Ahhh!

Damn my poor skimming fu.

Thanks
Mark

I think 4e has definitely been tuned towards more of a gamist "board game" experience, and simulationism has been sharply reduced.   This makes it difficult to do some genres - horror, gritty/low-magic, etc.  There was a good discussion over at Game Playwright about "Can D&D 4e do grit?" and I think it's hard - gritty doesn't just mean possible fatality, but has a general tone of restricted resources that 4e doesn't support RAW.

That's "fair enough" - it's hard for any game to support all genres well, even one that is deliberately generic/universal (which D&D's never claimed) but the focus on rules over versimilitude really bothers me - it's one thing to make specific genres hard but really it's making it harder to immersively roleplay, with rules and terminology being almost deliberately jarring when trying to make sense of things from an in-game point of view.

A bit more of my thoughts on the subject - Is D&D 4e Really Role-playing?

Quote from: Settembrini;229033How can I play a Wizard? Please elaborate. I'm 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?

If anything, the game has changed more to accommodate me (as a DM), than the other way around.

As far as wizards go... things have definitely changed, thats true. But I like wizards now more than before.

Quote from: Sigmund;229005Slap 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.

Having fun with it is great and all, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the game simulates certain genres well. Nah mean? I had a ton of fun playing WFRP, but that doesn't mean that I can simulate High Fantasy with the rules. But yes, it is good that you're having fun with the game. That's what I've been saying for some time now: as long as people are having fun, to each their own. I personally don't like 4e. You do. Coo'. We can rock out like Rodney King and say "Why can't we all just get along?"

And what I meant by "Gritty" wasn't just easy character death.  When I say gritty I mean character death lurks, potentially, above every combat encounter AND realistic combat powers (sorry, even some of the Fighter's abilities have a "what the fuck is that?" tag on 'em), low-key magic, slow healing and realistic medicine, monsters with cultures you deal with more than their combat abilities (for example, Tolkien's Orcs were terrifying because of how they were out of combat; they were chumps in combat. Yet the Monster Manual doesn't tell you anything about monsters except their board game stats) and a deep, rich world around the PCs that goes on without them and contains the many hardships people faced in our Middle Ages. Sett pointing out how PCs can find anything in any setting is a strike against that. What, no supply and demand?

That's what I mean. Yea, I know there's other games for this. That's why I play other games and not D&D4e.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: GrimJesta;229229And what I meant by "Gritty" wasn't just easy character death.  When I say gritty I mean character death lurks, potentially, above every combat encounter AND realistic combat powers (sorry, even some of the Fighter's abilities have a "what the fuck is that?" tag on 'em), low-key magic, slow healing and realistic medicine, monsters with cultures you deal with more than their combat abilities (for example, Tolkien's Orcs were terrifying because of how they were out of combat; they were chumps in combat. Yet the Monster Manual doesn't tell you anything about monsters except their board game stats) and a deep, rich world around the PCs that goes on without them and contains the many hardships people faced in our Middle Ages. Sett pointing out how PCs can find anything in any setting is a strike against that. What, no supply and demand?

That's what I mean. Yea, I know there's other games for this. That's why I play other games and not D&D4e.

-=Grim=-

I don't know what realistic combat abilites are. I've never been in a real combat, so i bow to your superior knowledge. However, low level fighter powers don't seem that exteme to me, at all. And really- realism? This is a game where dudes fly and shoot fireballs.  Having death hang above every encounter is pretty much how I roll with every game I play. The rest of the stuff you mention has more to do with the DM than the game, imo- and, no I'm not interested in what set has to say on the subject.
P.S. Tolkien's Orcs are not scary- and they were in a novel not an RPG, which makes the example beside the point.

Quote from: Aos;229236However, low level fighter powers don't seem that exteme to me, at all.

Explain to me why "Get Over Here" isn't a grapple maneuver or at least requires some sort of opposed roll. You just magically move the guy. "Comeback Strike" makes you unable to heal later? Thankfully, Fighters are the one class that only has a few silly powers. The Cleric and the Paladin strike me as silly, even beyond the oft-harped upon "Cleric hits enemy and heals foe with the hit". You're right. I need combat experience (which I do have, and not some Geek-Fu or SCA stuff) to know that that is High Fantasy? Sure the powers are fine in a High Fantasy game where you can wiggle your fingers and say it's magic. But in a low fantasy game, explain to me how a Paladin's hit against an enemy creates a magic shield around one of his friends.

D&D 4e doesn't do gritty fantasy well.  

Quote from: Aos;229236The rest of the stuff you mention has more to do wit the DM than the game, imo- and, no I'm not interested in what set has to say on the subject.

No, it doesn't. It's stuff the new DMG encourages. I didn't quote Sett anyway. I'm talking about the quotes pulled out of the DMG in his post.

Quote from: Aos;229236P.S. Tolkien's Orcs are not scary- and they were in a novel not an RPG, which makes the example beside the point.

Wait, wait, wait... so, they're creatures in a book. The Monster Manual is also a book, albeit one with game stats, but the point is moot because Lord of the Rings and the Simarillion doesn't have game stats? The example is far from "beside the point". I can read the WFRP section on Orcs and get the same "these things are f-cked up" as I get from reading about Saruman creating the Black Orcs and how these things were all about hate and violence. I get nothing like that from the D&D4e Monster Manual. I get a stat block and their abilities, what roles the different Orc "classes" play and the fact that Orcs like to fight. How exciting.

I think you're either being coy or silly on purpose just to defend the game.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: GrimJesta;229229Yet the Monster Manual doesn't tell you anything about monsters except their board game stats.

Yes it does. It tells you about their religion, society, where they live (and why), and more. It even tells you what the DCs are for the characters to know this stuff, so it becomes more than just text on a page and part of the game world.

Quoteand a deep, rich world around the PCs that goes on without them and contains the many hardships people faced in our Middle Ages.

There are plenty of games where you can pretend to die of the plague while starving in an alley and fleeing the feudal lord who wants a little prima nocte with your wife. D&D can be that game, but 4e is definitely not aimed at it. That's one genre where it falls flat. If you want that, I suggest 1e, 2e, or Rolemaster. The 4e folks specifically did not want that in the game, and they did a great job at meeting that goal.

QuoteSett pointing out how PCs can find anything in any setting is a strike against that. What, no supply and demand?

Nope. Economic simulation is another genre where 4e fails completely. Of course, it's another area they wanted to avoid, so it's unsurprising. I've read some good threads about adapting it to a game about merchants and mercantile, mostly involving skill challenges and quests that increase your business and your XP. Never tried them though, so I couldn't say how well it would work.

QuoteThat's what I mean. Yea, I know there's other games for this. That's why I play other games and not D&D4e.

Then what's the problem? If your needs are being met, what does it matter that Project X doesn't fulfill them?

Quote from: Aos;229236Having death hang above every encounter is pretty much how I roll with every game I play.

Death is a very real threat in D&D, and happens quite a lot. After a certain level (usually 8th) you get access to Raise Dead, so if you can spare the large chunk of change death won't be as big a deal, but TPKs happen still, and it's hard to raise your buddies when you're dead yourself.

QuoteP.S. Tolkien's Orcs are not scary- and they were in a novel not an RPG, which makes the example beside the point.

Tolkien's orcs have been in MERP and Rolemaster. They're also the prototype for the D&D orc, so I don't think that bring them up would be a nonsequiter.

Quote from: James McMurray;229243There are plenty of games where you can pretend to die of the plague while starving in an alley and fleeing the feudal lord who wants a little prima nocte with your wife. D&D can be that game, but 4e is definitely not aimed at it. That's one genre where it falls flat. If you want that, I suggest 1e, 2e, or Rolemaster. The 4e folks specifically did not want that in the game, and they did a great job at meeting that goal.

That's what I've been trying to say.

Quote from: James McMurray;229243Nope. Economic simulation is another genre where 4e fails completely. Of course, it's another area they wanted to avoid, so it's unsurprising.

Right. Much like the nWoD, 4e isn't what you play when you want the gritty economics of the Middle Ages (or a simulation of such).

Quote from: James McMurray;229243Then what's the problem? If your needs are being met, what does it matter that Project X doesn't fulfill them?

I don't have a problem. The thread asked if D&D 4e fails at certain genres. I said yes and pointed out gritty, realistic settings. Then defended that when (usually nicely) challenged on it. That's it.

Quote from: James McMurray;229243Death is a very real threat in D&D, and happens quite a lot. After a certain level (usually 8th) you get access to Raise Dead, so if you can spare the large chunk of change death won't be as big a deal, but TPKs happen still, and it's hard to raise your buddies when you're dead yourself.

The three games we played had a different experience. I even tried to run the game like Hackmaster and still the bastards wouldn't die.

Otherwise, you're pretty much agreeing with me.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: GrimJesta;229241I think you're either being coy or silly on purpose just to defend the game.

-=Grim=-

Well if that's what you think, I see no point in continuing the conversation. Carry on.

Quote from: GrimJesta;229245The three games we played had a different experience. I even tried to run the game like Hackmaster and still the bastards wouldn't die.

Not sure what was happening then, unless your players are just more tactically minded then you. Or perhaps you never used elites or solos? That's where our deaths happen. The threads I've seen stretching all the way back to demos where parties are getting wiped out, and we've had death in every campaign we've played except the one we just started last week. Even in it we were beaten down with just the wizard escaping from an ogre, but the enemies were intent on burning down the city, so we survived.

QuoteOtherwise, you're pretty much agreeing with me.

Definitely. 4e (or even 3e without tacked on house rules) isn't aimed at being anywhere near street level or mimicking real world reality. It does what it does (IMO) very well, and it manages it by completely giving up any shot at being a contender against other games which want to let you start as a Valet and work you way up to Captain.

Quote from: Aos;229247Well if that's what you think, I see no point in continuing the conversation. Carry on.

Well, if you weren't then I misinterpreted your post. Sorry. Do contribute... uh... as long as you weren't being sarcastic or coy or whatever. Cuz that's what I thought.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: GrimJesta;229262Well, if you weren't then I misinterpreted your post. Sorry. Do contribute... uh... as long as you weren't being sarcastic or coy or whatever. Cuz that's what I thought.

-=Grim=-

I wasn't intentionally being a dick- I'm watching a 7 yr olf and a 5 yr old, so I'm probably not putting as much thought into my posts (or into reading those of others) as I should. AND you referenced Sett, which is just pointless, imo- even if he has a valid point in there somewhere it is buried under his agenda to the point that it's not worth the bother of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Beyond that, I think that you may be looking for more support for certain things than I am. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is definitely going to color our perception of the game. Economics, for instance, play a very small role in my games- it's probably why i can;t get Traveller to work for me very well. I admit to skimming every economics section in every RPG I've ever owned. Truthfully, i can't tell you what systems are good at this and which are not- nor do I care- really.
 
As to gritty, allow me to answer the question with a question. Are super powers and grit mutually exclusive? You seem to be saying so- I disagree (Elric comes to mind, frex), but this, imo, definitely subjective.

As far as the power "Get over here" goes, it seems to me to be an abstraction of making an opening in a melee press, or creating a distraction that creates an opening in a melee press. This opening allows your ally to move through the press. That doesn't strike me as all that unreal- but, again, I (thankfull) have no real understanding of how a real fight goes down. However, it would seem to me that it would only work in a crowded environment- which would be the only place i could see any reason to use it.
this abstraction works okay for me,  but I can see how it might not for someone else.

Which brings me to abstractions in general I think many of the 4e abstraction work better. Basing what Hit points are, frex, on what Tim Kask said they were supposed to be, healing surges make a lot of sense to me.

Anyway- I think the answer to this op's question might well be no- or yes depending upon who you are.

Quote from: Settembrini;228871See, 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.

Actually, that's not my position at all. It also doesn't really sound like Maw or Seanchai's. You need to do a better job of understanding other people's arguments.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229210If anything, the game has changed more to accommodate me (as a DM), than the other way around.

As far as wizards go... things have definitely changed, thats true. But I like wizards now more than before.

Those are perfectly acceptable stances.

They do not change my main point: 4e is MUCH narrower than 3e or even 2e was regarding breadth of playstyle. I would still argue it´s also tactically empoverished, but that seems to be hard to communicate/see  to/by lots of people.
I do admit that might change. I seriously doubt it, as even 3e sorta funneled the playstyles and folded them into the current model already.

But who knows? Maybe we get new classes that play like the old casters.
Mabye we see non-encounter(TM)-based adventures.

I´m open, but right now it´s exactly as I´ve been saying all along. The only thing I´m still wrong about is that it will burn out DMs.
Hasn´t happened yet.

Exactly what play styles were accommodated by 3e (using the core rules only) that are not accommodated by 4e?  

3e doesn't seem any more 'gritty' than 4e.  It definitely is not easier to run a 'low' or 'rare' magic game in 3e.  Quite the opposite.  Given how transparent the math is in 4e, it would be quite easy to run a 4e game with no magic items, or even spellcasting classes (just make sure that PCs receive the necessary bonuses at appropriate levels).  Running a Conan style game with the 4e core is easy, whereas it was not with 3e.

I'd be grateful for some concrete examples (backed up with explanations) of play styles that 3e can facilitate that 4e can't.  (As a Classic D&D gamer, I'm not even a 4e fan.  I'm just at a loss as to why people think 4e is somehow 'narrower' than 3e.)