Quote from: jeff37923;258197Feeling insulted by Mearls' "brain-damaged" comment, I use my Encounter Power of Smite With An Unfavorable 4e Review and take a Healing Surge.

That's harsh! I like it.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumI liked how Mearls quoted himself describing how to level up as a GM: "you have to resist taking player frustration and apparent disinterest as a personal affront or critic of your GMing style."

Except that it usually is.

Remember this was one of the guys who said, "roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours." I guess it is when he's GMing... oblivious to all player boredom and frustration...

If as many as half of us here are operating with the full complement then personally I think we're doing well.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258409Remember this was one of the guys who said, "roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours." I guess it is when he's GMing... oblivious to all player boredom and frustration...

"You have to resist [mis]taking player frustration and apparent disinterest as a personal affront or critic of your GMing style."
I think that one word "apparent" is the best part of the joke. It's why I'm laughing at Mearls right now. Or as he would put it, why no one is critical of his GMing style.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258409Remember this was one of the guys who said, "roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours." I guess it is when he's GMing... oblivious to all player boredom and frustration...

I think that quote is one of the more frequently misunderstood ones. It comes from Ryan Dancey. What it boils down to isn't so much that extant incarnations of D&D up to 3E had it all wrong with fun placement at the table (i.e. 20 minutes fun gaming, 3 hours 40 minutes chore). It's rather that, on a very, very tight definition of what 'playing the game' means, players spend 20 minutes total per session on or with actual game mechanical elements (say, roll a dice, select a spell, move your mini). The remainder of their time are dedicated to having a good time around that core - chatting about non-game related stuff, discussing what to do next, making fun of a picture or description used by the DM - 90% of this is out of character. I am hesitant to say that's how it is for all groups, but it certainly holds true of mine, and is the primary reason why I enjoy D&D so much: I enjoy the company of my friends, the company being loosely centered on "the game".

The mistake of 4th edition designers, in my view, was to take Dancey's observation the wrong way. Instead of endorsing the aforementioned set up like every previous edition did, and recognizing that people ARE enjoying themselves that way a great deal - which means, endorsing the fact that, at the core, an RPG means you and your friends getting together, round a table to engage in friendly chatter - 4th edition tried to expand the 20 minutes spend on "the game" narrowly conceived and pushed it into the 4 hours. Mearls rejoycing at playtesters saying "Oh, it's my turn again already? This is great!" , as if every time it is not your turn it's down time for you; trying to move the fast paced combat mechanics (sc. amount of turns per combat = high, length of turn = low) into non-combat game elements (-->skill challenges) and so on. Ironically, I would even include the new emphasis on teamwork, because it means that you cannot enjoy someone else's turn unless you are directly (in-game, mechanically) involved. 4th edition doesn't encourage teamwork per se to a greater extent than previous editions did (I mean, D&D hitherto not a collective experience? come on!). Rather, 4E rather re-defines the time and place at which teamwork ought to take place. It pushes it into the aforementioned 20 minutes.

That's, at least, my understanding of some of the design principles behind the new edition. I'm not saying that there is a 1:1 impact on your experience at the game table, in fact, my own experience with 4E has been the opposite. But that's because I game with people who didn't pick up roleplaying from 4th edition, and the very mentality we bring to the table contravenes the one the ruleset pushes really hard towards ("don't kill my loot!!!").

The preference of players to always win easily, always be superpowered, always get tons of treasure, etc, has always been around.

What Mearls, etc, don't seem to get is that the old D&D versions acknowledged that fact but knew that constantly just giving players what they think they want (instant gratification) was a losing proposal in the long run.  

The Tyranny of Fun design method is empty calories.  Sure, you get instant gratification, but how long can that last?  How long can you play the exact same balanced encounters over and over again until you realize there's no real challenge?  How many different characters can you make before you realize they've all been balanced to work almost exactly the same?

If D&D had originally been designed like this, it would have been popular for a a little while, then completely abandoned.  The genius of RPGs was in the design for long-term play.  Trying to turn it into the latest kid game fad misses the point.

Quote from: Windjammer;258432 Mearls rejoycing at playtesters saying "Oh, it's my turn again already? This is great!" , as if every time it is not your turn it's down time for you;

Exactly.

When you read the gaming philosophy of guys like Mearls, Dancey and Uncle Ronny, you get the impression that gamers are sitting around the table only tolerating each-other's company as a necessary evil for an rpg session, impatiently tapping their fingers while someone else resolves their character's action or talking to some NPC. "Are we there yet? Is it my turn yet?"

It's not social at all.

A while back I asked people what their favourite moment, most memorable scene in a game session was - and more than one of the players mentioned a scene their character had no part in, the player was doing and deciding and saying nothing, just watching others have fun.

That's something game designers always have to keep in mind, that we have a social creative hobby, and any rules we have are just to help us be social, help us be creative. If they try to do other shit like educate us or make us all have an equal share of the spotlight or give us lots of shiny stuff or give us a traumatic emotional experience or whatever, they have little hope for longevity.

I mean, 4E will be successful no matter what. Like Star Wars and Star Trek movies, however dreadful they are people will still spend heaps of money on them out of sheer hope and nostalgia.

Quote from: jeff37923;258197Feeling insulted by Mearls' "brain-damaged" comment, I use my Encounter Power of Smite With An Unfavorable 4e Review and take a Healing Surge.

There's a lot more unfavorable reviews listed here-

http://www.hackslash.net/?p=225

Maybe Mearls is getting defensive over his baby due to all the bad reviews.  Pretty much every rpg developer (who isn't trying to make money with 4e) has panned it.

Quote from: jeff37923;258197Feeling insulted by Mearls' "brain-damaged" comment, I use my Encounter Power of Smite With An Unfavorable 4e Review and take a Healing Surge.

Good review, I thought that one of the better ones I've read.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258443Exactly.

When you read the gaming philosophy of guys like Mearls, Dancey and Uncle Ronny, you get the impression that gamers are sitting around the table only tolerating each-other's company as a necessary evil for an rpg session, impatiently tapping their fingers while someone else resolves their character's action or talking to some NPC. "Are we there yet? Is it my turn yet?"

Possibly.  But when I read actual play reports, what I mostly see is people getting enthused and excited by what others are bringing to the table, with people really enjoying seeing what cool thing the guy next to them is about to do and how that will impact the overall story developing at the table.

So you know, the theory may sound sucktastic, indeed it does sound that, but the actual play reports are mostly people having fun in large part because of what others are doing and because of the social nature of the hobby, and actual play trumps theory (as Uncle Ronnie himself would agree I think).

Quote from: Windjammer;258432Mearls rejoycing at playtesters saying "Oh, it's my turn again already? This is great!" [/url], as if every time it is not your turn it's down time for you; trying to move the fast paced combat mechanics (sc. amount of turns per combat = high, length of turn = low) into non-combat game elements (-->skill challenges) and so on. Ironically, I would even include the new emphasis on teamwork, because it means that you cannot enjoy someone else's turn unless you are directly (in-game, mechanically) involved.

D&D as a euro game. How long before we see Settlers of Greyhawk?

Quote from: Haffrung;257948You can take this out of the realm of edition wars and RPG theory by looking at boardgames.

Euro games such as Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico, and Ticket to Ride have become very popular in the boardgame hobby. In fact, they've pretty much trounced 'traditional' American boardgames like Axis and Allies and now dominate online discussions and the convention scene.

Some key elements of Euro games are:

* Very little downtime
* Aversion to 'take-that' confrontation between opponents
* Elegant mathematical systems where players can take different routes to succeeding and scoring points
* Great care paid to making sure as many players are in contention for as long as possible

In comparison, American/Anglo boardgames of yore often have the following features:

* Long turns and playing time
* Player elimination
* Sub-optimal options
* Thematic chrome that has little game purpose

Now, I happen to love both kinds of boardgames. And I have rated boardgames poorly because they have too much downtime or the rules are overly fiddly.

However, I play Ameritrash/wargames for entirely different reasons than I play euros. If I want to get my analytical, optimizing, superbly-balanced game on, I'll play a Euro game. No question. But when I want to immerse myself in the role of an emperor in a perilous world where random fate can sink a fleet or enable me to poison a foe, and where the Kingdom of Bithynia gets silver tribute from the Scythians just because, then I play an Ameritrash or wargame.

Two types of games. Like euros, 4E is going with the meticulously engineered, everybodywins approach. No doubt they'll find success. But let's not pretend it's just the same ole' D&D that everybody has always played. And let's be conscious that when you take a tightly-focused approach to game design, you narrow the styles of play that the game facilitates.

I agree with you on the 4e:Euro game analogy.  I think they do share a lot of common design elements.

As far as Euro's "trouncing" traditional American-style boardgames I think you are grossly mistaken though.

So what if Euro's are played more at conventions and talked about more at Boardgamegeek.com.  That only indicates a "trouncing" if you don't count the hordes of people who don't go to conventions or post at BGG.  Print runs for Euro games are very small, even the most popular ones.  Games like Risk and Axis and Allies continue to sell way more copies than any euro game.  Now popularity isn't always the best measure of quality.  I like wargames, ameritrash games, and some Euros.  In general I think Euros are currently in decline, but there are a few good ones I really enjoy.  But to say Euro's have somehow come to dominate the boardgame market is just ridiculous.

Quote from: Haffrung;257948You can take this out of the realm of edition wars and RPG theory by looking at boardgames.

Euro games such as Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico, and Ticket to Ride have become very popular in the boardgame hobby. In fact, they've pretty much trounced 'traditional' American boardgames like Axis and Allies and now dominate online discussions and the convention scene.

Some key elements of Euro games are:

* Very little downtime
* Aversion to 'take-that' confrontation between opponents
* Elegant mathematical systems where players can take different routes to succeeding and scoring points
* Great care paid to making sure as many players are in contention for as long as possible

In comparison, American/Anglo boardgames of yore often have the following features:

* Long turns and playing time
* Player elimination
* Sub-optimal options
* Thematic chrome that has little game purpose

Now, I happen to love both kinds of boardgames. And I have rated boardgames poorly because they have too much downtime or the rules are overly fiddly.

However, I play Ameritrash/wargames for entirely different reasons than I play euros. If I want to get my analytical, optimizing, superbly-balanced game on, I'll play a Euro game. No question. But when I want to immerse myself in the role of an emperor in a perilous world where random fate can sink a fleet or enable me to poison a foe, and where the Kingdom of Bithynia gets silver tribute from the Scythians just because, then I play an Ameritrash or wargame.

Two types of games. Like euros, 4E is going with the meticulously engineered, everybodywins approach. No doubt they'll find success. But let's not pretend it's just the same ole' D&D that everybody has always played. And let's be conscious that when you take a tightly-focused approach to game design, you narrow the styles of play that the game facilitates.

I agree with you on the 4e:Euro game analogy.  I think they do share a lot of common design elements.

As far as Euro's "trouncing" traditional American-style boardgames I think you are grossly mistaken though.

So what if Euro's are played more at conventions and talked about more at Boardgamegeek.com.  That only indicates a "trouncing" if you don't count the hordes of people who don't go to conventions or post at BGG.  Print runs for Euro games are very small, even the most popular ones.  Games like Risk and Axis and Allies continue to sell way more copies than any euro game.  Now popularity isn't always the best measure of quality.  I like wargames, ameritrash games, and some Euros.  In general I think Euros are currently in decline, but there are a few good ones I really enjoy.  But to say Euro's have somehow come to dominate the boardgame market is just ridiculous.

Quote from: Haffrung;257955So why did WotC and its fans jump down the throats of any old-school players who said they didn't think 4E would be their cup of tea?

It's because they're assholes who couldn't just say, "4e isn't my cup of tea," but instead said, "4e isn't my cup of tea and anyone who enjoys it is a loser."

Quote from: Haffrung;257955Why couldn't they just admit that 4E was a new game with new presumptions?

It's absolutely a new game. New presumptions? Not so much.

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;257949It's called 'de-supporting', and it is one of the quickest ways to kill off an old product.

And yet old products remain. But folks' love of them is killed off, well, best to bring that up to the folks who are no longer doing the lovin'.

Seanchai

Quote from: Ian Absentia;257984This argument always bothers me.  Of course the old edition of the game didn't get taken away.  It's the players who got taken away by being split between competing editions.

Then how much did they're playing the old edition have to do with the old edition? I mean, if they weren't playing the old edition because they wanted to be playing the old edition, can you really blame them for moving on?

Seanchai