TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: RPGPundit on July 27, 2008, 01:09:08 PM

Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: RPGPundit on July 27, 2008, 01:09:08 PM
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
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: GrimJesta on July 27, 2008, 01:27:30 PM
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=-
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Caesar Slaad on July 27, 2008, 01:32:23 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Aos on July 27, 2008, 02:00:57 PM
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...
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: beejazz on July 27, 2008, 05:30:04 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: James McMurray on July 27, 2008, 05:39:52 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Drohem on July 27, 2008, 05:44:09 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Ian Absentia on July 27, 2008, 05:58:28 PM
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!
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Nihilistic Mind on July 27, 2008, 07:26:28 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 28, 2008, 01:28:09 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 28, 2008, 09:37:31 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: JongWK on July 28, 2008, 10:10:26 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 28, 2008, 10:29:36 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Drew on July 28, 2008, 10:57:30 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Axiomatic on July 28, 2008, 11:22:46 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Drew on July 28, 2008, 11:35:15 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Kyle Aaron on July 28, 2008, 11:45:31 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 28, 2008, 12:25:03 PM
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).
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: StormBringer on July 28, 2008, 12:34:09 PM
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?
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 28, 2008, 12:48:47 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: J Arcane on July 28, 2008, 12:54:39 PM
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
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 28, 2008, 01:10:07 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 28, 2008, 01:27:31 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: James McMurray on July 28, 2008, 01:34:18 PM
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. :)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: J Arcane on July 28, 2008, 01:39:19 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Sigmund on July 28, 2008, 05:16:09 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 28, 2008, 06:34:15 PM
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?
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: KrakaJak on July 28, 2008, 08:31:50 PM
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)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: iamazathoth on July 28, 2008, 09:23:51 PM
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
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: KrakaJak on July 28, 2008, 09:34:41 PM
check out ritual spells.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: iamazathoth on July 28, 2008, 09:36:49 PM
Ahhh!

Damn my poor skimming fu.

Thanks
Mark
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: mxyzplk on July 28, 2008, 09:47:08 PM
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? (http://gameplaywright.net/?p=93)" 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? (http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/is-dd-4e-really-role-playing/)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 29, 2008, 09:53:14 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: GrimJesta on July 29, 2008, 10:47:45 AM
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=-
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Aos on July 29, 2008, 11:05:04 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: GrimJesta on July 29, 2008, 11:24:19 AM
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=-
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: James McMurray on July 29, 2008, 11:25:07 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: GrimJesta on July 29, 2008, 11:32:02 AM
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=-
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Aos on July 29, 2008, 11:34:52 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: James McMurray on July 29, 2008, 11:59:45 AM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: GrimJesta on July 29, 2008, 12:01:56 PM
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=-
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Aos on July 29, 2008, 01:07:28 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 29, 2008, 01:28:42 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 29, 2008, 02:37:33 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Akrasia on July 29, 2008, 04:15:59 PM
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.)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: StormBringer on July 29, 2008, 09:27:05 PM
Exactly.  Let's name some playstyles and see if we can justify previous versions supporting them.

Highly Detailed Exploration:  I think the wealth of rules allowed for this fairly easily, especially with the multitude of campaign settings that, at the very least, had tons of material to steal for your own campaign.  Additionally, the campaign supplements set the standard for homebrew games, so you could just drop the characters pretty much anywhere and not worry about scrambling to get the night's adventure together.

Certainly, there was no Economics 101 chapter, but we're geeks.  Since when have we been averse to reading?  Especially topics we may never find a use for?  But there was a good guesstimate of how much more a sword would cost in Tinytown at the edge of the frontier.  And if not, no biggie, the economy wasn't wrecked, but the DM had a good excuse why the full plate wasn't available.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Spinachcat on July 30, 2008, 01:14:35 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;228536"it is self-evident that games that have a broad spectrum of playstyles (as D&D does) are by definition successful games."

This is a false statement.

Halo has two playstyles: Campaign Mode or Multiplayer.
40k has one playstyle: place $300 army on table and fight to the death
Monopoly has one playstyle: roll dice until bored

Show me the "broad spectrum of playstyles" for the following RPGs:

1) Shadowrun
2) Classic Paranoia
3) D6 Star Wars

All three were highly successful.  I played all of them at conventions with lots and lots of different people and each boiled down to one style of play.

As for D&D playstyles, I have played several hundred D&D games in the last 30 years and the playstyle was "kill things and take their stuff" for about 97% of those games.  Sadly, there was that 3.5 campaign where the playstyle was "look rules up every two minutes" which accounts for the other 3%.

And motherfuckers, if you want a grim & gritty game where you start as a clueless farmer and can work your way to becoming a Legend, but wounds take forever to heal and magic is mostly non-combat, go play Warhammer.  Nobody does THAT playstyle better than Warhammer!  You can houserule any edition of D&D and it always comes out second string to Warhammer for that style of play.

Christ on a dildo crutch, I don't know why any RPG should be expected to please people wanting to use the RPG outside the author's design parameters.   It's like complaining "Ford Mustangs doesn't turn into a boat when they fall into the ocean so therefore I hath concluded that Mustangs suxxors!"
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Aos on July 30, 2008, 01:17:45 AM
Dude, driving on water was what the Mustang was all about in the early days, just ask Ted Kennedy.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 30, 2008, 02:02:47 AM
Quote from: Akrasia;229468Exactly what play styles were accommodated by 3e (using the core rules only) that are not accommodated by 4e?  



Dude, peruse my first post in the thread.

And seriously, stop discussing "gritty".

Tone/Genre =! playstyle.

I can only repeat: The fact that consequences beyond the current encounter are minimized to nigh inexistance basically rules out reams of playstyles.
This is "supported" by:

1) rules
2) lack of information on in-universe motivations & ressources
3) outright disregard/disrespect for in-universe ressources & motivations

If nobody wants to mentally engage these criticisms, I´ll bow out.

Have fun circling around your elusive "gritty"-"heroic"-non-debate.

EDIT: Just for intellectual honesty, one of the 4e-champions could answer the following question with yes or no:

"Is 4e narrower than former editions of D&D"
Yes or No? Simple question, simple answer.

Hint: Mike Mearls said: "Yes!"
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Nihilistic Mind on July 30, 2008, 02:33:28 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;229627This is a false statement.

Halo has two playstyles: Campaign Mode or Multiplayer.
40k has one playstyle: place $300 army on table and fight to the death
Monopoly has one playstyle: roll dice until bored

Show me the "broad spectrum of playstyles" for the following RPGs:

1) Shadowrun
2) Classic Paranoia
3) D6 Star Wars

All three were highly successful.  I played all of them at conventions with lots and lots of different people and each boiled down to one style of play.

As for D&D playstyles, I have played several hundred D&D games in the last 30 years and the playstyle was "kill things and take their stuff" for about 97% of those games.  Sadly, there was that 3.5 campaign where the playstyle was "look rules up every two minutes" which accounts for the other 3%.

And motherfuckers, if you want a grim & gritty game where you start as a clueless farmer and can work your way to becoming a Legend, but wounds take forever to heal and magic is mostly non-combat, go play Warhammer.  Nobody does THAT playstyle better than Warhammer!  You can houserule any edition of D&D and it always comes out second string to Warhammer for that style of play.

Christ on a dildo crutch, I don't know why any RPG should be expected to please people wanting to use the RPG outside the author's design parameters.   It's like complaining "Ford Mustangs doesn't turn into a boat when they fall into the ocean so therefore I hath concluded that Mustangs suxxors!"

Total lol, man.

Great post.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 03:14:25 AM
4e does a variety of anti-realist playstyles perfectly well. It benignly neglects the old mimetic playstyles of early D&D. That's not a narrowing, though it is a change of focus and emphasis. For example, gonzo receives much stronger support from 4e than from earlier D&D versions. The Eberron-style, (for lack of a better term) where the setting and story-structure mimics the conventions of the game mechanics is another strongly supported style. A game built out of pastiche also benefits from it far more than say, Runequest or AD&D 1e. These are three amongst many, of course.

The mimetic playstyles are still possible, of course, though certain things are easier to imitate than others (this is true of every edition, though the elements of that set change from edition to edition).
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Caesar Slaad on July 30, 2008, 08:30:00 AM
Honestly, Akrasia, I really don't expect you to "get" what playstyles 4e doesn't do well, because I remember talking to you at length on ENWorld about the sort of depth and "immesionist simulationism" I got out of 3.x. At the time, it seemed like you had come to an understanding about where I was coming from, but perhaps not being "native" to that mindset, you don't see how it applies to 4e.

I've already provided one example in this thread of a 4th wall breaker that sort of signifies this shift to a more purely gamist stance. If you need more, go to the enworld 4e forums and search for threads with "simulationism" in the title. I think in short order you'll find that even 4e fans see the change.

And sadly, they even seem happy about it.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 30, 2008, 08:36:01 AM
How does it feel to be a Hill Giant Minion in a tribe of Hill Giants?
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 09:16:37 AM
It certainly makes the "big brawl" in Steading of the Hill Giant Chief more playable!
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Haffrung on July 30, 2008, 09:28:05 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;229627As for D&D playstyles, I have played several hundred D&D games in the last 30 years and the playstyle was "kill things and take their stuff" for about 97% of those games.  


"Kill things and take their stuff" can be done in loads of different playstyles. It can be done where the PCs start as fragile peons, or where they start as superheroes. It can be done with detailed tactical rules, or with abstract combat. It can be done heroically, or with a band of selfish mercenaries. It can be done with a focus on strategic/operational planning and resource management, or with a focus on the combat encounter. It can be done with lots of DM adjudication and flexibility, or hewing tightly to a comprehensive rules set. It can be done with low magic or with high magic. It can have a slow power progression, or a rapid power progression. It can be rules-light, or rules-heavy. Etc. etc.

QuoteAnd motherfuckers, if you want a grim & gritty game where you start as a clueless farmer and can work your way to becoming a Legend, but wounds take forever to heal and magic is mostly non-combat, go play Warhammer.  Nobody does THAT playstyle better than Warhammer!  You can houserule any edition of D&D and it always comes out second string to Warhammer for that style of play.


The question isn't whether earlier editions of D&D were the perfect iteration of a particular playstyle. The question was whether they supported and in fact saw players enjoy a broad range of playstyles. And they did. Broader than it looks like the designers intend 4E to be.

And that's fine. 4E looks like an excellent system for the style of game that it's designers and anticipated market want.

Fact is, way more folks played D&D as a gritty game than have ever played Warhammer RPG. For most of the last 30 years, D&D was the default RPG. That's why people played it in so many styles - they'd rather bend D&D to suit their preferences than learn a whole new game. Maybe 4E is a sign that RPGs have reached the point where all that's left are the hardcore players - the kind who have always known they have other options besides D&D - and so D&D can become a tightly focused game.

QuoteChrist on a dildo crutch, I don't know why any RPG should be expected to please people wanting to use the RPG outside the author's design parameters.   It's like complaining "Ford Mustangs doesn't turn into a boat when they fall into the ocean so therefore I hath concluded that Mustangs suxxors!"

Again, it isn't a matter of wanting a game to facilitate play outside the author's design parameter. It's about how broad that paramater is in the first place.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: James McMurray on July 30, 2008, 09:49:58 AM
Quote from: Settembrini;229637And seriously, stop discussing "gritty".

Tone/Genre =! playstyle.

What play styles do you want us to talk about?
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Caesar Slaad on July 30, 2008, 10:00:16 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;229627As for D&D playstyles, I have played several hundred D&D games in the last 30 years and the playstyle was "kill things and take their stuff" for about 97% of those games.

How unfortunate for you. However, if that's all you ever did, it's not hard to see why you might have difficulty understanding the narrowing of focus between 3e and 4e. No matter how many games you played in, if you played them all in this style, I think your experience with what the system what capable of is less than comprehensive.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 30, 2008, 10:51:35 AM
Wataminute! Spinachcat was being sarcastic, no?

@Abyssal Maw: Are you telling me that my 3.5 & 1e experiences of the Steading weren´t actually fun or fast moving? You´ve read my AP, no? And nobody forces you to handle it as one large battle.

I presume technically you could act samrt in 4e too, but that would ruin the overdesigned encounter...no? Again, you might be able to re-classic 4e by your DM-skills you learned from...real D&D!
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 11:28:42 AM
Thesis: More effort has been devoted to developing and discussing the mimetic playstyles than anti-realist ones. What anti-realist playstyle discussion there has been has mostly been obscured by Forgista jargon.

Hypothesis: D&D 4e provides a good opportunity for the developing of a non-Forge-related discussion of anti-realist playstyles.

To clarify my terms here for folks who are wondering:

A mimetic playstyle is a playstyle where your goal is to imitate the structure or logic of something else. In art, this usually means some feature of the world, so a mimetic novel is one which strives to be "realistic" or at least verisimilitudinous, with things like dialogue that imitates ordinary conversations, motivations similar to the ones that are believed to orient the audience, things working more or less like in real life and so on. Many RPGs claim this as their goal, but the rules of an RPG are a barrier to this and it's really more of something that the group as a whole has to do outside of the mechanics.

Anti-realist playstyles are one where you're not looking to imitate the world. Usually, this means that you're bending the game world to the mechanics rather than vice versa, but it really means any sort of game where producing verisimilitude takes a backseat to other goals (like the dreaded "having fun").
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: J Arcane on July 30, 2008, 11:54:06 AM
QuoteMany RPGs claim this as their goal, but the rules of an RPG are a barrier to this and it's really more of something that the group as a whole has to do outside of the mechanics.

So what, because you say so, RPGs suck at simulation or even verisimilitude, so therefore we should just not try?

You're letting your own personal preference colour your hypothesis with no support of it whatsoever other than taste.  Maybe for you the rules are a barrier, but for others, the rules are everything, even an impetus to continue the kind of desired sense of a real world.

And your terminology leaves something to be desired.  "Mimetic" is a neutral enough term, but then you set up "anti-realism" opposite.  It seems incongruous, and more combative than the former term.  Almost like it was originally just "pro-" and "anti-" but then it was decided that "pro-" might be too positive for what you really wanted to convey.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 12:00:35 PM
Quote from: Settembrini;229758Wataminute! Spinachcat was being sarcastic, no?

@Abyssal Maw: Are you telling me that my 3.5 & 1e experiences of the Steading weren´t actually fun or fast moving? You´ve read my AP, no? And nobody forces you to handle it as one large battle.

I presume technically you could act samrt in 4e too, but that would ruin the overdesigned encounter...no? Again, you might be able to re-classic 4e by your DM-skills you learned from...real D&D!

Well, I don't know. We did compare some notes on the Steading Brawl from when I ran it under 1e and you did.

Your account was a complete clear, right?

When I ran it, it wasn't that simple. One of the PCs had managed to get the giant slaying sword from the Cloud Giant's room. The group hid outside of the secret door and one of the character tried to polymorph into a giant for a diversion. He missed, failed system shock and dissolved into goo right then and there.

So then the two sneakiest characters, (one of which held the giant slaying sword) plus a shapechanged character (into a mouse) did manage to get in, while the main spellcaster and a dwarf fighter remained outside.

They snuck in, got under the big table. Then from a pre-arranged signal, the spellcaster launched a fireball just as the two guys hidden under the table pretty much assassinated the chief and the wife.

Then it was a huge mess as they battled for the door, but there was nothing like a complete clear. Only thing that kept there from being more than two party deaths was an escape plan that involved the group having mounts hidden outside, and theone guy that got cut off having a potion of fly on hand.

To Pseudo: Actually, I hugely appreciate that post, as I didn't understand the terms mimetic or anti-realist. I completely agree with your thesis.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: StormBringer on July 30, 2008, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229717It certainly makes the "big brawl" in Steading of the Hill Giant Chief more playable!
I think you mean 'more winnable'.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 30, 2008, 12:03:00 PM
It´s not particularly tough to beat with a tenth level group.
Especially the pregens have a very good chance at producing gooey results.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 12:05:15 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;229801So what, because you say so, RPGs suck at simulation or even verisimilitude, so therefore we should just not try?

No, that's a misreading. I'm a "let a thousand flowers bloom" kind of guy. I think RPGs should be able to choose where they want to fit into this dichotomy, rather than being pushed towards one or the other.

QuoteYou're letting your own personal preference colour your hypothesis with no support of it whatsoever other than taste.  Maybe for you the rules are a barrier, but for others, the rules are everything, even an impetus to continue the kind of desired sense of a real world.

Actually, I like crunchier games than most, so it's not "my taste" that they're a barrier. Unless the rules are simply the laws of physics written out, they are always an artifact of play that overlays or undergirds the world, but that remain distinct from it. No one takes 1d10 points of damage per 10 ft. fallen in ordinary life.

Using the rules to explore the world - reconciling the one with the other - is not a symmetrical process. One can make the world imitate the rules, which is the anti-realist option, or can try to reconcile the rules to the world (which varies from admirably interesting, [Harn], to bizarrely humourous [HYBRID]).

Edit: As an addendum, many games don't try and reconcile their rules with the world, and instead off-load the burden of that to extra-mechanical features (which is sensible, since they want to emphasise those features anyhow). This is a more general case of the old saw "What do HP _really_ represent?" /Edit

QuoteAnd your terminology leaves something to be desired.  "Mimetic" is a neutral enough term, but then you set up "anti-realism" opposite.  It seems incongruous, and more combative than the former term.  Almost like it was originally just "pro-" and "anti-" but then it was decided that "pro-" might be too positive for what you really wanted to convey.

I'm stealing terms from literary criticism. My initial temptation was to label "anti-realist" playstyles as "formalist" playstyles, but I wanted to emphasise the distinction here. I'll start calling them "formalist" from now on then.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 12:16:56 PM
What I used to say about my "style" of running D&D was "It's not the movie, and it's not the comic, it's the animated series". Which is to say, it has a bit of realism, but not enough to dwell on.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 30, 2008, 12:17:52 PM
Just if anyone was wondering, here´s a link to the Steading AP:

http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2008/03/garycon-2008-berlin.html#links

@AM: I dunno. With pre-planning, the battle took us 2 h in 1e. I don´t see how Minions could have made it more enjoyable.
BTW, is there a consensus on the question of informing the players beforehand which minis represent Minions and which do not?
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: J Arcane on July 30, 2008, 12:21:02 PM
QuoteActually, I like crunchier games than most, so it's not "my taste" that they're a barrier. Unless the rules are simply the laws of physics written out, they are always an artifact of play that overlays or undergirds the world, but that remain distinct from it. No one takes 1d10 points of damage per 10 ft. fallen in ordinary life.

Using the rules to explore the world - reconciling the one with the other, is not a symmetrical process. One can make the world imitate the rules, which is the anti-realist option, or can try to reconcile the rules to the world (which varies from admirably interesting, [Harn], to bizarrely humourous [HYBRID]).

OK, I see what you're getting at, but really what you're describing is just suspension of disbelief.  Of course it is never going to be 100% perfect simulation, but that pretty much goes without saying.  You can get pretty damn close though, close enough to matter, and close enough that ignoring the remainder isn't such a big deal.  

I don't even think it takes that many rules, or crunch necessarily.  To use a non-RPG example, Stargrunt II is probably the single most realistic simulation of modern fire combat I've ever seen, but it's also one of the easiest to learn and simplest miniature rulesets I've ever seen.  

I also think it's a bit more than a polar thing, but rather a sliding scale, much like suspension of disbelief.  Everyone has their own point in a movie or a game or what have you, where their personal bullshit filter goes off, but that could be all over the spectrum, and not even the same for each person.

I think a lot of games are built on a give and take towards realism, you pick and choose what you want to focus on, so some stuff gets a fine lens, other stuff sort of glossed over.  In Cyberpunk for example, a lot of focus was given to the combat mechanics to make them seem believeable compared to real world combat, but at the same time you also had all kinds of bollocks cyberware and technology that even being incredibly optimistic about the future is just never going to happen, and a hacking system that basically makes no bloody sense at all if you've ever actually used a computer for more than 5 minutes.  

Certainly there's always going to be extremes, but the thing about extremes is they drive everyone else off who isn't solely interested in that extreme.  Whereas the average person is somewhere in the middle, and keeping your game somewhere around there means you can usually appeal to folks from both sides of the aisle, even the extreme ends, because it means it doesn't take much to push the game to one end or the other.

We've seen that over and over again for decades with the previous editions, which is why the new one is taken as such a jarring shock by so many, especially those from an earlier, more homebrew and house rule friendly era.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 12:26:03 PM
Quote from: Settembrini;229821Just if anyone was wondering, here´s a link to the Steading AP:

http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2008/03/garycon-2008-berlin.html#links

@AM: I dunno. With pre-planning, the battle took us 2 h in 1e. I don´t see how Minions could have made it more enjoyable.
BTW, is there a consensus on the question of informing the players beforehand which minis represent Minions and which do not?

There is an unofficial RPGA opinion that came out on one of the discussion lists that minions should indeed be described differently, although not specifically pointed out as minions until the first one dies. Examples included shabbier clothing, substandard weaponry, etc.

Our battle did not quite take 2 hours, but it also was nothing like a complete clear, and I changed some of the parameters of the battle by having Mordekainen* telling the PCs before the battle began that the goal was specifically assassination of the chieftain to send a message that Geoff would fight back. So the players very specifically treated it like a suicide mission with a single target.



* This was the GaryCon event I ran this year.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Aos on July 30, 2008, 12:32:30 PM
Quote from: Settembrini;229821J
BTW, is there a consensus on the question of informing the players beforehand which minis represent Minions and which do not?


I've been thinking about this, and I don't think I'd want to tell the players. That would fuck with MY suspension of disbelief. That said- I don't like minions or use them in 4e. i think they work much better in a game with a damage track, such as True20- but I don't use them there either.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 12:36:29 PM
Quote from: Aos;229834I've been thinking about this, and I don't think I'd want to tell the players. That would fuck with MY suspension of disbelief. That said- I don't like minions or use them in 4e. i think they work much better in a game with a damage track, such as True20- but I don't use them there either.

I like them, because they fill out a room nicely. I was a big proponent of the swarm battle in D&D3.X as well. I would throw tons of low-level humanoids (or NPC-classed lowbies) at a tightly knit party just to get the swarm effect. There's usually always at least one guy who wants to see his Great Cleave feat in action.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Aos on July 30, 2008, 12:40:04 PM
Interesting. I'll have to think about it some more, I guess. As far as identification goes, I think I'd use identicle minis for the minion and non monions, and maybe mark the bottom of the minions and then mix them all up- so even I don't know who is who.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Drew on July 30, 2008, 12:44:40 PM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229829There is an unofficial RPGA opinion that came out on one of the discussion lists that minions should indeed be described differently, although not specifically pointed out as minions until the first one dies. Examples included shabbier clothing, substandard weaponry, etc.

That would be my reading too. Also, minions are most often the ones being ordered about. The clue is in the title etc.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Akrasia on July 30, 2008, 12:46:01 PM
What's somewhat confusing about this discussion is that people are using the term 'play style' to refer to two different kinds of things:

(1.) 'Representationalism' versus 'Anti-representationalism' (or 'simulationism' versus 'gamism', or whatever).  That is, how well the game rules can accommodate those who want 'immersion' in the game world, as well as those who don't mind the rules being continually manifest.

(2.) Genres, e.g., 'high fantasy', 'grim and gritty', 'low magic', etc.  (E.g. Forgotten Realms versus Hyboria.)

I don't think that 4e is any narrower than 3e regarding possible genres (if anything, the opposite).

As for (1.), I can understand why some people think that 4e is more 'gamist' or 'anti-representationalist' than 3e.  But then, personally, I've never thought that D&D was very strong as a 'representationalist' game.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 12:48:13 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;229824OK, I see what you're getting at, but really what you're describing is just suspension of disbelief.  Of course it is never going to be 100% perfect simulation, but that pretty much goes without saying.  You can get pretty damn close though, close enough to matter, and close enough that ignoring the remainder isn't such a big deal.  
...

We've seen that over and over again for decades with the previous editions, which is why the new one is taken as such a jarring shock by so many, especially those from an earlier, more homebrew and house rule friendly era.

Yes, I think we're basically in agreement except perhaps on this last part. I think 4e moved to the "formalist" side of the spectrum from the "mimetic" side and that this shift is what's causing people grief rather than how far on the spectrum it may be.

I think though, that we should shift to use another analogy to answer Sett's complaints about the game being "narrower". I'd rather use a set-based analogy. Some playstyles are in the set called (now) "Formalist" and some are in the set called "Mimetic". D&D used to be built around the latter set, now it's built around the former set. Both sets are arbitrarily large, and thus no "narrowing" is possible.

Formalist games aren't hostile to houseruling. As a simple example everyone's familiar with (hopefully), the Free Parking rule in Monopoly is both incredibly common and not an official rule. However, what one is trying to do in houseruling a formalist game is different than what one is trying to do in houseruling a mimetic game.

A houserule in a formalist game is about making the game more fair, or balanced, or structurally complicated, or some such. A houserule in a mimetic game is about making the simulation better, or more accurate, or more complicated, rather than about balance.

Like I said, it's "Let a thousand flowers bloom", Not everyone has to like D&D 4e. But I think that many of the people who claim that 4e is crappier or more limited are really reacting to 4e's position as a formalist game, rather than evaluating its success at _being_ a formalist game.

Anyhow, what I'm currently interested in / working on is seeing whether and how people repurpose D&D 4e to do mimetic styles of games. I'm doing my part as an investigator here - next week my home crew starts a 4e game, having just finished a very mimetic game, while I'm also writing a highly mimetic setting for use with 4e (the Dawnlands). I think that as we see more supplements and campaign settings and the like come out, we'll see D&D 4e move around the spectrum a bit. This happened with 3.x, which is why I think it'll happen again.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: DeadUematsu on July 30, 2008, 12:48:30 PM
I think what needs to be defined is what you could do with previous editions.

For starters, in previous editions, there are rules for obtaining followers. In 4E, this doesn't appear to be the case. What kind of play is denied by the lack of followers? Also, you can't summon creatures or create undead, how does that affect play? Heck, you can probably go through the entire spell lists of previous editions and remark on the effects of a spell's particular absence.

This should yield more fruitful discussion.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Seanchai on July 30, 2008, 12:49:42 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;229722It's about how broad that paramater is in the first place.

Too true - I totally tried to play OD&D as a highly political game revolving around trade and found the rules didn't support it one iota.

Seanchai
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 12:51:01 PM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229820What I used to say about my "style" of running D&D was "It's not the movie, and it's not the comic, it's the animated series". Which is to say, it has a bit of realism, but not enough to dwell on.

As J_Arcane points out, most people don't want to play one extreme or another all the time. They want a compromise that has some mimetic elements and some formalist elements, with the proportion and type varying from person to person, group to group.

Personally, for example, the Riddle of Steel is the exact opposite of the balance I like. But many people really enjoy the fact that it has super-detailed combat and a bare-bones skill system.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Akrasia on July 30, 2008, 12:53:17 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;229701Honestly, Akrasia, I really don't expect you to "get" what playstyles 4e doesn't do well, because I remember talking to you at length on ENWorld about the sort of depth and "immesionist simulationism" I got out of 3.x. At the time, it seemed like you had come to an understanding about where I was coming from, but perhaps not being "native" to that mindset, you don't see how it applies to 4e.

I've already provided one example in this thread of a 4th wall breaker that sort of signifies this shift to a more purely gamist stance. If you need more, go to the enworld 4e forums and search for threads with "simulationism" in the title. I think in short order you'll find that even 4e fans see the change.

And sadly, they even seem happy about it.

Okay, I think that I understand your point.

However, that doesn't mean that 4e accommodates fewer play styles than 3e.  (But I'm not sure whether that was ever one of your concerns.)  Rather, it seems that 4e's 'default' play style is different than 3e's 'default' play style (i.e., less 'simulationist').

(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.)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 12:54:48 PM
Quote from: DeadUematsu;229850I think what needs to be defined is what you could do with previous editions.

For starters, in previous editions, there are rules for obtaining followers. In 4E, this doesn't appear to be the case. What kind of play is denied by the lack of followers? Also, you can't summon creatures or create undead, how does that affect play? Heck, you can probably go through the entire spell lists of previous editions and remark on the effects of a spell's particular absence.

This should yield more fruitful discussion.

The lack of spells can be addressed simply by adding more rituals to the game.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Akrasia on July 30, 2008, 12:56:36 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229848... I think 4e moved to the "formalist" side of the spectrum from the "mimetic" side and that this shift is what's causing people grief rather than how far on the spectrum it may be.

I think though, that we should shift to use another analogy to answer Sett's complaints about the game being "narrower". I'd rather use a set-based analogy. Some playstyles are in the set called (now) "Formalist" and some are in the set called "Mimetic". D&D used to be built around the latter set, now it's built around the former set. Both sets are arbitrarily large, and thus no "narrowing" is possible...

I think that this was one of the points that I tried to make, but clearer and with better terms ("formalist" and "mimetic").
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: DeadUematsu on July 30, 2008, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229860The lack of spells can be addressed simply by adding more rituals to the game.

But 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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: Akrasia;229856Okay, I think that I understand your point.

However, that doesn't mean that 4e accommodates fewer play styles than 4e.  (But I'm not sure whether that was ever one of your concerns.)  Rather, it seems that 4e's 'default' play style is different than 3e's 'default' play style (i.e., less 'simulationist').

(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.)

The 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. While I personally don't think so, I am willing to concede that point for now to be able to meaningfully discuss the idea of playstyles.

And yeah, you and I are making the same point regarding 4e and playstyles. I'm just using more words because I'm pedantic. ;)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: J Arcane on July 30, 2008, 01:02:15 PM
QuoteFormalist games aren't hostile to houseruling. As a simple example everyone's familiar with (hopefully), the Free Parking rule in Monopoly is both incredibly common and not an official rule. However, what one is trying to do in houseruling a formalist game is different than what one is trying to do in houseruling a mimetic game.

A houserule in a formalist game is about making the game more fair, or balanced, or structurally complicated, or some such. A houserule in a mimetic game is about making the simulation better, or more accurate, or more complicated, rather than about balance.

I think the thing is, the closer you get to one extreme or the other, the more effort it takes to houserule it back to whatever the enduser wants out of it, short of course of them favoring that extreme obviously.

By starting from a more median point, it at least has the benefit of providing roughly equal effort to maximize one style or the other.

In the case of something like 4e, a mimetic player is going to have to go much farther than a "Free Parking" rule to get what they want.  We're talking a far larger gulf here than that.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Aos on July 30, 2008, 01:03:46 PM
@ pseudo: Actually, you've manged to raise the level of discourse in this thread. Which is a nice trick in any 4e conversation.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: DeadUematsu;229866But you can always add stuff to a game.

Totally. The important thing here though, is I'm not adding new systems to the game, but using an already existing system. 4e can be easily extended to deal with charms and summons without changing anything.

I 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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: DeadUematsu on July 30, 2008, 01:19:08 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229873Totally. The important thing here though, is I'm not adding new systems to the game, but using an already existing system. 4e can be easily extended to deal with charms and summons without changing anything.

Okay, 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?
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: arminius on July 30, 2008, 01:19:26 PM
QuoteI'll start calling them "formalist" from now on then.
[Note: had to run in the middle of posting, so this follows directly from the above quote. I haven't read the intervening posts yet.]

I was going to suggest "formalist".

Pseudo, the dustup in the other thread (you know which one) strikes me even there as mainly a disagreement over tastes--something which (even there) you were already acknowledging in between the flames.

One new thing you're bringing to this is the idea that the formalist approach doesn't necessarily lead to what I referred to as the mechanics tearing loose from the fiction. This will be hard to gauge, partly because it's subjective (no matter how you or a Forgista feel about your respective game-play, I might feel sitting at the same table that it was only so much mechanical fiddling covered with a loosely draped theme), but also because the culture of play for 4e is in its nascency. (Nevertheless I stand by my thesis that 4e is also a product of an existing culture.)

The other interesting, and presently unresolved, issue, is whether a game can properly be considered to have a "broad" spectrum if it really doesn't cater to the hardcore version of any given playstyle. I.e., let us say that AD&D 1e catered to a variety of "simulationist", "gamist", and (to choose a deliberately ambiguous term) "story-oriented" styles. But in so doing it failed to satisfy both the more rigorous "gamist" style (possibly better served by varieties of TFT and Champions) and the more demanding "simulationist" style (Runequest, C&S), not to mention "story-oriented" (Theatrix?).

In other words you're presently claiming that D&D4e isn't so much a narrowing as a re-centering, and that this only looks like a narrowing from the perspective of people who preferred the previous center.

The closest thing I can think of to an objective approach to answering this sort of question is the WotC research that led to 3e. However that was ultimately based on survey data that (possibly through normalization) showed an even distribution of players among four "quadrants", and resulted in the game being aimed at the center of the graph. Today the distribution of the graph might be different and a center would also be different.

What I think will really answer the big question is whether D&D 4e maintains the mindspace share that 3e and earlier editions enjoyed. At that point, perhaps a year or so down the line, we can sort out the chicken-and-egg issues. Even then it won't be definitive since other phenomena such as continued demographic and marketplace change (e.g. videogame-bound erosion) and the evolution of "focused niche" products will also be factors.

However there are two indicators we might look at. One is the success (or not) of Pathfinder. Another, somewhat paradoxically, is whether arguments over "the right way to play" become more intensely focused on choice of game instead of being argued on the basis of "how to play D&D". When D&D groups argued and fought over "kicking out the munchkins", complaining about "powergamers" or "thespians", that meant that the mechanics themselves didn't strongly resolve play in any of those directions, resulting in a need for local social consensuses. If as the critics allege, D&D 4e is inherently more "coherent" and "focused", I predict that 4e intragroup and intergroup discussion of 4e will be less marked by debate and consensus-forming, and more by nuts-and-bolts practicalities...which will in turn be fairly useless to people who don't use 4e.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Caesar Slaad on July 30, 2008, 01:33:34 PM
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;229884In other words you're presently claiming that D&D4e isn't so much a narrowing as a re-centering, and that this only looks like a narrowing from the perspective of people who preferred the previous center.

Interestingly (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...)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 01:36:50 PM
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?

Minor nitpick: summons in 4e are actually extremely rare. The lowest level one is probably Phantom Steed (level 6).

..and it was only in 3.X that summoning was really available at low levels to a broad variety of classes (clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers, and bards could all summon, with the druid being the most powerful).

AD&D1e definitely did not allow summoning until much later in a characters career.

So what we are really talking about are rituals: (aren't we? correct me if I am wrong).

The deal with rituals is: if you have the rituals feat, in 4e, your character can learn any of the ritual spells provided he can pay for it, and it's of the appropriate level.
The two bolded parts are the two caveats. And realistically, if you've ever played Earthdawn, they only change things in the fiction, not in the gameplay. The only example I've had come up in play so far is that a Warlord paid for and cast the Comprehend Languages ritual at one point in the game. It cold have been the Wizard.. (more appropriate?),  but it seemed kind of cool at the time that the Warlord cast it.

Anyhow, 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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;229869I think the thing is, the closer you get to one extreme or the other, the more effort it takes to houserule it back to whatever the enduser wants out of it, short of course of them favoring that extreme obviously.

By starting from a more median point, it at least has the benefit of providing roughly equal effort to maximize one style or the other.

In the case of something like 4e, a mimetic player is going to have to go much farther than a "Free Parking" rule to get what they want.  We're talking a far larger gulf here than that.

Certainly. I don't blame people who want highly mimetic games for staying away from D&D 4e. However, I think there are two possibilities that the mimetic player could look to using if they wanted or needed to (perhaps D&D is the only game in town).

The first is the culture of play that arises around a game. Games are designed to work in certain ways, and then they go out into the wide world and that intent is subverted, twisted, altered and shaped to fit the purposes, loves and hates of the myriad of gaming groups out there. That altering forms a culture of play around a game that's ultimately more important than the rules as written. The most well-known example, I think, is the weapon-speed rules in early editions of D&D, which are famous because no one uses them.

Another example would be the infamous disconnect between White-Wolf fluff and the way their games are usually played. The designer depicts the setting as dark and tragic, prone to melodrama and angst. Gamers play in the WoD as if it were a superheroic action game.

The culture of play for D&D 4e is only just forming. I personally am interested in developing a mimesis-oriented thread in that culture, and I encourage others to do so as well, so that, amongst other reasons, people who enjoy mimetic games can find things to like about 4e.

The second thing I encourage players interested in mimesis to do is to rely on the roleplaying, or the extra-mechanical elements of the game, to develop them. This is the strategy that every edition of D&D has previously employed, and I encourage people to pick up the torch in this new edition as well. So there is no support for getting followers. I would encourage you (or mimesis-minded players, or really, anyone who wants to), whenever you find a gap like this to roleplay it out and work it out amongst your group rather than go looking for a houserule or a supplement or a subsystem to do it for you.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Akrasia on July 30, 2008, 01:39:24 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 01:39:25 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 01:40:31 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: arminius on July 30, 2008, 01:42:00 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 01:55:37 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Engine on July 30, 2008, 01:56:18 PM
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].
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Caesar Slaad on July 30, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 01:59:30 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: DeadUematsu on July 30, 2008, 02:04:39 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: DeadUematsu on July 30, 2008, 02:06:55 PM
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... :)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 02:06:58 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 02:07:13 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 02:14:36 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Engine on July 30, 2008, 02:17:29 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Caesar Slaad on July 30, 2008, 02:21:37 PM
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.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;229904I 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.

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.

I think the way to go here is to have subtraction of sufficiently local scope. Like pruning a garden to make it grow.

For example, if a player is very good at being persuasive etc. but his character has a charisma of 8 or something, I'd be willing to temporarily suppress the need for a roll so long as he was roleplaying it out. On the other hand, I would allow such a roll for a player who wasn't that skilled even though his character was.

This is in contrast to say, a subtraction of global application, like "No elves in my game" or "No one can learn Wish as a spell no matter how high level they get".

Because this is a question of the application of rules ultimately, I'm not personally a great fan of simply introducing more rules to cover it. I think that handling these situations - judging correctly how much to subtract and when - is a matter of judgment that a DM and PCs must develop through the difficult process of working it out amongst themselves.

Where it might seem especially difficult is simply that we are used to sorting out mimetic issues like this ("I don't focus on historical sexism because I have female players in my game" is an obvious and semi-common example), not rules issues.

But, if we can learn to sort out rules issues like this, we'll begin to realise the variety of formalist playstyles that, as I said much earlier in this thread, we've previously ceded to the Forgistas.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 02:22:46 PM
Quote from: Engine;229937This 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.

And really, I think it would be cool as hell for the low level ranger to say "Oh, so the orcs think their little wooden river fortress can't be touched? I shall summon my brothers, the beavers, to make a hole for us!"

I mean, I would totally allow that as a one time use. It's not combat, it's just a funny/smart way for the Ranger/Beaver-friend guy to use his supposed powers to come up with a cool infiltration plan. But in 3.x, by the rules... totally disallowed.

I did something similar with the AD&D1e game with Settembrini's ranger character trying to tame a Dire Wolf by jumping on it's back riding it like a bronco until he subdued it.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 02:23:00 PM
Quote from: Engine;229937This 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.

The beavers were to flood out that kobold cavern encampment, right?
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 30, 2008, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229928I 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.

I'd allow rituals that summoned creatures, even if those creatures stuck around in combat. I'd just count them as one PC and give them 1/whateverth of the XP. I think you'd find that cutting into the party's XP would quickly keep summons rare.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Engine on July 30, 2008, 02:42:56 PM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229940And really, I think it would be cool as hell for the low level ranger to say "Oh, so the orcs think their little wooden river fortress can't be touched? I shall summon my brothers, the beavers, to make a hole for us!"

I mean, I would totally allow that as a one time use. It's not combat, it's just a funny/smart way for the Ranger/Beaver-friend guy to use his supposed powers to come up with a cool infiltration plan. But in 3.x, by the rules... totally disallowed.

I did something similar with the AD&D1e game with Settembrini's ranger character trying to tame a Dire Wolf by jumping on it's back riding it like a bronco until he subdued it.
And I think that's one of the greatest differences between a good GM and a great one: like Pseudoephedrine was recently saying, the GM and players have to work out between them how much they're going to pay attention to the rules. Paul's famous for waving his hand and saying, "You don't need to roll for that," when the statistics nearly guarantee success and the result isn't significant. And, of course, he famously allowed us to summon beavers for a long enough period to dam a stream that downstream formed the moat of an enemy encampment, knowing that the dam's destruction would produce a surge great enough to take out the wooden defensive walls.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm pro-fuck-the-rules when doing so makes sense and is pleasing to all.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 02:45:50 PM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229940And really, I think it would be cool as hell for the low level ranger to say "Oh, so the orcs think their little wooden river fortress can't be touched? I shall summon my brothers, the beavers, to make a hole for us!"

I mean, I would totally allow that as a one time use. It's not combat, it's just a funny/smart way for the Ranger/Beaver-friend guy to use his supposed powers to come up with a cool infiltration plan. But in 3.x, by the rules... totally disallowed.

I did something similar with the AD&D1e game with Settembrini's ranger character trying to tame a Dire Wolf by jumping on it's back riding it like a bronco until he subdued it.

And here's the deal: the solution to both the 1E "Tame the wolf" and the 3E "My Brothers the Beavers" situations that had to improvised on the spot have *support* in 4th edition in the form of the skill challenge.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: mxyzplk on July 30, 2008, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: Engine;229937This 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.

Yeah, 3e didn't really support the persistent-pet metaphor well (cf. hunter, warlock in WoW) which is a bummer.  You could get persistence at much higher levels - Planar Binding, Planar Ally.  But the low level persistent options (familiars, pets) are too fragile; all the groups I've been in end up swapping them for substitute class powers or just leaving them "outside the dungeon" or "in a magic familiar pouch" because their value is almost purely RP (once you're past level 1-2 where even a beaver is a welcome addition to your fightitude).  

There are the new reserve feats like Summon Elemental that basically let you keep a lil' elemental around all the time, but IIRC that takes a L4 spell in reserve so it's not super low level either.

In my group's current campaign (Rise of the Runelords AP (http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/session-summaries/rise-of-the-runelords/)) I wanted to see if I could make a summoner "work" in 3e.  And it took some pretty vigorous rules work, but I have a L13 Malconvoker who can really lay down some critters!  His build progression's here (http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/session-summaries/rise-of-the-runelords/valgrim-the-summoner/) if anyone's interested - using the full gamut of 3.5e books there's a solution to about every problem.  Summon lengths doubled, summons automatically buffed, more summoned critters per spell, more summoning spells, et cetera.  

I usually don't like having to min-max that hard, but yeah, a stock mage that just casts Summon Monster isn't highly useful.  With some tweaks it gets good though.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: DeadUematsu on July 30, 2008, 02:58:06 PM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229934Ok, 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.

AM, I have a copy of the 4E books. I know what rituals are. I know the rules. I also know what the book says. There is no rule in the book that says rituals do not preclude combat effects. Using the Binding category of rituals alone, I can duplicate Summon Monster. Hell, I can nuke Waterdeep by summoning the Faerunian equivalent of Wormwood to come crashing down on it. Again, this is no rule saying that I cannot do that. Heck, I can even add new categories for Buffing and Destruction if that's required.

Anyway, remember, I only went down this path because Psuedo said you easily could add summonable creatures to 4E through the ritual subsystem. Also, when I say summonable creatures, I mean creatures that you can use in combat AND in other ways. I don't care for ghost ponies. Ghost ponies alone do not cover the entirety of effects that you can do with the creature summoning that existed in previous editions of D&D.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Spinachcat on July 30, 2008, 03:44:42 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;229738No matter how many games you played in, if you played them all in this style, I think your experience with what the system what capable of is less than comprehensive.

Sorry Ceaser Salad, you are a couple of croutons shy of a full package if you really believe that D&D was the Royal Shakespeare Company slatered in Grey Poupon and lullabyed by Mozart until MC Mearls and his ghetto rappers took over and shit all over the preciousness.


Quote from: Settembrini;229758Wataminute! Spinachcat was being sarcastic, no?

Fuck no.   Mustangs don't float, don't fly and don't brew designer micro-beer, but they are still awesome cars.


Quote from: Settembrini;229758I presume technically you could act samrt in 4e too, but that would ruin the overdesigned encounter...no? Again, you might be able to re-classic 4e by your DM-skills you learned from...real D&D!

No acting smart in 4e!  Never!  Only dumb play 4e!  


Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229873I 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.

I have given the PCs followers by simply letting them buy up various mercs or be given various help and then adding XP equal to their help to the encounters.   I let them pick up hirelings (I used human rabble for stats), each hireling is worth 31 XP for me to add to my encounter budgets.


Quote from: Engine;229914I 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].

Engine, you examples sounds like you use Shadowrun like I use Traveller. Mea culpa!  


Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229948And here's the deal: the solution to both the 1E "Tame the wolf" and the 3E "My Brothers the Beavers" situations that had to improvised on the spot have *support* in 4th edition in the form of the skill challenge.

Amen.  Used with imagination and active, engaged roleplaying, the skill challenges *can* be adapted easily to allow amazing creativity to be brought into the game.

It is such a shame that WotC did not put numerous examples of play into the DMG about how to use and abuse skill challenges.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: James McMurray on July 30, 2008, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Settembrini;229821BTW, is there a consensus on the question of informing the players beforehand which minis represent Minions and which do not?

We don't, but it can quickly become apparent if you pay attention. Minions never do exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly (they don't roll damage dice). They don't have their own funding, so they all wear and carry the same stuff. Plus, if 20 guys run at you and you drop two instantly, it's a good bet there's more minions in the bunch. They're probably not all minions, but that's what the wizard is there to find out. :)
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Settembrini on July 30, 2008, 05:30:58 PM
Could someone PM me if Spinachcat is really being serious? I read it as a truly gifted parody!
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Caesar Slaad on July 30, 2008, 05:47:48 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;229976Sorry Ceaser Salad, you are a couple of croutons shy of a full package if you really believe that D&D was the Royal Shakespeare Company slatered in Grey Poupon and lullabyed by Mozart until MC Mearls and his ghetto rappers took over and shit all over the preciousness.

So, am I to take it by resorting to insults and mischaracterizations, you have no real insight to offer here?

Thought not.

Quote from: Settembrini;230018Could someone PM me if Spinachcat is really being serious? I read it as a truly gifted parody!

Does it really matter? Either way, there's no real value to his posts.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Abyssal Maw on July 30, 2008, 06:35:14 PM
Quote from: DeadUematsu;229955AM, I have a copy of the 4E books. I know what rituals are. I know the rules. I also know what the book says. There is no rule in the book that says rituals do not preclude combat effects. Using the Binding category of rituals alone, I can duplicate Summon Monster. Hell, I can nuke Waterdeep by summoning the Faerunian equivalent of Wormwood to come crashing down on it. Again, this is no rule saying that I cannot do that. Heck, I can even add new categories for Buffing and Destruction if that's required.

Anyway, remember, I only went down this path because Psuedo said you easily could add summonable creatures to 4E through the ritual subsystem. Also, when I say summonable creatures, I mean creatures that you can use in combat AND in other ways. I don't care for ghost ponies. Ghost ponies alone do not cover the entirety of effects that you can do with the creature summoning that existed in previous editions of D&D.

I'll have to reread this. My sense of rituals was basicaly that cost and level would preclude any of these things from happening. I haven't yet seen a summon monster ritual in any case (there isn't one in the core books). In fact, here's my major annoyance with 4E that I haven't heard anyone talk about yet:

Wizards no longer get familiars.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: DeadUematsu on July 30, 2008, 07:53:44 PM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;230040I'll have to reread this. My sense of rituals was basicaly that cost and level would preclude any of these things from happening. I haven't yet seen a summon monster ritual in any case (there isn't one in the core books). In fact, here's my major annoyance with 4E that I haven't heard anyone talk about yet:

Wizards no longer get familiars.

Yeah. On one hand, it sucks because familiars were very flavorful and useful in gathering intelligence. On the other hand, if the familiar died, it resulted in a direct kick to the nuts for the wizard. :|
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Akrasia on July 30, 2008, 09:03:35 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;229938...
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.)

... lumping in everything pre-3e into one big mass misses a lot of differences.

This seems entirely correct to me.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;229938... 3e added consistency and structure, and a bit of gamism to the mix  ...

4e uses underlying structures too. But those structures are far more gamist-centric.  
...
I think it's fair to draw a line between 3e and 4e and acknowledge the change in philosophy...

I'm sceptical that a real 'change in philosophy' distinguishes 3e and 4e.  IMO 3e was already quite 'gamist' in nature.  Perhaps 4e is even more 'gamist' (I wouldn't argue with that), but that's a change in degree, not kind.

I'm inclined to agree with Pseudo that dislike of 4e by 3e fans has more to do with specific rules changes (perhaps amounting to an overall nudge in a 'gamist' direction) than 4e reflecting a radical shift in 'play style' or 'game philosophy'.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 31, 2008, 12:55:28 AM
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;230040In fact, here's my major annoyance with 4E that I haven't heard anyone talk about yet:

Wizards no longer get familiars.

Don't worry, I can come over and kick you repeatedly in the nuts any time you please. :p

I've only once seen a familiar handled well, and even then it was as a comic touch in an otherwise serious game.
Title: Does 4e have a broad spectrum of playstyles?
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on July 31, 2008, 12:57:48 AM
Quote from: DeadUematsu;229955AM, I have a copy of the 4E books. I know what rituals are. I know the rules. I also know what the book says. There is no rule in the book that says rituals do not preclude combat effects. Using the Binding category of rituals alone, I can duplicate Summon Monster. Hell, I can nuke Waterdeep by summoning the Faerunian equivalent of Wormwood to come crashing down on it. Again, this is no rule saying that I cannot do that. Heck, I can even add new categories for Buffing and Destruction if that's required.

Anyway, remember, I only went down this path because Psuedo said you easily could add summonable creatures to 4E through the ritual subsystem. Also, when I say summonable creatures, I mean creatures that you can use in combat AND in other ways. I don't care for ghost ponies. Ghost ponies alone do not cover the entirety of effects that you can do with the creature summoning that existed in previous editions of D&D.

I stand by it. I'd let you summon a demon or devil to help you in combat using a ritual. I'd probably be a dick about it and make the ritual casting roll a pseudo-skill challenge involving repeatedly rolling your Arcana or Religion or something though. If you fuck up, the demon busts loose and goes apeshit on you.

Actually, this is a wicked idea I'm incorporating into the Dawnlands. Thanks!

Edit: Shazam! (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=230149&postcount=144)
Now you've got houserules for demon summoning and everything.