Quote from: Benoist;366076Less work as compared to... what? 3rd edition? Monsters and encounters are less work mostly because of the DDI and electronic tools that are part of it, I would guess. Correct?

As for acknowledging that this is a game instead of some simulation model, I see how you can consider it as a similitude. I do think that the two games look at the nature of the actual game play in different ways, however. 4e seems to be much more insistent on the notion that playing the game system itself is a big part of the fun to be had. Isn't it?

Encounters are easier (than third edition) even without the tools -- they're just an added convenience.

Speaking of which, an interesting thought exercise: you are a DM completely new to OD&D. You have a party of fifth level PCs. How do you create a fight that will challenge them but not overwhelm them? What tools do you have available to you to make this easier?

Given sandbox style play, this may be missing the point insofar as you don't need to ever do that; you just plop stuff down and let the chips fall where they may. But! That is also a legitimate style for 4e. 4e simply provides an additional tool and framework.

Quote from: Peregrin;366080Not everyone enjoys gamist play.

Not to mention, not everyone fits neatly into one category or the other of the GNS model.
Which is in part why the model sucks in the first place.

Quote from: Benoist;366076Less work as compared to... what? 3rd edition? Monsters and encounters are less work mostly because of the DDI and electronic tools that are part of it, I would guess. Correct?

A little of both. It's easier to manage monsters in 4E than in 3rd in general, but with tools it's also easier to build them from scratch.

What was the formula for a monster in AD&D or basic? Well, I'm not sure what that would be or if there was any formula at all. There was some benchmarking and counting of hit dice involved (AD&D had it divided by hit dice) but it was not as easy or as obvious as it looked.

In 3rd Edition the formula was somewhat known- you could even reverse engineer a monster into a PC race by taking the stats and reducing them to 10 or 11 to get the even numbered adjustments, (and eventually there was a Dragon article that broke out the level adjustments). 3.5 eventually folded LA into the stat block because so many people wanted them. And then you had the concept of making "Advanced" versions of monsters- layering on hit dice or character levels or templates.

Oh, and there is formula in D&D4 too, but it's simpler. It's in the DMG. Templates too. Still simpler.

But THEN you layer on DDI and suddenly you can build from scratch without even really knowing the formula, and the templates are a lot easier to deal with.  

Quote from: Benoist;3660764e seems to be much more insistent on the notion that playing the game system itself is a big part of the fun to be had, though. Isn't it?

PS: I know who Rob is, by the way.

Absolutely it is. The purpose of a good game is to play it, not avoid it. I don't ascribe to the notion that clunky combat systems are good because they train players not to start fights. (I've heard that more than a few times..)

Finally, I was just pointing out where you chalked up something as a dislike (ritual magic) where he meant the opposite.

Quote from: Peregrin;366080Different strokes, different gaming agendas, etc, etc...

Not everyone enjoys gamist play.

I don't even believe such a thing exists. I don't really accept any of the jargon of the forge.

Quote from: Benoist;366083Not to mention, not everyone fits neatly into one category or the other of the GNS model.
Which is in part why the model sucks in the first place.

It's not meant to categorize people, just describe different modes of play.  A person can enjoy multiple modes of play, and some games can combine different modes effectively.

Quote from: AMI don't even believe such a thing exists. I don't really accept any of the jargon of the forge.

The people who designed 4e did, and do, and it's in part the reason why 4e ended up the way it did (whether you consider that a good or a bad thing).

Fine, then, I'll rephrase -- not everyone wants the same things out of a game that you do, and there is no objectively "better way to play," so I object to the idea that any edition of D&D is more or less suited to actual play or for reading/being on the shelf, as you implied.

Quote from: Peregrin;366088It's not meant to categorize people, just describe different modes of play.


The people who designed 4e did, and do.

Nope. Although I'm sure they are aware of all kinds of gaming commentary, both foolish and not-so-foolish.. that just isn't the case.

Quote from: Peregrin;366088Fine, then, I'll rephrase -- not everyone wants the same things out of a game that you do, and there is no objectively "better way to play."

This is true, but it's also just common sense. But there are such things as better (ie. more functional) ways to play that aren't so reliant on the quirks and idiosyncratic desires of individual players. It's a side issue but I think the promotion of the term "playstyle" itself is intentionally promoted to encourage people to box themselves up. The insidious trick is that it makes people feel special for having put themselves into a box. "I only play games in (this narrow band of experience).. it's my PLAYSTYLE!" is the best excuse in the world to create a Forge-centric marketing experience. Especially after they went to the trouble to tell you what your "playstyle" was.  "Oh and here's the perfect game for you to buy, since you already said you like 'story'. It just happens to be what I am selling..."

Games are just games.

Quote from: Thanlis;366081Encounters are easier (than third edition) even without the tools -- they're just an added convenience.

The roles of monsters, the budgets to build encounters, yeah, I can see that. I don't like to use electronic tools, personally, so the help they provide is moot to my way of prepping and running games. That's why I was asking.

Quote from: Thanlis;366081Speaking of which, an interesting thought exercise: you are a DM completely new to OD&D. You have a party of fifth level PCs. How do you create a fight that will challenge them but not overwhelm them? What tools do you have available to you to make this easier?

That's not how you proceed in OD&D. You follow the advice and guidelines provided in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (book 3 of the original game) and build your dungeon environment before play, whereupon you determine the features of the environment and the population of said environment by using either dice and common sense, following the examples provided throughout the text and the Monster Determination and Level of Monster Matrix (p. 10, which basically correlates Monster types and strength with the level beneath the surface you're exploring) in the book. You later build on this experience to build environments on your own.

Quote from: Peregrin;366088I object to the idea that any edition of D&D is more or less suited to actual play or for reading/being on the shelf, as you implied.

I'm thinking of a funny conversation I heard about the 4E forgotten Realms Campaign Guide where there's a sample adventure that starts with goblins busting through a wall to attack.

This guy was totally focused on that busting through the wall thing, and for the FRCG to be any good it had to answer questions about goblins busting through walls. The physics involved, how tough the wall was, what kind of explosive or mining techniques used, etc. All of this was very important to him.

I think what he really wanted was a Goblins Busting Through walls guide. In any case, if I'm in an adventure and goblins bust through the walls and attack... the last thing my character cares in that moment is details of exactly how the goblins bust through walls.

But for the collectible mathematical-model-of-the-universe-guy that kind of info is very important.

Ok, second example: There are versions of Harn where every species of weed, lichen, and flower on an island are detailed out. Is this important? Well, if you are reading it, I'm sure it is fascinating. But if you are playing it.. it may not come up that often.

Quote from: Benoist;366092That's not how you proceed in OD&D. You follow the advice and guidelines provided in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (book 3 of the original game) and build your dungeon environment before play, whereupon you determine the features of the environment and the population of said environment by using either dice and common sense, following the examples provided throughout the text and the Monster Determination and Level of Monster Matrix (p. 10, which basically correlates Monster types and strength with the level beneath the surface you're exploring) in the book. You later build on this experience to build environments on your own.

So... the difference in encounter creation is that one uses the level beneath the surface as a benchmark, and one uses the level of the PC party as a benchmark?

Of course, you're not determining encounters as you go; in 4e, if you're building a dungeon, you're going to stock it in advance and if the party bee-lines for the stairs and heads down quickly... well. The expected will happen.

What I'm getting at, here, is that I think a lot of the perceived complexity of 4e comes from the fact that it provides tools. And honestly, once you have tools, it starts to feel a bit like you have to use them. Totally natural. A lot of what I'm doing with my Greyhawk game is thinking about ways to lay them aside and break out of the ruts created by the mere presence of those tools.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366091This is true, but it's also just common sense. But there are such things as better (ie. more functional) ways to play that aren't so reliant on the quirks and idiosyncratic desires of individual players. It's a side issue but I think the promotion of the term "playstyle" itself is intentionally promoted to encourage people to box themselves up. The insidious trick is that it makes people feel special for having put themselves into a box. "I only play games in (this narrow band of experience).. it's my PLAYSTYLE!" is the best excuse in the world to create a Forge-centric marketing experience. Especially after they went to the trouble to tell you what your "playstyle" was.  "Oh and here's the perfect game for you to buy, since you already said you like 'story'. It just happens to be what I am selling..."

Games are just games.

It's not about limiting yourself to a specific playstyle, it's about recognizing that different games cater to different needs/wants in better/more efficient ways.  It also recognizes that people, as individuals, have preferences.  Some might be more open than others, but not always.  It's why some gaming groups mesh well together, and others fall apart.  Different people have different wants out of what a game should do, and it's not reasonable to expect a game to be everything to everyone, so you have to limit your design a bit to make it more functional.

Quite a few well-known designers from the Forge have played (and may still play) 4e.  John Harper was running an extended campaign when it first came out, and a lot of his designs fall on the "narrativist" side of the spectrum, so obviously he's not "boxing himself up."  The Burning Wheel crew has played it, and while they admit it's not for them, they said it's very good design and it's fun to play.

GNS/theory is not about boxing people in, or saying you have to pick one playstyle.  In fact it wasn't really made as a reference for gamers at all.  As Mike Mearls said, it's useful for designers as a way to decide how to create a more functional game given what they want to accomplish in terms of play priorities, but it's not a be-all-end-all for anything.  It's just a tool.

I mean, it's not like I sit here and go "Yay!  Tonight I'm playing a narrativist style game!" or "Oh hey, 4e, gamist night!"  It's not that cut and dry, it's just that the games scratch different itches in different ways, and I pick whatever looks the most fun for a given campaign/game-night.  I just sit down with the game, and I play it.  I don't think about the discussion of the design while I'm playing a Forge game any more than I think about the history of the development of Chainmail while playing D&D.  When I have a book in my hand, the design process is over.  When I'm at the table, I'm there to play, not be a wannabe game designer.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366084A little of both. It's easier to manage monsters in 4E than in 3rd in general, but with tools it's also easier to build them from scratch.

What was the formula for a monster in AD&D or basic? Well, I'm not sure what that would be or if there was any formula at all. There was some benchmarking and counting of hit dice involved (AD&D had it divided by hit dice) but it was not as easy or as obvious as it looked.

In 3rd Edition the formula was somewhat known- you could even reverse engineer a monster into a PC race by taking the stats and reducing them to 10 or 11 to get the even numbered adjustments, (and eventually there was a Dragon article that broke out the level adjustments). 3.5 eventually folded LA into the stat block because so many people wanted them. And then you had the concept of making "Advanced" versions of monsters- layering on hit dice or character levels or templates.

Oh, and there is formula in D&D4 too, but it's simpler. It's in the DMG. Templates too. Still simpler.

But THEN you layer on DDI and suddenly you can build from scratch without even really knowing the formula, and the templates are a lot easier to deal with.

I can appreciate that. You know, when 3rd ed was the kid on the block, I never understood why people were complaining so much about CRs and ELs. To me, just like it was repeatedly pointed out in the core books, these were just visual aids designed to eyeball the relative strength of monsters and put together encounters. I never considered them to be an exact science, and they never faulted me as a result.

Now, LAs... my God. The idea sure was interesting, but the implementation, particularly when creating actual player characters using LA and hit dice... it always seemed horribly broken to me.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366084Absolutely it is. The purpose of a good game is to play it, not avoid it. I don't ascribe to the notion that clunky combat systems are good because they train players not to start fights. (I've heard that more than a few times..)

Me neither. But where the games differ in my opinion is as to what, exactly, they consider to be "the game". With 4e, there seems to be much more of this notion that gaming the system *is* the game, whereas the actual experience of exploration of the Underworld is the subject of the original game, to me.

What I mean by this is that I think both games do completely embrace the notion that they are "games", but do not necessarily see eye-to-eye as to what, exactly, constitutes the nature of the game (its purpose, the nature of its entertainment or fun).  

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366084Finally, I was just pointing out where you chalked up something as a dislike (ritual magic) where he meant the opposite.

Oh. That's not what I meant at all. Sorry if the wordy didn't match the intention, there.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366084I don't really accept any of the jargon of the forge.

I know you don't, but do you see how some people might see 4e as the Forge's wet dream? Ron Edwards always talked about D&D as the gamist experience par excellence, and Mearls and Co. seem, to some people, to have taken that concept to heart when designing the new edition, to emphasize that yes, D&D is the gamist's sweetheart.

Do you agree?

Quote from: Thanlis;366095So... the difference in encounter creation is that one uses the level beneath the surface as a benchmark, and one uses the level of the PC party as a benchmark?

Pretty much, yes, in a dungeon environment. The wilderness is much more open in terms of encounter possibilities, but then again, so are the tactical choices of the adventuring group.

It's the PCs prerogative to determine whether they want to get down the stairs and meet greater threats, to determine whether they want to confront, deal with, or flee the threats before them, et cetera. In other words, the world doesn't revolve around the PCs. It's out there, with threats and dangers all around, and it is for the PCs to choose whether they want to meet these challenges and how to appropriately deal with them when that happens.

Quote from: Thanlis;366095Of course, you're not determining encounters as you go; in 4e, if you're building a dungeon, you're going to stock it in advance and if the party bee-lines for the stairs and heads down quickly... well. The expected will happen.

What I'm getting at, here, is that I think a lot of the perceived complexity of 4e comes from the fact that it provides tools. And honestly, once you have tools, it starts to feel a bit like you have to use them. Totally natural. A lot of what I'm doing with my Greyhawk game is thinking about ways to lay them aside and break out of the ruts created by the mere presence of those tools.

Maybe I'm getting off track here, but isn't that the very nature of all rules? They are all just tools and guidelines, after all. Aren't they?

Quote from: Benoist;366099I can appreciate that. You know, when 3rd ed was the kid on the block, I never understood why people were complaining so much about CRs and ELs. To me, just like it was repeatedly pointed out in the core books, these were just visual aids designed to eyeball the relative strength of monsters and put together encounters. I never considered them to be an exact science, and they never faulted me as a result.

Now, LAs... my God. The idea sure was interesting, but the implementation, particularly when creating actual player characters using LA and hit dice... it always seemed horribly broken to me.

The 3E monster design (we could call it 'entity design' because it also works with PCs and NPCs) formula really does work, though- LA and all.. it's just that it takes some effort to work with.

Quote from: Benoist;366099Me neither. But where the games differ in my opinion is as to what, exactly, they consider to be "the game". With 4e, there seems to be much more of this notion that gaming the system *is* the game, whereas the actual experience of exploration of the Underworld is the subject of the original game, to me.

I don't agree with any of that.

Quote from: Benoist;366099I know you don't, but do you see how some people might see 4e as the Forge's wet dream? Ron Edwards always talked about D&D as the gamist experience par excellence, and Mearls and Co. seem, to some people, to have taken that concept to heart when designing the new edition, to emphasize that yes, D&D is the gamist's sweetheart.

Do you agree?

Nope. I was part of the Gaming Outpost when both Mearls and Edwards were also members and I know that just isn't the case. However, I'm not the first person to notice that "...the Old School Renaissance and the whole indie game/forge movement are really two sides of the same coin." (he's not being insulting or ironic when he says that, have a look).

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366102Nope. I was part of the Gaming Outpost when both Mearls and Edwards were also members and I know that just isn't the case. However, I'm not the first person to notice that "...the Old School Renaissance and the whole indie game/forge movement are really two sides of the same coin." (he's not being insulting or ironic when he says that, have a look).

You both get a ten yard penalty for forgetting that Mearls wasn't the lead designer on 4e. Although everyone makes that mistake, because Mearls is talkative and Rob Heinsoo is not so much an Internet presence. But it would be more accurate to say that 4e is inspired by Feng Shui than to say it's defined along gamist principles.

Quote from: BenoistMaybe I'm getting off track here, but isn't that the very nature of all rules? They are all just tools and guidelines, after all. Aren't they?

In the sense that you can always ignore them, sure. But I'm talking about advice vs. rules. I.e., if a book says "the rule is that your character gets 1d6 hit points at first level," to me that's a concrete rule. It defines something really important about the world -- namely, characters are fragile. If you change that rule, you're actively changing the mechanics of the game.

Techniques for stocking dungeons, on the other hand, are advice. If you ignore them, you haven't changed the game, you've just changed the way monsters are distributed.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366102I don't agree with any of that.

How so?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366102Nope. I was part of the Gaming Outpost when both Mearls and Edwards were also members and I know that just isn't the case. However, I'm not the first person to notice that "...the Old School Renaissance and the whole indie game/forge movement are really two sides of the same coin." (he's not being insulting or ironic when he says that, have a look).

I disagree with the notion that playing sub-optimal characters equals to "narrative control" and therefore would relate to the aims of story games, personally, but yeah, there are people who are saying that the OSR is on the same page as the Forge, sure. That's pure bollocks, but hey. The opinion's out there. I know noisms actually - He's a good guy, for the record.

So to you 4e really doesn't try to be "gamist" at all. Doesn't try to then include "narrativist" elements in later supplements, like the DMG2. Doesn't embrace the GNS theory at all in its design. Correct?