Quote from: JRR;360903Hmmmmm.  From Wikipedia:  Among Jack Vance's his awards are



You don't win awards like that without your books being pretty widely read.

Jack Vance and Gene Wolfe share at least one thing, they're more writer's writers than popular writers. Also note that many of those awards post-date D&D and only one is for a fantasy work, none of which is a Dying Earth work. Vance is as much a science fiction writer as a fantasy writer.

But I'd loved to be proved wrong and shown that Dying Earth fantasy is popular or even well-known. The more people that read the subgenre or Vance in general the merrier.

It doesn't matter if D&D magic was Vancian, psuedo-vancian or whatever. The point really is that the designers thought it was necessary to wrap some sort of concept round magic provide some insight as to why it worked the way it did.
You will never read a fanatasy novel where the Wizards can just do stuff all the time without years ofstudy or it tiring them out or it opening up a path to the Duat to allow a horde of demons to escape or something.
4e removes that because its not deemed important.

Quote from: kryyst;3609214e is an RPG, though you can certainly scrape out all that RPG stuff and play it as a board game ala Descent.   But then you aren't playing all of 4e in it's entirety.  If you want to judge only a portion of 4e, that's fine but then we should be defining those portions from the start.

Again - not really purposely picking on you, despite my comment I actually agree with with what you are suggesting for the most part in that post.

I never said 4e wasn't a role-playing game, however, you can't tell me that 4e hasn't chosen mechanical cohesion over immersion and setting cohesion.  The powers in 4e aren't designed to make sense in the cosmology of FR or Greyhawk, Eberron or anything else, they are there to make a good tactical game with the trappings of generic D&D fantasy.  It's not a wargame, not a boardgame, it is however, a tactical RPG, a RPG that makes for a good tactical game first.  If you want to know why the powers work the way they do within the setting, you make that up yourself, or just toss it to the back of your mind the same way you do in a MMOG.

I'm not really picking on 4e alone, 3e did much the same thing with oddball standard classes like the Shadowdancer.  The character can teleport via shadows?  How does that work?  Are they divinely powered, arcane, why can they do it and no one else?  Ah, fuck it, who cares, you can TELPORT VIA SHADOWS!  It sounds like a Penny Arcade strip.

Seriously though, if we don't come up with some sub-categories, we're always gonna be repeating the same arguments that all have at their core differing definitions of "what is a roleplaying game".

Quote from: CRKrueger;360917That's because 4E D&D isn't an Immersive Role-Playing Game (IRPG), but a Tactical Role-Playing Game (TRPG).  The post where I talk about these terms is here.

This definition clarification works for me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360929It doesn't matter if D&D magic was Vancian, psuedo-vancian or whatever. The point really is that the designers thought it was necessary to wrap some sort of concept round magic provide some insight as to why it worked the way it did.
You will never read a fanatasy novel where the Wizards can just do stuff all the time without years ofstudy or it tiring them out or it opening up a path to the Duat to allow a horde of demons to escape or something.
4e removes that because its not deemed important.

And that is why it fails as an rpg.

Quote from: kryyst;360904In this new system they've created a whole slew of mechanical tools to combat balance the classes but built no story logic into it.

However if the rules are there because they are the mechanical interface to give us the players some guidelines as to why the story world works the way it does then there should be some story logic to decide why this power can be used all the time and this one once a day.

This is an aspect about 4e game design that has stretched my limits of the suspension of disbelief to the maximum. While I can see that the Fighter might not be able to pull off the same maneuver during the same combat encounter, what is to prevent him from trying it other than an artificial limit?

When you factor in Daily abilities, it really makes no sense. A Fighter isn't drawing upon arcane energies or divine energies to power what he can do. A Fighter is using his skills and experience to do what he does. So why is there a Daily limited ability for a Fighter? The answer is obvious: Game Balance.

In their effort to make all of the classes balanced, they have removed some of the logical aspects in designing some of the classes. The end result is a bland combination of "powers" that are structured very similarly from class to class. Since a Witch and a Cleric have At-Will, Encounter, and Daily, then the Fighter must also be set up the same way to achieve balance.

It is too bad that they didn't think about setting up the magic system this way and then leaving the non-casting classes with a different approach. In short, they shoehorned every class into the same design paradigm when they didn't need to do it that way.

Quote from: kryyst;360904The fake conversation stems back to the argument of mechanics for the sake of mechanics with no fluff surrounding them.  Magic, in previous editions was based on 'story logic' of spells working like one shot programs that you stored in ram (cuz computer analogy works well).  In this new system they've created a whole slew of mechanical tools to combat balance the classes but built no story logic into it.  Why can the fighter do this attack every round, but not this one..... that's what the fake conversation is eluding to you douche.

I'd respond to this but I'm too busy giggling about "one shot programs that you stored in RAM." Those are so common.

Quote from: JRR;360935And that is why it fails as an rpg.

And yet, many thousands of us are using it as a RPG just fine.  :rolleyes:


BTW - Am I the only one that noticed the 4e spells for wizards are STILL using the fluff explanation of memorization (see the part about spell book feature - you pick which spell to "memorize" that day)?

The limited powers use thing is obvious - using said power tires you out, or uses up your divine favor, or de-memorizes your spell or whatever so you need to rest before using it again.  Everyone I played with had no problem whatsoever getting that concept immediately nor did they feel it made immersion an issue.

Quote from: PaladinCA;360944This is an aspect about 4e game design that has stretched my limits of the suspension of disbelief to the maximum. While I can see that the Fighter might not be able to pull off the same maneuver during the same combat encounter, what is to prevent him from trying it other than an artificial limit?

When you factor in Daily abilities, it really makes no sense. A Fighter isn't drawing upon arcane energies or divine energies to power what he can do. A Fighter is using his skills and experience to do what he does. So why is there a Daily limited ability for a Fighter? The answer is obvious: Game Balance.

In their effort to make all of the classes balanced, they have removed some of the logical aspects in designing some of the classes. The end result is a bland combination of "powers" that are structured very similarly from class to class. Since a Witch and a Cleric have At-Will, Encounter, and Daily, then the Fighter must also be set up the same way to achieve balance.

It is too bad that they didn't think about setting up the magic system this way and then leaving the non-casting classes with a different approach. In short, they shoehorned every class into the same design paradigm when they didn't need to do it that way.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I've been in the early alpha of a handful of MMOGs and I can tell you that this is exactly the argument that's come up in all of them.  Classes would suspend disbelief better if they worked differently, but then they become far to difficult to balance, thus by definition all MMOGs end up being TRPGs rather then IRPGs, balance and tactics of the mechanics always trumps Immersion.  D&D 4e embraces this philosophy.  It truly is a MMOG-on-paper, a Tactical RPG.  That's not an insult, it is what it is.

Quote from: jgants;360947The limited powers use thing is obvious - using said power tires you out, or uses up your divine favor, or de-memorizes your spell or whatever so you need to rest before using it again.  Everyone I played with had no problem whatsoever getting that concept immediately nor did they feel it made immersion an issue.

This makes a lot of sense for the casting classes. Much less so for the non-casting ones.

Quote from: CRKrueger;360948I hate to sound like a broken record, but I've been in the early alpha of a handful of MMOGs and I can tell you that this is exactly the argument that's come up in all of them.  Classes would suspend disbelief better if they worked differently, but then they become far to difficult to balance, thus by definition all MMOGs end up being TRPGs rather then IRPGs, balance and tactics of the mechanics always trumps Immersion.  D&D 4e embraces this philosophy.  It truly is a MMOG-on-paper, a Tactical RPG.  That's not an insult, it is what it is.

At first, I considered the MMO on paper argument to be silly and/or false. After playing the game during the past year, I'm actually coming around to a different point of view, one that almost agrees with that argument.

Are there any innovations, though?

The only one that possibly comes close is making all characters viable in combat. It's a biggun, but dunno whether it's innovative.

Quote from: One Horse Town;360951Are there any innovations, though?

The only one that possibly comes close is making all characters viable in combat. It's a biggun, but dunno whether it's innovative.

Well, IF "Game Balance" is an innovation, then I dare say they have probably achieved it.

Quote from: PaladinCA;360944This is an aspect about 4e game design that has stretched my limits of the suspension of disbelief to the maximum. While I can see that the Fighter might not be able to pull off the same maneuver during the same combat encounter, what is to prevent him from trying it other than an artificial limit?

So here's a real answer that works fine for me.

I have never ever seen an action movie or read a novel in which the hero did the same thing with the same degree of effectiveness every time. Sometimes he puts forth more effort. Sometimes he gets lucky. Sometimes he's more motivated because his sidekick is in distress. A story in which the hero hits the creatures with the same attack the same way every time is dull.

"And then Conan swung his sword, down and to the left. Again."

In, say, AD&D, the fighter gets the "extra oomph" effect by rolling well sometimes and not rolling well sometimes. We remember the big hits, because those are the times when Conan summons up everything he can.

But as players, we don't have any control over when they happen. Sometimes you roll max damage on the kobold in the first fight of the day. This doesn't actually suck or anything; it's just a thing, and you don't remember that particular big roll, because it's not memorable.

Dailies and encounters give you more control over when your fighter digs deep and does something impressive. You can say "hey, this is the Moment," and pull out all the stops. You get to decide when you're going to add that bit of texture to the world.

That's cool. I mean, it really is. It also can cause some suspension of disbelief problems, obviously. I have been a deeply immersive roleplayer for 20 years, and I don't know how 4e would affect my immersion, because I don't get to play in a campaign environment. (I play a lot of LFR. LFR is not an immersive environment for me, so far.) But the idea of getting additional immersion by controlling when my PC puts forth the extra effort... I think I would get something out of that.

Coming back to Paladin's question -- your fighter doesn't know what he's doing. If you want, you can think of it this way: he can try to put forth that extra effort, but he doesn't have it in him. Or the orc isn't giving him that opening, for whatever reason. Your fighter may think he's trying to do the big attack; he doesn't know he's just doing an at-will.

And yeah, that's the part that might be a problem for immersive play. I don't think so? But I dunno for sure. There's a trade off here.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360892So, kiddies, since AD&D worked for millions of people (and still does for more than just my gaming group), maybe it's you who need to get over it.

Cool that it works for you, you've made that clear. I don't mind slow character progression or low powered playing and I wouldn't play games like Call of Cthulhu, Tekumel, Traveller as well as D&D if I didn't like it or thinking outside the box. And I can pick the maximum weapon damages available to an AD&D magic-user (RandallS's post regarding to OD&D doesn't apply to AD&D AFAIK). For that matter I'm no 4E fanboy and I started with and still enjoy Holmes Basic. But even Mythmere's mused about more magic ala 4E as an option to Swords & Wizardry.

The quoted paragraph of mine should've gone at the end of my post, which combined replies to two separate posts into one. (shrugs) Spell casters didn't mesh well with many people's exceptions of them going in (or thieves for that matter, Cugel doesn't come to most people's minds) and for example it wasn't until a few years ago that the origins of the Cleric as a Hammer Horror priest/monster hunter came to public light. Until then the Cleric didn't click to me. No all that's not required to play the game, but it is a disconnect.