Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262996It's pretty clear that his main objection to it is that I said it, not anything to do with the idea itself.

No, my objection is twofold:  That anyone would think that an idea this obvious and self explanatory is worth discussing as though it has any impact, and that you think it is some stunning revelation.

Quote from: jeff37923;263009I would like to second the motion that Pseudoephedrine is a douchebag, regardless of whether or not he can define the term "culture of play".

All in favor?

I don't think Pseudoephedrine or Stormbringer are douchebags. I think this whole "culture of play" idea should have a thread of it's own. It's an interesting idea, IMO. Stormbringer is right, it does seem pretty obvious but then again, a lot of things are esp when it comes to gaming but this does not mean it's not worth discussing.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;263011I don't think Pseudoephedrine or Stormbringer are douchebags. I think this whole "culture of play" idea should have a thread of it's own. It's an interesting idea, IMO. Stormbringer is right, it does seem pretty obvious but then again, a lot of things are esp when it comes to gaming but this does not mean it's not worth discussing.

Regards,
David R

The major downside, which may not be as obvious, is the effort to emphasize the 'play' part.  Pseudo has repeated many, many times that the only people who are qualified to speak of 4e in any manner are those playing it.  The general idea of 'culture of play' is so obvious because it isn't meant to be discussed on its own merits, it is simply a method of separating those who don't play in order to dismiss their opinions out of hand.  The hostility is thick enough to cut with a knife, in fact, as evidenced by Pseudo and Drew on this very thread.

By this line of reasoning, Roger Ebert would be unqualified to speak of Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because he wasn't manning a camera, or writing the script.  It's preposterous, of course.  I am sure the refrain will be that Roger Ebert has at least written movies; however, I am quite sure many of the critics of 4e have written games.  In many other cases, they are people with a solid background in game theory and design.

Anyway, I rambled on a bit, and not really at anything you posted in particular.  'Learn the rules and talk about them' isn't the point, it's the smokescreen for the underlying 'you have to play to be qualified to talk about it' argument.

Quote from: David R;263011I don't think Pseudoephedrine or Stormbringer are douchebags.

Regards,
David R

Never said that Stormbringer was one, just Pseudoephedrine. Try to keep on track.

And we still haven't seen a definition for "culture of play" yet.

Quote from: jeff37923;263058Never said that Stormbringer was one, just Pseudoephedrine. Try to keep on track.

Thank you.

QuoteAnd we still haven't seen a definition for "culture of play" yet.

I think my definition is likely as good a definition as you are going to get.

After ruminating off and on today over the above thoughts before I posted them in my reply to David R, I am pretty sure the whole thing is just a smokescreen anyway.

As much as I might disagree with SB; and though I've had  previous sometimes unpleasant discussions with Pseudo...

Culture of Play (Look! Caps!) has been defined. I'm not one for shiny terms (which is, recursively, a shiny term), but I get what Pseudo is saying - it's about a set of perspectives, tips, approaches, etc. that arise from those who play in order to fill gaps they feel exist in the rules as written. It's supported now more than ever because the Internet is such a great F'in tool for facilitation of this nature.

I'm not sure of any specific analogy, but think of it as a "culture" that arises from the use of the product once it gets off the showroom floor and into the hands of the general public.

Now SB's point is also well taken - that is, the danger of focusing on something like the CoP (Hey! An acronym! This is fun!) is that it can often carry with it, whether or not intended, the baggage of "if you haven't played it, you can't talk about it." Which, IMHO, is a bit of a non-sequitor (in the colloquial sense).

As to the OP - I'm not sure just why they chose to remove wandering monsters, but it's one of those things that fits with the drift between me and the goals of the current edition. No skin off my nose, I just keep playing 3.5 and taking in the suggestions of those who are playing 4e in case some day I wish to house rule a version to better fit my tastes.

Perhaps playing a 3.5 version of B2 with the kids recently (three times in the last four days!) has colored my perspective. It does seem that perhaps the long term effects of shedding certain aspects of the game were not considered. Whether they knew them or not before hand is up in the air.

Quote from: James J Skach;263068As much as I might disagree with SB; and though I've had  previous sometimes unpleasant discussions with Pseudo...

Culture of Play (Look! Caps!) has been defined. I'm not one for shiny terms (which is, recursively, a shiny term), but I get what Pseudo is saying - it's about a set of perspectives, tips, approaches, etc. that arise from those who play in order to fill gaps they feel exist in the rules as written. It's supported now more than ever because the Internet is such a great F'in tool for facilitation of this nature.

I'm not sure of any specific analogy, but think of it as a "culture" that arises from the use of the product once it gets off the showroom floor and into the hands of the general public.

Now SB's point is also well taken - that is, the danger of focusing on something like the CoP (Hey! An acronym! This is fun!) is that it can often carry with it, whether or not intended, the baggage of "if you haven't played it, you can't talk about it." Which, IMHO, is a bit of a non-sequitor (in the colloquial sense).

As to the OP - I'm not sure just why they chose to remove wandering monsters, but it's one of those things that fits with the drift between me and the goals of the current edition. No skin off my nose, I just keep playing 3.5 and taking in the suggestions of those who are playing 4e in case some day I wish to house rule a version to better fit my tastes.

Perhaps playing a 3.5 version of B2 with the kids recently (three times in the last four days!) has colored my perspective. It does seem that perhaps the long term effects of shedding certain aspects of the game were not considered. Whether they knew them or not before hand is up in the air.

You sir, and your level-headedness, will be the downfall of the Internet.

Regarding the actual topic line of the thread, the longer I look at 4e, the more I realize that the problems I have with it are almost entirely what was left out.

Don't get me wrong; I actually like a lot of what I've read of 4e. I've been slowly reassembling some of the players I DMed for in the 80s and 90s so I can run the game to see how it plays, but what I've seen indicates it'll be fun, in general. It's just that some of what was left out would have added to that fun, in my experience.

The main thing I miss are non-combat or non-adventuring skills, specifically the Craft and Profession skills of 3e. As far back as when i first started gaming, my fellow players were always trying to cobble together some kind of system for such stuff, whether it was extrapolating from the Secondary Skills table in the 1e DMG, or the later Nonweapon Proficiencies system (such as it was). We tried taking elements from games with skills systems - such as BRP - and bolting them onto D&D. So I know there was at least some call for such stuff.

I actually like the more simplified and errata'ed 4e skill system. I don't understand why they didn't simply add Craft and/or Profession as a couple of generalized skills, much like what was done with Knowledge skills like History. Perhaps they saw some cascade effect that would necessitate larding the system down, something I have caught yet. Maybe they simply stuck with the main design philosophy that seems to pervade 4e - an emphasis on action, specifically combat-related action.

I actually don't have a problem with that philosophy, for the most part. It harkens back to what 1e felt like to me when I first began playing it. D&D has always been about action. That's a good thing. But that doesn't mean everything (or at least, most everything) non-combat related needed to be jettisoned.

I do get the feeling that WotC will eventually present more non-combat related stuff in forthcoming books. Normally I have no problem with the prospect of new material. I like having the opportunity of picking and choosing from a wealth of material. It was actually something I liked about 3e - I didn't mind all the various splatbooks. I never felt like I "had" to get all the books that WotC released, because the core game itself could stand on its own and covered just about any conceivable aspect of D&D game play that I'd had experience with. 4e isn't quite that comprehensive, in my opinion.

I wouldn't need, or want, a really substantial addition, just a few more skill entries and perhaps a page or so about the use of such skills. I don't even feel the need for more non-combat spells or rituals. What there are in the game seem good for a basic, core game (though I'm curious about the arcane power book they have slated). Just a couple skills, that's all. But hell, fan-created works have already appeared to fill such gaps, and y'know, I liked seeing homebrew stuff (or stuff from Dragon or other games) way back in the day. So I'm not too vexed. Just puzzled why the WotC guys didn't try to at least address such stuff in a basic form in 4e.

I'm probably more tweaked at the absence of various monsters, races, and classes that like. But even there, fan efforts have already cropped up. There has already been a massive number of monster conversions to 4e over at EN World, which feeds my statblock addiction, and it looks like it's relatively easier to whip up monsters for 4e, which I'd always been a bit daunted by in 3e, despite loving to create monsters for 1e and 2e.

I wish that races like the gnomes, half-orcs, and goliaths (a newer, personal favorite) and classes like the barbarian and druid had made the cut, but WotC itself has already relased details for some of these (the gnome has playable stats in the Monster Manual, the barbarian was released as an open playtest on WotC's site). Frost Giants being absent irritated me, until I looked at the Fire Giant stats and saw that they could easily be converted to their missing kin (and some of the 4e designers have written and spoken about how such conversions are desirable).  

I know this is a long post, and probably pretty bland because I don't feel strongly negative about the game, so it'll likely go unread for the most part. Still, it feels good to simply talk. Or write, in this case.

Quote from: StormBringer;263061Thank you.


I think my definition is likely as good a definition as you are going to get.

After ruminating off and on today over the above thoughts before I posted them in my reply to David R, I am pretty sure the whole thing is just a smokescreen anyway.

Pseudoephedrine likes to create smokescreens a lot, its why I just put him on ignore a long time ago.

I don't think there is a "culture of play". However, I do think you could argue for a subculture for a specific game system and a cuture for RPG gamers in general.

Quote from: jeff37923;263058Never said that Stormbringer was one, just Pseudoephedrine. Try to keep on track.

You didn't. But others have because of his criticism against 4E. I thought I'd kill two birds with one post.

QuoteAnd we still haven't seen a definition for "culture of play" yet.

Yes we have. Try to keep on track.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;263085Yes we have. Try to keep on track.

Regards,
David R

Where?

(Answer or be called a douchebag as well.)

Quote from: David R;263085You didn't. But others have because of his criticism against 4E. I thought I'd kill two birds with one post.

OK, then fuck you for trying to misrepresent my position.

Quote from: David R;263085Yes we have. Try to keep on track.

Regards,
David R

OK, where? Unless you are referring to Pseudointellectual's bullshit smokescreen, which is crap.

Quote from: StormBringer;263054By this line of reasoning, Roger Ebert would be unqualified to speak of Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because he wasn't manning a camera, or writing the script.  It's preposterous, of course.  I am sure the refrain will be that Roger Ebert has at least written movies; however, I am quite sure many of the critics of 4e have written games.  In many other cases, they are people with a solid background in game theory and design.

I dunno, Stormbringer. I don't really like the film crit analogy, but I'd say it's more like Ebert not seeing a particular Spilberg movie and basing his judgement of it on Spielberg's past work or something like that. Also, I'm not too sure about the whole "solid background in game theory and design". I guess it all boils down to which perspective one finds more useful - the perspective of someone who has played the game or someone who hasn't. Neither means very much, I suppose....Now, I've rambled on a bit.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;263093OK, then fuck you for trying to misrepresent my position.

Listen I know you're a little bit sore about your Election results, but try not to be such a dick about it, OK. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position, only that I think neither Stormbringer nor Pseudoephedrine are douchebags. But hey, if you want to carry on with your little hissy fit, go right ahead.

QuoteOK, where? Unless you are referring to Pseudointellectual's bullshit smokescreen, which is crap.

So, you concede that a definition has been given only that you don't agree with it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;263011I don't think Pseudoephedrine or Stormbringer are douchebags. I think this whole "culture of play" idea should have a thread of it's own. It's an interesting idea, IMO. Stormbringer is right, it does seem pretty obvious but then again, a lot of things are esp when it comes to gaming but this does not mean it's not worth discussing.

Regards,
David R

It's meant to be obvious, not revolutionary. If you've read that "Tyranny of Fun" thread, you'll see that I started talking about it precisely because all discussion in that thread about 4e was focusing on Mike Mearls' intentions when he designed 4e. The idea that people could do anything other than what Mearls' explicitly intended was not even mentioned.