SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

4E and OSR - I proclaim there's no difference

Started by Windjammer, January 13, 2010, 06:51:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jeff37923

Quote from: Thanlis;366349Can you explain what concentration of focus means with reference to the rules of the game?

With 4E, it is pretty obvious. There has been a de-emphasis on role-playing in the rules as aspects that would support and encourage role-playing have been removed (the skills I mentioned upthread), while at the same time combat has been emphasized (the Powers, expanded rules on encounter building that concentrate on combat encounters).

Quote from: Thanlis;366349Or are you talking about the expectations people bring to it?

I am not talking about expectations, I am talking about what is there in RAW.
"Meh."

LordVreeg

Quote from: Benoist;366370To me, it's all about what actually happens at the game table.


Just to understand your question better: where did you pick up the notion that we're talking about a shift from "dungeon" to "campaign" in this thread? I don't think that's particularly relevant when comparing the differences between 4e and O/AD&D, specifically.

benoist, my brother....look at that statement.

Take 4e out for one second, because it is one side of the comparison,


Much of the conversation in this thread deals with the idea of roleplay; and how systems facilitate/support the roleplaying aspect of the game, as compared to pure combat.

One of the things AD&D did was formalize the shift into a campaign mentaility from the dungeon mentaility, which could also be seen as continuuing the paradign shift from wargame -to individual campbat game -to rolplaying game.   So that particular shift does have some contextual strength.

(damn back to work   more later)
Currently running 1 live groups and two online group in my 30+ year old campaign setting.  
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/
Setting of the Year, 08 Campaign Builders Guild awards.
\'Orbis non sufficit\'

My current Collegium Arcana online game, a test for any ruleset.

estar

Quote from: Sigmund;366385that I stumble when trying to reconcile them with anything remotely familiar to me in life.

Just a historical aside, that exactly why Runequest was created. A bunch of roleplayers on the west coast who also were involved in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms, i.e. Medieval reenactment)  did like how they couldn't relate the D&D abstract combat to what they experienced.

So they made their own RPG with a better combat system (from their PoV) and combined it with Perrin's Glorantha.

estar

Quote from: LordVreeg;366389Much of the conversation in this thread deals with the idea of roleplay; and how systems facilitate/support the roleplaying aspect of the game, as compared to pure combat.

Some of us, like me, are arguing is not an issue with the system but with the company and the gaming culture that surrounds 4e.

Sigmund

Quote from: estar;366390Just a historical aside, that exactly why Runequest was created. A bunch of roleplayers on the west coast who also were involved in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms, i.e. Medieval reenactment)  did like how they couldn't relate the D&D abstract combat to what they experienced.

So they made their own RPG with a better combat system (from their PoV) and combined it with Perrin's Glorantha.

I remember reading this before. They are obviously even more sensitive to this than I am. Older DnD for me was ok, but 4e crosses the line.
- Chris Sigmund

Old Loser

"I\'d rather be a killer than a victim."

Quote from: John Morrow;418271I role-play for the ride, not the destination.

ggroy

Quote from: estar;366387DCCs have a lot of wilderness stuff and a handful of city-based stuff.

In most of my games which had the players in wilderness or city type places, they didn't feel much different than generic dungeon crawls, other than having more space to move around in.

Benoist

#171
Quote from: LordVreeg;366389benoist, my brother....look at that statement.

Take 4e out for one second, because it is one side of the comparison,

Much of the conversation in this thread deals with the idea of roleplay; and how systems facilitate/support the roleplaying aspect of the game, as compared to pure combat.

One of the things AD&D did was formalize the shift into a campaign mentaility from the dungeon mentaility, which could also be seen as continuuing the paradign shift from wargame -to individual campbat game -to rolplaying game.   So that particular shift does have some contextual strength.

(damn back to work   more later)
Ohh. I get it better now. And indeed, that there was a shift more towards the Campaign side of the equation with AD&D as opposed to OD&D is undeniable. I was focusing on the comparison between 4e and OD&D, which resulted in a sort of tunnel vision on my part. Good point.

ggroy

Quote from: estar;366387Plus there been a fair amount talk among the OSR about the end-game which the current retro-clones don't really address well. I wouldn't be surprised that Goodman incorporates some of that into his RPG.

What would be examples of the "end-game" which the current retro clones don't address very well?

RandallS

Quote from: Peregrin;366367So when would you say the shift from dungeon-crawling focused play to campaign-"world"/non-combat play occurred?  OD&D to AD&D?  AD&D 2e (which seemed to really push the whole 90's story and characters thing with it's campaign settings)?

In my case, early 1976. Some of our group had tried outdoor adventures in late 1975, but had been turned off by being surprised 40-400 Goblins or 30-300 bandits, etc. I decided that this was silly. Entire tribes of goblins would be heard/seen from a good ways away in most cases (especially as thay had supplies and females/children if the entire tribe was on the move) and would have scouts and patrols out ahead of the main body in any case -- which is what you were most likely to encounter. So, by applying this "rule of realism" encounters in the wilderness went from automatic TPKs to something manageable, possible to avoid/defeat, and fun. This interpretation of how to handle monsters in the wilderness caught on with other groups in the area and soon wilderness adventuring was almost as common as dungeon adventuring.

Also, it did not take 30 years to figure out how to do roleplaying in OD&D, most of us playing it regularly at the time figured it out pretty quick.  Combat in OD&D (and most other pre-WOTC editions) was abstract and fast, so you could get a good number of combat encounters in and still have lots of time for roleplaying, puzzle-solving, explorations, etc. in your game session. And by being abstract, combat was less likely to become the focus of the session (at least not every session) in early editions of D&D -- it just wasn't interesting enough to do for 3-4 hours straight -- at least not for most players.
Randall
Rules Light RPGs: Home of Microlite20 and Other Rules-Lite Tabletop RPGs

estar

Quote from: ggroy;366395What would be examples of the "end-game" which the current retro clones don't address very well?

Building a stronghold, guild, estate, kingdom, etc. Some stuff is there but not in the detail of the rest of the game.

Benoist

Quote from: Sigmund;366385I think Benoist and I agree when I read these responses, but I'll take a shot at answering it too, from my perspective. I agree, it's not about what rules support roleplaying in comparing 4e with previous editions. It's that the older editions don't get in the way of roleplaying for me. I understand these are games, and that the rules need to be engaged occasionally, but in the case of 4e the rules are so prolific and disassociated from the game world they are attempting to model that I get pulled out of the roleplaying mindset much more than I like to. I have trouble even getting "into character" because the power mechanics are so "gamey" and hyper-focused on these "roles", such as "striker" or "controller" that I stumble when trying to reconcile them with anything remotely familiar to me in life. These concepts are great in MMOs where the visual component and challenge in manipulating the controls of the game replace roleplaying and immersion, but IMO they don't belong in a TTRPG. So looking at the tables of contents will not show you why I, at least, dislike 4e so strongly. It's at the table, when actually engaging with the mechanics themselves, that the nature of the game falls flat on it's face. It's been very, very disappointing, and I honestly can't understand why any of ya'all like it even a little bit, my experience has been that much of a let-down. I do my best, however, to live and let live in regards to 4e and hope someday somebody with loads more sense makes a version I can use again.
We do agree. That's a good take on the crux of the problem, IMO.

Sigmund

Quote from: LordVreeg;366389benoist, my brother....look at that statement.

Take 4e out for one second, because it is one side of the comparison,


Much of the conversation in this thread deals with the idea of roleplay; and how systems facilitate/support the roleplaying aspect of the game, as compared to pure combat.

One of the things AD&D did was formalize the shift into a campaign mentaility from the dungeon mentaility, which could also be seen as continuuing the paradign shift from wargame -to individual campbat game -to rolplaying game.   So that particular shift does have some contextual strength.

(damn back to work   more later)

The reason I don't take this much into account when comparing OD&D and 4e for myself is that both can be used to do campaigns, or do pure dungeon crawl, or many other variations without much trouble. Pretty much any RPG can, from the lightest of the light to the heaviest... it's just a matter of how much work ya wanna have to put into it. So sure, 4e can be like OD&D in that respect just fine, but I'm still never going to see any substantial similarities because when I sit down at the table and start rolling dice, the games don't even remotely resemble one another.
- Chris Sigmund

Old Loser

"I\'d rather be a killer than a victim."

Quote from: John Morrow;418271I role-play for the ride, not the destination.

estar

Quote from: ggroy;366393In most of my games which had the players in wilderness or city type places, they didn't feel much different than generic dungeon crawls, other than having more space to move around in.

Mmm something to go in my Sandbox Fantasy Campaign project that I am working on.

In my games my players tell me there is a distinct feel between when I run a city, vs wilderness, vs dungeon. Should figure out what I do and see if there any useful aids I get write up.

ggroy

Quote from: estar;366397Building a stronghold, guild, estate, kingdom, etc. Some stuff is there but not in the detail of the rest of the game.

We never really bothered with stuff like that in my previous 1E AD&D campaigns.

By the time the players slayed the dragon, saved the princess, etc ... the game didn't seem so exciting anymore.  Typically we played another different game afterward.

estar

Quote from: RandallS;366396Also, it did not take 30 years to figure out how to do roleplaying in OD&D, most of us playing it regularly at the time figured it out pretty quick.  

My experience as well on the order of weeks or months to reach whatever point the player was comfortable with. The key element in this process is the fact you are playing a character in a setting. That you can react AND influence what going on around you. The rest happens naturally and fairly quickly.