Over in my Landmarks thread, Kyle Aaron has challenged me regarding my landmark stating that:

"it is self-evident that games that have a broad spectrum of playstyles (as D&D does) are by definition successful games."

I would presume, really, that he's challenging the "as D&D does" statement, not the axiom itself.  And ultimately, the axiom will prove whether D&D 4e fits it or not; if D&D 4e ends up being a long-term flop, it will have been, in no small part, because it did not support enough of a spectrum of playstyles. That's obvious.

But, to speed up the process of time a little bit here: what is your opinion? Bonus points if you can back up your work: show me exactly whether D&D 4e supports or does not support a wide variety of playstyles, and prove it.

RPGPundit

Well, I assume you're talking about D&D 4e without house rules, yea? As it stands, without house rules 4e sucks for gritty, low-magic games. Healing surges and crazy powers for everyone sorta kicks that in the balls. So Game of Thrones style games, for example, are out the window, IMO. While reading the PHB and DMG I started jotting down changes to the rules and with house ruling you can do it. The system is better for stuff like Earthdawn as opposed to Wheel of Time, though.

-=Grim=-

I'd say that it has made a decisive move away from a "game as simulation" or "rules as laws of physics" model that I prefer. I commonly site the main fingerprint of this move, but here it goes again: the "everything is a square" effect of making diagonal moves equivalent to squares and making area attacks square.

Quote from: GrimJesta;228543Well, I assume you're talking about D&D 4e without house rules, yea? As it stands, without house rules 4e sucks for gritty, low-magic games. Healing surges and crazy powers for everyone sorta kicks that in the balls.

-=Grim=-

Disagree:
I haven't had a problem with this. I ban pc magic users and don't give out magic items, same as with any frpg. The "powers" in most cases with fighter characters  are fancy names for "I hit him with my sword" really. Healing surges have a much less dramatic impact on the game than even I would have thought. That said- I've found that a damage track (with the affiliated death spiral) yields results far more "gritty" than any hit point system. Ymmv ect...

4e is no 3e, in terms of breadth of scope, but I picked up 2e out of curiosity recently, and I'd say that 4e is at least as broad as 2e.

I'd disagree with folks' assessment on healing surges. If long term resource management isn't the focus, and people still die as frequently or more, it would look to me like the individual fights were rougher. 3e gets to be a pain at higher levels because to introduce the risk of death, you have to wear PCs down with fight after fight after fight after fight. You know? In 4e, you've got this massive pool of hp, but you can only take a small fraction of that in any given fight before going down. The numbers are bigger, but the same goes for damage I think. Oh, and healing got massively scaled down, from the looks of it.

What's a play style?

4e can handle all sorts of different games, but it's definitely geared towards high adventure, medium+ magic, cooperative party play. If you want to play another type of game, there's almost certainly something better out there to use.

That said though, 4e won't to flop. It's a fun game that appeals to a lot of people. It'll last the 5 years until 4.5, or 8 - 10 until 5th. Hasbro has sunk too much money into it to let it fall apart without a fight.

IMHO, 4e D&D doesn't support a broad spectrum of playstyles.  Currently, it supports only one- combat board game.  I've played now for about a month and 10 sessions at various characters levels, and I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather play Axis and Allies with my time.

It has been proposed that combat is now more streamlined and quicker than 3.X D&D, but I have not noticed and significant decrease in the lengths of combats.  At low levels, the power choices are few, so it flows a little quicker.  However, we just played several sessions at 20-21 level characters, and the power choices bog down combat just as well as 3.X D&D from my point of view.

The thing that I like most about 4e D&D combat is that damage now scales with Hit Points, or vice-versa.

As far as gritty and death possiblity goes, it isn't there for 4e in my observations.  Thus far, not one of my characters has been close to death.  Second Wind, healing surges, and action points make nearly impossible for a character to be killed if used well.  In 3.X D&D, especially at low levels, character death was a real and serious possibility.  I just don't see it, or have yet to experience it, in my 4e games thus far.

In all seriousness, I feel detached from my 4e characters, or rather, not the same kind of intense attachment to my 3.X characters.  My 4e characters are like the shoe from Monopoly to me.

Quote from: James McMurray;228625Hasbro has sunk too much money into it to let it fall apart without a fight.

So you're saying they're going to have to fight to keep it afloat?

!i!

Well, I finally received the core books in the mail friday.

I haven't read through everything yet, but I think the play style is fairly limited without House Rules, as it was stated before.

The truth is that it's how I felt about 3.5 also... There are no expanded rules for social combat and in 3.5 and 4e, the die mechanic for gathering information is to roll, rather than roleplay...

That really bugged me about the GM I had for 3.5... He used the gather information mechanic rather than put us in a situation where we could interact with NPCs on a character level.

The fact that there IS a mechanic to avoid social situations doesn't mean that people don't roleplay through PC/NPC interactions... But it does not promote it either.

4e does something a bit different: there is no 'Gather Information' skill where players can bypass actually interacting with an NPC. Instead, we see 'skill challenges', which can turn even the most simplistic task, like talking to a local about this or that, into a non-combat encounter.
Alas, it does not seem to promote roleplaying, since some advice found in the DMG is to skip to non-boring encounters, which may or may not mean NPC/PC interactions.

Any play style is possible, but the basic rules obviously focus on 'the cool stuff your character can do' if you're a player, and 'the cool stuff you can throw at the PC group without spoiling their fun' as well as 'cool stuff PCs get for overcoming encounters' if you're the GM.

All in all, the game is very PC party focused, which is what I assumed D&D had always been about...
I'm pretty new to D&D in general, so to me, the DM's personal play style always seemed to make more of a difference than the rules in a given rulebook.

The problem I see is this: the core books offer an entry point for groups of players (plus the DM), to form on their own, without being introduced to roleplaying by someone else, in which case the play style will be very much limited to the cliche of killing monsters and taking their stuff. That's the inherant play style, and in the end, why make it more than that? It's D&D.

Offense:

4e core book texts piss on anything that is

I) simulating a fantasy world
II) the strategic dimensions D&D used to have
III) deliberately concentrating on WotC-approved fun-sources

Evidence:

ad I)

Quote"You won’t find a world map in this or any of the core D&D rulebooks. The world in which the D&D game takes place doesn’t have a map—not until
you create one. And you shouldn’t feel in any great hurry to create one. A map is important only when the characters seek out the places shown on it."

SOURCE: 4e DMG p. 148

QuoteThe size of a settlement is largely a matter of flavor, but it can also influence the goods and services available there. Since even small villages spring into being along
trade routes, it’s safe to assume that characters can find what they want or need to buy in practically any settlement, given enough time. Don’t let a community’s
size get in the way of your characters’ enjoyment of the game by forcing them to travel hundreds of miles out of their way to buy the magic items they want.

SOURCE: 4e DMG p. 152


ad II)
- Vancian casting is gone
- explicit concentration on appropriates/level for everything
- total lack of motivations & background for monsters/antagonists
- an explicit & implicit disregard for any record-keeping (compare for example to lengthy record-keeping and simulation advice in the DMG and FRCS of 3e)
- published adventures
- the power replenishment and healing rules: purposefully modelled to make consequences across combats of minimal impact

ad III) see the many discussions on this site, ENworld on 4e, as well as author´s blogs. The DMG is also full of snippets. I can present dozens of examples, but I assume it is accepted and general knowledge that: "4e cannot be everything to all people", according to mearls.

I don't think you will see too many historical simulations with D&D4. This was definitely possible under D20. But you know what? I never saw too many people doing that with D20. I would see products for sale, but never hear about much more than a one-shot going on.

However, as a fantasy adventure game it works extremely well from lighthearted to serious, and it's more manageable than 3.0 or 3.5. It has a playstyle range about like Basic D&D had. Voyage of the Princess Ark (if anyone remembers that) would be a perfect example of a D&D4 campaign.

I think it's a little too early to tell. D&D 3e didn't seem to me to do gritty stuff very well until games like Midnight and True20 came out.

Quote from: JongWK;228793I think it's a little too early to tell. D&D 3e didn't seem to me to do gritty stuff very well until games like Midnight and True20 came out.

Indeed.

Quote from: GrimJesta;228543Well, I assume you're talking about D&D 4e without house rules, yea? As it stands, without house rules 4e sucks for gritty, low-magic games. Healing surges and crazy powers for everyone sorta kicks that in the balls. So Game of Thrones style games, for example, are out the window, IMO. While reading the PHB and DMG I started jotting down changes to the rules and with house ruling you can do it. The system is better for stuff like Earthdawn as opposed to Wheel of Time, though.

Gritty (and I'm assuming by that you mean "an increased likelihood of death") can be achieved by confronting the PCs with higher levels encounters. First level characters facing a third level encounter will be lucky to make it out alive.

"Crazy powers" can easily be reskinned, also. It's mainly cosmetics that spell the difference between high and low fantasy effects.

I think gritty means "an increased likelihood of death for EVERYONE, including the bad guys." In other words, mistakes and fuckups are lethal for all parties involved, and play consists less of fighting and more of trying to put the other side in a situation where they will be forced to roll dice, since rolling dice usually results in stuff that's bad for you.