you don't _need _fictional elements until the players engage with them at the gametable. So "just in time" GMing means coming up with those elements when they're needed, ie, _during the course of play as the players engage with them_. In a D&D game, that engagement mostly happens via the PCs.
> 
> The _point_ of just in time GMing is that the gameworld that results is one that is highly responsive to and engaging of the players. This is achieved because the gameworld is built by the GM around the players' activities at the table (including especially the things they do with their PCs).



But you absolutely 100% need the fictional elements beforehand.  
Obviously, we completely disagree on that.  But that is because we are describing radically different gaming experiences.  

If we wanted to obtain the type of experience you are content with, then yeah, neither of us would need it.  But if you wanted to experience the type of game play I desire, then you also need it.

I hear a lot of talk about all the "work" that 3E is.  For me, back when I played AD&D, and when I moved on to GURPS and other games, and then under 3E, I've always spent more time doing things away from the table.  But the word "work" is absolutely the wrong word for it.  

I love doing it.  It is great fun.
And I'll readily admit that sometimes I spend a chunk of time on something that only shows up for 2 minutes, and sometimes I spend a chunk of time on something that never actually shows up.  Sometimes I am suprised at how little time something sees, and sometimes I knew all along and just did it for the fun of it.  And that last is really very common.



> I had in mind both of your disambiguations (4e is not the best "no myth" RPG ever, but is I think the best "no myth" edition of D&D), and I don't agree that this is not a point of distinction.
> 
> Many of the features of 4e that you seem not to like - the linking of mechanical difficulties of challenge, for example, to metagame considerations like encounter level rather than to ingame considerations like armour worn; or the skill challenge structure for resolving conflicts out of combat - are in my view precisely the ones that support "no myth" play.
> 
> They do so in more than one way.
> 
> ...



I completely, absolutely, disagree that it is a point of distinction.  And here is why, I do everything you have described, on the fly, all the time in my 3E games.

It is almost bothersome to me that your post presumes these are distinctions for your 4E over my 3E game.  Partly because you seem to think I don't do them and partly because it surprising to me to hear people talk about these as something new they have gained in 4E.

If it IS a point of distinction for YOU, then I'm glad that your got a game that helps.  But I feel sorry you have missed out on it before now.

Be it coming up with the details of a specific encounter or projected the plot of the story into a new direction, change will happen at the table.  And I roll with it.  Tabletop RPG playing has (a lot) more than one fun element.  World building and creation is one, but the fun of rolling with the unexpected changes players bring, in real time, is also another one.

But I do all this "just in time".  Now, I do have details already in mind that the new details need to not contradict.  But that is part of the fun.  And it is a "challenge", but a very fun one.  And, bottom line, I've asked my players before after some sessions if they can tell which parts were planned and which were on the fly.  They almost always say they are surprised that any of it was on the fly.

Yes, 4E is better at on the fly stuff. But improving 1 second to 1/2 second is not value added to me.  And that improvement comes with loads of gamist compromises that do distinctly detract from the fun of the experience.

Clearly we agree that something didn't go according to plan and 4E is not a hit with as many people as would have been hoped.  This exact point of discussion is not "the reason".  But it is part of the overall package deal of why it is that way.

For many people it "feels like a tactical mini game".  While I agree that you can roleplay on top of the rules, I also agree that it, relatively speaking, feels more like a tactical mini game.  And if the things you have described are really new additions that 4E offers you, then those of us already having these things in 3E are not going to see new value, but we are going to see the prices which have been paid.


----------



## BryonD

Aldarc said:


> I got that, but many of the popular RPG variants seemed to skyrocket as a reaction to 3.5. Arcana Unearthed, for example, was released in 2003 around the same time as WotC was releasing 3.5. It was also clear from Monte Cook's design diaries that he was aware of the upcoming 3.5 changes. Blue Rose, True20, Iron Heroes all came out in 2005.




Part of the history is the D20STL.  THAT was along for the ride but was not really a part of the OGL.  But when the OGL first came along it was pretty much an assumed.  

I think AU may have been the first game without it.  I'm not 100% on that.  But it was a big deal at the time.  There was a lot of talk about what would happen.  It turned out nothing happened.  At least, nothing bad.

But between having that door opened and a lot of 3PPs feeling that they had been burned by WotC dropping 3.5 on them and wasting a lot of work and product, the floodgates were opened.


----------



## S'mon

I do think that cross-subsidising the cost of producing GM-support material with the profits from bigger-selling player-support material may maximise overall sales & profits.

I think 4e's relative lack of success compared to earlier editions may be more due to some fairly serious design flaws, though.  They did not play up tabletop RPGs advantages vs CRPGs, instead they tried to compete head on by emphasing the visuals, the minis, and the very game-like, less immersive feel of the encounter-centric design.  I'm finding that there is too little simulation element in 4e's combat rules to support Suspension of Disbelief; and combat is too long and unexciting, too much of a plateau (grind) with too few peaks and valleys (game-changers like devastating spells or special attacks).


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Deleted Post.


----------



## BryonD

Hey S'mon

I agree with you that there are a lot of variables.  And it is easy for me to be caught up in the point of the moment.

Though I do think that they are inter-connected.  The visuals, minis, etc.. points you make are correct, but those are part of the whole "at the table", "just in time" approach.


----------



## Reigan

S'mon said:


> I do think that cross-subsidising the cost of producing GM-support material with the profits from bigger-selling player-support material may maximise overall sales & profits.
> 
> I think 4e's relative lack of success compared to earlier editions may be more due to some fairly serious design flaws, though.  They did not play up tabletop RPGs advantages vs CRPGs, instead they tried to compete head on by emphasing the visuals, the minis, and the very game-like, less immersive feel of the encounter-centric design.  I'm finding that there is too little simulation element in 4e's combat rules to support Suspension of Disbelief; and combat is too long and unexciting, too much of a plateau (grind) with too few peaks and valleys (game-changers like devastating spells or special attacks).




The spellcaster pressing the "I Win" button doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

It just occured to me...I don't think I have a clue as to what a high magic vs low magic game of 4Ed would look like.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Well, in the case of a gameworld, you don't _need _fictional elements until the players engage with them at the gametable. So "just in time" GMing means coming up with those elements when they're needed, ie, _during the course of play as the players engage with them_. In a D&D game, that engagement mostly happens via the PCs.




That is just silly, and you are trying to connect two different things incorrectly.

Yes the players engage thing that is why THEY see they, but those fictional elements must exist BEFORE the player CAN engage them.

If you don't have any fictional elements to begin with, then how do the players even know what characters to make?

*Bob "I don't think Boston Cream is a pie":* I made this awesome cleric and he is going to be so good in the game.
*DM:* We are playing Dragonlance. I just decided. So there are no actual clerics you will have to play something else.

Making it all up as you go is a root cause of DM v player, because there was nothing set down beforehand and the DM can get pissed at the players and screwed them over with the next thing because of the last thing.

That or the DM is taking time to create Pemervale so the players can visit it now that they have just heard of it. They finally heard of it because it just started existing for some reason in response to the players needing it. 

No, that is not a game I would play in for very long. If the DM is so uncoordinated and unorganized to have a basic plan in advance of what is going on and makes the whole adventure up on the fly...I wont be wasting my time.

On the fly DMing is something used for when the adventure path and main plot is left for some sort of sidetrek that the players unexpectedly took the hook for.

The game works when the world exists and the players are set into it and let lose. It doesn't work when they are just set in the Ivory Tower surrounded by The Nothing and then something comes into existence and is created just because and when they want to engage it.



> Of course in this sort of gaming there can be a type of experience of "discovering" rather than "creating" the story - but that is just a metaphor, as when an author says of a book that "it wrote itself". The literal truth, at which the metaphor gestures, is along the lines of the creation being a less-than-fully conscious process.




Herein lies the problem. When that happens for an author it means little to nothing. Doby didn't exist in Sorcerer's Stone. He came into existence in Chamber of Secrets. No matter how JKR came up with him, when the viewer needed him, all he was needed for existed. The book was published in its entirely for the reader (viewer) to read. Same for movies. Likewise things should exist for the viewer, the player, of a game before they can interact with them.



pemerton said:


> 4e doesn't seem to be designed to be played in a world/story built by the GM.




This is what you said. You are confusing 2 things, probably like whoever you are quoting. The world is not the story, and the story is not the world. They are independent in creation.

While independent in creation, one is dependent on the other to ever exist. The story must have a world to be told in.

The story is ALWAYS told on the fly, unless you are playing a railroad. I think nobody would disagree with that, much.

The world however must exist for there to even be a story had.

So when talking about the setting, yes that can guide part of the story by framing and mapping it the world. But the story is yet to be told as the players have not done anything to create their story.

The world/setting must exist for them to begin telling their story.

The story is NEVER something "built" by the GM in a player driven game. The world however MUST be built by something before you can even have a game.

"Just in time" again even in your examples are talking about creation upon need of existence. Just like a computer process that only runs when it is needed rather than being resident and waiting for it to have something to do. Well the world/setting for D&D cannot be created in a "just in time" fashion if you intend to have a gave beyond random encounters strung together.

Does that make a game of random encounters strung together a bad thing? No. But it is not the purpose of D&D.



			
				Rules Cyclopedia 1991 said:
			
		

> When you play the D&D game, one player will become *the Dungeon Master* (also known as the DM or referee). He or she *will create the world and setting in which the adventures will be taking place and will create a variety of characters to populate the world.* The DM will also develop situations taking place in that world and will then run adventures—acting as the main narrator of the stories in which the other players' characters will participate.






pemerton said:


> BryonD said:
> 
> 
> 
> Early on Mearls said that 4E may not be the system of choice for people who like to world build.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's nice to know that when I read the system I reach the same conclusions as it's designers!
> 
> In case this was amiguous or incomplete - of course "just in time" play will deliver a rich setting _at the end of play_. It's just that the richness results from play. It's not an input into play.
Click to expand...



Herein lies the problem, and you agree with Mearls on it. 4th edition isn't made to have a working foundation with which to build from. As many have stated in the past about various things, they piece the story together after play. Sure any edition can do this, but with 4th it must.

Either way you still have no real foundation as is what is being discussed with the lack of a setting.

The focus of D&D changed from having a world/setting to play in, to a game you just played. The inspiration to play is the "killing of monsters and taking their stuff".

When compared to EVERY other edition that had set forth to create some sort of setting, even if only loose medieval fantasy, there was something already for the players to WANT to engage in, rather than 4th where the players engage in things *just *because the DM brought something *in *at that *time* for them to engage.

That is why 4th isn't as popular. Because it IS the players sitting in the Ivory Tower surrounded by The Nothing, until the DM creates it so that a combat can be had. There is NO setting, just the skeleton of the game.

While some games may be "sand box", I would call 4th edition the "litter box" because crap is in it in certain places due to having room for crap there when there is a need for crap.

Now we could compare to other games that DO having a setting....



pemerton said:


> Have you read what I've posted upthread about "just in time" GMing? Or the example of play that I linked to? What has any of that got to do with DDM?




Warhammer all versions have races and "classes" of people, with a HELL of a lot more setting info. Take 40k for example, Eldar, the elves, and Dark Eldar, the dark elves, both fight for their own reasons, have their own cultures, etc. Just like D&D elves. The "characters" played in the game have their own "powers". The thing is when looking at 40k and 4th edition, 40k has a setting that will engage the players, rather than waiting for the players to engage it.

Now, in both games you create your "characters" mainly based on the mechanic you are wanting, so your race is chosen. That is really all the setting does for you in 40k and 4th edition. Only in a very few instances did play actually change the setting for 40k. The races stories were changed due to battles had in tournaments. The players shaped the new version. After the characters are created, since 4th doesn't even have one, the setting is ignored and you play out your little grid based combats with your characters. You can link them together later to tell a story, but that is NOT the purpose of 40k to tell a story. Likewise there being no setting to 4th, you don't have to play to tell a story. There is really nothing to build a story off of anymore than DDM.

DDM had no setting and was just like disconnected little combats. Not like, it was. 4th edition however moves a little bit of connection to those combats, that is all. It doesn't matter where you are, because just like your "just in time" where you are play little to not part in it until the players are ready to do something. Where they go next doesnt matter until they are ready to go there.

The lack of a setting plays a BIG part in how the game looks. When trying to capture video gamers to the tabletop market, the lack of setting means they also had little to inspire them to move to the game. WoW has a VERY rich setting that is sitting and waiting for you to engage it.

You yourself said you had to create a world and such as "just in time" reduces SOME of the work of creation. Therein the problem is you have to create it all. The popularity then is because unlike previous editions, unlike other RPGs, and unlike MMOs and other video games; there is no setting in which to spark interest to begin with as much as those things offer.

A character in a game is made by most based on a few things:
-Who am I?
-What am I doing here?
-Where is here?

From these the game begins. The player can decide the first 2, but the third must be given to them. 4th by default doesn't offer a single thing about "where" you are except "Generic Fantasy World Skeleton 4638576 using the D&D Engine".

The very simple thing of previous edition having said the game is "medieval" in nature already develops a large portion of a default setting. 4th edition just tells you the world allows your characters to exist in it and is a framework to fit your characters into.

It changed so MANY things, it left no world to be seen. 4th does its job VERY well. It sets up the framework to build a game. That doesn't mean it has anything to inspire people to WANT to build a game, such a a setting.

It sells the game concept to executives of a corporation. It has mechanics that anyone can use to make anything happen. Its lack of popularity then comes from the populace when they look at the game and ask it to "Tell me why I should play an Eladrin.", then "Tell me how Eladrin will fit into the game I am about to play."

"Ok you convinced me to play an Eladrin, now tell me about this Feywild. Well? I'm waiting."

You get nothing. Nothing about this Feywild. But you might say but the Feywild is more of a setting than previous editions. I say it is just a name, a word. You could have easily said they lived in the forest. It may be tired, or overused with forest dwelling elves, but it gives you something rather than just making up a name and leaving you to wonder.

Im not inspired to create this Feywild they named, nor as Mearls stated should I want to. So if you are going to jsut throw out names, then finish the job and develop the default setting. At least with a forest I can stick it somewhere, but what is so special about this Feywild, for you to name it, and me to want to use it. No, I wont read ever word in the book to try to compile the information on the Feywild, when a seciton could have ben had to do that so when I want to look up the Feywild, I can turn to it to see what the Feywild is and let me know more about Eladrin. Now I am not even interested in playing an Eladrin.

Keeping with the DDM portion here, you play an Eladrin if you want to "teleport around the battlefield". That is clearly a defining characteristic for choosing a race/unit type for a miniature wargame.

I am not inspired to play a high fantasy RPG when told I will be playing Nightcrawler BAMFing around during fights. It inspires me to play a grid based battle simulation,

That is the thing about a setting, it tells you where the Eladrin came from and how they came to be. Worlds and Monsters may have this info, but it should have been in the game for AFTER WaM was out of print. Kender are explained how they came to be in the Dragonlance setting. Where did this Eladrin come from?

The game inspired great, and as a recent thread has shown long, combats, as its focus is for the cinematic fight sequences such as in movies. Miniature wargames do that too. An RPG should inspire more than just combat sequences you would see in a major motion picture. HAving had something for the story-driven aspect players would have made the game more popular, as the combat simulation players have tons of games that had been better developed. Oh and those games still have miniatures readily available and easily findable for use with them. 

So the "just in time" setting/game creation works for a miniature wargame where you create the story after play, and need only things to interact and engage with when the players engage them, but for an RPG that is plot dirven where you are trying to do something, you need a palce to set the character into...some sort of what is the word where you *set* things? Ah, a *set*ting.


----------



## Mallus

pemerton said:


> Hence my decision to make the call that I did, and in the process to add a minor detail to the linguistic facts of my gameworld.



In a similar way, it was determined-through-play in our 4e setting that it's currently fashionable for young ladies of means to wear jewelry made of extraordinarily flammable magnesium. 



> Can you say more about how you approach your world design, and how it relates to your actual play?



Remember, you asked for this! (and I'll try to be brief...).

World design is a form of fiction writing. You are creating the environment in which, in the case of D&D, fantasy adventure stories will take place. So I start with a few (hopefully) original ideas and a list of influences drawn from literature and film --and to a far lesser degree, actual history-- and hammer them into a loose framework. This usually works out to %5 inspiration, %5 perspiration, and %90 plagiarism... err... I mean _synthesis_. 

Next, I give some thought to how the game's conventions will inform the setting fiction: species diversity, class options, leveling and power-scaling, etc. My current design methodology is based on "working with the rules, not against them". I'm more interested in making published races/classes congruent and acceptable to my setting fiction than banning them or modifying their mechanics. My new motto is: leave the mechanics alone and concentrate on good fiction to drape over them. 

Next comes setting up the basic conflicts/drama. I don't really do metaplots, so this mean creating NPC's, usually with outlandish names, which the PC's can interact with using their choice of words or murder.

Lastly, and I do mean lastly, I think about how specific elements of the setting fiction will get implemented using the game's mechanics, or, how I like to think of it, the part where I bash the lovely round peg of my creative noodling into the cold, ungrateful, square hole of the rules.

(actually, it not all that bad...).

When I use a (somewhat) rigid class-based system like D&D to run a game, I accept there's going to be a certain level of... dissociation between the game fiction and the game rules. Not every part of the fiction will be well-represented using the rules, if at all. And that's fine with me. Heck, the 2e era produced great setting despite their often flimsy mapping between the fiction and the rules. 

I appreciate more granular, toolbox systems like GURPS. It's nice to able to embody more of a setting's fictional elements using the actual game mechanics, rather than relying solely on handwaving and group consensus. In fact, before my 3e campaign went on hiatus, we converted it to M&M2e, partly because it did a better job at modeling _those_ character in that _world_ -- though that's probably because I consider mechanics _last_ when I world-build!

It's _nice_... but it's not required. A good setting has to be good fiction first. It has to be interesting enough to explore and ripe with/open to conflict. Without that, no amount of clever rules/fiction mapping will make the world worth playing in. 

(I _so_ failed to be brief!)


----------



## Mallus

shadzar said:


> Yes the players engage thing that is why THEY see they, but those fictional elements must exist BEFORE the player CAN engage them.



A certain (small) number of fictional elements must exist prior to play. The rest can be made up as you go along. The trick is writing down the details you invent on the fly so you can refer to them later and come off like some hotshot god of continuity!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ShinHakkaider said:


> I'll tell you flat out that this would not have been the case with me. I have enough 3x material to choke a donkey about 10 times over. And if I grew tired of that? I'd find a different system, like FantasyCraft or maybe M&M modded to fantasy?
> 
> If Paizo had decided to support 4E, as much as I love their material? I would have probably moved on from Paizo as well.




I was speaking generally. Of course there are people who would do exactly what you would do. I even think the ratio of people that would choose that route is higher here on ENWorld. But, in general, people seem to like to buy new stuff and lots of it. And if there was no new stuff, those people would go where the stuff is. And most other game systems outside of D&D, historically, have not produced enough stuff to satisfy people.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

billd91 said:


> If I fix or upgrade my house, does it mean I don't like it much? That's silly. I just want to make it better. Clearly, they liked the 3e rules enough to make them better, but also liked them enough to leave most of the structure intact.




My wife wants to upgrade many things in our house because she doesn't like them as-is. She doesn't like our house because it does not feel like "her house." The analogy seems to fit Paizo quite well.

Edit: There are two ways my wife would end up liking our house. 1) Move to a house she does like (analagous to moving to 4E for some) or 2) fixing the things that she doesn't like about our current home (Pathfinder).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BryonD said:


> That is a huge if.  And, it also doesn't follow.  Clark Peterson turned back.  Fantasy flight turned back.  Goodman hasn't turned all the way back, but they are focusing their resources on their own game.




Clark Peterson never went, so he couldn't turn back. Paizo has moved past being a "kitchen table" company and can't afford to shift momentum as much as small publishers.




BryonD said:


> This comment just shows you don't even know what you are talking about.




Being rude doesn't make your opinion any stronger. I may have chosen evocative phrasing though so I'll overlook the rudeness.

My point was that Paizo saw problems with 3E (much like WotC) and wanted to fix things about it (much like WotC). The two companies just took different approaches.



BryonD said:


> OK, so, at best, your theory is that people would be denied their preference and their loss MIGHT be 4E's gain.....




My theory is based in the historical evidence of past edition changes. The player base of older editions lost momentum because no new support was forthcoming. How many people do you see that play 3E/4E/Pathfinder that wish they were still playing AD&D. I've seen alot. I've also seen alot of people point out that they could still play. But without new shiny material the interest is pulled toward the supported edition.



BryonD said:


> Again, I was helping develop "3.75" rules before I heard of Pathfinder.  I think the fraction of people who would have settled for a game they didn't like is way small.




I think your assumption is based on the community here. The small fraction of gamers that frequent here are very diverse in their gaming and willing to try a multitude of systems to find the one they like, and that's great. But it's those (I hate this term because I think it's used derogatorively) "Beer & Pretzel" gamers that play the game most readily accessible as an excuse to gather with friends. They don't even care about finding a game they like, they just want to play.



BryonD said:


> And that ignores that there are a great number of people still playing 3E, not PF.  I think if PF was removed from the equation, PF fans would go back to 3E far more readily than to 4E.




I have seen little evidence, beyond the small circle that is ENWorld, that 3E is still heavily played without Pathfinder. YMOV.



BryonD said:


> Your position seems to be founded on lack of clarity of how things went, wrapped in a bow of wishful thinking.




And your's seems to be founded on the demonization of WotC for "ruining" your favorite game. Not a fair estimate of your feelings? Then stop trying to tell me what mine are.

For the record, I understand why many people do not like 4E. I'm not bogged down in wishful thinking that the absence of Pathfinder or the OGL would suddenly make these people like 4E. But there are a vast number of people outside these forums that just want to buy new stuff and play. There are two companies that provide the constant stream of new material. And even within the confines of these boards the two biggest games are 4E and Pathfinder. My proof? What other game systems have message boards specifically devoted to them? None. Even 3E is relegated to a Legacy board devoted to all previous editions.


----------



## billd91

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My wife wants to upgrade many things in our house because she doesn't like them as-is. She doesn't like our house because it does not feel like "her house." The analogy seems to fit Paizo quite well.
> 
> Edit: There are two ways my wife would end up liking our house. 1) Move to a house she does like (analagous to moving to 4E for some) or 2) fixing the things that she doesn't like about our current home (Pathfinder).




If you think that analogy fits, you clearly haven't read much of what the Paizo guys have said about 3e. It's clear that they enjoy the system and like it. They just want to improve it. There's a difference between liking the house in general but wanting to improve parts of it and not liking the house in the first place and feeling the need to put your stamp on it. I think Paizo's designers have made it abundantly clear that the former applies while your description of your wife's drive to improve the house sounds like the latter.


----------



## shadzar

Mallus said:


> A certain (small) number of fictional elements must exist prior to play. The rest can be made up as you go along. The trick is writing down the details you invent on the fly so you can refer to them later and come off like some hotshot god of continuity!






Mallus said:


> In a similar way, it was determined-through-play in our 4e setting that it's currently fashionable for young ladies of means to wear jewelry made of extraordinarily flammable magnesium.




Herein lies a contradiction. You are not CREATING the setting, but in your own example, you are CHANGING it.

The fact that it was not fashionable for young ladies to wear such PRIOR to play, was the established setting.

In order to engage that aspect of the world, it had to exist beforehand.

There must be a state of something before you can alter that state, as you did with the jewelry.

Did ANY wear such prior to the new concept? Did you EVER describe a young lady wearing this sort of jewelry beforehand?

If not, then you set the default state as part of the setting, that it is NOT fashionable for young ladies to wear it.

Now I will acknowledge that, upon making this statement, I have backed myself into a corner with my overall argument about settings, but will let someone else find me in that corner in order to keep me pinned there, before I tactically escape from it.  If they are so inclined to find the corner I have backed myself into.


----------



## Mallus

shadzar said:


> You are not CREATING the setting, but in your own example, you are CHANGING it.



In this case, there is no DIFFERENCE between the TWO. 



> The fact that it was not fashionable for young ladies to wear such PRIOR to play, was the established setting.



The current fashion trend in the setting with regard to flammable accessories was simply _undefined_. Nothing was established.



> Did ANY wear such prior to the new concept? Did you EVER describe a young lady wearing this sort of jewelry beforehand?



No. Neither have I described, nor detailed in the setting notes, all the different type of _trees_ that exist in the setting. This does not imply the setting's 'default state' is treeless. Or that only one, generic type of tree exists. 

In a similar vein, the existence of coq au vin has yet to be determined. No PC has ever tried to order in a restaurant (though, the existence of both Pernod and something called 'mouse pie' has been confirmed). This does not imply that coq au vin is not present in the setting's 'default state'.



> If not, then you set the default state as part of the setting, that it is NOT fashionable for young ladies to wear it.



Look, this is a D&D setting. Outside of a handful of details, the majority of the world is undefined. Until it becomes necessary or amusing to define it. Worlds are big. I don't work everything out in advance. In fact, most details never get worked out unless they have a direct bearing on play.


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> But, since fluff has nothing to do with system of choice, I'd be judging a comparison of editions on a basis of mechanical representation.



We're talking about two different, but related things. I'm talking about world-building as a creative act, a species of fiction writing. You're more focused on... hmmm... let's call it world-implementation, the specific way the fictional aspects of the setting relate to the game system's rules. 

I'm much more interested with the creative side of things. For me, setting design is largely a system-agnostic process. My expectations on how closely the fiction maps to the rules are probably a lot lower, at least for systems like D&D (any edition).

When I think of a great great role-playing game setting, I think of things like M.A.R Barker's Tekumel. It existed long before he bolted a house-ruled version of OD&D onto it and created Empire of the Petal Throne. And the setting is interesting because of the fiction, not because of the mechanical implementation.


----------



## Lanefan

Mallus said:


> World design is a form of fiction writing. You are creating the environment in which, in the case of D&D, fantasy adventure stories will take place. So I start with a few (hopefully) original ideas and a list of influences drawn from literature and film --and to a far lesser degree, actual history-- and hammer them into a loose framework. This usually works out to %5 inspiration, %5 perspiration, and %90 plagiarism... err... I mean _synthesis_.



At this point have you determined what culture (Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, Dwarven, generic, whatever) your game is going to be set in, or does that come in the next step?



> Next, I give some thought to how the game's conventions will inform the setting fiction: species diversity, class options, leveling and power-scaling, etc. My current design methodology is based on "working with the rules, not against them". I'm more interested in making published races/classes congruent and acceptable to my setting fiction than banning them or modifying their mechanics. My new motto is: leave the mechanics alone and concentrate on good fiction to drape over them.



To me this step comes first, and is almost irrelevant: I know going in what system I'm using and how the mechanics work.  About the only decision I have to make are race options I'm going to allow either at start or overall.

Somewhere along here also has to come a map and decision of where on that map you're going to put the party to begin with, as that determines a whole bunch of things going forward - will it be a maritime-based game, a desert-based game, deep woods stuff, or ?



> Next comes setting up the basic conflicts/drama. I don't really do metaplots, so this mean creating NPC's, usually with outlandish names, which the PC's can interact with using their choice of words or murder.



At this point also comes history, which I've come to realize is the most important bit of the whole exercise.  Why?  Because a good history gives you an endless mine for story and adventure ideas.  The storyboard almost writes itself!  And anything that does stuff on its own (and thus saves me work) is just fine by me. 



> Lastly, and I do mean lastly, I think about how specific elements of the setting fiction will get implemented using the game's mechanics, or, how I like to think of it, the part where I bash the lovely round peg of my creative noodling into the cold, ungrateful, square hole of the rules.



If you've been keeping the system at least in the back of your mind right from the start this process should be trivial, as you'll have already done most of it during the earlier phases possibly without even realizing it.



> A good setting has to be good fiction first. It has to be interesting enough to explore and ripe with/open to conflict. Without that, no amount of clever rules/fiction mapping will make the world worth playing in.



Agreed completely.

That's where the history and culture bits come in.

Lan-"it's also fun to mix cultures from vastly different eras e.g. Norse and Sumerian and see what comes out"-efan


----------



## shadzar

Mallus said:


> Look, this is a D&D setting. Outside of a handful of details, the majority of the world is undefined. Until it becomes necessary or amusing to define it. Worlds are big. I don't work everything out in advance. In fact, most details never get worked out unless they have a direct bearing on play.




But those undefined thing you had a default assumption on and passed along to the players did you not?

When you declared there were forests or that objects were made out of wood, you told the players your setting has trees. Not defining the exact trees means nothing as you have defining trees exist.

Likewise by not having anyone were this type of jewelry before, you made the default assumption and passed it along to the players that it was not worn or fashionable to do so.

Your alteration of that state can when a player or yourself questioned that state.

Your default state wasn't necessarily that it wasn't done or not allowed for some reason, just that it hasn't YET been done. That was your established setting. Many of those undefineds form the established setting on common assumptions.

While you set the default state of the setting to "none do it" by leaving it as you say "undefined", it doesn't mean you cannot later alter that state, but you did set the state to begin with even without writing it down.

You actively set the state to "undefined" for many things, so you CAN alter them later, by not defining them up front.

Just because you haven't decided which walls to paint in your house, doesn't mean the walls are not there to be painted.

So when leaving this as a so-called "undefined" element, and not including both options, you really did set the state that people didn't wear flammable jewelry. It is fine to change it for whatever reason so long as your players like the change. But in your setting it didn't happen was the default state, because it didn't. It is just an unwritten part of your setting.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

The more I read threads like this, the more I appreciate how difficult it is to convey the sensibility of a game system. Or if "sensibility" is a little too vague, then perhaps the "the set of styles meant to be easily supported by the mechanics and accompanying setting materials."

As to why, the funny thing to me is that 4E feels *more* like D&D than any version of D&D, ever. It evokes and supports, quite well, the feel that we tried to get out of Red Box and early AD&D. The things that were annoying to us in those mechanics, that seemed to go against the "feel" of D&D as we were playing it, are mostly gone. Meanwhile, new things are supporting that intended style of play. But when I try to convey specifics of this, I'm reduced to thinking that maybe Mearls was trying to recruit himself--and me. 

(You'll note that this does not mean that I find the 4E implementation perfect. Far from it. Pretty much everything Robin Laws got his fingers on makes me want to scream in frustration, particularly when it comes to finding a way to let players "succeed" even when they totally blow every opportunity. However, like grappling rules in AD&D, I find this easy to ignore in play.)

I'll try one specific in the hope of clarity. Consider the D&D trope of a bunch of low-level heroes going into the starter dungeon, killing some monsters, and getting the treasure. Being a trifle unfair for the sake of distinctions:

Red Box: As the combat example illustrates, and play supports, you'll likely lose at least one PC during the first fight. Survivers retreating makes a lot of sense, and for this reason you'll learn to avoid fights when possible. If you want to play a gnome, he has hairy feet.

1st ed: Ditto, except now your lost PC can be a wider variety of races and classes. Your poor gnome was a ghoul snack.

2nd ed: Your gnome would've gotten eaten by the ghouls, but since you roleplayed that conversation with the powerful NPC, he bailed you out. Or maybe the gnome fast talked the ghoul king. Eventually, the lich will kill the gnome, but he will get to make a dramatic speech before he dies.

3rd ed: Your gnome was quite successful in his initial forays. That sorcerer with a few early levels of rogue wasn't nearly quite as overpowered as everyone first said, but it worked well enough. And paragon levels rounded him out nicely. We lost a PC early, but it wasn't you, since you had enough sense to stay far away from that orc with the great axe.

3.5 ed: Now you get to play that gnome bard you've been trying to play forever, with more or less the same results as 3rd ed. Or if the previous campaign taught you different lessons, you went wizard for power, and the hell with concept. 

4E: You know that goblin fight in the Hobbit, that sounded so chaotic in the text? You can have that fight now, gnome or halfing your choice, and you won't need a ring of invisibility or Gandalf to have a decent shot to survive. Depending on how the group reads the suggestions in the rules, it may or may not be up to you to make sure you are fighting the goblins and not Smaug, who will eat your whole party very rapidly if they stick around.

Now see, every edition had an answer to, "How do you deal with those early fights?" And they were all effective answers, in that they work if you approach the game with the corresponding mindset. But if you, for example, wanted a particular feel counter to that answer, you weren't going to get the result you wanted. 

We learned pretty rapidly that the Hobbit goblin fight was not going to happen as we wanted. So we adapted to what Basic expected and avoided fights. It didn't *feel* right, but that's what was necessary to make it work. This is accepting the mechanics for what they are, but nonetheless bucking the intended style at every turn. It can be very fun, but it isn't what you want. 

4E lets us accept the mechanics for what they are while also embracing the intended style. Equally fun results with less chafe.


----------



## Mallus

Lanefan said:


> At this point have you determined what culture (Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, Dwarven, generic, whatever) your game is going to be set in, or does that come in the next step?



Culture is part of Step 1, but I like to begin with a broad, overall premise. For example, my old 3e campaign setting started from the question: what all the great cities of the ancient world were within walking distance of each other? This led to CITY, a megalopolis made up of 9 far-flung cities linking by magical gates, the last surviving piece of an ancient empire which had mastered the art of teleportation (and the art of exploiting contemporaneous civilizations using their mastery of teleportation).  

From there, details began to accrue. At some point I decided one of the linked cities resembled early Renaissance Venice and another was a kind of French/Indian mash-up (masala?). 



> To me this step comes first, and is almost irrelevant: I know going in what system I'm using and how the mechanics work.  About the only decision I have to make are race options I'm going to allow either at start or overall.



I came to gaming from SF&F literature, and I still think in terms of genre conventions/emulation first, and game conventions/mechanics a distant second (despite the fact I've played these games for over 25 years). 



> Somewhere along here also has to come a map and decision of where on that map you're going to put the party to begin with, as that determines a whole bunch of things going forward - will it be a maritime-based game, a desert-based game, deep woods stuff, or?



I'm not much of a mapper. I scratch something out and leave the more advanced cartography to my setting collaborators and/or players. As for where the campaign's going to be based -- I try to leave that as open as possible. I have a thing for big fantasy cities --from Lankhmar to Ankh-Morpork and New Crobuzon-- but most of my settings contain a variety of places and potential campaign themes.



> At this point also comes history, which I've come to realize is the most important bit of the whole exercise.  Why?  Because a good history gives you an endless mine for story and adventure ideas.



I usually do a broad and _very_ sparsely detailed history at the start, then fill in the details later, either as needed or as I feel inspired, often totally out-of-order. I might create a neighborhood's local color/history first, then a lost empire's ancient history 6 months into the campaign. 



> If you've been keeping the system at least in the back of your mind right from the start this process should be trivial, as you'll have already done most of it during the earlier phases possibly without even realizing it.



It's probably right to say I keep system "in the back of my mind", but I don't like to feel constrained by game convention/mechanics when I'm dreaming up my frequently-derivative-or-absurdly-juxtaposed fantasy setting-wank.


----------



## BryonD

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Clark Peterson never went, so he couldn't turn back. Paizo has moved past being a "kitchen table" company and can't afford to shift momentum as much as small publishers.



Clark invested a huge amount of energy and then walked away.  And you substituted someone else for the other two companies I identified, so I guess those are confirmed.



> Being rude doesn't make your opinion any stronger. I may have chosen evocative phrasing though so I'll overlook the rudeness.



Calling my statement rude does not negate the accuracy of it.  The Paizo Pathfinder release poster states, boldy, "3.5 Thrives".  Your assessment was completely at odds with what happened.  And far more statements than just their poster support that.  If you were up to speed on the topic, you would know that.




> My theory is based in the historical evidence of past edition changes. The player base of older editions lost momentum because no new support was forthcoming. How many people do you see that play 3E/4E/Pathfinder that wish they were still playing AD&D. I've seen alot. I've also seen alot of people point out that they could still play. But without new shiny material the interest is pulled toward the supported edition.



I know exactly zero people who wish they were playing an older version of D&D but play PF.

But, that is beside the point, you are clearly agreeing that WotC would gain 4E palyers who simply WISHED they were not 4E players.  That is a very sad position to be defending.




> I think your assumption is based on the community here.



Ok.  You are wrong.  
4E seems to be vastly MORE popular here than it is in meatspace.  It has become a running joke how I run into completely random strangers and upon discovering they are gamers immediately finding out how much they dislike 4E.  



> The small fraction of gamers that frequent here are very diverse in their gaming and willing to try a multitude of systems to find the one they like, and that's great. But it's those (I hate this term because I think it's used derogatorively) "Beer & Pretzel" gamers that play the game most readily accessible as an excuse to gather with friends. They don't even care about finding a game they like, they just want to play.



Ok, so 4E is for drunk folks who don't really care which game they play.  Noted.  (Not my opinion, but that is what I read in yours)




> I have seen little evidence, beyond the small circle that is ENWorld, that 3E is still heavily played without Pathfinder. YMOV.



shrug.  I have.  Heck, a lot of 3E fans dislike the PF changes.



> And your's seems to be founded on the demonization of WotC for "ruining" your favorite game. Not a fair estimate of your feelings? Then stop trying to tell me what mine are.



Well the difference is, you intentionally provided an unfair estimate of my feelings.  I simply commented on the factual errors underlying yours.

If you would like to make some statements that actually describe reality, I'm interested.  But if you don't have that, then please, best of gaming to you.



> For the record, I understand why many people do not like 4E. I'm not bogged down in wishful thinking that the absence of Pathfinder or the OGL would suddenly make these people like 4E. But there are a vast number of people outside these forums that just want to buy new stuff and play. There are two companies that provide the constant stream of new material. And even within the confines of these boards the two biggest games are 4E and Pathfinder. My proof? What other game systems have message boards specifically devoted to them? None. Even 3E is relegated to a Legacy board devoted to all previous editions.



And if you look in that message board you will find threads based on anything other than 3E represent a minimal fraction.  It is not uncommon to see the first page have none.


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> We're talking about two different, but related things. I'm talking about world-building as a creative act, a species of fiction writing. You're more focused on... hmmm... let's call it world-implementation, the specific way the fictional aspects of the setting relate to the game system's rules.
> 
> I'm much more interested with the creative side of things. For me, setting design is largely a system-agnostic process. My expectations on how closely the fiction maps to the rules are probably a lot lower, at least for systems like D&D (any edition)..



I agree with you and support this position 100%.

However, the conversation is on a comparison of game mechanics systems.

3E is vastly better at THAT. 
If that only represents one half of one percent of the matter to you, then it isn't going to matter.  Cool.  I buy that.  But that doesn't make 4E better, it just makes the difference irrelevant.

I like simulation.  I like imagining a cool wizard and then seeing him become expressed in an interactive way with the responsive environment.  I love the "world-implementation".

I doubt you could convince me that you love the "creative act, fiction" part any more than I do.  I love that a ton.  But, unlike you, I love the nuts and bolts side just as much. 

And there is nothing REMOTELY critical meant in that.  Hell, I can easily see how it would seem silly that I get so much fun out of the wonky stuff.  But I do.
But a system-agnostic approach doesn't support a position of one system being better than another.


----------



## Mallus

shadzar said:


> So when leaving this as a so-called "undefined" element, and not including both options, you really did set the state that people didn't wear flammable jewelry. It is fine to change it for whatever reason so long as your players like the change. But in your setting it didn't happen was the default state, because it didn't. It is just an unwritten part of your setting.



You're just messing with me, aren't you?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As to why, the funny thing to me is that 4E feels more like D&D than any version of D&D, ever.




That's just crazy talk, Jerome!


----------



## shadzar

Mallus said:


> You're just messing with me, aren't you?




Did you or did you NOT include jewelry for young ladies in your game?

This is part of the setting that jewelry exists for young ladies.

You set that as the state of the setting. Later you aren't creating the setting, just changing societies views on what kind of jewelry is fashionable.

You described people as wearing jewelry or not? It may seem innocuous, but that is a part of your setting.

If you say up front that people do NOT wear gold jewelry, then you have defined that state of jewelry. Having no one wearing gold jewelry is your undefined state for that kind of jewelry.

Either way of the various types of possible jewelry from gold to flammable, you already placed jewelry in your campaign and its setting. You aren't creating jewelry as part of the setting at a later time. You are jsut changing the state of one possible jewelry.

Your flammable magnesium jewelry existed when needed, but if it never existed, it does NOT change that jewelry did.

Follow me?

Again like your trees, you defined they existed but didn't specify which species. Therefore by having trees you by default set each tree species state to yes, no, or undefined. The specific species can't retcon that trees never existed in your campaign, because you already said they did.

These may seem silly little examples, but I am using what you presented form your interesting game story.

Trees and jewelry were decided to exist. This is a small part of a setting, and probably a common assumption, but you made that go from an assumption to an actual part or your setting by presenting them to your players.

Take the bigger picture of a setting and look at gnomes not being present as a playable race initially. That is a part of the setting, but no real reason given, like half-orcs and assassins int he past.

OK, half-orcs were given a reason, but it was initially a silly cause of creation to begin with. It only serves to show that the game isn't about "traipsing through fairy rings and talking to the little people" as some designers would have you to believe, but set up part of the default setting for the game too, in how gritty and harsh the life of an adventurer could be.

Like people trying to debate what is acceptable reasons for a DM to disallow parts of the game, likewise a decent setting information should be present int he books for a game with a long history, to explain its reasons why some things are and are not there.

People may not have needed a reason for you young ladies to wear jewelry, flammable or not, but others question the world itself, where there is nothing to support it. This is a problem with the 4th edition "assumed" setting.

For those looking to just play, then it might not be a problem, for those looking for that rich place to play in and looking to trust those presenting things to have a place for those things and reasons for them being included or removed, the setting or absence thereof can play a big part in how popular it is amongst those people who look for that element.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BryonD said:


> Clark invested a huge amount of energy and then walked away.




Posting "I wish I could publish 4E stuff" on a message board does not constitute a huge amount in my opinion.



BryonD said:


> And you substituted someone else for the other two companies I identified, so I guess those are confirmed.




Nope. I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse. I'm calling all three of your examples "kitchen table companies."



BryonD said:


> I know exactly zero people who wish they were playing an older version of D&D but play PF.




And MMV.



BryonD said:


> But, that is beside the point, you are clearly agreeing that WotC would gain 4E palyers who simply WISHED they were not 4E players.  That is a very sad position to be defending.




Now we get to the crux of your anger. You are defending a position. I am making an observation based on experience.



BryonD said:


> Ok.  You are wrong.
> 4E seems to be vastly MORE popular here than it is in meatspace.  It has become a running joke how I run into completely random strangers and upon discovering they are gamers immediately finding out how much they dislike 4E.





MMV greatly.



BryonD said:


> Ok, so 4E is for drunk folks who don't really care which game they play.  Noted.  (Not my opinion, but that is what I read in yours)




Again, are you being obstinate on purpose? You are obviously, IMO, a hardcore gamer always in search of the "best" game. "B&P" refers to casual players who enjoy hanging out with friends more than worrying about what game they play. You seem to have some anger towards casual players. How dare they not care!



BryonD said:


> Well the difference is, you intentionally provided an unfair estimate of my feelings.  I simply commented on the factual errors underlying yours.




Your attempt to frame my feelings MAY have been unintentional, but you were not simply pointing out factual errors.


----------



## pawsplay

Why is 4e not as popular as it might have been? Because it wasn't properly min-maxed. Pleasing a certain segment of the fanbase has become a feat-tax.


----------



## Lanefan

BryonD said:


> I know exactly zero people who wish they were playing an older version of D&D but play PF.



I know exactly zero people who play PF.  Unfortunately, neither your statement nor mine means a thing in the greater scheme of things as our sample sizes are just too small.



> Ok, so 4E is for drunk folks who don't really care which game they play.  Noted.  (Not my opinion, but that is what I read in yours)



1e works great for beer-based games as well.  This is what I've learned after 30-odd years of playing in such.

More seriously, I found with 3e that I constantly had to pay more ongoing attention to my character sheet than I wanted to; I'd rather pay attention to the story and interactions but kept having to look up feats, abilities, change stats for buffs, etc. (or kept forgetting these things, whichever).  With 1e, much of the time the character sheet is fire-and-forget, and only needs attention during treasury or training.

I'm not sure how 4e would be for this in ongiong play, but it gives the impression it'd be easier for a new player to dive into than 3e.  However, this comes with a side effect: it seems to have a more limited shelf life before those same players drift away - and that's why it's not as popular as it could be.

Lan-"I'll have the beer, the rest of you can have the pretzels"-efan


----------



## Aldarc

pawsplay said:


> Why is 4e not as popular as it might have been? Because it wasn't properly min-maxed. Pleasing a certain segment of the fanbase has become a feat-tax.



Again, I'm not sure that 4E tried to please a "certain segment" of the fanbase so much as it tried to please too many.


----------



## shadzar

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> "B&P" refers to casual players who enjoy hanging out with friends more than worrying about what game they play.




If it stands for casual gamers, then why not call it, I don't know, casual gaming/games instead of "beer & pretzels" games?


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Posting "I wish I could publish 4E stuff" on a message board does not constitute a huge amount in my opinion.




I'll leave the rest of the debate between the two of you, but I remember being very excited for Necromancer Games joining on.

This is a MASSIVE undercharacterization of Clark's emotional and time investment.

He worked closely with WotC (then Linnae Foster and Scott Rouse) on the GSL for months. He had several 4e items in pre production (including a 4e Tome of Horrors and an adventure path). He attempted to take a stab at a version of "old school" 4e.


I don't know if you think you're being fair Vyvyan or if you yourself are being intentionally obtuse.

But to claim that Clark posted "I wish I could publish stuff" on a message board as the whole of his investment is so wrong that it is not just wrong, it's foolish.


EDIT: I realize I should probably provide some evidence to actually convince you as well.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thr...ecromancer_Games_to_release_4E_adventure_path
http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-in...goes-4th-edition-planned-product-updates.html
http://grumblingrognard.blogspot.com/2009/03/4th-edition-classic-necromancer-games.html
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/03/no-dd-4e-for-pa/
http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/9828


Other companies that were supporting 4e via the GSL:


 Alluria Publishing
http://www.alluriapublishing.com

 Destiny Games Publishing
http://www.worldofdestiny.com

 Dias Ex Machina
http://www.diasexmachina.com

 Dragon Roots Magazine
http://www.dragonroots.net

 Dragondyne Publishing
http://www.dragondyne.com

 Dragonfire Laser Crafts 
http://www.dragonfiresigns.com

 E.N. Publishing
http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=wotbs

 Expeditious Retreat Press
http://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/4E.html

 Fat Dragon Games
http://www.fatdragongames.com

 Fiery Dragon Productions
http://www.fierydragon.com

 Goodman Games
http://www.goodman-games.com

  Implement Games
http://implementgames.webs.com

 The Inner Circle
http://www.icirclegames.com

 Made by Wombat
http://www.madebywombat.com

 Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com

 One Bad Egg
http://www.onebadegg.com

 Reality Deviant Publications
http://www.realitydeviants.net

 Silent7Seven Games
http://www.Silent7Seven.com

 Tangent Games
http://www.tangent-games.com

 Unicorn Rampant
http://unicornrampant.com

 WorldWorksGames
http://www.worldworksgames.com

Some of them still are (GO Enworld!), some of them have left, and some of them are defunct. Add that to the companies that wanted to support 4e and chose not to due to the GSL, and I think ByronD has a fairly strong point.


----------



## Ulrick

In my case, I played 4e for about three months, discovered it didn't suit my gaming tastes, and went back to 3.5e and even AD&D 2e for a brief time. 

I'm sure this is probably a summary of what happened with a lot of other gamers out there. An significant portion problably only looked at 4e and made similar assumptions. Another portion were probably annoyed with WotC for various reason (early release, the destruction of "sacred cows", incompatibilty of the rules with previous editions, _etc, etc, ad infinitum_). 

Currently, with D&D Essentials, many are probably seeing how WotC views their favorite game as just a commodity, rather than a product worthy of time investment. 

All of these reasons, and more (with exceptions and other stuff not included in my analysis, but covered in this thread and in the blogosphere) point to 4e not being as popular as anticipated. 

Who really knows? 
Everytime somebody comes with an answer, another person chimes in with a counterpoint. And the dichotomy the "ideal game vs. the actual game" continues, sometimes escalating or devolving (depending on your point of view) into another skirmish or battle in the ongoing Edition War. 

We'll probably see the same thing if and when 5e gets churned out.


Not that I'm completely cynical...


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> From this it sounds to me like the only actual difference between us when it comes to world-building is that you're willing to do all the heavy lifting as you go along, where I want as much of it as possible (within reason) to be done and locked in before I drop the puck so I don't have to worry about it later.



I'm guessing that another difference is this - from reading your posts over the years, I get the impression that a _lot_ of the dynamics for your group are driven by player/PC interaction.

In my group there is some of that, but I suspect a heavier burden of driving the action falls on me as GM. This is why I've taken to doing more of the heavy lifting as I go along - because even if I'd preplanned it all I'd need to tweak it to introduce dynamics into the game as we're all sitting around the table.



Lanefan said:


> We still end up with rich deep worlds by campaign's end; they're just created in different ways and at different times before or within the campaign.



This sound right to me. I'd add: my gameworld will be richest in those aspects that the PCs have engaged with, and often pretty thin where it's been mostly offstage.

So in my Night's Dark Terror game, the details of the homesteads, the goblins strongholds, the temple on the island, and so on are fairly well known. And the histories of a lot of those PCs are pretty rich as well - Golthar, especially, has a much richer backstory in my game than in the module because of other stuff I've brought in (he is also Paldemar from H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, for example).

But Kelven is just a dot on a map, and a ruler who gave the parties a horse with a richly decorated saddle and bridle but who couldn't produce more horses or much cash (the idea being that, post-Nerath, there is quite a bit of valuable loot still hanging around but comparatively little new production and trade - hence a shortage of cash and horses, but not of richly decorated horse tack). If the ruler actually had a name, I can't remember it! (oops) The logic of this is that the history and destiny of Nerath is a very important recurring theme in the game, whereas Kelven really is just a place to rest and get some new gear.



Lanefan said:


> I've bit the bullet and just launched a party into Night's Dark Terror...let's see how this goes...I'm already in major rejigging mode both to make the map fit my world (I'd forgotten the adventure covers such a huge swath of territory; and yes this does count as world-building on the fly!) and to get rid of some of the needless little side quests e.g. rescuing Stephan...



Huzzah!

In my version of it, I tweaked quite a bit as well. I've dropped the Hutakaans (sp?) in favour of minotaurs (which fits with Thunderspire Labyrinth - and because there's a dwarf PC in the game, I early on introduced the idea that the dwarves were in fact once slaves of the minotaurs, and have adopted a lot of minotaur architecture and other cultural practices - every now and then I find a way to bring this up again, to push him on the issue of dwarven nationalism).

I used the goblins pretty much as written, and the goblin arc culminated with rescuing Stephan in the ruined city (I mixed some of the original maps and encounters with Thundesrpire Labyrinth stuff). There is a Thunderspire Labyrinth werewolf mystery which I meshed into the werewolf encounter in the module. I turned the burial mounds into one big tomb and added extra stuff as well, thereby introducing multiple levels - human burials from Nerath's conquest of the minotaur kingdom on top of an earlier layer of minotaur burials. This helped drive some of the Nerath/history stuff, some of the minotaur stuff, and also let me bring in an Orcus vs Raven Queen theme (I have a trio of Raven Queen cultists in the party).

I merged the gnollish components with the gnoll dungeon in Thunderspire Labyrinth. I'm planning to mix the Threshold stuff with the 3E module Speaker in Dreams, and have seeded that a bit with a Quasit encounter in Thunderspire Labyrinth and some hag encounters that are currently ongoing.

I've also toyed with the sequencing a bit - my players have done the gnolls but haven't been to Threshold yet, and at the moment I'm not sure whether they'll continue on to Threshold (where they have to make a payment to redeem some of the foresters who were taken as slaves - as per Thunderspire Labyrinth I had the goblins sell their prisoners onto some duergar, and the PCs entered into a redemption contract with those duergar) or whether they'll head into the Feywild first (which is an option that the hags have opened up).

Anyway, let us know how it goes! Hopefully better than last time  . . .


----------



## pemerton

Mallus said:


> In a similar way, it was determined-through-play in our 4e setting that it's currently fashionable for young ladies of means to wear jewelry made of extraordinarily flammable magnesium.



When I read some of your posts, I can't help feeling that my game takes fantasy far too seriously!



Mallus said:


> The trick is writing down the details you invent on the fly so you can refer to them later and come off like some hotshot god of continuity!



Too often, I rely on the assumption that if it's really important then the players will have written it down.

That used to work, too, but my best note-taking players have moved to England. Also, with DDI the players reprint their character sheets too often, and lose their notes.

Thus does my game achieve a verisimiludinous representation of the foibles of human memory and grasp upon historical events!



Mallus said:


> <snip discussion of gameworld creation>



Thanks for that. That's interesting.

I tend to use commerically created worlds - Greyhawk, Kara-Tur, Points of Light - and so have some basic questions like the outline of history, and religion and culture, settled for me. This also helps with the fiction/rules integration.

In the case of Greyhawk and Kara-Tur, shared genre conventions help me and the players get on the same page as to what the game will be about. In the case of Points of Light genre conventions play a role, but I also think the PHB does a good job of helping to get everyone on the same page about races, gods etc.

What I try and do before starting the campaign is review the history and myth (and perhaps politics, although politics is becoming increasinly less important in my games, in favour of myth, at least in part because myth survives contact with high level PCs better than politics) and look for points of tension and other sources of dynamism.

In the early stages of the campaign I try and seed this stuff, responding heavily to what the players have built into the background of their PCs. So in the Oriental Adventures game there will be spirits, dragons, daimyo etc. In the PoL game there is Orcus, undead, goblins with strange Bane-worshipping ceremonies, etc.

Then as the players pick up and run with this stuff, the campaign becomes driven more and more by responding to their choices. And I flesh out more of the details of history, myth, recent events by NPCs etc to respond to them and set up new situations.

I think I used to use NPCs - sort of in the way you describe - more than I now do. These days my NPCs tend to be plot devices (there's the werewolf, the amibitious young adventurer who stole an artefact he shouldn't have, etc), or place holders for aspects of myth or history (there's the Vecna worshipper, the Orcus cultist, the apprentice of the greates wizard of Nerath, etc). This hasn't been a deliberate decision - it's just something I've noticed on reflecting on my play. I've been thinking about trying to do a bit more with NPCs, but I find it hard to work with rich NPCs outside an urban setting. And my campaigns haven't been primarily urban since the mid-to-late 1990s.

Anyway, enough about me! Thanks again for the reply. (And sorry, still can't XP you yet.)


----------



## Hussar

Aberzanzorax said:


> /snip for excellence
> 
> Some of them still are (GO Enworld!), some of them have left, and some of them are defunct. Add that to the companies that wanted to support 4e and chose not to due to the GSL, and I think ByronD has a fairly strong point.




Before the announcement of 4e, how many 3pp were producing D&D material?

Since we're talking about how companies have come and gone from under the 4e banner, shouldn't we compare to how many companies came and went from under the 3e banner?

Outside of pdf publishers, were there more than five companies still producing 3e material?  Pretty much all the big boys had left long before 4e was announced - AEG, Mongoose, even Green Ronin was down to a couple of modules in the year before 4e released.  Paizo had some great stuff, as did Goodman.

Anyone else?  How many dozens of companies tried to publish for 3e only to drop out within a couple of years?

How is this any different than 4e under the GSL?


----------



## shadzar

Something interesting about the PoL as the default setting of in regards to 4th edition, and how some people view it....

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-dis...4th-edition-there-list-all-relevant-lore.html


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> I completely, absolutely, disagree that it is a point of distinction.  And here is why, I do everything you have described, on the fly, all the time in my 3E games.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is almost bothersome to me that your post presumes these are distinctions for your 4E over my 3E game. Partly because you seem to think I don't do them and partly because it surprising to me to hear people talk about these as something new they have gained in 4E.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, 4E is better at on the fly stuff. But improving 1 second to 1/2 second is not value added to me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For many people it "feels like a tactical mini game".  While I agree that you can roleplay on top of the rules, I also agree that it, relatively speaking, feels more like a tactical mini game.  And if the things you have described are really new additions that 4E offers you, then those of us already having these things in 3E are not going to see new value, but we are going to see the prices which have been paid.





BryonD said:


> I like simulation.  I like imagining a cool wizard and then seeing him become expressed in an interactive way with the responsive environment.  I love the "world-implementation".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But a system-agnostic approach doesn't support a position of one system being better than another.



BryonD, I don't quite follow you here.

You are asserting that 3E is a better game for simulation than is 4e (unless I've radically misunderstood your posts in this and countless other threads). I've never disputed this - although my personal view is that Runequest, Classic Traveller and Rolemaster are in turn better at simulation than is 3E. (Probably GURPS and HERO as well, but I don't know the point-buy games so well. Am I right in thinking that you have a fondness for GURPS, or am I confusing you with another poster?)

You also frequently imply that only a simulationist game can give a truly rich roleplaying experience, which seems to generate an implication about the richness of the roleplaying experiences of those who play non-simulationist games. (I've frequently objected to this implication by inviting you to explain in what way games like HeroQuest or The Burning Wheel fail to give a rich roleplaying experience.) Heck, in the very post I'm responding to, you refer to me being "content" with my game.

Then when I post that 4e better supports non-simulationist play than does 3E, you object that this is bothersome to you because in some sense denigrating of your ability to GM on the fly? I don't feel the force of the objection because (i) I find it hard to see how 3E could be the best game both for simulationist and non-simulationist play, (ii) I didn't say anything about your ability to GM on the fly, and am happy to learn that your players enjoy it when you do it, (iii) like I said in my earlier post, "just in time" or "no myth" play is something different from GMing on the fly (although improvisation is part of it).

Of the various features of 4e that I identified as better supporting "no myth" play, I'll just come back to two. First, there are the encounter design and challenge-setting structures (DC tables, skill challenges, monster roles etc) that facilitate situation framing and provide a type of assurance-function for players. I imagine that your view is that you can do all this in 3E just as well, through a combination of common sense, the CR rules, knowing your PCs builds and so on.

If I'm right about this, fair enough. As I've posted in this very thread, I've done it in Rolemaster, relyingly similarly on intuitive judgements (and without CR, which Rolemaster doesn't have). I find that 4e supports it better which (as I said upthread) is why I've moved to 4e.

But what about the issue of overland travel, scouting and encounter pacing? What mechanic is there in the 3E rules that enables (i) encounters over multiple games days to fall within a single rest period's worth of resources, and (ii) that can make whether or not this happens turn in part on the players' decisions about scouting and the scouting abilities of their PCs, and (iii) can be resolved in one or a short series of dice rolls, and therefore (iv) will occupy minimum time at the game table? I don't know one. Nothing in the 3E PHB or DMG tells me how to resolve this situation without having a map of the area being moved through, and without actually resolving - using that map - the question of where the PCs go, how they try to get some sleep, what the terrain is like there, and then the GM using some sort of ad hoc process to adjudicate whether or not that sleep is restful enough (given that 3E doesn't have a "Good night's rest Static Action Table").


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Hussar said:


> Before the announcement of 4e, how many 3pp were producing D&D material?
> 
> Since we're talking about how companies have come and gone from under the 4e banner, shouldn't we compare to how many companies came and went from under the 3e banner?
> 
> Outside of pdf publishers, were there more than five companies still producing 3e material? Pretty much all the big boys had left long before 4e was announced - AEG, Mongoose, even Green Ronin was down to a couple of modules in the year before 4e released. Paizo had some great stuff, as did Goodman.
> 
> Anyone else? How many dozens of companies tried to publish for 3e only to drop out within a couple of years?
> 
> How is this any different than 4e under the GSL?




Well, three things:
1. I could be wrong about this, but I remember them leaving as a result of 4e being announced. e.g. Necromancer Games had Slumbering Tsar, Demonheart, and others written but the market fell out upon the announcement of the new edition. 

2. Timing. This was at the end of a much longer time frame when they stopped.

3. They didn't then go and publish for AD&D. They just stopped. That's somewhat different as well.


But, you make some good points there as well. Plenty just died, and that's the same for both editions, to be sure.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Mallus said:


> You're just messing with me, aren't you?



Oh, I don't know. In my homebrew both women and men wear makeup that contains lead, arsenic, mercury, and antimony, which eventually cause open lesions to form on the face.

The sad thing is that it is largely an historical setting, and Elizabethan cosmetics did just that.... 

The Auld Grump, in a bronze age game how about perfumed mounds of fat on top of the head?....


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It just occured to me...I don't think I have a clue as to what a high magic vs low magic game of 4Ed would look like.




To be fair, this one would be very easy to do in 4e.

Low Magic - Martial characters only.  Expected item bonuses are rolled into the character at appropriate levels.

Done.

High Magic - pretty much standard 4e.

And, those two games would play VERY differently.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> To be fair, this one would be very easy to do in 4e.
> 
> Low Magic - Martial characters only.




That's not Low Magic, that's No Magic.


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> The story is ALWAYS told on the fly, unless you are playing a railroad.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4th edition isn't made to have a working foundation with which to build from. As many have stated in the past about various things, they piece the story together after play. Sure any edition can do this, but with 4th it must.



This seems to be contradictory, or close to it - you say it is railroading to have a story in advance, but that it is a flaw of 4e to not permit a story in advance. I would have thought this was in fact a _benefit_, because - if true - it would mean that railroading was impossible with 4e. (In fact I don't think this is the case, but that's because it's not impossible for the GM to force a 4e game into a preplanned story. This seems to be a common complaint about the way many GMs run skill challenges, for example.)



shadzar said:


> those fictional elements must exist BEFORE the player CAN engage them.
> 
> If you don't have any fictional elements to begin with, then how do the players even know what characters to make?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When compared to EVERY other edition that had set forth to create some sort of setting, even if only loose medieval fantasy, there was something already for the players to WANT to engage in, rather than 4th where the players engage in things *just *because the DM brought something *in *at that *time* for them to engage.
> 
> That is why 4th isn't as popular. Because it IS the players sitting in the Ivory Tower surrounded by The Nothing, until the DM creates it so that a combat can be had. There is NO setting, just the skeleton of the game.



I don't need fictional elements for the players to make characters, beyond the rulebooks of the game.

My current game started with an email to my players, saying something to the effect of: 4e game, based in the default 4e world, with FRPG stuff permitted also provided you translate religious and cultural references into 4e terms.

I also told my players that each PC had to have (i) a reason to adventuer, and (ii) a reason to be ready to fight goblins.

When the players created their PCs, a whole lot more of the fiction was suddenly fleshed out. Two, fairly predicatably, created villages wiped out be goblins (one elven, one mixed human and half-elven). One, though, created a major commercial city that had been wiped out by goblin raiders. He had a history in that city. In the first session of play, when dealing with a trader, he introduced an uncle of his who was a trader from that city. That city will definitely keep coming up in future play. (I think it can probably be found on the new layer of the Abyss where all lost things go, described in the Demonomicon.)

Another created a dwarven stronghold for his PC to come from, and a backstory that established various aspects of dwarven culture that I've since been playing with from time to time in the game (see my reply upthread to Lanefan about the relationship between minotaurs and dwarves in my gameworld, which was worked out as part of the resolution of an early encounter).

Another created a secret society among the drow, whose members worship Corellon, sing songs by the campfire telling of when the drow walked by the sea under the open sky, and wish to reunite the sundered races of the elves.

In short, I think you're overestimating how much fiction is needed to get the players engaging the gameworld and building PCs that are embedded within that world.



shadzar said:


> You get nothing. Nothing about this Feywild.



Actually, for a player there is this (PHB pp 38-39, in the section on Eladrin - and there is also an entry in the DMG, plus all the fey monsters in the MM):

Creatures of magic with strong ties to nature, eladrin live in cities in the twilight realm of the Feywild. Their cities lie close enough to the world that they sometimes cross over, appearing briefly in mountain valleys or deep forest glades before fading back into the Feywild . . .

Eladrin society straddles the boundary between the Feywild and the natural world. Eladrin build their elegant cities and towers in places of striking natural splendor, especially where the veil between the worlds is thin—isolated mountain vales, green islands along wild and storm-wracked coasts, and the deepest recesses of ancient forests. Some eladrin realms exist mostly in the Feywild, only rarely touching the world, while others appear in the world at sunset each day, only to fade back into the Feywild at dawn.​
My player who started with a half-elf and then changed to a drow after his PC died has had no trouble at all imagining and engaging with the feywild. It's a secret, twilight place cut off from the mortal world by a thin and permeable border, where eladrin live in regions of great natural beauty. What more do you need to build a PC than that?

Now admittedly if you'd never read a fairy story or Tolkein or watched a fantasy movie or listened to Wagner's Ring Cycle than you might need more than the above to help you along. But how many players of D&D fit this description? (None that I've ever met.)



shadzar said:


> For those looking to just play, then it might not be a problem, for those looking for that rich place to play in and looking to trust those presenting things to have a place for those things and reasons for them being included or removed, the setting or absence thereof can play a big part in how popular it is amongst those people who look for that element.



My players look to me, as GM, to provide them with a rich place to play in. I deliver it. I don't need it written down in advance to do this. In fact, by making up the details in response to the interests and actions of the player, I can make it more engaging for them! What I do need, in advance, is what the OP called "atmosphere and vibe". And the 4e books give me this.



shadzar said:


> On the fly DMing is something used for when the adventure path and main plot is left for some sort of sidetrek that the players unexpectedly took the hook for.



I guess that's one view. Mine is different. I don't expect my players to take my hooks. I do my best to take their hooks. And because they're giving me those hooks all the time _during play_, I am building the fiction all the time _during play_.

When I prep I have a world history and myth, plus the details of what has been revealed in previous sessions, plus a map and some ideas about who might be around. But the details are always up for grabs as I create a situation for my players to engage with (in the sort of way that Paul Czege puts it in the quote I posted upthread).



shadzar said:


> It doesn't matter where you are, because just like your "just in time" where you are play little to not part in it until the players are ready to do something. Where they go next doesnt matter until they are ready to go there.



I don't really know what this means, but if you're saying that there is no backstory in my game, you'd be wrong. If you're saying that there's no metaplot, then you'd be right. I don't like metaplot.

If you're saying that dramatic things won't happen unless the PCs are there, you're also mostly right. I don't mind there being dramas in the history of the gameworld, but the _present_ is for the PCs.



shadzar said:


> The focus of D&D changed from having a world/setting to play in, to a game you just played. The inspiration to play is the "killing of monsters and taking their stuff".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There is really nothing to build a story off of anymore than DDM.



If, after reading the 4e PHB, and learning about the fall of Nerath, the rise of Vecna and the Raven Queen, the migratin of the eladrin from the Feywild to the world, etc, etc, you can't think of any richer premise for a game than "kill some randomly generated monsters and take their stuff" then I'm not sure what you're doing playing FRPGs!

And as it happens, the 4e DMG is one of the few recent D&D rulebooks that clearly separates treasure acquisition from monster drops - via the treasure parcel guidelines and also the quest rules. (The 3E Oriental Adventures book flagged having treasure awarded by patrons rather than found on monsters. The 1st ed DMG envisages some treasures not being guarded, although there is no strong suggestion that significant amounts of treasure will be acquired outside the dungeon/wilderness environment.)



shadzar said:


> The game works when the world exists and the players are set into it and let lose. It doesn't work when they are just set in the Ivory Tower surrounded by The Nothing and then something comes into existence and is created just because and when they want to engage it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Well the world/setting for D&D cannot be created in a "just in time" fashion if you intend to have a gave beyond random encounters strung together



Thank you for letting me know that my game doesn't work, and is just a series of random encounters strung together! I linked upthread to an actual play report, which describes my prep for a session, and how that session unfolded, including "just in time" decisions that I made as I GMed it - in what way did that session not work? Where was the series of random encounters?

You've also been posting in the Sacrifice a PC thread, where I posted an outline of the climax of my previous campaign. In what way did that not work? In what way was it random?

I get it loud and clear that you like to play a world exploration game. Fine by me. But I don't see how you can say that other approaches can't work _when people who use those other approaches are posting detailed actual play reports, outlining their campaigns in this and other threads, etc etc_.

And in case it needs explaining: the reason the encounters aren't random is because the situations are beinge framed by me - a non-randomly motivated GM - in response to my players - a non-randomly motivated group of fantasy RPG enthusiasts. So far from random, the whole thing is highly deliberate. It's not _random_ that, after dreaming of the return of the Queen of Chaos, and her crushing of Lolth, a rune of chaos appeared on the inside of the drow sorcerer's eyelids. That's deliberate, because the player is planning on taking the demonskin adept paragon path (which has a self-blinding effect at level 16), and I thought it would be an interesting bit of foreshadowing that could also be used subsequently to drive the game - which it did in that very session, and I already have ideas on how it will be able to do so in future sessions.



shadzar said:


> Making it all up as you go is a root cause of DM v player, because there was nothing set down beforehand and the DM can get pissed at the players and screwed them over with the next thing because of the last thing.



Luckily I don't get angry at my players, and I don't set out to screw them over. I set out my own views on the sorts of features of a game that can lead to GM-player conflict in the recent alignment thread that I started, so won't retread that ground now.



shadzar said:


> The fact that it was not fashionable for young ladies to wear such PRIOR to play, was the established setting.
> 
> In order to engage that aspect of the world, it had to exist beforehand.
> 
> There must be a state of something before you can alter that state, as you did with the jewelry.





shadzar said:


> But those undefined thing you had a default assumption on and passed along to the players did you not?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So when leaving this as a so-called "undefined" element, and not including both options, you really did set the state that people didn't wear flammable jewelry. It is fine to change it for whatever reason so long as your players like the change. But in your setting it didn't happen was the default state, because it didn't. It is just an unwritten part of your setting.





shadzar said:


> Did you or did you NOT include jewelry for young ladies in your game?



In my game it has never come up whether or not it is socks or hose that are worn under shoes. Heck, I don't even know whether the wizard PC - whose name is Malstaph Empal and is from a fallen city called Entekash, and thus to me has a hint of being from a Western or Central Asian culture - wears boots or sandals. If it's ever relevant, I suppose that the player will get to decide.

I think it's safe to hypothesise that in Mallus's game it was assumed that fashionable young ladies wore jewellery (because this has been part of many historical cultures, and certainly is part of the ones Mallus's players are most likely familiar with) but that the precise composition of that jewellery _had simply never come up_.

As you yourself say, altering something presupposes a prior state. Given that here there was no prior state, it follows that no alteration took place. Generalise this across large scale features of the gameworld, and you have "just in time" GMing. And I know it can be done, because I do it. And I'm not the only one.


----------



## Aldarc

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's not Low Magic, that's No Magic.



Hussar said nothing of removing rituals.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Hussar said:


> To be fair, this one would be very easy to do in 4e.
> 
> Low Magic - Martial characters only.  Expected item bonuses are rolled into the character at appropriate levels.
> 
> Done.
> 
> High Magic - pretty much standard 4e.
> 
> And, those two games would play VERY differently.




When I think Low Magic, I think two sorts of different flavours. Low magic and Rare Magic. In both cases there is not much magic around be it because magic is not that powerful/useful or because magic is incredibly rare (most people perhaps view it as myth or nonsense).

I have run low magic campaigns in 3ed and played in a low magic 4e campaign. In 3.x, you really have to bash the system around to get it to work how you want. In 4e, low magic kind of failed (it always seemed to switch back to a "higher" magic feel than what it was supposed to - although I still really enjoyed the game funnily enough). In both cases, I think you are fighting the system but in 4e perhaps more so. I don't think it is as simple as no arcane/divine/primal classes. That's kind of like ordering a banana split but only getting a banana. You still have to have the ice cream, wafer and sauce, even if it is only in the most careful of doses.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton

TheAuldGrump said:


> W&M had several of the 'the game that you used to play isn't fun' statements that have come back to haunt WotC - in particular the one about 'isn't a game about traipsing through the fairy gates and talking to the little people, it's about combat!' or words to that effect.



This is a pretty loose paraphrase. The actual passages, on pp 38-42, are:

Perhaps you're thinking that the Feywild is a happy, magical woodland paradise. If so, you couldn't be more wrong.

This is a dangerous, twilight realm of natural beauty . . . Such beauty can be welcoming and cheerful. Much more commonly, though, it is dark, frightening, mysterious or hostile.

Denizens include hags, yeth hounds,  . . . the Wild Hunt, and more. These fey aren't good or sweet. Some are wild; others are downright savage. Even fey creatures that were represented in earlier editions as good and kind now have a sharper, darker edge. The prospect of meeting or interacting with a fey is apt to produce shivers of dread. . .

The Feywild is very easily integrated into an adventure or campaign. It's a dangerous, flavourful place that's sure to make a strong impression. Adventurers of all levels can find appropriate challenges of combat or intrigue there. . . (per Gwendolyn  F M Kestrel)

In 3rd Edition D&D, many fey are mischievous but intrinsically good . . . For the new edition, we discarded that notion in favour of one more in synch with the role of fairy beings in myth and literature, as well as with our design needs.

These fey can be beautiful, happy, and kind, but they are just as often capricious, vindictive and cold . . . Dealing with the fairy folk is always a gamble.

Eladrins wre already powerful magical beings in previous editions of the game. Now they have a very similar role . . . They are high-level monsters that present both deadly challenges and interesting interactions for paragon-level PCs venturing into the Feywild. They are also, we hope, inspiring examples of what eladrin PCs can aspire to become. . . (per Matthew Sernett and James Wyatt)

At the same time that we were thinking about giants, we were also thinking about fey . . . The collision of these two problesm inspired me . . . What if fomorians were _fey_, not giants? . . . Snicker at the unicorns and nymphs if you want to, but a fomorian is no joke. . . (per Richard Baker)

I wanted fey that were alien, scary, and strange. . .

I didn't want players to snicker or sneer when Dungeon Masters set fey creatures before them. I wanted to convey the terror of the Wild Hunt in every encounter, the hopelessness of getting lost in a faerie mound, the terrible horro that lurks in the original versions of almost every Grimm's fairy tale. . .

[T]he Feywild . . . _s a place of magic and mystery, of awesome beauty and wondrous terror. It has its places of light, but also has its dark side - just like everything in D&D should have. (per Bill Slavicsek)_​_

This doesn't read to me quite the way it read to you._


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> Hussar said nothing of removing rituals.



Nor did he say anything about NPCs and monsters.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

pemerton said:


> This is a pretty loose paraphrase. The actual passages, on pp 38-42, are:
> 
> Perhaps you're thinking that the Feywild is a happy, magical woodland paradise. If so, you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> This is a dangerous, twilight realm of natural beauty . . . Such beauty can be welcoming and cheerful. Much more commonly, though, it is dark, frightening, mysterious or hostile.
> 
> Denizens include hags, yeth hounds,  . . . the Wild Hunt, and more. These fey aren't good or sweet. Some are wild; others are downright savage. Even fey creatures that were represented in earlier editions as good and kind now have a sharper, darker edge. The prospect of meeting or interacting with a fey is apt to produce shivers of dread. . .
> 
> The Feywild is very easily integrated into an adventure or campaign. It's a dangerous, flavourful place that's sure to make a strong impression. Adventurers of all levels can find appropriate challenges of combat or intrigue there. . . (per Gwendolyn  F M Kestrel)
> 
> In 3rd Edition D&D, many fey are mischievous but intrinsically good . . . For the new edition, we discarded that notion in favour of one more in synch with the role of fairy beings in myth and literature, as well as with our design needs.
> 
> These fey can be beautiful, happy, and kind, but they are just as often capricious, vindictive and cold . . . Dealing with the fairy folk is always a gamble.
> 
> Eladrins wre already powerful magical beings in previous editions of the game. Now they have a very similar role . . . They are high-level monsters that present both deadly challenges and interesting interactions for paragon-level PCs venturing into the Feywild. They are also, we hope, inspiring examples of what eladrin PCs can aspire to become. . . (per Matthew Sernett and James Wyatt)
> 
> At the same time that we were thinking about giants, we were also thinking about fey . . . The collision of these two problesm inspired me . . . What if fomorians were _fey_, not giants? . . . Snicker at the unicorns and nymphs if you want to, but a fomorian is no joke. . . (per Richard Baker)
> 
> I wanted fey that were alien, scary, and strange. . .
> 
> I didn't want players to snicker or sneer when Dungeon Masters set fey creatures before them. I wanted to convey the terror of the Wild Hunt in every encounter, the hopelessness of getting lost in a faerie mound, the terrible horro that lurks in the original versions of almost every Grimm's fairy tale. . .
> 
> [T]he Feywild . . . _s a place of magic and mystery, of awesome beauty and wondrous terror. It has its places of light, but also has its dark side - just like everything in D&D should have. (per Bill Slavicsek)_​_
> 
> This doesn't read to me quite the way it read to you._



_Not quite as loosely as you pretend - here is the actual quote:
But D&D is emphatically not the game of fairy-tale fantasy. D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people. 

Still read differently to you?

The Auld Grump, mind you, I put it in the wrong book - R&C not W&M._


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> This seems to be contradictory, or close to it - you say it is railroading to have a story in advance, but that it is a flaw of 4e to not permit a story in advance.




 Do you know what time it is? I got to read all that now?

Not to have a story to tell in advance, but telling the story in advance in railroading.

Rather the DM should have a story in mind, but only presents parts of it that are planned. The story is then told by the players through tier actions...

We are still on settings right?



> based in the default 4e world




What is that though? The link provided to the PoL info request thread has that default world just set as I have been saying before that thread was created...there is no default world/setting, you have to create it fromt he ground up.



> It's a secret, twilight place cut off from the mortal world by a thin and permeable border, where eladrin live in regions of great natural beauty. What more do you need to build a PC than that?
> 
> Now admittedly if you'd never read a fairy story or Tolkein or watched a fantasy movie or listened to Wagner's Ring Cycle than you might need more than the above to help you along. But how many players of D&D fit this description? (None that I've ever met.)




So it has vampires that sparkle in it! See that is more info than I had received elsewhere. The Feywild is excised form the game as vampire do NOT sparkle!

What I need is why int he heck creatures from the Feywild, being cut off from the mortal world, are here IN THE MORTAL WORLD?

So is it cut off or not with its permeable border? Make up your mind. Don't flake out decide what it is and then discus it.

To make an Eladrin character, I want to be inspired by something to play it other than it is a version of Nightcrawler that sparkles. (PS: Nightcrawler doesnt sparkle either!)

Eladrin are high-elves that mated with Nightcrawler and then moved into a pocket dimension....still not really inspired to play one.



> What I do need, in advance, is what the OP called "atmosphere and vibe". And the 4e books give me this.




To enough it seems it does NOT provide that, ergo "not as popular as it could have been".



> When I prep I have a world history and myth,




These are part of the default setting with previous versions set in medieval era. 4th is missing most of the world, and has no real history. Again see the thread linked about PoL being added to and still the default setting is being designed 2 or more years after the game has been released.

Myth? How do the other races view each other in 4th? What stories of the other races are there to offer?

Legolas and Gimli had a reaction through race to each other. 4th edition races are all sleeping together in one tent.

Heavy alteration of alignment could play a BIG part in this lack of myth and world history because nothing was developed to talk about these races interaction, and some of the newer ones are not present in Tolkien et all to derive from.

Well if you do derive from many, then dragonborn are abominations and bad and should be killed, not adventurer with, likewise the demon teiflings should be hunted down and killed.

Does it work for a game? Yes. Was that the intended response from those races? No.



> I don't really know what this means, but if you're saying that there is no backstory in my game




Think I am on the Neverending Story analogy here, so it isnt about backstory, but rather the party is always surrounded by The Nothing, until they decide to go in a direction and things in that direction are then created.



> If, after reading the 4e PHB, and learning about the fall of Nerath, the rise of Vecna and the Raven Queen, the migratin of the eladrin from the Feywild to the world, etc, etc, you can't think of any richer premise for a game than "kill some randomly generated monsters and take their stuff" then I'm not sure what you're doing playing FRPGs!




Quite possibly the fact that the Raven Queen, Eladrin, Nerath and return of Vecna are things I am not interested in. Such as some not finding the death of Mystra, Elminster, the rest of the Chosen of Mystra, etc dying off as being not interesting.

Just because it is a fantasy story, and I like fantasy, does not mean I will like the fantasy story presented.



> Thank you for letting me know that my game doesn't work, and is just a series of random encounters strung together!




You are welcome. Please also note that you designed your world before play started, you said so yourself somewhere, and your JIT was only altering the story, not the entire setting or creating the setting as you had already done so save for the open bits you left for later to JIT with.

Had you not done any of that pre-game prep work, how would your game differ?



> Luckily I don't get angry at my players, and I don't set out to screw them over. I set out my own views on the sorts of features of a game that can lead to GM-player conflict in the recent alignment thread that I started, so won't retread that ground now.




Again we are looking at FOR YOU, things such as the alignment thread. that is good that your method works FOR YOU, but as this thread deals with the popularity of 4E is not determined BY YOU for all others.

BTW, did you try changing alignment to being component parts rather than the 9 straight ones, if so how or does that work for you?



> As you yourself say, altering something presupposes a prior state. *Given that here there was no prior state*, it follows that no alteration took place. Generalise this across large scale features of the gameworld, and you have "just in time" GMing. And I know it can be done, because I do it. And I'm not the only one.




But I don't give you that, nor to Mallus. I say that it must exist in a state when the world is created and JIT cannot create the world/setting. It can only alter it the existing states.

I am saying Schrodinger's Cat was in the box and alive. JIT is trying to decide if it is still in the box and if it is alive of dead. With JIT when you check the state you alter it, but you KNOW it had a state it was in to begin with. JIT doesn't give you that state, putting the cat in the box or not to be able to check later gave you the state JIT is checking and/or altering.

Jewelry was/is worn. Your wizard has feet so might be wearing footwear. These are how they are set. JIT is just checking the state and/or altering it, not creating something that never before had a state.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> This doesn't read to me quite the way it read to you.




It wasn't said in W&M, but I seem to recall a designer put it in one of his blogs. Mearls? Wyatt? I think are the possible names for that "traipsing" quote.

Who did say that and where?


----------



## TheAuldGrump

shadzar said:


> It wasn't said in W&M, but I seem to recall a designer put it in one of his blogs. Mearls? Wyatt? I think are the possible names for that "traipsing" quote.
> 
> Who did say that and where?



Wyatt - I misattributed it, the quote is from R&C, not W&M. (I own neither book, and had to look at a friend's copy to confirm.)

And charging as much for a freakin' advert as was originally charged for the 3e PH? Oy! 


The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton

TheAuldGrump said:


> Not quite as loosely as you pretend



No pretence on my part - I don't own R&C, and you did attribute the passage to W&M.

But what has come to light - inadvertantly on both our parts - is that R&C and W&M are in almost express contradiction: compare 

D&D is emphatically not the game of fairy-tale fantasy. D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people​
with 

This is a dangerous, twilight realm of natural beauty . . . Such beauty can be welcoming and cheerful. Much more commonly, though, it is dark, frightening, mysterious or hostile. . .  Adventurers of all levels can find appropriate challenges of combat or intrigue there. . . I wanted to convey the terror of the Wild Hunt in every encounter, the hopelessness of getting lost in a faerie mound, the terrible horror that lurks in the original versions of almost every Grimm's fairy tale.​
The passages from W&M expressly contemplate traipsing through fairy rings (well, faerie mounds) and interacting with the little people (well, getting involved in the mysterious, and perhaps frightening, intrigues of the fey).



TheAuldGrump said:


> charging as much for a freakin' advert as was originally charged for the 3e PH? Oy!



Well, this is the main reason why I don't own R&C.

On the other hand, W&M is in my view not an advert but rather a better guide to GMing a points of light game than any other WotC publication. There is a small amount of overlap with the MM lore entries, but not a lot. It's mostly about the intended game purpose of the various game elements found in the core books. If this sort of stuff had actually been in the 4e DMG - so that as well as a discussion of combat-encounter-building from the metagame point of view, it discussed how to build and run the gameworld from the metagame point of view - then I think that the DMG would have been a better book. One of the strengths of the 1st ed AD&D DMG is that Gygax isn't afraid to talk about the metagame purpose of various elements of the gameworld.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I'm guessing that another difference is this - from reading your posts over the years, I get the impression that a _lot_ of the dynamics for your group are driven by player/PC interaction.



True that, when things are chugging along.

Which raises, I suppose, a corollary question that might even wander vaguely back toward the original topic: how is 4e at handling player/PC interaction vs. earlier editions?  Does it matter if the players drive the bus, even if that means grinding the story to a halt?  And what happens when-if said interactions get hostile?



> In my group there is some of that, but I suspect a heavier burden of driving the action falls on me as GM. This is why I've taken to doing more of the heavy lifting as I go along - because even if I'd preplanned it all I'd need to tweak it to introduce dynamics into the game as we're all sitting around the table.



It all just comes down to this: there's x-amount of work that's going to be done at this sort of stuff by any given DM before/during a campaign; and every DM does some %-age of x before the campaign starts and the rest during it.

The ratio is the only variable.



> So in my Night's Dark Terror game, the details of the homesteads, the goblins strongholds, the temple on the island, and so on are fairly well known. And the histories of a lot of those PCs are pretty rich as well - Golthar, especially, has a much richer backstory in my game than in the module because of other stuff I've brought in (he is also Paldemar from H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, for example).



You're bringing extra stuff in where I'm trying to cut it out! 

Lan-"with perfect character balance, any PC-vs-PC combat should always reach a stalemate, right?"-efan


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> Not to have a story to tell in advance, but telling the story in advance in railroading.
> 
> Rather the DM should have a story in mind, but only presents parts of it that are planned. The story is then told by the players through tier actions...



Well, you've lost me here. What is the GM presenting - beginnings? or endings? Beginnings don't need much of a world, as per the example in my previous post: tell the players to look at the PHB and build something out of that. As for endings, they don't come from the GM deciding in advance. They come from playing the game. And the necessary setting for framing and resolving a situation can also be provided by the GM in the course of playing the game.



shadzar said:


> The link provided to the PoL info request thread has that default world just set as I have been saying before that thread was created...there is no default world/setting, you have to create it fromt he ground up.



Other than the empires, the pantheon, the races, the planes, and some of the personalities who appear in the names and flavour texts of powers. And if you care to use it, there's even a town and map in the DMG (I don't use the Nentir Vale myself, but others do).

I don't call that "having to create from the ground up".



shadzar said:


> So is it cut off or not with its permeable border? Make up your mind.



Huh? Permeable means permeable.

Here is a passage from p 110 of Robert Ferguson, _The Hammer and the Cross: A new history of the Vikings_ (Penguin, 2010):

[Snorri] tells us of a Swedish king names Svegdir who crossed the Baltic on a sort of pilgrimage in search of ... the home of the gods and Odin. . . Tjodolf of Hvin described in verse the result of his search. Very drunk and on his way to bed one evening, he saw a dwarf sitting under a large stone. The dwarf lured him inside with a promise that he would meet Odin. Svegdir accepted and was never seen again.​
Here we have a real-world story about a person being tricked by a fey creature into entering a faerie mound and crossing the permeable boundary between the mortal world and the Feywild. Most D&D players probably don't know the story of Svegdir - I certainly didn't until I read the book I've quoted from - but I'd be surprised if they don't know some sort of story like this, even if it's only Rumpelstiltskin.



shadzar said:


> To make an Eladrin character, I want to be inspired by something to play it other than it is a version of Nightcrawler that sparkles.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Quite possibly the fact that the Raven Queen, Eladrin, Nerath and return of Vecna are things I am not interested in. Such as some not finding the death of Mystra, Elminster, the rest of the Chosen of Mystra, etc dying off as being not interesting.



I wasn't in any doubt that you don't like the default 4e setting. But it doesn't follow from your dislike (i) that there is not enough there to seed a game, nor (ii) that the game is therefore just about killing things and taking their stuff. Which are the claims you made.

Just because it is a fantasy story, and I like fantasy, does not mean I will like the fantasy story presented.



shadzar said:


> Please also note that you designed your world before play started, you said so yourself somewhere, and your JIT was only altering the story, not the entire setting or creating the setting as you had already done so save for the open bits you left for later to JIT with.



Before play I had a myth and history provided by the 4e PHB, DMG, MM and W&M (which you yourself deny establish a setting).

Over the course of play I have built a world, some of it through prep but big chunks of it through play.



shadzar said:


> Had you not done any of that pre-game prep work, how would your game differ?



Well, I wouldn't have had as many maps. Some of my NPCs would have been less developed. The backstory would probably be even more byzantine.

I don't know what your approach to GMing is. But I know that I can run a session for my players with nothing but a map, some inhabitants and a few ideas linking that situation to the myth and history of the gameworld. (The most recent sessions didn't even have a complete map.) The details are worked out in play. This is, in my view, what 4e is designed to support.

To put it another way: after 2 years of running this particular campaign, my campaign notes (not scenario notes) consist of 3 documents: a one page document fleshing out some myth details, a 2 page document fleshing out the more recent backstory for the campaign, that I've been adding to as I go along (so that's about 2000 words total), plus a timeline of events which is mostly notes of what the PCs have done but also some notes about what NPCs are doing at the same time - this is a bit over 1000 words.

This is what I need to create situations and run my game. Obviously as the game progresses those notes will get longer. But I don't think that 3000 words over 2 years of play shows that I'm really a closet world builder! 



shadzar said:


> But I don't give you that, nor to Mallus. I say that it must exist in a state when the world is created and JIT cannot create the world/setting. It can only alter it the existing states.



Earlier in this post I've quoted you talking about "gaps", but now you seem to be denying that there are gaps.

The problem with your quantum mechanical analogy is that a fiction _doesn't have to have a state_ until the author chooses. What sort of timber was used for the panelling of Sherlock Holmes' apartment in Baker Street? We don't know, because (at least as far as I've read through the stories, which admittedly isn't all of them) Conan Doyle doesn't tell us! And we can't infer it from anything else.

From the fact that the wizard PC in my game rides a horse with stirrups, and walks through swamps, dungeons and the like, I think we can safely infer that he has footwear. But what sort? We don't know.



shadzar said:


> JIT is just checking the state and/or altering it, not creating something that never before had a state.



If I'm making something up, I don't check it. I don't alter it. I create it. [Of course, I]from the point of view of the fictional inhabitants in the gameworld[/I], there is an answer. But given that, ex hypothesi, the content of their point of view hasn't been decided yet by the author, this doesn't get us very far.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> True how is 4e at handling player/PC interaction vs. earlier editions?  Does it matter if the players drive the bus, even if that means grinding the story to a halt?  And what happens when-if said interactions get hostile?



Players driving the bus - no worries. Players trying to push in different directions - no worries, and DMG2 even gives advice on how to structure skill challenges where the PCs aren't all on the same team. PCs fighting? It can be done, but the system won't shine at this point, because the combat rules are designed to give good results for multi-member PC parties against monsters with more hit points but fewer active resources. PC vs PC will bypass all this, and probably be quick and deadly.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Crazy Jerome

I'm starting to think that one of the reasons that 4E is not as popular as it could have been is that WotC underestimated the number of people who think that exploration is a necessary prerequisite for roleplaying.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

shadzar said:


> If it stands for casual gamers, then why not call it, I don't know, casual gaming/games instead of "beer & pretzels" games?




I know. I knew better. I even noted that I don't like the term and used it anyway. Moment of weakness



Aberzanzorax said:


> This is a MASSIVE undercharacterization of Clark's emotional and time investment.
> 
> He worked closely with WotC (then Linnae Foster and Scott Rouse) on the GSL for months. He had several 4e items in pre production (including a 4e Tome of Horrors and an adventure path). He attempted to take a stab at a version of "old school" 4e.
> 
> I don't know if you think you're being fair Vyvyan or if you yourself are being intentionally obtuse.




Sorry. You're right, I'm not being fair. I too looked forward to his involvement with 4E and it is a shame he and WotC could not work things out.

Edit: My only excuse is the oddity of being attacked for a premise of "4E is less popular because there are other good D&D choices out there." A simple observation of "now" vs. "then" and I get dogpiled by h4ters who think I'm defending 4E. What part of "I understand why someone might not like 4E" could be any clearer that I wasn't here to defend my edition of choice?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'm starting to think that one of the reasons that 4E is not as popular as it could have been is that WotC underestimated the number of people who think that exploration is a necessary prerequisite for roleplaying.




I'm not sure what you mean. I'm currently running a World of Greyhawk exploration campaign using 4E.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. I'm currently running a World of Greyhawk exploration campaign using 4E.




I have quite a bit of exploration in my 4E campaigns, too.  Maybe I shouldn't have weakened what I wanted to say:  That apparently some people think exploration *is* the sum total of roleplaying.  Or maybe the heart of roleplaying.  I don't know exactly what they are thinking, and it's dangerous to assume thoughts.  It's tied into simulation preference, too.  Maybe that's it, since I'm perfectly happy with exploration that isn't sim, but apparently for some people I'm deluding myself with a string of mini-skimish battles and calling it exploration.  Real roleplayers would do it different.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Well, you've lost me here. What is the GM presenting - beginnings? or endings? Beginnings don't need much of a world, as per the example in my previous post: tell the players to look at the PHB and build something out of that. As for endings, they don't come from the GM deciding in advance. They come from playing the game. And the necessary setting for framing and resolving a situation can also be provided by the GM in the course of playing the game.




The GM is the narrator. I like to think of him as the criminologist in Rocky Horror.

The players are both the audience and Brad, Janet, Columbia, Eddie, and Rocky.

When the criminologist speaks he is both telling part of the story, but setting up the next challenge in it. While telling it he knows where the story is heading, but even to tell the story he had to piece it together from what the players did.

So he plays both parts of the movie, but one of the is off-screen. When he narrates what he found he is offering the situations just as they were offered to the players, and we see the "action" that happened because of the results of the players choices.

So the DM knows where the story is headed, and what is to come in the story. Just the players often contort that skipping parts, and making others loop back on themselves.



> Other than the empires,




Yeah you are offered NAMES for things, and if you don't like the very few selections, you have to work from the ground up. The planes can be thrown out. Leave Planeswalking for Magic The Gathering as I never really cared for it. As others mentioned there is a lot of little stuff, but no setting. You must create the world, as I said before, because you are sitting in the Ivory Tower with this little bits of stuff floating nearby otherwise surrounded by The Nothing. Because nothing is what the PoL setting is for a *setting*.

What empires are in the PHB or DMG?



> Huh? Permeable means permeable.




 Therefore it is NOT cut-off or disconnected in in way, but secluded.

Darby O'Gill likewise was not supposed to return after following the king and IIRC he did not...until the king played a final trick on him for his selflessness.

But it wasn't cut-off, just secluded, as there WAS a natural means of getting there.

Their terminology and word us is lacking, in many areas of 4th edition.



> I wasn't in any doubt that you don't like the default 4e setting. But it doesn't follow from your dislike




Previous editions had a medieval backdrop. You plugged the game into it. 4th has nothing. If you assume still a medieval backdrop then it wasn't because this was offered. It also looks a bit silly to MANY as you are no longer in a human-centric world.

These are two pretty big elements of a setting. In past ediitons it was explained why elves didn't rule the world through the mechanics of them having level limits. This was lifted in 3rd but their lifespans still remain very long. I am not sure 3rd took care of the problem and didn't end up having a elf-centric world.

4th I am not currently sure which race would rule, but the concept MIGHT be fixed if for some reason one assumes that ONLY the PCs have levels. But that dissolves my suspension of disbelief when one human can be a PC, but another cannot as there is absolutely nothing that prevents them outside of the game mechanics. If the setting said, some were born touched by gods or something, but the gods don't even participate in 4th and are there by name only. See the discussion about "paladins are always paladins and never fall" going on around here somewhere. PoL offers a few things, but in doing so sets up mixed signals because it doesn't really know what it is.

If you are giving me a setting, then give it to me. If you are telling me to make it, then get the hell out of my way and don't open your mouth with your ideas, so I CAN make it.

LotR does this nicely by starting off telling you about Middle Earth in that the world of [hu]man is coming.



> W&M (which you yourself deny establish a setting).




Never read the book as I wouldn't pay for advertising. If it was an important part of a setting, then it should be contained in one place, and being the default setting, should be in that place in its entirety when the game comes out. Not requiring the thread on trying to find the bits and pieces of it that have been presented over 2 years in all sorts of places.

What did your play actually do to "build" your settings? Note I despise the use of the word build for anything that is not a tangible structure.

Did you have a town spring up because the players suddenly wanted to visit it with JIT DMing? Did a race suddenly come into existence?

What significant thing about the setting did this JIT create?



> I don't know what your approach to GMing is. But I know that I can run a session for my players with nothing but a map, some inhabitants and a few ideas linking that situation to the myth and history of the gameworld.



I don't even need that much before I sit down to run, but that isn't my point. You and I are not the only players.

The popularity is based on the number of players. If 4th isnt popular, what could be the reasons. That is what we are going about in this thread. I think?

Well I agree that a lack of setting for those, unlike ourselves, could be a big reason. Again taking into account all other forms of entertainment made to envelop the reader in it, 4th is very lacking in getting things across that could envelop many.

Maybe the setting is there, it is just hidden in the tactical grid based game.



> The problem with your quantum mechanical analogy is that a fiction doesn't have to have a state until the author chooses.




The problem you seem to be having is WHO the author is. The DM is the set[ting] designer, director, and editor, and the players are the screenwriters.

Thus the DM must make the story fit in the set designed. It doesn't mean a new set can be made for a change in ACT VI once the play is in action.

Once the play is in action for OTHERS to view, all things should have been figured out.

Imagine viewing the story AFTER as that is how others would. The screenwriters may want something, but the director has already decided what will work in the world.



			
				James Cameron said:
			
		

> Neytiri "has ," even though "that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals."




Luckily he played every part, but as the director, had they not had "bewbs" the director chooses and can override the screenwriters choice.

Likewise the same for dragonborn. 

The players, screenwriters, only use the tools given put a story together with them, with approval of the director.



> If I'm making something up, I don't check it.




What are you creating that is so significant to the setting? Flammable jewelry is really a novelty bit and doesn't nor should it, play a large role in the overall plot unless that is what you wanted.

I work in either of two ways. I have things done in advance or have NOTHING done in advance. The problem with having nothing is as I explained before, you MUST have something still: the setting. I do always have something. cities don't pop up over night while the characters sleep.

You have to have a foundation before you can build a house. Your maps, and such ARE your setting. JIT doesn't create new maps for you "on the fly", you must have them in advance of playing in them.

If you leave an undescribed location via "HERE THERE BE DRAGONS" on the map, then you already decided to place something there later when needed. You didn't make the world bigger, you just colored in the drawing already there. If nobody ever visits that area, then your setting was still created from the start as there is still nothing there now. The void has not been replaced and its state remains unchanged.


----------



## Herschel

pawsplay said:


> - Competing with a recently published, successful version of the game rather than the degenerate, overpublished gasps of a game in its waning years




Actually, it was replacing a degenerate, overpublished corpse of a game, it's just that many modern zombies have internet access and others were drawn to the alluring scent of Bactine.


----------



## Matt James

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'm starting to think that one of the reasons that 4E is not as popular as it could have been is that WotC underestimated the number of people who think that exploration is a necessary prerequisite for roleplaying.




Metrics please.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Matt James said:


> Metrics please.




The same ones used by the people saying it isn't popular. Only I'm not going on the basis of my anecdotes, but theirs--or at least as stated here and other topics. Also, the choice of smiley was not accidental ... 

If a group of, say, NFL fans are screaming about the players not wearing enough ballerina outfits during the game, then I'll assume the NFL has equally failed to cater to their needs, and I'm sure the NFL will be equally unpopular with this group.


----------



## Matt James

Damn smilies!


----------



## pemerton

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'm starting to think that one of the reasons that 4E is not as popular as it could have been is that WotC underestimated the number of people who think that exploration is a necessary prerequisite for roleplaying.





Crazy Jerome said:


> I have quite a bit of exploration in my 4E campaigns, too.  Maybe I shouldn't have weakened what I wanted to say:  That apparently some people think exploration *is* the sum total of roleplaying.  Or maybe the heart of roleplaying.  I don't know exactly what they are thinking, and it's dangerous to assume thoughts.  It's tied into simulation preference, too.  Maybe that's it, since I'm perfectly happy with exploration that isn't sim, but apparently for some people I'm deluding myself with a string of mini-skimish battles and calling it exploration.  Real roleplayers would do it different.



Crazy Jerome, I think we're very much on the same page here.

Upthread I posted that, when 4e was released, I assumed that WotC had market research showing that Ron Edwards was right to hypothesize that there was a big, unmet demand for narrativist, character-&-situation-driven RPGs.

But it seems that they didn't - or, if they did, then maybe they need to find some new market researchers!

I also share the frustration you express in your second post. I get frustrated with the repeated implication that if exploration (and especially exploration of the gameworld mediated by a simulationist understanding of the mechanics) is not at the heart, then I'm not roleplaying. 

(I also get frustrated because I've never seen one of those who makes these implications explain to me how it is that HeroWars/Quest players are also not roleplaying - which is an obvious consequence of the "no-sim > no roleplyaing" inference.)


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> I also share the frustration you express in your second post. I get frustrated with the repeated implication that if exploration (and especially exploration of the gameworld mediated by a simulationist understanding of the mechanics) is not at the heart, then I'm not roleplaying.




It isn't that if you aren't exploring that you aren't roleplaying, but the popularity of a game known and for 30+ years mentioned about in its exploration area is where the exploration comes into play.

People looking for it that see no place to explore (no default setting) may not think very highly of that game. They are likely to view it as a tactical combat simulator.

Whether you agree with their views, if someone sees the game as such and was looking for an immersive exploratory game, then you must accept the reason they are not interested in it is due to the lack of exploration presented.

If you have limited time to game, and many are still showing several hour lonf combats with 4th, and all your time is spent in combat for a session; you will likely not like that game and it will not be popular with other players like you if you are looking for exploration.


----------



## ourchair

Traveon Wyvernspur said:


> I'm not sure why people continue to post these types of threads other than a sick fascination with watching the edition wars start all over again. People just start to flame on the editions, which leads to people flaming on each other, which leads to the threads being closed.
> 
> I personally like all editions of D&D, they are all fun to me and each has it's own flavor. Role playing is role playing to me and the edition is just about different mechanics. I won't say anything disparaging about anyone here nor will I say anything disparaging about various editions.



I absolutely do not get how the OP's discussion of the shortcomings of WotC's notion of campaign support is makes him/her one of the "people who continue to post these types of threads" about edition wars, unless you were addressing Moleculo's remark about how 4E don't smell like DnD.

And even then, the OP's post provided solid well thought-out theories and constructive ideas, so I hardly think the thread he started was fanning new flames into an Edition War.

Back on topic, I think it's important to emphasize that when the OP says, "why 4e is not as popular as it could have been," he may not necessarily mean "why 4e is not popular" or "why 4e is less popular than previous editions," but rather strongly making the case for how campaign settings support has helped shore up the sales of previous editions.

In which case, I totally agree. 

I'm a newbie GM and I found that as someone who had no hands-on experience with DnD itself prior to 4th Edition, the setting books were really sparse. I think that there's certainly merit from the direction that the Heinsoo/Collins team wanted -- less book dictated fluff, more GM fiat --  but between players who know the setting and GMs looking for more guidance, it's not necessarily the only approach they should have taken.

One could even say that the reason why 3E Eberron acquired setting popularity comparable to (if not equal to) the Realms is that they put out a hideous amount of splat books, ensuring that it was fleshed out enough for GMs to not just be attracted it as "The New Shiny." It guaranteed that older setting-omniscient GMs had something to draw from when their players asked for Eberron. 

But that's not the main point I'd like to make in this post.

Rather, I'd like to point out that it's all well and good when Internet GM advice sites and forums say, "Forgotten Realms should always be YOUR Forgotten Realms" or "Don't pay attention to what novels made canon," or even "Who cares if the Ford Klingons were contradicted by Trek canon, use em if you like em," but it's another thing entirely when you've got people opposite the GM screen expecting your version of a setting to conform to their idea of the setting.

Granted, I'm not suggesting that GMs be complete pushovers about their control and authority over the game world they're running. What I'm saying is that the lack of setting support means that there's no well-established hook to put 4E on, unlike say, Shadowrun (a setting/system I love) or nWOD (a setting/system I loathe) which possess well-developed worlds create the logic you can hang their rules upon but don't preclude a GM's ability to make the game their own.


----------



## Greg K

pemerton said:


> But it seems that they didn't - or, if they did, then maybe they need to find some new market researchers!




Based upon the  WOTC surveys and Market research at Gen Con So Cal, I have long  thought they do need new market researchers.  After having done market research interviews (non for WOTC) and seen many good and bad surveys, I have become more convinced.

The WOTC  surveys and market research I saw seemed to be.. telling us what a great job we are doing or how awesome this is.  If you didn't like something, there was no opportunity to say what you don't like about it and why.  They surveys rated among some of the worst I, personally, had to read and felt bad about trying to get people to participate in.

The only decent survey I saw for D&D was the pre-3e questionaire. I don't know if it was TSR or WOTC that conducted it.


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> The GM is the narrator. I like to think of him as the criminologist in Rocky Horror.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When the criminologist speaks he is both telling part of the story, but setting up the next challenge in it. While telling it he knows where the story is heading
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So the DM knows where the story is headed, and what is to come in the story.



Ok, I think this is where we part ways. When I GM I generally don't know what is to come in the story. I _do_ know what some of the key game elements are likely to be - the PCs, perhaps a few central antagonits, maybe a few prominent locations - but I don't know precisely who, when or (most importantly) how and what until the game gets there.

For example, and focusing on some key moments in my current game - I didn't know that the PCs would enter into a contract with the duergar slavers for the redemption of slaves until it happened; I didn't know that the wizard would brutally execute the defeated hobgoblins, or brutally kill the tiefling devil-worshipper as he and the party fled a collapsing demonic temple, until it happened; I didn't know that the chaos sorcerer would bargain with an imp to try and gain better control of the chaotic forces utnil it happened; I didn't know that the dwarven fighter would become a warpriest of Moradin until it happened; etc etc.

At the moment the party is likely either to enter the Feywild, or to strike of to the city of Threshold (Night's Dark Terror - which is also the city of Adakmi from Heathen). Very different things await them in each place. I won't know what the story is until it happens.



shadzar said:


> What did your play actually do to "build" your settings?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Did you have a town spring up because the players suddenly wanted to visit it with JIT DMing? Did a race suddenly come into existence?
> 
> What significant thing about the setting did this JIT create?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What are you creating that is so significant to the setting?



Well, the ruler of a town was created because the players wanted their PCs to meet with him.

The history of the minotaurs as past rulers over the dwarves was introduced by me in order to put some pressure on the player of the dwarf.

The gods worshipped by a particular cult - Bahamut, Kord, Pelor and Ioun - were introduced in the course of play, as was their hostility to the Raven Queen and the notion that their burial practices were intended to stop the Raven Queen getting to deal with their souls. Also introduced in the course of play was the reason why the wizard who was one of the leaders of this cult, as well as a chief wizard of Nerath, was killed by an apprentice: the wizard was trying to develop a process that would permit him, without violating those burial practices, to nevertheless harness the energy of the shadowfell to defend Nerath from invading gnolls (perhaps by making undead or golems).

That's probably enough examples for the moment. Given what I've already posted upthread about PoL, about my PCs, and about my game, I think it's pretty obvious how the second and third of these are highly significant for my game.



shadzar said:


> the DM must make the story fit in the set designed. It doesn't mean a new set can be made for a change in ACT VI once the play is in action.
> 
> Once the play is in action for OTHERS to view, all things should have been figured out.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Your maps, and such ARE your setting. JIT doesn't create new maps for you "on the fly", you must have them in advance of playing in them.



Maps can actually be the least important part of a setting.

In my current game I am using the maps from Nights Dark Terror, because that is the scenario that I am (loosely) running, and it has some nice maps. A few times my PCs have wandered off the map, and I haven't needed to fill in the blank spaces - a bit of logical extrapolation in the context of an overland travel skill challenge has done the job.

In my previous Rolemaster campaign one important scenario involved the PCs travelling to an island where they knew that a dragon was guarding a portal to hell. I ran multiple sessions of the PCs searching the island, fighting trolls and dragonspawn on the island, finding the dragon's lair beneath an illusion, entering the lair, sneaking past the dragon and entering the portal without any maps drawn in advance. (Rolemaster doesn't need tactical battle maps, so when a fight breaks out, if distances become important a quick sketch of the terrain and the locations of the combatants does the job. Likewise for sneaking past a dragon - a quick diagram of the dragon's cave drawn up on the spot does the job.)

As to things having to have been figured out in advance, that's just not true. For example - do the witches the PCs are talking to know the name of the wizard who helped them? I didn't know the answer to that question until it became important to decide it in the course of the conversation with the PCs. I decided that they did, and that they would share it with the PCs, because this seemed likely to drive the game forward in a more interesting way. Why did the witches send the PCs travelling back in time? I didn't know the answer to this question when I started the scenario. I only worked out an answer _after_ running the scenario - in the course of running the scenario it became clear, as I described above, what had been motivating the wizard whose manor the PCs were exploring in the past (namely, a desire to harness necromantic magic), and I was then able to use this idea to impute a motivation to the witches. Some of that motivation then emerged in the next session.

In short, you are saying that things can't be done, that can be done - and I know this because I do them.



shadzar said:


> Previous editions had a medieval backdrop.



As does 4e, presumably, when you look at the illustrations, the armour and weaopns list, the paragon paths (Warpriest, Knight Commander, Sword Marshall, Kensai, Battle Archer, Hospitaller - I'm getting a consistent vibe here).



shadzar said:


> 4th has nothing. If you assume still a medieval backdrop then it wasn't because this was offered. It also looks a bit silly to MANY as you are no longer in a human-centric world.



The Hobbit does not take place in a human-centric world - the world of the is centred on Elves, Dwarves, Goblins and Hobbits. I think it is still fair to say that it is a roughly medieval backdrop.



shadzar said:


> 4th I am not currently sure which race would rule, but the concept MIGHT be fixed if for some reason one assumes that ONLY the PCs have levels. But that dissolves my suspension of disbelief when one human can be a PC, but another cannot as there is absolutely nothing that prevents them outside of the game mechanics.



Ok, so now I think I can see where you might be coming from.

Let's look at it another way. In 1st ed AD&D only 10% of humans can gain levels. Furthermore, classed NPCs have different stat requirements from classed PCs. (Both these rules are set out in the DMG.) Does this mean that 90% of humans are in some sense defective? Or that PCs are defective, because they have stricter stat requirements than NPCs? No, it does not. These aren't simulationist rules, trying to model some causal process in the gameworld. They're metagame rules, setting the parameters for play. The result of these metagame rules, for the gameworld, is that (i) heroic-types are only a small part of the population, and (ii) all players play characters who are heroic-types, and (iii) all player heroic types tend, stat-wise, to be at the upper end of the spectrum.

The PC- and NPC-build rules in 4e are likewise metagame rules.

The only edition of D&D I'm aware of that tries to have the build rules be simulationist rather than metagame is 3E. In this it resembles games like Traveller, Runequest and Rolemaster.

Both sorts of games can be fun to play, although the different buid rules will tend to produce different play experiences. But it is a mistake to read the rules for one sort of game as if they were rules for the other. If your own suspension of disbelief can't handle metagame character build rules, that's fine by me. But it doesn't follow from your own personal preferences that 4e is badly designed.



shadzar said:


> the gods don't even participate in 4th and are there by name only.



Except that they created the world, send angels about in the world, and are likely to be the pre-eminent antagonists in high level play. Of all editions of D&D, 4e is the only one that starts from the premise that high level play will involve the players directly in dealings with, and perhaps fighting against, the gods. (As is evidenced by the Demigod epic destiny appearing in the PHB.)



shadzar said:


> Yeah you are offered NAMES for things, and if you don't like the very few selections, you have to work from the ground up. The planes can be thrown out.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You must create the world, as I said before, because you are sitting in the Ivory Tower with this little bits of stuff floating nearby otherwise surrounded by The Nothing. Because nothing is what the PoL setting is for a *setting*.
> 
> What empires are in the PHB or DMG?



Well, you are offered names and histories. And a cosmology. And a creation myth. But yes, if you throw all that out then you will have nothing. Much like if I pick up Greyhawk but decide I don't like Suel, pseudo-Arabs (sorry, Baklun), pseudo-Amerindians (sorry, Flan), pseudo-Vikings (sorry, the Thilronian kingdoms) and pseudo-medieval Europeans (sorry, the Oeridian kingdoms) then I'll have nothing.

Luckily, when I use Greyhawk I don't throw those things out. It's because I want them that I use the setting. And when I use PoL I don't throw out it's elements either.

As for empires, we get Nerath (the most recent, human empire), Bael Turath (the fallen tiefling empire) and Arkhosia (the fallen dragonborn empire). Plus the eladrin cities of the Feywild. Plus various other bits and pieces in the Monster Manual.

Is you complaint simply that there's no map? No timeline? Both those things are true. But if you are saying that a fantasy RPG can't be run without a map and a timeline, I think you're just mistaken.

Does the _market_ want maps and timelines? I'm pretty sure it does - hence my comments on the OP, that I think the problem for 4e isn't so much the lack of setting, but the design features that mean that it's not best suited to a "map and timeline" style game.

But you appear to be asserting that a game run without a map and timeline _cannot_ be anything but a string of random combat encounters. And that assertion is just nonsense.


----------



## pemerton

ourchair said:


> I'm a newbie GM and I found that as someone who had no hands-on experience with DnD itself prior to 4th Edition, the setting books were really sparse. I think that there's certainly merit from the direction that the Heinsoo/Collins team wanted -- less book dictated fluff, more GM fiat --  but between players who know the setting and GMs looking for more guidance, it's not necessarily the only approach they should have taken.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it's all well and good when Internet GM advice sites and forums say, "Forgotten Realms should always be YOUR Forgotten Realms" or "Don't pay attention to what novels made canon," or even "Who cares if the Ford Klingons were contradicted by Trek canon, use em if you like em," but it's another thing entirely when you've got people opposite the GM screen expecting your version of a setting to conform to their idea of the setting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the lack of setting support means that there's no well-established hook to put 4E on



Interesting post.

When I told my players to make PCs in accordance with the PHB, including it's default setting, I got interesting PCs back. And since then, in play, I haven't had any trouble with canon - the players have used those parts of the setting they like, like a particular god or the history of fallen Nerath, to develop aspects of their PCs, and I've done the same to drive the game forward.

But we are all experienced RPGers (all but one playing since the 1980s, the other since the late 90s).

Is it harder for new players to read a few sentences about the eladrin cities in the Feywild, or the fall of Nerath, or the cult of the Raven Queen, and get ideas for their PCs? I ask this as a genuine question, because I haven't played with a new player since 1998, and the premise for that game was "Kurosawa movies meet mid-90s Hong Kong movies like The Bride with White Hair, Tai Chi Master and Green Snake" - and he was familiar with those movies.


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> People looking for it that see no place to explore (no default setting) may not think very highly of that game. They are likely to view it as a tactical combat simulator.
> 
> Whether you agree with their views, if someone sees the game as such and was looking for an immersive exploratory game, then you must accept the reason they are not interested in it is due to the lack of exploration presented.



Well, given that I made more-or-less this very point back at post #76, I agree.

It doesn't follow, though, that people who think 4e is just a skirmish game, or that you can't run a rich FRPG without maps and a timeline, are correct. That's why I also complained in the same post upthread that WotC could have done a better job in their rulebooks of explaining how to GM this sort of game.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Let me jump back into world building real quick:

Absolutely 4e is better for wold building for me.  Absolutely.  There is literally *zero* question in my mind.  And absolutely 4e is better at "simulation" then 3e is.  The idea that 3e is "simulationist" in any way is bizarre to me.  What's the simulation?  That I can completely destroy the economy of the entire universe by sawing ladders in half?

See, every time in 3e I wanted to make a cool homebrew setting, I came across the same problem.

Magic.

Magic destroys the simulation.  Completely.  It destroys the world.  How do you handle a class that can literally _talk to God_ in your world?  How do you deal with a wizard who can create perpetual energy on whim?  A druid that ends the very concept of drought?  And if I want to follow the rules directly, every "cool thing" I want needs to be do-able by PCs, needs to be statted out, and needs to be magical.

While making my homebrew campaign I tried too make it as edition neutral as I could while still being based on 4e, because hey, I rather like old editions too, and I might wanna play it in them.  But as I went, 3e problems kept creeping up.

"The halfling and shifter islands are the standard fantasy floating in the air kind, and only the halflings have tamed flying creatures massive enough for transporting goods, ensuring they hold control over trade and travel."
_But what about a wizard that casts flying spells or overland flight or a druid from simply wildshaping into said massive beast?_

"The gnome and dwarf wars came down inevitably to a stark difference in religious ideology.  The dwarves are all religious to a single dwarf, and have a firm believe in an unchangable soul.  The gnomes are by and large agnostics, regarding "gods" as merely very powerful individuals if they exist at all, and regard the soul as mutable."
_But what happens when a cleric rings up their god and asks them directly?  Either side can just call the divine powers that be and ask them who is right._

"The human-blooded city states were united under a single flag when three saints - a half-elf, master of personal combat, courtesy, and subtle verse; a half-orc champion with the strength of thirty warriors and the ability to shrug off all but the most fatal of attacks; and a human , bound the city states together and formed an alliance with the Dragonborn to the south, sundering the rampaging orcish horde."
_How did the warrior contribute to this tremendous war effort?  This was at a time when magic didn't function at all - how did these heroes hold back an entire army without using or having any magic at all?  These are meant to be characters the PCs will look up to and even someday emulate, how can I do that without any magical items or magical buffs?

_"Should they go down this adventure line, the adventurers will find themselves challenged with delving deep into the remains of the past elven capital to find the self proclaimed "emperor" and stop him from finishing a ritual that will turn him into one of the Fey, granting incredible power to a very horrible individual."
_What spell is this?  How do I stat this out?  Can the PCs learn it?  God, I don't want them to.  How does this actually work in game?

_Every step of the way I found more and more holes in the setting, except they were holes that existed in every setting.  Flying monsters are exceedingly rare in my setting, but wizards aren't.  How are there castles and fortifications with flying wizards?  How is there religious ambiguity when clerics can talk to the divine at whim?  How are there wars when a few cloudkills render the whole thing meaningless?  What's the point of a proud warrior tradition of any ol' cleric or wizard can be a better fighter?

Even worse, in all these examples, most of the problems introduced by magic are done so at relatively _low_ levels.  This isn't even getting into the mess of problems behind higher level spells.

In short, I wanted a setting that was not The Wizards of Wizardville Fight the Clerics of Clerictown.

So yeah, I very solidly denounce the idea that 4e is bad for world building.  4e is *amazing* at world building because now I don't have to constantly worry about "someone has a spell" ruining everything.  And it "simulates" the feel and genres and styles I want perfectly.

D&D has never simulated a world.  Never.  It never tried to.  It never wanted to.  This whole "simulationism" thing is bizarro and jumped out of nowhere in 3e - I never saw nor heard of anything like it once before.

The heart of D&D was never to explore and experience Medieval Europe as if it also had mages walking around I guess even though they for whatever reason don't radically alter the universe.  It was to take a genre or a style you like and simulate _that_.  In the oldest editions it was "Hey, you like Conan?  In D&D you can throw a throne at an evil wizard and then steal all the gold and run away as fast as you can!"  In 2e it was "Hey, you like Lord of the Rings?  In D&D you can be a semi-useless thief that takes orders from an epic level wizard that doesn't just solve anything because I dunno, screw you!"  And in 3e it was "Hey, do you have _any_ cocked out, bizarre, mishmash fantasy idea?  Multiclaaaaaaaaass!"

And 4e doesn't change that.  You're still Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis, roleplaying out being Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis.  The world and setting make just as much sense as they always have: _None._


----------



## ProfessorCirno

I mean come on, simulationism?

When you get down to it D&D is about medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon and a pastiche of modern morality, fighting against evil brain eating space aliens from the future.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Well, the ruler of a town was created because the players wanted their PCs to meet with him.




I don't have a story planned out, but the things the PCs CAN interact with. There isn't much empty room where they can reach.

Like your town here HAD a ruler to begin with, you just gave him stats. Otherwise you are saying the town had no governing body until the players wanted to speak to a member of it?

Wait, you said JIT is in response to players something is created, but your examples all just sound like prior planned descriptions, not something created with JIT just because the players want to interact and engage with it. Like your town ruler, it existed, you just didn't fill in all the blanks. The fact a ruler existed was part of the setting. Your JIT created the person, not the position.



> Maps can actually be the least important part of a setting.




 I don't know about that. When running a game you sort of need to know where things are so you don't end up placing Neverwinter on top of Waterdeep. A DM needs to know where things are to maintain the continuity, otherwise the players will end up seeing it.

Neverwinter is 30 miles due North of where you are.
ENville is 50 miles due North
Waterdeep is 20 miles due South of ENville.

If the DM doesn't have his stuff together ready to play, I would rather call it a night and wait until the enxt time when he is. It is bad enough players flipping manuals waiting to find the right thing at times, when a DM does it, he looks disorganized.



> As to things having to have been figured out in advance, that's just not true. For example - do the witches the PCs are talking to know the name of the wizard who helped them? I didn't know the answer to that question until it became important to decide it in the course of the conversation with the PCs.




I am seeing the problem here...our playstyles dont agree with each other. I would definitely not want something like "does this group of people have information on X" to be something done at the last minute.

Maybe your JIT and the link giving just isnt translating some piece of key info that explains it in the creation field,.

Just seems a clash of playstyles in translation is all.



> As does 4e, presumably, when you look at the illustrations, the armour and weaopns list, the paragon paths




 What does 4th edition tiers have to do with medieval?

You are seeing medieval in just "things". Like the previous discussion where medieval came in there is a bit more that is offered in older editions than in 4th. The caste system and feudalism in parts were there, while 4th is lacking them totally? As that poster mentioned it jsut wasn't enough of the feudalism and caste system for their liking to consider it medieval, but it was there, and now is not.

I don't see medieval when looking at 4th. I honestly see more along the lines of Star Wars looking past the "things" such a the equipment lists. Even then it isn't a real structured government.

It looks more like a sword and sorcery world and society such as Conan, with high fantasy mechanics with magic items and users running rampant.




> The Hobbit does not take place in a human-centric world - the world of the is centred on Elves, Dwarves, Goblins and Hobbits. I think it is still fair to say that it is a roughly medieval backdrop.




Yes high fantasy fits well in medieval parameters, we agree on that.



> In 1st ed AD&D only 10% of humans can gain levels.



 You will have to show me where it says anything about that.

That whole section I am lost on until we get this "only 10% humans can gain levels" sorted out.



> Except that they created the world, send angels about in the world, and are likely to be the pre-eminent antagonists in high level play. Of all editions of D&D, 4e is the only one that starts from the premise that high level play will involve the players directly in dealings with, and perhaps fighting against, the gods.




The gods creating the world is pretty much assumed in ALL fantasy games, says nothing about setting.

Again the "monsters" to engage in combat in at a certain level, is not really something that sets up the game world in regards to the setting.

Just because 4th edition makes some mechanics around the concept of forcing players to fight gods at certain levels, it doesn't mean other editions couldn't do so, nor again does it help really create a setting for the game. This is part of the mechanical design.



> But yes, if you throw all that out then you will have nothing.




Again gods don't really set anything up. All have them or don't. Very minor detail of a setting. What are the gods doing? Again nothing until you reach a level to fight them. Paladins can go off mass murdering children and still be a paladin after sitting on the pile of corpses polishing his armor.

These things aren't very many, you act like throwing them out is hard to do, finding useful parts to piece together was the problem had in the thread I linked.

You have to search the books and read every word to piece together the setting.

This was mentioned by someone else, maybe yourself; that things may have been taken for granted in other editions as you moved up, but 4th offers so much less than any previous edition.

Has someone made and index, not a website/wiki, of what pages in the PHB to find the bits and pieces of PoL?

Like I said, I surely don't see medieval just because the gear used.



> the problem for 4e isn't so much the lack of setting, but the design features that mean that it's not best suited to a "map and timeline" style game.




Which is where the need for a setting comes for some, or where the lack of popularity comes from those that are looking for that "map and timeline" style game.

It seems to work for you, and gives you what you are looking for. While hitting your mark, it sadly misses it for others. 



> But you appear to be asserting that a game run without a map and timeline cannot be anything but a string of random combat encounters. And that assertion is just nonsense.




Well it sure feels like it to me. As one who likes the exploration aspect rather than constant hack-n-slash, 4th seems to be wanting...

4th seems a great dungeon crawl creation tool. I don't want to only play dungeon crawls.

Popularity is based on the interest in the game, which is in turn based on the "feeling" it gives people.

It feels good to you, but to me I feel like I have been given slices of bread and am looking for the rest of my sandwich so I can start devouring it.


----------



## pawsplay

ProfessorCirno said:


> I mean come on, simulationism?
> 
> When you get down to it D&D is about medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon and a pastiche of modern morality, fighting against evil brain eating space aliens from the future.




That's why it's called simulation. If it were real, they would call it reality.


----------



## Aeolius

ProfessorCirno said:


> When you get down to it D&D is about medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon and a pastiche of modern morality, fighting against evil brain eating space aliens from the future.




fun-sucker.


----------



## BryonD

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I get dogpiled by h4ters who think I'm defending 4E. What part of "I understand why someone might not like 4E" could be any clearer that I wasn't here to defend my edition of choice?



As a someone who isn't a "h4ter", I note a hint of hypocrisy buried in that....


----------



## ProfessorCirno

pawsplay said:


> That's why it's called simulation. If it were real, they would call it reality.




You are missing my point entirely.

The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting.  The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.



Aeolius said:


> fun-sucker.




Hey now, that's Fun Tyrant   Who else would DM the "tyranny of fun?"


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Hello ProfessorCirno,

Firstly, good post, well-made points and a very interesting world to boot.
Secondly, just a few thoughts:




ProfessorCirno said:


> See, every time in 3e I wanted to make a cool homebrew setting, I came across the same problem.
> 
> Magic.
> 
> Magic destroys the simulation.  Completely.  It destroys the world.  How do you handle a class that can literally _talk to God_ in your world?



Magic and Talking to God are only as powerful as you let them be. I've always liked the "Mages deal with things that they shouldn't" trope. If magic becomes dangerous to perform (because some devil is about to steal your soul or the locals with the pitchforks are going to hunt you down etc.) then you can put a cap on the influence magic actually has upon your world while making it mysterious and something interesting to play around with.
Talking to God abilities might be a little over-rated as well. He "says" he talks to God but it's all in his head (maybe or maybe not). Links that faith angle in which I think can be cool to play around with. Except maybe the Dark Gods have their powers manifest more obviously than the good ones... perhaps.




ProfessorCirno said:


> How do you deal with a wizard who can create perpetual energy on whim?



You need to bash 3E around to make it cost something but it can be done.



ProfessorCirno said:


> A druid that ends the very concept of drought?



Does he? Perhaps there is drought there for a reason and something that a Druid would not think of tampering with. Druids to me can be "unhelpful" in fulfilling the requests of a "civilized" population who have no idea of the patterns of nature. They dance to their own tune so to speak.



ProfessorCirno said:


> And if I want to follow the rules directly, every "cool thing" I want needs to be do-able by PCs, needs to be statted out, and needs to be magical.



IF you want to follow the rules directly which perhaps is the first thing you don't do when crafting a homebrew.



ProfessorCirno said:


> So yeah, I very solidly denounce the idea that 4e is bad for world building.  4e is *amazing* at world building because now I don't have to constantly worry about "someone has a spell" ruining everything.  And it "simulates" the feel and genres and styles I want perfectly.



And more power to you. It works for some and obviously not for others.



ProfessorCirno said:


> D&D has never simulated a world.  Never.  It never tried to.  It never wanted to.  This whole "simulationism" thing is bizarro and jumped out of nowhere in 3e - I never saw nor heard of anything like it once before.
> 
> The heart of D&D was never to explore and experience Medieval Europe as if it also had mages walking around I guess even though they for whatever reason don't radically alter the universe.  It was to take a genre or a style you like and simulate _that_.  In the oldest editions it was "Hey, you like Conan?  In D&D you can throw a throne at an evil wizard and then steal all the gold and run away as fast as you can!"  In 2e it was "Hey, you like Lord of the Rings?  In D&D you can be a semi-useless thief that takes orders from an epic level wizard that doesn't just solve anything because I dunno, screw you!"  And in 3e it was "Hey, do you have _any_ cocked out, bizarre, mishmash fantasy idea?  Multiclaaaaaaaaass!"
> 
> And 4e doesn't change that.  You're still Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis, roleplaying out being Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis.  The world and setting make just as much sense as they always have: _None._




Perhaps a sidenote.

When I think of "simulation", I think of mechanics and how well the flavour meshes with the mechanics, in other words how well the mechanics tell a story about the flavour of the something they represent. The mechanics simulate the features and physics of the world so that if "someone" does "something", the result will be predictable (or not if the DM wants to come up with a twist - which will eventually make mechanical sense and enrich the world in the process). The mechanics help inform your knowledge and perspective upon the world they craft. To my mind 3E does this exceedingly well where as 4E tells it to get back in its black box and shut up.

As you point out though, when world-building 4E lets you craft what you want where as 3E makes you account for it (and as you point out most times unsuccessfully).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Umbran

ProfessorCirno said:


> I mean come on, simulationism?




Remember what you've said here, the next time you may be tempted to take exception to someone spreading scorn about something you like to do with your game.  'Cause you've pretty much lost any moral high ground you might have wanted in that situation.


----------



## BryonD

ProfessorCirno said:


> The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting.  The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.



Actually, I don't think any other editions were "simulationist".  I think there was a steady, but slow growth in that general direction, but it never got anywhere close.  A lot of other games shined a light on it and 3E learned from them and made an awesome quantum leap.  

(It doesn't "feel" like D&D, and in this specific case that is why I love it.)

As to the whole "implications of magic", there is a concept called "boundary conditions".  Suffice it to say that every issue you have raised is trivially removed by a quality gaming group who wants to create a cool shared reality.  And every issue you raised can be exploited to hell and back by either a bad group, or a good group that just wants to go that direction with it.  

I agree that the bad things can and do happen.  If you want to insist that the great things that do happen, in fact can not happen, then that would simply be you defining yourself into a position based solely on ignorance.  I'll leave it to you to accept or reject the reality of my game, because my game is going to ignore your opinion either way.


----------



## pawsplay

ProfessorCirno said:


> You are missing my point entirely.
> 
> The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting.  The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.




You seem to be conflating simulation with modern realism. Obviously, in a simulation of Golden Age Action Comics, a hat and glasses is an effective disguise for Clark Kent. If you can't account for that level of simulation, then your "point" seems to be setting up flimsy strawmen. Feel free to clarify if I have again missed your point. My point is that you don't seem to understand the purpose of simulation outside non-romantic, historical genres.


----------



## lutecius

ProfessorCirno said:


> You are missing my point entirely.
> 
> The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting.  The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.



I think you are missing what "the simulationist crowd" means by "simulation".


----------



## ProfessorCirno

pawsplay said:


> You seem to be conflating simulation with modern realism. Obviously, in a simulation of Golden Age Action Comics, a hat and glasses is an effective disguise for Clark Kent. If you can't account for that level of simulation, then your "point" seems to be setting up flimsy strawmen. Feel free to clarify if I have again missed your point. My point is that you don't seem to understand the purpose of simulation outside non-romantic, historical genres.




Clarify?

Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world.  My issue is that the thoughts behind the mechanics tend to ruin this greatly, and that this style of "simulationism" was never the intention.

Like I said, it never even came up when I played 2e.  It was accepted that the world made serious amounts of zero sense, and we loved it for it.  Really, a lot of the more "iconic" D&D monsters were made after children's toys.  Most of the major wizards connected to various spells are hilariously unimaginative (Melf = Male Elf).  It's really, really goofy.  It's also really _awesome_.



> Herremann and BryonD snipped




At what point do I stop banning spells and realize that it may be the underlying system that is a problem, though? I'm picking a bit on 3e because in many cases 2e wasn't as bad, but the underlying problems are not with individual spells but rather with the underlying idea of "There should be a spell for that."  To which I respond, "No, sometimes, there shouldn't be."

It's all well and good to want magic to be wonderous and mystical and strange, but it loses a lot - if not all - of that when it's in the PC's hands.  Because once they get it, it's a _tool_.



Umbran said:


> Remember what you've said here, the next time you  may be tempted to take exception to someone spreading scorn about  something you like to do with your game.  'Cause you've pretty much lost  any moral high ground you might have wanted in that situation.




Could you actually say what the problem is?  Because you cherry picked a  single sentence and you've told me basically nothing on how it makes me  lose any sort of moral high ground.

I stand by my statement. D&D is about medieval knights (paladins) in ren-era armor  (full plate mail), worshipping a greek pantheon (pantheons) and  following a pastiche of modern morality (alignment) while fighting evil  brain-sucking space aliens from the future (Illithids)

I could also bring up the evil magical cockroaches (rust monsters) and sentient acidic jello (gelatinous cubes).  But this isn't a _bad_ thing.

These are things we *love* about D&D.  I'm not making fun of  it.  I'm basking in it.  I wouldn't still be playing D&D if these  were things I disliked.

I can only speak for myself, but my best and most fond memories of  D&D, regardless of edition, are not ones in which I am captivated by  the "realism" of the setting, they aren't ones in which I am haggling  with a shopkeep or chatting with an NPC, and they aren't ones in which I  am out in the wilderness and not much happens.  My fondest memories are  ones in which something _utterly insane_ happens, the group is _horribly screwed_, and yet we manage to pull out butts out of the fire _somehow_.  

When the wild mage has a wild surge as combat is going bad and manages to roll "Heal spell to all allies."  

When the warblade is the last one standing and has just been paralyzed,  but Iron Heart Surges his way out of it, screams his battlecry, and  finishes the enemy off in one fantastic crit.  

When the group is empty on healing surges and the abominations are  closing in, and the psion has one use of Living Missile left and manages  to throw both abominations off a cliff with it.

These are the moments I remember from my games.  When everything looked terrible and we were doomed with certain death, and somehow we dragged ourselves kicking and screaming away from the reaper.  It wasn't a simulation of anything.  In most cases, it was really, really goofy.  But it sure as hell was fun!


----------



## Hussar

Shadzar said:
			
		

> Like your town here HAD a ruler to begin with, you just gave him stats. Otherwise you are saying the town had no governing body until the players wanted to speak to a member of it?
> 
> Wait, you said JIT is in response to players something is created, but your examples all just sound like prior planned descriptions, not something created with JIT just because the players want to interact and engage with it. Like your town ruler, it existed, you just didn't fill in all the blanks. The fact a ruler existed was part of the setting. Your JIT created the person, not the position




Not Pemerton, but, if I may?

You are absolutely right.  There was no governing body in this town until such time as the players wanted to interact with it.  Why was there no governing body?  Because there's no town.

Outside of what the PC's experience, there is nothing that has any fixed existence in any game world.  A GM is free to change, modify or completely ignore anything that's not relevant to the game at the moment.  Now, after something has been experienced, sure, you shouldn't retcon it but, then again, since it's been experienced, it's relavent.

So, no, you most certainly don't have to detail or even have a leader in a town until the players ask to see him.

In the same way that you don't need maps.  How far is X from Y?  Well, when you ask, I'll tell you and that number shall be the same forevermore for the sake of consistency.  But, if you never ask?  I have no idea.

That's the point of JIT DMing.  Only worry about the stuff that is actually relavent to the campaign.  It's either relavent because I, the DM, want to throw it at the party in some fashion, or it becomes relevant because the players make it so.

Everything else?  Exists in some quantum Heisenberg state while all my NPC's are sitting around the set drinking coffee and chomping donuts.


----------



## shadzar

ProfessorCirno said:


> Clarify?
> 
> Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world.  My issue is that the thoughts behind the mechanics tend to ruin this greatly, and that this style of "simulationism" was never the intention.
> 
> Like I said, it never even came up when I played 2e.




Depends on what you are trying to simulate. 2nd did a pretty darn good job of equipment simulation as there wasn't a thing left out almost in all the splatbooks.


----------



## pawsplay

ProfessorCirno said:


> Clarify?
> 
> Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world.  My issue is that the thoughts behind the mechanics tend to ruin this greatly, and that this style of "simulationism" was never the intention.




Your Bold Assertion Stance is no match for my Multiple Quotations Technique! 



			
				The 3.5 DMG said:
			
		

> p. 129 The appearance of realism, also called verisimilitude, is important because it allows the players to stop feeling like they're playing a game and start feeling more like they're playing roles.
> p.135 Once you have decided to make your own world, you face a number of choices. Do you make it like the real world, drawing from history and real-world knowledge, or do you create something completely different? Do you draw from your favorite fictional setting or do you create your own? Do the laws of physics work as we know them, or is the world flat with a dome of stars overhead?
> p.136 Considering the ecology issues of the marh helps you explain the creatures' existences. What do the hags eat? What about the harpies?  They must compete for resources, do they avoid each other, or do they fight?
> p.142 It will cause your players serious strain in their belief in the reality of your world for them to see that they wield spells and magic items, and the lands and dungeons surrounding the city are filled with magic and monsters, but yet in the middle of the city everything looks and acts like Europe during the Middle Ages.
> The presence of magic in your game world forces you do deviate from a truly historical setting. When you create anything for your world, the idea that magic could possibly alter it should be in the back of your mind. Would the king simply surround his castle with a wall when levitate and fly spells are common?
> p.136 This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world.


----------



## Lanefan

Greg K said:


> The only decent survey I saw for D&D was the pre-3e questionaire. I don't know if it was TSR or WOTC that conducted it.



WotC.

They then wrecked the whole process by self-censoring the results, in that they threw out all responses from anyone over an arbitrary age limit - I think it was 35.  There's an article from that time by Ryan Dancey still floating around out there that gives the specifics, I don't have a link right now.



			
				shadzar said:
			
		

> I don't know about that. When running a game you sort of need to know where things are so you don't end up placing Neverwinter on top of Waterdeep. A DM needs to know where things are to maintain the continuity, otherwise the players will end up seeing it.
> 
> Neverwinter is 30 miles due North of where you are.
> ENville is 50 miles due North
> Waterdeep is 20 miles due South of ENville.



I have to agree with this, having myself in the past flown by the seat of my pants into just such a situation only on a much smaller scale - I wasn't paying attention while dreaming up a dungeon completely on the fly and ended up having to pull some pretty fancy explanations out of my butt once it became obvious that the room they were standing in was, by the quite accurate players' map, in mid-air 20' outside the castle wall and 30' above the moat.  D'oh!



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> When you get down to it D&D is about medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon and a pastiche of modern morality, fighting against evil brain eating space aliens from the future.



Sounds good!  Where do I sign up? 

Lan-"can I play the evil brain eating space alien?"-efan


----------



## shadzar

Lanefan said:


> it became obvious that the room they were standing in was, by the quite accurate players' map, in mid-air 20' outside the castle wall and 30' above the moat.  D'oh!




Wasn't that one of Len Lakofka's creations from an earlier Dragon Magazine?

Lemond's Aerial Moathouse, I think is what it was called.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

pawsplay said:


> Your Bold Assertion Stance is no match for my Multiple Quotations Technique!




Your quoting amuses me, as it appears page 142 seems to disagree with all the other pages.  It appears to agree far more with me ;p


----------



## pemerton

ProfessorCirno said:


> Let me jump back into world building real quick:
> 
> Absolutely 4e is better for wold building for me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> D&D has never simulated a world.  Never.  It never tried to.  It never wanted to.  This whole "simulationism" thing is bizarro and jumped out of nowhere in 3e - I never saw nor heard of anything like it once before.





ProfessorCirno said:


> The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting.  The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.



Prof Cirno, great posts but I already XPed you in another thread!

I liked you world, but to keep vaguely on topic I'll skip the interesting stuff and move onto the simulation thing. Here's my take:

Those who talk about 3E (or Rolemaster, or Runequest) being simulationist are mostly focusing on the action resolution mechanics, and secondarily on the character build mechanics. In particular, they're noticing that in each case these mechanics are intended to reflect _actual causal processes_ in the gameworld.

An example from character build: these games all begin with "pick a race, then pick a class" because logically a person is born into a race before s/he enters into a profession. In fact, however, in character building one almost always choose a race that suits the class one wants to play. 4e Essentials has, finally, broken from the simulationist mindset and put character class info in the book _ahead_ of race info.

Another example from character build: people discuss the illogic of looting giving XP (because why would a person get self-improvement from looting?); a lot of people love RQ's improve-in-skill-you-use mechanic, because it makes sense; a lot of people dislike 4e's all-skills-improve-with-level mechanic because they can't see what it is that the high level wizard is actually doing to achieve self-improvement in swimming.

An example from action resolution: 3E's grapple rules, which begin with the grab, then the hold, then the pull.

Another example from action resolution: a lot of people don't like Come and Get It, because they (rightly) can't identify _something that the fighter PC is doing_ to make the monsters come closer (the trick to Come and Get It is that the first half of the power is pure metagame - it's as if the _player_ of the fighter played a "Your enemies make a tactical blunder" card, a bit like an anti-fate point).

On these mechanical points, I will strongly defend the line that 3E is more simulationist than either 4e or AD&D, but less so than RM or RQ (in particular, hit points are a problem for 3E - the most natural simulationist reading is that they are meat, but this is obviously absurd when a dwarf, however tough, has as much meat as a dragon).

But the examples you have given are examples where the sociological/economic/cultural simulation breaks down (or, more accurately, doesn't even get off the ground). In _this_ dimension of simulations, which D&D has never really tried to model mechanically (other than the stronghold rules in earlier editions, which really only cover a very small part of the world as a whole), I would say that no edition of D&D has ever had simulationist aspirations. It's a marked contrast with Classic Traveller, for example, which does try to take a simulationist approach to at least some of this stuff, by having planet building rules right alongside the character building rules.

So, when you say:



ProfessorCirno said:


> Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world.



I think you are just misinterpreting. The simulations is in the mechanics, and D&D doesn't have world-building mechanics.

Why is there no demand for world-level simulationist mechanics in fantasy RPGs? Well, first, there is some (eg Magical Medieval Society). But second, I think most fantasy RPGers don't have such strong intuitions about how society should be modelled as how personal development or interaction should be modelled. And third, the world stuff is mostly in the hands of the GM, so from the point of view of the players, whether the GM does it via simulationist techniques or just makes it up off the cuff based on pure metagame considerations is opaque to them. So this sort of simulation moslty isn't going to be part of the shared gaming experience.

Where I think there _is_ a demand for simulationism on the world side of things, and what I'm trying to get at in my description of "just in time" GMing and 4e's suitability for it, is what we might call the "reality" of the world, not in the sense of its resemblance to the actual world, but in the sense of its existence _independent of actual playing the game_, as a self-standing entity that it makes sense for the players to envisage exploring.

I think there is a _lot_ of demand for this sort of simulation, even when there is complete indifference to Traveller-style world-building simulation. In my view, the poster child for "not interested in Traveller-style sociological simulations, but I insist upon there being a world independent of my game table that I, as a player, can explore" is the Forgotten Realms. In my view that world has less than zero credibility or interest from the point of view of sociology or history (contrasting very markedly with, for example, Tolkein's Middle Earth with it's interesting theory of linguistic development, or with Stafford's Glorantha and it's interesting theory of sociology of religion). But there seems to me to be little doubt that it's fans really do regard it as having an existence in some sense independent of its authorship, and _certainly_ independent of their RPGing in it, so that for them the pleasure of RPGing really can come from exploring the Realms.


----------



## pawsplay

ProfessorCirno said:


> Your quoting amuses me, as it appears page 142 seems to disagree with all the other pages.  It appears to agree far more with me ;p




I neither agree nor disagree with the DMG. I'm just pointing out that the DMG is agreeing with you, while you claimed it didn't. You stated D&D never took into account the effects of magic on a realistic world-setting; the DMG says to take into account the effects of magic on a realistic world setting. So what you said about D&D 3e is false. That level of simulation is explicitly addressed by 3e.


----------



## pawsplay

Checking the goalposts here.

You said this:



ProfessorCirno said:


> The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting.  The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.




The 3e DMG says this:



> p.142 It will cause your players serious strain in their belief in the reality of your world for them to see that they wield spells and magic items, and the lands and dungeons surrounding the city are filled with magic and monsters, but yet in the middle of the city everything looks and acts like Europe during the Middle Ages.
> The presence of magic in your game world forces you do deviate from a truly historical setting. When you create anything for your world, the idea that magic could possibly alter it should be in the back of your mind. Would the king simply surround his castle with a wall when levitate and fly spells are common?
> p.136 This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world.




To me it looks like you lose the point. 3e was meant to "portray" an "actual setting" considering the "implications of magic," specifically a "fairly realistic world" in which magic could "alter" "anything."

Ready to cry uncle?


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> The caste system and feudalism in parts were there, while 4th is lacking them totally?



1st ed AD&D specifically eschews taking a stand on whether the game world is caste-based or not, and on whether it is feudal or not. I don't know about 2nd ed AD&D. I don't remember much on feudalism in the 3E PHB - I can't remember the DMG on this point, but the overall environment doesn't seem especially feudal to me. Other than the paladin class, D&D's medievalism has seemed to me to be defined by some basic technological tropes - swords, armour, horses, etc - rather than by its social or political structures, all of which tend to be wildly anachronistic in the way Prof Cirno pointed out upthread.



shadzar said:


> I don't see medieval when looking at 4th. I honestly see more along the lines of Star Wars looking past the "things" such a the equipment lists. Even then it isn't a real structured government.



I don't get this. Star Wars is based in part on a samurai film, and in part on a loose recreation of the transition of the Roman Republic into the Empire. 4e doesn't especially remind me of Star Wars, but if it did that would certainly be consistent with a pre-modern feel to the government. 



shadzar said:


> It looks more like a sword and sorcery world and society such as Conan



Well, Conan's world is a pastiche of a lot of times and places, including the approximately medieval (Aquilonia and its neighbouring kingdoms).



shadzar said:


> I don't have a story planned out, but the things the PCs CAN interact with. There isn't much empty room where they can reach.



OK. Most of the places my PC's could reach are "empty", in the sense that I don't know what's there. If they did decide to go there, then I'd make some decisions based on a combination of easiness and probable interest to me and the players.



shadzar said:


> Iyour town here HAD a ruler to begin with, you just gave him stats. Otherwise you are saying the town had no governing body until the players wanted to speak to a member of it?



Stats? What are these things called stats? I don't think I even gave him a name!

What happened is this: I am using a map (from Night's Dark Terror). On the map is a town (called Kelven). The PCs all started there, in a tavern, and got recruited for a job. One of the players named the tavern in his PC background - I can't now remember what it was called, but it was on the docks and served dwarven ale. After resolving the recruitment scenario, where the PCs negotiated for slightly higher pay, we then cut to the next day and the PCs hopping on a boat to go upriver. Since then, the PCs have returned to Kelven for one game week in two real-time years of play. When they went back, they bought some stuff, sold some stuff, and decided to talk to the ruler about the possibility of hobgoblin attacks from the north. At that point I decided that (i) Kelven does have a ruler, and (ii) he doesn't have much money or economic capacity, because the fall of Nerath has depressed trade and production, but (iii) a lot of what he does have is quite valuable, because he is the inheritor of Nerathi loot. (I was thinking here of high medieval Rome, which was a shadow of its former economic self, but in which everyone and their dog seems to have been able to find some lovely marble if they went out looking for it.) We then had a brief paraphrase of the audience with the ruler - we didn't actually play it out in 1st person style - and I explained that at the end of the audience he gifted the PCs one riding horse with very high quality tack and harness.

You now know as much as I and my players do about the ruler of Kelven in my game. If more information - like a name - becomes necessary down the track, I'll work it out then!



shadzar said:


> Wait, you said JIT is in response to players something is created, but your examples all just sound like prior planned descriptions, not something created with JIT just because the players want to interact and engage with it. Like your town ruler, it existed, you just didn't fill in all the blanks. The fact a ruler existed was part of the setting. Your JIT created the person, not the position.



That there was a ruler never came up until the players wanted to meet him. Likewise the other stuff. I assure you I'm not lying. I really did make that stuff up while sitting at the gaming table, looking my friends in the eye, and telling them stuff that their PCs are remembering or experiencing!



shadzar said:


> When running a game you sort of need to know where things are so you don't end up placing Neverwinter on top of Waterdeep. A DM needs to know where things are to maintain the continuity, otherwise the players will end up seeing it.



This is actually not true. You don't need to know where things are. You just have to know that there is enough space in the area in question that they can all fit in. And you can handwave the distances (if they come up) as minutes, hours or days of travel.

In my previous game, the PCs (i) ruled a harbour town, (ii) had control of a lighthouse built on an island of that town, (iii) knew that the island was in fact the petrified body of a dead god, whose face you could see if you dived underwater, and from whose eyes otherworldly entities occasionally emerged, (iv) set up various rendezvous points outside the town, (v) did deals with spirits living some distance outside the town, (vi) visited the estate of a noblewoman living some distance outside the town, (vii) had fights and chases on boats in the harbour and in the water of the harbour, etc etc. (For anyone interested, this was a high level Freeport trilogy variant.)

I had no no map showing the depth or topography of the harbour, no picture of the face or eyes of the god, no map of the surrounds of the town, and only a pretty low-resolution map of the town and harbour (from the module). No continuity problem ever arose. If one had threatened, I might have drawn a map, but in several years of play none was needed.



shadzar said:


> If the DM doesn't have his stuff together ready to play, I would rather call it a night and wait until the enxt time when he is.



I can assure you that I have my stuff together. Ask me about the mythical history of the elven gods and I can tell you probably more than you want to know. _This_ is the stuff I need to run my game. I don't need to know whether or not some minor plot point town has a ruler.

Heck, one _key_ plot point in my game is the ruined city of Entekash from which the PC wizard hails (this city was introduced into the gameworld by the player of that PC, when the PC backstory was written up) and I don't even know where on the map _that_ is - although I've got a general notion that it's north of the Black Peaks and east of the area where most of the play is happening at the moment.

While it's possible that something more precise will eventually need to be worked out, I wouldn't be surprised if we get to the point where the PCs are exploring Entekash on the Plane of Ruined Cities in the Abyss (from Demonomicon) before we've got to the point where Entekash is placed on the map.



shadzar said:


> I would definitely not want something like "does this group of people have information on X" to be something done at the last minute.



Whereas I do this all the time. As I quoted Paul Czege upthread, "I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this." What an NPC knows is something that I'll resolve in the course of play in order to help me push and pull.



shadzar said:


> The gods creating the world is pretty much assumed in ALL fantasy games, says nothing about setting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Again the "monsters" to engage in combat in at a certain level, is not really something that sets up the game world in regards to the setting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Again gods don't really set anything up. All have them or don't. Very minor detail of a setting. What are the gods doing? Again nothing until you reach a level to fight them.



What is the creation myth for the world of 3E? Neither the PHB nor the DMG tells me. The 1st ed PHB has a very evocative two-page spread on the planes, but it doesn't tell me who created them.

4e, in having a creation myth which continuing consequences that are set up as part of the action that the PCs can expect to be engaged in is actually quite distinctive among the various editions of D&D. And the gods are doing a lot before you get to the epic tier - they are providing ideals for the PCs, they are the background to a range of antagonists, from Orcus cultists to Bane-ite hobgoblins, and they are the source of power for invokers, warlocks and others. They are utterly central to my game, which is just about to move from heroic to paragon tier.



shadzar said:


> Paladins can go off mass murdering children and still be a paladin after sitting on the pile of corpses polishing his armor.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Well it sure feels like it to me. As one who likes the exploration aspect rather than constant hack-n-slash, 4th seems to be wanting...



You seem to be saying that mythical history of the campaign world is a minor detail, and an ingame answer to the problem of child-killing paladin PCs is a major detail. At the same time, you're telling me that my game, which prioritises mythic history over minutiae and doesn't really need to worry about mass-murdering paladins (the issue has never come up) is a hack-n-slash game?

I don't get this at all.



Hussar said:


> Not Pemerton, but, if I may?



As far as I'm concerned you may, and I probably should have let your reply stand on its own, but I couldn't help myself from having a stab at it also.


----------



## Aldarc

Shadzar & Pemerton: I'm only loosely following the discussion between you two, but it seems to me that you are discussing something that's quite independent of the game system itself, but merely a preference of DM style. I just fail to see how some of these gaming decisions - such as whether or not the DM prepared in advance whether Iyour had a ruler or not, or who that ruler was - is somehow dependent on the game system. Am I reading the conversation incorrectly or is there some other matter at hand?


----------



## Aberzanzorax

pemerton said:


> <Snip>




This was really well said, and I agree Herreman.

Nail on the head.


----------



## Mallus

pawsplay said:


> To me it looks like you lose the point. 3e was meant to "portray" an "actual setting" considering the "implications of magic," specifically a "fairly realistic world" in which magic could "alter" "anything."



Refresh my memory paws... did the 3e books give any substantial and specific advice on how to actually _do_ that? Wasn't 3e the same gonzo fantasy in Medieval drag as the prior editions?


----------



## Neonchameleon

LostSoul said:


> This is why I don't really understand 4E.
> 
> As far as I can tell, 4E is supposed to be a cinematic game. PCs are heroes and they do heroic things. It's hard to kill them and they get right back up at the end of the episode. Evil characters are frowned upon. The system makes heroic acts easy for the DM to resolve, with the damage expressions on page 42 and how actions are resolved.
> 
> I don't understand why they built a system that tends to make players focus on the "rule space" instead of the heroic acts the PCs are taking. If they wanted a cinematic system, why focus on "Push 2" and other such effects?




The answer is simple.  "Push 2" is a fast way of writing "Throws the target ten foot backwards".  And tossing people back like that is pure cinematics.



> Disarm would be just as easy to resolve, but the power system seems to suggest it's a bad idea...)




Indeed.  The problem with disarmed (and for that matter its permanent brother Weapon Sundered) is it's such a variable effect.  Normally in melee combat it's a fight ender.  (Think Inigo Montoya vs The Dread Pirate Roberts).  Also it's a monster block redraw - and what sort of monster makes a huge difference to the effect.  In short it's going to be situational, clunky, and have a massively variable effect.


----------



## BryonD

ProfessorCirno said:


> Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world.  My issue is that the thoughts behind the mechanics tend to ruin this greatly, and that this style of "simulationism" was never the intention.



On the intended, you are wrong.  It may not work out that way for you, and that is fine.  But making declarations about what other people intended is just funny.

And the idea that you are this lone voice in the wild telling thousands and thousands of people that their experiences don't exist is also funny.



> At what point do I stop banning spells and realize that it may be the underlying system that is a problem, though? I'm picking a bit on 3e because in many cases 2e wasn't as bad, but the underlying problems are not with individual spells but rather with the underlying idea of "There should be a spell for that."  To which I respond, "No, sometimes, there shouldn't be."



Well, you "snipped" me.  But you didn't actually respond to anything I said.  So noted.

I assure you that there are vast numbers of people who don't have this problem.  So the common denominator clearly isn't the system.  

But you can also go tell a bunch of baseball players that you know from personal experience that a curve ball can not be hit.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BryonD said:


> As a someone who isn't a "h4ter", I note a hint of hypocrisy buried in that....




You always seem to find fault with my posts. It's like you can't discern the context in which I'm writing. Maybe I'm the one not being clear.

Then I'll try to restate my answer to the topic at hand:

1) At the time of previous edition changes older editions were not as well supported by companies with a reputation for good material.

2) Some players who didn't like previous edition changes kept playing an older edition, some found other games, and some just quit playing. The majority seemed to move on to the next edition as it was the only edition of D&D where they could get new material, IMO.

3) The gaming industry has changed dramatically since the previous editions changes. For those players who wanted to play a supported edition of D&D, they were not "forced" into switching to the new edition. Many great companies, larger ones like Paizo and smaller ones like Necromancer, still provide new material for the previous edition. There has even been a rise in support for older editions.

These were the observations I was trying to share. Do people find themselves playing a game that they don't like as well as another edition? Yes. I have at least two people at my weekly 4E game who prefer 3E over 4E. Why do they keep playing? Because they value the time we spend together as friends. They enjoy the game I offer despite their issues with the system. And they don't have a desire to run a 3E campaign (which I would play in despite liking 4E more than 3E).

The question of the thread dealt with popularity, not like/dislike. And much like the "feel" issue that came up before, the two are not directly linked, IMO.


----------



## Neonchameleon

pawsplay said:


> The 3e DMG says this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p.142 It will cause your players serious strain in their belief in the reality of your world for them to see that they wield spells and magic items, and the lands and dungeons surrounding the city are filled with magic and monsters, but yet in the middle of the city everything looks and acts like Europe during the Middle Ages.
> The presence of magic in your game world forces you do deviate from a truly historical setting. When you create anything for your world, the idea that magic could possibly alter it should be in the back of your mind. Would the king simply surround his castle with a wall when levitate and fly spells are common?
> p.136 This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me it looks like you lose the point. 3e was meant to "portray" an "actual setting" considering the "implications of magic," specifically a "fairly realistic world" in which magic could "alter" "anything."
> 
> Ready to cry uncle?
Click to expand...



That's the best you've got?  An airy statement that says that "Magic can alter anything - bear that in mind when worldbuilding"?  Well yes.  That's obvious.  But there is a world of difference between saying "This exists." and saying "Here is how you deal with the following problems."  As far as worldbuilding is concerned, the DMG paragraph above takes the problems into account in the same way that making the button bright red and slapping a "Do not push" sign over a base self-destruct button takes into account the chance of someone trying to blow up a lair.

But the point you are failing to rebut is that the sort of magic present in 3e _completely unbalances the world_.  The magic is strong enough that any attempt to build a "fairly realistic world" is like building a castle on quicksand.

And as for the "ban certain spells" approach, that's simply the Oberoni Fallacy.  3e can not even support its own worlds with the magic flying around unless you either go all out gonzo with a comic book world (Forgotten Realms) or relatively low powered and start from the principle mages will attempt to break any normal economy (Eberron).  4e on the other hand keeps strategic resources (i.e. the resources needed to unbalance a world) in check far more and thus is much more flexible for worldbuilding.


----------



## pawsplay

Mallus said:


> Refresh my memory paws... did the 3e books give any substantial and specific advice on how to actually _do_ that?




Of course. The lines I quoted are part of larger sections of the book. 



> Wasn't 3e the same gonzo fantasy in Medieval drag as the prior editions?




I'm not sure what you're asking. I should certainly hope so, but you seem to be hinting at something to do with the larger question of simulation. Do you object to simulating "gonzo fantasy in Medieval drag?" Are you implying there is a contradiction between such and and simulation? Because there isn't.


----------



## pawsplay

Neonchameleon said:


> That's the best you've got?  An airy statement that says that "Magic can alter anything - bear that in mind when worldbuilding"?  Well yes.  That's obvious.




If it's obvious than it seems that you, at least, concede the point. Very good, we will move on unless ProfessorCirno posts a rejoinder.



> But there is a world of difference between saying "This exists." and saying "Here is how you deal with the following problems."  As far as worldbuilding is concerned, the DMG paragraph above takes the problems into account in the same way that making the button bright red and slapping a "Do not push" sign over a base self-destruct button takes into account the chance of someone trying to blow up a lair.




If you want to take issue with the advice given, feel free to write a review of the DMG. The point under contention was whether 3e ever, at any point, even once, purported to simulate a realistic world. Since it stated that it assumes a realistic world, I hope you are ready to concede that point, as well.



> But the point you are failing to rebut is that the sort of magic present in 3e _completely unbalances the world_.  The magic is strong enough that any attempt to build a "fairly realistic world" is like building a castle on quicksand.




Nonsense. D&D can be "fairly realistic" or nonsensical, just as with comic book RPGs, or Cold War espionate RPGs, or any other genre. You can use the DMG guidelines, as written, and simply by keeping most communities after 50,000 people (as they were during most of the medieval period) you will see the amount of magic and magic items shrink to very manageable levels. Sprinkle the world with metropolises, and you have the Forgotten Realms. But a "fairly realistic" setting is not a function of how magical it is. Eberron is a very magical setting, yet many people enjoy the sense of magic belonging in the setting. I'm not a huge Eberron fan. I was raised on Mystara and Greyhawk, so "medieval drag" appeals to me. In 27 years of playing D&D, I have yet to find the assortment of spells and magical items an impediment to the existence of a believable world.



> And as for the "ban certain spells" approach, that's simply the Oberoni Fallacy.




No, it's not. The rules look exactly like the world of a standard D&D game. If you want the world to look differently, you will have to modify and prune some elements. But as it stands, D&D's assumed world has been the basis of many successful, internally consistent campaigns for decades. Specifically, I ran a level 1-20 campaign and not once did I feel the campaign world was unsupportable simply because it was fantastical. I have never banned a single core spell, class, or feat from my games.



> 3e can not even support its own worlds with the magic flying around unless you either go all out gonzo with a comic book world (Forgotten Realms) or relatively low powered and start from the principle mages will attempt to break any normal economy (Eberron).




In other words, it can't support it's own worlds except that it can and does. Simply disliking the Eberron approach or the FR approach does not mean those approaches are not a valid approach to world-building. Living Greyhawk took a third way which you glossed away; mid power levels, with gonzo elements less common and more isolated in the game world. Greyhawkian D&D with its feudalism and relatively medieval-esque militaries and economies has also been a viable approach, again, for countless campaigns over the past few decades.



> 4e on the other hand keeps strategic resources (i.e. the resources needed to unbalance a world) in check far more and thus is much more flexible for worldbuilding.




Unless you want to put those resources into the hands of the PCs, in which case you are worse off than you started. Actually, in my view, the ability to endlessly produce a magical effect is a much larger obstacle to world-building, because it makes it impossible to build any world in which magic is rare and mysterious. If I were going to adapt 4e to my preferred style of game worlds, I would have to replace the wizard's zot powers with... I don't know, crossbow powers or something.


----------



## MrGrenadine

Neonchameleon said:


> And as for the "ban certain spells" approach, that's simply the Oberoni Fallacy.  3e can not even support its own worlds with the magic flying around unless you either go all out gonzo with a comic book world (Forgotten Realms) or relatively low powered and start from the principle mages will attempt to break any normal economy (Eberron).  4e on the other hand keeps strategic resources (i.e. the resources needed to unbalance a world) in check far more and thus is much more flexible for worldbuilding.




If we agree that magic in 3.5 had the _potential_ to completely unbalance the world or setting in terms of power/money/resources, etc., then I can see how 4e makes it more difficult to unbalance things, since power is fed to the players in a trickle, and in very limited ways.

However, I can't understand how that makes world building in 4e more "flexible".  It seems like the complete opposite to me, especially for DMs who managed 3.5's magic system in creative ways to avoid unbalancing.


----------



## Bluenose

pawsplay said:


> I'm not sure what you're asking. I should certainly hope so, but you seem to be hinting at something to do with the larger question of simulation. Do you object to simulating "gonzo fantasy in Medieval drag?" Are you implying there is a contradiction between such and and simulation? Because there isn't.




What sort of economy is implied by the Profession skill and the cost-of-living in 3e? Is it one in which all professions are equally profitable, the only difference being the skill with which you approach it? In which nearly everyone has the same standard of living. Does that seem particularly medieval to you? Do published settings reflect the rules in that respect?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

MrGrenadine said:


> If we agree that magic in 3.5 had the _potential_ to completely unbalance the world or setting in terms of power/money/resources, etc., then I can see how 4e makes it more difficult to unbalance things, since power is fed to the players in a trickle, and in very limited ways.
> 
> However, I can't understand how that makes world building in 4e more "flexible". It seems like the complete opposite to me, especially for DMs who managed 3.5's magic system in creative ways to avoid unbalancing.




It's because most of the conversation in this topic is (quite justly) responding to particular points, but only a holistic (or at least comprehensive) survey of all the factors is going to lead to any real understanding across some of the barriers evident in the dicussion thus far. Problem is, there probably isn't any one person capable of rendering that holistic survey.

For example, I know full well that some bit of the disconnect on simulation is disparate preferences, facility, etc. with details versus abstraction. A great many of those "creative ways" with 3.5 is very effectively leveraging those details to avoid unbalancing. I've done a bit of that myself. But when I do, I instinctively start to classify and abstract the problem sets, and then deal with them at that level. Which is all that 4E is really doing here, albeit with extreme prejudice. I know this is what is happening because I work with highly abstract software development, mainly for users and managers that are very detailed people. So I have to deal with bridging this different mindset every day. The symptoms are unmistakable. 

But don't mistake me for saying that the preceding paragraph fully explains anything. Some of those "creative ways" have nothing to do with concrete details at all. Some of the people who mainly like the details nontheless highly abstract what they do with the details--they just use radically different abstractions than the 4E design team. Yet different again, some people thrive on details but deal with it via organziation versus abstraction (see Ptolus for the pinnacle of this effort--so well organized that even a guy like me that prefers abstraction can deal with the sheer mass of detail present.) And none of that is even touching the causal-based mechanical simulation versus effects-based simulation preferences (which are often strongly held). Or throw in how the 4E "exception-based" design is a reasonably good idea that nonethless manages to make some critical mistakes in implementation (not uncommon in first tries at such designs).

All of those distinctions go a long way towards explaining why I find 4E far more satisfactory for world building, the way I want to do world building. But anyone that would *easily* understand that is already predisposed to find 4E useful, too. It's tempting to say that 3E has a bunch of "useless details" and 4E has a few "useful" tools. And that's correct on one level, but rather crude and misleading (not to mention unfair) on another.

Yet I guarantee that there is at least someone reading this for whom the distinctions raised above might as well be picking out the catering menu for your own wake. Less really, because the distinctions don't even register as hypothetical. That whole discussion is off in some quadrant that doesn't even come up for them. And their focus is probably on some other area that I didn't even mention.


----------



## pawsplay

Bluenose said:


> What sort of economy is implied by the Profession skill and the cost-of-living in 3e? Is it one in which all professions are equally profitable, the only difference being the skill with which you approach it? In which nearly everyone has the same standard of living. Does that seem particularly medieval to you? Do published settings reflect the rules in that respect?




I think it clearly simulates day-to-day wage-earning being an unimportant part of the 3e game. You are incorrect about the standard of living; common laborers earn 1 sp a day, far less than someone with the Profession skill, which does seem particularly medieval to me. Every published setting of which I am aware does indeed assume that common laborers make 1 sp per day and that adventurers and important NPCs typically make several times that much. 

I think this is a tangent. The suitability of any specific rule is a different question of whether 3e allows a believable world. Few campaigns are going to collapse because of inobvious math issues with the coinage. Picking at the details is no more relevant than claiming a driving simulator is unrealistic and unsuitable because there's no cupholder.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Wait a minute, wait a minute. 

What effect do the rules have on how much of a stimulation a game is?

I see people pointing to the same rule and saying "this rule ruins my world" and "no it doesn't" at the same time.  What's the difference?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> I think this is a tangent. The suitability of any specific rule is a different question of whether 3e allows a believable world.




Agree with the second sentence, but not the first. It is a tangent for "allows" a believable world. It is not a tangent for "lets the GM easily and naturally construct" a believable world.

Some people want a modicum of crafting rules. If they are substandard, no big deal. Deal with the problems as they arise, tweak it, or any number of things. They whole thing is rather an aside. Not me. I want good crafting rules or no crafting rules. Because bad crafting rules sit there and nag at me all out of proportion to their effect on the world. Even if we never use them, it drains energy out of my world crafting that could be better spent elsewhere. (Of course, with 20/20 hindsight, I could now run 3E more successfully by simply house ruling that the craft and profession rules, skills, and feats did not exist. Would have been a lot less draining than trying to make them better.)

I think this is because I already know something about how medieval crafting functioned in real life, and I have an idea of how magic would change it. So a crafting system tossed in almost as an afterthought doesn't help me the same way that it might someone who wants a place, any place, to start. 

It is exactly the same dynamic with having a plot in a pre-written adventure. I'm pretty good with plots. If there is a substandard plot in an adventure, that is more work for me to untangle it, fix it, excise it. I'm not so good with NPC names and mannerisms. If you give me a great plot and ask me to wing the NPC, I'll be irritated. Someone else may thrive. Leave out the plot and give me interesting NPCs, it will flip.


----------



## shadzar

Aldarc said:


> independent of the game system itself




But it really isnt. If one is looking for a type of game, and the system offers you nothing for that, even if it lets you add everything in the world; then some people will view that system as missing that since it was not offered with it.

If I am wanting a hamburger I have choices. I can get the materials and equipment required and make it myself, or I can go someone that has them already made.

Lots of factors play into that choice. Depending on those factors for each individual if they are common enough to lead people to the same choice of which to chose "make you own" or "premade", then that choice will be the popular one.

Many people don't want to assemble or paint minis for D&D they would buy the prepainted ones, others will "make their own".

4th edition, any other games, will be preferred by certain DM styles and player styles as it will offer what they seek. Other DM and player styles can find 4th edition missing something for them.


----------



## qstor

DaveMage said:


> I don't think a setting has anything to do with why many 3.5 fans failed to embrace 4E.





I agree 100%

Mike


----------



## BryonD

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You always seem to find fault with my posts.



I find no fault in this statement.



> It's like you can't discern the context in which I'm writing. Maybe I'm the one not being clear.



No.  It is more like you make statements that are not true and then try to change them when you get called on it.



> Then I'll try to restate my answer to the topic at hand:
> 
> 1) At the time of previous edition changes older editions were not as well supported by companies with a reputation for good material.



Were they supported at all?



> 2) Some players who didn't like previous edition changes kept playing an older edition, some found other games, and some just quit playing. The majority seemed to move on to the next edition as it was the only edition of D&D where they could get new material, IMO.



From 1E to 2E there was not that big a difference, so the move isn't that meaningful.  Yes, there was a negligible exception.  But overall the move was so simple that it doesn't really show anything relevant to later changes.

From 2E to 3E the change was massively in favor of 3E.  Yes, there were hold-outs.  But the D20 boom happened for a reason.  So trying to say that people moved on because they had little choice does not stand up to inspection.  By and large people jumped at 3E eagerly.  So, again, lack of support for 2E doesn't really show a strong meaningful conclusion.

For 4E, a lot of people were VERY hesitant.  And Paizo RESPONDED to that.
You have not shown your theory really had any meaningful role in prior transitions.  You have simply shown that A and B existed and then you wave your hands and declare that since they both existed A caused B.  And then you declare that proof of 4E's problems.  

It ends up being a wet streets cause rain kind of argument in the case of Pathfinder.  The clear market reality that a ton of people were not interested in 4E was one (of several) key piece in the fact that Pathfinder exists now.  Did Pathfinder then compound the problem?  Probably.  But the serious damage as already done.



> 3) The gaming industry has changed dramatically since the previous editions changes. For those players who wanted to play a supported edition of D&D, they were not "forced" into switching to the new edition. Many great companies, larger ones like Paizo and smaller ones like Necromancer, still provide new material for the previous edition. There has even been a rise in support for older editions.
> 
> These were the observations I was trying to share. Do people find themselves playing a game that they don't like as well as another edition? Yes. I have at least two people at my weekly 4E game who prefer 3E over 4E. Why do they keep playing? Because they value the time we spend together as friends. They enjoy the game I offer despite their issues with the system. And they don't have a desire to run a 3E campaign (which I would play in despite liking 4E more than 3E).
> 
> The question of the thread dealt with popularity, not like/dislike. And much like the "feel" issue that came up before, the two are not directly linked, IMO.



Ok, that is your opinion.  Your opinion flies in the face of the fact that a huge chunk of people for whom 4e is not popular, it is because they dislike it.  And to be clear, "dislike" is your word.  I guess I dislike 4E.  There are certainly some things in it that I have real issues with.  If I had never heard of RPGs before I'd probably think 4E was the most awesome game ever when I first saw it.  And then I'd find better games and move on.  "Dislike", in the case, is very relative.

I don't doubt for one second that people play in second choice games because there friends don't play their first choice.  But step back and use some logic on that.  Let's assume that 90% of the people like game A and 10% like Game B.  How often are you going to find game A fans with all their friends being game B fans?  How often are you going to find the reverse.  To some statistical level it will cut both ways.  But if one game is more popular than another, that game will leverage that popularity and game even more of your "second choice" examples.  The math does not work for the more popular game to lose fan base this way.

In the end 4E's one big issue is: a lot of people who liked prior editions, don't care for it.


----------



## BryonD

MichaelSomething said:


> I see people pointing to the same rule and saying "this rule ruins my world" and "no it doesn't" at the same time.  What's the difference?



Have you seen people saying "the rule ruins my world"?  That seems to be a very popular revision of the situation.

I am frequently very vocal about how much better I find 3E for building my world.  But "A is much better than B, therefore I choose A" is not at all the same as "B ruins".


----------



## Bluenose

pawsplay said:


> I think it clearly simulates day-to-day wage-earning being an unimportant part of the 3e game.




Be careful who you say that around. Plenty of people aren't happy that Profession isn't a skill in 4th edition. 



> You are incorrect about the standard of living; common laborers earn 1 sp a day, far less than someone with the Profession skill, which does seem particularly medieval to me. Every published setting of which I am aware does indeed assume that common laborers make 1 sp per day and that adventurers and important NPCs typically make several times that much.




So do cooks. Who are also called out as an example in the Profession skill description. Simple mathematics tells you how much someone with Profession (Cook) +1 can earn by practising that skill, and it's a lot more than 1sp/day. Consistency in this regard would be desirable.



> I think this is a tangent. The suitability of any specific rule is a different question of whether 3e allows a believable world. Few campaigns are going to collapse because of inobvious math issues with the coinage. Picking at the details is no more relevant than claiming a driving simulator is unrealistic and unsuitable because there's no cupholder.




I tend to the belief that the economy is one of the more significant factors when it comes to world-building. And I'm easily annoyed by rules that are an obvious afterthought or that are inconsistent from place to place. Although it's probably right that a functioning economy is a detail when it comes to a game about hunting monsters in dungeons, not every game is like that.


----------



## billd91

Bluenose said:


> Be careful who you say that around. Plenty of people aren't happy that Profession isn't a skill in 4th edition.




No need to be careful. The amount of cash you get from a week's work is probably not what people find important in having a Profession skill. Rather, they want a point of distinction between their character and others that they pin mechanical tests to. For example: ninja character in an OA game I ran years ago spent at least half of his proficiency slots in the cooking proficiency. He was pretty good at it and used it to get into the confidence of the people he was sent to spy on. Another example: in the Shackled City campaign, a rival adventuring group is made up of well-heeled kids of local nobles. The half-ogre barbarian fry cook managed to get himself into a bake off with the chef of one of those noble's houses. Though he lost the contest, his impressive performance (thanks to good investment in his skills) won him and his friends accolades from the public in contrast to their rivals.

Neither of these uses involved worrying about how much money the character makes over the course of a week, just the quality of the stuff they could make.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

It amuses me that the response to "This magic and these rules destroy my ability to worldbuild" is to ban it or abstract it.

In other words, when confronted with issues in worldbuilding in 3.x, the response is to make it more like 4e


----------



## BryonD

Hmmm,  debate by way of making up crap out of thin air.

Enjoy.

*Mod Edit:*Folks, being rude and crude to dismiss people is not acceptable.  If you don't like what someone else is saying, walking away is an acceptable solution.  Being a jerk about it is not. ~Umbran


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BryonD said:


> No.  It is more like you make statements that are not true and then try to change them when you get called on it.




No. I express my opinions. You are the one reading (in)factual context into them.



BryonD said:


> Were they supported at all?




Pretty much my point.



BryonD said:


> From 1E to 2E there was not that big a difference, so the move isn't that meaningful.  Yes, there was a negligible exception.  But overall the move was so simple that it doesn't really show anything relevant to later changes.




I agree with you about the small difference between 1E and 2E. But watch out when you meet a 1E grognard with that attitude. I've sat through a lecture on the long list of changes that were made to the game between editions. I liked all of the changes as they reflected the way I was playing the game, that might have blurred my vision on them being actual changes.



BryonD said:


> From 2E to 3E the change was massively in favor of 3E.  Yes, there were hold-outs.  But the D20 boom happened for a reason.  So trying to say that people moved on because they had little choice does not stand up to inspection.  By and large people jumped at 3E eagerly.  So, again, lack of support for 2E doesn't really show a strong meaningful conclusion.




Rose-colored glasses. These same edition wars raged then as they do now. 



BryonD said:


> For 4E, a lot of people were VERY hesitant.  And Paizo RESPONDED to that.




"Alot" is subjective, at best.



BryonD said:


> You have not shown your theory really had any meaningful role in prior transitions.  You have simply shown that A and B existed and then you wave your hands and declare that since they both existed A caused B.  And then you declare that proof of 4E's problems.
> 
> It ends up being a wet streets cause rain kind of argument in the case of Pathfinder.  The clear market reality that a ton of people were not interested in 4E was one (of several) key piece in the fact that Pathfinder exists now.  Did Pathfinder then compound the problem?  Probably.  But the serious damage as already done.




I remember completely different comments coming from Erik Mona at the time. Obviously over two years time he and the others at Paizo have time to inspect the game and make commetary on the likes and dislikes. But as a company they had a decision point that effected the health of their company. If you think they based the health of their company on the speculation that message-board pundits disliked what 4E might be, you're crazy. They made the decison based on the GSL issues. If the GSL had been ironed out in time I suspect they would have gone down the 4E path and kept the momentum going. I never said this was 4E's ONLY problem, but the change in the gaming landscape sure seems like the major factor to me.



BryonD said:


> Ok, that is your opinion.  Your opinion flies in the face of the fact that a huge chunk of people for whom 4e is not popular, it is because they dislike it.  And to be clear, "dislike" is your word.  I guess I dislike 4E.  There are certainly some things in it that I have real issues with.  If I had never heard of RPGs before I'd probably think 4E was the most awesome game ever when I first saw it.  And then I'd find better games and move on.  "Dislike", in the case, is very relative.




Popularity is not subjective. A game system cannot be popular to one person and not popular to another. Popularity is based, in game system terms, on frequency of use. The most popular game is the most played game. And, if we are to believe what we read online, that is still 4E. It could have been more popular at this point is factors surrounding it were different.



BryonD said:


> I don't doubt for one second that people play in second choice games because there friends don't play their first choice.  But step back and use some logic on that.  Let's assume that 90% of the people like game A and 10% like Game B.  How often are you going to find game A fans with all their friends being game B fans?  How often are you going to find the reverse.  To some statistical level it will cut both ways.  But if one game is more popular than another, that game will leverage that popularity and game even more of your "second choice" examples.  The math does not work for the more popular game to lose fan base this way.




Which is my premise, glad to see you agree with me. Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you.



BryonD said:


> In the end 4E's one big issue is: a lot of people who liked prior editions, don't care for it.




I can agree that is a factor, but I still do not believe it is the biggest one amongst casual gamers. And I still believe casual gamers make up the greatest population of overall gamers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I can agree that is a factor, but I still do not believe it is the biggest one amongst casual gamers. And I still believe casual gamers make up the greatest population of overall gamers.




For the casual gamer, the issue is what game is most popular where they are, since they are the least likely to offer to run a game.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For the casual gamer, the issue is what game is most popular where they are, since they are the least likely to offer to run a game.




IME I've also had trouble getting casual gamers to play games other than D&D. They cite many reasons, the most common being familiarity with D&D, not wanting to learn a new system. So, not only are they merely playing the most popular game in town, often they will only play the most popular version of D&D in town.


----------



## Aldarc

shadzar said:


> But it really isnt. If one is looking for a type of game, and the system offers you nothing for that, even if it lets you add everything in the world; then some people will view that system as missing that since it was not offered with it.
> 
> If I am wanting a hamburger I have choices. I can get the materials and equipment required and make it myself, or I can go someone that has them already made.
> 
> Lots of factors play into that choice. Depending on those factors for each individual if they are common enough to lead people to the same choice of which to chose "make you own" or "premade", then that choice will be the popular one.
> 
> Many people don't want to assemble or paint minis for D&D they would buy the prepainted ones, others will "make their own".
> 
> 4th edition, any other games, will be preferred by certain DM styles and player styles as it will offer what they seek. Other DM and player styles can find 4th edition missing something for them.



You were talking about DM preferences when it came to whether or not a DM had already matted out the details of a town prior to PC relevance, were you not? And is that not fairly independent of the game system? As either a player or a DM who has played both systems, I do not see how much of that would differ between 3E and 4E.


----------



## shadzar

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> IME I've also had trouble getting casual gamers to play games other than D&D. They cite many reasons, the most common being familiarity with D&D, not wanting to learn a new system. So, not only are they merely playing the most popular game in town, often they will only play the most popular version of D&D in town.




That then says that for the non-casual gamer, the popularity of 4th isnt as much as it is for other editions. If 4th edition was as popular as could have been hoped, then the casual gamer, only playing D&D to not have to learn a new system you be playing those 4th edition games.

But, BUT, 4th edition IS a new game system in LARGE parts. Thus a blur in the D&D system, and possible reluctance to use the vastly different system by non-casual players, in order to keep casual players flowing to their games, so they can fill seats to have a game with...right?



Aldarc said:


> You were talking about DM preferences when it came to whether or not a DM had already matted out the details of a town prior to PC relevance, were you not? And is that not fairly independent of the game system? As either a player or a DM who has played both systems, I do not see how much of that would differ between 3E and 4E.




I don't know, let me read back through and find out....

Me and P are discussing several things in several threads, so my mind likely merges them at times....

You claim that it is independent of the system, that which we are talking about. I don't think so. When it comes to a setting present or not and what that setting it, it determines the focus the game gets from people. To be popular you want people to be focusing on your game enough.

If something else provides an element you feel is missing from a game/system, then you are likely to gravitate to another. So the popularity of the system is in part directed by playstyles.

Which Vampire video game do I and others choose? Ravenloft based game, or Vampire (White Wolf) based one?

Part of what will make me and others decide will be in its presentation. How it sells itself TO ME. If Ravenloft has a setting I do not find enjoyable, then I might choose Vampire. Did I want to play lost int he mist, or just hiding in the crowd?

Lets say Vampire had NO setting. If I enjoy playing in and DMing for a game with a default setting to build on, rather than an empty lot, I am likely to choose Ravenloft that DOES have a setting, and others like myself, aligned with MY PLAYSTYLE, will likely find Ravenloft to be more popular.

So there is a LOT me and pemerton are discussing to refine terms and ideas so that we can get back to the main point. It is a bit of a long journey that you have been watching us take, but I am enjoying the travel along the _road_, and hope we can reach the same destination in the end. Even if that destination is only a clearer understanding of each other.


----------



## pawsplay

Bluenose said:


> Be careful who you say that around. Plenty of people aren't happy that Profession isn't a skill in 4th edition.




I didn't say it wasn't important to me, just that it wasn't important to 3e. That is, little effort went into constructing wage-earning rules for 3e. At the opposite end of the spectrum, consider GURPS, with its job tables.




> So do cooks. Who are also called out as an example in the Profession skill description. Simple mathematics tells you how much someone with Profession (Cook) +1 can earn by practising that skill, and it's a lot more than 1sp/day. Consistency in this regard would be desirable.




To me, this is just a case of simplicity. The rules don't offer more than that level of detail because that level of detail at cooking was not engineered into the game. You are incorrect that this is a simple exercise in mathematics; the skill actually says



> You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work.




That word "about" might mean, in many cases, pretty much exactly. But it could also mean you earn a fixed salary commensurate with your skills. The GM could also says that it means "it depends." For instance, a week of dedicated work could mean a week of work at your professional level. Regardless of skill level, the GM is free to rule that regardless of skill level, the village baker makes 2 gp per week. Perhaps to make the full amount, he needs to have access to a high volume bakery, or a wealthy patron, or be near a large city where he can command higher prices and participate in fairs. The word "about" is not very informative but it does tell us one very important thing: the mechanic is an approximation and the GM is being asked to adjudicate an appropriate result.



> I tend to the belief that the economy is one of the more significant factors when it comes to world-building. And I'm easily annoyed by rules that are an obvious afterthought or that are inconsistent from place to place. Although it's probably right that a functioning economy is a detail when it comes to a game about hunting monsters in dungeons, not every game is like that.




I think economy is important, too. It annoys me that the DMG claims a large city has a billion chickens for sale if you can afford them. But simply because some of the rules don't work well as one might hope does not mean that 

1) the rules don't exist, or
2) the rules aren't intended to cover the area, or
3) the GM has lost their usual prerogative in dealing with situations not well covered by mechanical expressions of the rules

Simply because 3e is not particularly good at running SimBarony doesn't mean it can't simulate an imaginary world full of ordinary workers and laborers, protected by a military aristocracy, and supported by a population of freeborn tradesmen and hirelings. If you want nitty gritty detail on various Professions, you're going to need a sourcebook for that. Just because the DMG doesn't have good rules for ship-to-ship combat between flying ships doesn't mean that the game universe falls apart like a broken toy if you include them. 

If you want more detail on running a business, guess what? The DMG II gives more detail. Sadly, it doesn't revise some of the broken guidelines in 3e. 4e certainly could have done that; instead, the designers of 4e decided to peel off any semblance of a game world economy and set it aside. 

4e can be run at a high level of simulation; there is nothing preventing you from doing so. But compared to 3e, first you have to craft on a mundane economy of some kind, replace the rules for making, buying, and selling items, come up with some kind of background or ecology for any and all creatures encountered, etc. 4e's world is more of a facade. For that matter, it hardly examines why such a thing as "starleather" is so consitently available and why it has a stable market price. That's 4e for you. It's not necessarily bad. The Final Fantasy games are full of things with ridiculous and arbitrary prices and you can still play and enjoy those games. You would find it difficult, however, to adapt that kind of aesthetic for a supposedly consistent gameworld.

Can the 3e economic system be improved, while still retaining its basic simplicity? You bet. Will your game world break if you used the posted guidelines? Not necessarily, although I would watch out for the billion chickens. Does that have anything to do with magic or feudalism or any of the above topics? No, at this level, we are simply talking about the utility of specific rules.


----------



## LostSoul

Neonchameleon said:


> The answer is simple.  "Push 2" is a fast way of writing "Throws the target ten foot backwards".  And tossing people back like that is pure cinematics.




The problem is that, for me, there's a big difference between describing what happens in the game world and grabbing the mini and moving it 2 squares.  For me, the former seems cinematic; the latter, less so.  I realize that not all people share this point of view.

Of course, thanks to this thread - and pemerton's posts - I see what 4E is meant to do and how it all works together.  That common critique of mine probably doesn't hold that much water given what combat mechanics are meant to achieve.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> 4e's world is more of a facade.




See, I don't disagree that 4E's world sim is a facade. I just disagree that it is any more of a facade than 3E, or at least not anymore on any kind of meaningful scale of usefulness. If you envision a scale, where extreme left is "total facade" and extreme right is "what you see is exactly what you get", then I see it something like this:

4E
------[ huge gap ]-------------Hero--------GURPS-------Runequest-->
3E

For me personally, 3E is actually a little to the left of that diagram, because it's facade is often so misleading. To others, 3E is a little to the right, because there is a little something behind the facade (i.e. actual craft skill). But it's like zooming in on two adjacent pebbles on a 2 billion pebble mosaic.

All we are really arguing about is how the particular facade makes you feel warm and fuzzy. It's the classic "Stand By Me" argument, where the kid was told by his friends that, "Who would win if Mighty Mouse fought Superman," was a stupid question, *because* everyone knew that Mighty Mouse was just a cartoon.

It may or may not be a stupid question as to whether 3E or 4E has some advantage in this regard, but if it is, it isn't because 4E is merely a facade. 

Next, you'll be telling me that the Pirates ride at Disney World isn't housed in a real fort.


----------



## Aldarc

shadzar said:


> I don't know, let me read back through and find out....
> 
> Me and P are discussing several things in several threads, so my mind likely merges them at times....
> 
> You claim that it is independent of the system, that which we are talking about. I don't think so. When it comes to a setting present or not and what that setting it, it determines the focus the game gets from people. To be popular you want people to be focusing on your game enough.
> 
> If something else provides an element you feel is missing from a game/system, then you are likely to gravitate to another. So the popularity of the system is in part directed by playstyles.
> 
> Which Vampire video game do I and others choose? Ravenloft based game, or Vampire (White Wolf) based one?
> 
> Part of what will make me and others decide will be in its presentation. How it sells itself TO ME. If Ravenloft has a setting I do not find enjoyable, then I might choose Vampire. Did I want to play lost int he mist, or just hiding in the crowd?
> 
> Lets say Vampire had NO setting. If I enjoy playing in and DMing for a game with a default setting to build on, rather than an empty lot, I am likely to choose Ravenloft that DOES have a setting, and others like myself, aligned with MY PLAYSTYLE, will likely find Ravenloft to be more popular.
> 
> So there is a LOT me and pemerton are discussing to refine terms and ideas so that we can get back to the main point. It is a bit of a long journey that you have been watching us take, but I am enjoying the travel along the _road_, and hope we can reach the same destination in the end. Even if that destination is only a clearer understanding of each other.



Thank you for the points of clarification. I am still somewhat lost, and perhaps it is best if I dropped it, as I did not follow the conversation as closely as I should have to be more informed. But again, this seems more a matter of the game setting rather than the game system. The game system will flavor the play style within the setting, but many of these matters seem more dependent on the details of the setting and how well the setting sells itself. But playstyles are also not dependent on the system, but how the players and DM utilize that system. I do think you make some good points. I will follow your conversation closely now.


----------



## shadzar

Aldarc said:


> Thank you for the points of clarification. I am still somewhat lost, and perhaps it is best if I dropped it, as I did not follow the conversation as closely as I should have to be more informed. But again, this *seems more a matter of the game setting rather than the game system*. The game system will flavor the play style within the setting, but many of these matters seem more dependent on the details of the setting and how well the setting sells itself. But playstyles are also not dependent on the system, but how the players and DM utilize that system. I do think you make some good points. I will follow your conversation closely now.




 Any time you need a road map, I will gladly hand you my version of the "YOU ARE HERE" sign, I am sure pemerton will likely hand you his version as well if asked.

What you say about the setting is, as I see it, the whole crux of the thread.

Some view the setting more important, such as my vampire game example, others view the mechanics/system more important, and others still like a good mix.

If you only capture those looking for a system/mechanics, you have lost chance to capture those who prefer or want the even mix of setting.

That can greatly determine how popular the game is depending on which of those 3 stances has what percentage of your consumer base.

The sad thing is we have no idea what percentage of consumers/players go with each of those stances, so are really just supposing the reason.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

shadzar said:


> That then says that for the non-casual gamer, the popularity of 4th isnt as much as it is for other editions. If 4th edition was as popular as could have been hoped, then the casual gamer, only playing D&D to not have to learn a new system you be playing those 4th edition games.
> 
> But, BUT, 4th edition IS a new game system in LARGE parts. Thus a blur in the D&D system, and possible reluctance to use the vastly different system by non-casual players, in order to keep casual players flowing to their games, so they can fill seats to have a game with...right?




IMO, yes and no. 4E, compared to other non-D&D games, is still the same game. Roll a d20 vs. a target number. Other games have dice pools, dice sets, no dice, etc.

But, because of the other factor I see in casual gamers, 3E is still a viable choice. Hard-core gamers can play OD&D for 50 years straight if that's their favorite game. Casual gamers need new material to keep their interest.


----------



## pawsplay

Crazy Jerome said:


> See, I don't disagree that 4E's world sim is a facade. I just disagree that it is any more of a facade than 3E, or at least not anymore on any kind of meaningful scale of usefulness.




I'm sure you have reasons for believing as you do. I personally couldn't even make it through Worlds & Monsters before I lost my suspension of disbelief. It seems bloody obvious to me that if fairy rings exist, someone at some point is going to traipse through one and possibly talk to a little person. That you would rate 3e and 4e equivalently in terms of simulating an imaginary world tells me that and similar issues are not salient to you. If you don't care if there's any _there _ there, one dungeon crasher will do as well as the next.


----------



## Tuft

LostSoul said:


> The problem is that, for me, there's a big difference between describing what happens in the game world and grabbing the mini and moving it 2 squares.  For me, the former seems cinematic; the latter, less so.  I realize that not all people share this point of view.




Not all share that point of view, but you are not alone in it either...


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Where I think there _is_ a demand for simulationism on the world side of things, and what I'm trying to get at in my description of "just in time" GMing and 4e's suitability for it, is what we might call the "reality" of the world, not in the sense of its resemblance to the actual world, but in the sense of its existence _independent of actual playing the game_, as a self-standing entity that it makes sense for the players to envisage exploring.



The following statement may at first reading sound kinda stupid, but allow me to explain afterwards:

The game world needs to be real in all ways except those in which it isn't real.

That's the "simulation" people want...that obvious but often-forgotten things like gravity, flotation, solids cannot pass through other solids, etc. work as normal (i.e. like on earth) except when there's magic preventing or changing said operation.  Thus if the DM says "the birds are singing in the trees as you pass through the sun-dappled edge of the Woods of Avenae" and gives no further description any player can close their eyes and envision exactly what that looks and-or sounds like, because the baseline assumption is that it's the same as the real world until-unless you're told otherwise.  If a player asks "what's in the field" and the DM answers "a small herd of cattle, maybe 15 or so" the baseline assumption is that these are normal earth-like cows rather than 7-legged tentacled carnivores that fly and produce purple milk.

Thus, even if the DM doesn't describe the scenery for each mile as your party walks from Torcha to Karnos you can still get a vague idea of it from "you spend 5 days travelling through rolling farmland and occasional quiet villages" and your imagination.  This is simulation, at least from my perspective, and it is essential.

The same is true of combat effects; but here it's a question more of where to draw the line - it's quite possible to simulate a combat down to the nth degree, even including magic, provided you have limitless amounts of time and patience.  The game recognizes this can't happen, but each system and each edition does it a bit differently; and it's a matter of pick yer poison.

Lan-"my mind wanders, freed from the bounds imposed by reality"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But, because of the other factor I see in casual gamers, 3E is still a viable choice. Hard-core gamers can play OD&D for 50 years straight if that's their favorite game. Casual gamers need new material to keep their interest.



Disagree.

Casual gamers need a game they enjoy playing enough that it keeps their interest.

What causes a casual player to enjoy a game?  Given as how most casual players probably don't bounce from rule system to rule system, I'd hazard a guess that "rule system" would be a long way down the list of answers.

Which makes all systems, in this case, viable choices.

Now casual DMs, on the other hand, are far more likely to find their enjoyment or lack thereof largely linked to the rule system they are trying to run.  But these people are pretty rare; they either become more serious or bail out before long.

Lan-"if I can play Victoria Rules D+D for 50 years straight, does that make me hardcore?"-efan


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> Shadzar & Pemerton: I'm only loosely following the discussion between you two, but it seems to me that you are discussing something that's quite independent of the game system itself, but merely a preference of DM style. I just fail to see how some of these gaming decisions - such as whether or not the DM prepared in advance whether Iyour had a ruler or not, or who that ruler was - is somehow dependent on the game system. Am I reading the conversation incorrectly or is there some other matter at hand?





Aldarc said:


> You were talking about DM preferences when it came to whether or not a DM had already matted out the details of a town prior to PC relevance, were you not? And is that not fairly independent of the game system? As either a player or a DM who has played both systems, I do not see how much of that would differ between 3E and 4E.



My view is that game system makes a difference here, but is not determinative.

I don't think it's determinative, because I've run Rolemaster - a very simulationist set of mechanics - with the same "just in time" approach that I use in 4e. But I believe it makes a difference: part of my reason for moving from RM to 4e was that I hoped to get better results for a "just in time" game from 4e than RM, and I believe my decision has proved right.

For the reasons why 4e helps with this, see this post upthread - the short version is that 4e has mechanical techniques for making the amount of time something takes at the table reflect its thematic importance to the players at the table, _which don't require the GM to railroad the players_, and also 4e has encounter-building guidelines that let the players have confidence that they are not being unduly reckless with their PCs, _without relying on the GM to just coddle them or fiat them a la the notorious Dragonlance no-death rule_. And these two features of the 4e mechanics are tightly integrated - in combat by the monster design rules plus the combat resolution mechanics, and out of combat by the default DC rules and the skill challenge resolution mechanics.

I've especially highlighted the "without railroading" in the previous paragraph, because railroading is an obvious threat to the viability of non-sandbox play, of which "just in time" is one version. When I used to do it in Rolemaster, I had to do a lot more guess work to make the encounters work (RM has nothing like 4e's approach to challenge levels) and I occasionally had to suspend the action resolution rules to handle pacing issues, which is always a bit tricky when trying to avoid railroading.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> I'm sure you have reasons for believing as you do. I personally couldn't even make it through Worlds & Monsters before I lost my suspension of disbelief. It seems bloody obvious to me that if fairy rings exist, someone at some point is going to traipse through one and possibly talk to a little person.



Two things. First, we established upthread that the "traipsing" reference is from Races and Classes, and also that on this point R&C is in express contradiction to W&M.

Second, from the fact that someone somewhere in the gameworld might traipse through a fairy ring, it doesn't follow that the actual game played is shallow _just because no PC ever traipses through a fairy ring and talks to a little person_. Presumably many NPCs in the gameworld are also having sex, having children, going to church, etc, but in most of the time in my games sex doesn't come up in anything more than a peripheral way, the PCs don't have kids, and the only time their church visits actually come up in game is when they want healing or other magical benefits. I don't think this makes my game shallow, though, because there are other worthwhile themes to be explored in a fanatsy RPG besides sex, family and organised worship (worhty as these themes might also be).

Now if you regard "traipsing through fairy rings" as a placeholder for all things of any thematic depth that might occur in a fantasy RPG, it would be a different thing. But in my view W&M makes it pretty clear that that is not the intention of the game designers.



pawsplay said:


> 4e's world is more of a facade. For that matter, it hardly examines why such a thing as "starleather" is so consitently available and why it has a stable market price. That's 4e for you. It's not necessarily bad. The Final Fantasy games are full of things with ridiculous and arbitrary prices and you can still play and enjoy those games. You would find it difficult, however, to adapt that kind of aesthetic for a supposedly consistent gameworld.



A gameworld can be consistent in salient respects without having a detailed or realistic economy. All that is required is that the economy of the gameworld _not be salient_. The 1st ed AD&D has some suggestions on how to make the economy non-salient - I don't think it therefore follows that the 1st ed AD&D is opposed to the notion of a consistent gameworld.

The sort of consistency I want in my gameworld is consistency in the broad sweep of history, of myth and of politics, and consistency when this is reduced down into particular (generally non-commercial) interactions with people and places. I want consistency in the difference between devil-worshipping tieflings and demon-worshipping gnolls. I want my sun-cult that combines worship of Bahamut, Kord, Pelor and Ioun to interact in an interesting and evocative way with the more mainstream cults of those various gods, in a way that doesn't strike the players just as arbitrary, but rather helps them engage with the nuances of the mythic history and resonance of the gameworld.

The presence or absence of rules to support an economic simulations is irrelevant to this. When I read The Hobbit or the LotR, if my first observation is that the more-or-less autarkic shire is presented as having a standard of living comparable to that of an England that was one of the centres of world commerce and production - an economically absurd notion - then I have probably missed the point. If the economic absurdity led me to conclude that the world was a mere facade, I think I would have doubly missed the point. Economics is just not a salient consideration for those particular fantasy stories.



pawsplay said:


> That you would rate 3e and 4e equivalently in terms of simulating an imaginary world tells me that and similar issues are not salient to you. If you don't care if there's any _there _ there, one dungeon crasher will do as well as the next.



You seem to be suggesting that anyone who doesn't care about the economics of the gameworld can only be playing a dungeon-bashing game. If you are, I think it's nonsense for the reasons I've given above. If you're not, then apologies for the misunderstanding, but I 've completely failed to grasp the point you're trying to make.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul said:


> The problem is that, for me, there's a big difference between describing what happens in the game world and grabbing the mini and moving it 2 squares.  For me, the former seems cinematic; the latter, less so.  I realize that not all people share this point of view.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That common critique of mine probably doesn't hold that much water given what combat mechanics are meant to achieve



LostSoul, I agree with you about the difference between "10 feet" and "2 squares". Rolemaster uses only the former, and coming over to 4e and the latter took a while to get used to.

But if "2 squares" is a price I have to pay for a system that has the dramatic pacing of 4e combat, I'm prepared to put up with it. And for me at least, battle maps help reduce the disconnect a lot because they give the 2 squares a gameworld meaning that it otherwise would tend to lack (whereas "10 feet" is meaningful to me without a map).

If I was playing without a map I think I'd definitely want to move from squares back to realworld distances.



LostSoul said:


> Of course, thanks to this thread - and pemerton's posts - I see what 4E is meant to do and how it all works together..



That's high praise, and much appreciated!


----------



## Bluenose

pawsplay said:


> If you want more detail on running a business, guess what? The DMG II gives more detail. Sadly, it doesn't revise some of the broken guidelines in 3e. 4e certainly could have done that; instead, the designers of 4e decided to peel off any semblance of a game world economy and set it aside.
> 
> 4e can be run at a high level of simulation; there is nothing preventing you from doing so. But compared to 3e, first you have to craft on a mundane economy of some kind, replace the rules for making, buying, and selling items, come up with some kind of background or ecology for any and all creatures encountered, etc. 4e's world is more of a facade. For that matter, it hardly examines why such a thing as "starleather" is so consitently available and why it has a stable market price. That's 4e for you. It's not necessarily bad. The Final Fantasy games are full of things with ridiculous and arbitrary prices and you can still play and enjoy those games. You would find it difficult, however, to adapt that kind of aesthetic for a supposedly consistent gameworld.
> 
> Can the 3e economic system be improved, while still retaining its basic simplicity? You bet. Will your game world break if you used the posted guidelines? Not necessarily, although I would watch out for the billion chickens. Does that have anything to do with magic or feudalism or any of the above topics? No, at this level, we are simply talking about the utility of specific rules.




Well, here's where we disagree. I'm completely fine with a low level of detail for the economy. I play Pendragon, and the income my knight gets from his manor is very much abstracted. If I want more detail, there are rules expanding on it (Book of Manors, Lordly Domains, or others). But they *expand* on the existing rules. To do something similar for D&D 3e I'd have to *fix* the existing rules. The facade you see in 4e for world-building is the same facade I see in 3e, except that 4e isn't pretending that there's something behind it.


----------



## Neonchameleon

pawsplay said:


> If it's obvious than it seems that you, at least, concede the point. Very good, we will move on unless ProfessorCirno posts a rejoinder.




I'm calling what you're saying _irrelevant_.  Something saying "This is a problem, manage it yourself" is doing no more than acknowledging the problem.



> The point under contention was whether 3e ever, at any point, even once, purported to simulate a realistic world. Since it stated that it assumes a realistic world, I hope you are ready to concede that point, as well.




And it's absolutely crap at it.



> Nonsense. D&D can be "fairly realistic" or nonsensical, just as with comic book RPGs, or Cold War espionate RPGs, or any other genre. You can use the DMG guidelines, as written, and simply by keeping most communities after 50,000 people (as they were during most of the medieval period) you will see the amount of magic and magic items shrink to very manageable levels.




But that's not the problem.  The problem is that wizard's tower over there with flying cars and working nuclear reactors.  One smart mage with fifth level spells irrevocably alters the gameworld.

 Sprinkle the world with metropolises, and you have the Forgotten Realms. But a "fairly realistic" setting is not a function of how magical it is. Eberron is a very magical setting, yet many people enjoy the sense of magic belonging in the setting. I'm not a huge Eberron fan. I was raised on Mystara and Greyhawk, so "medieval drag" appeals to me.



> In 27 years of playing D&D, I have yet to find the assortment of spells and magical items an impediment to the existence of a believable world.




You've been playing longer than I have.  



> No, it's not. The rules look exactly like the world of a standard D&D game.




And are based on "Wizard of Oz" economies.  Pay no attention to the mages.  Or the druids.

 If you want the world to look differently, you will have to modify and prune some elements. 



> But as it stands, D&D's assumed world has been the basis of many successful, internally consistent campaigns for decades.




Yes.  The microeconomics are fine.  It's the macroeconomics that make the world break.  And PCs look at a micro scale.  

Specifically, I ran a level 1-20 campaign and not once did I feel the campaign world was unsupportable simply because it was fantastical. I have never banned a single core spell, class, or feat from my games.





> In other words, it can't support it's own worlds except that it can and does.




Forgotten Realms is the equivalent of shrugging, saying "A Wizard (or deity) did it" and moving on.  



> Simply disliking the Eberron approach or the FR approach does not mean those approaches are not a valid approach to world-building.






 Living Greyhawk took a third way which you glossed away; mid power levels, with gonzo elements less common and more isolated in the game world. Greyhawkian D&D with its feudalism and relatively medieval-esque militaries and economies has also been a viable approach, again, for countless campaigns over the past few decades.



Unless you want to put those resources into the hands of the PCs, in which case you are worse off than you started. Actually, in my view, the ability to endlessly produce a magical effect is a much larger obstacle to world-building, because it makes it impossible to build any world in which magic is rare and mysterious. If I were going to adapt 4e to my preferred style of game worlds, I would have to replace the wizard's zot powers with... I don't know, crossbow powers or something.[/QUOTE]



MrGrenadine said:


> If we agree that magic in 3.5 had the _potential_ to completely unbalance the world or setting in terms of power/money/resources, etc., then I can see how 4e makes it more difficult to unbalance things, since power is fed to the players in a trickle, and in very limited ways.
> 
> However, I can't understand how that makes world building in 4e more "flexible". It seems like the complete opposite to me, especially for DMs who managed 3.5's magic system in creative ways to avoid unbalancing.




It is _trivial_ to add unbalanced settings.  It is non-trivial to work out what will be unbalanced and prune it.  Needing to manage the system in creative ways makes certain you can't have a world which doesn't have such work-rounds.  And thus reduces flexibility.



LostSoul said:


> The problem is that, for me, there's a big difference between describing what happens in the game world and grabbing the mini and moving it 2 squares. For me, the former seems cinematic; the latter, less so. I realize that not all people share this point of view.




Who says you can't do both?  I do.  And if you are going to use a battlemap at all, grabing a mini and moving it 2 squares is a _lot_ more cinematic than not moving it 2 squares.  Once you're using a battlemap at all (and they are useful as visualisation aids), if you are not moving minis around on the battlemap you aren't moving them far in the situation _because they are still in the same 5 foot square_.  Without push, pull, and slide rules, if the tarrasque hits you as hard as it can with its tail you are thrown back no more than four feet because if it knocked you any further you would be in a different square.  Never mind un-cinematic, that's not even approaching gritty realism.



pemerton said:


> Second, from the fact that someone somewhere in the gameworld might traipse through a fairy ring, it doesn't follow that the actual game played is shallow _just because no PC ever traipses through a fairy ring and talks to a little person_. Presumably many NPCs in the gameworld are also having sex, having children, going to church, etc, but in most of the time in my games sex doesn't come up in anything more than a peripheral way, the PCs don't have kids, and the only time their church visits actually come up in game is when they want healing or other magical benefits. I don't think this makes my game shallow, though, because there are other worthwhile themes to be explored in a fanatsy RPG besides sex, family and organised worship (worhty as these themes might also be).




Indeed.  This is a world away from economy-destroying magic.  The fundamental difference being the things you mentioned above are things PCs avoid (including traipsing through fairy rings).  Economy or world-building wrecking magic is a _goal_ of many mages - and is core in 3.X



> A gameworld can be consistent in salient respects without having a detailed or realistic economy. All that is required is that the economy of the gameworld _not be salient_. The 1st ed AD&D has some suggestions on how to make the economy non-salient - I don't think it therefore follows that the 1st ed AD&D is opposed to the notion of a consistent gameworld.




Indeed.  But there are so many spells in the 3e PHB from wizards, clerics, and druids that _are_ salient to the economy that you need to effectively eliminate greed from the motivation for spellcasters.  And _that_ is, to me, the problem.



Bluenose said:


> Well, here's where we disagree. I'm completely fine with a low level of detail for the economy. I play Pendragon, and the income my knight gets from his manor is very much abstracted. If I want more detail, there are rules expanding on it (Book of Manors, Lordly Domains, or others). But they *expand* on the existing rules. To do something similar for D&D 3e I'd have to *fix* the existing rules. The facade you see in 4e for world-building is the same facade I see in 3e, except that 4e isn't pretending that there's something behind it.




Absolutely.  The biggest problem with 4e worldbuilding is that it's on two separate currency systems - one for magic items, one for commoners.  Which doesn't matter much.  Very little needs fixing because the whole game is in a different realm.  Which is about the same way as it works in 1e.  3e tried to merge the realms and it simply doesn't work.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Lanefan said:


> Disagree.
> 
> Casual gamers need a game they enjoy playing enough that it keeps their interest.
> 
> What causes a casual player to enjoy a game?  Given as how most casual players probably don't bounce from rule system to rule system, I'd hazard a guess that "rule system" would be a long way down the list of answers.
> 
> Which makes all systems, in this case, viable choices.




I agree that it's not the rule system. It is new and interesting material that seemed to keep casual players coming back. If year after year the only way they could play an elf was as a character class, they would become bored and move on to other non-gaming interests.

I've observed that D&D is on the forefront of non-gamers minds as THE roleplaying game. They don't know anything about any other TTRPG. Casual gamers are similar. They know D&D. They know "roll a twenty-sided die and ask if I hit." Other systems require a deeper knowledge of the industry that they don't want to bother with. All IMO, of course.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> I'm sure you have reasons for believing as you do. I personally couldn't even make it through Worlds & Monsters before I lost my suspension of disbelief. It seems bloody obvious to me that if fairy rings exist, someone at some point is going to traipse through one and possibly talk to a little person. That you would rate 3e and 4e equivalently in terms of simulating an imaginary world tells me that and similar issues are not salient to you. If you don't care if there's any _there _there, one dungeon crasher will do as well as the next.




That you think I would rate 3E and 4E equivalently in terms of simulating an imaginary world is already wrong, and so everything you say after this is increasingly off the tracks. They have very different facades. But they are both facades (and very roughly equivalent in the degree of the facade, as the chart indicated). You just happen to find the 3E facade more useful, satisfying, whatever. 

The difference between us is that I can see that you find the 3E facade useful, and not assume that there is no "there there." You are having a hard time returning the courtesy. This problem is not with me.


----------



## LostSoul

Neonchameleon said:


> Who says you can't do both?  I do.




You can do both, but I've found that it's too easy for me to let the description fall aside - because it doesn't matter to the game if you describe anything or not; what matters is where the mini is on the battlemap.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> the PCs don't have kids, and the only time their church visits actually come up in game is when they want healing or other magical benefits. I don't think this makes my game shallow, though, because there are other worthwhile themes to be explored in a fanatsy RPG besides sex, family and organised worship (worhty as these themes might also be).
> 
> Now if you regard "traipsing through fairy rings" as a placeholder for all things of any thematic depth that might occur in a fantasy RPG, it would be a different thing. But in my view W&M makes it pretty clear that that is not the intention of the game designers.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The sort of consistency I want in my gameworld is consistency in the broad sweep of history, of myth and of politics, and consistency when this is reduced down into particular (generally non-commercial) interactions with people and places. I want consistency in the difference between devil-worshipping tieflings and demon-worshipping gnolls.




Now you have confused me. You don't want organized worship but do?

The thing is in either case, YOU envision the game as W&M said, and that and probably JIT works for you because that is the type of game you were looking for. It doesnt work for others looking for a different type of game than you. Your JIT style works, because your players agree with you and don't want to witness the citizens actually worshiping anything or need that kind of continuity.

You seem to play an out of sight out of mind kind of game. If that works for you, then great.

What made the game popular and may be holding back its popularity for others is the lack of those things that you enjoy doing without.

As I said in the other thread, your playstyle works for you and your players and that should be all that matters to you, but you must accpet that kind of playstyle isnt popular with everyone and capturing you by aligning with your playstyle, could be a cause of reduced popularity in 4th edition.

It doesn't make your playstyle wrong, but others have a view of what yo playstyle seems to be. If you are happy with it, what do you care what industry/genre name it has been given?

Dungeon Crawls, hack-n-slash, dungeon-basher, tactical simulation, all of these CAN include other parts, but their primary focus IS, like 4th edition, the combat format.

The combat is where the story is just like in movies.



> When I read The Hobbit or the LotR,
> <snip>
> Economics is just not a salient consideration for those particular fantasy stories.




This is the exact thing. You are looking for a much different depth that others are. Some want that richness provided in the details. 



Lanefan said:


> The game world needs to be real in all ways except those in which it isn't real.






> having a standard of living comparable to that of an England that was one of the centres of world commerce and production




This is EXACTLY what some people want. That is the simulationism they want. A real world that the player is enveloped in. Books and movies often skip the economics because it isn't part or a good movie or book. Oddly Harry Potter books and movies took time to describe the economy of wizard money versus muggle money. People ate it up so much that galleons, knuts, etc was made for sale.

4th edition tells people to throw out the minutiae and bookkeeping, except for combat lets add more there, because that isnt fun. You agree with that, others do not. Those wanting that minutiae and simulation, the game wasn't made for them. Hell they are flat out told that isnt fun. Why would the game be popular when the very books insult them about what they like?

Gary had the same problem with his "no thespianism" rule. Seems clothes and types of games aren't the only retro things, but attitudes as well....

Gary "no thespians": 1979
WotC "____ isn't fun": 2008

Didn't make it 30 years but was darn close.

So how you are feeling insulted by people viewing 4th edition as a tactical skirmish game, you are seeing how those people feel about 4th when it tells them that "traipsing through fairy rings isnt fun".

The thing is,when the company says it, it is a slap in the face and they are biting the hands that feed them because they are insulting a playstyle by denying it as a valid way to play the game. When another gamer says it, who cares, it is their opinion.

You would likely not play the next edition if it was designed around and claimed that your current method of play was wrong, correct?



> the dramatic pacing of 4e combat




With comments like this you seem to want that tactical skirmish game, so what is so insulting about it?


----------



## shadzar

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I've observed that D&D is on the forefront of non-gamers minds as THE roleplaying game. They don't know anything about any other TTRPG. Casual gamers are similar. They know D&D. They know "roll a twenty-sided die and ask if I hit." Other systems require a deeper knowledge of the industry that they don't want to bother with. All IMO, of course.




Woohoo! I'm a non-gamer!


----------



## Umbran

shadzar said:


> Woohoo! I'm a non-gamer!




That's not what he said, nor is it what he implies.


----------



## shadzar

Umbran said:


> That's not what he said, nor is it what he implies.




In a sense it is right though....

That is how some would view it just as presented. Just a bit of a surprise when you think about how things have changed over the years, and how the definition of "gamer" has changed, casual or otherwise.

You know? I am fine with it. I don't require the industry or other gamers to validate me.


----------



## Dannager

shadzar said:


> 4th edition tells people to throw out the minutiae and bookkeeping, except for combat lets add more there, because that isnt fun. You agree with that, others do not. Those wanting that minutiae and simulation, the game wasn't made for them. Hell they are flat out told that isnt fun. Why would the game be popular when the very books insult them about what they like?



Seeing this as "insulting" is silly. _Really_ silly. You're being told, by people (real people, just like you!) that they designed their game to be fun, and this is what they think is fun and what they think isn't fun.

In _no way_ is "Minutiae is not fun," an insult. In _no way_. Unless your name is Minutiae. Then it might be. The fact that you _disagree_ with that statement doesn't suddenly make it an insult. This is fairly ridiculous oversensitivity. Similarly, other statements about things that are fun and things that are not fun are not insults, nor should they be perceived as insulting _even if you disagree with them_.

Crazy gamer overreaction leads to sad examples like this thread. You should not want to be like that.


----------



## Imaro

Dannager said:


> Seeing this as "insulting" is silly. _Really_ silly. You're being told, by people (real people, just like you!) that they designed their game to be fun, and this is what they think is fun and what they think isn't fun.
> 
> In _no way_ is "Minutiae is not fun," an insult. In _no way_. Unless your name is Minutiae. Then it might be. The fact that you _disagree_ with that statement doesn't suddenly make it an insult. This is fairly ridiculous oversensitivity. Similarly, other statements about things that are fun and things that are not fun are not insults, nor should they be perceived as insulting _even if you disagree with them_.
> 
> Crazy gamer overreaction leads to sad examples like this thread. You should not want to be like that.





While I agree that it really isn't an insult (in the same way comments about 4e aren't an insult to those who enjoy playing 4e, unless they are named 4e)...

I guess the real question becomes... why would I want to play or spend money on a game that was designed by those who use the very things I've found fun in previous editions as examples of things that are neither enjoyable or encouraged in this particular iterration of the game.  IMO it would have been far better to adopt the stance that gamers will find their own fun things within the experience of the game and the ability to tailor this to individual groups and players is one of the greatest strengths of a human moderated game.  I mean it seems to me the gateway/most popular rpg would also want to be as inclusive as possible...


----------



## Dannager

Imaro said:


> While I agree that it really isn't an insult (in the same way comments about 4e aren't an insult to those who enjoy playing 4e, unless they are named 4e)...
> 
> I guess the real question becomes... why would I want to play or spend money on a game that was designed by those who use the very things I've found fun in previous editions as examples of things that are neither enjoyable or encouraged in this particular iterration of the game.  IMO it would have been far better to adopt the stance that gamers will find their own fun things within the experience of the game and the ability to tailor this to individual groups and players is one of the greatest strengths of a human moderated game.  I mean it seems to me the gateway/most popular rpg would also want to be as inclusive as possible...



While this is definitely a more level-headed approach to take than looking for new and exciting ways to act offended, we're talking about game design here. Focus is important, and D&D has a definite focus (and always has). 4e placed _by far_ the most design effort on that focus of any edition to date. There have been attempts, in the past, to put some token design effort towards fleshing out areas of potential play that are not part of the intended focus of D&D - Profession skills, etc. Those design efforts are, I argue, wasted. Some people disagree, but I'd argue that the number of people who require a formula for making money via basketweaving in order to properly enjoy their RPG are in the tiny minority compared to those who appreciate the design attention that D&D's focus (adventure, combat, heroic action) received. And those who are in that minority have a lot of other options, and that's cool.

But don't make the mistake that basketweaving profession formulae are going to draw new people into the hobby. If anything, minutiae like that have been shown time and time again to impart a level of senseless complexity that make the new player experience that much harder to make work.

Let me be clear: being "inclusive" in the sense that you want to make the game easily accessible (which you should focus on as the entry point to the hobby) is _not_ the same as being "inclusive" in the sense that you want to cater to everyone's tastes at the same time, especially if that jeopardizes the focus and coherency of your game.


----------



## Imaro

Dannager said:


> While this is definitely a more level-headed approach to take than looking for new and exciting ways to act offended, we're talking about game design here. Focus is important, and D&D has a definite focus (and always has). 4e placed _by far_ the most design effort on that focus of any edition to date. There have been attempts, in the past, to put some token design effort towards fleshing out areas of potential play that are not part of the intended focus of D&D - Profession skills, etc. Those design efforts are, I argue, wasted. Some people disagree, but I'd argue that the number of people who require a formula for making money via basketweaving in order to properly enjoy their RPG are in the tiny minority compared to those who appreciate the design attention that D&D's focus (adventure, combat, heroic action) received. And those who are in that minority have a lot of other options, and that's cool.




Maybe 4e placing "_by far_ the most design effort on that focus of any edition to date." is exactly why it isn't as popular as it could be. Maybe most people weren't looking for a focused tool but were instead much happier with the swiss army knife type approach of previous editions. To claim people who want this kind of "minutae" are a minority... is well disingenuous without some type of evidence... 



Dannager said:


> But don't make the mistake that basketweaving profession formulae are going to draw new people into the hobby. If anything, minutiae like that have been shown time and time again to impart a level of senseless complexity that make the new player experience that much harder to make work.




I find this hard to believe since more recent CRPG's (like Fable and Dragon Age) and MMORPG's (WoW) have crafting systems, profession systems, sometimes the ability to purchase land and even have families and children... and many people find enjoyment in using them... even if they aren't realistic. So assuming such things about people who would be interested in playing D&D seems a bit presumptuous at best and erroneous if the current trend of rpg videogames is any indicator.  I mean these games are moving more in the direction you claim is not what most people want... Honestly I think WotC messed up big time with this directional shift in focus.


----------



## shadzar

Dannager said:


> Seeing this as "insulting" is silly. _Really_ silly. You're being told, by people (real people, just like you!) that they designed their game to be fun, and this is what they think is fun and what they think isn't fun.
> 
> In _no way_ is "Minutiae is not fun," an insult. In _no way_. Unless your name is Minutiae. Then it might be. The fact that you _disagree_ with that statement doesn't suddenly make it an insult. This is fairly ridiculous oversensitivity. Similarly, other statements about things that are fun and things that are not fun are not insults, nor should they be perceived as insulting _even if you disagree with them_.
> 
> Crazy gamer overreaction leads to sad examples like this thread. You should not want to be like that.




Silly when that is an insult at people saying "4th edition isn't D&D to me", but not silly when you have a person, or group thereof trying to tell EVERYONE ELSE in the world what isn't fun.

That is a very insult to personal opinion, if not an attempt at oppression.

"4th edition isn't D&D to me", doesn't deny others to think it is or isn't.

"X isn't fun", tries to define for everyone what is an isn't fun. You trying to think for me, is insulting.

Not once in the instance of "Minutiae is not fun, for us at WotC". They just tried to blanket claim and define for all what fun is and is not.

Well it is insulting, but I can only be insulted by it until it hits me what pathetic people are trying to define fun for others and must laugh at and pity them for being so ignorant as to think they can.

They never commented once that if was "for WotC", while that can be inferred by being produced in a WotC product, it doesn't even say "in D&D" and tries to include for ALL games and activities what is fun.

Maybe they should qualify their statements up front "The views and opinions expressed in this book are those solely of WotC in regards to its D&D product design." Or just say at each case "Minutiae is not fun, *for us at WotC*".


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Dannager said:


> ...But don't make the mistake that basketweaving profession formulae are going to draw new people into the hobby.



Hey get it right: it's Craft(Basketweaving) and that relied on intelligence. There's no such thing as Profession (Basketweaver) and it would be wisdom related if it did exist but it doesn't!!!


[Aside]I honestly think that zero people would think such an inclusion will draw new players into the hobby so in all honesty with what you are saying, you are preaching to the converted brother. Essentially, no one is making this mistake.[/aside]



			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> If anything, minutiae like that have been shown time and time again to impart a level of senseless complexity that make the new player experience that much harder to make work.



Really?! You hand a new player the player's handbook and they kind of gloss over races, skills, feats, combat, attacks of opportunity, lighting rules, poofteen thousand magical effects and _then _they come to craft(Basketweaving) and look up at you and go... "Dude, this craft(Basketweaving) is like blowing my brain...".

I think not.



			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> Let me be clear: being "inclusive" in the sense that you want to make the game easily accessible (which you should focus on as the entry point to the hobby) is _not_ the same as being "inclusive" in the sense that you want to cater to everyone's tastes at the same time, especially if that jeopardizes the focus and coherency of your game.



But alienating a goodly section of your customer base by being "inclusive" has not been that great either as this thread has highlighted. As for the minutiae unfun line, it is not an insult but it is clearly a rejection from the designers to a section of the now-previous customer base.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> Now you have confused me. You don't want organized worship but do?



I didn't say I don't want organised worship in the gameworld. I said that _playing out organised worship_ is not a big part of my game.

What is the liturgy of the gnoll demon workers? I don't know, and I don't especially care. The gnolls are important in the game not because of their liturgy, but because of their metaphysical, mythical and moral standing.

I'd make a comparison to LotR: what is the liturgy for worship of Sauron? We're not told, and are never given an example of worship of Sauron, or the Witch King. It doesn't mean that LotR has no mythic depth - just that it's not a story about organised religion.



shadzar said:


> The thing is in either case, YOU envision the game as W&M said, and that and probably JIT works for you because that is the type of game you were looking for. It doesnt work for others looking for a different type of game than you. Your JIT style works, because your players agree with you and don't want to witness the citizens actually worshiping anything or need that kind of continuity.



Why would there be no continuity because at the game able we don't play out worship? At your game table do you play out urination? If not, does it follow that your PCs don't have bladders? Or is this just something that is assumed to happen "offscreen"?

My game isn't about urination. Nor is it about organised worship. It's about the players actually engaging with gods, and demons, and gnolls, and spirits. Not pews and missals and the details of liturgical practice.



shadzar said:


> You seem to play an out of sight out of mind kind of game. If that works for you, then great.



If you mean that not all the details of the PCs' lives are actually _played out at the game table_, then yes. If you mean that the players ignore the existence of organised religion, then no. The player of the paladin of the Raven Queen frequently mentions the performance by his PC of various prayers and rites. But most of the time there is no need to play these out - so religious practices that one might imagine are taking half-an-hour or more in the gameworld take maybe a minute or so to resolve at the table.



shadzar said:


> As I said in the other thread, your playstyle works for you and your players and that should be all that matters to you, but you must accpet that kind of playstyle isnt popular with everyone



What makes you think that I don't accept this? Like I've posted multiple times upthread, I think that WotC made a mistake in taking a punt that Ron Edwards was right about what would make for a popular RPG. In particular, they seem to have underestimated how many players actually do want to play a world-exploration game.



shadzar said:


> If you are happy with it, what do you care what industry/genre name it has been given?



I don't care what it's called. I've got no stake in the "D&D to me" issue, and have no special emotional attachment to the D&D brand. The only RPG that evokes that sort of response in me is Rolemaster, but that game is now in such a torpor that I've more-or-less let it go.



shadzar said:


> This is the exact thing. You are looking for a much different depth that others are. Some want that richness provided in the details.



Are you really meaning to assert that the Hobbit and the LotR lack richness of detail? Or that the best - or only - path to richness is via detailed gameworld economics?




shadzar said:


> Dungeon Crawls, hack-n-slash, dungeon-basher, tactical simulation, all of these CAN include other parts, but their primary focus IS, like 4th edition, the combat format.
> 
> The combat is where the story is just like in movies.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So how you are feeling insulted by people viewing 4th edition as a tactical skirmish game
> 
> <snip>
> 
> With comments like this you seem to want that tactical skirmish game, so what is so insulting about it?



Insulted would probably be too strong, but I'm _irritated_ by being told that _my game_ that I play fortnightly is a tactical skirmish game, with nothing but a random series of encounters, and no depth or consistency, just because it uses non-simulationist mechanics and doesn't pay a great deal of attention to ammunition expended by the archers.

If that's all you see when you look at 4e, well, that's your problem, not mine. It's when you project your apparently limited vision of what an RPG can be onto me that I get annoyed.

In particular, how could you thing that what I want is a skirmish game when I've been contesting that very proposition for the whole thread? What I want is a game of epic, mythic proportions like the one I described in the PC sacrifice thread.

As for dramatic pacing in combat - why would you suppose that someone who like dramatic pacing in combat is primarily interested in a tactical skirmish game? It's wierd for two reasons - first, are you saying that you prefer boring and non-dramatic pacing in the combats in your game? and second, most tactical skirmish games aren't espeically aimed at dramatic pacing at all, because they're not games trying to evoke an emotional experience. The concern with pacing is a distinctive marker of RPGing, I think.


----------



## pawsplay

Crazy Jerome said:


> That you think I would rate 3E and 4E equivalently in terms of simulating an imaginary world is already wrong, and so everything you say after this is increasingly off the tracks. They have very different facades. But they are both facades (and very roughly equivalent in the degree of the facade, as the chart indicated). You just happen to find the 3E facade more useful, satisfying, whatever.
> 
> The difference between us is that I can see that you find the 3E facade useful, and not assume that there is no "there there." You are having a hard time returning the courtesy. This problem is not with me.




The difference is that I think we disagree, whereas you think I agree with you but am too stubborn to admit it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As for the minutiae unfun line, it is not an insult but it is clearly a rejection from the designers to a section of the now-previous customer base.




While I did consider it an insult at the time, now I take it more like you phrased it.

IOW, we weren't so much _insulted_ as _dumped_.  Still hurts, though.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> The difference is that I think we disagree, whereas you think I agree with you but am too stubborn to admit it.




No I think there is a gap in your understanding of how I play, that is so wide that you could drive a Mack truck through it.  Which by itself, is no problem whatsoever.  Different strokes and all that.  It's the conclusions that you leap to about how I play that are the problem.  Or rather, the inability to refrain from sharing them, when it would be better not to.

I believe a few posts up pemerton used the phrase, "project your apparently limited vision of what an RPG can be onto me."  Note the "can be".  Not "is for all folk at all times".  Not "is at your table".  Not even "is preferable to most people."  Merely "can be."


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Are you really meaning to assert that the Hobbit and the LotR lack richness of detail?




Yes, as an RPG I do, because it is books and movies. Not intended for the viewer to participate in any level, but solely to observe.

I assert that the Hobbit and LotR offer a dire lack of detail as a game because it is NOT made to be used in that manner.

I see this as the reason D&D was created, to move away form playing out a book, historical battle, etc and following the script.

The things not required or held in the books and movies, are what makes makes the difference between a game and the books and movies.

I am hoping you see that. There wasn't mention of the money used in the LotR movies. I doubt there will be much in the Hobbit either. The movies don't require that to tell the story.

That kind of story is great for the book, but when applying it to an RPG, people can get what the books and movies miss. The rest of the world. Be that part of the world the economics, who does the basket weaving, whatever.

TTRPGs are not bound by the scripts of movies or books, nor are they bound by the limitations of computers for CRPGs and MMOs.

The only limitations a TTRPG has is the imagination of the players and GM.

Reading and watching LotR and the Hobbit is vastly different from assuming you are a person in them.

Those very limitations of books and movies is the reason D&D existed to break away from and give the full spectrum to, IF you want to use it. For those that do not, then 4th edition is obviously likely to be a popular choice. For those that do want those things, 4th edition is most likely not popular as it DOES lack the richness and play they may be seeking that goes beyond what is held/constrained in the books and movies.



> Insulted would probably be too strong, but I'm _irritated_ by being told that _my game_ that I play fortnightly is a tactical skirmish game,




As long as you use 4th edition, anyone viewing 4th edition as a tactical skirmish game, then your game will fit within the definition they have for 4th edition. You just have to come to terms with it and accept it.

You enjoyment isn't in question, just the system itself. So don't try to defend the system, but just learn it isn't you being targeted. Your association to the system and use of it isnt the cause of the statement. You are just a casualty of the system as viewed by those people.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While I did consider it an insult at the time, now I take it more like you phrased it.
> 
> IOW, we weren't so much _insulted_ as _dumped_. Still hurts, though.




I said right after launch that a great deal of the furor with 4E--well, at least the intensity of it, was not because of what was changed but the pretenses that were dropped.  It wasn't just dumped, it was dumped at the party, with a "I'm just not into that anymore". 

I don't see how they could have kept the design as they did and softened this blow much.  In fact, I think some of the PR spent on trying to soften the blow was probably counter-productive.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Maybe most people weren't looking for a focused tool but were instead much happier with the swiss army knife type approach of previous editions.



This is an interesting point.

In my view the previous editions _weren't_ Swiss army knives, but also had a focus. Look, for example, at the advice for players in the last section of the 1st ed AD&D PHB. Not a game about basket-weaving. A game about operational play. If you don't actually play out your dungeon-scouting in 1st ed, you're not playing the game that Gygax is talking about.

Or at the list of sample scenarios in the Moldvay Basic rulebook. Also not a game about basket-weaving, but similar in some ways to Gygax's AD&D although a bit more light-hearted.

On the other hand, earlier editions of D&D don't particularly support hero-questing play - that is, a game in which the heroes travel back into mythic history in order to rewrite myth and therefore change the world - because (i) the structure of the planes tends to be treated as fixed independently of the gods, (ii) the gods tend to be treated as unkillable, (iii) the history of the gameworld is not generally presented as having a mythic aspect, and (iv) there are other reasons as well, of a more mechaincal nature, that can be elaborated if desired.

I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Some people think that a simulationist ruleset can be plugged into any world. But that is not my experience. In my experience, a simulationist ruleset tends to create its own pressure to prioritise some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play.


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:


> Maybe 4e placing "_by far_ the most design effort on that focus of any edition to date." is exactly why it isn't as popular as it could be. Maybe most people weren't looking for a focused tool but were instead much happier with the swiss army knife type approach of previous editions.




I think AD&D 1E and B/X are just as focused as 4E is.  _Different_ focus, but still.

edit: Scooped by pemerton!


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> Two things. First, we established upthread that the "traipsing" reference is from Races and Classes, and also that on this point R&C is in express contradiction to W&M.




I stand corrected on the quotation. I hope the larger point was not lost? Even before 4e was in print, design descisions were made that negatively impacted my interest.



> Second, from the fact that someone somewhere in the gameworld might traipse through a fairy ring, it doesn't follow that the actual game played is shallow _just because no PC ever traipses through a fairy ring and talks to a little person_. Presumably many NPCs in the gameworld are also having sex, having children, going to church, etc, but in most of the time in my games sex doesn't come up in anything more than a peripheral way, the PCs don't have kids, and the only time their church visits actually come up in game is when they want healing or other magical benefits. I don't think this makes my game shallow, though, because there are other worthwhile themes to be explored in a fanatsy RPG besides sex, family and organised worship (worhty as these themes might also be).




I didn't accuse your game of being shallow.



> Now if you regard "traipsing through fairy rings" as a placeholder for all things of any thematic depth that might occur in a fantasy RPG, it would be a different thing. But in my view W&M makes it pretty clear that that is not the intention of the game designers.




It is a clear extension of the "it only needs stats if you're going to kill it" mentality that does, indeed, affect thematics. We are talking about thematic breadth rather than depth, though. 4e has adequate depth in a number of areas, such as character developments (the Paragon Paths being a good example) and complex encounters (skill challenges, dynamic battlefields). Depth in the economics is, in my opinion, significantly shallower than in 3e, beginning with the nonsensical rules for reselling magic items by PCs. But that is a secondary activity to first attaining those items. The lack of thematic breadth, however, is quite evident: little support for holdings and rulership, non-combat interactions, traipsing through fairy rings, mules, etc. As an analogy, 4e is like a big Hollywood movie that goes from one action scene to another, interspersed with some colorful dialog and some melodrama. 



> A gameworld can be consistent in salient respects without having a detailed or realistic economy. All that is required is that the economy of the gameworld _not be salient_. The 1st ed AD&D has some suggestions on how to make the economy non-salient - I don't think it therefore follows that the 1st ed AD&D is opposed to the notion of a consistent gameworld.




I agree. Was there something in this paragraph that was supposed to contradict what I've said before, or is this mostly continuity for the sake of what you are going to say next?



> The sort of consistency I want in my gameworld is consistency in the broad sweep of history, of myth and of politics, and consistency when this is reduced down into particular (generally non-commercial) interactions with people and places. I want consistency in the difference between devil-worshipping tieflings and demon-worshipping gnolls. I want my sun-cult that combines worship of Bahamut, Kord, Pelor and Ioun to interact in an interesting and evocative way with the more mainstream cults of those various gods, in a way that doesn't strike the players just as arbitrary, but rather helps them engage with the nuances of the mythic history and resonance of the gameworld.
> 
> The presence or absence of rules to support an economic simulations is irrelevant to this. When I read The Hobbit or the LotR, if my first observation is that the more-or-less autarkic shire is presented as having a standard of living comparable to that of an England that was one of the centres of world commerce and production - an economically absurd notion - then I have probably missed the point. If the economic absurdity led me to conclude that the world was a mere facade, I think I would have doubly missed the point. Economics is just not a salient consideration for those particular fantasy stories.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that anyone who doesn't care about the economics of the gameworld can only be playing a dungeon-bashing game. If you are, I think it's nonsense for the reasons I've given above. If you're not, then apologies for the misunderstanding, but I 've completely failed to grasp the point you're trying to make.




Whoa, there. Re-read. I was observing specifically that both 4e and 3e contain within them a functional dungeon-bashing game, usually taken as a sub-game of the larger experience. My point was that 4e and 3e differ in important details apart from the common set of components, while being similar within that realm.

4e tends to aim for the smooth montage, the expository transition, the leitmotif. 3e offers a wider set of tools for more diverse genres of experience. In the case of some players, that diversity may be unwanted. But in the case of 4e, the lack of that diversity is irreplaceable to those who want it. I'm not saying 3e is better, holistically and objectively, than 4e, any more than I would say filet minon is better than a cheeseburger. But proceeding from the goals of an RPG, as I understand them for myself and for others generally, I perceive 3e to be a better designed game, just as I perceive a well-prepared filet minon to be better than a cheeseburger made from standard chuck. Now, if you really want an cheeseburger, it doesn't matter how good the steak is. 4e does not provide a gourmet experience. It's fine to like it, but it just doesn't. Now, somewhere at out there, even as we speak, someone is making a cheeseburger from top grade sirloin, aged cheddar and gourmet jack cheeses, and a very fine yeasty bun, and good for them. That's about as far as I want to with that metaphor. Also, I'm getting hungry.

4e is facile. That is neither praise nor condemnation; that is what it is. 3e is baroque. It was be nice if all the unfun things were easy and all the fun things were deliciously engaging, but there is going to be tension between design goals, aside from different preferences between gamers.

Coming back around, there is nothing in 3e or 4e that is likely to significantly prevent you from playing out detailed scenarios with depth of world and character. However, what 4e offers is barely more than no system at all in such matters. Since I find 4e to be a mechanical monsters in the areas it covers fluently, that's no sale from me. Say what you will about 3e, you can buy a mule. NPC abilities could be interpreted as intelligently as can PC abilities, having the same "keywords." PC and NPC versions of the same race can use the same equipment. NPC merchants aren't insane monopolists who think they can force the world's greatest adventurers to sell them magic items for 1/5 of retail even though the items are usually sold used in the first place, and are actually likely to accept a favorable swap on similarly priced items. 

If you don't miss that, no problem. 4e will make your life easy. Pay attention to what you think is fun. But I think it's clear, going back to the OT, that many if not most D&D players want a little more there, there. That's one reason 4e has not sold as well. Monsters don't have ecologies, merchants don't have comprehensible motivations, and some PCs don't seem to physically belong to their own race.


----------



## pawsplay

Crazy Jerome said:


> I said right after launch that a great deal of the furor with 4E--well, at least the intensity of it, was not because of what was changed but the pretenses that were dropped.  It wasn't just dumped, it was dumped at the party, with a "I'm just not into that anymore".
> 
> I don't see how they could have kept the design as they did and softened this blow much.  In fact, I think some of the PR spent on trying to soften the blow was probably counter-productive.




Someone of it was _definitely_ counterproductive.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pemerton said:


> I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Some people think that a simulationist ruleset can be plugged into any world. But that is not my experience. In my experience, a simulationist ruleset tends to create its own pressure to prioritise some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play.




The only part of that I disagree with is that it is too narrow.  It is symptom not limited to simulationist rulesets.  I don't recall who started it, but there was this quote floating around a few years back along the lines:  "You can do any game you want with GURPS, but it will be the GURPS version of that game."

I found that so true.  It was certainly my experience running Fantasy Hero in the Forgotten Realms.  It was great fun, but to call it exactly Hero or D&D is misleading.  It was very much "FR D&D done the Hero way."

What happens with non-sim games is that they prioritize or subordinate on different axes (at least usually--you get some similarities just by them all being games).  If a particular axis doesn't chafe the players sitting around that table, though, they'll not likely notice it being present or excluded.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> It is a clear extension of the "it only needs stats if you're going to kill it" mentality that does, indeed, affect thematics. We are talking about thematic breadth rather than depth, though. 4e has adequate depth in a number of areas, such as character developments (the Paragon Paths being a good example) and complex encounters (skill challenges, dynamic battlefields). Depth in the economics is, in my opinion, significantly shallower than in 3e, beginning with the nonsensical rules for reselling magic items by PCs. But that is a secondary activity to first attaining those items. The lack of thematic breadth, however, is quite evident: little support for holdings and rulership, non-combat interactions, traipsing through fairy rings, mules, etc. As an analogy, 4e is like a big Hollywood movie that goes from one action scene to another, interspersed with some colorful dialog and some melodrama..




It is a clear marker of how far apart we are on this question that it would never once have occurred to me to put "depth", "character development" and "paragon path" in the same sentence. 

It's interesting that you should mention Hollywood, though.  Because when I mentioned Disney World pirates up thread, I very much had in mind that 4E was at base, a Pirates of the Caribbean movie.  And 3E is the Disney World ride.  What one will, I hope, use them for at the game table is so much richer than either.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Some people think that a simulationist ruleset can be plugged into any world. But that is not my experience. In my experience, a simulationist ruleset tends to create its own pressure to prioritise some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play.




So you assert that *a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play*?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

shadzar said:


> So you assert that *a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play*?




Depends on how entangled it is wiith other components or even implied assumptions of the ruleset as a whole, and also depends upon how much this particular component bugs the people at the table.

To wit, if you assume, for sake of your encumbrance math perhaps, that people routinely tote 20 pound swords twice as tall as the character wielding them--then this assumption will likely matter not one whit to most of the people playing. Whereas if you insisted, "no swords," it might create more trouble. If the 20 pounds or the length of the sword annoys enough, they'll just change it. Assuming of course that this doesn't fatally break the encumbrance system which everyone agrees is great, and critical to fun play with said system.

Nonetheless, if my choices are 20 pound, double length swords or now swords--I think in that system I'll just drop the swords and keep that super encumbrance system. Because oversized swords bug the heck out of me, out of all reason. 

But mainly, you've got your cause and effect backwards on this issue.  It's not that rules artifacts that create such pressure are therefore difficult to ignore or remove.  It's that things that are difficult to ignore or remove *may* cause such pressures.  Get enough of them in a system pushed far enough outside its center, and eventually some of them will cause such pressures.


----------



## pawsplay

Crazy Jerome said:


> I don't recall who started it, but there was this quote floating around a few years back along the lines:  "You can do any game you want with GURPS, but it will be the GURPS version of that game."




That quip obviously predates GURPS Fourth Edition, which can easily produce a number of different types of game. You have provided your own counter-argument. Even GURPS doesn't have to be the GURPS version of GURPS. You can sim any genre (inclusive of any worlds), provided you usefully identify what resolution systems and narrative events you want to sim. 

I think that should be a foregone conclusion. After all, you couldn't play a game that didn't simulate anything at all. Surely, simulating something more and better shouldn't make it _worse_. It's possible to misallocate resources as to what needs in-depth resolution and what doesn't, but if you accurately identify you want, you should be able to discern a system that supports it. 

(This of course ties into my belief that simulation does not compete with other experential goals, only with time and space itself, i.e. simulation is an activity that requires a quantifiable amount of energy. So much the worse for Forgie theory).


----------



## pawsplay

Crazy Jerome said:


> But mainly, you've got your cause and effect backwards on this issue.  It's not that rules artifacts that create such pressure are therefore difficult to ignore or remove.  It's that things that are difficult to ignore or remove *may* cause such pressures.  Get enough of them in a system pushed far enough outside its center, and eventually some of them will cause such pressures.




That's the heart of my argument on the Profession skill thing; in most games, the incongruent elements exert almost no pressure. It becomes an issue if you try to play SimBarony.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> That quip obviously predates GURPS Fourth Edition, which can easily produce a number of different types of game. You have provided your own counter-argument. Even GURPS doesn't have to be the GURPS version of GURPS. You can sim any genre (inclusive of any worlds), provided you usefully identify what resolution systems and narrative events you want to sim.




I can't find it; so I'm not positive.  But I'm pretty sure it was after GURPS 4E.  But even if not, I can tell you that the guy that wrote it wouldn't back down one bit for GURPS 4E.   "Sim anything" is not equivalent to "Sim in a certain fashion."  To the extent that GURPS 4E provides alternative mechanics and subsystems, it may very well cover a lot of ground.  But it doesn't cover all possible ground.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Broke this out separate:



pawsplay said:


> I think that should be a foregone conclusion. After all, you couldn't play a game that didn't simulate anything at all. Surely, simulating something more and better shouldn't make it _worse_. It's possible to misallocate resources as to what needs in-depth resolution and what doesn't, but if you accurately identify you want, you should be able to discern a system that supports it.
> 
> (This of course ties into my belief that simulation does not compete with other experential goals, only with time and space itself, i.e. simulation is an activity that requires a quantifiable amount of energy. So much the worse for Forgie theory).




I agree that misallocation of resources for depth of resolution can be an issue. I disagree with the implication that it is the only such empediment, once having properly identified what you want to simulate. 

If nothing else, there are opportunity costs in every choice made. If you want X, Y, and Z, you may be able to have them all at a reasonable level of detail, mechanical support, etc. However, the more you add to the list, the more likely some element, critical to a particular group, collapses under the weight of the whole. 

People have criticized 4E for having way too many powers, and this being a result of a flawed design. No doubt some of this criticism is based on a perceived misallocation of resources. If only they had a shorter power list, they could have had room for more equipment, fluff text, skills, whatever. Whereas, I have criticized 4E for having way too many powers, but I don't want them to replace the excess with anything. As far as I'm concerned, the problem with too many powers is that it makes powers not nearly as good as they could be.

(3E fans not familar with 4E can substitute 3E feats for 4E powers in this discussion, and it still applies, though perhaps with not as much force.  And not that 4E feats aren't showing signs of the same problem.)


----------



## Neonchameleon

shadzar said:


> This is EXACTLY what some people want. That is the simulationism they want. A real world that the player is enveloped in.




Except 3e's brand of simulationism _messes that up_.  A basketweaver earns as much per week as a gemcarver.  Profession (Waitress) earns you as much for the same skill ranks as Profession (Lawyer).  And the stonemason probably earns more than the lawyer.



> Books and movies often skip the economics because it isn't part or a good movie or book. Oddly Harry Potter books and movies took time to describe the economy of wizard money versus muggle money. People ate it up so much that galleons, knuts, etc was made for sale.




And when it comes to worldbuilding 4e does not prevent you doing that.  3e with its hardcoded economics means you need to rewrite.  It prevents you getting the world you want.

The other part here is that a role playing game is not a book.  PCs poke at edges far more than characters in stories.  They are far more likely IME to unearth the parts that are sloppily built and exploit them.



> 4th edition tells people to throw out the minutiae and bookkeeping, except for combat lets add more there, because that isnt fun. You agree with that, others do not. Those wanting that minutiae and simulation, the game wasn't made for them.




Which makes it a hell of a lot better than a game that gets minutae _wrong_.  And then hardcodes them into the rules so they are a bitch to change without knock-on effects.



> You would likely not play the next edition if it was designed around and claimed that your current method of play was wrong, correct?




It depends.  If Dread claimed my current method of play was wrong it wouldn't stop me playing Dread for the games it's right for.


----------



## pawsplay

Crazy Jerome said:


> I can't find it; so I'm not positive.  But I'm pretty sure it was after GURPS 4E.  But even if not, I can tell you that the guy that wrote it wouldn't back down one bit for GURPS 4E.   "Sim anything" is not equivalent to "Sim in a certain fashion."  To the extent that GURPS 4E provides alternative mechanics and subsystems, it may very well cover a lot of ground.  But it doesn't cover all possible ground.




Why would it cover all possible ground, and why would you want it to? 

All _any _ RPG can be is a set of alternative mechanics and subsystems. D&D 4e and Hero System are two alternative mechanics and subsystems. The implication you seem to be making is that GURPS is quite limited in what it will do, based on its basic structure. GURPS 4e is not very limited in that respect, despite having the same basic structure as 3e, which was fairly limited in many areas. Similarly, 3e covers a wide range of possible types of games, 4e provides mechanical support for only a few.


----------



## Neonchameleon

pawsplay said:


> 4e tends to aim for the smooth montage, the expository transition, the leitmotif. 3e offers a wider set of tools for more diverse genres of experience. In the case of some players, that diversity may be unwanted. But in the case of 4e, the lack of that diversity is irreplaceable to those who want it. I'm not saying 3e is better, holistically and objectively, than 4e, any more than I would say filet minon is better than a cheeseburger.




The problem is that when I look at 3e from a worldbuilding perspective I don't see a fillet mignon.  I see a KFC Bucket.  Now some people like KFC.  But at my table, one player's a vegitarian, one doesn't eat battery chicken, and one's on a diet.  Two would be happy with a KFC bucket.

4e provides me with nothing.



> But proceeding from the goals of an RPG, as I understand them for myself and for others generally, I perceive 3e to be a better designed game, just as I perceive a well-prepared filet minon to be better than a cheeseburger made from standard chuck. Now, if you really want an cheeseburger, it doesn't matter how good the steak is.




But I don't see 3e's worldbuilding as a well-prepared filet mignon.  Not even _close_.  It leads to the question whether I want us to eat the KFC bucket or whether I want to dump it.

If we're all going to eat the KFC bucket, 3e's much better than 4e.  But if I actually want a fillet mignon or just something that isn't very greasy, I've had to deal with this greasy bucket we're not going to eat just to get to the point where 4e starts.  And it's left a stain of grease underneath it that needs cleaning up.



> 4e does not provide a gourmet experience. It's fine to like it, but it just doesn't.




No it doesn't.  What it provides is a gourmet starter, complete with a few sharp specialist knives for the maincourse.



> 4e is facile. That is neither praise nor condemnation; that is what it is. 3e is baroque. It was be nice if all the unfun things were easy and all the fun things were deliciously engaging, but there is going to be tension between design goals, aside from different preferences between gamers.




Indeed.  3e is baroque.  It's multiple things mixed together in a nice plastic package.  Far from being gourmet-quality, it's a ready-meal.  And there are times when ready-meals are exactly what I want.

4e is facile.  It's only one part of the meal.  But it's that part of the meal made from top quality ingredients and cooked almost to perfection.  It's a gourmet starter even if not one to everyone's taste.



> Coming back around, there is nothing in 3e or 4e that is likely to significantly prevent you from playing out detailed scenarios with depth of world and character. However, what 4e offers is barely more than no system at all in such matters.




Oh, indeed.  The question here is whether no system is more useful than an actively bad and counter-productive system.  And the answer to that depends on how much cooking you are prepared to do.

I can provide motivations for my merchants easily.  Monster ecologies?  Seriously?  4e monster manuals provide what is to me something more valuable - they give me indications as to how the monsters think and behave.


----------



## LostSoul

pawsplay said:


> (This of course ties into my belief that simulation does not compete with other experential goals, only with time and space itself, i.e. simulation is an activity that requires a quantifiable amount of energy. So much the worse for Forgie theory).




I think that's the "platform" of Exploration that Ron Edwards talks about in the Big Model theory.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> Why would it cover all possible ground, and why would you want it to?
> 
> All _any _RPG can be is a set of alternative mechanics and subsystems. D&D 4e and Hero System are two alternative mechanics and subsystems. The implication you seem to be making is that GURPS is quite limited in what it will do, based on its basic structure. GURPS 4e is not very limited in that respect, despite having the same basic structure as 3e, which was fairly limited in many areas. Similarly, 3e covers a wide range of possible types of games, 4e provides mechanical support for only a few.




No, I'm not saying that GURPS is quite limited. I know full well that you can do a lot with it. 

Dang, at least I just had dinner. All these food analogies are making me hungry. In the food world, GURPS 4E is chicken. Not only can you do all kinds of neat chicken things with it (and boy are there a lot), you can also fake some other stuff! Everyone knows that rattlesnake and froglegs and alligator and a whole bunch of other things "taste just like chicken." So rather than get all wet and maybe get bit or eaten, I can just get some chicken, and have my alligator BBQ, right?

Most people don't know the difference. Most people don't even care. Unless they go with you and catch the alligator, and then watch you cook it, they'll never know if you serve them chicken. Heck, with some sleight of hand, you could probably slip in some chicken and still convince them it was gator, while you sold the gator elsewhere. And even if they caught that, put enough cayenne pepper in the BBQ sauce, and you can mix and match.

But if you ask people who have tried these alternatives, simply prepared, they will tell you that these things actually taste, "mostly like chicken"--assuming your chicken is free range and kind of gamey. So as soon as someone starts doing a real comparison, with the sauces removed, no misdirection, etc.--some people can tell a meaningful difference. 

And likewise, you can make dishes that are traditionally not chicken, out of chicken, and get something very good. (I happen to like chicken pizza better than a lot of the things it replaces, for example.) You can put chicken in lasanga, use similar spices and sauces, and it will be very good. But it will be *chicken* lasanga, not *beef* *sausage* lasanga.

This is exactly what that quote is referring to. You are still too focused on the lasanga. Some guy comes along and says he wants lasanga, you might say, "Hey, I've got a great recipe for that using GURPS." And you do. He tries is, and tells you it just isn't working for him. Talk long enough, and you find out that the beef sausage was really what was important. The lasanga was just the way he was used to doing it before.

You can do GURPS horror or GURPS fantasy or GURPS supers or whatever. And as long as all you care about is the genre, it will work just fine. The moment you start wanting Hero fantasy, though, GURPS is, at best, a subpar substitute. Maybe very close to the same thing, but still subpar.


----------



## pawsplay

LostSoul said:


> I think that's the "platform" of Exploration that Ron Edwards talks about in the Big Model theory.




Sure. And you can bust the creative agenda model wide open by positing a game where:

1. the reality of the game world is literally based on narrative tropes, that is, the characters live in and may even be aware they are in a story, controlled by the physics of dramatic tropes.
2. the out-of-game (metagame) rewards are based on successfully fulfilling the narrative structure.

Conveniently, I can name three examples off-hand: Torg, Toon, and Discworld. But you can reach this edgepoint in any game by defining your dramatic or gameplay outcomes as the reality you want to define, and start implementing it mechanically and narratively. Ron could never seem to grasp that if you successfully implemented a Narrative model game, it would be simulating a narrative mechanically in a way that would tend to produce narratives, irrespective of the players' agendas. And, if you don't want to "lose" a Narrative game, you buy into its token rewards. All the best games are "abashed." Why? Because they are the game of which they are the game of. That is why BECMI D&D stands out as such a great design, despite being mired in dinosaur age rules design and inconsistencies. Regardless, if you play that version of D&D, you get what it says on the tin.

Which is why, I think, 4e remains popular with the people it is popular with. If you like what it is, it is very much what it is. It is the work of some fantastic designers, who incidentally contributed to a version of D&D I like very much. But despite 4e's successful focus, I think play is just going to be inherently limited. As long as you continue to draw intrinisic satisfaction from dipping into 4e's well, you will continue playing and enjoying it. But its cornucopia is not great.

Ok, so I think I'm talking to myself a bit there. What am I trying to say that is worth saying? Here it is: I would never point to 4e and say, "Don't do this." 4e does some things really well. But I don't think it was a good idea to point to 4e and say, "This is the new D&D." Plenty of people like it, but enough rejected the opportunity to play the new D&D that it can be said, definitively, that the new D&D was not well-received. All previous editions of D&D have largely eclipsed their preceding versions. Someone is welcome to say, "By definition, 4e is the new D&D." But if you say, "4e is sufficiently D&D to provide a superior replacement experience for previous versions of D&D," the numbers say you are mistaken. 4e is not sufficiently D&D, not from a creative standpoint, nor a financial viewpoint. It did not capture its audience, it did not successfully compete with the D&D already being played.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> We are talking about thematic breadth rather than depth, though.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Depth in the economics is, in my opinion, significantly shallower than in 3e
> 
> <snip>
> 
> little support for holdings and rulership, non-combat interactions,
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e tends to aim for the smooth montage, the expository transition, the leitmotif. 3e offers a wider set of tools for more diverse genres of experience.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e is facile.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Coming back around, there is nothing in 3e or 4e that is likely to significantly prevent you from playing out detailed scenarios with depth of world and character. However, what 4e offers is barely more than no system at all in such matters.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Monsters don't have ecologies.



There's a lot going on here.

I agree, and take it as obvious, that 4e doensn't support a trading game. Enough said.

I don't agree that 4e doesn't support PC holdings. It has paragon paths and epic destinies that support the idea of noble rulership - eg Knight Commander - and it has a mechanicsm for resolving the non-combat challenges that might be associated with being a ruler - skill challenges.

It doesn't have 3E's Leadership feat, but that feat doesn't say a lot about running a holding. And 4e doesn't deal with the economics of running a holding - which goes back to the economic game. But if a player wants his/her PC to become a ruler and _use that rulership to make a difference in the gameworld_ then I think the game can pretty easily handle that.

As for non-combat interactions, I don't think it's true at all that there's no support. Having played a lot of 4e with a lot of non-combat interactions, I think that there's strong support. I personally prefer it to the approach of a game like 3E or Rolemaster. I wouldn't expect everyone else to do so. But I don't see how you can say it's not there.

As for the diverse genre of experiences - how does 3E handle heroquesting? or PCs becoming demigods? This goes back to the Swiss-army knife point - I don't think that 3E is quite as versatile as is sometimes suggested.



pawsplay said:


> It is a clear extension of the "it only needs stats if you're going to kill it" mentality that does, indeed, affect thematics.



Well, I think this is a bit of a misdescription. Non-combat encounters in 4e are heavily statted - it's just the way that the stats are assigned and handled (via the skill challenge mechanics) that's different.

The weirdest thing about 4e for me is the radical difference between its combat and non-combat engines (which can certainly make it hard to integrate the two). This goes back to some of the earlier comments that it's not only that WotC agree with Ron Edwards about the potential popularity of narrativist design, but that they thought the market for this design was mostly crunch-loving CCG players.


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> I assert that the Hobbit and LotR offer a dire lack of detail as a game
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There wasn't mention of the money used in the LotR movies. I doubt there will be much in the Hobbit either. The movies don't require that to tell the story.
> 
> That kind of story is great for the book, but when applying it to an RPG, people can get what the books and movies miss. The rest of the world. Be that part of the world the economics, who does the basket weaving, whatever.



I think it is pretty trivial to run a brilliant and deep FRPG in which the issue of _how much things cost_, and _how long it takes to weave a basket_, simply never comes up.

Of published mechanical systems that would handle this, at least three that spring to mind are The Burning Wheel, d20 Conan and HeroWars/Quest.



shadzar said:


> The only limitations a TTRPG has is the imagination of the players and GM.



I don't think that's in dispute. What's in dispute is whether the only really imaginative things are basket weaving and child-killing paladins. There are other elements of the fantasy genre on which I prefer to focus my imagine while playing the game. It doesn't follow from this difference of imaginative focus that I'm not imagining.



shadzar said:


> As long as you use 4th edition, anyone viewing 4th edition as a tactical skirmish game, then your game will fit within the definition they have for 4th edition. You just have to come to terms with it and accept it.
> 
> You enjoyment isn't in question, just the system itself. So don't try to defend the system



The system speaks for itself. I'm simply trying to refute the suggestion that my game is a series of random encounters with no depth or imagination.


----------



## LostSoul

pawsplay said:


> Sure. And you can bust the creative agenda model wide open by positing a game where:
> 
> 1. the reality of the game world is literally based on narrative tropes, that is, the characters live in and may even be aware they are in a story, controlled by the physics of dramatic tropes.
> 2. the out-of-game (metagame) rewards are based on successfully fulfilling the narrative structure.




That seems to sum up the way I played most of my games of Star Wars d6; I'd call that simulationism/Right to Dream play.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> I don't agree that 4e doesn't support PC holdings. It has paragon paths and epic destinies that support the idea of noble rulership - eg Knight Commander - and it has a mechanicsm for resolving the non-combat challenges that might be associated with being a ruler - skill challenges.




Every game of D&D I've ever played has given a pay scale for common mercenary types. Most of them have at least provided ballparks for the cost of a keep. I don't think it's necessary to say 4e has no support for such things; it is sufficient to say it has very little. Some of the D&D rules-sets have offered very sophisticated (albeit imperfect) subsystems for every bit of rulership, from dominion management to hirelings to mercenaries to ingratiating yourself with nearby rulers.



> It doesn't have 3E's Leadership feat, but that feat doesn't say a lot about running a holding. And 4e doesn't deal with the economics of running a holding - which goes back to the economic game. But if a player wants his/her PC to become a ruler and _use that rulership to make a difference in the gameworld_ then I think the game can pretty easily handle that.




Yeah, and so can Fudge. That's pretty much my comeback line.  Any time someone says you can do X with rule system that does not strongly support X, I'm like, sure. I know it can; I started gaming in the early 80s, and we had to make do in a lot of situations where there weren't rules. I was twelve years old when I wrote my first set of rules for GURPS super-powers. Very few games will prevent you from doing XYZ. You could take Toon, implement a Death houserule instead of Falling Down, and use it to play a Halloween-inspired slash-horror game.



> As for non-combat interactions, I don't think it's true at all that there's no support. Having played a lot of 4e with a lot of non-combat interactions, I think that there's strong support. I personally prefer it to the approach of a game like 3E or Rolemaster. I wouldn't expect everyone else to do so. But I don't see how you can say it's not there.




3e provides the bare bones to resolve just about anything. 4e gives you a structure and sort of asks you to fill in the resolution system. My understand is that this may have gotten better but there's your starting place. Compare to 3e which gives you, say, interpersonal situations: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. If you want to go rules-heavy, you could implement the rules from Dynasties & Demagogues (a third party product), which demonstrates how the resolution can be encapsulated within the skills and systems already provided. 

4e doesn't really provide lots of subsystems. You have a few flavors of skill challenges, and that's basically it. Not only that, you can't look at your character sheet and guess how effective your character is at persuasion; that depends on how the GM structures the encounter. You could have high modifiers and still stumble through a scene if the GM sets high DCs for individual components of the skill challenge. Or just includes lots of components.



> As for the diverse genre of experiences - how does 3E handle heroquesting? or PCs becoming demigods? This goes back to the Swiss-army knife point - I don't think that 3E is quite as versatile as is sometimes suggested.




3e handles becoming a demigod just fine. Just play past 18th level, basically. If you want to, use some kind of epic rules system on top of level 20, or invent some prestige classes that literally grant divinity. You can bolt on Bloodlines rules, or use the Deities & Demigods rules to allow them to take divine ranks. You have a LOT of options.



> Well, I think this is a bit of a misdescription. Non-combat encounters in 4e are heavily statted - it's just the way that the stats are assigned and handled (via the skill challenge mechanics) that's different.




Ultimately the structure is identical to a Grimtooth's trap: some arbitrary number of components, plenty of room for player creativity in how to defeat each component, decidedly limited paramters. If the PCs to go over-under or otherwise approach in an unconventional way, I guess you get to improvise a skill challenge. Which is not, reputedly, easy. Is it any better, in fact, than a first edition DM saying, "Uh, okay, roll a d20 under your Dex to cross the platform?" 

At some points I am undoubtedly lowballing 4e's capabilities, because I don't know it well. I can speak to my impressions from warily eyeballing it, trying to decide if, in fact, I had to try it at some point. Despite some strong incentives, I went with a no.


----------



## pemerton

Crazy Jerome said:


> The only part of that I disagree with is that it is too narrow.  It is symptom not limited to simulationist rulesets.



Fully agreed, and I didn't intend to limit my remarks to simulationionism. It's just that, in my experience, it's less common for people to assert that they can run anything you like using My Life With Master, Dogs in the Vineyard or The Dying Earth. I think it's generally recognised that these non-simulationist rulesets are intended to deliver a particular type of experience at the table.



shadzar said:


> So you assert that *a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play*?



I'm not sure that an added component becomes harder to remove just because of the pressures it creates. The difficulty of removing it is more likely to be related to its overall integration in the rest of the system. For example: removing the Craft and Profession skill from 3E would I think be pretty trivial. Removing hit points, rather non-trivial.

I do think that an added component can be harder to ignore on account of the pressures it creates, precisely because those pressures might become too much to ignore. So the existence of Craft and Profession skills in 3E, in combination with the obvious pressure on many players to make builds that are tactically optimal, tends to make questions like "How did my guy make a living before he started adventuring?" have a salience, and a difficulty of answering, that I'd rather not have in my game. 4e resolves this issue by allowing (for example) the player of the wizard to say "My guy was a pastry chef" without having to expend any character build resources for the privilege. Rolemaster resolves this issue in a different way, by granting lots more character building resources, but also using a type of siloing device to avoid making the player choose between "background" skills and "optimisation" skills.



pawsplay said:


> You can sim any genre (inclusive of any worlds), provided you usefully identify what resolution systems and narrative events you want to sim.



I'm not sure what you mean by "sim" here - I've read your exchange with LostSoul, and I tend to agree with him that what you're describing seems something like what the Forge calls High Concept Simulationism (ie play that conforms to genre tropes and expectations).

Anyway, I'd like to avoid debating the merits of the Forge if we can (and given terms like "simulationism" are being used I'm not 100% sure we can). But my response to your comment about "simming any genre" is this:

*If you try to use Spacemaster (Rolemaster's sci-fi sibling) to play a game with a Dune or Star Wars feel I think you'll be pretty disappointed - purist-for-system simulationism will have a lot of trouble delivering that sort of experience in play;

*If you start to tweak the purist-for-system mechanics to make them "simulate the narrative events" you'll get a game more like Pendragon or Cthulhu - which will guarantee the genre experience, but which aren't really narrativist games. They deliver an experience that is, in some sense, predetermined or prepackaged - it's someone else's idea (the game designer's, mostly) of what that genre is.

*Whereas if you pick up a non-sim game like The Dying Earth, and play it with the "tag line" reward rule, you should get an experience which isn't like _reading_ a Dying Earth novel in an especially intimate way, but more like _authoring_ a new Dying Earth novel.​
That's a bit of a rough-and-ready description, but my own RPGing experience has led me to believe there are real differences here - in particular, between _being rewarded for conforing to someone else's conception of the gameworld/genre_, and _making one's own creative contribution_.



pawsplay said:


> I would never point to 4e and say, "Don't do this." 4e does some things really well. But I don't think it was a good idea to point to 4e and say, "This is the new D&D." Plenty of people like it, but enough rejected the opportunity to play the new D&D that it can be said, definitively, that the new D&D was not well-received. All previous editions of D&D have largely eclipsed their preceding versions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e is not sufficiently D&D, not from a creative standpoint, nor a financial viewpoint. It did not capture its audience, it did not successfully compete with the D&D already being played.



Now your conclusion here is something I've certainly accepted as a premise for participating in this thread, and am inclined to accept more generally, seeing as I have no personally-available evidence that would lead me to differ from what seems increasingly to be the received opinion.

I would query the _why_, however. I tend to agree with Vivyan Basterd that the situation with the OGL has made a significant difference. This is the first time that the owners of D&D, in trying to transition to a new edition, have faced commercial competition from their old edition.

I don't think that's all of it, but I think it's a good part of it, in two ways: (i) it puts pressure on WotC to come up with an edition that is _very different_ from their previous edition, so that those with whom it becomes popular won't be subject to capture by those continuing to sell the old edition; (ii) it puts pressure on WotC to come up with an edition that is _so popular_ with those who like the old edition that they will buy the new WotC edition and not be subject to capture by those continuing to sell the old edition.

I think satisfying (i) and (ii) at the same time is a pretty big ask. You might even think that the more you satisfy (i), the less likely you are to satisfy (ii) - on the assumption that those who liked the old edition weren't radically mistaken as to their real preferences in RPGing. And it seems to me that maybe this is what happened. WotC took a gamble that Ron Edwards was right, and that many people were mistaken about the sort of RPG they really wanted. And WotC got it wrong.

(Of course there's a bit more too it than that. Like Edwards, WotC also perhaps thought that there was a big _untapped_ market of RPGers, who would be attracted to a non-simulationist game more than to a simulationist one. They seem to have been wrong about that too, although the sheer gamey crunchiness of 4e's character build and combat rules means that they might not have fully tested this hypothesis.)


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> Every game of D&D I've ever played has given a pay scale for common mercenary types. Most of them have at least provided ballparks for the cost of a keep. I don't think it's necessary to say 4e has no support for such things; it is sufficient to say it has very little. Some of the D&D rules-sets have offered very sophisticated (albeit imperfect) subsystems for every bit of rulership, from dominion management to hirelings to mercenaries to ingratiating yourself with nearby rulers.



If by "holdings" you mean this economic element, then I'm happy to say 4e has no support.

I think there are other ways holdings can be important in a game - I'm thinking of the way relationships work in HeroWars/Quest, for example, where they can be used as Augments. 4e would handle this sort of stuff as part of the setting up of a skill challenge - that is, whether or not a PC is a Knight Commander of a castle should make a difference to (i) the framing of a "ducal negotiation" skill challeneg, (ii) the skills that PC uses (eg Stealth probably becomes more difficult, but Diplomacy easier), and (iii) the results of particular skill resolutions.



pawsplay said:


> Any time someone says you can do X with rule system that does not strongly support X, I'm like, sure. I know it can



Again, my feeling is that it depends on what you're trying to achieve in your game. If I wanted to introduce a "stronghold management" dimension into my fantasy RPG I woudn't use 4e. 1st ed AD&D has some rules, although they're pretty sparse. I don't know Magic Medieval World cover to cover, but my feeling is that that might be a place to start.

On the other hand, when it comes to ducal negotiations - which is the part of a holdings-focused game that I'm personally more interested in - AD&D doesn't give me much beyond the reaction table and morale rules. 4e, on the other hand, gives me skill challenges, which establish parameters for DCs and for the ratio of success-to-failure points to suit purposes of pacing and difficulty. In DMG2 I also get advice at the metagame level of how much benefit to a given skill check a player should get for expending various sorts of resoruces (money, power-usages, etc).

Some people don't feel that the skill challenge framework adds anything. Fair enough. My own view is that, having GMed a lot of unstructured social skill resolution using Rolemaster, the introduction of structure makes a lot of difference. I find it makes it easier for players to inject their own conception of how the scene should unfold, and makes it more likely that outcomes will result which no one anticipated going into the challenge. This latter happens because the structure _requires_ the participants in the game to make certain decisions about the state of the gameworld at certain times, that are responsive to the unfolding prior state of the gameworld. And then the mechanics also determine that at certain points (ie when successes are scored) those decisions become locked in, as true of the gameworld.

(This also connects to the idea in my previous post that different games can place more or less emphasis on predetermination of theme and content.)

There are differences of detail in the skill challenge mechanics from the Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel, or Extended Contests in HeroWars/Quest. But the basic idea of the mechanic is in my view pretty similar. And I see it as having roughly the same virtues (or flaws, for those who don't like this sort of mechanic).



pawsplay said:


> 3e handles becoming a demigod just fine. Just play past 18th level, basically. If you want to, use some kind of epic rules system on top of level 20, or invent some prestige classes that literally grant divinity. You can bolt on Bloodlines rules, or use the Deities & Demigods rules to allow them to take divine ranks. You have a LOT of options.



I don't see how this doesn't fall foul of your own objection. 3E DDG, in its section on divine ascension, leaves it up to the GM. I'm pretty sure there is no ECL-style mechanic for divine ranks. At 18th+, or even epic levels (as per the Handbook), there is no mechanical way of saying "I'm a demigod".

In 4e becoming a demigod is an option built seamlessly into the core rules on character build and development. Not only is this a point on which I think that 4e is clearly different from 3E, I think it tells us a lot about what 4e is (thematically) concerned with. And I think, in turn, that this is part of what causes some of the objections to the way 4e treats the Martial power source. For those who see even an 18th level fighter in 3E as still just a really tough mortal (like Conan, say), then the 4e treatment of the martial epic tier - and the way that then ramifies back through even the lower-level martial powers - is always going to be objectionable, I think.



pawsplay said:


> 3e provides the bare bones to resolve just about anything. 4e gives you a structure and sort of asks you to fill in the resolution system.



I think this is sort of right, but incomplete. It's about _how_ the resolution system is "filled in". 4e's structure gives the players and GM certain guarantees: that the risks will be of a certain degree, that the pacing will work in a certain way, etc. Metagame guarantees, if you like, about some basic features of the play experience. But it demands that the players and GM feed in the actual content. (Again, in my view a lot like HeroWars/Quest).

3E doesn't make those demands. But it doesn't give those sorts of guarantees either. (And again, this is not a criticism. It's a diagnosis of different mechanical systems.)



pawsplay said:


> Compare to 3e which gives you, say, interpersonal situations: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive.



These skills all exist in 4e as well (Sense Motive renamed as Insight). It's the way they're used that's different. Skill challenge resolution is very different from "free form" social skill resolution, _and_ from making a single roll against a single DC to see whether you influence the person or not.



pawsplay said:


> 4e doesn't really provide lots of subsystems. You have a few flavors of skill challenges, and that's basically it.



Again, like HeroWars/Quest. (Which nevertheless, these days, bill itself - not implausibly - as a universal game. I don't think 4e can be a universal game because of (i) it's combat engine, and (ii) it's very genre-heavy character build rules. But skill challenges themselves are a potentially universal mechanics.)



pawsplay said:


> Ultimately the structure is identical to a Grimtooth's trap: some arbitrary number of components, plenty of room for player creativity in how to defeat each component, decidedly limited paramters. If the PCs to go over-under or otherwise approach in an unconventional way, I guess you get to improvise a skill challenge. Which is not, reputedly, easy.



I don't agree the parameters are limited. And the notion that it's not easy to improvise a skill challenge is (in my view) not true at all. I'd add: a 4e GM who can't improvise skill challenges is like an AD&D GM who can't work out what the goblins do when the PCs try to smoke them out of their lair unless the response is written down in the module notes. An AD&D GM, to run the game, _has_ to be able to improvise the dungeon-dwellers' operational responses to unexpected PC activities. A 4e GM, to run the game, _has_ to be able to improvise skill challenges as they unfold in unexpected directions.



pawsplay said:


> you can't look at your character sheet and guess how effective your character is at persuasion; that depends on how the GM structures the encounter. You could have high modifiers and still stumble through a scene if the GM sets high DCs for individual components of the skill challenge. Or just includes lots of components.



Now this is a very interesting point. I don't think it's quite true, but it does get at something interesting.

First, as to the DCs - the skill challenge rules give guidelines on what sorts of DCs the GM should use. This is the overall guarantee that the players have that the GM is not just trying to crush them. It's a bit like CR/EL in 3E, or the 4e combat encounter building guidelines. Different GMs use different techniques to signal to the players when an encounter is of a strikingly high level - from simply pointing out to players of first level PCs that they see a giant approaching, to more subtle cues or the use of knowledge skills or whatever. All these sorts of techniques are also available in 4e.

As to the number of components - on different occasions I do or don't let the players know how many successes they need, just as sometimes in a combat encounter I reveal all the opponents, but on other occasions keep some opponents concealed from the players until the opportune time to strike. (This obviously raises issues along the lines of - if you tricked them once, how can they ever trust you again? But in practice, with people who know one another well, I find this tends not to be such a big issue.)

But even when the players are thwarted in a skill challenge because of the number of components, it doesn't follow that the PC was not a good persuader (or climber, or whatever). It's just that _despite being a good persuader_ the challenge was just too great. Too many complications arose. Not unlike looking at your combat stats, knowing that you're a combat god for your level, and nevertheless losing a fight against a giant _just because the giant was too tough_.



pawsplay said:


> At some points I am undoubtedly lowballing 4e's capabilities, because I don't know it well. I can speak to my impressions from warily eyeballing it, trying to decide if, in fact, I had to try it at some point. Despite some strong incentives, I went with a no.



I think you are lowballing its capabilities. I think that effects some of your points, but not all of them. And obviously you're under no obligation to actually play the game to see what the truth is. I'm hoping, though, that you'll at least consider the reports of those who have played the game.


----------



## MichaelSomething

If you guys are talkin' about how different editions would handle non combat challenges, might I suggest takin' a look at my Ah! What Edition to use thread?  Promoting your own old thread may be lame but I think it really is relevant to the situation.  All though 3.5 got more votes then 4th Edition, many of the posts supported not using any rules all and just improving everything.


----------



## pemerton

Besides the reason given by Nifft in that thread for using rules - that they help resolve conflicts where these arise - another reason is that rules - or at least some sorts of rules - can inject decision points that are likely to push things in unexpected directions.

With pure improv this may not so often be the case (depending in part, I guess, on the skill of your players as improv actors). In practice, I find that the border between "free play" and "GM fiat" can be a pretty narrow one.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Now your conclusion here is something I've certainly accepted as a premise for participating in this thread, and am inclined to accept more generally, seeing as I have no personally-available evidence that would lead me to differ from what seems increasingly to be the received opinion.
> 
> I would query the _why_, however. I tend to agree with Vivyan Basterd that the situation with the OGL has made a significant difference. This is the first time that the owners of D&D, in trying to transition to a new edition, have faced commercial competition from their old edition.



Erm, not quite true.  When 2e was released 1e was still in print and Basic was either still in print or had just gone out of it.  1e and 2e overlapped by about 2 years, if memory serves: TSR was in essence competing with itself.

This is, however, the first time the D+D owners have faced significant *external* competition based on an older edition.

That, and the 1e-to-2e transition was nowhere near as big a change in the system as the transitions from 2-3 and 3-4 have been.  1e and 2e could overlap because material for one could quite easily be used in the other.

Lan-"more and more wondering what 5e will hold"-efan


----------



## Neonchameleon

pawsplay said:


> Every game of D&D I've ever played has given a pay scale for common mercenary types. Most of them have at least provided ballparks for the cost of a keep. I don't think it's necessary to say 4e has no support for such things; it is sufficient to say it has very little. Some of the D&D rules-sets have offered very sophisticated (albeit imperfect) subsystems for every bit of rulership, from dominion management to hirelings to mercenaries to ingratiating yourself with nearby rulers.




And by doing so they are locking you into a socio-economic model.  I want most of my socio-economics (and for that matter my ecologies) to be in my world books, not in my core rules.  Because they are going to be very different from world to world.  The more tightly my game rules are integrated with the socioeconomics of the default setting, the more they get in the way of trying to build any other system.  To use a trivial example, I'd expect the costs for hiring a warband on Athas to be _entirely_ different from those for hiring one in the Realms.



> 3e provides the bare bones to resolve just about anything. 4e gives you a structure and sort of asks you to fill in the resolution system.




3e gives you a skill system.  4e gives you a skill system and a skill challenge system.  Skill challenges aren't always applicable.



> My understand is that this may have gotten better but there's your starting place. Compare to 3e which gives you, say, interpersonal situations: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive.




As Pmerton has mentioned, 4e has Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Insight (which is simply Sense Motive by another name).  And skill checks are still alive and kicking.  It's simply that 4e has skill challenges as well as skill checks; a skill check is for resolution of a pass-fail situation whereas a skill challenge is for a more complex scene long situation.



> 4e doesn't really provide lots of subsystems. You have a few flavors of skill challenges, and that's basically it.




Indeed.  It's a very flexible tool.



> Not only that, you can't look at your character sheet and guess how effective your character is at persuasion; that depends on how the GM structures the encounter. You could have high modifiers and still stumble through a scene if the GM sets high DCs for individual components of the skill challenge. Or just includes lots of components.




You're comparing apples with oranges here.  It's _trivial_ to look at your character sheet and guess how effective your character is at persuasion.  What's your charisma?  Which skills do you have trained?  Do you have any relevant utility powers?  What your character sheet won't tell you is how resistant NPCs are to what you're trying to persuade them of/to do - whether they have insight trained, and a whole range of other factors.



> 3e handles becoming a demigod just fine. Just play past 18th level, basically.




1: Demigod has a definition in 3e.  Divine rank 0.
2: That doesn't really help the poor fighter who's still going to get taken to the cleaners in 3e.



> If the PCs to go over-under or otherwise approach in an unconventional way, I guess you get to improvise a skill challenge. Which is not, reputedly, easy.




Indeed.  It is so not easy that in my third session of DMing D&D _ever_, the PCs came up with a slightly insane plan involving hiding a young dragon in a fake plague cart to transport it across the city.  I took a mouthful of my drink to buy time - and by the time I'd swallowed I had the skill challenge scetched out firmly enough in my head to be able to run it without trouble (and no, I didn't turn it into a dice rolling fest or ever mention the words "skill challenge").

Once you've grasped what they are good for, skill challenges are easy to improvise with and a superb tool to use to improvise for off the wall PC plans.  The guidance for doing this is, alas, poor.



> Is it any better, in fact, than a first edition DM saying, "Uh, okay, roll a d20 under your Dex to cross the platform?"




That's not a skill challenge.  That's an acrobatics check in 4e and a balance check in 3e.

A skill challenge on the same bridge would be "As they approach the narrow and rickety walkway you crossed on the way in, the hostages you rescued huddle together in terror, both convinced they'll fall if they try to cross it."  It's a short scene in its own right, not a simple pass/fail check.



> At some points I am undoubtedly lowballing 4e's capabilities,




You're going beyond that and into outright denying obvious ones.  As for instance in the skills example above where 4e has _exactly_ the same skills as 3e (bar a rename) and somehow you think this makes 3e better able to deal with things.


----------



## Neonchameleon

MichaelSomething said:


> If you guys are talkin' about how different editions would handle non combat challenges, might I suggest takin' a look at my Ah! What Edition to use thread? Promoting your own old thread may be lame but I think it really is relevant to the situation. All though 3.5 got more votes then 4th Edition, many of the posts supported not using any rules all and just improving everything.




3.5 got more votes than 4e _on that single thread_ because you were pitching it as a 3.5 scenario.  "Experts" do not exist in 4e.  And 4e isn't great for PVP.  Also the type of game you'd get would be different in the two editions; 3e really has the "get a bigger hammer" magic wars in a way 4e simply doesn't - which IMO makes 4e a better game most of the time.  But you also explicitely set all the PCs as spellcasters which levelled the playing field.  If instead of sorceress vs artificer you'd set sorceress vs rogue the answer might well have been very different.

Also I notice that you chose a biassed sample; that was your fourth thread on which edition to use and the _only_ one in which you posed it in edition specific terms.  In all the ones where your scenario was edition neutral, 4e beat 3e.  It simply lost to 3e at a 3e-specific scenario.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...top-being-wizards-coasts-target-audience.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...65-what-edition-use-ii-electirc-booagloo.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273011-what-edition-use-3-a.html


----------



## wedgeski

pawsplay said:


> Ok, so I think I'm talking to myself a bit there. What am I trying to say that is worth saying? Here it is: I would never point to 4e and say, "Don't do this." 4e does some things really well. But I don't think it was a good idea to point to 4e and say, "This is the new D&D." Plenty of people like it, but enough rejected the opportunity to play the new D&D that it can be said, definitively, that the new D&D was not well-received. All previous editions of D&D have largely eclipsed their preceding versions. Someone is welcome to say, "By definition, 4e is the new D&D." But if you say, "4e is sufficiently D&D to provide a superior replacement experience for previous versions of D&D," the numbers say you are mistaken. 4e is not sufficiently D&D, not from a creative standpoint, nor a financial viewpoint. It did not capture its audience, it did not successfully compete with the D&D already being played.



I think this is a fair set of statements but with one caveat: 4E was born into a very different landscape than 3E, one where the OGL provided a certain talented and enterprising company the chance to essentially fork D&D into an ongoing and supported version which gave those who had bought-in to 3E the opportunity to continue playing what they love. So, 4E may not be "sufficiently D&D" to a lot of people, but the fact that something that was already "sufficiently D&D" continues to be made will certainly have a major impact on things.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> This is an interesting point.
> 
> In my view the previous editions _weren't_ Swiss army knives, but also had a focus. Look, for example, at the advice for players in the last section of the 1st ed AD&D PHB. Not a game about basket-weaving. A game about operational play. If you don't actually play out your dungeon-scouting in 1st ed, you're not playing the game that Gygax is talking about.
> 
> Or at the list of sample scenarios in the Moldvay Basic rulebook. Also not a game about basket-weaving, but similar in some ways to Gygax's AD&D although a bit more light-hearted.
> 
> On the other hand, earlier editions of D&D don't particularly support hero-questing play - that is, a game in which the heroes travel back into mythic history in order to rewrite myth and therefore change the world - because (i) the structure of the planes tends to be treated as fixed independently of the gods, (ii) the gods tend to be treated as unkillable, (iii) the history of the gameworld is not generally presented as having a mythic aspect, and (iv) there are other reasons as well, of a more mechaincal nature, that can be elaborated if desired.
> 
> I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Some people think that a simulationist ruleset can be plugged into any world. But that is not my experience. In my experience, a simulationist ruleset tends to create its own pressure to prioritise some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play.






LostSoul said:


> I think AD&D 1E and B/X are just as focused as 4E is. _Different_ focus, but still.
> 
> edit: Scooped by pemerton!





Wow, step away rom this thread for a few hours and it'll get away from you...

I don't think anywhere that I said the earlier editions didn't have a focus at all, however I disagree that earlier editions were as focused on a particular style of play (and as exclusionary to others) in both tone and mechanics as 4e... especially with the B/X transition to BECMI and the supplements for AD&D 1st edition are taken into account. You cannot at this point in time with the multitude of sourcebooks and Dragon/Dungeon for 4e in all fairness regulate comparisons to corebooks only. In those previous editions, there are rules and/or advice for everything from hiring laborers and henchmen to constructing strongholds, traveling to other dimensions (even other game systems), owning land, non-combat monsters, morale, etc. much of which (even this far into it's life cycle and with so much supplemental material published) 4e either lacks officially or leaves up in the air for the DM to create. YMMV of course.

SIDE NOTE: [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: I'm not arguing that previous editions included every possible playstyle... but that they were more accomodating and open to a wider variety. I mean i I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be) things such as time travel and dimensional travel to other worlds were at least mentioned and given rules/advice for in AD&D. Also the setting (Planescape) was based on the premise that the very multiverse could be shaped with belief. Not exactly hero-questing (and probably not the best implementation but still a good first try IMO) but still the earlier editons seem to, IMO, have a much wider, wilder and encompasing blanket than what is currently offered.


----------



## Hussar

pawsplay said:


> /snip
> 
> Ok, so I think I'm talking to myself a bit there. What am I trying to say that is worth saying? Here it is: I would never point to 4e and say, "Don't do this." 4e does some things really well. But I don't think it was a good idea to point to 4e and say, "This is the new D&D." Plenty of people like it, but enough rejected the opportunity to play the new D&D that it can be said, definitively, that the new D&D was not well-received. All previous editions of D&D have largely eclipsed their preceding versions. Someone is welcome to say, "By definition, 4e is the new D&D." But if you say, "4e is sufficiently D&D to provide a superior replacement experience for previous versions of D&D," the numbers say you are mistaken. 4e is not sufficiently D&D, not from a creative standpoint, nor a financial viewpoint. It did not capture its audience, it did not successfully compete with the D&D already being played.




I'm not sure that's 100% true though.  2e and 1e saw a split that, at least anecdotally, was just as wide as 3e to 4e.  I've seen estimates as high as 50% of groups not making the switch over.  And there are many, many examples of people talking about how they skipped over 2e to start again with 3e.

The problem I see is that you mention "numbers" yet there aren't any.  We have no idea how many current 4e gamers there are compared to how many 3e gamers there are.  None.  All of it is gut feeling and Magic Eight Ball guesswork.

The last EN World polls I saw on the changeover, and it's been some time since I saw one, had 3e players moving over to 4e at about 50% (ish).  Is that really a failure to capture the audience?  What about new gamers coming in?  I haven't seen any numbers on that, other than to note that most people seem to be having pretty good responses with the Encounters game days at the FLGS.  

Wheeling this back to the OP (sort of), could 4e have been more popular?  Sure it could have.  But, just because it wasn't overwhelmingly popular, doesn't mean that it didn't "successfully compete with the D&D already being played."


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Lanefan said:


> Erm, not quite true.  When 2e was released 1e was still in print and Basic was either still in print or had just gone out of it.  1e and 2e overlapped by about 2 years, if memory serves: TSR was in essence competing with itself.




There was no overlap between 1st & 2nd edition AD&D. The final products of the BECMI line, Immortals and the Rules Cyclopedia were published in 1991, so there a two-year overlap between 2nd edition AD&D and BECMI/RC D&D. TSR had been competing with itself for 14 years by 1991 with the split between D&D and AD&D.


----------



## Aeolius

pawsplay said:


> But I don't think it was a good idea to point to 4e and say, "This is the new D&D."



   It wasn't so much WotC presenting 4e as the "new hawtness", but rather demeaning 3.5e as "old and busted" that made my first impression with the new edition. The ever-popular "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34) comes to mind, here. 



Hussar said:


> 2e and 1e saw a split that, at least anecdotally, was just as wide as 3e to 4e...And there are many, many examples of people talking about how they skipped over 2e to start again with 3e.



   As a self-proclaimed leap-grognard, I am guilty of both.


----------



## billd91

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> There was no overlap between 1st & 2nd edition AD&D. The final products of the BECMI line, Immortals and the Rules Cyclopedia were published in 1991, so there a two-year overlap between 2nd edition AD&D and BECMI/RC D&D. TSR had been competing with itself for 14 years by 1991 with the split between D&D and AD&D.




While it's true that TSR did have two D&D's around (AD&D and BECMI), 1e and 2e did overlap for about a year. The last printings of the 1e PH were in 1990, about a year after the release of 2e.

I would question whether the two versions of D&D were really competing. They may have been serving two similar and overlapping market segments. You certainly argue that, for fans of both, money spent on one couldn't be spent on the other, but to show much competition I think you'd have to make a convincing argument that the money would certainly have gone to the other in such a case. The end result may have been to actually extract *more* money out of fans of both than they'd have taken with just the one product line.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Neonchameleon said:


> Once you've grasped what they are good for, skill challenges are easy to improvise with and a superb tool to use to improvise for off the wall PC plans. The guidance for doing this is, alas, poor.




In 4E, this problem is not limited to skill challenges, either. The encounter model is another example. And I'd say that WotC themselves still haven't really got the feat concept nailed down properly, despite two full versions taking a crack at it. 

I'm both willing to cut them some slack for the lack of guidance and not. It's a tough thing to do. So some slack. It's also a lot more important than some other things--e.g. coming up with a different set of level 6 utilities for every class. So severe screw up in middle management on priorities.

If you do something sufficiently radically different from what came before, you need more guidance--especially guidance. There are not enough examples of play. This same failure of management occurs over and over in game design (and not just limited to WotC by any means). It reminds me of the dedication of a revised edition of a niche Visual Basic 6 book that I found hilarious.

The author wrote that when he finished the first edition, he got a few reviews. The books was hundreds of pages showing how VB 6 could get into the Windows modules. One reviewer sent one line: "More examples, Dammit!" 

Like that guy, I can use the tool for its intended purpose. But you could pretty much substitute his review of that book as mine for 4E, and not change a thing.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I'm not in agreement with the metaphor of one edition as fillet, the other as hamburger, or either as KFC.


To use a food related analogy, 3e was a full meal (including fillet mignon, mashed potatoes, salad, and -ugh- brussel srpouts). 4e is like fillet mignon, lots of it, a whole plateful, but no sides at all.

The intensity of the focus on combat (and I'll agree that all editions had as their "main dish", so to speak, combat) has shifted the balance of the "meal".


Or, to put it another way, I think wizards realized that cake is delicious...and then proceeded to feed us cake for every single meal. It's really really good cake, but one gets tired of cake.


----------



## TheFindus

4E is not as popular as it could have been, in my opinion, because it did away with too many things people thought the flavor of DnD as a rule system is.

I think there was a paradigm shift in the following three major areas, in which the designers of 4E underestimated the feelings/taste of the DnD crowd:
1. capabilities of spellcasters, the magic system in general really, 
2. abilities of non-spellcasters (that are now called powers in 4E) and 
3. the way healing is dealt with in 4E.

50% (just a guess) thought a change from this was desparetely needed. I am one of those and I am never going back. The other half plays 3.x/PF and older systems. 

Now, if WotC had only adapted 3.5 to what, let's say, Pathfinder is today, they would have lost me. I needed a new system that I felt was innovative and balanced and I was not hooked on the iconic DnD flair like "Tomb of Horrors", "Temple of Elemental Evil", "Demogorgon/Orcus" or the entire cast of Tenser, Mordenkainen, etc.
But I see a lot of people who still want that feeling and will not play 4E because they think it lacks that.
So we play Warhammer together. With those who share my view, I play 4E.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Food again!  Naw, that cake analogy is off, too.  4E is a complete meal at a fine establishment that doesn't offer you many choices.  You can have the ribeye or the salmon or the chicken Florentine, and it will come with appropriate sides.  If you absolutely must substitute the salmon's rice pilaf side for your ribeye, you can.  But the chef will grumble, and the waiter will give you a gimlet stare for 3 seconds. Depending on your GM, you may be able to add other such meals, but it will always be a limited set.  

Depending on the GM, 3E is anything from a hole in the wall buffet place with a 70 health rating, to this wonderful Greek place I used to frequent in Connecticut.  They have pizza, pasta, several steak, 33 kinds of fish, and yes, even chicken Florentine.  They've got a wine cellar, and three different ways to get it with your meal, including a single glass in a package.  Several things are pretty good.  A few are truly excellent (well, at the Greek place, not so much the nameless buffet place).  But you know, the sphaghetti comes in a giant bowl, and it is impressive, but it really isn't very good.  For the population as a whole, you can go there and everyone find something they like.  But each person will only like a small subset of the menu.  

That doesn't mean that the 4E fine establishment is going to be a better alternative for you.  It does mean that for many of the things that people want, there will be a better alternative than the 3E place.   Of course, one has to take into account what everyone in the group wants, and convenience, too.


----------



## oldgamergeek

pawsplay said:


> I don't think it's a lack of a supported setting. I play Pathfinder and I don't even support the Golarion setting, after all. I would identify:
> 
> - Lack of Gygaxian Naturalism
> - Competing with a recently published, successful version of the game rather than the degenerate, overpublished gasps of a game in its waning years
> - Monomaniacal focus on combat and skill set pieces instead of continuity
> - Indigestible rules bulk even at 1st level



Add to this a the worst economy in years and it's no wonder it cant sell.
I have played and learned to enjoy a little 4e but that little goes a long way.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'm not in agreement with the metaphor of one edition as fillet, the other as hamburger, or either as KFC.
> 
> 
> To use a food related analogy, 3e was a full meal (including fillet mignon, mashed potatoes, salad, and -ugh- brussel srpouts). 4e is like fillet mignon, lots of it, a whole plateful, but no sides at all.
> 
> The intensity of the focus on combat (and I'll agree that all editions had as their "main dish", so to speak, combat) has shifted the balance of the "meal".
> 
> 
> Or, to put it another way, I think wizards realized that cake is delicious...and then proceeded to feed us cake for every single meal. It's really really good cake, but one gets tired of cake.



I'm not disagreeing. But to take your first food analogy, 3e comes with indifferently cooked and very heavily spiced vegetables already on the plate. Sure, it's a full meal. But the vegetables don't to me taste good - far far too much spice.  Which will remain even if you try to serve your own vegetables.  And although the menu is massive, the actual choice amounts to "You can have anything you like as long as it's curry." 4e on the other hand comes with a bowl full of vegetables that most people confuse with packing material (and with good reason) that needn't make it as far as the plates. It also comes with some very good vegetables on the supplemental menu (the Eberron and Dark Sun Campaign Guides) although far fewer of them than on the 2e and 3e supplemental menus.  Or I can cook my own vegetables - and I like cooking.  I simply can't match the quality of 4e's meat.  But between the prime salmon, the ribeye steak, or the chicken florentine there's enough variety that I'm unlikely to have a clash of my vegetables with the meat dish.  Unlike 3e's strong curries which are just going to make most vegetables I cook seem ... bland beside them.

Or to borrow from a Pathfinder/4e thread, "Pathfinder does very well the things I enjoy doing for myself. 4e does very well the things I have real problems doing for myself."  (Paraphrased)

And [MENTION=29358]Crazy[/MENTION]-Jerome, there's one serious problem IME with trying to write down examples of skill challenges the way I use them. It's like trying to bottle lightning. The specific PC ideas help determine the DCs at least as much as what skills they are using.  And I _must_ get round to finishing writing up my guide to skill challenges.


----------



## Diamond Cross

So if I ended the pig overpopulation problem in Texas and the south (no metaphor intended at all), would 4e be more popular?


----------



## Bluenose

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'm not in agreement with the metaphor of one edition as fillet, the other as hamburger, or either as KFC.
> 
> 
> To use a food related analogy, 3e was a full meal (including fillet mignon, mashed potatoes, salad, and -ugh- brussel srpouts). 4e is like fillet mignon, lots of it, a whole plateful, but no sides at all.
> 
> The intensity of the focus on combat (and I'll agree that all editions had as their "main dish", so to speak, combat) has shifted the balance of the "meal".
> 
> 
> Or, to put it another way, I think wizards realized that cake is delicious...and then proceeded to feed us cake for every single meal. It's really really good cake, but one gets tired of cake.




Two questions come to mind. What are these 'side dishes' that 4e no longer provides? Were they well cooked in 3e?


----------



## pawsplay

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure that's 100% true though.  2e and 1e saw a split that, at least anecdotally, was just as wide as 3e to 4e.  I've seen estimates as high as 50% of groups not making the switch over.  And there are many, many examples of people talking about how they skipped over 2e to start again with 3e.




That's not much different than the 3.0 v. 3.5 situation. The thing is, 3.0 and 3.5 were similar enough to continue using most sourcebooks and modules, and they were nearly 100% compatible in fluff (I don't like gnomes with banjos, but I survived). And options were left open to make either game your own. 1e v. 2e was very similar; you actually cannot tell the statblocks apart in many cases, and even most PCs can be converted with a pencil and an eraser (bards being the exception). 3.0/3.5 did not split the fanbase, although it undountedly derailed sales and ghetto-ized certain rules discussions. 

3e to 4e is much like 2e to 3e with one big exception; the vast majority happily converted from 2e to 3e.  Some people playing AD&D never converted to 3e, but they were probably never convertible. Going from 3e to 4, there are a lot of holdouts, and even the people who buy into 4e are not necessarily setting 3e aside.

Some people blame Pathfinder, but that is rewriting history. As soon as 4e was announced, people started cranking out alternative logos for 3e third party support. Paizo announced their project pretty early, first of all in order to capture a lot of playtest data, but I think secondarily to scare anyone else out of the field who might be considering a somewhat updated rules-system rather than a straight continuation. Paizo or no, the 3e engine was going to keep running. If someone was willing to publish Labyrinth Lord, you can bet someone would happily port the 3.0 and 3.5 rules over.

In other words, Pathfinder was "sufficiently D&D," perhaps even sufficiently 3e, to win a large segment of 3e holdouts which 4e was unable to attract. It seems a no-brainer that WotC could be more successful with any product than a third party publisher would be. It is my hunch that 4e became popular ONLY by virtue of it being branded D&D, otherwise it would be in the Runequest/Warhammer 3e niche. It follows then that if WotC had published, say, Pathfinder, that alternate universe version of Pathfinder would be even more popular than Pathfinder is now, probably a near complete capture of the 3e market. Some people obviously were burned out on 3e but not enough to tank the line, particularly if you offered a Pathfinder-esque reboot. 

The so-called "edition treadmill" is a good thing. I never balked at, every few years, picking up some errata, some minor changes, and oh yes, expansions. Those near-compatible versions are a good chance to clean house, just as 3.5 got rid of the Weapon Master and assorted other things. I was happy to buy Pathfinder; new art (even though it's not precisely my favoriate style), refreshed mechanics, and a chance to review all that has gone before. 

Why was 4e less popular than it could have been? Well, let's see, your target markets are:

1. people who liked 3e before but don't like it as much now, and would welcome a game that was NOT very similar to what they've been playing, and
2. people new to D&D

I think WotC figured #2 was where the money was, but you know what? 4e is too bulky and arcane. And someone who isn't playing D&D now may not be likely to do so in the future.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> shadzar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that an added component becomes harder to remove just because of the pressures it creates. The difficulty of removing it is more likely to be related to its overall integration in the rest of the system. For example: removing the Craft and Profession skill from 3E would I think be pretty trivial. Removing hit points, rather non-trivial.
> 
> I do think that an added component can be harder to ignore on account of the pressures it creates, precisely because those pressures might become too much to ignore. So the existence of Craft and Profession skills in 3E, in combination with the obvious pressure on many players to make builds that are tactically optimal, tends to make questions like "How did my guy make a living before he started adventuring?" have a salience, and a difficulty of answering, that I'd rather not have in my game. 4e resolves this issue by allowing (for example) the player of the wizard to say "My guy was a pastry chef" without having to expend any character build resources for the privilege. Rolemaster resolves this issue in a different way, by granting lots more character building resources, but also using a type of siloing device to avoid making the player choose between "background" skills and "optimisation" skills.
Click to expand...





pemerton said:


> I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Some people think that a simulationist ruleset can be plugged into any world. But that is not my experience. In my experience, a simulationist ruleset tends to create its own pressure to prioritise some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play.




Ignoring and removing are the same thing. If you aren't using it, then it pretty much doesn't exist. Out of sight out of mind. When you can easily ignore and remove a component, then you say it isn't much of a problem. Mechanically it can be removed. It will leave questions for SoD if you remove crafting.



> 4e resolves this issue by allowing (for example) the player of the wizard to say "My guy was a pastry chef" without having to expend any character build resources for the privilege.




This was no problem in 3rd edition. You didn't have to use the Craft system if you didn't want to. For those wanting their RAW games that required it, then I give you it was a problem, but with the players not the rules....

So mechanically the system COULD be removed very easily.

Back to the assertion: *a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play*

So since mechanically, Craft could easily be removed, why not a setting? If there was a default one, and you didn't like it and wanted your own with JIT or whatever method....why couldn't you just remove that and substitue yours in its place?

The presence of the Craft system caused you problem and in the presence of 4th edition, the system with the Crafting subsytem is NOT popular to you. Likewise to those looking for a setting in the game to begin with 4th edition, in the presence of EVERY game/system  with a clear setting, is not popular with them.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "sim" here - I've read your exchange with LostSoul, and I tend to agree with him that what you're describing seems something like what the Forge calls High Concept Simulationism (ie play that conforms to genre tropes and expectations).
> 
> Anyway, I'd like to avoid debating the merits of the Forge if we can (and given terms like "simulationism" are being used I'm not 100% sure we can). But my response to your comment about "simming any genre" is this:
> 
> *If you try to use Spacemaster (Rolemaster's sci-fi sibling) to play a game with a Dune or Star Wars feel I think you'll be pretty disappointed - purist-for-system simulationism will have a lot of trouble delivering that sort of experience in play;
> 
> *If you start to tweak the purist-for-system mechanics to make them "simulate the narrative events" you'll get a game more like Pendragon or Cthulhu - which will guarantee the genre experience, but which aren't really narrativist games. They deliver an experience that is, in some sense, predetermined or prepackaged - it's someone else's idea (the game designer's, mostly) of what that genre is.




Ok, I never said any game or style of game engine was ideal for the purpose. That is not my position. I am saying that for any given narrative purpose, there is an engine that simulates the same desired outcomes. 



> *Whereas if you pick up a non-sim game like The Dying Earth, and play it with the "tag line" reward rule, you should get an experience which isn't like _reading_ a Dying Earth novel in an especially intimate way, but more like _authoring_ a new Dying Earth novel.[/indent]




The Dying Earth is full of simulation elements. For instance, you recover your vitality by indulging your particular vice, reflecting the trope that in DE, when the going gets tough, the tough take a bath. Tag lines are also a simulation element; whether you intend to narrate or not, if you want the advantages of fulfulling a tag line, you will use it, imitating the action present in a Dying Earth story. That is an example of what I am talking about when simulation and storytelling converge because you are simulating a literary universe rather than a physical one.



> That's a bit of a rough-and-ready description, but my own RPGing experience has led me to believe there are real differences here - in particular, between _being rewarded for conforing to someone else's conception of the gameworld/genre_, and _making one's own creative contribution_.




That's a tough proposition to demonstrate. As I've said above, I would say that Dying Earth is precisely an example of rewarding someone for conforming to genre expectations. You classify it as a non-sim game. 

Would you agree or disagree with this statement?:

_Any given Narrativist/storytelling game more closely resembles a High Concept Simulation/genre-emulating game than it does a classic style game based on exploration in a probabilistic game environment._

If so, doesn't that suggest that narrativist games simulate? If not, what is a genre-emulating game simulating?


----------



## shadzar

Lanefan said:


> Erm, not quite true.  When 2e was released 1e was still in print and Basic was either still in print or had just gone out of it.  1e and 2e overlapped by about 2 years, if memory serves: TSR was in essence competing with itself.




2nd edition AD&D also faced overlap when D&D was rereleased in the form of Rules Cyclopedia in 1991, right when 1st edition stopped being supported and Rules Cyclopedia was supported with modules and accessories and adventures.

Well I think until 3rd edition you could pretty much say D&D was ALWAYS around making an older edition always present in the face of newer ones, until WotC chopped it all down to one, making AD&D 3rd edition, but only calling it D&D.

So I would have said....

*This is the first time that WotC, in trying to transition to a new D&D edition, have faced commercial competition from their old edition.*

TSR always left the competition of the older edition in place.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> These skills all exist in 4e as well (Sense Motive renamed as Insight). It's the way they're used that's different. Skill challenge resolution is very different from "free form" social skill resolution, _and_ from making a single roll against a single DC to see whether you influence the person or not.




In 4e, those skills don't _do anything_. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge. I'm trying to imagine a situation in 3e where, scene to scene, you couldn't be sure if your character could walk a tightrope, or how much they could carry. In 4e, you do not know how persuasive your character is. 

That is a marked contrast to combat, where you can have a precise idea of how many squares you can push a hydra if you hit with your daily.

The fact that each system has such markedly different characteristics says something about the design priorities of the 4e writers.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> Would you agree or disagree with this statement?:
> 
> _Any given Narrativist/storytelling game more closely resembles a High Concept Simulation/genre-emulating game than it does a classic style game based on exploration in a probabilistic game environment._
> 
> If so, doesn't that suggest that narrativist games simulate? If not, what is a genre-emulating game simulating?




Don't own the Dying Earth game, so pardon me if I missed some crucial build up. But I'd say that with genres, emulating and simulating are not the same thing. Sure, there is a sense in which all such games are simulating something, but at some point that takes all the useful meaning out of discussing "simulation".

Burning Wheel games aren't simulating much. In BW revised, the combat mechanics are not simulating actual combat. (The final resolution of combats will often be strikingly similar to gritty fantasy stories. So there is a kind of macro simulation. But any micro-simulation of process is really mainly a thin veneer of tags attached to skills and equipment.) Rather, BW is *emulating* a particular facet of combat--namely that it intends to make you sweat over the fate of the character the way real combat makes a person sweat over their life (with the obvious caveat that the stakes are much smaller in a game). 

And BW isn't even a narrativist game. I know Luke Crane has considered Forge theory, because there are some credits to Forge folks in the books. But I get the distinct impression sometimes that he doesn't even care about it on the theory level, beyond any practical tools or rules of thumb that he happens to pick up. He merely wanted as one of his goals for BW that it be a game where combat made you sweat. So he picked mechanics to emulate that. Anything else is rather an accident of preferences, genre, theme, etc. (Also, see Mouse Guard, with similar goals but somewhat different preferences, genre, etc.)

Apparently, there are also some influences from Riddle of Steel on BW, which I understand to have somewhat of a simulation bent, though that is somewhat misleading with the way the drives of the character dictate effectiveness.  It's another one I don't own, though.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> In 4e, those skills don't _do anything_. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge. I'm trying to imagine a situation in 3e where, scene to scene, you couldn't be sure if your character could walk a tightrope, or how much they could carry. In 4e, you do not know how persuasive your character is.




Is this objection based solely on unfixed difficult class targets, or is it something else?  Because I'm still not seeing it.


----------



## shadzar

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> There was no overlap between 1st & 2nd edition AD&D. The final products of the BECMI line, Immortals and the Rules Cyclopedia were published in 1991, so there a two-year overlap between 2nd edition AD&D and BECMI/RC D&D. TSR had been competing with itself for 14 years by 1991 with the split between D&D and AD&D.




No, TSR logo used under WotC (some using WotC logo) was still producing, sporadically, D&D Rules Cyclopedia material all the way up until 3rd edition was released.

There were MANY products with the band atop "for use with 1st and 2nd edition AD&D". There was a definite overlap between 1st and 2nd.

Some later D&D material for use with Rules Cyclopedia, was ALSO usable for 2nd edition even.

Please get your history right.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Neonchameleon said:


> ... there's one serious problem IME with trying to write down examples of skill challenges the way I use them. It's like trying to bottle lightning. The specific PC ideas help determine the DCs at least as much as what skills they are using. And I _must_ get round to finishing writing up my guide to skill challenges.




Yes. That is part of the difficulty, and one of the reasons why it has not been adequately addressed by those of us on the outside who sense the problem.

I think the only way to signficantly increase understanding would be to have an extended, detailed set of related examples covering all aspects of play. To convey skill challenges properly, you must also give enough examples of the encounters and other play to show the context of the skill challenges. And to really do it justice, you'd even have commentary to the side explaining why the skill challenge went a particular way. I'm further hampered by the fact that I'm bringing some home design ideas into my 4E games, and not all of those relevant to helping explain 4E to other people, though they certainly contribute to the fun I'm having with it.

There is a sense in which skill challenge examples written in isolation only serve to fully explore the concept for people who have first gotten over the initial humps.

It is also true that 4E is one of those things that some people aren't going to really grok until they do it for awhile. But if they don't see something attractive, they won't bother. A set of extended examples might convey, "Play like this is what you can expect to see once you've made the effort," which is a lot bigger sell than, "Do this. After mucking around with it for awhile, you might like it." This is doubly true because so many people can and will enjoy 4E as nothing but a tactical skimish game with a thin veneer of roleplaying. They have no reason to grok what else it can do, because they are already enjoying it some other way. Their not infrequent misleading statements about their play--confusing what they do with what 4E can do--has caused a lot of friendly fire in the edition wars. 

I feel another food analogy coming along. So I think I'll just go to lunch before the ads here switch over to Pizza Hut entirely.


----------



## airwalkrr

First comment in this thread:

One of the proverbial "nails" in the coffin for me when 4e was released was their decision to completely drop Greyhawk, including most references to Greyhawk place locations. Clearly they wanted to make a setting-neutral game, and that didn't appeal to me. I'm a smart guy; I know how to adapt a setting to my liking.

One of the things that was so appealing about Greyhawk, which was the original default setting of D&D, was that it was very generic, but still rich in lore. If you wanted to, you could set virtually any Greyhawk adventure in a different setting without changing a thing. Maybe change the name of a god from St. Cuthbert to Helm, but it was a cosmetic detail. And if you wanted to, you could have the adventure take place in the dynamic Greyhawk setting and be part of an exciting ongoing narrative.

So yes, I think the OP has a good point. Setting-neutral systems don't seem to hold as much appeal, for me at least. One thing I liked about some of the later titles for 3.5 was notes for including something in different settings, usually just Eberron and Forgotten Realms, but that was a brilliant move in my opinion. I am running an Eberron 3.5 campaign right now, and those little tidbits to help me tie stuff to the setting are awesome.


----------



## Umbran

pawsplay said:


> In 4e, those skills don't _do anything_. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge.




I'm not sure that is true, if only because I don't recall seeing anything in the rules that suggests that skills are _only_ used in skill challenges.  

It seems to me that skill challenges are for when one has a complicated situation (complicated enough to be a scene in and of itself), that could be solved with non-combat skills in combination, rather than a single focused task that calls for one skill.

You may know whether you normally can walk a tightrope, in isolation without much else going on.  But in the skill challenge people are doing other things to support your tightrope walking, and/or your walking is supporting some other activity.  The challenges are supposed to be, in their own way, as dynamic as combat, so I don't think it should not be so clear cut that you will succeed.


----------



## shadzar

Umbran said:


> I'm not sure that is true, if only because I don't recall seeing anything in the rules that suggests that skills are _only_ used in skill challenges.




If memory serves me 4th edition has/had only 11 "skills", 2 of which could be automatic. That leaves 9 skills, created for use of the skill challenge system.

How much use can you get out of them beyond the skill challenge system?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

They HAVE expanded the 4Ed skill system to include skill powers, but to my mind, those should just be available to trained individuals, as opposed to tradeoffs for class powers.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

pawsplay said:


> In 4e, those skills don't _do anything_. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge.




How is this any different from, say, 3E combat?

Can you look solely at your character sheet and answer the question, "Can you beat an orc?"

Until you know a lot more about the orc (is he an Orc War 1 straight out of the MM, or an Orc Ftr 12, or an Orc Clr 35), you can't actually, meaningfully, answer the question.

Why is 4E dinged for this, while 3E is praised for, essentially, the same thing?


----------



## Neonchameleon

pawsplay said:


> In 4e, those skills don't _do anything_. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge. I'm trying to imagine a situation in 3e where, scene to scene, you couldn't be sure if your character could walk a tightrope, or how much they could carry. In 4e, you do not know how persuasive your character is.




Um... no.  Bluff is a perfect example of why your understanding is inaccurate.  You know how persuasive your character is.  But you don't know how difficult your target is to persuade.  Or how difficult persuading them of what you want is.  Bluff is opposed by sense motive.  4e just wraps the sense motive up into the DC so you make one roll rather than opposed rolls.  You still know your bluff score - but not even the DM knows the results of the target's sense motive check before he rolls.  You actually have more information about how persuasive you are than in 3e.

As for walking a tightrope. if you need to roll you don't know that you can walk the tightrope _anyway_.  You just know you probably can.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pawsplay said:


> In 4e, those skills don't _do anything_. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge. I'm trying to imagine a situation in 3e where, scene to scene, you couldn't be sure if your character could walk a tightrope, or how much they could carry. In 4e, you do not know how persuasive your character is.




I'm not seeing the contrast you're trying to draw either. How persausive you are in 3E depends upon how skilled the other person is at Sense Motive (which may be set by the guideline chart that players often tried to abuse to create 3rd-level half-elf bards that could turn every NPC into their loyal slave: "DC30? Well I've got a +30 Diplomacy...."). How persausive you are in 4E depends upon how skilled the other person is at Insight (which may be set by the DM as a DC target in a skill challenge).

It's also odd to me that you use physical examples for 3E and then try to contrast with a social skill for 4E.

Maybe you could explain further.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

shadzar said:


> If memory serves me 4th edition has/had only 11 "skills", 2 of which could be automatic. That leaves 9 skills, created for use of the skill challenge system.
> 
> How much use can you get out of them beyond the skill challenge system?




First, yes you were correct one 1E/2E overlap.

But you're completely wrong on the count of 4E skills. Each has the same use it has outside of skill challenges that it does in 3E.

I could list uses of each skill that we use on a regular basis outside of skill challenges if you wish. But I suspect you don't care.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Bluenose said:


> Two questions come to mind. What are these 'side dishes' that 4e no longer provides? Were they well cooked in 3e?




Well, I'm sorta gonna answer your question with a question.

What did 3e do better than 4e? If your answer is "nothing" then that can be your opinion.


However, I'll happily admit 4e's combat is smoother and has a lot of neat mechanics. I'm also one of many who think that 3e did some things better, in particular, a number of out of combat things.


But, in addition to the "system", I was also referring to the supplemental materials. Back to the OP of the thread, a good world in which to play as well as good adventures are things that may not make good money (brussel sprouts and mashed potatoes), but they are important context for the main focus (fillet mignon).


So, I'll say, few settings for 4e, few really good adventures, and few third party supporters would be the side dishes I'm missing for 4e (as well as the dishes missing within the system itself).


----------



## Neonchameleon

For the record, 4e has 17 skills. And the "automatic" skills are passive ones.  Insight and perception (3e: Spot, listen, sense motive).  One reason for the passives is so people (PC or NPC) have something to aim at when trying to hide something from you.  But you can use them actively as well in the same way you'd use the three 3e equivalent skills give or take some grouping (Hide + Move Silently -> Stealth, Climb + Jump + Swim + some of Escape Artist -> Athletics) and some elimination (no profession, craft, use rope, etc.)

Skill Challenges are something else.  Complex tasks with multiple potential points of failure and in which a minor failure can be recovered.  A wider timescale than the individual skill checks that make them up (and that have remained unchanged from that perspective).


----------



## shadzar

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> First, yes you were correct one 1E/2E overlap.




You may wish to also attribute to the one you were initially discussing that bit about that they too were right about the 1e/2e overlap....



> But you're completely wrong on the count of 4E skills. Each has the same use it has outside of skill challenges that it does in 3E.
> 
> I could list uses of each skill that we use on a regular basis outside of skill challenges if you wish. But I suspect you don't care.




Frankly I dont care about the uses, but wouldn't mind a DMG or PHB page reference that tells about using them outside of the skill challenges.

If you don't need skill challenges, then why do they even exist?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

shadzar said:


> Frankly I dont care about the uses, but wouldn't mind a DMG or PHB page reference that tells about using them outside of the skill challenges.
> 
> If you don't need skill challenges, then why do they even exist?




Most of the skill chapter is about using skills by themselves. 

If you have a skill saw, you don't need a table saw. So why would table saws even exist? You've got a kitchen, you don't need restaurants. So why should restaurants even exist?   You've got an imagination.  Why would RPG rules systems even exist?

Not that "need" was an accurate phrasing of the original point, but I think the above shows the error in that logic.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

And, apparently, I can't give CJ XP again, even though I'd like to for his fun analogies.


----------



## shadzar

Crazy Jerome said:


> Most of the skill chapter is about using skills by themselves.
> 
> If you have a skill saw, you don't need a table saw. So why would table saws even exist? You've got a kitchen, you don't need restaurants. So why should restaurants even exist?   You've got an imagination.  Why would RPG rules systems even exist?
> 
> Not that "need" was an accurate phrasing of the original point, but I think the above shows the error in that logic.




Which makes me think why waste space with a "skill challenge" system is the skills already have a system?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

shadzar said:


> Which makes me think why waste space with a "skill challenge" system is the skills already have a system?




Have you ever, at any point, run or played in a 4th Ed game?

Have you ever, at any point, actually read through the 4th Ed rulebooks?


----------



## Bluenose

Aberzanzorax said:


> Well, I'm sorta gonna answer your question with a question.
> 
> What did 3e do better than 4e? If your answer is "nothing" then that can be your opinion.
> 
> 
> However, I'll happily admit 4e's combat is smoother and has a lot of neat mechanics. I'm also one of many who think that 3e did some things better, in particular, a number of out of combat things.
> 
> 
> But, in addition to the "system", I was also referring to the supplemental materials. Back to the OP of the thread, a good world in which to play as well as good adventures are things that may not make good money (brussel sprouts and mashed potatoes), but they are important context for the main focus (fillet mignon).
> 
> 
> So, I'll say, few settings for 4e, few really good adventures, and few third party supporters would be the side dishes I'm missing for 4e (as well as the dishes missing within the system itself).




I've never particularly cared about published settings or even adventures. I started back in the 70s, when there weren't that many. And so many of them are annoying to me anyway. If they don't find a fresh approach, I just can't be bothered to pay attention. I frankly felt with 3e/D20 that a lot of the better 3rd party books seemed to be fighting against the system, which certainly didn't inspire me to love it more. I've noticed a lot of the larger publishers from OGL days moved away from the system; there's no more D20 L5R or 7 Seas, M&M has gone it's own way. So involvement of 3PPs is a plus, only to the extent that a few produced interesting material despite the things I thought were flaws in the system.



shadzar said:


> Frankly I dont care about the uses, but wouldn't mind a DMG or PHB page reference that tells about using them outside of the skill challenges.
> 
> If you don't need skill challenges, then why do they even exist?




Skill challenges get used when you're trying to do something that's more complicated than a single roll against one person's skill. Generally I would only use them if several players were doing different things with one end purpose in mind, and if there was some likelihood that failure would have consequences for the group. Without a specific situation in mind, it's hard to come up with concrete examples for a skill challenge. 

If multiple people are all trying to got hold of information about a group and then come back and compare notes on what they've found out, that might be a skill challenge, if they're trying to do so without attracting attention. The more successes they have, the more information they get. Each failure increases the chance that they've attracted unpleasant attention, which might mean they get attacked or that the people they're investigating are waiting for them.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

shadzar said:


> Which makes me think why waste space with a "skill challenge" system is the skills already have a system?




It is a tool for the DM to support non-combat encounters through a series of skill uses, much like combat is an encounter through a series of attacks.

Those who claim that 4E has no non-combat support always seem to ask why skill challenges are necessary. You want non-combat support but then deem it unnecessary?

The skill challenge concept wasn't fully fleshed out when 4E bebuted, but many of us have used the framework to create some really interesting encounters where characters never swing or sword or sling a spell. Could you do that before 4e? Of course you could. But I find the skill challenge tool to be useful in codifying what can go wrong in a complex challenge and sets up a better way (IMO) to reward players for overcoming a non-combat challenge.

Are all SC good? My god, no. Some of the published ones were terrible. But the tool is only as good as its master. And over time the skill challenges I create become more interesting to myself and my players. I think the framework would work for any game that has a skill system and is one part of 4E that is useful in an edition-neutral way.


----------



## Umbran

shadzar said:


> If you don't need skill challenges, then why do they even exist?




Oh, that's simple - to make it conceptually easier for the GM to build skill-based encounters or challenges, and reward PCs for completing them.  That's all.  Ultimately, they're really just a GM-aid, much like the guidelines for building combat encounters or a particular strength.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> You cannot at this point in time with the multitude of sourcebooks and Dragon/Dungeon for 4e in all fairness regulate comparisons to corebooks only. In those previous editions, there are rules and/or advice for everything from hiring laborers and henchmen to constructing strongholds, traveling to other dimensions (even other game systems), owning land, non-combat monsters, morale, etc. much of which (even this far into it's life cycle and with so much supplemental material published) 4e either lacks officially or leaves up in the air for the DM to create. YMMV of course.
> 
> <snp>
> 
> things such as time travel and dimensional travel to other worlds were at least mentioned and given rules/advice for in AD&D. Also the setting (Planescape) was based on the premise that the very multiverse could be shaped with belief. Not exactly hero-questing (and probably not the best implementation but still a good first try IMO) but still the earlier editons seem to, IMO, have a much wider, wilder and encompasing blanket than what is currently offered.



Imaro, I really think that this post captures the difference in perspectives very well.

I'm not really into the food metaphors, so I'll try and do it literally.

On one approach to dimensional travel or heroquesting, what is really important is a set of solid rules dealing which "model" or "give effect to" the ingame reality of time travel etc. So I get a well-defind plane travel spell, rules for severing the silver cord, that sort of thing.

I don't know if 3E has all of this (I know its DDG and MoP, but not the later stuff), but obviouly it could. (So could GURPS.)

On another approach to dimensional travel or heroquesting, what is really important is a mechanical framework which allows the GM to set up open-ended by thematically-guided conflicts, allows this to be done in real time, and that supports the GM in resolving them at the table. A mechanic which, in virtue of the way in which it handles pacing, and the points at which it permits complication to be injected, and the way theme is able to be reinforced or tested through these factors (etc, etc) puts the _players_ in control of theme rather than vice versa. (As well as its action resolution mechanics, 4e also has a crucial feature of its character build rules that supports this, namely, epic destinies as a guaranteed aspect of play leading to a player-focused endgame - very different from, for example, the old Immortals rules.)

This is what 4e offers, and what it is better at than 3E (and Planescape, etc). (And obviously HeroWars/Quest could do this also, and in some ways probably better than 4e - but like I posted upthread, my group also like the mechanical crunch of 4e combat - which HeroWars/Quest is lacking.)

It's not about what the mechanics model. It's about the fashion in which the mechanics set up and permit the resolution of conflicts.

In my view, Planescape is in fact the poster-child for this difference: metaplot-heavy, and a vehicle for exploring _someone else's_ conception of the moral and metaphysical order of things - not for expressing your own through play.



pawsplay said:


> That's a tough proposition to demonstrate. As I've said above, I would say that Dying Earth is precisely an example of rewarding someone for conforming to genre expectations. You classify it as a non-sim game.
> 
> Would you agree or disagree with this statement?:
> 
> _Any given Narrativist/storytelling game more closely resembles a High Concept Simulation/genre-emulating game than it does a classic style game based on exploration in a probabilistic game environment._
> 
> If so, doesn't that suggest that narrativist games simulate? If not, what is a genre-emulating game simulating?



I agree that narrativist games more closely resemble high concept games than "classic style" games (what I've been calling "purist-for-system") in certain respects.

But they also differ crucially. For me, the contrast between Planescape (high concept) and The Plane Above (narrativist, except for the Outer Isles stuff which is more high concept but can be mostly ignored, and probably will be in my game) marks just this difference.

I've tried again to capture it in my reply to Imago.

I've actually found purist-for-system more suitable for vanilla narrativist play than high concept, because while it has the sorts of problems with pacing and encounter design that I've mentioned upthread, unlike a high concept game it generally _won't_ inject someone else's resolution to the thematic questions into the game. The fact that high concept games have _already resolved the thematic issues_, leaving the players at the table to explore that solution rather than develop their own, is for me the crucial difference.


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> If memory serves me 4th edition has/had only 11 "skills"



As has been pointed out, it has 17.

Rolemaster has between dozens and hundreds of skills (depending on edition).

HeroWars/Quest has an infinite number of skills/attributes, because of its free-descriptor approach to character building.

Until you tell me what the point is of your skill system, and what principle you've used to determine how many skill there are, I have no idea whether it's good or bad.

And if your answer to that question is "I want to reduce all possible areas of human excellence and activity to a manageable number of categories" then you're already presupposing purist-for-system simulationism.



shadzar said:


> Which makes me think why waste space with a "skill challenge" system is the skills already have a system?



For the same sort of reasons that HeroWars/Quest has simple and extended contests.

It's to do with pacing, complexity of conflicts, handling complications, etc.

It about making the mechanics serve the metagame, rather than making the players of the game subordinate their metagame priorities to the mechanical system. I posted about this in detail upthread (#246).



Umbran said:


> Ultimately, they're really just a GM-aid, much like the guidelines for building combat encounters or a particular strength.



This is true, but not the whole truth. They also structure resolution in important ways (to do with pacing, injection of complication, etc). The example in Rules Compendium is a very good demonstration of this feature of skill challenges (although WotC don't actually explain what it is demonstrating, but leave it as an exercise for the reader - for example, the example involves a GM injecting a complication as a result of the skill challenge where the complication _does not result from that failure via any ingame causal process_, but nowhere does the rulebook actually talk about using this sort of metagame-heavy technique for resolving skill challenges).


----------



## shadzar

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Have you ever, at any point, run or played in a 4th Ed game?




I don't have 6 hours to waste on a single combat.



> Have you ever, at any point, actually read through the 4th Ed rulebooks?




PHB, DMG, and MM when they first came out and used my own "greasy gamer fingers" to read them.

Borrow them when I want to remember something from them I don't have saved form the DDI articles. Why I asked for the page numbers cause I won't go looking for it.



Bluenose said:


> Skill challenges get used when you're trying to do something that's more complicated than a single roll against one person's skill. Generally I would only use them if several players were doing different things with one end purpose in mind, and if there was some likelihood that failure would have consequences for the group. Without a specific situation in mind, it's hard to come up with concrete examples for a skill challenge.
> 
> If multiple people are all trying to got hold of information about a group and then come back and compare notes on what they've found out, that might be a skill challenge, if they're trying to do so without attracting attention. The more successes they have, the more information they get. Each failure increases the chance that they've attracted unpleasant attention, which might mean they get attacked or that the people they're investigating are waiting for them.




So you use them in response to a player attempted action or sequence, rather than a design for some non-combat encounter?

I could actually see THAT as a reason for skill challenges to offer direction to accomplish that. But not as a "design a non-combat encounter" approach.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

shadzar said:


> I don't have 6 hours to waste on a single combat.




Uh-huh.


----------



## shadzar

Umbran said:


> Oh, that's simple - to make it conceptually easier for the GM to build skill-based encounters or challenges, and reward PCs for completing them.  That's all.  Ultimately, they're really just a GM-aid, much like the guidelines for building combat encounters or a particular strength.




As I just said, I can see the "here is some guidance, now design your 'thing' and let players figure it out without you as a DM even trying to figure a solution for it".

That is a good tool, Point to 4th 15/luv..whatever.

But as someone else mention the "design a non-combat encounter' I would ignore it. I would just design things and let the players figure it out however, and IF I need to use the skill challenges, then and only then employ them, not have the encounter built around using them.

Sounds like a good system for resolution, but poor one for creation of, non-combat "encounters".


----------



## Crazy Jerome

shadzar said:


> But as someone else mention the "design a non-combat encounter' I would ignore it. I would just design things and let the players figure it out however, and IF I need to use the skill challenges, then and only then employ them, not have the encounter built around using them.
> 
> Sounds like a good system for resolution, but poor one for creation of, non-combat "encounters".




It is roughly equally good for both ways, but probably not for the same DM, and certainly not at the same time. You can't totally remove personal preference and other DM skills from the mix, after all.

In my case, I very rarely use prepared skill challenges except when using them to supplement a combat encounter (which I do a lot, with 7-9 players typically at the table--another monkey wrench that makes my experience different than the norm).

Other than that, skill challenges are for me a more abstract tool in practice than they are presented in game. I no longer even think about "X is a skill challenge" or "Y is just a few skill rolls". The though process is more along the lines of, "Hey, everyone is interested in this, several people are using different skills, there is something at stake. We are in a skill challenge. Record successes and failures!" Or, "Hey, I'm just asking for the same skill checks. I should resolve the action and get on with the next thing."

One of the rather underappreciated bits of skill challenges as actually implemented is that they do use those same skills, and how this lets you move seamlessly in and out of skill challenges on a dime. Got a prepared skill challenge that is getting a little boring? Just call those three skill checks so far successful skill checks and forget the challenge. Those first two skill checks revealed info that sent the players off on a wild tear? Hey, turn it into a skill challenge and give 'em some XP for it.

In fact, the only house rule we have with skills at the moment is something we just started trying to help reinforce this dynamic in a large group, without making massive changes. We are uniformly charging a cumulative +5 DC penalty to each successive skill check of the same type done by the same person for a given goal. This applies for straight skill checks and skill challenges alike. Coupled with a "Let it Ride" mentality from Burning Wheel, this says that every skill check matters, but the players have a vested interest in varying them as much as possible. 

When we did it by the book, the artificialness of "everyone doing something" in the skill challenge was off-putting. Now they regulate player participation to suit themselves, and it just flows. We'll see if it causes bad side effects.


----------



## shadzar

Crazy Jerome said:


> Those first two skill checks revealed info that sent the players off on a wild tear? Hey, turn it into a skill challenge and give 'em some XP for it.




I think this hits a nail on the head for skill challenges in what some might view as making the system popular or not. I enjoy giving "role-playing" XP, but am not going to design it into specific places.

My "role-playing" XP if from the players entertaining me by coming up with this such as "how to seal a demon without using a PC sacrifice to do so". So I reward for the creativity and use of the character, its abilities, etc that entertain me and come up with ideas beyond what I might have come up with as a DM.

So depending on where you want to be awarded with or to award XP, might have the skill challenges play a part that I haven't been able to put into words yet until what you just said. One of those "feelings" you cannot describe, but you nailed it for me.

Which is probably why I would only use such as a resolution mechanic and use my own devices to award the "special" XP for all instances based on me, rather than the game. Be it coming up with a solution I didn't think of to some "puzzle", doing something the other players found very rewarding, etc; the DM XP rewards that are not present int he book. I still want to be able to award those where I want to give them, not be dictated in some fashion/system how to award them.

Likewise, I don't want just the set of XP defined in the book, or I would be playing a constrained and coded MMO that can ONLY offer those XP it is coded for. The reason I have a DM to decide things beyond the code and out of the box, that we can challenge each others imagination and "skills" with.


----------



## Krensky

Crazy Jerome said:


> It is also true that 4E is one of those things that some people aren't going to really grok until they do it for awhile. But if they don't see something attractive, they won't bother.




Wait, you're actually claiming that I can't understand how a fair to decent miniature skirmish game with a tacked on skill system that feels like the developers whipped it up as an afterthought works without playing it for a while? 

The same skill challenge system that's essentially the complex skill check mechanics in Unearthed Arcana (and the SRD) and, well, pretty much every skill based RPG I've played in the past twenty years?

It's cool that you guys finally figured out how to run a complex skill check due to 4e's presentation, but there's nothing innovative or special about them. They're not even the best presentation of the concept I've seen. In fact, I'd say they're actually a pretty bad example of the concept, especially since they got the math so horribly wrong in the first place.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

shadzar said:


> I still want to be able to award those where I want to give them, not be dictated in some fashion/system how to award them.




Sure.  I don't like individual XP anymore.  So I didn't make any distinctions there.  And I give action points for entertaining and creativity, because I do want those to be individual rewards without messing up the XP progression.

This is a case of my preferred methods of rewards driving the way we use the mechanics, not the other way around.  It just so happens that our preferred way leaves a spot open for the party doing something rather involved with skills that is worth group XP, which fits the skill challenge mechanics very well.  If you do want to do that, then skill challenges would be, at best, a servicable kludge for something you could probably better handle in some other way.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Imaro, I really think that this post captures the difference in perspectives very well.




I don't think our perspectives are all that different, I think however our interpretation of what we perceive is different.



pemerton said:


> I'm not really into the food metaphors, so I'll try and do it literally.




Uhm...ok.



pemerton said:


> On one approach to dimensional travel or heroquesting, what is really important is a set of solid rules dealing which "model" or "give effect to" the ingame reality of time travel etc. So I get a well-defind plane travel spell, rules for severing the silver cord, that sort of thing.
> 
> I don't know if 3E has all of this (I know its DDG and MoP, but not the later stuff), but obviouly it could. (So could GURPS.)
> 
> On another approach to dimensional travel or heroquesting, what is really important is a mechanical framework which allows the GM to set up open-ended by thematically-guided conflicts, allows this to be done in real time, and that supports the GM in resolving them at the table. A mechanic which, in virtue of the way in which it handles pacing, and the points at which it permits complication to be injected, and the way theme is able to be reinforced or tested through these factors (etc, etc) puts the _players_ in control of theme rather than vice versa. (As well as its action resolution mechanics, 4e also has a crucial feature of its character build rules that supports this, namely, epic destinies as a guaranteed aspect of play leading to a player-focused endgame - very different from, for example, the old Immortals rules.)
> 
> This is what 4e offers, and what it is better at than 3E (and Planescape, etc). (And obviously HeroWars/Quest could do this also, and in some ways probably better than 4e - but like I posted upthread, my group also like the mechanical crunch of 4e combat - which HeroWars/Quest is lacking.)
> 
> It's not about what the mechanics model. It's about the fashion in which the mechanics set up and permit the resolution of conflicts.
> 
> In my view, Planescape is in fact the poster-child for this difference: metaplot-heavy, and a vehicle for exploring _someone else's_ conception of the moral and metaphysical order of things - not for expressing your own through play.





And here is where we differ on a few things... First, I find it odd that at one point you admonish Planescape for being... _"the poster-child for this difference: metaplot-heavy, and a vehicle for exploring someone else's conception of the moral and metaphysical order of things - not for expressing your own through play."_

Personally... I would have to argue that the landscape in and of itself will always be someone else's conception of something, as there are default assumptions even in the corebook, and that through the decisions made by the players and their effects in game as well as those modifications or tweaks made to the assumptions of the game by the DM are themes within play created. This can just as easily be done in 3e, BECM or AD&D as it can in 4e so I'm sorry but you've stated what you feel is a distinction without giving any reason for why you believe 4e is better at this than any other edition.

I also find the claim that 4e's pre-packaged epic destinies are in some way better than 3e's Epic levels or BECMI's Immortals. (Especially since you admonish the Planescape setting for basically being someone else's creation) I mean these are other people's concepts of a Demigod or an Archmage. This isn't like Heroquest where you create your own attributes and thus really can personalize your own definition of what it is to be an Archmage or Demigod by the attributes you create. No it's picking a more powerful paragon path... just as Epic Levels are becoming a more powerful character/prestige class... just as becoming an immortal is...well you get the picture. I mean please expound on why all of a sudden hero-questing is new and improved in 4e, I'm not seeing any difference in the tools or what you do at those levels in any of these games. If anything 4e more rigidly defines what those epic levels are about than any of the other editions (and IMO, it's very tactical and gamist combat doesn't really seem well suited to the battles of myth and legend it seems would take place in heroquesting...at leats IMO.)...without any real added benefit to running that type of game that I can see.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

[MENTION=23905]kre[/MENTION]nksy, I don't know if you are part of those "some people" I mentioned, or not.  Only you can answer that.  I will say that the point being made about those people grokking 4E is far from limited to skill challenges.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I find it odd that at one point you admonish Planescape for being... _"the poster-child for this difference: metaplot-heavy, and a vehicle for exploring someone else's conception of the moral and metaphysical order of things - not for expressing your own through play."_



For me this is not a peripheral point but the key point.



Imaro said:


> I would have to argue that the landscape in and of itself will always be someone else's conception of something



In Planescape, it is the _moral/thematic_ landscape that is someone else's conception. Compare that to the Game of Making in The Plane Above - it is clearly left _up to the players_ to decide what they think of Erathis's view that even evil things have to be made, and _up to the players_ to decide whether Pelor's circumspection about the game is a misjudgement or not.

A related but important point here is 4e's approach to alignment and divine PCs (namely, a non-punitive one).



Imaro said:


> I also find the claim that 4e's pre-packaged epic destinies are in some way better than 3e's Epic levels or BECMI's Immortals. (Especially since you admonish the Planescape setting for basically being someone else's creation) I mean these are other people's concepts of a Demigod or an Archmage.



But they _only come into play_ if the player chooses. And the player chooses what to make of them. This is the difference from Immortals.



Imaro said:


> This isn't like Heroquest where you create your own attributes and thus really can personalize your own definition of what it is to be an Archmage or Demigod by the attributes you create.



Yes and know. Unlike Issaries, WotC has big commercial aspirations. So instead of the free description of HeroQuest, they just _publish huge lists of thematically compelling elements, and let the players buy them and choose one_. There are a lot of Epic Destinies out there.

I agree with you that HeroQuest is, ultimately, probably a better narrativist gaming system. But 4e is much closer to that than to Planescape, in my view.



Imaro said:


> I mean please expound on why all of a sudden hero-questing is new and improved in 4e, I'm not seeing any difference in the tools or what you do at those levels in any of these games. If anything 4e more rigidly defines what those epic levels are about than any of the other editions



Well, I've tried in this post, and upthread, and also last year in this thread.



Imaro said:


> IMO, it's very tactical and gamist combat doesn't really seem well suited to the battles of myth and legend it seems would take place in heroquesting...at leats IMO.



Now I don't agree with this either, but I'll readily concede that this is just in the realm of taste. I personally find that, for my group and our preferences (and we're not averse to a bit of crunch with our combats), 4e delivers a pretty epic combat experience.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

shadzar said:


> As I just said, I can see the "here is some guidance, now design your 'thing' and let players figure it out without you as a DM even trying to figure a solution for it".
> 
> That is a good tool, Point to 4th 15/luv..whatever.
> 
> But as someone else mention the "design a non-combat encounter' I would ignore it. I would just design things and let the players figure it out however, and IF I need to use the skill challenges, then and only then employ them, not have the encounter built around using them.
> 
> Sounds like a good system for resolution, but poor one for creation of, non-combat "encounters".




You can use it more free-form once your used to the tool. But what fault do you have with designing an encounter, choosing skills that will most likely be used, and being prepared ahead of time to adjudicate the results? This has been a tool used in adventures written for all editions of the game. 1E modules aften listed the ability check that should be used if a player chose to do a certain actin, 2E NWP, 3E skills. Being prepared ahead of time for anticipated actions is NOT the same as the DM figuring out the solution for the players.

I heard these same arguments used against the writers of 1E modules, including EGG, that they were dictating what the characters could do. Any of them would point out that they were anticipating common solutions, not limiting options. The same with 4E skill challenges. The SC gives you common solutions, but good DMs will adjudicate other solutions fairly and incorporate the players' ideas into the skill challenge.


----------



## LostSoul

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You can use it more free-form once your used to the tool. But what fault do you have with designing an encounter, choosing skills that will most likely be used, and being prepared ahead of time to adjudicate the results?




I use Skill Challenges in the manner that shadzar proposes.  I do it that way because I have no idea what's going to happen in the next game, so I don't know what to prepare for; I require a reaction roll or morale check to set the number of successes needed, and I don't roll dice away from the table (save for NPC-NPC stuff); and I'm lazy, so I don't really care to prep much.

I actually do some prep for Skill Challenges - I figure out what the NPC wants, what kind of a person he or she is, basically figuring out the mindset of the NPC so I can play them appropriately.  Usually this is just a few lines if I take the time to write it out:

The current leader of this town is a two-fisted warrior woman named Shirley Peltier, a refugee from another time.  She is a human javelin dancer (who uses Colt .45s).  She deposed the old ruler because he was abusing his power; she isn't too keen on the laws, though the three "lawmen" (human guards) who follow Erathis are always very strict.

*

Basically, Sir Keegan thought that they could close the Shadow Rift once and for all, tried, and failed.  Worse than death.  In his undead state he killed everyone.​
Sometimes I get what I need from the MM (Skull Lords are searching for ways to restore their necromancer masters from the Black Tower of Vumerion, which I plopped down in the Nentir Vale).


----------



## MichaelSomething

Neonchameleon said:


> 3.5 got more votes than 4e _on that single thread_ because you were pitching it as a 3.5 scenario.  "Experts" do not exist in 4e.  And 4e isn't great for PVP.  Also the type of game you'd get would be different in the two editions; 3e really has the "get a bigger hammer" magic wars in a way 4e simply doesn't - which IMO makes 4e a better game most of the time.  But you also explicitely set all the PCs as spellcasters which levelled the playing field.  If instead of sorceress vs artificer you'd set sorceress vs rogue the answer might well have been very different.
> 
> Also I notice that you chose a biassed sample; that was your fourth thread on which edition to use and the _only_ one in which you posed it in edition specific terms.  In all the ones where your scenario was edition neutral, 4e beat 3e.  It simply lost to 3e at a 3e-specific scenario.
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...top-being-wizards-coasts-target-audience.html
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...65-what-edition-use-ii-electirc-booagloo.html
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273011-what-edition-use-3-a.html




Yeah, I was only talking about the latest thread in that series when I posted that.  Thanks for doing a more comprehensive review.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

shadzar said:


> As I just said, I can see the "here is some guidance, now design your 'thing' and let players figure it out without you as a DM even trying to figure a solution for it".
> 
> Sounds like a good system for resolution, but poor one for creation of, non-combat "encounters".




Being prepared for common solutions is not the same as the DM trying to figure A (one?) solution. This type of preparation has been present in published modules since the beginning. The down side is when the DM discounts any other solution. Being prepared to adjudicate uncommon solutions is the hallmark of a good DM.

So, you can create a good skill challenge ahead of time and still allow room for the players to resolve things in their own way. Now, if you run an exploration campaign, that pre-prep is harder anticipate and may not be as useful. But in an adventure path campaign a DM can better anticipate what goals the characters are likely to pursue and what challenges, both combat and non-combat, stand in their way. Besides, most skill challenges can be avoided as easily as a combat encounter.

Edit: Sorry for basically double-posting. I thought my first post was lost in the void.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Krensky said:


> Wait, you're actually claiming that I can't understand how a fair to decent miniature skirmish game with a tacked on skill system that feels like the developers whipped it up as an afterthought works without playing it for a while?




Understand? Sure. Anyone can learn to play chess by reading the rules too. And the game of chess looks very simplistic on its surface. But once you play longer you come to understand the strategy of the game and the nuances of play.

Same with 4E. *IF* the game interests you there are ways to dig deeper into these new and strange conventions brought about. These can be molded into something more than the basic rules present. We all did the same thing with previous editions. Until we understood the nuances of the new system, it didn't always seem to fit. 3E had its detractors for the same reason. The changes did not appeal to them in a way that made them want to explore the nuances of the game. The same is apparently true now for you.

My 4E campaigns do not feel like miniature skirmish games with tacked on skills. They feel as alive as all of my Basic D&D, 1E, 2E and 3E campaigns did. And it did take time for me to get the feel from the game I desired.


----------



## Lanefan

pawsplay said:


> The so-called "edition treadmill" is a good thing.



Allow me to heartily and vehemently disagree.

The edition treadmill is a horrible thing for everyone involved except those whose income depends on the health of RPGs as an industry.  For everyone else it's a complete pain in the ass; you either have to change to a new ruleset you may or may not like, or you lose all official support for the game you've been happily playing for years.

The edition treadmill serves the industry well.  It serves the hobby poorly, when it serves it at all.

Lan-"a rat who jumped off the edition treadmill"-efan


----------



## Steel_Wind

Imaro said:


> And here is where we differ on a few things... First, I find it odd that at one point you admonish Planescape for being... _"the poster-child for this difference: metaplot-heavy, and a vehicle for exploring someone else's conception of the moral and metaphysical order of things - not for expressing your own through play."_




Odd? 

At a certain point, these discussions turn into the ability to score a point. 

Like it or not, that was a line which was extremely quotable.


----------



## pemerton

Steel Wind, if I've read you right you thought my line was the quotable one. (If not, I'm an idiot - ignore me.)

I'm curious - do you agree, or disagree, on Planescape? It seems to have been pretty popular, at least on ENworld, but I've never been clear as to why.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> For me this is not a peripheral point but the key point.




And yet I haven't seen you express how Planescape is any more limiting in the moral themes that can be explored than any other setting including a homebrew... especially if the exploration takes place through the actions of the PC's. I mean Planescape is a meta-setting that theoretically includes everything in creation... including a multitude of worlds all of which can be used as tools by the DM and players to explore nearly unlimited moral themes. 



pemerton said:


> In Planescape, it is the _moral/thematic_ landscape that is someone else's conception. Compare that to the Game of Making in The Plane Above - it is clearly left _up to the players_ to decide what they think of Erathis's view that even evil things have to be made, and _up to the players_ to decide whether Pelor's circumspection about the game is a misjudgement or not.




Huh? The moral/thematic landscape in Planescape is their to be shaped, explored and changed by your characters just like that found in The Plane Above or any other setting. But then I have to ask... what good setting doesn't have it's own moral/thematic concepts? It seems to me your problem would be with any setting as opposed to the rules system since you can use the 3.5 Manual of the Planes to create your own moral/thematic planar landscape. however I think that a starting point (and again the very assumptions in any version of the core rules sets at least some of these) in no way stops a PC from exploring his own beliefs and ideas within the context of the game.



pemerton said:


> A related but important point here is 4e's approach to alignment and divine PCs (namely, a non-punitive one).




How does this in any way better enable the exploration, shaping and creation of a moral/thematic landscape? 

If anything, I feel 4e's "Look Ma, no consequences!" approach moreso facilitates the glossing over and ignoring of morality and it's associated themes in the game, as it doesn't in any way have cons and pros for one's choice. A total rat bastard can command the powers of Bahamut and a saint can pray to Vecna for enlightenment...and there are no consequences or benefits for such... beyond what particular powers one gains access to. 

Personally I find a certain disonance with this and the high fantasy/mythic feel I think D&D 4e has tried to remake itself with. In fact I would argue 4e might as well have just kept Unaligned (The do what I want alignment) and been done with it as the Most evil-> slightly less evil->Do what I want->slightly less good->Most good axis seems pointless if none of it ultimately means anything. I feel that ultimately, just like in every previous edition, we the Players and DM will have to decide what exactly these alignments mean... it's just that in 4e (at least IMO) it's not even worth the effort as the decision doesn't affect anything in game.



pemerton said:


> But they _only come into play_ if the player chooses. And the player chooses what to make of them. This is the difference from Immortals.




And immortality only comes into play if the PC seeks it out... and just like selecting an epic destiny... the PC in BECMI must discover and choose one of the paths to immortality... also, instead of just picking a mandatory epic destiny because he is a certain level, the PC must perform quests and tasks in order to gain immortality (Which are actually given guidelines in the books and to me is much more in line with a mythic feel). I guess I'm still not seeing how 4e's ED's are in any way better at this than BECMI's immortals.



pemerton said:


> Yes and know. Unlike Issaries, WotC has big commercial aspirations. So instead of the free description of HeroQuest, they just _publish huge lists of thematically compelling elements, and let the players buy them and choose one_. There are a lot of Epic Destinies out there.




Sooo, like I said in an earlier post... ED's are just souped up paragon paths... packaged destinies that really don't inherently allow anymore freedom for definition in and of themselves for PC's but instead are only as diverse as your spending budget will allow.



pemerton said:


> I agree with you that HeroQuest is, ultimately, probably a better narrativist gaming system. But 4e is much closer to that than to Planescape, in my view.




I touched on this above but again it seems this is because 4e is a system and Planescape is a setting. You're comparing apples and oranges. Again a better comparison is BECMI's immortal rules or 3.X's Epic Levels & Manual of the Planes.



pemerton said:


> Well, I've tried in this post, and upthread, and also last year in this thread.




I will go back and read these so that I can perhaps get a better understanding of what makes 4e a better game at hero-questing than any other edition of D&D.



pemerton said:


> Now I don't agree with this either, but I'll readily concede that this is just in the realm of taste. I personally find that, for my group and our preferences (and we're not averse to a bit of crunch with our combats), 4e delivers a pretty epic combat experience.




I would say a game like Heroquest, Legends of Anglerre... or for more crunch... Exalted, Earthdawn and a few others offer a much better Mythic/hero combat experience without getting bogged down in the tactical skirmish nature of D&D 4e's combat. But I digress, this is mostly about feel and I agree with different strokes for different folks.

SIDE NOTE ON COMBAT:  To further expound I feel that the grid can become a limitation and hinderance to the types of combat and landscapes of battles once PC's reach a point unto godhood, but that's just my oppinion.


----------



## LeStryfe79

Clearly, WE are the reason D&D isn't more popular, since the upper 33% of us didn't have a problem with the contemporary system. I wished I'd been a good enough DM to get players interested, but alas it wasn't so. In the old days, many of us were aspiring DMs with an inferior system, and yet everyone flocked to our tables. Nowadays, we inhabit a barren wasteland of a long forgotten hobby. Damnit! WotC was right and I was wrong. If only I'd listened when I had the chance. The points of light were there all along. They told me when to have fun, afterall. They told me! And, as much as I'd like to blame the economy, the president, and God HIMself, I can't in good conscience do so. Face it, 66% of us suck. It's too bad that so many people had to get laid off because of it. Damn the edition wars! Damn them to hell!



Also, a lack of quality campaigns, brand recognition, customer service, and balanced gameplay might have had a tiny bit to do with it....


----------



## Steel_Wind

pemerton said:


> Steel Wind, if I've read you right you thought my line was the quotable one. (If not, I'm an idiot - ignore me.)
> 
> I'm curious - do you agree, or disagree, on Planescape? It seems to have been pretty popular, at least on ENworld, but I've never been clear as to why.




At the risk of derailing a discussion that was derailed a half dozen + pages back...

Personally? I absolutely_ despise_ Planescape and, moreover, think that _Planescape Torment_ is one of the most overrated CRPGs of all time. Modrons? LAME. _Dead Gods_? Overrated! 

As a setting _Planescape_ did not sell all that well. There is a _*reason*_ that it was far and away the worst selling of all of Black Isle's AD&D CRPGs, too. It's just not a popular setting, no matter what some die-hard fans prefer to think.  That doesn't make them wrong for liking it -- it just puts them in the minority from a commercial standpoint.

I expect the fact that I vastly prefer grim and gritty, low to medium level Tolkienesque fantasy, GRRM's ASoIaF, or Fritz Leiber's Newhon -- and that I *hate* high level play has a lot to do with my particular viewpoint.

I do, on the other hand, think that the idea of the Blood War, generally, is a neat idea for a D&D multi-planar milieu.  

But the rest of it? I'd sooner chew on tin foil and rub the tip of something private and very sensitive with a cheese grater than play it, run it, read about it or look at it. I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

If we all liked the same thing, the world would be a pretty boring place.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Steel_Wind said:


> But the rest of it? *I'd sooner chew on tin foil and rub the tip of something private and very sensitive with a cheese grater *than play it, run it, read about it or look at it. I don't know how to be any more clearer than that.



Planescape has a faction especially for you: *Xaositect. *


----------



## TheAuldGrump

The thing is that Planescape was _loved_ by those who loved it - as a setting it was vastly different from other offerings. And those who loved it _could_ run a rip-roaring-gate-opening-dimension-hopping game with it, and _make that game fun!_

Me? It was never my cup of tea. It and Spelljammer just were not what I was looking for. But the DM who ran the settings could do things that I, personally, suck at. (He was a fan of nonstop action, I prefer plotting, scheming, and mysteries.) Odd as it sounds, we were each the others favorite GM - we each sucked at what the other was good at.

I haven't seen him since he got divorced and moved to the other coast, suddenly I want to write him and ask what he is running these days.

So, while not my cup of tea, I actually prefer it to Forgotten Realms, simply because it is _different_.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> And immortality only comes into play if the PC seeks it out... and just like selecting an epic destiny... the PC in BECMI must discover and choose one of the paths to immortality



In BECMI immortality is something ultimately under the control of the GM. In 4e the players gets to choose his/her version of immortality, and the onus is then on the GM to offer up situations/challenges that speak to the players' choice.

It would be over simplistic, but the summary could be this: BECMI immortality is about the player exploring the GM and game system's conception of immortality; 4e is about the player engaging with his/her own conception of immortality.



Imaro said:


> And yet I haven't seen you express how Planescape is any more limiting in the moral themes that can be explored than any other setting including a homebrew
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The moral/thematic landscape in Planescape is their to be shaped, explored and changed by your characters just like that found in The Plane Above or any other setting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If anything, I feel 4e's "Look Ma, no consequences!" approach moreso facilitates the glossing over and ignoring of morality and it's associated themes in the game



4e isn't "no cosequences". Rather, it's "no obligation on the part of the player to conform to the GM's/designers' moral conception".

If the absence of _those sorts_ of consequences means there are no consequences in your game for betrayal or apostasy then you're probably not wanting to play a mythic game at all.

Related to this: I don't think the moral landscape of Planescape really is easily changed - the moral answers are baked right into the planar landscape. I don't think that Planescape would very easily cope with a player deciding that heroism requires working with devils against Celestia, whereas the way 4e's heavens are set up - in particular a history whose dynamics and consequences and conflicts are still unfolding - this sort of decision could mark the dramatic point in a game (eg maybe it's about Asmodeus's role in guarding Tharizdun, or being a general against the primordials).

The absene of metaplot is also an important part of this.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> In BECMI immortality is something ultimately under the control of the GM. In 4e the players gets to choose his/her version of immortality, and the onus is then on the GM to offer up situations/challenges that speak to the players' choice.
> 
> It would be over simplistic, but the summary could be this: BECMI immortality is about the player exploring the GM and game system's conception of immortality; 4e is about the player engaging with his/her own conception of immortality.




Waitaminute... there is more than one path to immortality and any class can choose any path... so there is choice in BECMI. These paths, like Epic Destinies were created by the designers as opposed to the player... and if there is a quest to become an ED then the DM will design that as well, though the fact of the matter is that this is not even required as it is in BECMI so a PC can just pick a "destiny" at a certain level... the player isn't actually creating what anything means in 4e, so what's the major difference again? I mean I keep seeing you state opinions about how much better 4e is for this but they are not backed up by the reality of the games. 

Again if you were arguing that Heroquest or Legends of Anglerre did this better I would totally agree with you... however besides the fact that you can buy access to more ED's I'm not seeing a real difference, and in fact when limited to core rules there are only 4 epic destinies available in 4e and they are much more limited and rigid than the Immortal spheres in BECMI.




pemerton said:


> 4e isn't "no cosequences". Rather, it's "no obligation on the part of the player to conform to the GM's/designers' moral conception".
> 
> If the absence of _those sorts_ of consequences means there are no consequences in your game for betrayal or apostasy then you're probably not wanting to play a mythic game at all.




So again there is no higher meaning to good or evil they are not true forces (as they are in most myths and legends) in the world but instead are just a matter of... perception of and physical reaction to... one's choices and actions. If anything this seems more of a post-modern mind set than anything related to epic myths and hero-questing. 



pemerton said:


> Related to this: I don't think the moral landscape of Planescape really is easily changed - the moral answers are baked right into the planar landscape. I don't think that Planescape would very easily cope with a player deciding that heroism requires working with devils against Celestia, whereas the way 4e's heavens are set up - in particular a history whose dynamics and consequences and conflicts are still unfolding - this sort of decision could mark the dramatic point in a game (eg maybe it's about Asmodeus's role in guarding Tharizdun, or being a general against the primordials).
> 
> The absene of metaplot is also an important part of this.




Honestly...have you read or played in Planescape?? It is exactly the type of setting where a player could decide that heroism requires him to work with Devils against Celestia... I'm curious as to why you even think Planescape would in some way hinder this... and I'm starting to feel like you really don't know that much about the Planescape setting.


----------



## Tallifer

Mercurius said:


> 4E doesn't have an ongoing, supported setting. It has the default Nentir Vale setting that is touched upon in various products; it has three settings that have received minor support in the form of three books each; it also has a kind of default vibe or atmosphere, a "meta-setting" that includes the new planar structure and the mythology that's been presented in the "theme" books (e.g. _Underdark, Plane Above, _etc). But it doesn't have a setting that is supported in an ongoing way, that is being explored and developed through supplements.
> 
> The _Neverwinter Campaign Guide _may be a step in the right direction. Why? Because one of the biggest mistakes WotC made with their 4E treatment of the Forgotten Realms, in my opinion, was not to explicate it much. They came out with a few books and had some ongoing Dragon articles, but they didn't really show us why this new Realms was a good idea, what potential it had as a D&D setting. They have us a brief sketch with some crunch, and essentially said, "Here's the new Realms, like it or not this is what we're giving you this time around, no more or less." My sense is that if they had been willing to develop it a bit, maybe even just a supplement once a quarter, it would have done better and potentially generated more secondary and tertiary sales.
> 
> Maybe it isn't too late. Maybe Neverwinter can bring the new Realms alive, and maybe WotC pulled the _Nentir Vale Gazetteer _because they've got something larger planned for later this year or next (can we hope for a box set?). As with most things WotC these days, I'm not counting on it but one can hope...




As far as I can tell Fourth Edition has supported the Forgotten realms more than any other setting. Besides the Campaign Setting Guide, Players' Guide and numerous Forgotten Realms articles in the Dragon magazine, there have been a flood of adventures set therein, chiefly through the RPGA Living Forgotten Realms, but also in the Dungeon Magazine. Furthermore, much of the other published material has been designed to fit easily into the Forgotten Realms. Presumably the countless RPGA modules provide a huge reservoir of places, non-player characters and villains.

Until I played Fourth Edition, I had only played the earliest editions, so I knew nothing of the Forgotten Realms. It immediately struck me that the Realms were more prominent than Eberron (and later Dark Sun) and that the points of light was merely a philosophy for homebrewed worlds rather than a strict setting.

(On another note, when I played 1st edition, I do not recall any setting at all except the later appearance of the Dragonlance adventure path. Maybe that was just the homebrew preferences of my dungeon masters however.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As far as I can tell Fourth Edition has supported the Forgotten realms more than any other setting.




I don't think so.

From where I'm sitting right now, 3.X FR had at least 15 books.  1Ed introduced it and had about a dozen products- boxed sets and adventures, plus some other stuff.

However, the king of supporting FR was 2Ed, which had boxed sets, adventures and a multiplicity of sub-settings: Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, Maztica, etc.

All of them had articles in Dragon and Dungeon as well.

Near as I can figure, 4Ed hasn't surpassed ANY previous edition's support of the FR setting.



Or see here:

Portal:Sourcebooks - The Forgotten Realms Wiki - Books, races, classes, and more


----------



## pawsplay

Lanefan said:


> Allow me to heartily and vehemently disagree.
> 
> The edition treadmill is a horrible thing for everyone involved except those whose income depends on the health of RPGs as an industry.  For everyone else it's a complete pain in the ass; you either have to change to a new ruleset you may or may not like, or you lose all official support for the game you've been happily playing for years.
> 
> The edition treadmill serves the industry well.  It serves the hobby poorly, when it serves it at all.
> 
> Lan-"a rat who jumped off the edition treadmill"-efan




I have a completely different perspective. Most fans of a game are happy to buy updated versions every so often, with different artwork, and slightly different shifts in focus. Naturally, that breaks down if you make changes that are too radical, if you reduce backwards compatibility to the point where you actually do make old rulebooks useless.

Changes like e A&D -> 3e, or from 3e -> 4e should be considered very carefully precisely because of what you are talking about. But you could print 3.5, 3.51, 3.52 and so forth for a long time without alienating anyone.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> I've actually found purist-for-system more suitable for vanilla narrativist play than high concept, because while it has the sorts of problems with pacing and encounter design that I've mentioned upthread, unlike a high concept game it generally _won't_ inject someone else's resolution to the thematic questions into the game. The fact that high concept games have _already resolved the thematic issues_, leaving the players at the table to explore that solution rather than develop their own, is for me the crucial difference.




But that only makes a difference if the players in a narrativist game are willing to depart from the thematics and tropes of the genre. Obviously, in a game that is going to be "D&D enough," that's just not going to happen. Again, I am only talking about situations where the goals of simulation and narrativism are congruent, where it would be against the original premise to depart from either the integrity of the world (which embodies narrative) tropes or the narrative (which exists within a universe consistent with the narrative). Obviously, you can play "narrativist" games that do not substantially simulate any genre, and you can play genre games that do not care about the thematics of the source material.... but if you construct a game that is faithful to the storytelling tropes of the original, it both simulates the original poetics and allows exploration within the same field of options as the original.

Any sufficiently developed "narrativist" game will create a self-consistent reality which simulates other games played with the same system. In other words, sim. If you move away from mechanistic resolutions, you might be able to more narrativist, but there would be nothing stopping you from going freeform simulation, instead. Ron likes to say that the agendas exist in play, in player priorites, but that flies in the face of "system matters." If system matters, I find it difficult to imagine a counter-argument to what I am saying. 

I can see that 4e went for more abstraction, more "storytelling" in some aspects, but it remains the game that simulates itself, the game of winning the game that it is, the narrative of what happens when you play the game that is 4e. 4e has its faults, but it does not lack congruence between its narrative tropes, its creation of the imaginary world, and in-game player rewards. I think the reason some people like 4e is that they like where it leads them; it is a "three color" system, completely "abashed" if not incoherent. But it definitely works on its own terms. 

I think a reason a lot of people don't like 4e is that it so clearly communicates what they think you are going to be doing with it, and a lot of people don't want to do that.


----------



## pawsplay

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> How is this any different from, say, 3E combat?
> 
> Can you look solely at your character sheet and answer the question, "Can you beat an orc?"




Actually, you can calculate it to a high degree of accuracy.



> Until you know a lot more about the orc (is he an Orc War 1 straight out of the MM, or an Orc Ftr 12, or an Orc Clr 35), you can't actually, meaningfully, answer the question.
> 
> Why is 4E dinged for this, while 3E is praised for, essentially, the same thing?




It is not the same thing. It is just true that in 3e, an orc warrior 1 or an orc fighter 12 has certain capabilities, and you can imagine how you will fare against an orc war 1 or an orc fighter 12. It is also true that if you have a +12 Bluff bonus, you are very reliable at bluffing people without well-developed Sense Motive skills. 

4e skill challenges really change the situation. The difficulty is going to be determined by how many checks are required, and the DCs required. You cannot just think, "Well, my high Bluff character is going to be successful at bluffing people who are fairly naive" because in 4e, the DC is going to scale to the PCs, and the real difficulty is based on how many components the GM wants to throw at you. This is perfectly demonstrated by the original presentation of skill challenges, where the designers didn't realize they were giving oddball examples where success was unlikely even for skilled characters because of the way they constructed the challenges.


----------



## pawsplay

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> has the same use it has outside of skill challenges that it does in 3E.
> 
> I could list uses of each skill that we use on a regular basis outside of skill challenges if you wish. But I suspect you don't care.




What does Bluff do in 4e, outside of skill challenges?


----------



## Stormonu

TarionzCousin said:


> Planescape has a faction especially for you: *Xaositect. *




Nah, he'd be more apt to be a Sensate.


----------



## LostSoul

pawsplay said:


> Obviously, you can play "narrativist" games that do not substantially simulate any genre, and you can play genre games that do not care about the thematics of the source material.... but if you construct a game that is faithful to the storytelling tropes of the original, it both simulates the original poetics and allows exploration within the same field of options as the original.




I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... 

Imagine playing Star Wars.  I as a player do not believe that "anger leads to hate".  I believe that anger is a natural part of the human experience; it should be expressed and dealt with instead of fought against/repressed.

If the game's rules say that any expression of anger is going to turn my PC to the Dark Side, this is going to hurt my nar priorities.  If the game instead promotes this as a question to be answered by the players, then it's going to work towards my nar priorities.

Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## pawsplay

LostSoul said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...
> 
> Imagine playing Star Wars.  I as a player do not believe that "anger leads to hate".  I believe that anger is a natural part of the human experience; it should be expressed and dealt with instead of fought against/repressed.
> 
> If the game's rules say that any expression of anger is going to turn my PC to the Dark Side, this is going to hurt my nar priorities.  If the game instead promotes this as a question to be answered by the players, then it's going to work towards my nar priorities.
> 
> Seems pretty simple to me.




And if you reject the idea that "anger leads to hate," you are no longer playing Star Wars.


----------



## Imaro

LostSoul said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...
> 
> Imagine playing Star Wars. I as a player do not believe that "anger leads to hate". I believe that anger is a natural part of the human experience; it should be expressed and dealt with instead of fought against/repressed.
> 
> If the game's rules say that any expression of anger is going to turn my PC to the Dark Side, this is going to hurt my nar priorities. If the game instead promotes this as a question to be answered by the players, then it's going to work towards my nar priorities.
> 
> Seems pretty simple to me.




I don't think it's that simple though... If any expression of anger is going to turn your PC to the Dark Side and you're PC believes that anger is a natural part of the human experience... how does that stop you from exploring that theory... I mean it would seem that all you are positing is that the Dark Side itself is actually a natural part of the human experience (The funny thing is that some force users in the Star Wars universe do use this logic to justify or validate their experimentation and use of the Dark Side).


----------



## Neonchameleon

pawsplay said:


> It is not the same thing. It is just true that in 3e, an orc warrior 1 or an orc fighter 12 has certain capabilities, and you can imagine how you will fare against an orc war 1 or an orc fighter 12.




I know _my_ DM doesn't tell me in advance the stats of the orc.



> It is also true that if you have a +12 Bluff bonus, you are very reliable at bluffing people without well-developed Sense Motive skills.
> 
> 4e skill challenges really change the situation. The difficulty is going to be determined by how many checks are required, and the DCs required.




Stop right there.  As has been pointed out repeatedly *a skill challenge is not the same thing as a skill check*.  A skill check remains what it was - single point pass/fail with a simple action.  A skill challenge can be as long as an entire scene.  To just bluff someone under the 4e rules requires a simple bluff skill roll at the DC of the target creature's passive insight.  (Source: New DMG scren as it's what is to hand).



> You cannot just think, "Well, my high Bluff character is going to be successful at bluffing people who are fairly naive" because in 4e, the DC is going to scale to the PCs, and the real difficulty is based on how many components the GM wants to throw at you.




Again. not so.  The DC is going to scale to what you are attempting. And it is _assumed_ that what you are attempting is a challenge of about your level.  As for how many components the DM throws at you, that depends on what you are trying to do.



pawsplay said:


> What does Bluff do in 4e, outside of skill challenges?




Everything it did in 3e outside of skill challenges.  That hasn't changed.  Skill challenges are for complex plans that require more than just bluffing.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> And if you reject the idea that "anger leads to hate," you are no longer playing Star Wars.



This is a fairly narrow definition of "playing a genre", then.

I want a game that lets this sort of question to be posed and explored, perhaps resolved, as part of play. I don't want the answer presupposed. Mechanics like punitive alignment, personality (at least in many forms), sanity (at least in some forms), "dark side points", etc are part of what supports high concept play but is (in my view) an obstacle to narrativist play.



pawsplay said:


> What does Bluff do in 4e, outside of skill challenges?



Well, one thing it does is let you keep secret from your comrades that the spiders escaped from the skull only because you pulled the gems out of the eye socket.

And other stuff like that.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> there is more than one path to immortality and any class can choose any path... so there is choice in BECMI.



But the player doesn't get to decide whether or not they achieve their goal.



Imaro said:


> if there is a quest to become an ED then the DM will design that as well, though the fact of the matter is that this is not even required as it is in BECMI so a PC can just pick a "destiny" at a certain level



And the GM has to make that fit into the world.

It is (in part) about whether the player is following the GM's hooks, or the GM following the player's hooks. 4e has more of the latter than any earlier version of D&D. That is part of the difference.



Imaro said:


> I mean I keep seeing you state opinions about how much better 4e is for this but they are not backed up by the reality of the games.



Well, the reality of 4e is that it is non-simulationist in both character building, action resolution and encounter design. And for the reasons I gave upthread in post 246, this makes a difference to pacing, to the way players engage the challenges of the game, and so on. And heroquesting is an example of the sort of game that benefits from this - whereas simulationist mechanics, where the ingame reality rather than metagame considerations dictate pacing, and challenge levels, and where intervention in the past in order to change the future is either a matter of GM fiat or else mecanically spelled-out rituals, don't support this so well.



Imaro said:


> Again if you were arguing that Heroquest or Legends of Anglerre did this better I would totally agree with you



4e resembles Heroquest in the relevant respects. Like a HQ player, a 4e player gets to dictate to the GM what is relevant (by choosing Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) just as a HQ player does by chooing relationships and the like. Like a HQ player, a 4e player gets to choose how to engage situations, and thereby help frame them thematically in the game, via skill challenge mechanics.



Imaro said:


> So again there is no higher meaning to good or evil they are not true forces (as they are in most myths and legends) in the world but instead are just a matter of... perception of and physical reaction to... one's choices and actions.



It's about _what the players at the table_ make of it. This is what mythic play is about, in my view - to engage the game table.



Imaro said:


> I'm curious as to why you even think Planescape would in some way hinder this



Because of the alignment rules - the GM gets to decide whether or not I'm evil, for example. Because of the lack of myth and history. Because of the metaplot. Look at Dead Gods, for example. As I read that module, there is no expectation that the players, via their PCs, will engage with the backstory and use that to change the gameworld. To me, at least, it reads just like a railroad.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> Any sufficiently developed "narrativist" game will create a self-consistent reality which simulates other games played with the same system. In other words, sim. If you move away from mechanistic resolutions, you might be able to more narrativist, but there would be nothing stopping you from going freeform simulation, instead. Ron likes to say that the agendas exist in play, in player priorites, but that flies in the face of "system matters." If system matters, I find it difficult to imagine a counter-argument to what I am saying.
> 
> I can see that 4e went for more abstraction, more "storytelling" in some aspects, but it remains the game that simulates itself, the game of winning the game that it is, the narrative of what happens when you play the game that is 4e. 4e has its faults, but it does not lack congruence between its narrative tropes, its creation of the imaginary world, and in-game player rewards. I think the reason some people like 4e is that they like where it leads them; it is a "three color" system, completely "abashed" if not incoherent. But it definitely works on its own terms.
> 
> I think a reason a lot of people don't like 4e is that it so clearly communicates what they think you are going to be doing with it, and a lot of people don't want to do that.




There is some truth to this. OTOH, the reason I like 4E is twofold, and I think the other half not listed above is where your analysis falls short:

1. I like where 4E is going.
2. I like traveling with it to that destination.

Whereas, with 3E I also like where it is going. The journey itself, not so much. (And the prep even less, but it would be possible to build a game with a 3E sensibility that used some of the 4E strategies for reducing prep, though you'd have to make some compromises between the two.)

Furthermore, it is precisely the mechanical "sim" side of things where that divergence occurs for me. To pick just one example out of many, 3E multiple attacks versus 4E more rapidly scaling damage. Both mechanical methods kill the monsters more or less equally fast (allowing, of course, for changes in save or die spells and other system changes). Multiple attacks says that if you attack 3 times, you made three physical attacks, each with its own damage. This opens up certain options in the sim space. Scaling damage says that if you do the damage of three physical attacks, you may or may not have made that many physical attacks. This opens up a different set of options in the (little "n", not Forge-version) narrative space.

The fighter goes into the dungeon, kills the orc, takes the pie, and goes home happy. In both 3E and 4E, same D&D result; same D&D genre. Not the same experience, at all.

Or to put it another way, what you said was true at the macro level. Every roleplaying game simulates something at the macro level. But when people discuss simulation in games, they usually mean the micro level, or at a minimum how the micro sim feeds into the macro sim and vice versa.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> But the player doesn't get to decide whether or not they achieve their goal.




The player does not choose whether they attain their goal of an ED or not... not unless they now get to dictate to the DM that they will live to reach the appropriate level to choose one. Otherwise choosing a pre-made and pre-packaged destiny is no different and probably less flexible than moving up into epic levels in 3.5 or choosing a sphere/path to immortality.



pemerton said:


> And the GM has to make that fit into the world.
> 
> It is (in part) about whether the player is following the GM's hooks, or the GM following the player's hooks. 4e has more of the latter than any earlier version of D&D. That is part of the difference.




I call bull on this... the number of player generated hooks is in no way dictated or facilitated any better in 4e than in any other edition. Ultimately it rests on the PC's. Now if you are talking about mechanical indicators then I would admit that BECMI has less than 4e because it has a lighter set of rules, but then I would argue 3.5 definitely has more mechanical indicators than 4e does(of course whether you think that 3.x's are better or worse is another story). Of course again, the number of mechanical indicators does not in fact correlate to the number of PC generated hooks and whether or not the DM sees fit to place them in his campaign.



pemerton said:


> Well, the reality of 4e is that it is non-simulationist in both character building, action resolution and encounter design. And for the reasons I gave upthread in post 246, this makes a difference to pacing, to the way players engage the challenges of the game, and so on. And heroquesting is an example of the sort of game that benefits from this - whereas simulationist mechanics, where the ingame reality rather than metagame considerations dictate pacing, and challenge levels, and where intervention in the past in order to change the future is either a matter of GM fiat or else mecanically spelled-out rituals, don't support this so well.




The metagame in 4e is gamist/tactical in nature though, based more off correct numbers and math than any type of narrative concerns... and IMO this fits about as well as simulationism when compared with the use of narrativism determining the pacing, challenges faced, etc.. Now I can understand if you enjoy gamist vs. simulationist mechanics better but claiming they objectively do this type of play better than simulationism and are on par with purposefully narrative rules, like HQ, seems quite a stretch.



pemerton said:


> 4e resembles Heroquest in the relevant respects. Like a HQ player, a 4e player gets to dictate to the GM what is relevant (by choosing Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) just as a HQ player does by chooing relationships and the like. Like a HQ player, a 4e player gets to choose how to engage situations, and thereby help frame them thematically in the game, via skill challenge mechanics.




IMO... no it doesn't. To me the relevant respects are that a Character can totally personalize and define their attributes in HQ without being confined by the dictates of the designers...4e is nothing like that, it is a class based system (base, paragon, epic) with narrowly defined (by class), pre-packaged powers.

I also don't see how their chooice of what skill to use (which is something they have the power to decide in almost any edition of D&D) makes 4e better than any other edition at hero-questing.



pemerton said:


> It's about _what the players at the table_ make of it. This is what mythic play is about, in my view - to engage the game table.




And you can do that irregardless of edition is my point. The hashing out at the table and exploration of what it means to be LG in any edition is about what the players and DM (because ultimately he is a part of the game as well and whether 4e or 3e or BECMI must facilitate this particular mode of play) make of it. The difference is once we as a group come to agreement on what these alignments mean we then also have mechanical consequences and rewards to back them up... Again in 4e it is hardly worth the effort as alignment affects nothing...even if the player wants it to... by the book it affects nothing about his character mechanically... while in HQ if Lawful Good is an attribute someone has decided upon he will work out what that means with the DM (as above) and it most certainly has concrete mechanical effects in game. And honestly if we are speaking to in-game consequences...4e is no better than any other edition since this is totally dependant upon the DM. 



pemerton said:


> Because of the alignment rules - the GM gets to decide whether or not I'm evil, for example. Because of the lack of myth and history. Because of the metaplot. Look at Dead Gods, for example. As I read that module, there is no expectation that the players, via their PCs, will engage with the backstory and use that to change the gameworld. To me, at least, it reads just like a railroad.




"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition few people are completetly consistent..."

The above is from the PHB, and while I know many people have come to view alignment as this almost boogey man like entity of restrictions and boxing in... that is not how it is actually presented in the 3.5 PHB or DMG. there are no penalties for changing your alignment, the game states that actions and not words should be an indicator of one's alignment (which seems in line with your idea of defining in-play), and it encourages the DM to be an arbitrater as opposed to a dictator when it comes to alignment even cautioning against the DM punishing or changing alignments for minor and infrequent transgressions. So again, I am not seeing how this type of game is harder to play out (if the group decides this is the type of play they want to go for) with 3.5 or BECMI vs. 4e.

Ok, last but not least... you're judging the whole of Planescape by one module. You realize this is like me judging the whole of the Nentir Vale's worth as a setting on KotS or even the Kobold Mansion adventure in the DMG... If you think that's fair, then so be it... and that's really all I'll say on that matter.


----------



## Krensky

Neonchameleon said:


> Everything it did in 3e outside of skill challenges.  That hasn't changed.  Skill challenges are for complex plans that require more than just bluffing.




So you can use it to gain combat advantage in a fight?


----------



## Krensky

pemerton said:


> This is a fairly narrow definition of "playing a genre", then.




But it's an accurate one. Especially since Star Wars is a rather narrow genre.



pemerton said:


> I want a game that lets this sort of question to be posed and explored, perhaps resolved, as part of play. I don't want the answer presupposed. Mechanics like punitive alignment, personality (at least in many forms), sanity (at least in some forms), "dark side points", etc are part of what supports high concept play but is (in my view) an obstacle to narrativist play.




Then you don't want to play Star Wars. You want to play something Star Wars-esk. Anger leads to hate is part of the nature of the universe in SW. By saying, "Let's play a Star Wars game" you're presupposing this, just like you're assuming wookies and droids and lightsabres exist.


----------



## Krensky

pemerton said:


> But the player doesn't get to decide whether or not they achieve their goal.




Nor should they. It's not the player's job to decide if they succeed. It's the rules and the GM's job. Otherwise why are we playing D&D or whatever instead of Baron Munchausin or just sitting around the table BSing? 



pemerton said:


> And the GM has to make that fit into the world.




You mean like the GM has to fit everything that he or other plaeys want in the world in?



pemerton said:


> It is (in part) about whether the player is following the GM's hooks, or the GM following the player's hooks. 4e has more of the latter than any earlier version of D&D. That is part of the difference.




What difference? 4e has no more or fewer tools for this then 3e or any other edition of D&D or any other RPG for that matter.



pemerton said:


> Well, the reality of 4e is that it is non-simulationist in both character building, action resolution and encounter design. And for the reasons I gave upthread in post 246, this makes a difference to pacing, to the way players engage the challenges of the game, and so on. And heroquesting is an example of the sort of game that benefits from this - whereas simulationist mechanics, where the ingame reality rather than metagame considerations dictate pacing, and challenge levels, and where intervention in the past in order to change the future is either a matter of GM fiat or else mecanically spelled-out rituals, don't support this so well.




So non-GM player fiat is better then GM fiat? You're really stretching your arguments thin to keep claiming that 4e is something it isn't.



pemerton said:


> 4e resembles Heroquest in the relevant respects. Like a HQ player, a 4e player gets to dictate to the GM what is relevant (by choosing Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) just as a HQ player does by chooing relationships and the like. Like a HQ player, a 4e player gets to choose how to engage situations, and thereby help frame them thematically in the game, via skill challenge mechanics.




3e resembles Heroquest in the relevant respects. Like a HQ player, a 3e player gets to dictate to the GM what is relevant (by choosing skills, feat, and Prestige) just as a HQ player does by chooing relationships and the like. Like a HQ player, a 3e player gets to choose how to engage situations, and thereby help frame them thematically in the game, via complex skill check mechanics and other game rules.

There is nothing special about the elements you bring up in 4e. They're all cribbed from earlier RPGs, including 3e. 



pemerton said:


> Because of the alignment rules - the GM gets to decide whether or not I'm evil, for example. Because of the lack of myth and history. Because of the metaplot. Look at Dead Gods, for example. As I read that module, there is no expectation that the players, via their PCs, will engage with the backstory and use that to change the gameworld. To me, at least, it reads just like a railroad.




No, you get to decide that. The GM just tells you what the effect of your actions are regarding that choice. I'm not a major Planescape fan, but considering how many pages were published for it, saying there's no myth or history seems a little disingenuous. Unless you're doing the typical Forge thing and redefining those terms.


----------



## Imaro

Krensky said:


> But it's an accurate one. Especially since Star Wars is a rather narrow genre.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't want to play Star Wars. You want to play something Star Wars-esk. Anger leads to hate is part of the nature of the universe in SW. By saying, "Let's play a Star Wars game" you're presupposing this, just like you're assuming wookies and droids and lightsabres exist.




I'm starting to think that pemerton has set up a sort of fallacy where narrativist play means that the game must not define certain things concerning the particular theme being explored... However...I do not believe this is actually a requirement for narrativist play (or even good for it), as it pre-supposes in an extreme example, no type of base for anything since then the players wouldn't be able to, according to pemerton's posts so far, explore their own definitions of a particular theme or whatever. In a less extreme example it forces the question of what should and shouldn't be defined and who decides it. However after reading up on narrativism I am convinced this is untrue and his own narrowing of what is necessary for narrativist play.

I believe narrativist play is about exploring a theme through the beliefs and choices a character (not player) makes in game and the ramifications and consequences those choices have within the context of the setting. However there is no requirement in it that pre-supposes the character or player decides what the ramifications are or is in some way capable of deciding the parameters (setting) in which the thematic play takes place...thus certain things such as alignment, the dark side or a werewolf's rage don't hinder narrative play at all, as it is specifically about the consequences and ramifications of one's actions within the context of the setting and these things are accepted as part of the setting. In other words I feel pemerton's argument is really about him perferring the 4e cosmology to previous editions and perhaps his own ideas on how he wishes to tweak narrativist play as opposed to what hinders or helps base narrativist play in various editions.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> This is a fairly narrow definition of "playing a genre", then.
> 
> I want a game that lets this sort of question to be posed and explored, perhaps resolved, as part of play.




Then you don't want to play a Star Wars game. Part of the universe that says "anger leads to hate" is in part a definition of Star Wars.

Certain games have certain settings that define them. The people that want the Star Wars universe play in it, other don't have to.

There are also rules for the Dune universe that when removed you take Dune away.

The people looking for the experience of that universe will want those things.


----------



## Bluenose

Krensky said:


> So you can use it to gain combat advantage in a fight?




Yes. Standard Action, opposed by an Insight check. Gain CA to the end of your next turn. I think there are a few ways to get it as a Move or Minor action.


----------



## Krensky

Bluenose said:


> Yes. Standard Action, opposed by an Insight check. Gain CA to the end of your next turn. I think there are a few ways to get it as a Move or Minor action.




I stand informed. I would have figured this was frowned upon under the premise of keeping combat and skills separate. Although I notice that Diversion is only a combat trick now.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

I don't want to sound rude here, but ...



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> In 4e, those skills don't do anything. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge.






			
				Me said:
			
		

> How is this any different from, say, 3E combat?
> 
> Can you look solely at your character sheet and answer the question, "Can you beat an orc?"






pawsplay said:


> Actually, you can calculate it to a high degree of accuracy.
> 
> [...]
> 
> It is not the same thing. It is just true that in 3e, an orc warrior 1 or an orc fighter 12 has certain capabilities, and you can imagine how you will fare against an orc war 1 or an orc fighter 12.




That is not what I said at all, ergo you *are* arguing against a strawman.

Build a 3rd-level Human Fighter, Core Rulebook only, using the available wealth guidelines.  Look only at your own character sheet.

I, the DM, tell you that I'm going to place you into a room with an orc (presumably guarding a pie).  Without knowing anything else about that orc (because of your claim that you can tell with a high degree of accuracy your combat capability in 3E by only referencing your own character sheet), what are your chances of defeating him in a fight?

You can give me a +/-10% range, if you want.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

A combat- in any version of D&D- is radically different from using a skill.  I really don't understand how we got to combat comparisons from comparing skills and what they mean across systems.

Back to skills, consider lockpicking.  In 3.X, you know a masterwork lock is somewhere about a DC of 25.  So looking at your PC's skill, you can estimate your odds of picking that lock.  And you know that as you level up, you'll have better and better odds of picking a masterwork lock...but you can still fail, no matter how good you are.

In earlier editions, thieves all rolled their lockpicking chances against a single percentage-based chart.

In contrast, skill challenges of 4Ed are different from any previous incarnation of D&D.  4Ed's system says the challenge of lockpicking scales with PC level (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Because of this, just looking at your PC's sheet, you cannot guess what your odds of success are.


----------



## Lanefan

Re: whether you can tell by your character sheet whether you can beat an Orc or not:







pawsplay said:


> Actually, you can calculate it to a high degree of accuracy.



See, that's actually part of the problem.

Other than vague generalities (most of the time I'll beat it) or really obvious mismatches (e.g. a Fighter-10 against an Orc), you should never be able to tell how any combat will go until and unless you play it out.  If you can work it as accurately as you claim without rolling any dice, the game's math has become far too fine-tuned at cost of the randomness of combat.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Build a 3rd-level Human Fighter, Core Rulebook only, using the available wealth guidelines.  Look only at your own character sheet.
> 
> I, the DM, tell you that I'm going to place you into a room with an orc (presumably guarding a pie).  Without knowing anything else about that orc (because of your claim that you can tell with a high degree of accuracy your combat capability in 3E by only referencing your own character sheet), what are your chances of defeating him in a fight?
> 
> You can give me a +/-10% range, if you want.



And when done, do it again for each of 1e, 2e and 4e.  You should notice a difference: it should be easier to figure an outcome in 1-2e than in 3-4.

To be fair, let's also limit the DM to using core RAW when building said Orc.

But then, try it again for each edition but this time you know going in that the Orc has 2 HD, 15 h.p., Str. 17, uses a 2-handed sword, has commensurate feats and abilities as per core RAW for its edition, and will die to defend that pie.

I think it now becomes easier to tell what'll happen in 3-4e because of the finer-tuned math, where 1-2e are more random (and thus to me more interesting).

Lan-"numbers make my head hurt"-efan


----------



## Nagol

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A combat- in any version of D&D- is radically different from using a skill.  I really don't understand how we got to combat comparisons from comparing skills and what they mean across systems.
> 
> Back to skills, consider lockpicking.  In 3.X, you know a masterwork lock is somewhere about a DC of 25.  So looking at your PC's skill, you can estimate your odds of picking that lock.  And you know that as you level up, you'll have better and better odds of picking a masterwork lock...but you can still fail, no matter how good you are.
> 
> In earlier editions, thieves all rolled their lockpicking chances against a single percentage-based chart.
> 
> In contrast, skill challenges of 4Ed are different from any previous incarnation of D&D.  4Ed's system says the challenge of lockpicking scales with PC level (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Because of this, just looking at your PC's sheet, you cannot guess what your odds of success are.




Would you not have the same chance (or very close to it) regardless of your level?

The scaling with level removes one factor to consider (how much improvement the character has derived over time) from the equation.  So now you'd only have to consider trained vs. untrained, and relative difficulty.  For eaxample, and I'm making the numbers up, trained needs to roll a 15 for hard, 10 for average, and 5 for easy.  Untrained adds 5 to the number necessary.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Would you not have the same chance (or very close to it) regardless of your level?




No.

A quick refresher shows that locks have DCs of 20, 25, 30, or 40.  A 3.XEd 1st level Rogue will have about a 5-15% chance of picking a non-magical lock of DC25 (depending on Dex bonus w/maxed skill).  By the time he's reached mid-levels, his odds of _failing_ to pick an equivalent non-magical lock have dropped to 5%.

If the challenge of picking a lock scales to level, though, a what was once a hard challenge stays a hard challenge.



> The scaling with level removes one factor to consider (how much improvement the character has derived over time) from the equation.




This doesn't make sense: if one has improved one's skills, it should be revealed in how tasks involved in using the skill become easier.  Improvement should NEVER be eliminated from the equation.


----------



## Nagol

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.
> 
> A quick refresher shows that locks have DCs of 20, 25, 30, or 40.  A 3.XEd 1st level Rogue will have about a 5-15% chance of picking a non-magical lock of DC25 (depending on Dex bonus w/maxed skill).  By the time he's reached mid-levels, his odds of _failing_ to pick an equivalent non-magical lock have dropped to 5%.
> 
> If the challenge of picking a lock scales to level, though, a what was once a hard challenge stays a hard challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense: if one has improved one's skills, it should be revealed in how tasks involved in using the skill become easier.  Improvement should NEVER be eliminated from the equation.




LOL, I'm not defending 4e's design; I agree you you that half the purpose of improvement should be to see change in campaign play.

I'm merely noting that glancing at the character sheet gives you sufficient knowledge to gauge the character's chance of success -- since that chance is invariant compared to level it seems to my uneducated eye to be based around the boolean (trained/untrained skill) and the expectation for task difficulty (low, medium, or hard).


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A combat- in any version of D&D- is radically different from using a skill.  I really don't understand how we got to combat comparisons from comparing skills and what they mean across systems.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In contrast, skill challenges of 4Ed are different from any previous incarnation of D&D.  4Ed's system says the challenge of lockpicking scales with PC level (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Because of this, just looking at your PC's sheet, you cannot guess what your odds of success are.



I think you're right that 4e in certain ways makes non-combat encounters more like combat ones. Again, opinions differ on whether this is a plus or a minus.

As to difficulty - a 4e player can know the % success against a level-appropriate DC (roughly, untrained and average stat is 65% against an Easy DC, tained OR good stat is 65% against a Moderate DC, trained AND good stat is 65% against a Hard DC). The scaling issue is complicated by lingering simulationist features of the ruleset.

Roughly, where the challenge is the sort of thing that might appear on a battlemap - so if it involves distance of a jump or a climb, for example - then there is no scaling - DC is set by the width of the chasm, for example - but the GM would be expected to place wider chasms in higher level encounters.

Where the challenge is not the sort of thing that might appear on a battlemap - like the complexity of the lock - then the general expectation is that the difficulty will be level dependent, and for higher level PCs the GM will describe the lock as being more complex.

Then there are some intermediate aspects - for doors that might need to be forced open, some climbing surfaces, and some weather events, the rules give the GM fairly detailed advice on what sort of description to associate with what sorts of DCs (eg a Moderate low level door is wooden, a Moderate low-epic-tier door is an iron portcullis). But there is nothing like this for locks - so the GM just has to come up with his/her own description of the features of an epic lock that make it so hard to pick.

(HeroWars, in its first edition, took something like this last approach - DCs are to be set based on narrative/pacing considerations, but the GM was given a list of descriptions to associate with various DCs. HeroQuest 2nd edition has dropped the list, and just encourages the GM to describe things as appropriate - like 4e does with locks.)


----------



## pemerton

Krensky said:


> Then you don't want to play Star Wars. You want to play something Star Wars-esk. Anger leads to hate is part of the nature of the universe in SW. By saying, "Let's play a Star Wars game" you're presupposing this, just like you're assuming wookies and droids and lightsabres exist.





shadzar said:


> Then you don't want to play a Star Wars game. Part of the universe that says "anger leads to hate" is in part a definition of Star Wars.
> 
> Certain games have certain settings that define them. The people that want the Star Wars universe play in it, other don't have to.
> 
> There are also rules for the Dune universe that when removed you take Dune away.
> 
> The people looking for the experience of that universe will want those things.



I'm happy to accept, then, that there can be no narrativist game which is, as such, a Star Wars game. Let's say instead that I want a game that uses the tropes of Star Wars, but leaves the resolution of the thematic issues to be settled by the players in the course of play. So it may turn out that "anger leads to hate" - but it may not. We won't know until we play the game.

I think that this is what LostSoul had in mind upthread.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I call bull on this... the number of player generated hooks is in no way dictated or facilitated any better in 4e than in any other edition.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The metagame in 4e is gamist/tactical in nature though, based more off correct numbers and math than any type of narrative concerns



Well, obviously you're entitled to your opinion. But I don't agree.

The metagame in 4e isn't especially gamist at all. XP rewards arise on a more-or-less "per real time unit of play" basis. XP, even for indidivual accomplishments, accrues to the whole party. The GM is encouraged, by the encounter-buildig guidelines, to build encounters (both combat and non-combat) that enable the players to engage, via their PCs, in an interesting fashion. Treasure is also accrued on a more-or-less proportionate basis to XP (at so many parcels per leve).

This doesn't look all that gamist to me. Where's the competition? Where's the Step On Up?

On the other hand, look at paragon paths compared to prestige classes: expressly in the hands of the player rather than the GM. Same for epic destinies (as I've been saying). Look at the retraining rules. Look at the way that skill challenges are built, to open up the space for players to engage with the situation presented by the GM. Look at how combat powers work, with the range of control features to permit players to engage with the situation presented by the GM (this is less true for some classes than others - there's a reason the 4e archer-ranger is considered the "fighter" of this edition, the class you would give a newbie to play because it doesn't enagage the full and complex mechanical spectrum of the game). Look at page 42, which not only enjoins the GM to "say yes" but goes some way to giving the mechanical tools to do so.

There's a non-simulationist trend here, and in my view it's not especially about gamism. It's about players leading the game rather than the GM providing a prepared world and/or story for the players to explore. (And to link this back to the OP - that's _why_ the default setting takes the "vibe and atmosphere" form that it does.)



Imaro said:


> Of course again, the number of mechanical indicators does not in fact correlate to the number of PC generated hooks and whether or not the DM sees fit to place them in his campaign.



In 3E, when I build an elf PC, it's entirely at the discretion of the GM whether or not my elvishness comes into play.

In 4e, when I build an eladrin PC, the Feywild is _already _ in play, due to this choice that _I, the player_, made. Not only do I have an encounter power that is a Feywild-based teleport, but there is all this backstory in the PHB about the relationship between eladrin, the world and the Feywild which my PC brings into the game. And I can amp this up further, if I want, when I choose my paragon path. Or when I choose to be a Fey Pact Warlock. Or any other of a range of choices that a player can make that shape the gameworld and bring aspects of into play.

Now if you choose to ignore all these features of the rulebooks, and to play the game with the same relationship between GM, players and gameworld as is envisaged by the AD&D rulebooks, there's nothing stopping you. But that doesn't tell us anything about the sort of play that the rulebooks are actually written to support.



Imaro said:


> Now I can understand if you enjoy gamist vs. simulationist mechanics better but claiming they objectively do this type of play better than simulationism and are on par with purposefully narrative rules, like HQ, seems quite a stretch.



I regard it as pretty obvious that 4e _has_ purposefully narrativist rules. That's why it has skill challenge rules that are pretty close, in overall resolution structure and impact on pacing, to HQ's extended contest rules. That's why it gives the players access to character build options that bring the gameworld into play, just as do HQ's character build rules (even the fact that the players choose of a list isn't radically different from a HQ Glorantha game, where a lot of the relationship and other keywords might be chosen off a pre-published list).

To me, this impression is only reinforced by Rob Heinsoo' express comments about the resemblance of 4e to indie game design.



Imaro said:


> I also don't see how their chooice of what skill to use (which is something they have the power to decide in almost any edition of D&D) makes 4e better than any other edition at hero-questing.



Because hero-questing, if it is to be an interesting part of the game, as opposed to just a high-level romp, requires the players to be able to engage the myth in a way that speaks to them, in order to transform the gameworld in a way that speaks to their realword thematic concerns. This mechanical feature of 4e is one of the ways that it facilitates this moreso than more simulationist games.



Imaro said:


> you're judging the whole of Planescape by one module.



OK. Give me an example, from Planescape, of a myth which (i) explains a contemporary feature of the gameworld that is thematically powerful, and (ii) which the players might engage and transform, via having their PCs heroquesting.

I'll give two examples from 4e - one from The Plane Above, on from Underdark.

[sblock]The Plane Above describes Erathis's game of making: the Dawn War between gods and primordials thwarted the creation of the Lattice of Heaven. This is then one important cause of the disarray and imperfection of the contemporary world. Erathis hopes to rebuild the Lattice, but this requires fully realising the ideal of creation, by making everything that can be made - even things that (by the lights of commonsense) might be better off not being made.

This presents a situation that the players can engage either in the present of the gameworld, or by heroquesting back to the Dawn War. What's at stake are values like order, innovation, perfection, trade-offs of short-term suffering for long-term gain, etc etc.

The Underdark describes Lolth's entrappment of Tharizdun, and rescue of the universe from his threat, by binding creation back together with her webs. Attacking Lolth therefore, apparently, risks loosing Tharizdun and his entropy. But leaving her alone risks the drow increasing in power and spreading more suffering. What should the PCs do? Can they, by heroquesting back into these mythical events, find a way of stopping Tharizdun without giving this power and status to Lolth? Again, there are clear and thematically compelling values at stake here.[/sblock]
For both these scenrios I've presented, _the game designers and the mechanics don't present a right answer_. They don't present an optimal solution. It is up to the players to engage. An by engaging, they have the capacity to have their PCs transform the gameworld in a way that speaks to the players' real world thematic concerns. This is the essence of narrativist RPGing, in my book.



Krensky said:


> Nor should they. It's not the player's job to decide if they succeed. It's the rules and the GM's job. Otherwise why are we playing D&D or whatever instead of Baron Munchausin or just sitting around the table BSing?



Well, for those who want to play more traditional D&D, 4e isn't the ruleset for them. I've been asserting that for at least a couple of years now.



Krensky said:


> saying there's no myth or history seems a little disingenuous. Unless you're doing the typical Forge thing and redefining those terms.



Planescape has myth or history in the form of metaplot. And also in the form of backstory. But where is the myth and history that the players are intended to enage in order to transform the gameworld (which is what heroquesting is about)?



Imaro said:


> I'm starting to think that pemerton has set up a sort of fallacy where narrativist play means that the game must not define certain things concerning the particular theme being explored... However...I do not believe this is actually a requirement for narrativist play (or even good for it
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I believe narrativist play is about exploring a theme through the beliefs and choices a character (not player) makes in game and the ramifications and consequences those choices have within the context of the setting.



I am using narrativist play in the Forge sense. What you have just described here is what the Forge calls high-concept simulationism. I agree that Planescape strogly supports the latter. But it's not what I personally am looking for in a game.

The key is that, in high-concept play, the play is about exploring a theme through the beliefs and choices of the characters (as you say). Good high-concept play is in fact metagame-light, because too much metagame will get in the way of the immersion into the setting and the PCs.

But the essence of narrativist play (in the Forge sense) is precsely engaging a them through the beliefs and choices of the players. It is (comparatively) metagame heavy. And this is what 4e, in my view, supports more strongly than earlier editions of 3E.



Imaro said:


> However there is no requirement in it that pre-supposes the character or player decides what the ramifications are or is in some way capable of deciding the parameters (setting) in which the thematic play takes place...thus certain things such as alignment, the dark side or a werewolf's rage don't hinder narrative play at all, as it is specifically about the consequences and ramifications of one's actions within the context of the setting and these things are accepted as part of the setting.



Consider the following quote from Ron Edwards, on one difference between narrativist and high-concept play:

Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract. . .

a character in Narrativist play is by definition a thematic time-bomb, whereas, for a character in Simulationist play, the bomb is either absent (the GURPS samurai), present in a state of near-constant detonation (the Pendragon knight, using Passions), or its detonation is integrated into the in-game behavioral resolution system in a "tracked" fashion (the Pendragon knight, using the dichotomous traits). Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.​
The sort of heroquesting I'm interested in is about discovering, through play, what values (expressed in the myths) can be upheld and what must be abandoned. It's like Edwards' example of bushido in a narrativist game: it's not an ideal that imposes a constraint on the play of the character, it's about the thematic time bomb exploding and the players doing their best (via their PCs) to pick up the pieces.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Krensky said:


> But it's an accurate one. Especially since Star Wars is a rather narrow genre.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't want to play Star Wars. You want to play something Star Wars-esk. Anger leads to hate is part of the nature of the universe in SW. By saying, "Let's play a Star Wars game" you're presupposing this, just like you're assuming wookies and droids and lightsabres exist.



I think that there is some conflation going on between 'Genre' and 'Setting'. The Genre is 'Science Fantasy' - fantasy with SF trappings. The Setting is 'Star Wars' - Long, Long Ago, in a Galaxy Far, Far Away.

The whole Anger/Fear/Hate/Darkside thing _is_ hardwired into the Star Wars setting, but if you were playing Lensman then it would not be. And if you are visiting lovely Barsoom (sure it's hot, but it's a _dry_ heat) then the trappings would be different again.

The Auld Grump, yeah, looking forward to Pixar's John Carter....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As to difficulty - a 4e player can know the % success against a level-appropriate DC (roughly, untrained and average stat is 65% against an Easy DC, tained OR good stat is 65% against a Moderate DC, trained AND good stat is 65% against a Hard DC). The scaling issue is complicated by lingering simulationist features of the ruleset.




Staying with lockpicking...in 3.X, a rogue will eventually consider most mundane locks as mere speedbumps, not actual obstacles.  

That 4Ed would want to have a system in which a powerful rogue might actually be challenged by a mundane lock seems...non-heroic.


----------



## Thunderfoot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Staying with lockpicking...in 3.X, a rogue will eventually consider most mundane locks as mere speedbumps, not actual obstacles.
> 
> That 4Ed would want to have a system in which a powerful rogue might actually be challenged by a mundane lock seems...non-heroic.



Truth - truth - truth.

There should always be the _chance_ of failure, but failure should be one of those "hilarity ensues" moments that get talked about by players for years to come.  Talk to a professional lockpick, they can tell you how a lock is made, why its easy to defeat and what the possible catastrophic failures are BEFORE they begin the pick.  Like any professional, they make it look easy.


----------



## Krensky

pemerton said:


> I'm happy to accept, then, that there can be no narrativist game which is, as such, a Star Wars game. Let's say instead that I want a game that uses the tropes of Star Wars, but leaves the resolution of the thematic issues to be settled by the players in the course of play. So it may turn out that "anger leads to hate" - but it may not. We won't know until we play the game.
> 
> I think that this is what LostSoul had in mind upthread.




As long you subscribe to Ron Edward's and Forge-esk non-sensical, quasi-academic redefinition of terms away from their natural language meanings, that's the case.

A narrative game is focused on storytelling and emulating the flow and feel of one, often at the expense of 'realism' or game balance. TORG, Paranoia, and Feng Shui are good examples. D6 Star Wars was very good at this too.

A gamist is focused on being a game, and often sacrifices support for narrative flow and realism for this. D&D in all it's stripes, but 4e provides an extreme example.

A simulationist game is focused on simulating a (often, nominally, our) reality. GURPS, Rolemaster, and Traveler are good examples.

These are the definitions I learned and were in common usage back on USENET before Ron Edwards started redefining them away from natural language meanings into his quasi-academic jargon.



pemerton said:


> The metagame in 4e isn't especially gamist at all. XP rewards arise on a more-or-less "per real time unit of play" basis. XP, even for indidivual accomplishments, accrues to the whole party. The GM is encouraged, by the encounter-buildig guidelines, to build encounters (both combat and non-combat) that enable the players to engage, via their PCs, in an interesting fashion. Treasure is also accrued on a more-or-less proportionate basis to XP (at so many parcels per leve).
> 
> This doesn't look all that gamist to me. Where's the competition? Where's the Step On Up?




It's gamist because it's focused being a game and not on emulating a story or simulating a world.

But as long as some of us are using the natural language, pre-Forge definitions of the terms and you keep on using Forge-based non-sensical redefinitions where what someone not steeped in their weird ideas calls a narrative style is redefined as something else so narrative can mean a third thing we'e not going to get anywhere.

Try making your arguments without Forge based word salad and we can try again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Talk to a professional lockpick, they can tell you how a lock is made, why its easy to defeat and what the possible catastrophic failures are BEFORE they begin the pick. Like any professional, they make it look easy.




Oh yeah!

Got locked out of my car one time- one key sitting on the front passenger seat, one in the ignition- and my car had what were at the time "burglary resistant" locks new to the market.

The locksmith, on arrival, commented on my car having said locks...and was in my car in 45 seconds.  I asked him what the difference was between what I had and the industry standard of the day.  He responded, "40 seconds."


----------



## Aldarc

I'm gone for a few days and this thread is still going. Wow. 

Reading through this later portion of the thread, I cannot help but feel somewhat amused by the discussion of whether or not 4E is "gamist," especially considering that D&D was, is now, and ever shall be a roleplaying _game_ system. The very nature of D&D as a gaming system assumes an inherently "gamist" perspective. Narrativism has _always_ been secondary. When reading through Gary Gygax's early D&D sessions, I can see a "gamist" perspective quite readily. Simulation just gives gameplay a touch of verisimilitude, but it does not necessarily create a better world or a narrative. IMO, a "narrative style" of gaming is not predetermined by the system, but by how the DM and players use the gaming system to recreate a narrative. Nothing stops any of the pre-4E editions of D&D from being played in "gamist" fashion, and nothing stops 4E from being a "narrativist" game.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Staying with lockpicking...in 3.X, a rogue will eventually consider most mundane locks as mere speedbumps, not actual obstacles.
> 
> That 4Ed would want to have a system in which a powerful rogue might actually be challenged by a mundane lock seems...non-heroic.




Level appropriate.

It does not stand for "Ignore these words."

A mundane ordinary lock is not level appropriate for a level 30 rogue.  At that point he is picking the great lock of the god Aracadia to open the vault which holds Fire.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That 4Ed would want to have a system in which a powerful rogue might actually be challenged by a mundane lock seems...non-heroic.



Adding to Prof Cirno's reply - I said upthread that "Where the challenge is not the sort of thing that might appear on a battlemap - like the complexity of the lock - then the general expectation is that the difficulty will be level dependent, and for higher level PCs the GM will describe the lock as being more complex".

If you have a high level PC picking a lock that is a Moderate DC for his/her level, _and_ the GM has described the lock as an ordinary mundane lock, then something has gone wrong. In particular, the GM has _failed to describe the lock as being more complex_. (What this shows is that it's not as if there's no connection between mechanics and fiction. It's just that the process of establishing and implementing that connection is somewhat different from 3E.)

At a certain point, I think there is an expectation that high-level PCs will pick low-level locks without a roll being required (this is a difference from Basic and AD&D, and possibly from 3E). Exactly when that point should come - at what point the GM decides that something is not a challenge but just scenery (just as PCs don't generally make Acrobatics checks to avoid falling over their shoelaces) - isn't spelled out by the books. It's left as an exercise for each table.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> If you have a high level PC picking a lock that is a Moderate DC for his/her level, _and_ the GM has described the lock as an ordinary mundane lock, then something has gone wrong. In particular, the GM has _failed to describe the lock as being more complex_. (What this shows is that it's not as if there's no connection between mechanics and fiction. It's just that the process of establishing and implementing that connection is somewhat different from 3E.)




You have to understand that some of us find this *extremely* unsatisfying. It's putting the description of the game world secondary to the metagame mechanics. The setting conforms to the rules, not the rules conforming to the setting.


----------



## pemerton

Billd91, I do understand that. One of my first posts in this thread suggested that WotC had overestimated the attraction to many potential customers of a metagame heavy, non-simulationist RPG.

My point was simply that Danny is wrong to suggest that high-level 4e PCs are as challenged by mundane locks as are low-level 4e PCs.

Note also that the game _doesn't_ preclude high level PCs encountering mundane locks. It's just that such locks are scenery, not challenges, and wouldn't engage the action resolution mechanics (as I said upthread, the precise point at which this happens is left as an exercise for the individual group). In practice, therefore, 4e probably wouldn't be the best system to run a game in which demigods frequently have to deal with ordinary locks (on the other hand, I'm not sure how many people actually want to run such a game).


----------



## ProfessorCirno

billd91 said:


> You have to understand that some of us find this *extremely* unsatisfying. It's putting the description of the game world secondary to the metagame mechanics. The setting conforms to the rules, not the rules conforming to the setting.




Uhhh what.

2e rules have literally the same thing - advice and rules on how to add to or take away from the player's score for more or less difficult locks.  So unless locks were so bizarre and incredibly that they actively altered your ability to pick locks, it was a metagame construct to better simulate stronger/weaker locks.

3e locks also had wildly varrying DCs.

I don't even see how this puts the description of the game world secondary to the mechanics, at least in comparison.  A relatively normal lock for that level would have X DC.  The only difference between that and "A hard lock has DC 20 and a very hard lock has DC 25 but you should add _x_ to the DC for extra extra high locks" is that 4e at least gives a vague outline on what "hard" and "extra extra hard" should constitute as.

Nihil novi sub sole.  4e isn't the radical departure a lot of people think it is.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> Billd91, I do understand that. One of my first posts in this thread suggested that WotC had overestimated the attraction to many potential customers of a metagame heavy, non-simulationist RPG.
> 
> My point was simply that Danny is wrong to suggest that high-level 4e PCs are as challenged by mundane locks as are low-level 4e PCs.




But not wrong to suggest they could be. While the presumption is that a higher DC lock is more complex, the DC will be higher whether or not the lock is defined as a mundane lock, if the situation is defined as a level-appropriate skill challenge.

I don't know if 4e benchmarks standard lock difficulties outside of such situations.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> Consider the following quote from Ron Edwards, on one difference between narrativist and high-concept play:
> 
> Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract. . .​




Ron is off-based here. GURPS does formalize the bushido code, but whether the character adheres to it (as part of their "contract") or is forced to confront or break the code (as with the Sorcerer-esque situation) depends entirely on the preferences of the GM and players as to how to handle the moral situation. Ron seems to be saying that to explore the code thematically would be shifting into Narrativist play, but I don't think any shift should occur simply from moving from a fairly black-and-white morality system to a situation where codes were meant to be broken. In fact, the inevitibility of breaching the code in his Sorcerer example suggests that Sorcerer is just as straightjacketed in how it deals with themes as the hidebound game of GURPS. The only way to make bushido a non-issue in Sorcerer is to not make it a part of the character's makeup, which is the equivalent of not taking Code of Honor (Bushido) in GURPS.


----------



## pawsplay

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> I don't want to sound rude here, but ...
> 
> 
> That is not what I said at all, ergo you *are* arguing against a strawman.
> 
> Build a 3rd-level Human Fighter, Core Rulebook only, using the available wealth guidelines.  Look only at your own character sheet.
> 
> I, the DM, tell you that I'm going to place you into a room with an orc (presumably guarding a pie).  Without knowing anything else about that orc (because of your claim that you can tell with a high degree of accuracy your combat capability in 3E by only referencing your own character sheet), what are your chances of defeating him in a fight?
> 
> You can give me a +/-10% range, if you want.




Your example is a strawman. It would be equivalent to asking you if a 4e character could pick a lock, without telling you what kind of lock it is.

Can Aragorn defeat an orc? How reliably?  All we need to know it is that is a fairly run-of-the-mill orc, and we should be confident he can defeat it.


----------



## pawsplay

Imaro said:


> I'm starting to think that pemerton has set up a sort of fallacy where narrativist play means that the game must not define certain things concerning the particular theme being explored... However...I do not believe this is actually a requirement for narrativist play (or even good for it), as it pre-supposes in an extreme example, no type of base for anything since then the players wouldn't be able to, according to pemerton's posts so far, explore their own definitions of a particular theme or whatever. In a less extreme example it forces the question of what should and shouldn't be defined and who decides it. However after reading up on narrativism I am convinced this is untrue and his own narrowing of what is necessary for narrativist play.
> 
> I believe narrativist play is about exploring a theme through the beliefs and choices a character (not player) makes in game and the ramifications and consequences those choices have within the context of the setting. However there is no requirement in it that pre-supposes the character or player decides what the ramifications are or is in some way capable of deciding the parameters (setting) in which the thematic play takes place...thus certain things such as alignment, the dark side or a werewolf's rage don't hinder narrative play at all, as it is specifically about the consequences and ramifications of one's actions within the context of the setting and these things are accepted as part of the setting. In other words I feel pemerton's argument is really about him perferring the 4e cosmology to previous editions and perhaps his own ideas on how he wishes to tweak narrativist play as opposed to what hinders or helps base narrativist play in various editions.




That may be partially my fault, since I pushed the difficult case of the G-N-S all converging. The counter-argument is obviously a case where they do not converge; e.g. a game where you explore the Star Wars universe but dispense with fidelity to what appears to be the setting canon as far as morality. 

I don't presume to speak for pemerton, but as I see it, his counter-argument necessarily ignores the case where you leave The Force or some other thematic in place and explore novel reactions to that part of the imaginary experience. Since it never breaks genre or conflicts with any of the creative agendas we're talking about, it proves nothing either for or against my example, or for or against his formulation in this case. We just revert back to the argument as to whether narrativism really means anything apart from simulating a world driven by narrative tropes.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Nagol said:


> LOL, I'm not defending 4e's design; I agree you you that half the purpose of improvement should be to see change in campaign play.
> 
> I'm merely noting that glancing at the character sheet gives you sufficient knowledge to gauge the character's chance of success -- since that chance is invariant compared to level it seems to my uneducated eye to be based around the boolean (trained/untrained skill) and the expectation for task difficulty (low, medium, or hard).




And levelling.

4e in most cases grades on a curve.  Easy/Medium/Hard are C/B/A.  But to know what that means, you need to know whether the character is in 4th grade or is a Senior in AP classes (I think I have my US terminology right).  And _that_ is what level tells you.  There are a few skills that are graded on absolutes - notably jumping.  But the rest of it is all within the world.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Staying with lockpicking...in 3.X, a rogue will eventually consider most mundane locks as mere speedbumps, not actual obstacles.
> 
> That 4Ed would want to have a system in which a powerful rogue might actually be challenged by a mundane lock seems...non-heroic.




It depends what you mean by a mundane lock.  I wouldn't make most people bother rolling once they hit paragon.  But I see no reason why a non-magical lock (or worse, an anti-magical lock; something that needs houserules to work in 3E IIRC) made by Hephaestus, Smith of the Gods using the finest tools available and forged in the heart of a volcano out of mithral and adamant shouldn't be (a ) non-magical (or worse, anti-magical) and (b ) challenging to the most skilled of burglars.



pawsplay said:


> Your example is a strawman. It would be equivalent to asking you if a 4e character could pick a lock, without telling you what kind of lock it is.
> 
> Can Aragorn defeat an orc? How reliably? All we need to know it is that is a fairly run-of-the-mill orc, and we should be confident he can defeat it.




And IIRC you were saying he didn't know that in 4th.  A fairly run of the mill orc in 4th edition is about 4th level and yes, Aragorn should be confident of defeating it.  You don't know the exact statblock because there are several approaches to training orcs.  But you do know the rough level and approach and more from how he's armed.


----------



## pemerton

Pawsplay, I don't think I have a lot more to add to the discussion about narrativism, genre etc. I think the points you make are intelligently put, and I don't have an intellectual rebuttal. My response to the contrast Edwards' draws with his reference to bushido in GURPS/Sorcerer is based on play experience rather than theory (and I do think purist-for-system simulationism can be used for vanilla narrativist play, because I have done this with Rolemaster).

That's not an intellectual argument. It's just a report of one person's (perhaps idiosyncratic) experience of RPGing.

And - thinking of the Star Wars example - I feel that the difference between narrativist play and the sort of genre simulation you are describing is that what you are describing still seems to require settling questions of theme in advance, and building them into your mechanics. In this case, it then seems that play would be more like experiencing the confirmation of those prior determinations, rather than making decisions about theme in the course of play. But it may be that I am not fully following what you have in mind.

The only one of your points that I actually want to contest is this:



pawsplay said:


> But not wrong to suggest they could be. While the presumption is that a higher DC lock is more complex, the DC will be higher whether or not the lock is defined as a mundane lock, if the situation is defined as a level-appropriate skill challenge.
> 
> I don't know if 4e benchmarks standard lock difficulties outside of such situations.



There is no benchmarking. But Danny's suggestion nevertheless is wrong. It is part of the 4e system that the GM must narrate so as to reconcile the mechanical difficulty with the fiction. (Of course, instead of it being a hard lock, it could be an easy lock in difficult conditions, or perhaps in some contexts the PC might be injured or distracted - that is, the full normal range of fictional conditions able to affect the difficulty can be brought into play.) But a GM who sets a high level moderate DC and tells the player that his/her PC is confronted by a mundane lock, and has nothing else to say about why it is so difficult, is not playing the game properly.


----------



## MrMyth

shadzar said:


> Which makes me think why waste space with a "skill challenge" system is the skills already have a system?




Is the dwarf back from an adventure and getting drunk in the bar? Maybe he should roll an Endurance skill check. 

Is the Rogue trying to convince the local Guild to let him freely operate in their city? Maybe he should role a Diplomacy skill check. 

Is the Wizard studying the notes in the town library, trying to find more hints about the demon that some cultists were trying to summon? Maybe he should role an Arcana or History skill check. 

Is the party trying to uncover proof that the local Duke is possessed by a Demon, and find a way to break that possession? Maybe they should undertake a skill challenge involving various checks to gather information (Endurance, Diplomacy, Streetwise) and various checks to find a way to break the curse (Arcana, History, Religion), and various checks in order to actually get to the Duke without being noticed (Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth).

Different tools for different purposes. There is place for both in the game. Having skill challenges doesn't remove the ability to use skills in the same way skills have always been used. All it does is provide an additional tool for when a DM wants to have a complex non-combat encounter and would like some guidance as to how much the PCs need to accomplish in order to be successful.


----------



## MrMyth

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't think so.




I think you may have misread him - he didn't say 4E has supported FR more than any other _edition_, he said it supported it more than any other _setting_. 

Which is to say, FR has more 4E support than Eberron or Dark Sun. And this is probably true - it was the first setting, so it has had more time to build content. I don't think the degree of extra content is all that big, unless one includes Living Forgotten Realms, which does add a ton of adventures. 

I don't think he was saying anything about 4E support of FR in comparison to other editions.


----------



## MrMyth

pawsplay said:


> What does Bluff do in 4e, outside of skill challenges?




The... same thing it always had? 

I mean, I'm honestly not sure what you are asking here. Do you genuinely believe that 4E doesn't allow Bluff to be used outside to skill challenges to deceive people? That is the primary purpose of the skill! 

Here's what the Compendium says: "You can make what’s false appear to be true, what’s outrageous seem plausible, and what’s suspicious seem ordinary. You make a Bluff check to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, gamble, pass off a disguise or fake documentation, and otherwise tell lies."

You can also use it in combat to feint and gain combat advantage, or try to create a diversion so you can hide.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> You have to understand that some of us find this *extremely* unsatisfying. It's putting the description of the game world secondary to the metagame mechanics. The setting conforms to the rules, not the rules conforming to the setting.




Really?  Why is your rogue picking the same lock over and over again? 

Do your campaigns actually stay within the same general vicinity throughout all the levels so that the locks never really change?  Or, are your campaigns more like, say, a Paizo Adventure Path, where at first level, you're picking locks in an old Gnomish stronghold beneath Cauldron and by the end, you're picking the locks to the Gates of Hell?

((Ok, I don't know if you ACTUALLY pick the locks of the Gates of Hell in Shackled City, I was going for a bit of humour.   ))

So, no, it's not really forcing the setting to conform to the mechanics, it's recognizing what's always happened in most campaigns - as the PC's level and gain power, they are going to face tougher and tougher challenges.  

See, the funny thing is, the lock DC's in the PHB get chucked out the window as soon as the rubber hits the road and you start reading modules.  High level modules peg the lock DC's at what is appropriate to the level of that module and always have.

4e just doesn't beat around the bush about it.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

The confusion about scaling dc (e.g. mundane locks and picking them at various levels) as not been helped by two things:

1. Persistent poorly worded explanations in the rules text, including the otherwise mostly excellent DMG 2, which tend to focus highly at times on the "scaling by level" and give short thrift to the corresponding DM responsibility to vary the flavor/color to account for the increasing difficulty.  The information is there, but it is easy to miss on a casual reading.  It is the kind of thing that needed to be reinforced forcefully every time it was mentioned, and they failed to do that.  It needed that reinforcement, especially in the DMG 2, because ...

2. Despite the above, the facts have been explained every time this has been brought up.  This has not stopped some people from continuing to insist that it is other than it is.  I have not been reading present company long enough to say, but I know of at least a few people on another board who are clearly obfuscating this point in an effort to stir up trouble.  One of them is on my ignore list here for that very reason.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

To the limited extent to which Forge theory is telling with D&D 4E, the Narrativism is striking only to the extent that it largely replaces the Simulationism.  The Gamism is there, as much as it has ever been--though strikingly moved into the tactical window as opposed to character build, spell loadout, and other operational or strategical windows of previous editions.

3E and earlier versions always had somewhat of a thin gruel of simulation compared to the gamist play.  (At least in the rules as written.  What people "drifted" to was often much more sim.)  Likewise, 4E as written has rather thin gruel of Nar compared to gamist play.  But correspondingly, it is a lot easier to drift into more Nar at a given table.  If you try to drift 4E into sim, you can, but it sticks its tongue out and makes rude noises the whole time.  This annoys some people.


----------



## Nagol

Crazy Jerome said:


> The confusion about scaling dc (e.g. mundane locks and picking them at various levels) as not been helped by two things:
> 
> 1. Persistent poorly worded explanations in the rules text, including the otherwise mostly excellent DMG 2, which tend to focus highly at times on the "scaling by level" and give short thrift to the corresponding DM responsibility to vary the flavor/color to account for the increasing difficulty.  The information is there, but it is easy to miss on a casual reading.  It is the kind of thing that needed to be reinforced forcefully every time it was mentioned, and they failed to do that.  It needed that reinforcement, especially in the DMG 2, because ...
> 
> 2. Despite the above, the facts have been explained every time this has been brought up.  This has not stopped some people from continuing to insist that it is other than it is.  I have not been reading present company long enough to say, but I know of at least a few people on another board who are clearly obfuscating this point in an effort to stir up trouble.  One of them is on my ignore list here for that very reason.




Doesn't this end up limiting what can be used to accomplish skill challenges in areas that have understood colour though?

Here's a hypothetical example:
Party is involved in a skill challenge at 3rd level.  Part of the challenge involves breaking into the mayor's desk to search for secret papers.  The challenge succeeds and the DC for the mayor's desk is set to the equivalent of easy.  The challenge was so successful, it was ruled the scheme wasn't noticed.

Fast forward 5 levels.  The party is about to embark on a misinformation / slur campaign against the same mayor.  Part of the challenge described by the players involves breaking into the desk to plant false evidence.  Can that part still count towards the successes needed and how hard is the desk to open for the 8th level rogue?


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> Doesn't this end up limiting what can be used to accomplish skill challenges in areas that have understood colour though?
> 
> Here's a hypothetical example:
> Party is involved in a skill challenge at 3rd level.  Part of the challenge involves breaking into the mayor's desk to search for secret papers.  The challenge succeeds and the DC for the mayor's desk is set to the equivalent of easy.  The challenge was so successful, it was ruled the scheme wasn't noticed.
> 
> Fast forward 5 levels.  The party is about to embark on a misinformation / slur campaign against the same mayor.  Part of the challenge described by the players involves breaking into the desk to plant false evidence.  Can that part still count towards the successes needed and how hard is the desk to open for the 8th level rogue?




Well, how I would handle this is not that the desk is necessarily harder to get into, but, getting into the office might be more difficult because of any number of reasons.  I probably wouldn't even bother with trying to open the desk as part of that skill challenge, because, as you say, the desk has already been opened once before.

I would argue though, that this situation is extremely contrived.  For one, 5 levels doesn't actually mean that much in 4e.  It's only +2 on the appropriate skill.  You have to remember that 4e has a much smoother progression throughout the levels.  So, actually, in this specific example, you could probably reuse the same lock.  A +2 isn't likely going to change the difficulty all that much.

Now, by the time that the players have advanced to the point where their skills make opening the lock a sure thing, say, ten or fifteen levels, one has to wonder why in heck a mid-paragon level campaign is still messing about in the same podunk town they started in, dealing with the same NPC's.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Nagol said:


> Doesn't this end up limiting what can be used to accomplish skill challenges in areas that have understood colour though?
> 
> Here's a hypothetical example:
> Party is involved in a skill challenge at 3rd level. Part of the challenge involves breaking into the mayor's desk to search for secret papers. The challenge succeeds and the DC for the mayor's desk is set to the equivalent of easy. The challenge was so successful, it was ruled the scheme wasn't noticed.
> 
> Fast forward 5 levels. The party is about to embark on a misinformation / slur campaign against the same mayor. Part of the challenge described by the players involves breaking into the desk to plant false evidence. Can that part still count towards the successes needed and how hard is the desk to open for the 8th level rogue?




Sure, it does end up limiting what can be done with skill challenges, but I think worrying about it is getting the cart before the horse.  (And this that follows is taken everything you said with the spirit intended.  With only five levels difference, there would easily be flavor ways around anything I'm about to say.)

Ask yourself, why are we playing out the scene 5 levels later, where the PCs conduct the misinformation campaign, and break in to the mayors' office.

1. You think it's a neat scene, and a good way to expand upon what has come before.  OK, then either it is mere color, or perhaps also a chance to show how much more capable the PCs are (that is, mere color with a veneer of mechanical activity to show just how easy that is).  Not that there is anything wrong with color, but you'd like to be clear about what you are trying to accomplish.

2. You really wanted a skill challenge (to provide XP, pacing reasons, whatever).  This an option that popped into your head due to prior play and player choices.  Well, ok, you can still have a skill challenge.  It's merely that picking the desk lock won't be a major part of it.  You'll need to complicate the scene somehow, to still have a decent skill challenge.  Or maybe if you want the scene and a skill challenge, you will be better off doing them separately.  Nothing says you can't have your mainly color scene at the office and then have a skill challenge.

3. You wanted this to all be a bit tighter story line, perhaps with the party breaking in with some difficulty, and then easier later, but not this extreme.  Maybe you had a preset idea.  Leaving aside the hornets nest of whether that desire is a good idea or not, then if that was the goal, perhaps 5 levels should not have separated the scenes?  Or maybe the lock should have been tougher all along, with some kind of one-time work-around the first time (e.g. temporary access to a key).  That is, ultimately, if you want challenges to be the same over a long-period of game play, then you need to not level so fast.  This is true of any edition.

4. You don't care about any of the above.  The players were just doing their thing and you were rolling with it.  In that case, you merely need to identify when something is challenging.  If it is, it might be part of a skill challenge.  If not, it is roleplayed with no substantial crunch, glossed over, or back to #1--depending on the groups' preferences at the time.

Or it could be another reason.  Tell me the purpose of the scene, and I can tell you whether or not a skill challenge is a useful tool for that scene.  Otherwise, asking if skill challenges are limited is like asking if garlic is useful in cooking.  It depends upon what you are cooking.


----------



## Nagol

Crazy Jerome said:


> Sure, it does end up limiting what can be done with skill challenges, but I think worrying about it is getting the cart before the horse.  (And this that follows is taken everything you said with the spirit intended.  With only five levels difference, there would easily be flavor ways around anything I'm about to say.)
> 
> Ask yourself, why are we playing out the scene 5 levels later, where the PCs conduct the misinformation campaign, and break in to the mayors' office.
> 
> 1. You think it's a neat scene, and a good way to expand upon what has come before.  OK, then either it is mere color, or perhaps also a chance to show how much more capable the PCs are (that is, mere color with a veneer of mechanical activity to show just how easy that is).  Not that there is anything wrong with color, but you'd like to be clear about what you are trying to accomplish.
> 
> 2. You really wanted a skill challenge (to provide XP, pacing reasons, whatever).  This an option that popped into your head due to prior play and player choices.  Well, ok, you can still have a skill challenge.  It's merely that picking the desk lock won't be a major part of it.  You'll need to complicate the scene somehow, to still have a decent skill challenge.  Or maybe if you want the scene and a skill challenge, you will be better off doing them separately.  Nothing says you can't have your mainly color scene at the office and then have a skill challenge.
> 
> 3. You wanted this to all be a bit tighter story line, perhaps with the party breaking in with some difficulty, and then easier later, but not this extreme.  Maybe you had a preset idea.  Leaving aside the hornets nest of whether that desire is a good idea or not, then if that was the goal, perhaps 5 levels should not have separated the scenes?  Or maybe the lock should have been tougher all along, with some kind of one-time work-around the first time (e.g. temporary access to a key).  That is, ultimately, if you want challenges to be the same over a long-period of game play, then you need to not level so fast.  This is true of any edition.
> 
> 4. You don't care about any of the above.  The players were just doing their thing and you were rolling with it.  In that case, you merely need to identify when something is challenging.  If it is, it might be part of a skill challenge.  If not, it is roleplayed with no substantial crunch, glossed over, or back to #1--depending on the groups' preferences at the time.
> 
> Or it could be another reason.  Tell me the purpose of the scene, and I can tell you whether or not a skill challenge is a useful tool for that scene.  Otherwise, asking if skill challenges are limited is like asking if garlic is useful in cooking.  It depends upon what you are cooking.




I guess part of what has me confused/frustrated with the skill challenge system as I've (barely) experienced it goes back to one of the original times I encoutered it.  It was a skill challenge delivered at an event near the release of 4e.

The PCs had to escape from a city and the players were given the option of assert narrative control as part of the challenge.  IIRC, one of PCs had extensive historical knowledge and used that knowedge (via a skill check) to find and use abandoned sewers beneath the city as part of his escape.

So in my example above, if the PCs decide to launch the smear campaign and come up with a plan 

Group: We'll will make some forged papers linking the mayor to the slavery ring! Bob what will you need (paper with mayor's signature, letterhead, and some human blood)?.  

OK I'll break into the office to get the supplies, John will get some alchemical stuff to remove the original writing, Bob will forge the replacement text, and then we'll put everything back!   

As a DM, should I say "OK you need 6 successes before 3 failures, the alchemy and lockpicking are too easy, so it'll be sneak, hide, and forgery"?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Nagol said:


> ...
> As a DM, should I say "OK you need 6 successes before 3 failures, the alchemy and lockpicking are too easy, so it'll be sneak, hide, and forgery"?




That sounds like mainly #4 (rolling with the players) with perhaps a dash of #2 (wanting to have a skill challenge).  

If it is all #4, then you'd do whatever seem useful, fun, etc. at the time.  If that means that you can have a good skill challenge with the approrpriate skills (maybe sneak, thievery, and history as a base, with a few more added on for flavor), then you do that.  If OTOH, there is not enough there for a compelling skill challenge, you go with a skill check or two and call that sufficient.  If you don't even have a single difficult skill check, it's all color.  In all three, you'll roleplay approproriately, but the mechanics will differ.

If it is partly #2, then you either have enough there for a good skill challenge or you don't.  If you don't, you'll have to complicate the scene in some way to make it challenging enough to justify a skill challenge and the corresponding chance for failure and ability to gain XP.


----------



## Nagol

Crazy Jerome said:


> That sounds like mainly #4 (rolling with the players) with perhaps a dash of #2 (wanting to have a skill challenge).
> 
> If it is all #4, then you'd do whatever seem useful, fun, etc. at the time.  If that means that you can have a good skill challenge with the approrpriate skills (maybe sneak, thievery, and history as a base, with a few more added on for flavor), then you do that.  If OTOH, there is not enough there for a compelling skill challenge, you go with a skill check or two and call that sufficient.  If you don't even have a single difficult skill check, it's all color.  In all three, you'll roleplay approproriately, but the mechanics will differ.
> 
> If it is partly #2, then you either have enough there for a good skill challenge or you don't.  If you don't, you'll have to complicate the scene in some way to make it challenging enough to justify a skill challenge and the corresponding chance for failure and ability to gain XP.




A final question, if I may.  

Let's say I've been setting up the mayor as a Bad Man and expect the group to work to remove him from office.  I figure a good skill challenge is difficult (6 successes, 3 failures) working the town council members to convince them that the mayor should be removed using the standard array of interpersonal skills and such.

The players decide to go the smear campaign instead of the typical interpersonal route.  The political situation is such that anyone cooperating with the slavers becomes a pariah in town and removal from office is probably the least of the mayor's woes if he is caught.

How would I replace/incorporate that tactic into the challenge?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

pawsplay said:


> Your example is a strawman.




No, it isn't.  You said that in 3rd Edition combat, you know with a high-degree of confidence your own [combat] capabilities, with reference only to your own character sheet.

So, tell me - what are your odds to beat the orc I'm about to set in front of you?  If, instead, you're arguing that no, you don't know with a high degree of confidence what your chances are to beat the orc, referencing only your own character sheet, and that you need more information about the orc, then, well ... Yay, you agree with my original point?

My original point is that, while there is some understood scaling of difficulty in the task DCs in 4Ed (modified, of course, by what others have said, in that a lock is a lock is a lock, and at some point picking the lock of the mayor's mansion is eventually not worth the resolution time of the 15th-level lockpicker), this is _no different_ from the way combat works in 3.XE.   So why is one lauded, while the other is denigrated?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Nagol said:


> So in my example above, if the PCs decide to launch the smear campaign and come up with a plan
> 
> Group: We'll will make some forged papers linking the mayor to the slavery ring! Bob what will you need (paper with mayor's signature, letterhead, and some human blood)?.
> 
> OK I'll break into the office to get the supplies, John will get some alchemical stuff to remove the original writing, Bob will forge the replacement text, and then we'll put everything back!
> 
> As a DM, should I say "OK you need 6 successes before 3 failures, the alchemy and lockpicking are too easy, so it'll be sneak, hide, and forgery"?




As a DM, IMO you should _never_ say that out loud.  Ask the players what they are doing, ask for skill rolls, and keep the successes/failures as a tally chart behind the screen.  And I can think of way more skills to use than that - any and all of stealth, bluff, streetwise, diplomacy, insight, perception, and thievery spring to mind.  But the question is what pacing do you want?  Is planting the papers in the desk drawer a scene in its own right, or is it just a 30 second diversion with the smear campaign being the skill check and that being just one part of the smear and so resolved with a couple of rolls out of a large skill challenge?  I could go either way depending.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Nagol said:


> A final question, if I may.
> 
> Let's say I've been setting up the mayor as a Bad Man and expect the group to work to remove him from office. I figure a good skill challenge is difficult (6 successes, 3 failures) working the town council members to convince them that the mayor should be removed using the standard array of interpersonal skills and such.
> 
> The players decide to go the smear campaign instead of the typical interpersonal route. The political situation is such that anyone cooperating with the slavers becomes a pariah in town and removal from office is probably the least of the mayor's woes if he is caught.
> 
> How would I replace/incorporate that tactic into the challenge?




The skill challenge is 6 successes, 3 failures to remove the mayor.  The PCs pick the skills.  That they have gone this route allows them to play to different strengths (i.e. use different skills - for instance thievery is not terribly likely to be useful in the straight interpersonal route (stealth will at most be a supporting skill) and they'd have to work hard to get me to ask them to roll history) and means that the mayor will be removed in a different manner at the end of the skill challenge.  But when you are setting the skill challenge, you are setting the goal and the difficulty.  Setting the how is not necessary and I wouldn't have told the PCs they had to or even were expected to take the interpersonal route.


----------



## MrMyth

billd91 said:


> You have to understand that some of us find this *extremely* unsatisfying. It's putting the description of the game world secondary to the metagame mechanics. The setting conforms to the rules, not the rules conforming to the setting.




I can somewhat understand it, but I think a good part of the problem may be an issue with how 4E presents it. 

When 4E talks about 'scaling to level', it makes it sound like it is saying, "Here are the DCs to scale to the levels of the PCs."

What it is _actually _saying is, "Here are the DCs to scale to the level of the _challenge_." 

Now, most times, those will be around the same thing, assuming PCs are facing level-appropriate obstacles. But it means that if you want the 5th level party to run into a level 15 lock, you know the DC for it. Or if the epic level rogue runs into a level 5 lock, you can confirm that, yes, he can open it up without even needing to roll. 

At its heart, that really isn't any different then what we had before. In 3rd Edition, it tells us we have four types of locks: Simple, Average, Good, and Superior, with scaling DCs from the easiest to the hardest. In 4E, we have a broader scale of DCs, abstracted a bit to represent not just the lock itself but also the circumstances around it, thus justifying the broader range of DCs. 

Now, all that said, yeah, we are still deciding elements of the game based on how challenging we want the lock to be, rather than other elements. But aren't those other elements arbitrary anyway?

I mean, why is a Superior lock DC 40 while a Simple lock is DC 20? Is there an actual in-game explanation for it, other than, "One lock is better than the other". An in the end, the DM is the one who chooses to place the lock in a scene - isn't he going to be doing so based on what is appropriate to the scene? The PCs try to break into a commoner's house, he'll probably have a Simple lock. They try and break into the house of a powerful noble manipulating the kingdm, and he has a Superior lock. Try and break into the ancient wizard's tower, and he has a Superior lock reinforced by an Arcane Lock and other wards. 

Is that any different from declaring that the commoner has a level 1 lock, the noble has a level 10 lock, and the wizard has a level 20 lock? Or whatever else the DM feels is appropriate for that figure? 

Honestly, I find that more robust way of being able to determine details. Because if we actually look at the 3rd Edition locks, probably the biggest "in game mechanic" to them is their price. And the best lock is, what, 150gp? That's... relatively cheap, in terms of the money these games throw around. Which means that past the first few levels, shouldn't most every lock the PCs run into be a Superior lock? 

It would me the most logical conclusion supported by the description of the game world, perhaps. But most DMs probably wouldn't do that, and be more likely to use them sparingly, even though the price difference between the Simple lock and the Superior lock is so trivial. Again, they will be making decisions based on what is appropriate for whomever owns the lock and based on its purpose in the game - an obstacle for the PCs to overcome, a bit of flavor-dressing, a barrier to something out of reach. 

And for that purpose, I find having scaling DCs available at hand to be a very good tool to have. 

Now, all that said, I find they are most useful when presented alongside some more set in stone DCs. I want to know both what DC would represent a challenging jump at level 20, but I also want to know what DC lets a PC jump over a 10' pit. 

But I don't think that the abstraction of the scaling DCs, itself, artificially puts the description of the game world second. It remains a tool used by the DM to capture the description he has already come up with, just like any other method he might use to arrive at those DCs.


----------



## MrMyth

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> No, it isn't. You said that in 3rd Edition combat, you know with a high-degree of confidence your own [combat] capabilities, with reference only to your own character sheet.




I think his argument is that he knows a bit more about his enemy than that. That by looking at his character sheet, he would know his chances against an "average orc". Whereas in 4E, the "average orc" covers a broad range of enemies spread over a number of levels. 

Of course, I'm not sure I buy that as a reasonable comparison. For one thing, it is a complaint about the monster design system in 4E, not the information presented on the character sheet. For another, I don't even think it holds true - if a DM presents me with an orc in 3rd edition, I don't know if there is any guarantee as to whether it is an average orc or a levelled orc barbarian. And not knowing that, I don't know what my chances are against it. 

Same holds true with skills. I can imagine that my character, decently-trained in Bluff, will be able to fool the average commoner, but might have some issues when trying to lie to the High Priest of Pelor. This is true regardless of which edition I'm playing. If I run into some rival adventurers, on the other hand, I have no idea how good they might be at seeing through my lies - I might be able to make some conjectures, but there is no real way to know my odds from my character sheet alone.


----------



## Nagol

Neonchameleon said:


> The skill challenge is 6 successes, 3 failures to remove the mayor.  The PCs pick the skills.  That they have gone this route allows them to play to different strengths (i.e. use different skills - for instance thievery is not terribly likely to be useful in the straight interpersonal route (stealth will at most be a supporting skill) and they'd have to work hard to get me to ask them to roll history) and means that the mayor will be removed in a different manner at the end of the skill challenge.  But when you are setting the skill challenge, you are setting the goal and the difficulty.  Setting the how is not necessary and I wouldn't have told the PCs they had to or even were expected to take the interpersonal route.




I get the concept, but by taking the smear approach, the lockpicking skill can't be used as one of the attempts, because it's too easy to count as a success.  So perhaps a generalised thievery to account for the whole office infiltration would be a single success.  The rest of the successes would be encouraging the accidental discovery of the documents and persuading the populace that it isn't a frame.

I guess it just seems odd to me that any tactic will have the same basic difficulty regardless of the surrounding circumstance and players' choice of approach.  To my mind it reverses my natural thought process from "What weakness can I exploit here?"  into "What tactic plays to my stength here?"  I much prefer the former approach since it strongly encourages engagement with the game world as opposed to engagement with the PC.

The system as presented doesn't appear to encourage strategic weakness in the challenge design.  A DM can compensate on his own, for example, only allowing the challenge to occur once the external circumstances are brought into alignment or awarding automatic successes if a weakness is noticed and exploited, I suppose.


----------



## billd91

MrMyth said:


> I can somewhat understand it, but I think a good part of the problem may be an issue with how 4E presents it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> At its heart, that really isn't any different then what we had before. In 3rd Edition, it tells us we have four types of locks: Simple, Average, Good, and Superior, with scaling DCs from the easiest to the hardest. In 4E, we have a broader scale of DCs, abstracted a bit to represent not just the lock itself but also the circumstances around it, thus justifying the broader range of DCs.




I've heard this defense before and I find it unconvincing, and I'd point back at the comment I quoted by Pemerton. The difference is in how the game has changed its approach to the issue of building in situations for PCs to encounter. The problem that I see is that, in Pemerton's quote, the implication is that the DM didn't describe up the lock to match the selected difficulty. That's putting the cart in front of the horse as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather the game encourage DMs to decide what sort of lock was appropriate for the situation and have the DC determined from there.



MrMyth said:


> Now, all that said, yeah, we are still deciding elements of the game based on how challenging we want the lock to be, rather than other elements. But aren't those other elements arbitrary anyway?




Not really. Sure, any campaign I, as DM, devise is ultimately arbitrary in what I choose to develop, what sort of dynamics to build into it. But once ground assumptions are in place, players know how they fit in, select the places they want to go, and all that, what follows should be anything but arbitrary. Is the rogue breaking into a wealthy merchant's home, a fire giant's fortress, a thieves guildmasters hideaway, or a random apartment in a tenement? What follows from the PC's choice should not be arbitrary but should make sense given the internal logic of the situation.



MrMyth said:


> Is that any different from declaring that the commoner has a level 1 lock, the noble has a level 10 lock, and the wizard has a level 20 lock? Or whatever else the DM feels is appropriate for that figure?




You're right, it's not. But notice we're getting there from the situation and not from picking the right difficulty for the PC rogue. If we happen to assign them a level from the DC the lock may be, then we're moving in the right direction. But that's not what I think 4e is conditioning people to do and it's not the impression I got from Pemerton's post.



MrMyth said:


> Honestly, I find that more robust way of being able to determine details. Because if we actually look at the 3rd Edition locks, probably the biggest "in game mechanic" to them is their price. And the best lock is, what, 150gp? That's... relatively cheap, in terms of the money these games throw around. Which means that past the first few levels, shouldn't most every lock the PCs run into be a Superior lock?




It's not relatively cheap for a hireling who makes 2-3 silver pieces a day, nor even for the professional who may make about 10 gp a week. Is he really going to save 15 weeks of wages for a lock?
For successful adventurers and other powerful people, sure, they'll have the better locks. They can easily afford it. But again, this is about looking at the context in which that lock will appear and not looking at the context of the person who will be trying to pick it.

I'll admit there's always been a bit of the tail wagging the dog in RPGs. Any time you tailor your encounter to the PCs, you're doing some of what I see 4e really pushing with the whole DC for various situations to provide a challenge for the PCs. There's a balance to be struck between letting the difficulty flow the situation and tailoring the situation to the difficulty. 4e has taken whatever balance D&D had between tailored and status quo situations (to borrow terms in the 3e DMG) that helped to keep a game reasonable for player characters while also adding to the immersiveness of the world and tossed it firmly in the direction of tailored. The game, as I see it, is utterly unbalanced at its heart, in its design principles, despite its much ballyhooed mechanical balance. And while I may play it every 2 weeks as part of a friend's campaign and even have some fun in the skirmishing, it's definitely *not* what I'm looking for in an RPG that I'm going to play for many years to come.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Nagol said:


> I guess it just seems odd to me that any tactic will have the same basic difficulty regardless of the surrounding circumstance and players' choice of approach.




Why would you say that?

In the specific case, let's say that planting the evidence successfully will count as one of the successes needed to successfully smear the Mayor.

Given that the players have, previously, infiltrated the Mayor's mansion, let the "Thievery Check to plant the evidence" roll be done at one-step easier difficulty (e.g., it's an easy task instead of a moderate one) - voila!

Alternatively, maybe the mayor's heard rumors about his swiss-cheese home security (and maybe he's been burglarized a few times by rogues and ne'erdowells who heard of the PCs' initial successes) and, in the interim, has stepped up his protections.  Now, instead of a moderate challenge, it's a hard one - or, it's a sub-skill challeng in its own regard for the overall meta-skill challenge.

E.g., consider a skill challenge made up of skill challenges: the smear campaign involves convincing at least 4 power groups (out of 6 identified) in the city that the Mayor is dirty and needs to be removed.  Convincing each group could be its own skill challenge - and successfully infiltrating the mayor's house and planting evidence might count as a success for one or more of them.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> I guess it just seems odd to me that any tactic will have the same basic difficulty regardless of the surrounding circumstance and players' choice of approach.  To my mind it reverses my natural thought process from "What weakness can I exploit here?"  into "What tactic plays to my stength here?"



Nagol, interesting posts!

I agree with what Crazy Jerome has said. On this point, though, I would add, that you can use secondary skills in the challenge to exploit weaknesses - mechanically, these give a +2 to the next check, but in terms of the narrative if you can't find a way to bring one to bear you can't get the bonus. And one way to bring them to bear is by identifying weaknesss.

Also, different approaches will have different consequences for failure, and set up different opportunties for future checks.



Nagol said:


> A DM can compensate on his own, for example, only allowing the challenge to occur once the external circumstances are brought into alignment or awarding automatic successes if a weakness is noticed and exploited, I suppose.



So I think this is on the right track, although the way you put it sounds like the GM deciding this in advance and behind the screen. whereas I think this is the sort of thing the GM can be working out with the players as part of the unfolding challenge.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Note also that the game _doesn't_ preclude high level PCs encountering mundane locks. It's just that such locks are scenery, not challenges, and wouldn't engage the action resolution mechanics (as I said upthread, the precise point at which this happens is left as an exercise for the individual group).




I guess we should redesign all the real world locks to scale to level of the locksmith/picker. That would then work so its a good challenge.

Really a lock not being a challenge is a bad thing? Sooner or later someone is going to get so good at it, that no locks are very challenging, yet somehow they will screw up opening the simplest locks.

Locked my keys in my car, and the person supposed to be able to get them out brought the wrong tool for the make/model of my car. Seems to prove higher level skills can easily be twarted by mundane locks to me.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> I'd rather the game encourage DMs to decide what sort of lock was appropriate for the situation and have the DC determined from there.



Taking this back to the OP: this is _why_ I think 4e is not "setting details focused" - because the game tends to assume the setting is built around the metagame in the way Bill91 is critiquing.

I don't think this means that the game has no flavour/colour. But it means that more of that is constructed by GM and players on the fly than might happen in a simulationist game.


----------



## pemerton

Shadzar, despite many years of practice I sometimes trip over a gutter while walking down the street. But the only game system I know that comes close to incorproating this sort of possibility into its action resolution mechanics is Rolemaster.

3E has no fumble rules. I don't think it's a very big problem with 4e that it lacks them also.


----------



## shadzar

MrMyth said:


> Is the party trying to uncover proof that the local Duke is possessed by a Demon, and find a way to break that possession? Maybe they should undertake a skill challenge




Or maybe you don't let some convoluted system ruin your game, when they fail the "challenge".

Upon suspecting the Duke to be a demon, if there were clues being led to it, the party has already passed the challenge. Why then force them to backtrack to failure? Why not let them just go around asking and let them find the info needed to "prove it".

If you don't want to RP it, then ak the DM for a summary of things found over searching, people met etc. You get the same result of the skill challenge which is contacts and info, without the needless chance of failure.

Possibly your example is just a VERY bad one, as it would leave failure as a chance that could completely screw the game up because of the mechanics.

-gather information (Endurance, Diplomacy, Streetwise)
failure here means the game is over
-find a way to break the curse (Arcana, History, Religion)
failure here means the game is over
-get to the Duke without being noticed (Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth)
failure here means combat at least

The first two cannot end in failure, thus the problem with designing a skill challenge as such because your challenge could stop the game, when you have living healthy characters to continue it.

So they fail to gather information due to the skill challenge, and jsut decide to leave the town cause the Duke must be an upstanding guy and there is nothing left to do here.

That Is where using it as a resolution works better, when needed. Still the last one I wouldn't use a skill challenge, it is likely just going to be a pass fail. Get noticed once and the alarms have gone off and no more sneaking its battle to battle until you achieve your objective.

Best leave me with the previous information before you turn my opinion on skill challenges fully negative again, such as your example is startign to do.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

shadzar said:


> The first two cannot end in failure, thus the problem with designing a skill challenge as such because your challenge could stop the game, when you have living healthy characters to continue it.




Full stop.  If it cannot end in failure, then it is not a skill challenge.  You won't understand skill challenges until you understand this.  If it cannot end in failure, then it is a plot point.

Now, you may very well have a skill challenge going on in and around the events of a plot point that cannot afford to end in failure.  I use them a lot that way, as "degree of success or degree of failure" challenges.  But they are conceptually separate things, with different consequences.


----------



## Nagol

shadzar said:


> Or maybe you don't let some convoluted system ruin your game, when they fail the "challenge".
> 
> Upon suspecting the Duke to be a demon, if there were clues being led to it, the party has already passed the challenge. Why then force them to backtrack to failure? Why not let them just go around asking and let them find the info needed to "prove it".
> 
> If you don't want to RP it, then ak the DM for a summary of things found over searching, people met etc. You get the same result of the skill challenge which is contacts and info, without the needless chance of failure.
> 
> Possibly your example is just a VERY bad one, as it would leave failure as a chance that could completely screw the game up because of the mechanics.
> 
> -gather information (Endurance, Diplomacy, Streetwise)
> failure here means the game is over
> -find a way to break the curse (Arcana, History, Religion)
> failure here means the game is over
> -get to the Duke without being noticed (Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth)
> failure here means combat at least
> 
> The first two cannot end in failure, thus the problem with designing a skill challenge as such because your challenge could stop the game, when you have living healthy characters to continue it.
> 
> So they fail to gather information due to the skill challenge, and jsut decide to leave the town cause the Duke must be an upstanding guy and there is nothing left to do here.
> 
> That Is where using it as a resolution works better, when needed. Still the last one I wouldn't use a skill challenge, it is likely just going to be a pass fail. Get noticed once and the alarms have gone off and no more sneaking its battle to battle until you achieve your objective.
> 
> Best leave me with the previous information before you turn my opinion on skill challenges fully negative again, such as your example is startign to do.




The game won't end if the PCs don't find evidence during the challenge -- the demon possession will simply continue and depending on purpose will commit an atrocity or two before the behaviour will lead to eventual discovery.

The game's direction will change based upon success or failure, but the world and the characters within will continue regardless.

Now if the DM has absolutely nothing else prepared for the session and was depending on PC success to lead to the adventure then yes, he screwed himself over nicely.


----------



## shadzar

pemerton said:


> Shadzar, despite many years of practice I sometimes trip over a gutter while walking down the street. But the only game system I know that comes close to incorproating this sort of possibility into its action resolution mechanics is Rolemaster.
> 
> 3E has no fumble rules. I don't think it's a very big problem with 4e that it lacks them also.




In all of our interactions you have mentioned Person X from Game Y or something else along those lines that does not have to do with D&D. I have ignored all of it, because I frankly could care les about those games. If I was interested in them, I would be playing them not D&D.

Hopefully that that is understood, and possibly even a point about the popularity of D&D is that it is trying to take bits and pieces form other les popular games and bring it in now, could be cause of its lack of popularity with people who weren't interested in those games, but liked the way D&D did it.....

4e, not previous editions are those "others games", THANK GOD!; that said, was 3rd and 4th the only editions of D&D you played?

Having Dexterity as a stat, EVERY edition has had "fumble" rules. 3rd even gave them DCs, Icy +5 to difficulty or some such.

Sometimes you have to stop trying to create some complex system for things and rely on the core of the game. Those 6 stats exist for a reason. Everything is built off of them for a reason. Try to figure out what that reason is, within D&D, and MANY people might gain a better understanding of it, without needing to add 400 subsystems by way of skills and feats to accomplish the same thing.

You are the one telling me your linked combats are pieced together with JIT story elements right? Likewise skills can be done the same way. You don't need complex narrative system to let you create a working world under your JIT setting design, so why do you need some advanced complex system to use skills?

Seems counterproductive to me.

Again, thanks in part to MrMyth, I am now seeing skill challenges as just a means to power level. They don't exist to pose a challenge/obstacle, or resolve one, they exist only to offer more XP.

I won't fall back into and make the mistake again of thinking them as something worthwhile, but view them flatly as the excuse to give more XP that they are, with no other redeeming qualities.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Nagol said:


> I guess it just seems odd to me that any tactic will have the same basic difficulty regardless of the surrounding circumstance and players' choice of approach. To my mind it reverses my natural thought process from "What weakness can I exploit here?" into "What tactic plays to my stength here?" I much prefer the former approach since it strongly encourages engagement with the game world as opposed to engagement with the PC.
> 
> The system as presented doesn't appear to encourage strategic weakness in the challenge design. A DM can compensate on his own, for example, only allowing the challenge to occur once the external circumstances are brought into alignment or awarding automatic successes if a weakness is noticed and exploited, I suppose.




I think Neo Chameleon probably answered your last question directed at me.  So I'll pick up here.  Please clarify if you want me to go back to earlier.

I largely agree to pemerton's answer to the above quote.  I will say that you'll get some variety on this depending on the players.  I'd be strongly inclined to play to my strengths with the 4E raw, but it doesn't seem to affect the players that way.  Partly, it's because I'm not overt that we are even in a skill challenge, and sometimes switching in and out of skill challenges on the fly based on player behavior.  As far as they are concerned, they are just using skills to try accomplish their goals.  They've always had a mix of reaction to the situation and trying to leverage high skills.  That mix hasn't changed with 4E.

I'm also pretty mean with my difficulties, and am always perfectly willing for the group to fall on their face if they go in half-cocked and have a bad string of luck.  And I'll definitely set initial difficulties harder than RAW recommends, but include ways that characters can use information to lower them.  So in your terms, that information is found, and then a character is using that information to exploit a weakness, via a lowered DC.  They still need someone with that skill reasonably high, but with a large group, you always have that.  

That's probably another reason why we get somewhat different play.  As a group, every skill is reasonably covered, many redundantly.  I set up situations with this as the assumed state.  Things become hard or easy depending on how much information the group can ferret out.  So it is not so much "exploit a weakness" or "play to a strength" as it is, "find an edge, any edge, then determine how to best use it."


----------



## Umbran

shadzar said:


> Again, thanks in part to MrMyth, I am now seeing skill challenges as just a means to power level. They don't exist to pose a challenge/obstacle, or resolve one, they exist only to offer more XP.
> 
> I won't fall back into and make the mistake again of thinking them as something worthwhile, but view them flatly as the excuse to give more XP that they are, with no other redeeming qualities.




If you're serious... well, I'll just say that isn't true, that they are there to be as much a challenge as combats are, just in a different manner, and leave it at that.

If you're being sarcastic - please stop.  Much as it may be fun, sarcasm is a barrier to communication in such discussions, not an aid to one.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

shadzar said:


> 4e, not previous editions are those "others games", THANK GOD!; that said, was 3rd and 4th the only editions of D&D you played?
> 
> ...
> 
> I won't fall back into and make the mistake again of thinking them as something worthwhile, but view them flatly as the excuse to give more XP that they are, with no other redeeming qualities.




You seem on the one hand to think that experience with a system is a valuable prequisite to informed commentary on it, and then seem on the other hand to negate that sentiment. Do you really want to understand how 4E works, or do you just want to snark about it? I'd like to know before I spend more time replying.


----------



## Nagol

Crazy Jerome said:


> <snip>
> 
> I largely agree to pemerton's answer to the above quote.  I will say that you'll get some variety on this depending on the players.  I'd be strongly inclined to play to my strengths with the 4E raw, but it doesn't seem to affect the players that way.  Partly, it's because I'm not overt that we are even in a skill challenge, and sometimes switching in and out of skill challenges on the fly based on player behavior.  As far as they are concerned, they are just using skills to try accomplish their goals.  They've always had a mix of reaction to the situation and trying to leverage high skills.  That mix hasn't changed with 4E.
> 
> I'm also pretty mean with my difficulties, and am always perfectly willing for the group to fall on their face if they go in half-cocked and have a bad string of luck.  And I'll definitely set initial difficulties harder than RAW recommends, but include ways that characters can use information to lower them.  So in your terms, that information is found, and then a character is using that information to exploit a weakness, via a lowered DC.  They still need someone with that skill reasonably high, but with a large group, you always have that.
> 
> That's probably another reason why we get somewhat different play.  As a group, every skill is reasonably covered, many redundantly.  I set up situations with this as the assumed state.  Things become hard or easy depending on how much information the group can ferret out.  So it is not so much "exploit a weakness" or "play to a strength" as it is, "find an edge, any edge, then determine how to best use it."




Nice explanation.

How do you switch out of a skill challenge on the fly?  Wopuldn't that leave the situation partially resolved?  Are there repercussions?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Nagol said:


> How do you switch out of a skill challenge on the fly? Wopuldn't that leave the situation partially resolved? Are there repercussions?




The players are only in a skill challenge because they initiated actions or reacted to same that put them in a situation where several players are making skill checks, these skill checks are sufficiently varied to be interesting, there is a real chance of failure and subsequent consequences, and thus the whole thing is worth some XP. 

If I find this to be the case, I'm recording successes and failures. If it stops being the case, I stop recording successes and failures. The players only vaguely sense when this occurs, though some of the more mechanically savvy ones can probably guess.

They get a big lump of XP at the end of the session--and it's the same for the whole group, and not infrequently rounded off to make our leveling hit a good time in the story. (I'm really only using XP as a rough guide for leveling to keep from being too stingy or generous.) So there is nothing there to clue them in on whether they finished one or not.

As far as I'm concerned, written skill challenges (in a module or in my notes) are similar to those boxed flavor text capsule that were so popular in 2E adventures, or incomplete monster stat blocks, or the like. They are a convenient way to quickly convey the salient points of what the writer had in mind. That is, a skill challenge is more or less an outline of how things *might* go. I would no more stick to one when the situation changes enough to invalidate part of it, than I would read the flavor text straight as opposed to using it as a guide to roleplaying an NPC, or would force a combat to go another 5 rounds when it is clear that the monsters are beaten and should start running. 

As a strict rules procedure, to be used or not used in a situation, I find skill challenges lacking. As a note taking device and general statement of intent, I find them highly useful. YMMV. 

Edit:  I realize that failed to directly answer your question.  I see some repercussions to doing things this way, but none that trouble me much.


----------



## pawsplay

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> No, it isn't.  You said that in 3rd Edition combat, you know with a high-degree of confidence your own [combat] capabilities, with reference only to your own character sheet.
> 
> So, tell me - what are your odds to beat the orc I'm about to set in front of you?  If, instead, you're arguing that no, you don't know with a high degree of confidence what your chances are to beat the orc, referencing only your own character sheet, and that you need more information about the orc, then, well ... Yay, you agree with my original point?
> 
> My original point is that, while there is some understood scaling of difficulty in the task DCs in 4Ed (modified, of course, by what others have said, in that a lock is a lock is a lock, and at some point picking the lock of the mayor's mansion is eventually not worth the resolution time of the 15th-level lockpicker), this is _no different_ from the way combat works in 3.XE.   So why is one lauded, while the other is denigrated?




You're begging the question. I do not accept that these two things are equivalent and it is up to you to persuade me, if you are so inclined. 

I am observing that in 3e, I can know my character's capability of defeating a 1st level orc warrior, or picking a secure but basically ordinary lock. In 4e, I know none of these things. An "ordinary orc" is probably scaled to my level. A secure but ordinary lock probably doesn't have a suggested DC; if it does, that's somewhat useful in an ordinary situation, but becomes irrelevant if the GM frames the scene as a skill challenge involving lock picking. 

In 3e, my character's capabilities, at some level, relate to the imaginary world. In 4e, they primarily relate to the GM's chosen difficulty level. 

Just as an example, upthread, I mentioned a balance check as part of getting into a castle, and gave an example of someone using an older version of D&D improvising an ability check. In 3e, most characters will face a somewhat quantifiable level of difficulty. Some characters would make such a Balance check each and every time. In 4e, the DC could vary wildly from a (shall we say) pedestrian difficulty to a fairly formidable difficulty if the GM decides it's part of a skill challenge. 

Skill challenges are supposed to add drama, but since the GM sets every aspect of the difficulty, and the base DCs generally scale to level, it's actually a routlette game in disguise, with the GM setting house odds.


----------



## pemerton

Pawsplay, is your claim that a skill challenge is "a roulette game in disguise" based on actual play experience (whether with 4e, or similar systems like HeroWars/Quest)? Or
is it a theoretical intuition?

And I'm not meaning this as a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely curious.

I've got another thread going discussing actual play examples of two skill challenges from my own game. I'd be interested to see what you think.


----------



## pemerton

Crazy Jerome said:


> As far as I'm concerned, written skill challenges (in a module or in my notes) are similar to those boxed flavor text capsule that were so popular in 2E adventures, or incomplete monster stat blocks, or the like. They are a convenient way to quickly convey the salient points of what the writer had in mind. That is, a skill challenge is more or less an outline of how things *might* go. I would no more stick to one when the situation changes enough to invalidate part of it, than I would read the flavor text straight as opposed to using it as a guide to roleplaying an NPC, or would force a combat to go another 5 rounds when it is clear that the monsters are beaten and should start running.



I'm glad someone else agrees with me on this! And you've put it very clearly. (And I'm still not allowed to XP you.)

I think one of the flaws in the presentation of the example skill challenges in the DMG is that it doesn't make clear enough that these are analgous to GM prep notes.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

pawsplay said:


> I am observing that in 3e, I can know my character's capability of defeating a 1st level orc warrior, or picking a secure but basically ordinary lock. In 4e, I know none of these things. *An "ordinary orc" is probably scaled to my level. A secure but ordinary lock probably doesn't have a suggested DC;* if it does, that's somewhat useful in an ordinary situation, but becomes irrelevant if the GM frames the scene as a skill challenge involving lock picking.




These things are absolutely not true in 4E.

If an "ordinary orc" in 3E is an Orc War 1 (and not the elite deathsquad Orc Fighter 8s that your DM has been pitting you against this adventure because you outgrew the War 1s, even though they're legal), then, by extension, you must admit that an "ordinary orc" in 4E is some flavor of orc minion X (or Soldier X). [EDIT: See Neonchameleon's post below, where he access to the actual rulebook rather than my misremembered numbers.  Regardless of the specifics, the point, I think, stands.]

Elsewise, you're just arguing that a less-complete Monseter Manual is some form of system benefit (since, plainly, 3E is built under the assumption that your DM can and will, at some point, make Orc Fighter Xs, etc.).

Similarly, a secure but ordinary lock is something that'll be challenging to, what, a 1st-to-5th-level character trained in thievery, but easy for a master locksmith to bypass?  That tells you what the DC is.

What 4th Edition does, however, is readily admit that, at some point, you will no longer be fighting "ordinary orcs" and picking "secure but ordinary locks" - just like, in 3E, you eventually stop fighting Orc 1s as part of meaningful combat encounters; you fight ogres and trolls, instead, or leveled orcs.  Similarly, there's no need to waste time wondering whether or not you can pick the lock on the inn's kitchen cupboard; instead, you wonder whether or not you can bypass the Moonlock in the Temple of Eternal Shadows.

There is no meaningful difference in the systems here; other than 4E has a better ... DC progression ... in that they don't arbitrarily move in 5-point increments and stop at DC 40.

I mean, when you come right down to it, the 3E DCs for standard locks are:


Simple (DC 20):
Anyone with any training and the right tools (net +0 bonus) can do this with time;
A skilled novice (net +5 bonus) can pull it off about 25% of the time in 6 seconds under pressure
A journeyman (net +10 bonus) can pull it off 100% of the time in 6 second when not under pressure, and about 50% of the time when under pressure
A master (net +20 bonus) can always pull this off in 6 seconds, even under pressure

Average (DC 25)
A skilled novice can pull this off with time
A journeyman can pull it off about 25% of the time in 6 seconds under pressure
A master can pull it off 100% of the time in 6 seconds when not under pressure, and about 75% of the time when under pressure

Good (DC 30)
A journeyman can pull this off with time
A master can pull it off 100% of the time in 6 seconds when not under pressure, and about 50% of the time when under pressure

Superior (DC 40)
A master can pull this off with time


Succinctly, secure, ordinary locks ("Average") are not even a barrier at all to anyone properly prepared, except when under extreme time pressure - and to anyone sufficiently skilled, they aren't even that.

This holds true in 4E as well - it's just that the rules encourage you to ignore or hand-wave the secure, ordinary lock when running skill challenges at higher levels; either they don't exist in that particular area, or bypassing them is so trivial as to not make a difference in the skill challenge's outcome.

Which, let's face it, is an awful lot like the way it works in 3E, as well - either the lock on the door is hard for your level, and requires you to roll against it or Take 20, or you're high level and it's relatively easy, and you can Take 1 to bypass it (in which case, did it matter whether or not it was there?).

If the problem is, "Well, my players hit 10th-level; where did all the Average locks go?" the problem is one of GM description; merely mention that, while breaking into X, the PCs bypassed multiple locks that were child's play to them, and now they're at the difficult, make-or-break lock.


----------



## Aldarc

shadzar said:


> I guess we should redesign all the real world locks to scale to level of the locksmith/picker. That would then work so its a good challenge.
> 
> Really a lock not being a challenge is a bad thing? Sooner or later someone is going to get so good at it, that no locks are very challenging, yet somehow they will screw up opening the simplest locks.
> 
> Locked my keys in my car, and the person supposed to be able to get them out brought the wrong tool for the make/model of my car. Seems to prove higher level skills can easily be twarted by mundane locks to me.



And such locks are not challenging for _level appropriate_ characters. Once your neighborhood locksmith is able to break the lock sealing the Gates of Hell, then maybe you would have a point. Furthermore, nothing is preventing you from making characters roll a skill check just to make sure they do not critically fumble a simple lock.


----------



## pemerton

shadzar said:


> In all of our interactions you have mentioned Person X from Game Y or something else along those lines that does not have to do with D&D. I have ignored all of it, because I frankly could care les about those games. If I was interested in them, I would be playing them not D&D.



I guess I'm one of those people who thinks that to undestand a game system, it helps to know what designs it has been influenced by, and what designs it differs from.

I will say, though: for someone who seems unfamiliar with a very wide range of RPGs, you make very strong claims about what a good or viable RPG _must_ be like.



shadzar said:


> Having Dexterity as a stat, EVERY edition has had "fumble" rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Sometimes you have to stop trying to create some complex system for things and rely on the core of the game. Those 6 stats exist for a reason. Everything is built off of them for a reason. Try to figure out what that reason is, within D&D, and MANY people might gain a better understanding of it, without needing to add 400 subsystems by way of skills and feats to accomplish the same thing.



So tell me: (i) what is the chance, in a Basic D&D or AD&D game, that a 10th level fighter will trip over his shoelaces while charging an orc; (ii) if the answer to the previous question is ZERO, then what is wrong with a game that says an epic rogue does not need to make a skill check to pick a mundane lock?

Also, on the mechanical subsystems point: 4e has virtually none in action resolution - combat, skill checks and skill challenges pretty much cover the field. (4e has more subystems in its character build mechanics - class+build, race, skills, feats, themes, backgrounds, items covering a range of slots, retraining, etc, etc.)


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pawsplay said:


> Just as an example, upthread, I mentioned a balance check as part of getting into a castle, and gave an example of someone using an older version of D&D improvising an ability check. In 3e, most characters will face a somewhat quantifiable level of difficulty. Some characters would make such a Balance check each and every time. In 4e, the DC could vary wildly from a (shall we say) pedestrian difficulty to a fairly formidable difficulty if the GM decides it's part of a skill challenge.
> 
> Skill challenges are supposed to add drama, but since the GM sets every aspect of the difficulty, and the base DCs generally scale to level, it's actually a routlette game in disguise, with the GM setting house odds.




Edit:  Please note that I submitted this before seeing pemerton's reply to the same post.  I do think it interesting that we both independently saw a theory/practice divide. 

I think theory and second-hand information is getting in the way here. First, if the GM does what you said above, he is a bad GM. Well, unless he is just running a highly stylized version of the rules on behalf of players that want such (e.g. mere tactical skirmish game or, other extreme, a mere character roleplaying bull session with a bit of die rolling tacked on). But in one of these highly stylized games, skill DCs will not matter all that much.

Second, the presence of a means to measure is not dictating the outcome of the measurement. (It may have subtle influences, of course.) That the 4E GM can determine that a level 5 encounter will have predictable interactions (with the usual caveats) with five level 5 PCs--says exactly no more or no less than that a 3E GM can determine the that 4 CR 5 monsters in an encounter will have predictable interactions (with the usual caveats) with four level 5 PCs. The GM can then use a tougher or easier encounter as desired.

Finally, in practice it very much depends on how the information is conveyed, what the players use to parse and assemble that information, and then how that relates to the situation at hand. In particular, it is going to matter a great deal how much the players memorize and care about those DCs and the labels that go with them.

When we played 3E, if I said that a lock was "mundane" or "fine" or whatever descriptors were in the book, I might as well have said that the flibbet was in the wakka-wakka. Players didn't know, didn't care, etc. I'd just have to translate that into, "You think you have a fairly decent chance of picking it," or, "You are not sure if you can pick this or not," or, "It looks completely beyond you at the moment." Sometimes, over the course of the campaign, the players may come to understand that certain locks are easy enough they know they can pick them, but it is just as likely to be a misunderstanding. They might decide that dwarven locks are very hard when really it was just that dwarves were using fine locks (or these particular dwarves were). 

If you are going to say to that, that 3E creates a consistent starting place for players that do care about such things, then I agree, it does. If you happen to like that starting place, and you play with such people, then off you go. OTOH, if you play with people that want to make these assocations based on what happens in play, and you especially want to vary those assocations from campaign to campaign--then that consistent start place not only has tremendous holes in it, it is positively counter-productive.

That's all probably too abstract. So try this: I'm doing a particular campaign. In this campaign, we decide that dwarves are master craftsman. One of the ways this manifests is that dwarven locks are generally hard to pick. Stop! That's all we need to know at this stage (and even getting specific with locks was really too much information).

As a GM, I put together the world. The party decides to invade a kobold lair. The kobolds took over an abandoned dwarven outpost. There is a locked door. I look at the hard DC for a level 1 encounter. Naw, not high enough. Hard is something that is tough, but not unlikely for highly trained characters. I look up a few levels, and decide that by the time the party reaches 5th, they could be picking dwarven locks. Boom, DC is set. All dwarven locks will now hover around this DC for the rest of the campaign (barring dwarven master thieves or paragon dwarven bank security or other flavor reasons why the DC would go up.)

This is *no* different in function as to the way I would have done it with 3E. It's merely that the labels that get associated to the concept vary. If the GM wants to set something up ahead of time, and lock these down, same thing.


----------



## Neonchameleon

pawsplay said:


> You're begging the question. I do not accept that these two things are equivalent and it is up to you to persuade me, if you are so inclined.
> 
> I am observing that in 3e, I can know my character's capability of defeating a 1st level orc warrior, or picking a secure but basically ordinary lock.




What is "ordinary"?  DC 25 for average or DC 30 for good?  Both to me count as ordinary - and the difference between DC 25 and DC 30 is _huge_.  



> In 4e, I know none of these things. An "ordinary orc" is probably scaled to my level.




From Monster Vault:
Battletested Orc: Level 3 Soldier
Orc Savage: Level 4 Minion Brute
Orc Archer: Level 4 Artillery
Orc Reaver: Level 5 Skirmisher
Orc Rampager: Level 6 Brute
Orc Pummeller: Level 6 Controller
Orc Storm Shaman: Level 6 Artillery.

All the Orcs in Monster Vault (i.e. the Essentials Monster Manual) are in a tight range of levels, with an "Ordinary Orc" being either a savage (and easy to take out) or battletested.  If so-called ordinary orcs are outside that level range then there's something unusual going on.  All other monster manuals combined have three orcs outside this range; the Bloodrager (7, elite - and therefore noticeably powerful; an Elite is just that), the Chieftain (8, elite - and you have _got_ to be joking if you expect the chieftain to be an ordinary orc - customarily they are the strongest orcs going) and the Orc Warrior (9, minion) who might be higher level but is worth a quarter of an ordinary 9th level monster and is used for the times when a party wants to fight the entire orc tribe or an army of marauding orcs.

I therefore hear what you say but find that it doesn't reflect the 4e I know or the 4e of the actual rulebooks.



> A secure but ordinary lock probably doesn't have a suggested DC; if it does, that's somewhat useful in an ordinary situation, but becomes irrelevant if the GM frames the scene as a skill challenge involving lock picking.




So your objection is the framing.  Right.



> In 3e, my character's capabilities, at some level, relate to the imaginary world. In 4e, they primarily relate to the GM's chosen difficulty level.




Which are one and the same thing.



> Just as an example, upthread, I mentioned a balance check as part of getting into a castle, and gave an example of someone using an older version of D&D improvising an ability check. In 3e, most characters will face a somewhat quantifiable level of difficulty. Some characters would make such a Balance check each and every time. In 4e, the DC could vary wildly from a (shall we say) pedestrian difficulty to a fairly formidable difficulty if the GM decides it's part of a skill challenge.




If it's part of a skill challenge then it's difficult and part of something else.  Damn right it's much harder to balance if you're e.g. trying to race against time or are carrying your own bodyweight on your back than it is if you have all the time in the world and are barely encumbered.  If your DM lets you do something easily but suddenly and arbitrarily makes it harder _just_ because it's part of a skill challenge then he's doing it wrong.  One of my rules of thumb for skill challenges is that PCs shouldn't explicitely know they are in one.



> Skill challenges are supposed to add drama, but since the GM sets every aspect of the difficulty, and the base DCs generally scale to level, it's actually a routlette game in disguise, with the GM setting house odds.




Which is exactly what happens in combat every time the GM adds levels to a monster.  You are playing roulette with the GM setting house odds.  This is absolutely no different.  Or do you believe GMs shouldn't customise monsters?


----------



## Imaro

@pawsplay: I think I get exactly what you are saying and I agree with it to a large extent...

In 3e I know a very simple lock is a DC 20... and I also know my PC's Open Locks score... and because this information is actually in the PHB and accesible to me as a player we can assume it was intentional that a player understand the DC's as they related to in-world actions and not just the game. This in fact does allow me to estimate what my chances are to open a particular type of lock by it's description... which is actually cool because as a trained thief you would think I would have some idea of my chances with locks of various workmanship.

In 4e I am not able to make an estimate of my ability to pick a particular lock by it's in-world description because the DC's for locks in the PHB are based on tiers instead of connected to some real world descriptor (and honestly those tiers can mean totally different things to different DM's). On top of that in a skill challenge, if following the rules as written in DMG 1, the lock may have a different DC depending on the DC's for a skill challenge of a certain complexity and level... in other words if you want any idea of your chances with a lock you must in fact rely on the DM to tell you it's DC... or at least explain his particular schema for mapping tiers to in-world descriptors and to let you know if it is different in a particular skill challenge.

Am I correct? If so... yes I see exactly what you are saying... and experienced this myself a few times when playing 4e.


----------



## Nagol

Crazy Jerome said:


> The players are only in a skill challenge because they initiated actions or reacted to same that put them in a situation where several players are making skill checks, these skill checks are sufficiently varied to be interesting, there is a real chance of failure and subsequent consequences, and thus the whole thing is worth some XP.
> 
> If I find this to be the case, I'm recording successes and failures. If it stops being the case, I stop recording successes and failures. The players only vaguely sense when this occurs, though some of the more mechanically savvy ones can probably guess.
> 
> They get a big lump of XP at the end of the session--and it's the same for the whole group, and not infrequently rounded off to make our leveling hit a good time in the story. (I'm really only using XP as a rough guide for leveling to keep from being too stingy or generous.) So there is nothing there to clue them in on whether they finished one or not.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, written skill challenges (in a module or in my notes) are similar to those boxed flavor text capsule that were so popular in 2E adventures, or incomplete monster stat blocks, or the like. They are a convenient way to quickly convey the salient points of what the writer had in mind. That is, a skill challenge is more or less an outline of how things *might* go. I would no more stick to one when the situation changes enough to invalidate part of it, than I would read the flavor text straight as opposed to using it as a guide to roleplaying an NPC, or would force a combat to go another 5 rounds when it is clear that the monsters are beaten and should start running.
> 
> As a strict rules procedure, to be used or not used in a situation, I find skill challenges lacking. As a note taking device and general statement of intent, I find them highly useful. YMMV.
> 
> Edit:  I realize that failed to directly answer your question.  I see some repercussions to doing things this way, but none that trouble me much.




I was meaning repercussions of the in-game variety.  If the PCs are far enough along an "interesting" situation and decide to abandon it, shouldn't those actions often have an effect on the world that should have consequence?


*edit* In other words shouldn't an abandoned skill challenge almost be the equivalent of a failed one?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Imaro said:


> In 3e I know a very simple lock is a DC 20... and I also know my PC's Open Locks score... and because this information is actually in the PHB and accesible to me as a player we can assume it was intentional that a player understand the DC's as they related to in-world actions and not just the game. This in fact does allow me to estimate what my chances are to open a particular type of lock by it's description... which is actually cool because as a trained thief you would think I would have some idea of my chances with locks of various workmanship.




And how do you know it is a "Simple Lock?"  For that matter, why is the simple lock DC20?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro - the problem is, do you want your game world to be dictated by the game rules?  Seems like 3e would actually be limiting here, since in game world elements are dictated by the rules, not by the game world, or by the DM.

I've said this multiple times before.  3e does a 3e game world fantastically.


----------



## Umbran

ProfessorCirno said:


> And how do you know it is a "Simple Lock?"  For that matter, why is the simple lock DC20?




Because, a high-dex 1st level character can easily have a +8 modifier on the roll, so hitting a DC 20 is a decent shot, but not an outright given, for a generic 1st level character of the sort you'd expect to be picking locks.

It is a genre thing, really:  Starting characters have a shot at dealing with simple, basic stuff, but it isn't handed to them on a silver platter.


----------



## Imaro

ProfessorCirno said:


> And how do you know it is a "Simple Lock?" For that matter, why is the simple lock DC20?




Uhm, because the DM would describe it as such..._ "Before you is an old and rusted lock... as you examine it you realize it is of a *simple* make and crude design, something only the poor or cheap would use to guard their wares."_


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Imaro - the problem is, do you want your game world to be dictated by the game rules? Seems like 3e would actually be limiting here, since in game world elements are dictated by the rules, not by the game world, or by the DM.
> 
> I've said this multiple times before. 3e does a 3e game world fantastically.




What?  How is it anymore dictated by the game rules than 4e's Heroic Lock, Paragon Lock or Epic Lock...


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Umbran said:


> Because, a high-dex 1st level character can easily  have a +8 modifier on the roll, so hitting a DC 20 is a decent shot,  but not an outright given, for a generic 1st level character of the sort  you'd expect to be picking locks.
> 
> It is a genre thing, really:  Starting characters have a shot at dealing  with simple, basic stuff, but it isn't handed to them on a silver  platter.




Yes, precisely.  That's why the DCs in 4e are set the same, is what I'm getting at 

The difference is that in 4e the DCs remain a constant for  level-appropriate, whereas in 3e "level appropriate" vanishes by, like,  level 3.



Imaro said:


> Uhm, because the DM would describe it as such..._ "Before you is an old and rusted lock... as you examine it you realize it is of a *simple* make and crude design, something only the poor or cheap would use to guard their wares."_




And if your DM said that and didn't use a Simple Lock?

You're basing your entire argument around pure metagame - around knowing exactly the DCs to any and all locks you encounter.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> Because, a high-dex 1st level character can easily have a +8 modifier on the roll, so hitting a DC 20 is a decent shot, but not an outright given, for a generic 1st level character of the sort you'd expect to be picking locks.
> 
> It is a genre thing, really:  Starting characters have a shot at dealing with simple, basic stuff, but it isn't handed to them on a silver platter.




Actually, given the Take 20 rule, there is no way a 1st level character cannot unlock a DC 20 lock.



Imaro said:


> What?  How is it anymore dictated by the game rules than 4e's Heroic Lock, Paragon Lock or Epic Lock...




You can't have it both ways though.  In 3e, locks are dictated by the mechanics.  In 4e locks are dictated by the in game situation.  A lock is as complicated as the DM deems it needs to be to make the game interesting, instead of the mechanics telling the DM that the lock must be a particular DC.

If I want the lock to be very difficult, I can, regardless of how skilled the PC's are.  In 3e, the lock is dictated by the mechanics and I have to over rule the mechanics (something I certainly can do) in order to make the lock fit the setting.

Thus, locked doors remain in play regardless of the PC's level, whereas in 3e, locks as written stop being challenges by a certain level.  And that level isn't all that high with the Take 20 rule in play.  A by the book, most difficult lock, pre-epic, only needs a character with a +21 skill check to be automatically bypassable.  +21 skill check is reachable by about 10th level without too much difficulty.  So, in 3e, locks become redundant about 10th level.

All dictated by the mechanics.

See, the problem I have with this is people seem to want it both ways.  If 4e divorces the mechanics from the narrative, and 3e doesn't, that means that 3e mechanics dictate the narrative.  They have to.  You cannot link the mechanics to the narrative without having the mechanics dictate the narrative.

Now, divorcing the mechanics from the narrative has problems - CaGI is a good example, but, OTOH, it has some advantages too - greater flexibility.  OTOH, wedding mechanics to narrative has some advantages - greater consistency, and some disadvantages, less flexibility.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Nagol said:


> I was meaning repercussions of the in-game variety. If the PCs are far enough along an "interesting" situation and decide to abandon it, shouldn't those actions often have an effect on the world that should have consequence?
> 
> 
> *edit* In other words shouldn't an abandoned skill challenge almost be the equivalent of a failed one?




Ah, I see. Abandoning the interesting situation would have in-game repercussions. But we aren't abandoning the situation. The situation just isn't a skill challenge anymore. 

I have in my notes that the Wererat Lords' nefarious scheme to intercept the mail may involve a skill challenge, perhaps with some skills that i think the players are likely to want to use. Sure enough, they start out using Streetwise to get information about a rumor they heard about a plot to mess with the mail, and this leads them to the sewers.

But from there, nothing happens the way I expect. It turns out that a lured ambush of the wererats just isn't that compelling as a skill challenge (in this particular case; it might be at other times), but does rapidly escalate into a running battle in the sewers. This could be because of the exact framing of the Streetwise check caused them to focus on some clue. It could be because of some information they picked up in a pure roleplaying scene with some sewer sweepers (i.e. no skill check). Or it could be that the players have had a bad week and just want to kick fur and take names. 

The party fights their way down to the wererat lord and takes him out. Whereas maybe with the skill challenge, they simply avoid all the other fights in the sewers and go straight to him. No skill challenge took place, but the situation is resolved more or less the same.

This is totally separate from the party decides that nefarious underground criminals can mess with the mail all they want. The party will just be careful to not send anything valuable in the mail. They may go off and do some unrelated skill challenge. Meanwhile, the repercussions of not dealing with the mail issue are allowed to develop.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

ProfessorCirno said:


> You're basing your entire argument around pure metagame - around knowing exactly the DCs to any and all locks you encounter.




That argument is not pure metagame. It is a lot of metagame, but also metagame grounded in the fiction through a particular preference on how things are named or described. I can see people preferring that, for immersion if nothing else.

I bet Imaro and pawsplay like fairly detailed PC backgrounds, too. I don't recall them saying. I'm basing that guess on nothing more than the way I understand their preferences here. 

I was thinking on my drive home that one of the ways in which people don't understand my preferences is that our group is very "impressionistic" in our approach. We do prefer a certain amount of abstraction, too, but I've been sloppily talking about "abstraction" versus "detail," when the opposite of "abstraction" is "concrete." "Detail," in the way many people use it for roleplaying games, is often the opposite of "impressionistic." 

I go looking through the 2E monster manual--or even more telling, one of the Forgotten Realms 2E specialty priests books, I'm looking for little gems that spark my imagination. The details are rather numbing otherwise. Then I remembered that people complained about the 4E monster manual because it had so little text--it is a boring read. It is to me, too, but I don't want to read it anymore than I want to that specialty priest book. The little gems are still there. They are just names of powers, or a knowledge check, or whatnot, and I'll find them looking up a monster for an idea, or browsing half asleep--not reading them straight. 

It is very much the way I used to lay on the couch when I was 5, on a rainy day, and study the Monet street scene that hung in our living room. All the really interesting stuff that happens in our games comes out of impressions gained like that, or gained during play based off of the impression created by everyone at the table. We've never done much of anything with lots of details written about X.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Actually, given the Take 20 rule, there is no way a 1st level character cannot unlock a DC 20 lock.




Sure there is- if he starts taking 20 when he doesn't realize it isn't safe to do so.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> In other words shouldn't an abandoned skill challenge almost be the equivalent of a failed one?



I think the answer to this is _sometimes_.

An example: Suppose the skill challenge is an overland travel one. And suppose the GM has decided that on an exceptionally successful Perception or Nature check, the PCs also discover a crossing trail that leads to location XYZ.  The GM's assumption is that if the PCs discover this, they will make a note of it, and when they get to their destination will sell the information to NPC A, who is known to be searching for XYZ. But in fact, when the PCs discover the trail, they head off to XYZ themselves.

What has happened here? It's not a failed skill challenge, just an abandoned one. How should the GM handle it. My default is to record the state of the challenge at that point, and then once the PCs have finished with XYZ, and continue on their way, to take up where the challenge left off. But in some circumstances - eg if the trip to XYZ ends up taking a year of game time and sees the PCs gain 5 levels - then maybe this really wouldn't make sense. The challenge has been completely superceded.

Another example: The skill challenge is a negotiation one. The PCs are negotiating with a devil general. Negotiations are getting more and more tense, with the PCs on two failures and not having accumulated many successes. The PC rogue suddenly draws her sword and attacks the devil!, and the rest of the party follows her lead so as to capitalise on the surprise round. This is a decision to abandon negotiations. In some respects the consequences are the same as a failed challenge - the devil hasn't been persuaded to do whatever the PCs were wanting it to do! But it's not identical to a failed challenge - for example, the PCs haven't made whatever offers or compromises they might have made if they had decided to continue negotiating.

General conclusion: the consequences for abandoning a skill challenge will depend on the details of the fictional situation, just as do the consequences for succeeding or failing at one.

EDIT: I missed Crazy Jerome's reply. I think his reply, and what I've said here, are broadly on the same page.


----------



## pemerton

Crazy Jerome said:


> I go looking through the 2E monster manual--or even more telling, one of the Forgotten Realms 2E specialty priests books, I'm looking for little gems that spark my imagination. The details are rather numbing otherwise. Then I remembered that people complained about the 4E monster manual because it had so little text--it is a boring read. It is to me, too, but I don't want to read it anymore than I want to that specialty priest book. The little gems are still there. They are just names of powers, or a knowledge check, or whatnot, and I'll find them looking up a monster for an idea, or browsing half asleep--not reading them straight.



This fits my experience also. (Except I actually didn't find the MM boring - but I didn't find it boring because I found it to be packed full of the "little gems" you describe, whether in the powers or the intro text or the lore entries.)


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> See, the problem I have with this is people seem to want it both ways.  If 4e divorces the mechanics from the narrative, and 3e doesn't, that means that 3e mechanics dictate the narrative.  They have to.  You cannot link the mechanics to the narrative without having the mechanics dictate the narrative.
> 
> Now, divorcing the mechanics from the narrative has problems - CaGI is a good example, but, OTOH, it has some advantages too - greater flexibility.  OTOH, wedding mechanics to narrative has some advantages - greater consistency, and some disadvantages, less flexibility.



Hussar, come over to my "Actual Play - balance between mechanics and fiction" thread. Besides demonstrating sympathy towards, and use of, the metagame aspect of Come and Get It, it also has people talking about the relationship between mechanics and narrative.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> In 4e I am not able to make an estimate of my ability to pick a particular lock by it's in-world description
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Am I correct?



Not entirely. The 4e PHB, p 262, has a table of DCs to break or burst common items. The 4e DMG, pp 64-65, has the same information, correlates it with suggested levels for which each item is appropriate (in effect, CRs for doors and portcullis), and also suggests that the DCs can be used for locks as well.

This is pretty similar to the first edition of HeroWars - there is an assumption that difficulties will be set with metagame considerations in mind, but there is _also_ guidance being given to the GM as to what are the canonical ingame examples of doors that those difficulties correspond to.

So from its description, a player can work out how hard a door is to break down. Projecting this to locks will depend on how often the GM includes locks that are harder to pick than the door they are on is to break down.

But in any event, the notion that you can't tell how hard a lock is to pick is in my view a little unrealistic. If you have no DEX and no training you know you have a 65% chance of making an Easy check, but much less chance at anything more difficult. Unless the GM tells you the lock looks simple to you, you have not much chance. If you have DEX or traning but not both, you have around a 90% chance of making a simple check, and a 65% chance of making a Medium check. Unless the GM tells you the lock looks hard to you, you know your chances of picking the lock are better-than-even. If you have DEX _and_ training - as is the case for most Rogues - then you have a 65% chance of making a Hard check, around a 90% chance of making a Medium check, and no chance of failing an Easy check. You'll only raise a sweat if the GM tells you the lock looks hard to you.

If the lock is going to require multiple checks to open (eg the GM has set up a 4/3 skill challenge along the line of some trap disablement mechanics) then you'd also expect to know that going in - the GM would give some description of the complexity of the lock, or its puzzle-like nature, or the fact that there is both a lock and a padlock on the bolt, or whatever.



Imaro said:


> Uhm, because the DM would describe it as such..._ "Before you is an old and rusted lock... as you examine it you realize it is of a *simple* make and crude design, something only the poor or cheap would use to guard their wares."_



If the GM described the lock in this way, and your PC had training in Thievery, why would you think the lock was anything other than a very mundane obstacle?

Again, I'm not sure if these diagnoses of 4e's skill system are based on play experience, or are purely theoretical hypotheses.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Not entirely. The 4e PHB, p 262, has a table of DCs to break or burst common items. The 4e DMG, pp 64-65, has the same information, correlates it with suggested levels for which each item is appropriate (in effect, CRs for doors and portcullis), and also suggests that the DCs can be used for locks as well.
> 
> This is pretty similar to the first edition of HeroWars - there is an assumption that difficulties will be set with metagame considerations in mind, but there is _also_ guidance being given to the GM as to what are the canonical ingame examples of doors that those difficulties correspond to.



For brute strength stuff e.g. lifting a portcullis, as long as neither the challenge nor the ability to overcome it go up with level it's fine.  A given portcullis should be just as hard for a 15th level Str-17 fighter to lift as a 1st-level Str-17 fighter. (the mechanical advantage higher level characters get is that their actual stats go up).

So given that, what's wrong with 1e's bend bars-lift gates system for this?

Note this is different than for something like locks, where learned skills *can* make a difference and this needs to be reflected by the game mechanics (and is, in every edition).



> But in any event, the notion that you can't tell how hard a lock is to pick is in my view a little unrealistic. If you have no DEX and no training you know you have a 65% chance of making an Easy check, but much less chance at anything more difficult. Unless the GM tells you the lock looks simple to you, you have not much chance. If you have DEX or traning but not both, you have around a 90% chance of making a simple check, and a 65% chance of making a Medium check. Unless the GM tells you the lock looks hard to you, you know your chances of picking the lock are better-than-even. If you have DEX _and_ training - as is the case for most Rogues - then you have a 65% chance of making a Hard check, around a 90% chance of making a Medium check, and no chance of failing an Easy check. You'll only raise a sweat if the GM tells you the lock looks hard to you.
> 
> If the lock is going to require multiple checks to open (eg the GM has set up a 4/3 skill challenge along the line of some trap disablement mechanics) then you'd also expect to know that going in - the GM would give some description of the complexity of the lock, or its puzzle-like nature, or the fact that there is both a lock and a padlock on the bolt, or whatever.
> 
> If the GM described the lock in this way, and your PC had training in Thievery, why would you think the lock was anything other than a very mundane obstacle?



Your chance to pick it should never* be 0 (a failing of 3e's skill system is that there's such a divide between needing to roll 20 and needing to roll 21 on a d20, particularly with that awful take-20 rule) nor should it be 100%. So why not just try to pick the bloody thing and find out if you're able?

* - assuming you're not up against magic

Lan-"this is why I like % rolls, so much more granular than d20"-efan


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Hussar said:


> Actually, given the Take 20 rule, there is no way a 1st level character cannot unlock a DC 20 lock.



Yes there is. They are not allowed to make an untrained check. 



Hussar said:


> You can't have it both ways though.  In 3e, locks are dictated by the mechanics.  In 4e locks are dictated by the in game situation.  A lock is as complicated as the DM deems it needs to be to make the game interesting, instead of the mechanics telling the DM that the lock must be a particular DC.



You see having the DM/GM playing funny buggers with the DCs is something some of us really detest! Making a change to the DC based upon nothing more than optimizing the percentage chance of success (with no relevance to effects within the gameworld) makes it feel more like a game and less like a world we're roleplaying in: and thus hampering verisimilitude. No biggie for some, a big deal for the rest of us.



Hussar said:


> If I want the lock to be very difficult, I can, regardless of how skilled the PC's are.  In 3e, the lock is dictated by the mechanics and I have to over rule the mechanics (something I certainly can do) in order to make the lock fit the setting.



You make a decision (or the module's author makes a decision) as to how hard the lock is but once it's in play and you have addressed it to the players, mucking around with the DC just seems wrong. YMMV.



Hussar said:


> Thus, locked doors remain in play regardless of the PC's level, whereas in 3e, locks as written stop being challenges by a certain level.  And that level isn't all that high with the Take 20 rule in play.  A by the book, most difficult lock, pre-epic, only needs a character with a +21 skill check to be automatically bypassable.  +21 skill check is reachable by about 10th level without too much difficulty.  So, in 3e, locks become redundant about 10th level.



As if they weren't already. Knock, or the barbarians axe can become as good as picking a lock. By the time the wizard has disintegration it is all academic anyway. Do you really want higher level characters getting stumped over a lock? Fair enough if it is a plot device but otherwise...



Hussar said:


> See, the problem I have with this is people seem to want it both ways.  If 4e divorces the mechanics from the narrative, and 3e doesn't, that means that 3e mechanics dictate the narrative.  They have to.  You cannot link the mechanics to the narrative without having the mechanics dictate the narrative. Now, divorcing the mechanics from the narrative has problems - CaGI is a good example, but, OTOH, it has some advantages too - greater flexibility.  OTOH, wedding mechanics to narrative has some advantages - greater consistency, and some disadvantages, less flexibility.



I don't know whether Pemerton would have something to say about this with the just in time stuff he was talking about on another thread. I think he was trying to indicate some level of harmony between the two by such an approach - unless I've got it way wrong which is possible. 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton

Herremann the Wise said:


> You see having the DM/GM playing funny buggers with the DCs is something some of us really detest! Making a change to the DC based upon nothing more than optimizing the percentage chance of success (with no relevance to effects within the gameworld) makes it feel more like a game and less like a world we're roleplaying in: and thus hampering verisimilitude.



I agree with your last sentence. The GM, in my view, is obliged to explain what is going on in the gameworld to make the difference. (Like all such obligations, there may be individual occasions where it gets glossed over - I mean an "in principle" obligation, should the issue become salient to anyone at the table).

The 4e DMG, p 67, addresses this issue in relation to terrain (and this can be applied mutatis mutandis to locks):

Terrain scales in order to keep it relevant as PCs and monsters gain higher attack bonuses and hit points. It is an element of game balance and a reflection of the greater magical power present in paragon or epic locations.​
The Rules Compendium, p 306, is similar:

Terrain effects are scaled in this way so that terrain stays challenging as adventurers and monsters gain higher skill modifiers and more hit points. For instance, the cave slime found in the deeper reaches of the Underdark is thicker and more slippery that the thin sheen found in higher dungeon levels, so the Acrobatics DC to avoid falling prone is higher.​
So the DMG gives three reasons for scaling: a metagame reason (relevance), a gloss on the metagame reason (balance), and then an ingame rationale (increased magical power in certain locations). The RC compresses these into two reasons: metagame (challenge), and ingame rationale (thicker cave slime, et al).

I'll cheerfully agree with Crazy Jerome that this isn't the best rules text or guidance ever. But I think the intent is clear - the gameworld is to be presented in such a way as to make sense of the scaling difficulty. It also has a clear presupposition - higher level PCs will be spending their time in the Underdark, and not in higher dungeon levels - and hence the issue of "What is the DC for a mundane lock, or mundane slime, when the party is Epic tier?" simply won't arise.

This is one of the reasons why I say that 4e is about the unfolding game reflecting "the story of D&D". If you want to play a different sort of game - say, one in which Paragon PCs are still mucking around with rusty old locks on warehouses - then I don't think 4e is so well suited (I mean, you could do it, but bits of the game - like scaling DCs - would stick out a bit more than they probably should).



Herremann the Wise said:


> You make a decision (or the module's author makes a decision) as to how hard the lock is but once it's in play and you have addressed it to the players, mucking around with the DC just seems wrong.



Robin Laws tackles this one in HQ 2nd edition. If for scaling/pacing reasons you want to change the DC, you just add extra features to the situation - a divine boon, reduced stress, or even just good luck, if you want to drop the DC - and horrible weather, the stress of approaching monsters, or something similar, if you want to raise the DC.

So we could add - when the Epic tier PCs reenter the 1st level dungeon, the reason they still find the cave slime challenging is because they are also having to force their way through the Abyssal winds that are blowing out of the portal to Pazunia that has suddenly opened up.

Again, if you want a different sort of game 4e won't work as smoothly.



Herremann the Wise said:


> I don't know whether Pemerton would have something to say about this with the just in time stuff he was talking about on another thread. I think he was trying to indicate some level of harmony between the two by such an approach - unless I've got it way wrong which is possible.



Well, I've already cross-promoted my "Actual play - balance between mechanics and fiction" thread. On that thread I have two actual play examples of skill challenges from my game on Sunday, and try to analyse the interaction between fiction and mechanics. My view, in summary, is that the fiction plays an important role, but that (i) the mechanical structure of a skill challenge plays a role in establishing pacing and the arising of complications as the challenge unfolds, and (ii) the players, when thinking about how to engage the fiction, play plenty of attention to their mechanical options.

Of these two points, I think (i) is very different from my previous Rolemaster game, but (ii) not so much - it's just that the mechanical options on a 4e character sheet are in some ways quite different from those on a RM sheet.

I think (ii) would be quite different from an AD&D game, if only because the AD&D character sheet is, in comparative terms, so sparse.


----------



## pawsplay

pemerton said:


> Pawsplay, is your claim that a skill challenge is "a roulette game in disguise" based on actual play experience (whether with 4e, or similar systems like HeroWars/Quest)? Or
> is it a theoretical intuition?
> 
> And I'm not meaning this as a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely curious.
> 
> I've got another thread going discussing actual play examples of two skill challenges from my own game. I'd be interested to see what you think.




Assume that 4e specifies that a level appropriate skill challenge is X successes before Y failures and so forth and the DCs range from A to B. For any given appropriate challenge, the probability of sucess can be calculated, irrespective of what specific skills are chosen and how the DCs are rationalized. The chance of success at a level-appropriate skill challenge is G. 

As long as you follow guidelines and the challenge and the PC capabilities are always "appropriate," resolution of the encounter becomes purely a matter of chance. 

The only way you can move away from that is a willingness to let the approprioateness of the challenge be broken, whether by special modifiers, DCs set to a level based on something other than appropriateness, or letting PC abilities outstrip what are normally considered "appropriate" DCs.


----------



## pemerton

Pawplay, I'm still curious whether you're basing this on theory or practice.

I assume you're not objecting to the use of dice per se (maybe you are, but dice are very firmly ingrained in all editions of D&D, and certainly aren't unique to 4e).

If you're suggesting that there is nothing that the players can do (via their PCs) to vary the probabilities, I don't think that's true. They can take steps to use skills in which they have bigger bonuses - whether changing the gameworld, or thinking of innovative things that they can do. They can take steps to grant one another bonuses to their checks. They can use rituals to vary the situation (and DMG2 offers guidelines - admittedly somewhat sparse - for incorporating ritual use into skill challenges). As per the DMG2, I also allow an action point to be spent for a reroll.

Furthermore, even if we put the probablities to one side, the choices that the players make in the course of tackling the skill challenge make differences to the fiction. They change the state of the gameworld. These changes may frequently be significant _even if the skill challenge is a failure_.

So I don't fully feel the force of your point. But maybe I've misunderstood it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pawsplay said:


> What does Bluff do in 4e, outside of skill challenges?




There are many instances when your character might wish to dupe someone else. Examples from the Compendium: fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, gamble, or pass off a disguise or fake documentation.

You can also use Bluff to gain Combat Advantage and to create a diversion to hide.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In contrast, skill challenges of 4Ed are different from any previous incarnation of D&D.  4Ed's system says the challenge of lockpicking scales with PC level (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Because of this, just looking at your PC's sheet, you cannot guess what your odds of success are.




*Picking a lock is a skill check, not a skill challenge.* If it is a skill challenge, it is not a normal tumbler lock, but instead more like a puzzle-lock. There are static DC for locks in 4E.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Lanefan said:


> For brute strength stuff e.g. lifting a portcullis, as long as neither the challenge nor the ability to overcome it go up with level it's fine. A given portcullis should be just as hard for a 15th level Str-17 fighter to lift as a 1st-level Str-17 fighter. (the mechanical advantage higher level characters get is that their actual stats go up).




That depends.  Technique will have improved as will knowledge of gates.  And I have no objection to wizards using cantrips to assist them to lift gates.



> So given that, what's wrong with 1e's bend bars-lift gates system for this?




It's an unneded subsystem?



Herremann the Wise said:


> You make a decision (or the module's author makes a decision) as to how hard the lock is but once it's in play and you have addressed it to the players, mucking around with the DC just seems wrong. YMMV.




All else being equal, yes.



> As if they weren't already. Knock, or the barbarians axe can become as good as picking a lock. By the time the wizard has disintegration it is all academic anyway. Do you really want higher level characters getting stumped over a lock? Fair enough if it is a plot device but otherwise...




It depends.  And if the wizard is using disintegration on a lock, he's got too many spells.



pemerton said:


> Pawplay, I'm still curious whether you're basing this on theory or practice.




I'm not sure it's either.  I've called him out directly twice on this thread for making assertions about 4e that seem to have no grounding in the game - and have yet to see retractions.

Given that just skimming the monster manual should have shown him that the claim about auto-levelling monsters was false, and his confusion between skill checks and skill challenges I can only conclude that he is neither familiar with the theory nor the practice.of 4e.



> If you're suggesting that there is nothing that the players can do (via their PCs) to vary the probabilities, I don't think that's true. They can take steps to use skills in which they have bigger bonuses - whether changing the gameworld, or thinking of innovative things that they can do. They can take steps to grant one another bonuses to their checks. They can use rituals to vary the situation (and DMG2 offers guidelines - admittedly somewhat sparse - for incorporating ritual use into skill challenges). As per the DMG2, I also allow an action point to be spent for a reroll.




You missed one huge one.  They can find a way to play to their strengths.  Thinking creatively to bring in your +14 thievery rather than your +10 bluff (as in the plant the evidence for a smear campaign) really changes the probabilities.


----------



## Neonchameleon

pawsplay said:


> Assume that 4e specifies that a level appropriate skill challenge is X successes before Y failures and so forth and the DCs range from A to B. For any given appropriate challenge, the probability of sucess can be calculated, irrespective of what specific skills are chosen and how the DCs are rationalized.




False.  The probability of success is very much dependent on the skills chosen because the characters have different modifiers in different skills.



> The chance of success at a level-appropriate skill challenge is G.




So wait a second.  First your complaint was that you couldn't have an idea of the chance of success and now your complaint is that the chance of success is set in stone.  Both of which are clearly and demonstrably false.



> As long as you follow guidelines and the challenge and the PC capabilities are always "appropriate," resolution of the encounter becomes purely a matter of chance.




Resolution of _any_ skill check is a matter of chance.  Are you arguing for a diceless checkless system out of combat?  In which case why are you arguing against skill challenges rather than the entire skill system?



> The only way you can move away from that is a willingness to let the approprioateness of the challenge be broken, whether by special modifiers, DCs set to a level based on something other than appropriateness, or letting PC abilities outstrip what are normally considered "appropriate" DCs.




You mean things that are actually in the skill challenge guidelines?  Or otherwise in the 4e rules?  You no more have to give level 5 skill challenges to level 5 PCs than you have to make them meet level 5 monsters just because they are level 5.  Special modifiers are provided for within the framework and suggestions are made within the DMG2.  And of course PC abilities vary.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pemerton said:


> I'll cheerfully agree with Crazy Jerome that this isn't the best rules text or guidance ever. But I think the intent is clear - the gameworld is to be presented in such a way as to make sense of the scaling difficulty. It also has a clear presupposition - higher level PCs will be spending their time in the Underdark, and not in higher dungeon levels - and hence the issue of "What is the DC for a mundane lock, or mundane slime, when the party is Epic tier?" simply won't arise.




I think the intent is clear to those who are already somewhat familiar with the techniques--from other games, personal experience, etc.--or are predisposed to want to play that way.

For most everyone else, I believe it is like reading one of those assembly directions loosely translated from Chinese--you've put stuff together before, and you sort of know how to navigate the confusing parts, and you've got all the parts right there in your living room floor--but it still takes a few tries and false starts to get it together the way it was intended.  It is really easy to get one key part on backwards such that it will somewhat work as intended, and then think that is as good as it gets.

It also doesn't help that there are at least three differing authorial voices in the first three core books, and they don't always agree on how things are done.  (I say at least three, because that is all I have identified.  Given how fractured the text is at places, there could easily be more.)

This is, BTW, one place where 3E is vastly superior to 4E core three.  Despite a few problems in the 3E PHB, DMG, and MM as far as cross references of meaning and redundant text, each book stands alone with a very clear voice.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

shadzar said:


> Or maybe you don't let some convoluted system ruin your game, when they fail the "challenge".




Since one of the fundamental aspects of skill challenges are "do not let failure become a roadblock" this should not happen in a well-designed skill challenge. A failure should lead to a new snag, another obstacle to overcome. Could the possession scenario work without a SC? Of course. But using one to accomplish it is not badwrongfun no matter how much you try to state it as so.



shadzar said:


> Upon suspecting the Duke to be a demon, if there were clues being led to it, the party has already passed the challenge. Why then force them to backtrack to failure? Why not let them just go around asking and let them find the info needed to "prove it".




The work the party already did could count towards successes in a skill challenge. And if the DM had anticipated this thread in the story, he could have set up the challenge from the beginning. A skill challenge has no set time limit. It doesn't have to be completed before moving on to other things.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

shadzar said:


> Having Dexterity as a stat, EVERY edition has had "fumble" rules. 3rd even gave them DCs, Icy +5 to difficulty or some such.




Fumble rules mean that any character of any level can fail at any task at a certain level of frequency. In 3E, if your Balance skill is high enough you will NEVER trip over a street gutter by the rules as written.



shadzar said:


> Again, thanks in part to MrMyth, I am now seeing skill challenges as just a means to power level. They don't exist to pose a challenge/obstacle, or resolve one, they exist only to offer more XP.
> 
> I won't fall back into and make the mistake again of thinking them as something worthwhile, but view them flatly as the excuse to give more XP that they are, with no other redeeming qualities.




Then you are misreading people's points on skill challenges. They are a tool for the DM to create interesting non-combat encounters. They should only be used when there is an actual challenge to the PCs skills. And if you are challenging the characters, why should they not gain experience?

You can think them useless all you want, but I think you're missing out on a useful edition-neutral tool.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pawsplay said:


> I am observing that in 3e, I can know my character's capability of defeating a 1st level orc warrior, or picking a secure but basically ordinary lock. In 4e, I know none of these things. An "ordinary orc" is probably scaled to my level. A secure but ordinary lock probably doesn't have a suggested DC; if it does, that's somewhat useful in an ordinary situation, but becomes irrelevant if the GM frames the scene as a skill challenge involving lock picking.




In 3E the orc is probably scaled to your level too by giving it class levels. The flipside: The 4E DM can just as easily throw a lower-level threat at the party, just like a 3E DM could throw 1st-level Orc Warriors at a 10th-level party. Ordinary locks do have a set DC in 4E. Any lock worthy of a skill challenge would not be an ordinary lock.



pawsplay said:


> In 3e, my character's capabilities, at some level, relate to the imaginary world. In 4e, they primarily relate to the GM's chosen difficulty level.




No, in 3E they relate to the EL the DM chooses. In 4E they relate to the Level the DM chooses. Less has changed than you think.



pawsplay said:


> Just as an example, upthread, I mentioned a balance check as part of getting into a castle, and gave an example of someone using an older version of D&D improvising an ability check. In 3e, most characters will face a somewhat quantifiable level of difficulty. Some characters would make such a Balance check each and every time. In 4e, the DC could vary wildly from a (shall we say) pedestrian difficulty to a fairly formidable difficulty if the GM decides it's part of a skill challenge.




Nope. The DC should be set by the actual walkway. If that gives a highly-skilled PC an auto-success, so be it. 



pawsplay said:


> Skill challenges are supposed to add drama, but since the GM sets every aspect of the difficulty, and the base DCs generally scale to level, it's actually a routlette game in disguise, with the GM setting house odds.




The roulette game was when you chose your DM. Some DMs use the skill challenge tool poorly and ignore all advice on designing them. Others would avoid the false dilemmas you pose.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Thus, locked doors remain in play regardless of the PC's level, whereas in 3e, locks as written stop being challenges by a certain level.  And that level isn't all that high with the Take 20 rule in play.  A by the book, most difficult lock, pre-epic, only needs a character with a +21 skill check to be automatically bypassable.  +21 skill check is reachable by about 10th level without too much difficulty.  So, in 3e, locks become redundant about 10th level.
> 
> All dictated by the mechanics.




Frankly, shouldn't locks no longer be more than mild speed bumps once you hit 10th level or higher? For that matter, why does the idea of a mechanical lock need to be relevant if PCs really are adventuring in more and more dangerous locations? Shouldn't the high level rogue be able to rest on his laurels and let his well-invested skill breeze him through locks?

But dictated by the mechanics? Not really. You're viewing it just through the filter of the mechanics, which themselves are meant to model a character getting better at a fairly static task. Simple locks are only going to be so hard. Eventually someone who gets better at picking those locks is going to find them very easy to do in very little time. And that's true in reality as well as in 3e D&D. The mechanical representation of that lets you know when that occurs in a way that our real world really can't but it's not simply a case of waving your hands around and saying that the mechanics have rendered simple locks irrelevant at 10th level. Simple locks are rendered irrelevant because they're simple devices vulnerable to superior ability.


----------



## Bluenose

billd91 said:


> Frankly, shouldn't locks no longer be more than mild speed bumps once you hit 10th level or higher? For that matter, why does the idea of a mechanical lock need to be relevant if PCs really are adventuring in more and more dangerous locations? Shouldn't the high level rogue be able to rest on his laurels and let his well-invested skill breeze him through locks?
> 
> But dictated by the mechanics? Not really. You're viewing it just through the filter of the mechanics, which themselves are meant to model a character getting better at a fairly static task. Simple locks are only going to be so hard. Eventually someone who gets better at picking those locks is going to find them very easy to do in very little time. And that's true in reality as well as in 3e D&D. The mechanical representation of that lets you know when that occurs in a way that our real world really can't but it's not simply a case of waving your hands around and saying that the mechanics have rendered simple locks irrelevant at 10th level. Simple locks are rendered irrelevant because they're simple devices vulnerable to superior ability.




It might of course be fictional, though there's more than one historical reference, but the Gordian Knot doesn't seem to have worked that way. Make that into a lock, and you've got a suitable test.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

billd91 said:


> Frankly, shouldn't locks no longer be more than mild speed bumps once you hit 10th level or higher? For that matter, why does the idea of a mechanical lock need to be relevant if PCs really are adventuring in more and more dangerous locations? Shouldn't the high level rogue be able to rest on his laurels and let his well-invested skill breeze him through locks?




If a group wants to do that, nothing stops them. If they are playing more or less by the rules, the group won't get any XP from the rogue breezing through those locks, but presumably they are getting something else more satisfying to them--the fun of resting on laurels and so breezing.

OTOH, from a game design perspective, you either want to extend the sweet spot of fun level play* as far as possible, or you think some other competing concern is more important. If you think extending the sweet spot is more important, then *embedding* into the system, resting on your laurels and breezing through challenges, is going to be a mare's nest. It's not entirely impossible to navigate in theory, but in practice the effort fails. Sure, if locks are the only such compromise, then you can get away with it. But if the rogue gets to do that, what does everyone else get to breeze through? What does the rogue get for groups that do a lot of wilderness adventure, without locks for him to breeze through?

Happily, in this particular instance, the game designers don't have to make that choice. They can work to extend the sweet spot as much as possible. They are providing a good way to measure. Now that you have that measurement, you can do anything you want with it, including deliberately go counter to it.

* As defined by many people as existing, though naturally there are disagreements about the exact range of levels that qualify.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Another reason not yet mentioed why 4E is not as popular as it could have been: The designers gave up on some efforts as a lost cause. This managed to annoy all the people who didn't agree that the cause was lost, had another dog in the fight which this giving up undermined, or didn't understand the problem in the first place. And of course, when you give up a lost cause, you don't always have a clever solution that satisfies all the competing concerns, either. Major annoyance thus results.

See, for example, "People think of wizards as Gandalf or Merlin. They are supposed to be better than everyone else. But Arthur and Aragon and Frodo and the young Galahad have to matter. So we'll make wizardry have a steep learning curve! Oops, tried that, some issues arose. We'll make Frodo critical to the story! Oops, tried that, some other issues arose. I know, we'll give Frodo and Aragon some equipment! Dang it, you guessed it! Aw hell, let's just chuck the whole problem. If someone wants Gandalf, they can give the wizard an extra 5 or 10 levels and be done with it."

What was it Einstein said? That for every problem, there is a solution that is obvious, simple, and wrong. All of those prior efforts met that criteria. Finally, someone comes up with a solution that is rather simple, but not so obvious and certainly effective. But it takes guts to make it.

Because you've just united in their cheezed off state everyone who liked wizards being overpowered at high levels, everyone who liked them being weak at low levels, who liked it being built into the rules that Frodo had to carve out a story niche to matter and that Aragon needed to be the king, and so forth and so on. These people don't even necessarily like or agree with each other, but they are all in agreement that your decision sucks. Note that there is nothing in the rules that says their group can't run the game to suit their preferences. But now they will have to ask for it, because there is nothing in the rules that validates their preferences, either. If they think that perhaps their group will not want to give them their desires, they are doubly cheesed.

Making hard choices always makes you unpopular with some people.


----------



## Nagol

That only makes something less popular if you don't recruit enough new blood to replace the cheesed off groups.  

If you don't manage the recruitment then the question to be asked is why were those hard choices made?  If it was to improve popularity, which choicesdidn't provide the expected benefit?


----------



## MrMyth

billd91 said:


> I've heard this defense before and I find it unconvincing, and I'd point back at the comment I quoted by Pemerton. The difference is in how the game has changed its approach to the issue of building in situations for PCs to encounter. The problem that I see is that, in Pemerton's quote, the implication is that the DM didn't describe up the lock to match the selected difficulty. That's putting the cart in front of the horse as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather the game encourage DMs to decide what sort of lock was appropriate for the situation and have the DC determined from there.




I can't really argue with that. I think we're arguing for the same thing here, and I guess what I'm trying to say is that the scaling DCs of 4E are built to be able to be used in exactly that fashion - even if there are those who don't use them that way. And, instead, just scale them to the characters directly. 



billd91 said:


> You're right, it's not. But notice we're getting there from the situation and not from picking the right difficulty for the PC rogue. If we happen to assign them a level from the DC the lock may be, then we're moving in the right direction. But that's not what I think 4e is conditioning people to do and it's not the impression I got from Pemerton's post.




Yeah, that was part of what I was saying - there is definite a misperception that the DCs are connected to the characters. I think the intent - and they way I use them - is to scale them to the challenge. You don't pick a DC in relation to the PC rogue, you pick a DC in relation to the lock. 

Now, most times, those two are relatively connected - your Paragon rogue probably is trying to break into the king's vault, not into some commoner's house or into Ioun's Library. But you still have those DCs if, for whatever reason, the PC goes after such places. 

If there is a conditioning in effect, I think it is an unintentional one. And that may well be a problem nonetheless - but I don't think this method of use is the intent of the rules in any way.  



billd91 said:


> It's not relatively cheap for a hireling who makes 2-3 silver pieces a day, nor even for the professional who may make about 10 gp a week. Is he really going to save 15 weeks of wages for a lock?
> For successful adventurers and other powerful people, sure, they'll have the better locks. They can easily afford it. But again, this is about looking at the context in which that lock will appear and not looking at the context of the person who will be trying to pick it.




The problem is in locks already start at 20gp. That's out of range for many commoners anyway. Once you get into those who can afford that lock - how big a jump is it to the more expensive ones? I mean, we're talking something in the same price range as chainmail, an everburning torch, etc. Beyond the first level or two, how many times will the PCs be trying to break into a place where it wouldn't be appropriate for the person to use a superior lock, strictly based on the price? 

I admit, this is somewhat of a tangent, and more tied into 3rd Edition's pricing of a random item on the equipment list than any instrinstic element of the system. And yet, I think this is somewhat the goal of 4E's abstraction of DCs, to avoid having different warring details lead to such inconsistencies. That doesn't necessarily make it the better approach, but I do like having it as an option. 

Ideally, we have both - scaling DCs to easily use when desired, plus hard numbers for when appropriate. 



billd91 said:


> 4e has taken whatever balance D&D had between tailored and status quo situations (to borrow terms in the 3e DMG) that helped to keep a game reasonable for player characters while also adding to the immersiveness of the world and tossed it firmly in the direction of tailored.




I just don't quite see that as true. Nothing stops me in 4E from having encounters and challenges of different levels. Abstracting the reasons for the DCs doesn't prevent me from still have status quo situations - the fact I look on a chart instead of an equipment table to determine the DC of the king's chamber doesn't mean it automatically becomes a 'reasonable' challenge for level 2 PCs unless I decide it should be.


----------



## MrMyth

shadzar said:


> Or maybe you don't let some convoluted system ruin your game, when they fail the "challenge".
> 
> Upon suspecting the Duke to be a demon, if there were clues being led to it, the party has already passed the challenge. Why then force them to backtrack to failure? Why not let them just go around asking and let them find the info needed to "prove it".




Why do we have skills at all? 

Keep in mind, skills shouldn't replace RP, they should support it. Yes, the PCs go around town asking questions and searching for info. Their Streetwise checks (or whatever is appropriate) determine if they find stories that lead them to definite proof, or simply rumor and conjecture. 

I'm honestly puzzled here. Are you suggesting that a skill like Gather Information or Streetwise shouldn't exist in the game? That if the PCs have some hints about something and want to learn more, they should always have it revealed to him? 



shadzar said:


> If you don't want to RP it, then ak the DM for a summary of things found over searching, people met etc. You get the same result of the skill challenge which is contacts and info, without the needless chance of failure.




Why is the chance of failure "needless"? This is a dice based game, and part of the core philosophy is that not everything you do will automatically succeed. Even the way you describe this feels uncomfortable to me - rather than have the players dynamically explore the town and learn bits of knowledge, just handing them a summary of what there is to learn...

...I mean, I've done it myself, in situations where the info is relatively mundane or of little importance. ("Here are some basic facts about the town!") But it seems to otherwise be skipping past an opportunity for both RP and for some characters to demonstrate their strengths. 



shadzar said:


> Possibly your example is just a VERY bad one, as it would leave failure as a chance that could completely screw the game up because of the mechanics.
> 
> -gather information (Endurance, Diplomacy, Streetwise)
> failure here means the game is over
> -find a way to break the curse (Arcana, History, Religion)
> failure here means the game is over
> -get to the Duke without being noticed (Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth)
> failure here means combat at least




Where are you getting "the game is over" from? 

First scenario: The players have suspicions that the Duke is possessed, but can't find any proof. Do they start to doubt their own suspicions? Maybe they try to appeal to other authorities - or seek alternate ways to learn the truth. A sage might cast a divination for them if they perform a task. Or darker sorts might answer their questions for a price... 

Or maybe they turn away from the area and investigate other possible suspects - until the situation in the Duchy grows worse, and they find themselves having to fight off a full demon invasion. 

Second scenario: They've got proof but no way to cure the possession. Do they try and deal with it anyway? Sneaking into the castle to _kill_ the Duke, even though that would cause great political chaos and leave them villified for their actions? Do they try and bring the proof to others, the chancellor or a high priest, and see if they can maybe imprison the Duke until a cure can be found? At the risk, of course, that instead the Duke finds out and they are on the run from his men?

Third scenario: They have the proof and the cure, but are caught breaking into the castle. Do they fight their way out, striking down innocent guards? Try to reason with them and present their proof? Surrender and demand a trial where they can reveal what they know? Have some PCs lead guards away so another can get to the Duke and perform the ritual alone?

Failures in skill challenges - in any obstacle in an RPG - should never* lead to a complete end of the game. They should just provide opportunities for new developments. Those developments might involve going into another challenge with fewer resources, or might involve having to deal with entirely new challenges. 

(*Save perhaps in very rare situations - a TPK, or failing to stop some world-ending ritual, or the like.)

Nothing in the skill challenge rules says that failure should end the game, as you are suggesting. Indeed, the advice given regarding skill challenges often says the opposite. 

Only in the most tightly-scripted plot-based games do you have a situation where something _must _happen in a specific fashion or the game ends - and honestly, in those situations, you shouldn't using a skill challenge anyway.


----------



## MrMyth

shadzar said:


> Again, thanks in part to MrMyth, I am now seeing skill challenges as just a means to power level. They don't exist to pose a challenge/obstacle, or resolve one, they exist only to offer more XP.
> 
> I won't fall back into and make the mistake again of thinking them as something worthwhile, but view them flatly as the excuse to give more XP that they are, with no other redeeming qualities.




I'd say you are about.. half right. Yes, they exist to give xp. That doesn't have anything to do with power-levelling, though. 

The goal is to, yeah, have a way to reward the PCs for accomplishing some task - even if that task doesn't involve punching someone in the face. In what way is rewarding non-combat accomplishments a bad thing for the game, or power-levelling? 

And even once you acknowledge that part of the goal is to present guidelines for giving out non-combat xp... that doesn't mean there are no other goals, as well. The rest of the point is to present PCs with non-combat challenges that are rewarding to overcome. To provide DMs with a framework to measure success and failure in complex situations. 

Those seem like decent goals to me.


----------



## Aldarc

Crazy Jerome said:


> Another reason not yet mentioed why 4E is not as popular as it could have been: The designers gave up on some efforts as a lost cause. This managed to annoy all the people who didn't agree that the cause was lost, had another dog in the fight which this giving up undermined, or didn't understand the problem in the first place. And of course, when you give up a lost cause, you don't always have a clever solution that satisfies all the competing concerns, either. Major annoyance thus results.
> 
> See, for example, "People think of wizards as Gandalf or Merlin. They are supposed to be better than everyone else. But Arthur and Aragon and Frodo and the young Galahad have to matter. So we'll make wizardry have a steep learning curve! Oops, tried that, some issues arose. We'll make Frodo critical to the story! Oops, tried that, some other issues arose. I know, we'll give Frodo and Aragon some equipment! Dang it, you guessed it! Aw hell, let's just chuck the whole problem. If someone wants Gandalf, they can give the wizard an extra 5 or 10 levels and be done with it."
> 
> What was it Einstein said? That for every problem, there is a solution that is obvious, simple, and wrong. All of those prior efforts met that criteria. Finally, someone comes up with a solution that is rather simple, but not so obvious and certainly effective. But it takes guts to make it.
> 
> Because you've just united in their cheezed off state everyone who liked wizards being overpowered at high levels, everyone who liked them being weak at low levels, who liked it being built into the rules that Frodo had to carve out a story niche to matter and that Aragon needed to be the king, and so forth and so on. These people don't even necessarily like or agree with each other, but they are all in agreement that your decision sucks. Note that there is nothing in the rules that says their group can't run the game to suit their preferences. But now they will have to ask for it, because there is nothing in the rules that validates their preferences, either. If they think that perhaps their group will not want to give them their desires, they are doubly cheesed.
> 
> Making hard choices always makes you unpopular with some people.



Doesn't this assume that Gandalf was the same level as Frodo and Aragorn in their adventures? I think most would agree that Gandalf was higher level than the rest of his party, as well as being a supernatural being. So it should be of no surprise that Gandalf dwarfed in power over Frodo and Aragorn. Therefore the argument of the imbalanced powerscaling of wizards seems quite misguided.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Aldarc said:


> Doesn't this assume that Gandalf was the same level as Frodo and Aragorn in their adventures? I think most would agree that Gandalf was higher level than the rest of his party, as well as being a supernatural being. So it should be of no surprise that Gandalf dwarfed in power over Frodo and Aragorn. Therefore the argument of the imbalanced powerscaling of wizards seems quite misguided.




That is one way to get to the problem, but it wasn't what I had in mind. I think historically it is more a case of people trying to navigate the issue that roleplaying games are not novels. Lots of things got tried, and some of them resonated. In the meantime, game writers are trying to cater to rules mavens, Jane Austen wannabees, and a host of others. So they try to make compromises. Sometimes, those compromises caused more trouble than they were worth. When they even cared or knew about those issues--see below.

That is, I think the line of thought went something like this: "I like LotR. But this is a group game and wizards shouldn't have all the fun. OTOH, I should be able to get something analogous to the fellowship and play an adventure with them."

In retrospect, it is easy to see that making wizards about the same moxie as other classes, most power levels, would have been just fine, and then Gandalf could have been higher. But at the time, the designers didn't care about that at all. They just wanted to make stuff up that would let them do their strange mix of wargaming and quasi-Vancian exploration, and the rules were working fine for that.

It was 3E before this issue in the fan base even registered strongly enough on the designers for them to put it on the list of things to be solved. 

Edit:  Also please note that the LotR issue is *one* example of the larger problem.  It is not the only one by any means.  Also, despite the tenor of this example, it is not a given that the 4E designers always chose wisely in their things to make hard decisions upon, or in their solutions.  (And really, batting .300 on that kind of thing would be pretty amazing.)


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Aldarc said:


> Crazy Jerome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because you've just united in their cheezed off state everyone who liked wizards being overpowered at high levels, everyone who liked them being weak at low levels, who liked it being built into the rules that Frodo had to carve out a story niche to matter and that Aragon needed to be the king, and so forth and so on. These people don't even necessarily like or agree with each other, but they are all in agreement that your decision sucks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this assume that Gandalf was the same level as Frodo and Aragorn in their adventures? I think most would agree that Gandalf was higher level than the rest of his party, as well as being a supernatural being. So it should be of no surprise that Gandalf dwarfed in power over Frodo and Aragorn. Therefore the argument of the imbalanced powerscaling of wizards seems quite misguided.
Click to expand...


Of interest way back when in The Dragon, I think (please someone correct me if my wonky memory is being wonky) somebody showed that Gandalf could be represented by a 5th level AD&D wizard. Regardless, the point still stands that 4e "fixed" the wizard but into a form that many people grumbled about. Yes the 4e wizard is balanced within the framework but at the expense of many of the wizard tropes many of us had grown up with. YMMV.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB

Herremann the Wise said:


> Of interest way back when in The Dragon, I think (please someone correct me if my wonky memory is being wonky) somebody showed that Gandalf could be represented by a 5th level AD&D wizard.




Somebody _argued_ that Gandalf could be represented by a 5th level AD&D magic-user. It wasn't a very successful argument from my point of view. A 5th level AD&D magic-user does _not_ have the resources to battle the Balrog for two days and night (in addition to chasing it for eight days).

The article appeared in The Dragon #5 - you can find it reposted here.

(There is some truth in the assumption that Gandalf's spells weren't represented by high-level spells in D&D, but there are holes there too).

Cheers!


----------



## pawsplay

Neonchameleon said:


> False.  The probability of success is very much dependent on the skills chosen because the characters have different modifiers in different skills.
> ...
> So wait a second.  First your complaint was that you couldn't have an idea of the chance of success and now your complaint is that the chance of success is set in stone.  Both of which are clearly and demonstrably false.




No, I'm saying the chance of success is essentially set by the GM. 



> Resolution of _any_ skill check is a matter of chance.  Are you arguing for a diceless checkless system out of combat?  In which case why are you arguing against skill challenges rather than the entire skill system?




No, I am not arguing for that. 



> You mean things that are actually in the skill challenge guidelines?  Or otherwise in the 4e rules?  You no more have to give level 5 skill challenges to level 5 PCs than you have to make them meet level 5 monsters just because they are level 5.  Special modifiers are provided for within the framework and suggestions are made within the DMG2.  And of course PC abilities vary.





If you give them a level 6 skill challene, you just change G to G - H, where H is the decrease in the chance of success. 

If I am going to use ad hoc modifiers, really I am just performing a series of skill checks, and the skill challenge structure becomes an artificiality. I'm not trying to create a false dilemma, but I'm having difficulty discerning where between:

A. independent skill checks based on the situation as narrated by the GM, and
B. a skill challenge tailored to a specific probability of success

you can fit something that is more interesting than B yet more codified than A. I think at some point you have to decide whether you are scaling or not, and if so, by how much. If you absolutely scale, then the skill challenge devolves to G as a percentage of success, possibly modified by ad hoc modifiers. In that case, the only "winning" strategy is to acquire ad hoc modifiers. If you absolutely do not scale, then some checks will be trivial, others deadly.


----------



## pemerton

Crazy Jerome said:


> I think the intent is clear to those who are already somewhat familiar with the techniques
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For most everyone else, I believe it is like reading one of those assembly directions loosely translated from Chinese



You're right about this. And this fits with what I said in one of my first posts on this thread - that 4e might have increased its popularity if it had given a clearer statement of how it was to be played.



Neonchameleon said:


> You missed one huge one.  They can find a way to play to their strengths.



Agreed. That's what I meant when I said "They can take steps to use skills in which they have bigger bonuses".


----------



## pemerton

Pawsplay, I'm not going to address all your questions in this post. Others have already tackled some of them. And I've already linked upthred to the Actual Play thread where some of these issues are being discussed also.

But one answer to your question about A versus B. (An answer, by the way, which has nothing to do with scaling. I think you're somewhat jumping at shadow with the scaling, for the reasons I've set out in other posts upthread.)

A skill challenge structure more-or-less _obliges_ the GM to introduce complications at various points - both in response to failed checks, and in order to establish the situation with which the players are engaging via more checks.

In this respect, the structure serves a metagame purpose - by mandating repeated points of engagement with an evolving ingame situation by both the GM and the players, it forces a certain dynamism into the resolution of that situation. In my view this is similar, in general outline, to the extended contest mechanics of HeroWars/Quest.

Now, you may ask "what is the attraction of a structure that mandates this dynamism?" My answer - and it is an answer I have seen from others in relation to HW/Q, in relation to Duel of Wits in BW, etc - is that this sort of structure makes unexpected developments in the narrative more likely. How does it do this? Because the mutual engagment at multiple points of an unfolding situation makes both players and GM think of things that otherwise they would not.

One example - in a skill challenge negotiation between my PCs and some slavers, the PCs ended up contracting with the slavers to redeem the slaves using the treasure that the slavers told them where to find in the dungeon. This solution emerged gradually, as the players had some successes, then some failures, and were looking for ways to build on their successes while working around their failures. The offer of a contract was the way that they settled on, and that ended up resolving the challenge.

Do some groups achieve this sort of dynamism without structured mechanics to support it? Well, for all I know, everyone else has been doing it for years! But for my group - and for others whom I have seen post in relation to other games like HW/Q and BW - it makes a real difference.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pawsplay said:


> If you give them a level 6 skill challene, you just change G to G - H, where H is the decrease in the chance of success.




I think you're getting too caught up in the term "level-appropriate." A *good* level 6 skill challenge will include tasks challenging to 6th-level PCs, not set the DCs of all tasks to those appropriate for 6th-level characters.

Using the locks as an example. A standard heroic-tier lock (DC 20) is a hard level-appropriate challenge for 4th-9th level characters (assuming that any rogue worthy of being called such will have the thieves' tools that give him a +2 bonus to his check). This lock corresponds to a basic lock in 3E. As DM, you would not describe the lock in a similar skill challenge for 19th-level characters as a basic lock, you would need to choose a tougher lock. Just like you did as a 3E DM by choosing a harder lock as the PCs explored better protected areas in 3E.

If you decide that the locks in the area of the 19th-level skill challenge are mundane, then the checks to get through them should not change. Instead the check becomes easy-moderate in difficulty. And at even higher levels the same mundane lock should not even be considered part of the skill challenge.

The difficulty is not set by the DM any more than it was in previous editions. In 3E it was the choice of equipment (like the locks) or the choice of opponent (for opposed rolls) that set the DCs.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pemerton said:


> Do some groups achieve this sort of dynamism without structured mechanics to support it? Well, for all I know, everyone else has been doing it for years! But for my group - and for others whom I have seen post in relation to other games like HW/Q and BW - it makes a real difference.




Our group was getting there, slowly, without the stuctured mechanics--well more accurately, with a mix of in-game assumptions, experience, and some house rules that hit around the edges of structure. And of course, sometimes we were getting that dynamism through the same old stuff that I started with in '81, when we caught lightning in the bottle at times, and wondered exactly why.

In your actual play topic, there was an implied reference to skill challenges as teaching tools. I think that idea applies here, too. Some people *really* will happily and easily learn to swim faster if you just throw them off the pier, and pull them out if they get in trouble. And other people will learn much faster (and with a lot less trauma) if you maybe give them some lessons with a structure. Numerous activities follow this pattern. Training wheels on bikes spring to mind, for starters.

Played as overly slavish to the structure, 4E skill challenges *are* going to be stilted. But a newbie GM, in an all newbie group, that benefits from that structure, if he does what the book says, will have a glimmer of something better. He will also have a language to get online and discuss his issues, and as greater understanding is achieved, will be able to let the structure become a tool instead of a pattern to always follow exactly. This may even allow the group to get over the initial learning curve without the game turning into one of those horror stories that we hear so much about. Perhaps this is why the material comes across as so poorly explained to some of us who have managed to get beyond that stage and nevertheless appreciate the structure. They've eliminated a lot of nuance in the text to keep the beginner from being confused. (I think they went too far, if that was the intent, but then I'm not a professional game writer, either.)

For an experienced GM that has already navigated the initial learning curve, but isn't naturally predisposed to want to use structured tools, 4E could easily look like a set of training wheels on a motorcycle.


----------



## pawsplay

Here's an interesting tidbit from the WotC Segment Marketing Survey report:



> This data tells us that the longer a person plays the game, the longer the
> game sessions get, the more people play in the game, and the longer the game
> progresses before a character restart. In fact, if you look at the >5 year
> group, you realize that the big jump in long sessions and in average
> sessions before a restart means that the 5+ year gamers are playing the same
> characters, on average, vastly longer than anyone else.
> 
> One conclusion might be that it takes 5 years for a player to really master
> the system and really figure out what kind of character that player likes to
> play.




Considering the extent of changes between 3e and 4e, i wonder if such a substantial revision could ever have been received warmly, coming as it did on the heels of a still-played, still-popular version.


----------



## pawsplay

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think you're getting too caught up in the term "level-appropriate." A *good* level 6 skill challenge will include tasks challenging to 6th-level PCs, not set the DCs of all tasks to those appropriate for 6th-level characters.
> 
> Using the locks as an example. A standard heroic-tier lock (DC 20) is a hard level-appropriate challenge for 4th-9th level characters (assuming that any rogue worthy of being called such will have the thieves' tools that give him a +2 bonus to his check). This lock corresponds to a basic lock in 3E. As DM, you would not describe the lock in a similar skill challenge for 19th-level characters as a basic lock, you would need to choose a tougher lock. Just like you did as a 3E DM by choosing a harder lock as the PCs explored better protected areas in 3E.
> 
> If you decide that the locks in the area of the 19th-level skill challenge are mundane, then the checks to get through them should not change. Instead the check becomes easy-moderate in difficulty. And at even higher levels the same mundane lock should not even be considered part of the skill challenge.
> 
> The difficulty is not set by the DM any more than it was in previous editions. In 3E it was the choice of equipment (like the locks) or the choice of opponent (for opposed rolls) that set the DCs.




Why are you saying this to me as though you are imparting new information?


----------



## pemerton

Crazy Jerome said:


> In your actual play topic, there was an implied reference to skill challenges as teaching tools. I think that idea applies here, too.



What I find a little strange about this (not your post, but the idea of structured resolution as a teaching tool) is that, generally, HeroWars/Quest would _not_ be suggested as a game that a novice GM could run as a training tool.

I think it can be quite hard to balance the resolution of the situation with the injection of complication in the way mandated by the structure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pawsplay said:


> In fact, if you look at the >5 year
> group, you realize that the big jump in long sessions and in average
> sessions before a restart means that the 5+ year gamers are playing the same
> characters, on average, vastly longer than anyone else.
> 
> One conclusion might be that it takes 5 years for a player to really master
> the system and really figure out what kind of character that player likes to
> play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the extent of changes between 3e and 4e, i wonder if such a substantial revision could ever have been received warmly, coming as it did on the heels of a still-played, still-popular version.
Click to expand...



If that's true, then by their own evaluation- considering 3Ed and 3.5 to be essentially "stacking" in terms of system mastery- 4Ed was released when the first 3 years of adopters of the game had achieved mastery.

That MAY be a little quick, and may actually inform WotC's design process to ensure that- barring a pressing need based on market realities or a phenomenal revolution in game design- that 5Ed should _*either*_ not substantially vary from 4ED_* or*_ not come out before 2014.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If that's true, then by their own evaluation- considering 3Ed and 3.5 to be essentially "stacking" in terms of system mastery- 4Ed was released when the first 3 years of adopters of the game had achieved mastery.
> 
> That MAY be a little quick, and may actually inform WotC's design process to ensure that- barring a pressing need based on market realities or a phenomenal revolution in game design- that 5Ed should _*either*_ not substantially vary from 4ED_* or*_ not come out before 2014.



... or 5E should build off of 3.5E--which we've all mastered by now.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pemerton said:


> What I find a little strange about this (not your post, but the idea of structured resolution as a teaching tool) is that, generally, HeroWars/Quest would _not_ be suggested as a game that a novice GM could run as a training tool.
> 
> I think it can be quite hard to balance the resolution of the situation with the injection of complication in the way mandated by the structure.




I think it can be quite hard to do it gracefully, and in a manner that will be appreciated by experience players. Yet, if my almost 12 year old nephew suddenly expressed a heretofore hidden urge to run a game for his friends, I'd hand him Mouse Guard. I wouldn't even think twice. If he was 14, I'd consider heavily D&D Basic (RC version). And then probably still hand him MG. If my wife (played much, barely ran anything) wanted to run a game for some of her friends (all never played RPGs), also Mouse Guard. 

And it is not necessarily because MG is easy or even catering to newbies. Rather, it is because lots of people aren't me--who was better off starting with Basic, and could have only been helped by being able to get Runequest and Rolemaster and Hero and so on, earlier than I did. 

Those MG games would be clunky when they started (much like my first Basic floundering), but as they improved, those players would already be developing the RPG skills which they are naturally suited for. Those of us with experience, I think, tend to underestimate just how much our D&D, Runequest, etc. experiences have influenced us.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TarionzCousin said:


> ... or 5E should build off of 3.5E--which we've all mastered by now.




Were I at Wizards, I'd argue for parallel RPG lines, much like car companies have multiple badges and drink companies have LOTS of brands.  Each line would follow a different stream- one 3.5, one 4Ed.


----------



## pemerton

Crazy Jerome, I don't know Mouse Guard other than by reputation - I think of it as Burning Wheel lite, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.

I readily agree that I'm heavily influenced by Basic/AD&D, RQ, RM, Traveller etc. I'm interested to hear more about _what it is_ in MG that you see as significantly different - the structured resolution? the relationship between resolution mechanics and activity (eg there are rules for stuff other than combat)? something else? all of the above?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

pemerton said:


> Crazy Jerome, I don't know Mouse Guard other than by reputation - I think of it as Burning Wheel lite, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.
> 
> I readily agree that I'm heavily influenced by Basic/AD&D, RQ, RM, Traveller etc. I'm interested to hear more about _what it is_ in MG that you see as significantly different - the structured resolution? the relationship between resolution mechanics and activity (eg there are rules for stuff other than combat)? something else? all of the above?




The key is the MG is not BW-lite, but BW extremely streamlined and cleaned up (not always the same things), and then focused like a laser on a particular setting. Top that off with superb production values, excellent explanations, and a setting that happens to appeal to a lot of the same people that could like narrative structure. I understand the boxed set improved on the original even more, but I honestly doubt that--mainly because I have a hard time imagining how MG could have been much improved. 

MG is more structured than BW, and the structure is simplified to be basically the same structure for all conflict resolution, whether combat or otherwise. Heck, it is even organized different than most RPGs. Character generation is an optional section in the back of the book. You are expected by default to use pregens.

If it helps to understand where I'm coming from with these thoughts, let me also say that I would not hand MG to my 11 year-old daughter, if she was going to run a game. I'd hand her D&D RC or something similar. She thinks a lot like I do, and like me at that age, her mind is fully capable of absorbing the details for D&D, but also prone to zone out the big picture in pursuit of those details. After she plays around with the details for awhile, she will start classifying things and improving her broader understanding of the game.

She was playing Agricola solo night before last--trying to get better so that she can come closer than 7 points to my score the next time we play.


----------



## Lanefan

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Were I at Wizards, I'd argue for parallel RPG lines, much like car companies have multiple badges and drink companies have LOTS of brands.  Each line would follow a different stream- one 3.5, one 4Ed.



You had me until the last 4 quasi-words.

Change 'em to "one 1e, one [fill in as appropriate]e" and I'm right there with you.

Lanefan


----------

