Quote from: RPGPunditThe issue isn't about coherence, its about killing off 2/3rds of what D&D used to be able to do and be about, because certain people believe it should never have been that way in the first place.

I shouldn'ta said coherence, I'm not sure what that means.

"Killing off" is loaded language. I'm finding it easier than ever to figure out what OD&D is able to do, and what the people who played it back in the day thought it was about. In terms of communication between fans, thoughtful analysis, historical insight, and access to published materials, we're in an OD&D golden age. 4e couldn't kill that.

Quote from: RPGPunditHow is limiting possibilities ever something that makes for a better game?

You live in a happier world than me if you've never played with a DM whose ability to make D&D suck for all involved didn't call out for an immediate, preferably fatal, limiting of his possibilities.

The trend towards the MMRPG raises the floor for bad DMs. The worst game of 3.5 is worlds better than the worst game of AD&D, because the DM's latitude to fuck with your basic kill-monsters fun was sharply curtailed. 4E just continues raising the floor. The skirmish-miniatures fun looks to be even more impervious to the asshole behind the screen, and it may even protect you from the other players' attempts to suck. (Cleric is a suicidal jerk? No problem, you've got second wind.)

I think that 4e might not do enough to tell players to aspire to the ceiling, but that's not the same as killing anything. And we agree that a lot of the best ways to climb up off the floor may have been mistaken for dangerously high piles of scrap lumber by the 4e design team.

Quote from: Tavisit's not surprising that 4e managed to take D&D much further towards the same-experience-for-everyone ideal.

From having dealt with this issue in the LARP world for 10 years the problem with this is that it cuts the high points as well as raises the low point. That building these expectations into the game will frustrate those who are good at DMing and drive out of the hobby. I say out of the hobby because for the vast majority D&D is the one and only RPG that exists.

Also the mechanics used to level the experience are far more complex then original D&D particularly the Moldavy/Mentzer version that was primary gateway for many players. That this complexity will be a detriment to the hobby as a whole.

It is my contention that D&D represented by the combined rules of the B/X series is probably was the best version ever made for getting new players to play.

Quote from: TavisYou live in a happier world than me if you've never played with a DM whose ability to make D&D suck for all involved didn't call out for an immediate, preferably fatal, limiting of his possibilities.

How is that the games fault? How is that not his own fault, and your (As in your group) shared responsibility?

Look I think the Pundit is pretty full of hot air most of the time, but you're not making sense at all here. If the game isn't fun, then fix what's not fun.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe issue isn't about coherence, its about killing off 2/3rds of what D&D used to be able to do and be about, because certain people believe it should never have been that way in the first place.

Yes, a new edition tends to be ... well ... new.

Quote from: RPGPunditHow is limiting possibilities ever something that makes for a better game?

Unlimited possibilities begets lack of focus.  Wise constraints give people the freedom to apply themselves to the same project with confidence.

For example, a game that limits players to making characters that are (1) fighter, (2) magic user, (3) cleric or (4) thief has a different focus than one that lets people combine subclasses (fighter-3/herbalist-2/shadowpoet-2).  If the goal is to get a party of characters who can meet at a tavern and go on a fantasy adventure, some people might argue that limiting the possibilities of character creation helps people to get on the same page.

While I agree with you Tony, I think Tavis is discussing an entirely separate issue: behavior at the table.

Quote from: estarFrom having dealt with this issue in the LARP world for 10 years the problem with this is that it cuts the high points as well as raises the low point. That building these expectations into the game will frustrate those who are good at DMing and drive out of the hobby. I say out of the hobby because for the vast majority D&D is the one and only RPG that exists.

Y'know ... if the new edition drives out one GM with twenty years of past play in them for every kid it recruits with twenty years of future play in them ... I'm actually okay with that.

I think it's likely to do no such thing, FWIW ... but if it did, that turnover wouldn't bug me.  Would it bug other folks?

Quote from: TonyLBY'know ... if the new edition drives out one GM with twenty years of past play in them for every kid it recruits with twenty years of future play in them ... I'm actually okay with that.

I think it's likely to do no such thing, FWIW ... but if it did, that turnover wouldn't bug me.  Would it bug other folks?

No I am saying that it is more likely that the Kid it recruits will DM it and go blah and abandon the game more often than prior versions.

Quote from: estarNo I am saying that it is more likely that the Kid it recruits will DM it and go blah and abandon the game more often than prior versions.

Yep. You hear a lot about what's fun with playing 4E. Not so much about what's fun about DMing it. Sure, it's not as heavy as 3.x (which I couldn't stand DMing either). But adjudicating a tactical miniatures game doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I'm sure lots of existing DMs will play along because they're hardcores and they'd rather DM as a service than not play at all. But how are you going to get the kids who play MMOs to buy into the idea of GMing the fun for their friends if they don't get a creativity kick in the process? Or is the paradigm for 4E a bunch of aging and desperate DMs refereeing games for MMO newbies?

Quote from: estarNo I am saying that it is more likely that the Kid it recruits will DM it and go blah and abandon the game more often than prior versions.

Oh, I understand that hypothetical.  And that one would, indeed, be bad:  all loss and no gain.  In the same way, the hypothetical where the game recruits new kids who play life-long, while keeping its base of entrenched fans ... that one's all gain and no loss.  But since none of us knows what will happen, all of these are hypotheticals.

I'm talking specifically about the hypothetical where there is some loss and some gain.  Like, I don't mind old farts walking away from the game as it gets "dumbed down" to a level that their younger counterparts enjoy.  Maybe that's not what will happen, but if it does, that's okay with me.

Quote from: HaffrungBut adjudicating a tactical miniatures game doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

Playing any (fair) build of monsters that you want, and single-handedly opposing a whole team of your friends as they try to defeat you ... hrm ... actually, that sounds like a LOT of fun to me.  Different tastes, I expect.

Quote from: TonyLBPlaying any (fair) build of monsters that you want, and single-handedly opposing a whole team of your friends as they try to defeat you ... hrm ... actually, that sounds like a LOT of fun to me.  Different tastes, I expect.

Hold on, I thought adversarial play was outdated - a characteristic of an asshole DM who wants to spoil the players' fun.

Is that what the 4e folks are saying?  Or is it from somewhere else?

Quote from: Serious PaulWhile I agree with you Tony, I think Tavis is discussing an entirely separate issue: behavior at the table.

Only in the sense that trying to follow the rules of the game is a behavior people exhibit at the table.

I'm looking at combat because it's the common denominator in D&D, the main thing you can count on being able to do.

If an OD&D DM exercises no creative adjucation, combat is a pretty flavorless affair. And if they make rulings that suck, out of inexperience, spite, or whatever, they can make a good case that they're acting within the rules.

In 3.5, combat can be interesting even if the DM doesn't exercise any creative adjucation because there are more tactical-game options. And because the DM is given less responsibility for judgement according to the rules, their bad judgement can't have as much impact on combat.

I agree that there are lots of other kinds of fun to be had with D&D than combat. But, since we all know ways to have that fun with other editions or other RPGs, isn't our concern here with what message about how to play the world's most popular RPG is being passed on to new players?

I'm not so sure I'd agree with what you're saying, but I also admit I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say. This could simply be my fault-I'll admit I'm having one of those funny days. However...

QUOTE=Tavis]But, since we all know ways to have that fun with other editions or other RPGs, isn't our concern here with what message about how to play the world's most popular RPG is being passed on to new players?[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure I disagree with this. It's not my responsibility to pass anything on to anyone, let alone the next generation of gamers-who most assuredly don't need my help.

I'm also not very altruistic-I'm generally not overly concerned about other peoples welfare, and I am uncertain as to how it relates to the game. But that's me-I'd no more begrudge you holding this position, than I would anyone else.

Quote from: TavisThe trend towards the MMRPG raises the floor for bad DMs. The worst game of 3.5 is worlds better than the worst game of AD&D, because the DM's latitude to fuck with your basic kill-monsters fun was sharply curtailed. 4E just continues raising the floor. The skirmish-miniatures fun looks to be even more impervious to the asshole behind the screen, and it may even protect you from the other players' attempts to suck. (Cleric is a suicidal jerk? No problem, you've got second wind.)

Ah yes, and here comes the hatred/contempt for GMs. Not to mention a touch of player-contempt too... so I guess in your conception the only people who really know what they're doing are the Blessed Game Designers, who's word we must obey by playing the game as they envision it?

Right... but none of this is influenced by Forge-think, right?

QuoteI think that 4e might not do enough to tell players to aspire to the ceiling, but that's not the same as killing anything.

In this game, as it is presented, you cannot play in a world where the dangerousness of monsters or the value of treasures are based on things that make sense in the world and its history.  So essentially, you cannot play a campaign of world-exploration, which used to be one of the foremost styles of D&D play.

RPGPundit