Quote from: HaffrungYou're the one presuming anyone who says different editions of D&D are better choices for particular styles of play is a fool or a liar.

That's not what I said.

Quote from: HaffrungYou believe people who disagree with you do so out of ignorance or dishonesty.

In some cases, sure.

It's ironic, however, that you chose to respond with, basically, "Pot, kettle, black," given your posting history with 4e. You've been, shall we say, more than a little strident and dismissive to those who have disagreed with you. If someone was going to call me on my post, it probably should have been someone with clean hands, so to speak.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiShrug. Why not put, "I'm a jackass when people disagree with me" in yours?

Seanchai

I said "playstyles" assuming it to mean "the styles in which people play." You read it as "ego trip." It's not disagreement, it's a fundamental difference in vocabulary.

Quote from: SpikePutting aside the snark for the moment (I grow weary of the topics that dominate this site...I am reduced to sniping....:what: )

Consider 'Exalted': Powerful demigod roaming around smaking the living daylights out of creation, right?  I mean, much more powerful than any edition of D&D, no bones about it. Starting characters bitch slap minor Gods for fun, dude!

Only... not so much.  Given that the setting equivilent of Goblins (that is, a low level threat that works best, even at beginner levels, in large groups and STILL should be a managable threat...) can wipe out whole villages of 'NPC's' without even a scratch.  Once you start peeling away the fluff of what various things are (this is a goblin, that is a dragon, that over there? Yeah, that's a God...) mechanically, the threat to any given party is roughly the same, be it a OD&D game where having a vial of poison is gamebreakingly powerful, to 3e to fucking Exalted, man...  You still have little shits that jump you in large numbers and will probably be lucky to seriously threaten even one character, and you have big scary shit you seriously shouldn't mess with until you hit 'endgame'... We CHOSE to add descriptions to these threats that make them seem stronger or weaker (housecats...) but really, they are just mechanics scaled to provide a given level of comparative challenge within the system in use.

This even holds true for 'Superhero games'. All the fancy powers and colorful costumes are dressing for a given level of threat (either way... players can have a 'threat level' if you like...).

So yes: Power level IS entirely relative. I can make a '1st level dragon' out of a fucking orc.  Mechanically all that is really important is how much pain it dishes out and how much it can take, what I call it, as the GM, depends on me.

Obviously simplified but still true.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're saying that Exalted and BD&D are effectively the same power level because typical combats have the same level of threat. I'm talking about what the PCs can do in relation to a bog standard human, not how often they get hurt.

Exalted: starting PCs are practically gods in comparison
3.x (and what we've heard of 4e): 1st - 2nd level PCs are badasses, sometimes even with infinite use magic
BD&D: 1st - 2nd level characters are barely stronger than a commoner, and if they have any magic they get 1 or 2 uses per day at beast.

In terms of starting character power level, the playstyle of D&D's editions has changed. I'm not saying it's good or bad (I like it, others don't). I'm just saying it's pretty easy to tell that it happened.

Quote from: James McMurrayWe're just going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're saying that Exalted and BD&D are effectively the same power level because typical combats have the same level of threat. I'm talking about what the PCs can do in relation to a bog standard human, not how often they get hurt.

Exalted: starting PCs are practically gods in comparison
3.x (and what we've heard of 4e): 1st - 2nd level PCs are badasses, sometimes even with infinite use magic
BD&D: 1st - 2nd level characters are barely stronger than a commoner, and if they have any magic they get 1 or 2 uses per day at beast.

In terms of starting character power level, the playstyle of D&D's editions has changed. I'm not saying it's good or bad (I like it, others don't). I'm just saying it's pretty easy to tell that it happened.

You are missing my point then: Comparison to 'NPC Humans' is sort of pointless. We can agree that D&D has long LONG since abandoned the idea of NPC humans being remotely like 'real humans'. Housecats, man, how many times do I need to point out the folly of any NPC commoner owning a housecat (d3 pts of damage per attack, two? attacks a round, something like AC 20...) or OD&D NPCs having ONE.MOTHER.FUCKING.HITPOINT!!!  

How, exactly does that compare then to Exalted? D&D adventurers, by comparison to commoners, have always been walking demigods by HP alone.

But again: Not the point. Wether I call a threat a goblin, an 8-tailed mole hound, or a God of War is unimportant mechanically. Power level of play is an illusion we lay over the mechanics to make it interesting.   Complaining that the power level of the game is 'too high' is therefore somewhat amusing in its nonspeceficity.

Quote from: WarthurYeah, but a) they're not supporting as many settings as TSR did back in the day, which was the whole point of the Dancey strategy - paring down the number of settings that Wizards was providing direct support for to a managable number, and b) many of the adventures seem to be designed to provide smooth introductions to the 4E system, which sounds very sensible to me - people will want to have examples of how 4E adventures are constructed.

Oh yes, it doesn't look right now like it will be the old days of TSR. But it sure looks like, by this release schedule, adventures and settings are going to be released more agressively than they were under Dancey's watch in the early days of 3e. And I think that's the smart thing to do.

I'll also be curious to see if the rumored "1 setting per year" is actually more than a rumor.

Quote from: WarthurWhat "OGL mistake" are you thinking of?

I've always believed that WotC was too generous and too liberal in their opening and licensing of the D&D core engine. I believe they have realized that and are slowly tightening the grip.

Quote from: SpikeYou are missing my point then: Comparison to 'NPC Humans' is sort of pointless. We can agree that D&D has long LONG since abandoned the idea of NPC humans being remotely like 'real humans'. Housecats, man, how many times do I need to point out the folly of any NPC commoner owning a housecat (d3 pts of damage per attack, two? attacks a round, something like AC 20...) or OD&D NPCs having ONE.MOTHER.FUCKING.HITPOINT!!!  

How, exactly does that compare then to Exalted? D&D adventurers, by comparison to commoners, have always been walking demigods by HP alone.

But again: Not the point. Wether I call a threat a goblin, an 8-tailed mole hound, or a God of War is unimportant mechanically. Power level of play is an illusion we lay over the mechanics to make it interesting.   Complaining that the power level of the game is 'too high' is therefore somewhat amusing in its nonspeceficity.

It may or may not be an illusion, but it's a very pervasive one. Or are you saying that everyone who likes the power level of D&D also likes the power level of Exalted because they're the same? That everyone is equally happy playing Superheros or Roman Legionnaires? Or for that matter that they're all equally happy with the power level of 1st level D&D vs. 20th?

If we can agree that's not the case, then we've agreed that playstyles in power levels exist, regardless of what the underlying threat levels might seem to say. and if we agree on that, we're just a few short breaths from possibly agreeing that the power level of D&D has changed, and hence its support level for one measurement of Playstyles has changed.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt may or may not be an illusion, but it's a very pervasive one. Or are you saying that everyone who likes the power level of D&D also likes the power level of Exalted because they're the same? That everyone is equally happy playing Superheros or Roman Legionnaires? Or for that matter that they're all equally happy with the power level of 1st level D&D vs. 20th?

I'm saying that they are happy with the illusions we place over the mechanics. The illusion is important, even necessary, otherwise we are just rolling dice for the hell of it. But mechanically, no, there is not much difference between the threats encountered at any given level in any given game.  Again, its a bit simplified.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf we can agree that's not the case, then we've agreed that playstyles in power levels exist, regardless of what the underlying threat levels might seem to say. and if we agree on that, we're just a few short breaths from possibly agreeing that the power level of D&D has changed, and hence its support level for one measurement of Playstyles has changed.

This is a bit harder. OD&D you obviously weren't going to 'fey step' around the battlefield (how often can he do that? Once a day? Once a battle? At will?), but then again the 'average human' had that one whopping hit point, while a fighter had (on average) 5-7 or so... at first level.

3e D&D might seem a bit more powerful, but if we take our mythical 'average commoner' as a baseline, not so much, where a commoner has a 1d8 hit die (as I recall...) and thus, in all probability, 8 hit points. A starting fighter? 12-14, probably. In terms of hit points, he actually lost ground.

Now: Going by SAGA, front loaded hit points at lower levels means that fighter probably has something like 40 hp, but we don't know the baseline commoner yet (well, SAGA probably gives us some advice, but I don't recall seeing it...).  Maybe he gained ground, maybe he lost it.

What I see? Second level characters struggling to face Goblins.

When I look back to 3E, what do I see? Second level character struggling to face Goblins.

When I look back to Old Skool what do I see? Second level characters struggling to face Goblins.

Power Creep? If so the Goblins are benefitting too.  Which brings my argument full circle: Power levels are relative. Goblins are still a threat to second level characters, the only thing that has changed is that more 'special abilities' are in play, apparently.

If I ran exalted and I made 2 essesnce Goblins, then goblins are a threat to low level solars, the only difference being that the swords are bigger.

Which, ironically enough, makes this debate about having 'too many options'....

A 3.x commoner has 1d4 hit points, and doesn't get max.

But you can just compare what the characters can do and leave the NPCs out of it if you prefer. No 2nd level PC in a BD&D game is going to be able to teleport any distance, even once per millenium simply by willing it. No Second level medic will have access to infinite healing just by standing near the wounded.

I'm not disagreeing with you about threat levels. I agree that challenges are comparative, and will average out to the same across most levels of play. You are 100% correct when you say that you can create something, call it a goblin, and make it a threat to a starting Solar. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm calling the preferred power level playstyle (for want of a snazzy term). I'm talking about comparative power levels between the games, not within them.

I guess what I'm saying is

1) the kewl toys a character has matter to most players.
2) the kewl toys available in different editions of D&D, especially at earlier levels, has changed
3) therefore, different versions of D&D support different preferred power levels

Quote from: SpikeWhich, ironically enough, makes this debate about having 'too many options'....

Actually, I'd say it's a debate about "too many options... that I don't particularly care for." :razz:

Quote from: James McMurray1) the kewl toys a character has matter to most players.
2) the kewl toys available in different editions of D&D, especially at earlier levels, has changed
3) therefore, different versions of D&D support different preferred power levels

That's not power level though, that's just trappings and flavour of power level.  It's simply HOW the power is presented and how it manifests itself.  The relative threat level isn't much different - how it's dealt with... well, that's something else entirely.

Quote from: SpikePower Creep? If so the Goblins are benefitting too.  Which brings my argument full circle: Power levels are relative. Goblins are still a threat to second level characters, the only thing that has changed is that more 'special abilities' are in play, apparently.

Which is a pretty big change for some of us. I know that gaming culture today presumes that players want arrays and combos of cinematic superpowers to play with. And that's cool. But that wasn't always the case. Some people do genuinely enjoy playing (or at least starting with) characters that are more like normal humans, and who have narrow options. It's not a mainstream preference today, to be sure. But it was the default premise of the earliest iterations of D&D. You became a hero. And only the spellcasters had extraordinary/superheroic powers.

But hey, I'm a guy who thinks the fights in Spartacus look cooler than the ones in Gladiator, the charge of the Bedouin in Lawrence of Arabia is more awe-inspiring than the charge of the Roharrim in Lord of the Rings, and the 300 is an exhibition of titanic bad taste. I'm fine with the fact that popular geek culture caters to different tastes than mine. But I don't let assertions that "it has always been thus" go unchallenged.

Quote from: architect.zeroThat's not power level though, that's just trappings and flavour of power level.  It's simply HOW the power is presented and how it manifests itself.  The relative threat level isn't much different - how it's dealt with... well, that's something else entirely.

Then in those terms:

1) the trappings have changed
2)people care about trappings
3) therefor different editions have different support for differences in preferred trappings.

I don't really care what we call it. I'm not looking to create new terminology. All I'm saying is "that guy teleports, this one doesn't, some people will prefer one over the other."

Quote from: James McMurrayThen in those terms:

1) the trappings have changed
2)people care about trappings
3) therefor different editions have different support for differences in preferred trappings.

I don't really care what we call it. I'm not looking to create new terminology. All I'm saying is "that guy teleports, this one doesn't, some people will prefer one over the other."

Well, that just about sums up the whole damn argument, doesn't it?

I like Chocolate!
I like Vanilla!
DIE!!!! Fucking Vanilla liking scum!!!
TO HELL WITH YOU, CHOCOLATE BIGOT!!!!

What a fucking waste of effort.

Quote from: architect.zeroWell, that just about sums up the whole damn argument, doesn't it?

I like Chocolate!
I like Vanilla!
DIE!!!! Fucking Vanilla liking scum!!!
TO HELL WITH YOU, CHOCOLATE BIGOT!!!!

What a fucking waste of effort.

Sort of what I've been saying.

James: I sort of used you to bounce an idea around that's been floating in my head for a while. I expanded it a bit in the Theory Forum if you like.

But yeah: Trappings, not power level.

Quote from: architect.zeroWell, that just about sums up the whole damn argument, doesn't it?

Which is all I was trying to do. I'm not trying to say which play style is best, just illustrate that, contrary to one opinion, they have changed.

Well, that and kill some time waiting for the rest of the game group to arrive so we can do our best to survive a Warhammer trap dungeon without any kind of Search skills.