Quote from: Axiomatic;228822I 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.

Then avoid elites and solos, they're the ones whom take real time to put down. You can also throw some high level minions into the mix. Very hard to hit, but once you do connect they go down instantly.

In other words there are plenty of tools in the box to help DMs scale the lethality of their games. All that's required is a basic understanding of how the various subsystems interact, something that in my opinion is easier than ever with the new design transparency.

Quote from: RPGPundit;228536Over 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.

Well, it's less a "challenge" and more a simple question. You've said that a good game does X, and Y does that, which is what makes Y a good game; and that the new version of Y does not do that. So if that is true, you must change either "a good game does X" with some new X, or else change the example game Y to some other game, or leave it vague and unspecified.

I'm neither contending nor agreeing with the axiom itself, just noting that the foundations it was resting have, by your descriptions, shifted somewhat.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;228785However, 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.

No! Maps are pooh-pooh´d on by WotC, see above.

What in fact WOULD be totally 4e-likely:

The characters being ON BOARD the Princess Ark, with the Captain deciding where to go. The characters would then be the combat "away team".
Totally 4e, a total railroad spiced up with flashy and overdesigned special terrain encounters. Everything meaningfull will be done by the NPCs.
Or not even that, as it explicitly says many things are downright meaningless.

Exploring new cities is actually meaningless, as there always is a city of the needed size around the next bend of the pervasive "trade routes" (see above for quote).

Well, you really have to decide what a 'toolbox' consists of.  I have a hammer, a screwdriver, and a rusty tape measure.  Is that even a toolkit?  Clearly the number of things I can make or repair is quite limited.  However, if I only need to drive nails or remove a certain type of screw, I am good to go.  In order to find gainful employ, of course, I would have to be the best damn nail driver or screw fastening technician in the area, because someone with a more complete set of tools would be able to do the same thing, in addition to working with any variety of screw, accurately measuring and cutting various materials, making sure joints are true, and so on.

So, the real question is, how much of a toolbox were prior editions, and which tools, if any, have been jettisoned with 4e?

Quote from: Settembrini;228846No! Maps are pooh-pooh´d on by WotC, see above.

What in fact WOULD be totally 4e-likely:

The characters being ON BOARD the Princess Ark, with the Captain deciding where to go. The characters would then be the combat "away team".
Totally 4e, a total railroad spiced up with flashy and overdesigned special terrain encounters. Everything meaningfull will be done by the NPCs.
Or not even that, as it explicitly says many things are downright meaningless.

Exploring new cities is actually meaningless, as there always is a city of the needed size around the next bend of the pervasive "trade routes" (see above for quote).

I see that as just (or "merely") advice in the DMG. And really, a lot of it is extremely good advice. I don't think people should design a campaign from the continent and then work their way down..if they want a living breathing campaign, there's no time to detail out the various flora and weather patterns. DMs should go the other direction and work from the starting village and build upwards/outwards. That's what I got out of that. (And then, don't even get me started on mapping the planes.. ). The Known World of Mystara was created like that- just a bit at a time, region by region.  

I think your NPC comment is a bit unfair.. the new version assumes the NPCs don't even have class levels. NPCs can't do crap, which is why the PCs are important in the points of light setting default.


What I meant by the Princess Ark is the tone. Princess Ark is a brightly colored lightweight fantasy.. not gritty at all.. It's fantasy, but it doesn't take itself too seriously.  4E is the same way.

In my experience, and what I have read, leads me to conclude that 4e has essentially been co-opted by a guy with a head full of GNS and turned into the game that pretentious jackholes since the dawn of Runequest have always claimed it was.

It is redesigned from the ground up to be the ultimate "coherent gamist" game, and as such, ignores the host of different ways to play and myriad approaches to the game that have existed over the years, while with seemingly no intentional irony simultaneously claiming it to be some new revolution over it's inferior predecessors, as well as the same as it ever was.

It is a ridiculous mess, born from the mind of someone who's spent far too much headspace on silly internet politics and bogus "theories", and not enough time actually. playing the game

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;228857What I meant by the Princess Ark is the tone. Princess Ark is a brightly colored lightweight fantasy.. not gritty at all.. It's fantasy, but it doesn't take itself too seriously.  4E is the same way.

Tone = Shmone;Tone is irrelevant. A railroad is a a railroad- and don´t forget the " item wish list" and the "mighty morphin´cities" in regards of meaningful exploration and the extinction of strategic gameplay.

Also: I can´t play a Wizard anymore. This is a MAJOR narrowment of the game.

To sum the argument up:

There´s a mechanical narrowization and encount4rdization and a cultural one.
You might bend over backwards (and present your rosy ass to WotC) to deny the impact of the cultural drift/shift (encount4rdization) D&D has been exposed to.
But the mechanical ultra-focus doesn´t go away.

See, you can´t go around like mearls & co do and say:

"It´s focused on funfunfun, and it´s not everything to everyone!"
and
"It´s just like D&D always was!"
or
"It´s still everything to everyone!"
all at the same time.

Pseudo and you are basically doing this. And it´s intellectually dishonest. Decide upon one of the three stances.

Quote from: Settembrini;228871Tone = Shmone;Tone is irrelevant. A railroad is a a railroad- and don´t forget the " item wish list" and the "mighty morphin´cities" in regards of meaningful exploration and the extinction of strategic gameplay.

Also: I can´t play a Wizard anymore. This is a MAJOR narrowment of the game.

To sum the argument up:

There´s a mechanical narrowization and encount4rdization and a cultural one.
You might bend over backwards (and present your rosy ass to WotC) to deny the impact of the cultural drift/shift (encount4rdization) D&D has been exposed to.
But the mechanical ultra-focus doesn´t go away.

See, you can´t go around like mearls & co do and say:

"It´s focused on funfunfun, and it´s not everything to everyone!"
and
"It´s just like D&D always was!"
or
"It´s still everything to everyone!"
all at the same time.

Pseudo and you are basically doing this. And it´s intellectually dishonest. Decide upon one of the three stances.

1) Well, I know it's not everything to everyone. That should be obvious. But no previous version has been either.

2) I think tone is extremely important, especially for campaign longevity. Previous versions of D&D were able to focus on fun for it's own sake (witness all the stupid monsters and little in-jokes.. even cartoons in AD&D1e). But at some point, during the 1990s, rpgs became dead serious, humorless and realistic affairs. Although I think it helped some people continue gaming past the time when they normally would have ceased to appreciate it (by recasting gaming from a simple fun entertainment to a performance art where gamers could flatter themselves by thinking they were artists), I don't think that gaming as a hobby was really served here. Bringing a game back to the point where you could invite some friends over to slay some orcs is great. I think 3e was a start on this road, but didn't go far enough.

2a) (I also think the same thing about the emphasis on game physics that rose to prominence during the 1990s and still exists to this day.)  

3) You can totally play a wizard! Well, maybe YOU can't due to personal distaste, but I know the wizard is in there.

If you read my AP reports you should probably be able to see I am running it about like I ran AD&D1e.

Quote from: J Arcane;228862In my experience, and what I have read, leads me to conclude that 4e has essentially been co-opted by a guy with a head full of GNS and turned into the game that pretentious jackholes since the dawn of Runequest have always claimed it was.

It is redesigned from the ground up to be the ultimate "coherent gamist" game, and as such, ignores the host of different ways to play and myriad approaches to the game that have existed over the years, while with seemingly no intentional irony simultaneously claiming it to be some new revolution over it's inferior predecessors, as well as the same as it ever was.

It is a ridiculous mess, born from the mind of someone who's spent far too much headspace on silly internet politics and bogus "theories", and not enough time actually. playing the game

And yet it's still a blast to play.

Quote from: James McMurray;228883And yet it's still a blast to play.

I have no doubt that if all you want is the aforementioned "coherent gamist" game, then the game provides it well.  

If you want anything else however, and are expecting the game to as accepting of what you want as previous editions are, then you're up shit creek without a hell of a lot of effort.

For my part, I've got plenty of MMOs at my disposal, so I don't need the game for what it offers.

Quote from: J Arcane;228887I have no doubt that if all you want is the aforementioned "coherent gamist" game, then the game provides it well.  

If you want anything else however, and are expecting the game to as accepting of what you want as previous editions are, then you're up shit creek without a hell of a lot of effort.

For my part, I've got plenty of MMOs at my disposal, so I don't need the game for what it offers.

Fortunately for me, my experience differs. I currently play two different MMOs (EQ2 and CoH), and yet I find DnD 4e sufficiently different to be able to enjoy a weekly game of it with 6 others every Friday evening. I'm also happy to say that, despite the insistence of many around here that I can't, I seem to be able to roleplay and engage in non-combat activities, involving no miniatures or "board", and not even a skill challenge, while playing DnD 4e. Odd, that despite endless descriptions of DnD 4e as a "miniature skirmish game", or "tactical combat boardgame" and the apparent (because many people say it, but I have yet to see it) removal or exclusion of "roleplaying mechanics" of some kind, I seem able to thoroughly enjoy roleplaying in a manner similar to the way I've enjoyed it in every game I've played since not long after I started playing RPGs. I can even play a wizard! In fact, my current character is a wizard and it's turning into a real blast, to the point where I don't think I've ever enjoyed playing a wizard as much before, at least in DnD. Slap whatever bullshit theory label or whatever on it ya'all want on it, I'll just go on enjoying it every Friday with my friends.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;2288783) You can totally play a wizard! Well, maybe YOU can't due to personal distaste, but I know the wizard is in there.

If you read my AP reports you should probably be able to see I am running it about like I ran AD&D1e.

How can I play a Wizard? Please elaborate. Ißm talking about the guy who makes operational tactical and strategical choices via exception based limited ressources and knowledge. I can´t play a Wizard anymore, because the Wizard doesn´t exist anymore.

@1e: Well, and where did you learn to DM that way? What will you say if a player presents you the sanctioned wish list?

D&D 4e does have a broad spectrum of playstyles. However, it does not support the all of the playstyles of the previous edition
.

For example: Gritty Low Level Games are gone, but Competitive Modules  are back.

CCG deck-builders have way more support, as do tabletop MMO players.  However, gone are lazy fighter friends.

Travelling characters seem to be much easier now (i.e. characters you bring from one game to another) as everything they have is supposed to be codified now. Mixed level games seem to be a bit tougher (but 3.0 was not as easy as AD&D1 anyway)

I have been skimming the books, and am disappointed that I can't find: Summonings, shapechanging, wishes, extended flight, etc.  It seems that they have removed powers that allow more "creative" solutions.
Someone who has experience in 4e?
Am I wrong?  

Mark

check out ritual spells.