Quote from: talysman;730983Epic battles aren't events where you get to display your superpowers, they're moments of crisis where you fight off the enemy and hope you don't get ganked.

I've heard of a distinction between "heroic" and "superheroic".  Heroic is when people succeed against terrible odds because of their will and determination.  Superheroic is when they succeed against terrible odds because they're just that awesome.

Old school D&D definitely tends towards the heroic.  But I think many people wanted it to be superheroic.

The "25 years" comment (if you read further in thread) basically lays the blame/credit on Dragonlance (1984)  and Mentzer Red Box (1983). I think everybody knows that DL was the major point of departure by now; Red Box is blamed because of the Larry Elmore cover, which, fair enough, compared to the earlier ones, it's a completely soulless depiction of a "hero"; you can have it.

Anyway, when it comes to edition-warring I think the urge--in sane people--comes either from feeling like the edition you don't like is crowding out the one you do, or from the publishers themselves initiating the warring, as Windjammer pointed out upthread. Then it turns into a tit-for-tat.

Quote from: talysman;730983So, either these people have mistakenly reduced all of LotR to a couple of scenes and a handful of pages, or they aren't really thinking of LotR at all. Perhaps they are thinking of comic book superheroes? Perhaps this is where the 4e:anime comparison comes from (this and the ridiculous glowing weapons and ultra-spikey armor?)

 When 4E first came out, I took a look at it and realized that it was a supers genre game with fantasy trade dress.

Even hinting that 4E MIGHT be a supers game was grounds for an infraction even if you had nothing bad to say about it.  

This from a few years ago that I posted on ENW in a thread titled: What Superhero RPG do you play?

4E D&D.

The campaign has only just started but its off to a good start.

Details:
Larger than life protagonists all with an array of superpowers-check

A determined focus to fight for what is right and good-check

Epic showdowns with dastardly villains-check

A powerful patron (The Fey Court) from which we receive info and are assigned missions-check

What else is missing that is needed to make this a "legitimate" supers campaign? Is Star Wars not a martial arts movie because it takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away?

I do NOT consider our campaign to be "crap". I'm rather pleased with it thus far.

Mod Note: This reads a whole lot like edition-warring threadcrapping. If your groups is actually using 4e for supers gaming, rather than fantasy, please go into more detail to avoid that perception. ~Umbran

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730662That was actually the intent.  Not to mirror "real" martial arts, but to emulate kung fu movies.

Now before someone says Gary was all for the disassociated wonder powers that ended up being 4e, I think it's fair to say that with martial arts in OA, it was very much a "time and a place for that stuff" with Gary.  I don't know for sure, obviously, but I have a good feeling that all the gonzo flying squirrel stuff in OA was meant to stay in Kara Tur and not replace the "core" D&D, if that makes sense.  I.e., I'm sure he didn't intend everyone to replace their current PHB monks with OA versions (the Dragon magazine monk was better anyway, but I digress), or to have parties full of kensai and shape shifting whatever the heck that race was.

Correct.

The pseudo-animal people were Hengyokai. There were also the spirit/elemental people.

Quote from: Arminius;731038The "25 years" comment (if you read further in thread) basically lays the blame/credit on Dragonlance (1984)  and Mentzer Red Box (1983). I think everybody knows that DL was the major point of departure by now; Red Box is blamed because of the Larry Elmore cover, which, fair enough, compared to the earlier ones, it's a completely soulless depiction of a "hero"; you can have it.

Anyway, when it comes to edition-warring I think the urge--in sane people--comes either from feeling like the edition you don't like is crowding out the one you do, or from the publishers themselves initiating the warring, as Windjammer pointed out upthread. Then it turns into a tit-for-tat.

Yup a lot of people wanted what the DL adventures were offering, otherwise they wouldn't have sold so well. It's just the thing is that D&D is a pretty crappy system for trying to get at what the DL adventures are trying to do, but people have been trying to do that for decades and decades anyway.

That's why the DM of the Rings looks like such a shitty adventure: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 the DM is trying to force the players and the rules to do stuff that they don't want to do. But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

As far as I can tell 4ed gives those kind of people what they want better than the old editions of D&D. Personally I find it's just a hell of a lot more fun to stop trying to force D&D into being something else and just roll let the players lace up their jeweled throne stomping boots.

For example I've talked with people who really want epic throw down fair fights and talk about how lame/cheesy/cheap it is for players to do things like carry a ballista into a dungeon in a bag of holding and then assemble it and backstab the dragon with it and how nothing like that ever happens in the fantasy books they read. All I could think of what the scene in which the Black Company ambushes Limper with a ballista and what a fun fight scene that was.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;731040When 4E first came out, I took a look at it and realized that it was a supers genre game with fantasy trade dress.

Even hinting that 4E MIGHT be a supers game was grounds for an infraction even if you had nothing bad to say about it.  

This from a few years ago that I posted on ENW in a thread titled: What Superhero RPG do you play?

4E D&D.

The campaign has only just started but its off to a good start.

Details:
Larger than life protagonists all with an array of superpowers-check

A determined focus to fight for what is right and good-check

Epic showdowns with dastardly villains-check

A powerful patron (The Fey Court) from which we receive info and are assigned missions-check

What else is missing that is needed to make this a "legitimate" supers campaign? Is Star Wars not a martial arts movie because it takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away?

I do NOT consider our campaign to be "crap". I'm rather pleased with it thus far.

Mod Note: This reads a whole lot like edition-warring threadcrapping. If your groups is actually using 4e for supers gaming, rather than fantasy, please go into more detail to avoid that perception. ~Umbran

You're telling me that ENW and TBP are shitholes?  Shawck.  

That being said, yes, I had the same reaction to 4e as you: it's a supers game dolled up in fantasy clothing.

Quote from: Arminius;731038The "25 years" comment (if you read further in thread) basically lays the blame/credit on Dragonlance (1984)  and Mentzer Red Box (1983). I think everybody knows that DL was the major point of departure by now; Red Box is blamed because of the Larry Elmore cover, which, fair enough, compared to the earlier ones, it's a completely soulless depiction of a "hero"; you can have it.

The thing is, as Sacrosanct pointed out, that there's nothing about 4e that I can discern, that does a better job of offering players a chance to feel like the heroes of a high fantasy saga like LotR or (God help me for juxtaposing these two) Dragonlance.

Unless, as Old Geezer cogently suggests, there's a considerable contingent of people who see "high fantasy" as a string of "epic" set-piece fights between larger-than-life characters, tied together by thin strands of plot. Speaking strictly for myself, I don't see the genre this way.

And for the sake of clarification, I don't think this is an indictment of 4e. I think 4e does a solid job of what it sets out to be; a RPG that's very combat-centric and strongly supports miniatures and/or grid play.

Nevertheless, if I wanted a game that fulfilled the agenda first laid out by the "Hickman Revolution", my money would be on Dungeon World. I may yet try it.

Quote from: Arminius;731038The "25 years" comment (if you read further in thread) basically lays the blame/credit on Dragonlance (1984)  and Mentzer Red Box (1983). I think everybody knows that DL was the major point of departure by now; Red Box is blamed because of the Larry Elmore cover, which, fair enough, compared to the earlier ones, it's a completely soulless depiction of a "hero"; you can have it.

This one?

Quote from: The Butcher;731064Nevertheless, if I wanted a game that fulfilled the agenda first laid out by the "Hickman Revolution", my money would be on Dungeon World. I may yet try it.

I dunno, from what I've heard, it might be a MWP/Cortex Plus game, appropriately enough.

Quote from: Omega;731066This one?

Yeah, I don't care for the LE stuff.

Quote from: Daztur;731058Yup a lot of people wanted what the DL adventures were offering, otherwise they wouldn't have sold so well. It's just the thing is that D&D is a pretty crappy system for trying to get at what the DL adventures are trying to do, but people have been trying to do that for decades and decades anyway.

That's why the DM of the Rings looks like such a shitty adventure: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 the DM is trying to force the players and the rules to do stuff that they don't want to do. But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

Agreed.

Quote from: Daztur;731058As far as I can tell 4ed gives those kind of people what they want better than the old editions of D&D. Personally I find it's just a hell of a lot more fun to stop trying to force D&D into being something else and just roll let the players lace up their jeweled throne stomping boots.

While 4E brings the superpowered PCs, there's nothing about the game that makes it more of a good vs evil save-the-world game than any other edition of D&D. It doesn't support kingdom building or social contests, and there's nothing in it about epic destinies. PCs will become very powerful - in combat at least; out of combat they'll be less powerful than an AD&D or 3.X party with high-level spellcasters. But 4E doesn't support epic storylines any better than other editions. In fact, it may be worse than other editions with such a focus on tactical combat and the time-sink that goes into every encounter.

As far as what I think makes 4ed better at some kinds of games:
-The combat rules make it better suited for long drawn out combat that can get pretty repetitive in previous editions, however it is horrifically ill-suited to frequent combat as that gets boring. The rpg.net consensus is to only have one or two combats in a session for 4ed, which seems reasonable.
-Old editions have more open ended effects while 4ed ones are more nailed down, which makes the older editions reward rat bastard cunning a lot more than 4ed which I vastly prefer but which fits the tone of some game more than others.
-Combat is a lot more predictable ("less swingy") with it hard for players to get taken down by some random goblins that get really lucky. For me this is bad but it means that you only get player deaths in the big climactic hard fights unless the players really screw up.

Could go on but bored now.

I think that the old editions encourage underhandedness a lot more because of things like GP = XP, more open ended effects and more unpredictable combat. Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War basically, older editions encourage Black Company-style behavior while 4ed encourages set piece battles.

Quote from: Daztur;731058But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

Kanye the Giant, yo.

Quote from: Daztur;731058Yup a lot of people wanted what the DL adventures were offering, otherwise they wouldn't have sold so well. It's just the thing is that D&D is a pretty crappy system for trying to get at what the DL adventures are trying to do, but people have been trying to do that for decades and decades anyway.

That's why the DM of the Rings looks like such a shitty adventure: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 the DM is trying to force the players and the rules to do stuff that they don't want to do. But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

As far as I can tell 4ed gives those kind of people what they want better than the old editions of D&D. Personally I find it's just a hell of a lot more fun to stop trying to force D&D into being something else and just roll let the players lace up their jeweled throne stomping boots.

For example I've talked with people who really want epic throw down fair fights and talk about how lame/cheesy/cheap it is for players to do things like carry a ballista into a dungeon in a bag of holding and then assemble it and backstab the dragon with it and how nothing like that ever happens in the fantasy books they read. All I could think of what the scene in which the Black Company ambushes Limper with a ballista and what a fun fight scene that was.

LOL, How funny!  My players bitched just like that strip when I tried to run the DL modules back in the late 1980s.

The problem with the DL modules was not that they tried to emulate the fiction but rather that they provided the characters from the fiction as the characters to be used in the playing of the modules.   While, yes, they did state in the modules that players could create their own unique characters to run through the modules, it was presented and written with the assumption that the players would be taking on the role of one of the characters from the fiction.

I think that the whole DL phenomenon would have played out differently if the DL modules were written to emulate the story plot points of the fiction in a generic sense so that the players' characters could replace the characters from the DL fiction to create their own fiction.

Quote from: Daztur;731058Yup a lot of people wanted what the DL adventures were offering, otherwise they wouldn't have sold so well. It's just the thing is that D&D is a pretty crappy system for trying to get at what the DL adventures are trying to do, but people have been trying to do that for decades and decades anyway.

That's why the DM of the Rings looks like such a shitty adventure: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 the DM is trying to force the players and the rules to do stuff that they don't want to do. But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

As far as I can tell 4ed gives those kind of people what they want better than the old editions of D&D. Personally I find it's just a hell of a lot more fun to stop trying to force D&D into being something else and just roll let the players lace up their jeweled throne stomping boots.

For example I've talked with people who really want epic throw down fair fights and talk about how lame/cheesy/cheap it is for players to do things like carry a ballista into a dungeon in a bag of holding and then assemble it and backstab the dragon with it and how nothing like that ever happens in the fantasy books they read. All I could think of what the scene in which the Black Company ambushes Limper with a ballista and what a fun fight scene that was.

I guess I'll thank my lucky star that I started my adventure with fantasy with not only Tolkien but also Conan and Black Company.

Quote from: Drohem;731154LOL, How funny!  My players bitched just like that strip when I tried to run the DL modules back in the late 1980s.

The problem with the DL modules was not that they tried to emulate the fiction but rather that they provided the characters from the fiction as the characters to be used in the playing of the modules.   While, yes, they did state in the modules that players could create their own unique characters to run through the modules, it was presented and written with the assumption that the players would be taking on the role of one of the characters from the fiction.

I think that the whole DL phenomenon would have played out differently if the DL modules were written to emulate the story plot points of the fiction in a generic sense so that the players' characters could replace the characters from the DL fiction to create their own fiction.

The main "problem" is that if you want to create a truly epic storyline, while players are also entirely free to choose, it's almost (if not in fact) impossible to write it as a prepared campaign/module, because for every choice the players make, for every change, every option also changes, and not in a linear, but at the very least, square fashion. Then again, I've seen it done - it'd just require an epic amount of work on the scenario part. Some parts'd still be more linear than others, and the campaign would rely heavily on the GM to improvise and adjunct the events.

Quote from: Omega;731066

If that's supposed to be a soulless picture, I'm giving Satan a call right now.