Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229867The debate isn't so much between 4e and 3.x as between 4e and the various editions up to say, Rules Cyclopedia (maybe 2e at the latest). People like Sett and Melan think that it's those early editions that are ideal, because they are the best at standing out of the way of imitating people in a world...

Huh.  I thought that a lot of the debate was precisely between 4e and 3e.  At least that was Caesar Slaad's point (no fan of pre-3e D&D).  A lot of 3e fans, I think, maintain that the rules, although heavy, are internally consistent (monsters follow the same rules as PCs; no 'minions'; etc.), and thus maintain an overall level of 'verisimilitude' that helps with their 'immersion' or suspension of disbelief.

That seems to be a somewhat different perspective from that of fans of pre-3e D&D, who like those rules because they get 'out of the way' of role-playing.  The rules of pre-3e certainly did not try to be consistent (NPCs followed different rules from PCs, etc.).  However, they were comparatively 'lighter' (except perhaps for 1e AD&D by-the-book), and thus more often were 'in the background'.

I'm a huge fan of Classic D&D.  But I would never think of it as a 'mimetic' or 'simulationist' or 'immersionist' (or whatever) game.  I think that I like it for many of the same reasons that Melan does.

It's the 3e versus 4e dispute that left me scratching my head (although no longer), as 3e always seemed rather 'formalist' or 'gamist' to me.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;229890Interestingly (to me), you'll note that my initial point of assertion in this thread was that it had moved away from my playstyle, without too much regard to how it achieved this.

That said, I will now add that I do think it's a narrowing. In line with your post, I feel the coverage is more focused. For a gamist combat romp, I feel that it may actually be BETTER than 3e. But I do think it does this at the expense of the prior edition's support for immersionist/simulationist/world-building/emergent play (to name some sub-categories that may or may not mean anything outside of my head...)

Here's my assessment:

immersionist - you might be right.
simulationist - You are definitely right.
world-building - nope.
emergent play - not at all.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;229882Okay, but how does this change things? In previous editions, only spellcasters had access to summoning creatures, they could do this at 1st level, and they could summon creatures as many times as they had the appropriate spells prepared. Now, in 4E, everyone can potentially cast these spells but it costs money. How would that affect play?

Abyssal Maw says it well, I think. I would personally treat summons in 4e as rarer, longer-lasting, more valuable (no more "Summon Celestial Badger") commensurate with the greater cost involved in them.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;229866But you can always add stuff to a game. In fact, we can address a lack of anything by adding stuff. Virtually any game is capable of handling any broad spectrum of play if we add enough stuff. I think it's best to keep this to an "out of box" discussion.

I think it's more important to distinguish whether you have to add stuff or subtract stuff. Adding stuff is much less of a problem (though not completely straightforward, see below). In fact you could say that RPGs are inherently built on adding; otherwise you have a bare mechanical skeleton, a boardgame.

Subtracting means denying things that are explicitly promised by the rules.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229873I think the "followers" thing has more bite for that reason. There is not a system for getting followers, nor an already existing system that could easily be extended to getting followers, nor useful roleplaying advice to deal with it outside of the mechanics. I would agree that 4e does not easily support PCs gaining followers. I don't think it stops a PC from doing so, but it doesn't really give you any idea how you're supposed to sort the issue out at all.

The main problem with "additive" houseruling, or even "roleplaying it out", comes when it begins to circumvent or nullify the existing rules. The classic case is when a game has a negotiation skill, but the group consistently decides to play out social situations without really employing the mechanic implied by the existence of the skill (basically neither requiring nor allowing rolls to influence outcomes). In this sense "additive" houseruling can become "subtractive", with exactly the same problem. In the case of followers, it could become an issue if the use of followers basically ended up overshadowing the tactical mesh of the existing rules.

Eliot>

Alright, let's shake hands and make up. I think we're ultimately more in line with one another than we like to think.

I generally agree with your post, even if only because it states our respective differences fairly.

Quote from: Spinachcat;229627Show me the "broad spectrum of playstyles" for the following RPGs:

1) Shadowrun

Shadowrun did explicitly support campaigns as mercenaries, police, even EMS crews. We've used it to run no-magic games in the style of Reservoir Dogs, inner-city child gang games, games in prisons, even a campaign centered around a National Geographic photojournalist. We've run games set in 6000BC, and games set in 2075. I've yet to find a game I can't easily bend Shadowrun 2 or 3 to in just a few minutes. That should have been their slogan: "From Cannonball Run to Logan's Run: Shadowrun!" Okay, maybe not.

And I don't just mean genre changes, either: it's very easy to run low-magic or high-tech by just moving some numbers about, or using multipliers on key mechanics. They even tell you how. The [over-]abundance of optional rules means there's stuff for playing research scientists in undersea arcologies who are exploring the first blush of gay love, stuff for playing a Car Wars scenario featuring no more dialog than, "Yeah, bitch!" and stuff for playing emotionally mature stylistically realistic jungle invasions of small Asian nations. And it's dumb-easy to add new rules in the style of the canon rules, thankfully.

Anyway, everything else you said was both amusing and accurate; I just had to stand by to defend Shadowrun's status as a fine tool for any type of game you'd choose to run [so long as it doesn't take place too far in the future, I suppose].

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229901Here's my assessment:

immersionist - you might be right.
simulationist - You are definitely right.
world-building - nope.
emergent play - not at all.

For the record, though I confess it was not at all obvious in the post, I meant the last two in a somewhat conjoined fashion. "Rules-emergent-influenced world building", if you will.

I think 4e's philosophy of being a "game first" makes it a worse fit for that than it might be otherwise.

Quote from: Akrasia;229900Huh.  I thought that a lot of the debate was precisely between 4e and 3e.  At least that was Caesar Slaad's point (no fan of pre-3e D&D).  A lot of 3e fans, I think, maintain that the rules, although heavy, are internally consistent (monsters follow the same rules as PCs; no 'minions'; etc.), and thus maintain an overall level of 'verisimilitude' that helps with their 'immersion' or suspension of disbelief.

That seems to be a somewhat different perspective from that of fans of pre-3e D&D, who like those rules because they get 'out of the way' of role-playing.  The rules of pre-3e certainly did not try to be consistent (NPCs followed different rules from PCs, etc.).  However, they were comparatively 'lighter' (except perhaps for 1e AD&D by-the-book), and thus more often were 'in the background'.

I'm a huge fan of Classic D&D.  But I would never think of it as a 'mimetic' or 'simulationist' or 'immersionist' (or whatever) game.  I think that I like it for many of the same reasons that Melan does.

It's the 3e versus 4e dispute that left me scratching my head (although no longer), as 3e always seemed rather 'formalist' or 'gamist' to me.

The debate we are seeing now between What 4e is and what 3e was is perplexing to me. 3.X is analogous to AD&D1e in many ways. 4E is more like Basic D&D. Even the arguments between the fans are looking the same.

No matter how anyone spins it, most of the derision and upset seems to boil down to the same kind of argument about whether "Elf" is a race or a class and how young the players are presumed to be.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229895Anyhow, in this case: gameplay effect was nil, the real effect was the fictional flavor that the Warlord could pull off magic under the right circumstances.

I don't believe the gameplay effect would be nil. In fact, unless the GM starts adjusting encounters to account for the additional aide that results from having summoned monsters, you'll end up with a loop similar to that of magic item crafting spellcasters in 3E.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229918The debate we are seeing now between What 4e is and what 3e was is perplexing to me. 3.X is analogous to AD&D1e in many ways. 4E is more like Basic D&D. Even the arguments between the fans are looking the same.

No matter how anyone spins it, most of the derision and upset seems to boil down to the same kind of argument about whether "Elf" is a race or a class and how young the players are presumed to be.

Rules Cyclopedia D&D had a dominion system and mass combat rules. 4E doesn't. I'm just saying...

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229903Abyssal Maw says it well, I think. I would personally treat summons in 4e as rarer, longer-lasting, more valuable (no more "Summon Celestial Badger") commensurate with the greater cost involved in them.

I LOVE summoning, but I hated the shortened duration of this spell in 3e. I loved the idea of having a companion or little dude you could pop out, and perhaps command to do little tasks. In practice though, you would get people either shooting celestial badgers out of their arms (that would last exactly 1-2 rounds and then pop) or DMs who would disallow it entirely, or cripple it (Which is what I experienced in a PBP game right here at the RPGsite).

And the metagame concern is (I guess) valid: that badger represents an abusable resource, so there's no way you can allow it to hang around too long. But I'd so much rather have a combatant to the point that I would (sometimes houserule) that a summoned creature could remain in combat as long as its controller gave up other attacks. This itself is abusable by the wrong player, who gleefully did things like summon the badger, then enlarge it, have his friend pop bulls strength on it, etc.

But to me it was very cool when we did a game where one character had a Mephit that he would summon every once in a while as an advisor/comedy relief NPC/sometimes combatant/sometimes trap-springer that I would just let that guy hang around for as long as he wanted it to.

Quote from: Akrasia;229900Huh.  I thought that a lot of the debate was precisely between 4e and 3e.  At least that was Caesar Slaad's point (no fan of pre-3e D&D).  A lot of 3e fans, I think, maintain that the rules, although heavy, are internally consistent (monsters follow the same rules as PCs; no 'minions'; etc.), and thus maintain an overall level of 'verisimilitude' that helps with their 'immersion' or suspension of disbelief.

That seems to be a somewhat different perspective from that of fans of pre-3e D&D, who like those rules because they get 'out of the way' of role-playing.  The rules of pre-3e certainly did not try to be consistent (NPCs followed different rules from PCs, etc.).  However, they were comparatively 'lighter' (except perhaps for 1e AD&D by-the-book), and thus more often were 'in the background'.

To be fair, it's a polygonal debate, and there are many sides in it. As you say down below, I see enough in common between 3.x and 4e that they are broadly compatible with one another. I think the argument there isn't really over any fundamental concepts so much as just dislike of specific features of the new system. On the other hand, the 1e crowd seems to have a fundamentally different set of things they want to do in play from the 4e crowd.

QuoteI'm a huge fan of Classic D&D.  But I would never think of it as a 'mimetic' or 'simulationist' or 'immersionist' (or whatever) game.  I think that I like it for many of the same reasons that Melan does.

I think it has elements of those. D&D, especially early D&D, isn't really any one thing. However, I'd contend that the culture of play has pushed it more towards mimesis as more formally complicated systems have come along to absorb the types of players drawn to that. Rather than the pages and pages of house rules I remember from when I first started playing D&D with the Rules Cyclopedia, most people now emphasise the rules-light nature of 1e, and look to other systems if they want crunch.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;229922I don't believe the gameplay effect would be nil. In fact, unless the GM starts adjusting encounters to account for the additional aide that results from having summoned monsters, you'll end up with a loop similar to that of magic item crafting spellcasters in 3E.

Ok, first, let me repeat: Rituals don't actually summon monsters. I think there is one for a hallucinatory creature, but it isn't much use in combat at all (it can basically be used to suck up attacks and create distractions, but otherwise doesn't do damage).

You have to look at the specific nature of rituals. They aren't reallythere to give any combat advantage to players at all. They give things like magical movement (teleports that occur outside the context of an encounter, phantom steed, etc), or certain special effects like Comprehend Languages. They take time to cast, they cost money to cast, they are restricted by level.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229928I LOVE summoning, but I hated the shortened duration of this spell in 3e.

This ranks as one of our greatest frustrations with 3.x, believe it or not. Our first campaign included a druid and a ranger, who wanted to be able to do things like summon beavers and hang out with them for a few hours. [Or wolves, if "hanging out with beavers" seems a little esoteric...or suggestive.] Our animal companions were nice, but the characters were too emotionally-attached to them to make real use of them in any dangerous sense. I understand the power-limiting reasons for the durations - having a large group of beavers at your beck and call has been known to be seriously damaging to, say, large enemy encampments - but that doesn't make them any less frustrating when you want to do something in-character, and can't due to out-of-character metaconcerns.

Quote from: Akrasia;229856(Personally, I never thought that 3e was great for 'simulationism', as it had lots of things broke my suspension of disbelief.  I'd much rather play Rolemaster for that sort of thing.  YMMV, obviously.)

You may well be right. But I think Rolemaster sacrifices too much playability to achieve that, and some players avoid it because of that. (Even before RMSS, some of my smarter/more math savvy players came to me and asked me to make/advance their characters for them; at least when we played HERO, it was only my relatively non-math-savvy players who had a problem.)

Quote from: Akrasia;229900Huh.  I thought that a lot of the debate was precisely between 4e and 3e.  At least that was Caesar Slaad's point (no fan of pre-3e D&D).  A lot of 3e fans, I think, maintain that the rules, although heavy, are internally consistent (monsters follow the same rules as PCs; no 'minions'; etc.), and thus maintain an overall level of 'verisimilitude' that helps with their 'immersion' or suspension of disbelief.

I think there are two things going on here, that ultimately makes pre-3e different from 3e different from 4e. (I'd also say AD&D is different than BECMI, but let's keep this simple.)

OD&D was a fairly simple framework, and talking to people who did and continue to use it, anything that they want to do, they do ad hoc.

1e added more things to this baseline, but it did so inconsistently. Not by design, but because they base they built from wasn't built to accommodate the extras. I'll assert that the thrust of these additions WAS simulationist in nature. Surely things such as weapon-vs-ac mods and a flurry of polearms in the edition can't be regarded as anything but simulationist.

(Not to miss BECMI/RC, I think that's mainly an evolution of OD&D by folks who weren't ready to dive off the simulationist deep end with Gygax; the result was a more smooth evolution and slow broadening.)

3e added consistency and structure, and a bit of gamism to the mix (the latter largely as an outgrowth of late 2e books). As you mention, for some the underlying structure served to add a layer of underlying logic to the world.

4e uses underlying structures too. But those structures are far more gamist-centric. Instead of a creature being defined by its creature type which has certain unifying characteristics, a creatures statistics are defined by its combat role, which is plainly a focus on the gamist aspect of the game.


I think it's fair to draw a line between 3e and 4e and acknowledge the change in philosophy, but lumping in everything pre-3e into one big mass misses a lot of differences.