Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387673There's even an option to turn magic items off entirely if you like. And yes, I am saying 4E is not about acquiring magic items. It's also not about "killing monsters and taking their stuff".

I suspect this also might be the reason that some people are so put off by 4E's detailed and dynamic combats: their expectations of the what the game is about are completely different.

Are detailed and dynamic combats "adventure"?  Maybe one part, but not all of it.

I've played enough 4e (20+ sessions including an RPGA event and 3 different DMs from our group) to form my own opinion and to me it feels like a game about "detailed and dynamic combat" which often leaves little time for the rest of the "adventure".

Quote from: Benoist;387704OK. It's just that the word "Adventure" seems very broad in meaning to me. If 4e is not about "killings things and taking their stuff", if it's not about acquiring riches, or magic items, I'd like to understand what it is about. Maybe then I could understand some of the stuff that's been baffling me ever since the game started to be advertised.

So. It's not about just "adventure", in all its broad, generic meaning, is it?

I think Adventure is big enough as a concept. Characters are in constant danger and conflict, pursuing tasks in a dynamic and heroic manner.  

 I will say this: I have run many adventures where the PCs forgot to even bother looking for treasure after an encounter, or "search the bodies" or whatever. Often enough there are very specific missions going on, they have places to be, or for other reasons.. they can't spend time looting or selling.

Quote from: AM

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegBut as I was expounding on above, especially in any Roleplaying game, mechanics that promote in-game logic promote immersion, and those that promote metagaming are the opposite.

.

Well, I have two answers to that.

1) I think that's kind of a false dichotomy.

2) It may just be that strict simulative models are only a high priority for people who have a certain mental concept of gaming. I realize that strict simulative models and physics engines are what some people think is extremely important, but for me it's not. I can't help but think I'm not alone.

1) I don't think so.  We've spoken of this before, thee and I.   I still see in-game logic as critical for immersion.  The players need to be able to think as their characters, at some level, to immerse at any level.
Metagaming is the opposite.  It is thinking of the rules, thinking like the player.

When the players capture the mess area and kitchen for the elite Orc chieftant, they are going to find Evercoal and my roasting pan.  Not the Gauntlets the player wished for.
In my opinion, at least.  

2)I think a lot of players and GMs want differnt things, and these things change.  And not everyone wants simulation or even in-game logic to be their highest priority...some people want a tactical combat game that feels like the way they want their characters to feel in combat; other people want wide-open rule structures that allow each GM to adjudicate as they go.
I am VERY aware that my ruleset is not only different from 4e, but very different from the games I grew up with as well.

Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;387672Wrong.  Encounter balance builds in and assumes positive modifers from magical equipment.  The same conceit was present in 3.5.

Having played the game using a char who had extremely few magical items, none of which were the appropriate level for him, it's not too bad. Getting CA takes care of a lot of the difference at anything below paragon, so you only miss maybe 10% more often at anything paragon and lower.

This was the same in 3.x, except for enemies with DR/magic.

The whole idea of "encounter balance" in 3.x and 4e is a bugaboo. Outside of a few test adventures and the occasional sport encounter, my group almost never "balanced" encounters and things worked just fine.

Quote from: jormungand1;387705Are detailed and dynamic combats "adventure"?  Maybe one part, but not all of it.

I've played enough 4e (20+ sessions including an RPGA event and 3 different DMs from our group) to form my own opinion and to me it feels like a game about "detailed and dynamic combat" which often leaves little time for the rest of the "adventure".

Well, what part did you miss out on? Consider an action movie as a sort of template for an adventure. It sort of has a beginning, an initial conflict, a series of dynamic and spectacular action scenes, and eventually the main climactic point, and then an ending.. or a lead in to the next adventure.

The bulk of those movies are action scenes.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387703So...  in which editions of D&D (which has always been a fairly magical fantasic game) can the characters stop time itself, or reverse it.. or wish things into or out of existence once they get to a certain level? I'm not saying such magical ideas can't happen, but which editions put this kind power directly in the hands of the PCs?

The answer: All editions except 4th.

I actually agree with that. The big difference being, in my mind, that you've got some iterations of the game that basically take the character from a layman, almost-mundane status to the pinacle of world-shattering, unlikely indeed, abilities, whereas 4e smoothes out the progression from a Heroic status to a Superheroic one. Basically, starting characters in say, AD&D, are weaker than their 4e counterparts, but AD&D epic characters will in some cases (thinking of MUs in particular, here) be much more powerful than their 4e equivalents.

I'd guess this has to do with the way the math was reworked to make "all levels the 'sweet spot' of the game".

So just pointing the super/heroic nature of 4e is kind of a red herring, to me, when trying to find out what this game is really about.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387698Well, there are no Superman characters in 4E, so keep in mind that if you want to rely on things you merely "read" you should consider the source, and consider that you might end up with a pinhole view of what actually goes on. This is particularly true given all of the haters who have an active and dedicated stake to misrepresenting 4E because they find it a cultural affront.

4E characters are likely to be killed, terribly wounded, and have all manor of terrible things happen to them.. but theyre are also likely to get back up and shake it off and finish the battle.

So it's not Superman, it's more John Mcclane.

Indeed, I once killed a PC by having some skeletons roll a boulder down a gully onto him after he'd taken a couple of hits. It's not hard to get killed.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387707I think Adventure is big enough as a concept. Characters are in constant danger and conflict, pursuing tasks in a dynamic and heroic manner.  

 I will say this: I have run many adventures where the PCs forgot to even bother looking for treasure after an encounter, or "search the bodies" or whatever. Often enough there are very specific missions going on, they have places to be, or for other reasons.. they can't spend time looting or selling.

I know we're on to something here, Peter. Forgive me if I'm not satisfied by the answer. There must be more to it than just "4e is about Adventure in D&D dressing". What's to differenciate 4e from any other Fantasy role playing game out there other than the "D&D hodge-podge dressing" (i.e. beholders, drows, etc), then? Nothing?

It's all a matter of decors?

Quote from: LordVreeg;3877081) I don't think so.  We've spoken of this before, thee and I.   I still see in-game logic as critical for immersion.  The players need to be able to think as their characters, at some level, to immerse at any level.
Metagaming is the opposite.  It is thinking of the rules, thinking like the player.

Well, I think players require less handholding than that. I know that there's a strong tendency to think "oh WE roleplay, but nobody else does..not like us" (and you might even believe that its having rules that allows for this to happen.
But the truth is, you don't know if the first condition is even true, and the second one is entirely a matter of opinion.

QuoteWhen the players capture the mess area and kitchen for the elite Orc chieftant, they are going to find Evercoal and my roasting pan.  Not the Gauntlets the player wished for.
In my opinion, at least.  

Why would you think it would be otherwise in 4E D&D?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387703But the point is- it's not the superpowers themselves that define what goes on in the game-- it's the level of action.

Also when you start to characterize the game with characters like Superman, you are implying unlikely abilities.

So...  in which editions of D&D (which has always been a fairly magical fantasic game) can the characters stop time itself, or reverse it.. or wish things into or out of existence once they get to a certain level? I'm not saying such magical ideas can't happen, but which editions put this kind power directly in the hands of the PCs?

The answer: All editions except 4th.

Unlikely abilities is certainly what many games are about.

I also agree with you about Time Stop and Wish.  I have mentioned before that I am not an OSR schill comparing 4e to what I am playing.  I don't play D&D anymore, either.
There are some rules, however, and some situations that are similar to those that drove me away, but amplified, in 4e.  And there are time where people do argue from only one perspective, and that make it hards.

Pseudoephedrine, on the other hand, has my complete respect in her knowledge and use of Runequest as well as 4e.  

I agree with you, as I said, that 4e is less about magic items.  But that is because it is more about the power growth of the PC themselves.  'It's not the 'superpowers' themselves that make up the game, it's the level of action?'
I don't even understand what that means.  It is, often, the level of power of the character's vs the rest of the world and power growth curve that defines much of the game, actually.

I'd say 4e does epic high fantasy really well, if that's what you're trying to figure out. I'd be comfortable running sequences like the hunt for Humbaba or the Siege of Troy using the system, whereas I don't think 3.x could really capture the feel of those sequences.

Quote from: LordVreeg;387716'It's not the 'superpowers' themselves that make up the game, it's the level of action?'
I don't even understand what that means.

Me neither. I noted that phrasing too, and I don't really know what to make of it.

Quote from: Benoist;387714I know we're on to something here, Peter. Forgive me if I'm not satisfied by the answer. There must be more to it than just "4e is about Adventure in D&D dressing". What's to differenciate 4e from any other Fantasy role playing game out there other than the "D&D hodge-podge dressing" (i.e. beholders, drows, etc), then? Nothing?

It's all a matter of decors?

4th Edition D&D is just Dungeons and Dragons. It has the easiest to use and most engaging interfaces, and it wins fans (and keeps them) based on that alone. There's nothing else like it. It doesn't need to work too hard to be different, it pretty much defines the entire hobby.

Quote from: Benoist;387711I actually agree with that. The big difference being, in my mind, that you've got some iterations of the game that basically take the character from a layman, almost-mundane status to the pinacle of world-shattering, unlikely indeed, abilities, whereas 4e smoothes out the progression from a Heroic status to a Superheroic one. Basically, starting characters in say, AD&D, are weaker than their 4e counterparts, but AD&D epic characters will in some cases (thinking of MUs in particular, here) be much more powerful than their 4e equivalents.

I'd guess this has to do with the way the math was reworked to make "all levels the 'sweet spot' of the game".

So just pointing the super/heroic nature of 4e is kind of a red herring, to me, when trying to find out what this game is really about.

I will get back to this later.  I'm not feeling that great, but this is one of those places I feel like I disliked where AD&D was and I dislike more where the newer versions have gone.  Epic Destiny, indeed.
But maybe I am wrong.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387717I'd say 4e does epic high fantasy really well, if that's what you're trying to figure out. I'd be comfortable running sequences like the hunt for Humbaba or the Siege of Troy using the system, whereas I don't think 3.x could really capture the feel of those sequences.

What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is what this game is exactly about. You know how you can take a game and in one or two sentences, you can pretty much convey the core concept of the game. Like "it's about going down the dungeon, killing things, taking their stuff, going back to the village, and repeat" (I seem to remember that's how Mike Mearls summarized D&D some time ago)? I'd like someone who really knows the game inside out to describe 4e using a sentence or two, like this.

I'd like to understand what this game is supposed to be used for.