Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221135Elliott is making wild claims with no basis.

Actually, I'm couching them quite carefully in weasel words.

But I've seen this sort of thing before, in arguments about wargames vs. simpler "war themed" board games and Euros, and it most assuredly does apply in the general case.

You also aren't really responding effectively to PI's point--the RAW did change enormously between 1e and 4e (the 3e/4e transition is more widely debated), and I would find it very hard to swallow a claim that this didn't reflect a major shift in the type of gaming that the rules were intended to facilitate.

In trying to decide what I disliked about 4e with my current gaming group, I did the same comparison of the spell Command through the editions.  Its cool that someone else out there thinks the same way I do.

I also went through all the 4e wizard powers and rituals looking for equivalent of illusion spells (such as 3.5's minor/major image, hallucinatory terrain, etc.).  In looking through the powers, my eyes tended to glaze over from reading so many "2 [w] + STR" + "tactical effect" powers that maybe I missed something, but the only one I could find is the cantrip for Ghost Sound.  The rest have been removed.  There are a couple of illusion rituals, but they are for very specific things, with very specifically defined limitations.  Open-ended enchantment-type spells have also either been closed (such as command) or removed (such as charm person).

I think this is a good example of the type of design philosopy that Melan talks about in his original "tyranny of fun" post: the older illusion spells are open-ended, which mean that a creative player can "abuse" the spells through creative thinking = "not fun" for the other players.  And they also require judgment by the DM as to if/when a creature "interacts" with the illusion and when they get a saving throw = "not fun" for the wizard casting it.  Standardizing everything and removing items that can't be easily standardized means that non-creative players aren't "penalized" because they can't think of cool illusions to create (or didn't choose to play wizards).  And players playing wizards also don't get pissed off at DMs who rule in a way different than they wanted.

Another driving force, though, could actually be the computer side of it with the D&D Game Table.  In the past, when making computer games out of D&D, lots of these spells had to be dropped because their effects can't be coded up.  If they want to make the Game Table version of the game as close to the table-top version as possible, those now have to be removed from BOTH the computerized and table-top version.  With this view, some other things sort of make sense, as well, like the skill challenges, which standardizes "problem-solving" to a set of easily coded up skill-checks.

Interesting.

-Paul

P.S. Just to be clear, I think 4e is a roleplaying game and I even imagine it would be fun to play.  I just have the suspicion (having only played it at D&D Experience, I can't say definitively) that its not the game that I want to play every week.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221135The RAW don't say anything about the issue at hand, except perhaps to contradict Elliott by suggesting that one adjust the powers' fluff to whatever one pleases to better fit the character and story. Elliott is making wild claims with no basis.

AFAIAC the issue at hand is the Command spell. That's a nice, objective example for a massive narrowing down of options.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221143Actually, I'm couching them quite carefully in weasel words.

But I've seen this sort of thing before, in arguments about wargames vs. simpler "war themed" board games and Euros, and it most assuredly does apply in the general case.

You also aren't really responding effectively to PI's point--the RAW did change enormously between 1e and 4e (the 3e/4e transition is more widely debated), and I would find it very hard to swallow a claim that this didn't reflect a major shift in the type of gaming that the rules were intended to facilitate.

I find PI's point unobjectionable stated in the abstract like that. I disagree with the specific changes you think are occurring.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221133Have you stopped describing your character's attacks in a sensible way because they're now pre-established powers? That's what Elliott's speculating will happen. I haven't heard of that happening, never even thought of stopping myself, and haven't seen it stop in a PbP or other publically available game. So, why on earth should we think his speculation has any truth to it at all?

You're assuming I ever started describing my maneuvers. But no, I haven't changed my describing habits: I do it when I remember and am not wrapped up in the tactics. However, two anecdotes (or even 200,000) doesn't make an objective proof. There may be people out there that changed. I read a play report about a GM who forced everyone to read the flavor text at the top of their power every time they activated it. I could see those people rapidly deciding to stick to just the tactics and numbers.

Quote from: Consonant Dude;221142A totally noble sentiment. And I subscribe to it.

But at the end of the day, WotC is in a much better position than I am to spread the word. Maybe it's just my background (we learned the game by ourselves, from the box) talking.

True. But they can only sell what the market wants to buy. If the game is something that appeals to the new generation, it'll do well and they'll have fun. Does it really matter if they're having fun with red box or 4e?

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221147AFAIAC the issue at hand is the Command spell. That's a nice, objective example for a massive narrowing down of options.

Command definitely got trimmed down in its options. It went from a 1st level spell of unavoidable death to a 2nd (IIRC) spell with useful effects that still share the same flavor of "do as I say!" I personally like the change, because it means there's now more choice to a cleric's prayer selection than "what ratio of commands to heals should I use today?" (that's an exagerration, but not a large one for some players I've seen).

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221147AFAIAC the issue at hand is the Command spell. That's a nice, objective example for a massive narrowing down of options.

Certainly. I agree that the Command spell has been stripped of its versatility.

I'm taking issue with Elliott's speculation that in 4e, because of the mechanics and design philosophy of 4e, PCs will be unconcerned with integrating their powers into the shared description of the game world. That's a separate point.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221155Certainly. I agree that the Command spell has been stripped of its versatility.

I'm taking issue with Elliott's speculation that in 4e, because of the mechanics and design philosophy of 4e, PCs will be unconcerned with integrating their powers into the shared description of the game world. That's a separate point.

Actually, no.

The change in Command is not about more or less "versatility." The change in Command is about a move from an interaction with the gameworld, performed ad lib by the player entirely depending on the situation in hand, to shoving a mini from one square to another square.

The former is a matter of gameworld tactics, the latter is a matter of boardgame tactics.

Quote from: James McMurray;221153You're assuming I ever started describing my maneuvers. But no, I haven't changed my describing habits: I do it when I remember and am not wrapped up in the tactics. However, two anecdotes (or even 200,000) doesn't make an objective proof. There may be people out there that changed. I read a play report about a GM who forced everyone to read the flavor text at the top of their power every time they activated it. I could see those people rapidly deciding to stick to just the tactics and numbers.

What about this is specifically 4e-like though? I'm aware of people doing this (simply playing it as a game of tactical combat and exploration without immersive characterisation) in all editions of D&D, but it has never seemed edition-dependent. The claim that's being made is that 4e is, for some reason, particularly prone to this in a way that previous editions weren't (or that it represents a culmination of a process across the editions, perhaps?).

I'm failing to see why this is a 4e problem rather than a problem/style of a particular group. That's why I think the empirical example is relevant - if there are people who play 4e and are not doing things like only using powers, using powers without description, and whatever else, then it probably isn't the system so much as the players.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221157Actually, no.

The change in Command is not about more or less "versatility." The change in Command is about a move from an interaction with the gameworld, performed ad lib by the player entirely depending on the situation in hand, to shoving a mini from one square to another square.

The former is a matter of gameworld tactics, the latter is a matter of boardgame tactics.

Command in 4e is nearly identical to Command in 3.x, except that you can't make the target drop its weapon. You're complaining about the wrong edition. That's a design choice made in 3.x to prevent arguments (as part of a general move to reduce the amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in how certain spells worked).

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221157Actually, no.

The change in Command is not about more or less "versatility." The change in Command is about a move from an interaction with the gameworld, performed ad lib by the player entirely depending on the situation in hand, to shoving a mini from one square to another square.

The former is a matter of gameworld tactics, the latter is a matter of boardgame tactics.

There is still world interaction in 4e. Or at least, there is if you want there to be.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221158What about this is specifically 4e-like though? I'm aware of people doing this (simply playing it as a game of tactical combat and exploration without immersive characterisation) in all editions of D&D, but it has never seemed edition-dependent. The claim that's being made is that 4e is, for some reason, particularly prone to this in a way that previous editions weren't (or that it represents a culmination of a process across the editions, perhaps?).

I also disagree that 4e will force blandness and lack of description. My only problem with your post was that it spoke from an objective viewpoint using subjective backing.

QuoteI'm failing to see why this is a 4e problem rather than a problem/style of a particular group. That's why I think the empirical example is relevant - if there are people who play 4e and are not doing things like only using powers, using powers without description, and whatever else, then it probably isn't the system so much as the players.

An empirical example would be highly relevant. But all we've got is anecdotal. It's still relevant, it's just not proof. You've successfully proven that 4e does not force everyone to give up on description (not that there was ever any real doubt in any but the blindest and most biased detractors), but not that it won't cause some people to give up.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221160Command in 4e is nearly identical to Command in 3.x, except that you can't make the target drop its weapon. You're complaining about the wrong edition. That's a design choice made in 3.x to prevent arguments (as part of a general move to reduce the amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in how certain spells worked).

You're stretching it, kid.

Like anyone ever argued 4E had no precedents whatever in 3.x. Of course that's where some of the rot set in.

Re. disambiguation, don't waste my time by muddying the waters. As you know, that's precisely the issue here: disambiguation = boardgamification.

You might play it like a board game, but I follow the rules and advice, both of which tell me to roleplay. To each his own I suppose.

Quote from: jeff37923;220795I'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.

I'm not a dufus simply because I can't answer your question. While we're at it, are trying to tell me you never draw inferences or conclusions about things that people say or write? On top of that, what I think about the minis/mat issue is based on the fact that they are saying that's one of the reasons they don't like 4e, my conclusion was about why they don't like minis/mats. Oh, and for the record, I did ask, several times. Why don't you stop being an abrasive bitch?

Quote from: jeff37923;220797The 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.

I hate to say this, but I like those things too. I'm able to enjoy multiple types of games and more roleplaying and less combat is certainly one of those types. All I'm saying is that I also like the style of game that 4e is (so far anyway). I can see myself still playing maybe 3.x, and definitely other d20 based games when I'm not playing 4e. I still love my True20, even for a different kind of fantasy then the new DnD can give me. I've been thinking all day of a campaign setting that is grittier and lower-powered that I've had stewing in the back of my noggin for True20, and 4e would not work for it. While I can see that 4e is still a roleplaying game, and can be used for deep and entertaining roleplaying experiences, I have no illusions about it being the go-to game for any kind of fantasy. I've always considered DnD, with it's escalating hps and power levels, to be a fantasy superhero game. I see 4e as a distillation of that into a more pure fantasy superhero game. I happen to like that, and disagree with all ya'all that say it's a bad game, or bad for the hobby.

Quote from: James McMurray;221153True. But they can only sell what the market wants to buy. If the game is something that appeals to the new generation, it'll do well and they'll have fun. Does it really matter if they're having fun with red box or 4e?

Doesn't matter, no.

And although I'm sure there's a market for 4th edition, I'm not sure going another road wouldn't have brought a similar or identical market.

But don't get me wrong, James. I loved 3rd edition, played the heck of it and couldn't wait for 4th edition to be announced. I was ecstatic when WotC finally went forward and honestly, although I am somewhat disappointed by the result, I'm still glad they updated.

Every edition has had its share of good and bad, IMO. This time, it's just that the bad outweighed the good for me, which was a first in D&D. I like some of the changes and think they will carry through in future editions. But there's stuff in there that is absolutely, positively, objectively stifling compared to older editions.

Here's hoping people have fun with 4th edition and I dearly hope my prediction of a few years ago (that 5th edition will be everything I want from D&D) becomes true.

As far as personal preference, I'd prefer young people to be introduced to a more open-ended version of the game. Because I think that's where the strength of D&D comes. I just don't feel I could run a campaign of this and get the creative input of players, young and old, veterans and newbies, in a way that would be satisfying.