tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post3057125346010702268..comments2024-03-26T02:31:48.024-05:00Comments on Trollsmyth: Is You is, or is You ain’t, my 4e Baby?trollsmythhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-43971072511197092272008-04-17T18:21:00.000-05:002008-04-17T18:21:00.000-05:00Funny thing is that, after playing it for so many ...Funny thing is that, after playing it for so many years now, I was -- and am -- ready for something different, but 4e isn't at all what I want out of <I>D&D</I>; it's not even close. I think the next few years will be very interesting and I'd not be the least bit surprised if <I>Pathfinder</I> isn't the only game trying to pick up the thread of <I>D&D</I>'s development and go with it in different directions. In fact, I can guarantee you'll see at least one and, if 4e fails to deliver on its promises, I'd not be the list bit surprised to see more than one.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-52690018450734922612008-04-17T16:06:00.000-05:002008-04-17T16:06:00.000-05:00Yeah, I think you're probably right about that.The...Yeah, I think you're probably right about that.<BR/><BR/>The funny thing is, they lost me at 3e, which is bizarre because it was the best edition for verisimilitude, I think. No demihuman level limits. No weapon prohibitions by class. But the overhead that came with that was just too damned much. We're still playing 2e with 1st edition sensibilities around the Troll Cave, and a healthy helping of house rules and a bit of the Book of Vile Darkness, one of only three third edition books I ever bought.trollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-47554067795835825622008-04-17T15:03:00.000-05:002008-04-17T15:03:00.000-05:00Re: verisimilitude4e is pretty unashamedly "gamist...Re: verisimilitude<BR/><BR/>4e is pretty unashamedly "gamist," to use the trendy terminology. On one level, I do approve of that, as I think too many RPGs forget that they are in fact <I>games</I> and are thus an escapist entertainment. <BR/><BR/>At the same time, I can't help but think that 4e is also too reductionist in its approach to <I>D&D</I>. It's selling the brand short in the name of "fun" and my guess is that that will drive a lot of people away -- maybe not enough to matter to WotC's bottom line but enough that the forking of Gygax's legacy will become permanent. I happily made the jump from Holmes to <I>AD&D</I> and then to 2e and then to 3e, but 4e? Not a chance.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-17173271504686053572008-04-17T10:40:00.000-05:002008-04-17T10:40:00.000-05:00Ah, interesting. Thanks for that bit of info. It...Ah, interesting. Thanks for that bit of info. It boggled my mind that something so simple might have been overlooked, but I'd seen odder things before.<BR/><BR/>As for the "hack-and-slash" focus, I feel it's another triumph for "conventional wisdom". Since "everybody knows" that people only play D&D for the combat encounters, it only makes sense to put your focus there. And heck, for all I know, that's exactly how most people play the game. But if there's a strong in-combat/out-of-combat toggle, that's gonna wreak havoc on my verisimilitude again... :/trollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-78058421266070026692008-04-17T07:03:00.000-05:002008-04-17T07:03:00.000-05:00I'll admit that I haven't been keeping up on the i...I'll admit that I haven't been keeping up on the intricacies of 4e's rules system, but, if I recall, many effects, including "charm," work differently in and out of combat. So the long-term effects of the succubus' kiss are spelled out somewhere (perhaps the DMG?), while the stat block deals specifically with combat concerns. From what I've gathered, the MM -- and stat blocks generally -- will deal solely with combat considerations, since they're the only times when the DM needs to have information quickly at his fingertips.<BR/><BR/>I don't have any particular objection to paring down the stat blocks to combat-specific info, but I do think it's a mistake to treat the MM primarily as a book of <I>combat</I> opponents. Likewise, <I>D&D</I> has always been rather lopsided in its mechanical treatment of combat vs. everything else. 4e looks like it intends to make that treatment even more lopsided by sharply distinguishing the way in-game effects work in combat vs. how they work otherwise.<BR/><BR/>I fully understand the rationale behind this design decision, but, frankly, I think it's terribly misguided. Like the emasculation of poison, level drain, and disease begun in 4e, WotC's designers seem to think that anything that takes a character out of combat "isn't fun." I find it ironic that earlier editions of <I>D&D</I> get tarred with the label of being "hack 'n slash" and yet it's actually the newer editions that prioritize combat as the epitome of "fun" far more.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.com