I plead to God and all things holy that i never ever see any kind of healing as an 'At Will' power. If that day comes, i'm out. I can see a Cleric having something along the lines of CLW x3 an encounter, but any more than that and you might as well asume everyone is fully healed between each encounter and that would suck mightily.

Edit: Eek! Wrong thread. Copied to the correct one.

After all, combat in D&D is a means to negotiate the impact of the PCs on the world. Nothing will take that away, period.

So no matter what is done to the rules, the immersive qualities and wholesome experience don´t go away.


BUT having monsters solely defined by their battlefield role is erecting another meta-fence around it. The moment the Goblin tribe becomes a Mook tribe, it´s gotten harder to have them perceived as a Goblin tribe by the PCs.
These fences against disbelief have been in D&D from the get-go, but get more pronounced it seems.

Tearing them down is the DMs job, and I´m positively sure most DMs will do as they see fit. It´s just a pity that fewer and fewer DMs get exposed to learning texts for wholesome adventuring, let alone strategic challenges. It´s okay for designers to think about the combat roles of Monsters. But it´s not good for the players to do so, IMHO.


My experiences [ Wilderlands vs. Adventure Paths/Encounter chains] tell me it´s mostly the DMs who govern playstyle. So I´m sure I am able to use whatever WotC throws at me for wholesome gaming. I´m not so confident regarding the mass of DMs.

But, really, has been 1st Edition grandiosity ever caught up with the mass of DMs back in the day?

Wasn´t the trivialized, effort-less interpretation of supllied materials always there?
I doubt that the percentage of awesome 1st Ed. gaming ever was different from the percentage of any other Edition.

Quote from: One Horse TownI plead to God and all things holy that i never ever see any kind of healing as an 'At Will' power. If that day comes, i'm out. I can see a Cleric having something along the lines of CLW x3 an encounter, but any more than that and you might as well asume everyone is fully healed between each encounter and that would suck mightily.

For low-level parties, at least, a wand of Cure Light Wounds functions pretty much as an At Will healing ability.

edit: Oh, this is the wrong thread.

Erik,

Quite possible, and I'll bet that's what Mearls and WotC are thinking too. We'll have to see.

When the game elements work with the imaginary immersion - if for example the dwarf fighter progression 'feels' different than the huiman-sword one because of different abilities that you can imagine - then there's no problem.

But when you start defining meta-level roles and resources, things get more complicated. This bugs a lot of gamers, though not all.


Pundit,

I'll use whatever terms I like. If you don't want to participate, don't.


Sett,

If you're going to diss me for using the theory, at least get it right. Your interpretation of Gamism is narrow: every incidence of someone bragging about their build on an internet board is an example of someone getting a gamist-type reward out of 3.x, for example. You're right that games aren't gamist, strictly speaking, but you call a game 'gamist' as shorthand for saying that it's system is intended to or most appropriate for facilitating gamist play.

However, that is the core issue I'm concerned about.


In any case,

I think the topic here is pretty interesting, and on this board the BMspeak will probably mess it up. So, if someone's interested maybe they should start a new thread on the core issue without it.

Quote from: SettembriniBUT having monsters solely defined by their battlefield role is erecting another meta-fence around it. The moment the Goblin tribe becomes a Mook tribe, it´s gotten harder to have them perceived as a Goblin tribe by the PCs.

From what I have seen it doesn't look as if they are going to map Monster Roles to specific races or creatures.

Quote from: http://www.enworld.org/The fog of war is much more interesting because when you approach an orc, he isn't a set of specific stats. He has a very specific role, and you won't know what it is until he unleashes it on the battlefield.

From that a monster's Role sounds more like a template to me.

Quote from: SettembriniTearing them down is the DMs job, and I´m positively sure most DMs will do as they see fit. It´s just a pity that fewer and fewer DMs get exposed to learning texts for wholesome adventuring, let alone strategic challenges. It´s okay for designers to think about the combat roles of Monsters. But it´s not good for the players to do so, IMHO.

It the end it will be good for the players - and more so for WotC's coffers. Because that way of thinking opens role-playing to the casual gamers, a target group that was completely neglected by 3.x

If it becomes possible to stat up an encounter in 15-20 minutes, and that encounter is good for a short evening's worth of gaming, then this could become the equivalent to a game of Settlers.

[Edit] And since Erik mentioned German board games also: Board games are not played because they facilitate immersion - they are played (mostly) for the gamistic (is that a proper word?) challenge.
So Calithena may be onto something.

Whatever they do, if it brings in new, younger folks, I´m totally supporting it.
Never forget, all other games are just siphoning off disgruntled D&D players.
If there is a huge influx of young people, there´l be more disgruntled gamers, searching their niche.

@ character builds as gamist: So what? Nobody I knows makes such posts. It´s as hardcore an interest as is using OD&D with 3D-Dungeons!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhatever the terminology, the "war" has already been won. 4E will be 3.5 plus a little this, minus a little that. And unlike in the 80s, 3.5 is the only game left in town.

This is a joke, right? Or do you actually believe that 3.5 is the only game out there? Or perhaps you were speaking very literally and it's the only game you can find players for in your town?

Pierce -

That response misses the point, because the fight I'm talking about (woe to me for picking this terminology...) was occurring within AD&D as well as across the spectrum of other games. There were bazillions of D&D players who cared about setting development, 'roleplaying', realism, and all the other things that characterize a 'simulationist' approach. And there were likewise bazillions who wanted to beat monsters, level up, brag about their bad-ass character and how clever they were at overcoming certain challenges, etc.

Now as everyone on the internet knows, these two tendencies don't have to fight each other, and in a lot of groups they can work together pretty well. Where they tend to break down (depending on sensitiviities - there are some people who are really one-or-the-other types out there) is where players reach openly into the meta to get the competitive/challenge stuff going.

But they did historically fight each other because of local problems and because 'gamist' D&D was a popular and prevalent (though NEVER the only) mode in which the game was played. Some D&D players wanted one, some wanted the other.

I think - I'm not sure, but I think - that lots of people from each crew signed on to 3e. And so if WotC pushes it (even more towards) the meta/challenge dimension, it's a gamble: some people who need to not have the meta are going to be put off, while others (perhaps MMORPG and boardgame players, which has got to be what WotC is thinking, and what Erik argued above) may be attracted.

----------

As to the 'screw the old schoolers' idea, I don't think so. I'm actually seeing a transparent attempt to move the aesthetics of the game back towards certain 1e/2e tropes, probably to keep us on board. I think WotC wants us along for the ride, though they're not going to design a game just for us - and they shouldn't.

Have to agree with Calithena here. From all I've heard about 4e so far, there seems to be very little attempt to cater to those who like their settings to take precedence over the implied metaphysics of the ruleset. Seems like gamism is totalling ruling the roost. For example, per-encounter rather than per-day abilities - it's pure metagame stuff.

For all those aggressively lowbrow types who won't even admit terms like simulationism and gamism, you are being disingenuous. It's patently clear what these terms mean.

GAMISM
Rules concepts come first. Game-world justifications come later and are subordinate, or are dispensed with entirely.

SIMULATIONISM
A setting is imagined. Rules are created to support this vision.

Capeesh?

TheShadow

Quote from: The_ShadowFor all those aggressively lowbrow types who won't even admit terms like simulationism and gamism, you are being disingenuous. It's patently clear what these terms mean.

GAMISM
Rules concepts come first. Game-world justifications come later and are subordinate, or are dispensed with entirely.

SIMULATIONISM
A setting is imagined. Rules are created to support this vision.

Capeesh?

I find the constant attempts to work GNS terminology into discussions here aggressively lowbrow.

Seeing these concepts as somehow separate and incompatible shows a lack of imagination and is like a prison for your creativity.

Especially if the terminology is used wrongly. SIM is not what you would think it is.

Add to that, it´s mutually exclusive within the Big Model. So Calithena´s notion of the compatability isn´t legit.

Honestly, either Cali is trolling, to reinforce some prejudices he has, or he is whining.

Stop the whine!
Play sandbox-create-on-the-fly-strategic-without-skills with any D&D version you want. It´s the adventures and the DM who set the tone, not the rules!

I´m out of this.

Quote from: StuartSeeing these concepts as somehow separate and incompatible shows a lack of imagination and is like a prison for your creativity.

Personally, I find rulesets that attempt to hardwire a particular playstyle far more of a constraint. Of course, all rulesets do this to some extent, but some more than others. I'll wait and see whether 4e can support, for example, my preferred old-school sword'n'sorcery vibe better than 3e, but I'm not that optimistic.

BRP, on the other hand, can be tweaked to any flavour of fantasy - low/high magic, S&S, epic, with minimal effort, while D&D stubbornly remains D&D. Which is fine, and more power to those who dig it. But as I said above, it is for those who like the ruleset to determine the setting, i.e. it leans toward gamism, rather than for simulationists like myself who like to be able to emulate different flavours/genres.


The(aggressively middlebrow)Shadow

Up next: the return of Intelligent Design!

Quote from: The_ShadowFor all those aggressively lowbrow types who won't even admit terms like simulationism and gamism, you are being disingenuous. It's patently clear what these terms mean.

GAMISM
Rules concepts come first. Game-world justifications come later and are subordinate, or are dispensed with entirely.

SIMULATIONISM
A setting is imagined. Rules are created to support this vision.

Capeesh?

TheShadow

So here's a thought genius, why not say "Rules" and "Setting"? You know, instead of adding useless labels to things every gamer knows about and do not require labelling?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo here's a thought genius, why not say "Rules" and "Setting"? You know, instead of adding useless labels to things every gamer knows about and do not require labelling?

RPGPundit

See my above post. I think I expressed myself clearly enough.