Quote from: Stuart;220732I think a positive thing to come out of the release of 4e is making the term "roleplaying game" a bit more inclusive of some games that were often seen as "other games".  So you can have a Tactical Skirmish Game that's *also* a Roleplaying game.  Like Battletech.

Er, wasn't Mechwarrior the RPG, Battletech the minis game?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220739Er, wasn't Mechwarrior the RPG, Battletech the minis game?

Yes. I wish I still had them too damn it.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220739Er, wasn't Mechwarrior the RPG, Battletech the minis game?

Mechwarrior is an RPG set in the Battletech Universe. If you want to do Mech-to-Mech combat you used the Battletech rules though.

Quote from: Fritzs;220676And about 4e... well, some people I know consider playing Warhammer 40000 (not dark heresy, minis) without some sort of roleplaying to be boring... but it still doesn't make Warhammer 40000 RPG... or does it...?

No, of course it doesn't, which is exactly what I said when I gave the definition of an RPG. However, by your definition, if it somehow wasn't fun without roleplaying, it would be an RPG. Or at least, it would be an RPG for that guy, but not for you. Whereas D&D is an RPG for a whole ton of people, but not for you.

The best thing to do is use an objective definition devoid of personal opinion. That is, if you want a term that's usable in a discussion without polling each person about their tastes so you know whether they'll use your definition or not.

---

The first time D&D refers to itself in the PHB it calls itself a Roleplaying Game. It has rules for use with roleplaying. It also has advice for people new to roleplaying for when they come across a situtaion those rules don't cover. It takes a purposefully blind and biased view to say "D&D 4e isn't an RPG."

Actually, I think Fritzs's flexible definition is more useful and interesting. As an example, it does a good job of illustrating the high "RPGness" of older versions of D&D. Which is to say, rather contrary to what Sigmund wrote a few posts ago, the earlier (pre-3e) versions, were really pretty pointless without roleplaying. And the farther back you went, the more true this was.

Note by "roleplaying" I don't mean intense character-centric drama--but with those older games, if you tried to play them as skirmish wargames, they pretty much...sucked. If you played them as games of adventure, exploration, and characterization, you were more likely to have fun.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220739Er, wasn't Mechwarrior the RPG, Battletech the minis game?

Interestingly (maybe), while it's usually a sucessful RPG that gives rise to a compatible strategic minis game, in this case it was the strategic minis game that gave rise to a compatible RPG.  I liked the general mechanics of the RPG, but never saw the need to roleplay between combat scenarios, so I never did get a campaign going.

!i!

Quote from: Sigmund;220705What the hell ya asking me for? You have to ask the people giving their opinions why they feel they should. I'm simply stating what I feel is behind what they are saying. I could be wrong, but I could also be correct as well. It's probably obvious which I think I am, at least until someone convinces me otherwise.

I'm asking you because you're the dufus who thinks that people who don't like 4E, don't like it because of minis and battlemats regardless of what they actually say.

Instead of just assuming you know why people don't like 4E, why don't you ask them and find out for sure? Who knows, it may be enlightening to you.

Quote from: Sigmund;220707What, in your opinion, is missing from 4e that was present in previous editions of DnD that makes 4e less of a rpg than those other editions?

The Bard character class, for one.

I'm not into high-powered fantasy combat for its own sake, I'm interested in that if it is the culmination of a plotline for the characters in an adventure. To me, D&D hasn't been all about the combat encounter, it has been about the encounter - and if that turns into a combat encounter then it is due to the actions of the players. I like how in 3.x you could still gain experience from an encounter with a monster without it becoming combat. 4E has those encounters now distinctly seperate, they are the Combat Encounter and the Skill Challenge. This is where Sigmund's style and mine are going to differ, because in the type of play I prefer which was a part of 3.x the encounter could be either combat or skill challenge depending on how the players decided to approach the encounter.

Quote from: jeff379234E has those encounters now distinctly seperate, they are the Combat Encounter and the Skill Challenge. This is where Sigmund's style and mine are going to differ, because in the type of play I prefer which was a part of 3.x the encounter could be either combat or skill challenge depending on how the players decided to approach the encounter.

That's not true, not at all. Skill challenges can lead into Combat encounters, and a combat encounter can be changed into a skill challenge (or just plain old roleplaying)depending on how the PC's approach a situation. That's pretty much just as it was before. D&D 4e is not strictly a railroad, it is still a RPG. It's just not a very good one.

In the original AD&D, I got more XP for treasure than I did from combat. You could run a dungeon as a difficult maze (I haven't seen a good maze dungeon outside of a videogame in a LONG time!) or with strictly traps and puzzles (back when there were no skill rolls, so the players had to figure it out for themselves). If the got to the end and found a ton of treasure, than they got a ton of XP too! No need for monsters or combat what so ever.

Quite a lot of good points raised on both sides, folks - thanks.

Quote from: Sigmund;220720To try to get back on topic, I have to say that while Melan's OP has a very few points I consider valid, as a whole I have to strongly disagree with the rant as a whole and say that I echo Trev in saying it seems that at the time the post was written it seems Melan has very little direct knowledge of the game at all. Melan makes the same mistake as many others in presenting opinion as objective truth, and what's worse seems to base these opinions on ideas not even espoused by the game he's ranting about. For example, Melan says,

First, the meta-discussion part. Not having much direct knowledge of the game books is accurate, but I did not pretend otherwise, so I don't see your point. I think adequate information has been released in the form of teasers, preview materials and reviews to form a moderately informed opinion if you have been following things. I have been following things, both pro and contra... and like others, even the positive opinions reinforced my negative preconceptions. I just don't like this game, period. I get why others find it enjoyable, I just don't share their preferences. About the only thing I liked is that DMing looks a bit easier because of more intuitive monster stats (and that's too little, esp. in face of everything else). Also, I don't mind that the game supports miniatures; I liked them in 3e, Attacks of Opportunity and all. The rest, not so much.

Second, I don't claim objectivity. This is my personal perspective based on my preferences. So are most positive opinions. I don't buy the "but it's not objective" argument; almost nothing posted on the Internet is. Bringing in evidence is good, but not even that makes your argument objective, it just makes it supported by evidence, which is not the same thing.

Your examples from the DMG, for example, are good evidence - and I will counter that games often have a spirit not entirely in keeping with the text. To cite an example, "status quo" encounters in 3.x were mentioned as perfectly legitimate, but most hardcore 3e players greatly preferred custom-tailored ones, and used Challenge Ratings and the "rewards" tables as a normative encounter balancing mechanism. Something that started out as descriptive turned out to be prescriptive - so much so that modules outside the norm were strongly criticised (I recommend reading ENWorld reviews of Necromancer Games modules, especially Rappan Athuk, to see how status quo encounters came to be viewed by a significant and hardcore segment of the community).

It appears to me that 4e has moved towards even stronger and more hard-wired game balance - changes to more "arbitrary" threats such as petrification, paralysis or any save-or-die effects; magic items in the PHB instead of the DMG, and I think there are suggested monster and treasure "packages" in the core books (confirm/deny?). These seem to support my argument WRT fair play, standardisation and removing "unfun" things. Meticulously balancing player characters against each other also belongs to the category in my opinion - that's why classes were made more similar by having the same sort of power structure, unlike earlier editions, where playing different classes was almost like playing a different game.

QuoteMelan makes some reference to the "bad players" and how his opinion is that the design philosophy is catering to them. When talking about this issue he makes reference to players that hated their characters getting killed, complained about game balance (and then again injects his opinion when saying he finds WotC solution as "Uniformisation and sameness"), etc. This is an over-generalization of the many folks having an issue with instant deaths (we've all heard the complaints about "save or die" mechanics), and too much down-time while specialists gain the spot-light.

The argumentation used against save or die effects, rust monsters ("depriving the players of their due" / "deprotagonisation" in Forge terms), DM arbitration/powers, spotlight issues et al is very much the core of the Tyranny of Fun problem. Not all players subscribe to this philosophy, but enough people (and among them many hardcores) do to make it matter, especially when Wizards designers listen. In my opinion, this becomes a problem because instead of promoting the various sorts of fun you can have at the table, WotC design tries to make people happy by removing or "fixing" game elements which invite controversy.

It is my position that this makes 4e a poorer - less varied and more regimented - game; there are still challenges, but they almost always lie in combat tactics. Most of the "look, 4e isn't nerfed" arguments refer to how groups got their asses handed to them by an interesting tactical encounter. Which is fine (I damn loved these when I was playing 3e, even when we were losing!), but I want the other sorts of fun as well - the more random kind which you can nevertheless try to avoid with a bit of out of the box thinking. Or die trying. So there are two issues here:
a) safety: making the game safer by taking out or blunting some of the things you can hurt yourself with;
b) sameness: more codified instead of open-ended play styles (is there advice in the 4e DMG relating to non-tactical challenges? And if yes, how much?).
None of this is exactly new to 4e - witness 3.5's changes to the Command spell (a few codified commands instead of open-endedness), Hold Person, Harm, Disintegrate, etc., or the changes to the rust monster and beholder. 4e is simply the outcome of the thought process, one I could see coming.

I understand where people are coming from when they say they were not finding the apparent randomness and "unfair" elements of earlier D&D appealing. I see why they would like 4e - along with the people who finally got what they have wanted since 1976 - no more memorisation! But these things are what made the game fun and "D&D" to me. I didn't find them bugs to be fixed; they were the game. I also find it a little unfair/unjust that the "griefers" are the ones being listened to, and not the people who accepted Dungeons & Dragons on its own merits, but such is life...

So yeah, 4e is not my D&D anymore, and like everyone else, I am letting people know. I guess that's my response to this part:

QuoteThe second issue is hardly common to DnD, as it has been a complaint of all the editions of Shadowrun before the current one (and it's a complaint I agree with). While lots of folks, Melan included, might not like WotC's solution to these issues, at least they are hearing their customers and trying to do something about these issues. I, for one have no problem with 90% of their approach.

...

QuoteBack to the topic, I have no idea where Melan is getting this,

from. If, by writing mechanics for a game make the designer "the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun.", then what game isn't some kind of "tyranny of fun"? Is it because some people seem to think 4e will be harder to houserule than other games?

As I see it, 4e might be easier to houserule than 3e - the mechanics are perhaps less integrated (at least my information gives me this impression). It is the image and acceptance of houseruling that has changed. The same attitudes I cited about the game and the rules - which you yourself seem to acknowledge - are not conductive to making house rules or (in extreme cases) non-canonical DM rulings. The kind of people who jealously guard their characters from being killed or harmed by some semi-random effect are often the same types who resent DM authority, and find it hard to accept any change going against their "privileges". This is the "bad player" part - bad DMs are a different breed, of course. But should games be designed to accommodate bad play by integrating/promoting safety, or encourage good gaming at the cost that it might let in the sort of subjectivity that will make dysfunctional game groups have an unpleasant experience? Can/should people be protected from their own mistakes? I am in the "no safety net" and "just play with normal people" camp.

About the role of game design - as I see it, game designers are the external authority people can appeal to, and which "bad players" love to cite. This is not completely new - after all, Skip Williams had spent most of his carreer answering D&D related questions which were often about the basest rule-fuckery. But I see appeals to game design cropping up a lot in recent arguments. Maybe it is also in part because of a growing awareness of game design's role, but I also think it is about the different status of "official" materials, and "official interpretations".

QuoteI challenge Melan (or anyone else for that matter) to provide specific examples of how DnD 4e "denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play". Give me references to page and/or game mechanics that support that conclusion. Give me examples of how 4e attempts (any more than any other rpg) to protect gamers from their own mistakes. Explain to me in more detail, with support from the actual text, how 4e will "shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment".

Hope the above was enough; I can provide more if you wish, time and will permitting. Since I don't actually have the books, we will have to do without textual citations.

In the end, I am not claiming you can't have a good game with 4e, or you are stupid for liking it (well... if you like how they disposed of memorisation and the real rust monster, you might be ). I am claiming it's a move in a bad direction, and, furthermore, by shedding its own identity, it is losing that special "D&D sort of charm only D&D of all roleplaying games had.

Quote from: KrakaJak;220804That's not true, not at all. Skill challenges can lead into Combat encounters, and a combat encounter can be changed into a skill challenge (or just plain old roleplaying)depending on how the PC's approach a situation. That's pretty much just as it was before. D&D 4e is not strictly a railroad, it is still a RPG. It's just not a very good one.

Skill Challenges and Combat Encounters are different and formatted as such in 4E. While you can say that one may lead to another, you still have a structure to adhere to for either which wasn't there in 3.x - which moves away from the DM adjucating the flow of play to a more codefied response that feels like it must be decided upon beforehand (and not based upon the situation that is happening in real time).

I'll grant that 4E is not a railroad, but just by looking at the rules - it is strongly geared towards the Combat Encounter.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220332If Melan makes a point based on misunderstanding, Trev should be able to point it out. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority.

True, but as you yourself noted this would hardly be the first time I've raised this point, and I've covered my objections to comments like those in the OP in much more detail elsewhere.

I can do a point by point if you prefer, but there's only so much old ground we can keep recovering before the whole exercise seems pointless and I'd rather save myself the trouble.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;220784Actually, I think Fritzs's flexible definition is more useful and interesting. As an example, it does a good job of illustrating the high "RPGness" of older versions of D&D. Which is to say, rather contrary to what Sigmund wrote a few posts ago, the earlier (pre-3e) versions, were really pretty pointless without roleplaying. And the farther back you went, the more true this was.

They also made more time for roleplaying. Combat was simple and did not usually consume much play time, 10-15 minutes for an average combat encounter versus 45-90 minutes for the same in 3e+ (in my experience). This left the group with a lot more time for non-combat stuff in pre-3e games. I've found that the less time spend in combat, the more time spent roleplaying.

QuoteNote by "roleplaying" I don't mean intense character-centric drama--but with those older games, if you tried to play them as skirmish wargames, they pretty much...sucked. If you played them as games of adventure, exploration, and characterization, you were more likely to have fun.

I think that may be the key point. 3e marked a major change in the focus of the game from adventure and exploration to tactical combat and character-building. The latter tends to leave less time for roleplaying. 4e seems to have downplayed the character build a bit, but increased the emphasis on tactical combat and character balance for tactical combat.

All editions of D&D are certainly roleplaying games, but the WOTC editions seem to me to focus more on fun from playing out detailed tactical combats while TSR editions focused more on fun from adventure and exploration.  As I find detailed tactical combat boring and adventure and exploration fun and exciting, this would explain while I strongly prefer TSR editions.

Quote from: Melan;220809I understand where people are coming from when they say they were not finding the apparent randomness and "unfair" elements of earlier D&D appealing. I see why they would like 4e - along with the people who finally got what they have wanted since 1976 - no more memorisation! But these things are what made the game fun and "D&D" to me. I didn't find them bugs to be fixed; they were the game. I also find it a little unfair/unjust that the "griefers" are the ones being listened to, and not the people who accepted Dungeons & Dragons on its own merits, but such is life...

What bothers me most about what has been done is that most of these problems could have been solved by short optional rules that handle the specific cases. This way those who want the "safety" and lack of randomness could have what they want without nerfing the game for those who do not mind it.

Some examples:

Have an optional rule for energy drains, making them dangerous but non-permanent (and not requiring rewriting the character): If your players do not like energy drains, instead of having them permanently lose a level, give them a -1 on all D20 rolls per level drained from them. They heal one drained level even HD days where HD is the number of hit dice the monster who drained the level has.

If your characters find the chance of character death too high, allow them and option to "save their game" and restore it after something goes bad, just like in a computer game. Have a deity of adventurers in your campaign who will (for say, 25% of all treasure earned disappearing as the character gains it) raise the character as exactly she was the last time she prayed to the Adventurer God for 10 minutes straight per level 24 hours after they died at the nearest church or shrine to this deity. (This may not make much sense, but it will work without nerfing the game rules for everyone and with some fleshing out in the campaign setting could be made to feel less silly.)

Quote from: Jeff37923I'll grant that 4E is not a railroad, but just by looking at the rules - it is strongly geared towards the Combat Encounter.

That's the biggest problem, is the focus on the combat encounter. The worst part of that focus is combat is shitty. It's long, drawn out and frustrating. First level combats now take 30 minutes or more, there's little room for improvisation, most character abilities are very similar, and there is not much actual danger.