Quote from: Warthur;644954and I'd be very aware that a large part of that success really belongs to the previous generation at Wizards, who made a game so robust that it becomes the number one RPG even if it's published by a different company under a different title.

Not really. It was due to the arrogance of Wotc to think it could have D&D fans substitute their game for a monthly subscription to a virtual board game decorated with D&D art.

Quote from: xech;645034Not really. It was due to the arrogance of Wotc to think it could have D&D fans substitute their game for a monthly subscription to a virtual board game decorated with D&D art.

You're wrong in your mischaracterization of 4e, but you knew that.  I thought it would be impolite to not acknowledge your trolling, since you worked so hard to get a response.

Quote from: Mistwell;645043You're wrong in your mischaracterization of 4e, but you knew that.  I thought it would be impolite to not acknowledge your trolling, since you worked so hard to get a response.

No, I am just stating the fact. The so much advertized virtual table top was a grid platform and 4e is a grid game designed for it. The whole fucking point of 4e's character options (powers and what have you) is mastering the options of a tactical grid game.
This is not a roleplaying game, not D&D.

Quote from: xech;645044No, I am just stating the fact. The so much advertized virtual table top was a grid platform and 4e is a grid game designed for it. The whole fucking point of 4e's character options (powers and what have you) is mastering the options of a tactical grid game.
This is not a roleplaying game, not D&D.

You said it was a boardgame.  Now you're calling it a grid game, as if the two are synonyms.  They are not.  You might argue 4e was a wargame (I think that is inaccurate as well, but at least it's a cogent argument), but not that it's a boardgame.  It simply was not a boardgame, by any reasonable definition.  

I get it was not your thing.  I'd tell you why your opinion is not fact, but I think I've fed your trolling enough.  I hope you appreciate that I put the effort in purely for your satisfaction.  I didn't want you to feel like you got nothing from your troll.

Oh mistwell, do stop hitting yourself.

Quote from: Mistwell;645047You said it was a boardgame.  Now you're calling it a grid game, as if the two are synonyms.  They are not.  You might argue 4e was a wargame (I think that is inaccurate as well, but at least it's a cogent argument), but not that it's a boardgame.  It simply was not a boardgame, by any reasonable definition.  

Are you fucking kidding me?
What is a board game? What definite characteristics does a boardgame have that 4e doesn't share? Same question about wargames. Wargames are some kind of boardgame.
Roleplaying games are something else.Why? Because roleplaying games are about role immersion and not about winning point balanced tactical game "encounters".

Quote from: xech;645050Because roleplaying games are about role immersion and not about winning point balanced tactical game "encounters".

So far as I can tell, combat has always been the central focus of D&D, in all its incarnations.

4e may have been a bit more overt than earlier editions, in that regard, making it quite clearly the bread and butter of the game, but I think that was a misguided attempt to focus on what they thought people wanted from their TTRPGs.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645053So far as I can tell, combat has always been the central focus of D&D, in all its incarnations.

Combat in D&D wasn't a point balanced encounter affair. Combat or avoiding combat in D&D was a part of adventuring. In 4e adventure is just a part of grid combat: that is, the purpose of adventure is a narrative to drive you from one grid combat encounter to the next.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645053I think that was a misguided attempt to focus on what they thought people wanted from their TTRPGs.

They wanted to succeed on selling D&D as a thing of a grid environment (a grid game) so to have people subscribe to their virtual table top.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645053So far as I can tell, combat has always been the central focus of D&D, in all its incarnations.

Wrong.

Quote from: Benoist;645062Wrong.

Also one thing is talking about combat in general, and another thing the grid focused combat of 4e which is just a tactical board game and fails to have you simulate a fantasy action role/character (dissociated mechanics and what have you).

Quote from: xech;645061Combat in D&D wasn't a point balanced encounter affair.

No, and I didn't say that it has been. However, combat has been a strong, central theme to the game for what seems like it's entire existence.

Of course, as I've noted elsewhere, my experience is only with 1e onward. So perhaps whatever came before that was less so.

Quote from: Benoist;645062Wrong.

D&D can trace its mechanical roots to wargaming. That implies a strong combat focus.

Advancement mechanics have almost universally been related to "killing things and taking their stuff." Now you can argue that the "gp = xp" formula did not directly reward combat, and yes, technically you'd be correct... but the game has also not been shy about telling players that monsters have lots of loot.

The entire concept of "player skill," in the Gygaxian context, runs directly counter to the idea of roleplaying. It is metagaming, through and through, and I can think of few concepts that are as diametrically opposed to the concept of roleplaying as that.

D&D is largely about combat. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - it's not meant to be a judgmental statement - but trying to deny that seems silly.

Quote from: xech;645064(dissociated mechanics and what have you).

Disassociated mechanics are another thing entirely. And yeah, 4e did embrace that concept wholesale, which made it IMO a significantly worse game than earlier incarnations.

Quote from: xech;645064Also one thing is talking about combat in general, and another thing the grid focused combat of 4e which is just a tactical board game and fails to have you simulate a fantasy action role/character (dissociated mechanics and what have you).

Yes. I think you'd find most sessions of most D&D players back in the 70s and 80s were mainly combat. Not only, but mainly. About 50 per cent combat, 30 per cent exploration, 20 per cent misc roleplay. Looking at an adventure like Hall of the Fire Giant King, it's hard to imagine combat not taking up most of the gameplay time.

But that's a far cry from making the combat grid the focus of all player attention and game mechanics. And a game session with lots of 10-20 minutes combats with exploration and roleplay in between is going to feel very different from a game session with one or two 2+ hour combats.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645067The entire concept of "player skill," in the Gygaxian context, runs directly counter to the idea of roleplaying. It is metagaming, through and through, and I can think of few concepts that are as diametrically opposed to the concept of roleplaying as that.

D&D is largely about combat. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - it's not meant to be a judgmental statement - but trying to deny that seems silly.

The notion that early D&D wasn't mainly about combat is one of the those persistent memes kicked out by a certain element of the OSR crowd - often people who didn't even play in the 70s and early 80s and have gotten all of their ideas about the early game from reading forums in the last few years.

Early D&D was about exploration. You explored dungeons and the wilderness, faced dangers doing so, and managed the risk as a property of your player's skill at survival in the ongoing campaign. Combat in this context is but one of the possible dangers faced, and one you would rather avoid whenever possible, in fact. If you have not avoided combat in some fashion or other over your first game sessions, or mitigated the threats by using actual tactics, including retreats, henchmen and hirelings, pitting two enemies against each other while you stand back and the like, you are going to die and never see your character reach higher levels.

The XP gained from coin and loot in fact far exceeds (in a 2 for 1 proportion, on average) what you will gain from the creatures you will have defeated in combat, following the DMG/MM guidelines regarding stocking, treasures on creatures, in their various lairs, etc.

Saying that D&D's main focus was always combat is reductio ad absurdum that only leads to parodies of the real game, as the recent design trends that gave us say, fourth edition, have proven in spades, as far as I'm concerned.