So what IS D&D anyway?
An interesting meme has seemed to pop up among those who dislike where D&D 4e headed. It’s one simple declaration:
This is not D&D.
I’ve touched on this idea before: in many people’s minds, there’s one definition of what a product/line IS. Whether this is determined by the original creator, the fans, or whomever happens to legally own the name is up for debate.
However, this pronouncement really has this inferred part to it that is often left off:
This is not D&D to me.
Reasons for this vary. Some common ones include:
- Negative associations with another game. (i.e. “4e is just Magic” and “4e is just WoW.”)
- Deal-breaker details. (i.e. “There’s no gnomish druid in the PHB core, how am I supposed to cope?”)
- Elimination of old D&D elements. (i.e. “Players have always rolled dice for hit points.”)
- Mistrust of associated elements. (i.e. “We’ve never needed an online tabletop before, why should we include one now?”)
- Worries about power levels. (i.e. “PC’s have lots of hit points now!”)
Frankly, all of these issues are completely silly to me. There are plenty of valid reasons to not like 4e for your playstyle, and plenty of reasons to say that it doesn’t fit what you like to see in your rulesets, but all of the above reasons just seem contrived. What really should be the determiner on whether it feels like D&D or not is to find out how it plays. The emergent play of the game is far more important to determining overall feel and style of the game. When I’ve played it so far (and I assume when I play in Keep on the Shadowfell), I have no question that what I’m playing is D&D, even if my Elven Ranger can do radically different stuff than my previous Elven Ranger.
For me, I’ll always feel like the best way for D&D to run is to have an engaging storyline and interesting tactical combats. It’s about the D&D world being this pseudo-Tolkien setting, where adventurers go on quests to defeat monsters, gain loot, and occasionally save the world.
Part of where the disconnect comes from is the previous incarnations of D&D not being focused on its core. With all the books out there, plus judicious use of house rules, it was possible to concoct a variety of D&D-ish games and settings. The designers made it pretty clear that they were focusing on the core game of D&D, and other considerations of adaptability have been largely tossed out. (Not to say there aren’t some concessions in the previews we’ve seen, but it’s clearly not the focus.)
For me, when I pick up the D&D Player’s Handbook, I want to play D&D. Period. I want to come up with a character concept in the framework of the rules provided, and go on adventures as him, all the while leveling up, getting more neat stuff I can do, and getting more loot. If I want to play something with a radically different feel, I’m going to reach onto my bookshelf full of RPGs and play something else. (Or I’m going to design it myself.)
When I play D&D, I know the kind of framework to expect, and I’m glad that the new edition is focusing on making the core D&D experience the best it can be. Previously, it’s tried too hard to be all things to all people, and sacrificed game play and simplicity as a result. When I generate my first 4e character, I’m confidant that I’ll know it’s D&D.
Loading ...
In truth, fellows, hasn’t a part of D&D ALWAYS been about changing the game to fit your concept? Take out a template here or there, add a few more hit dice and attack bonus, change the name “demon” to something more palatable (anyone remember Tana’ari and Ba’atezu [possible sic, I'm not going to run and find my Monster Manual]). Even if you make cosmetic changes, or have issues with a rule here or there, D&D survives because it adapts well, not in spite of it. You’re starting to quibble about minor points, and there’s no real reason for being defensive. Embrace the differences, my friends.
Alright, so accepting as given that the problems with the edition is:
1. The fluff/cosmology shift that obsoletes certain products and causes serious headaches in campaigns.
2. The necessity of miniatures in gameplay.
3. The focus on game balance over fantasy realism.
It seems to me that these issues strike at the very core of the way D&D has moved over the past few iterations and that, other than a radical U-turn, there really was no way 4th Edition was going to satisfy these pundits. To me, the whole product is a logical move towards a better game (and of course its a cash-in, but that doesn’t necessary invalidate the game choices made in the name of capitalism). My question is then what should 4th Edition have done then?
@Graham – If you claim people are playing 4e without minis and *without* retrofit then you’re the one lying. It’s hardcoded into kobold stat blocks for Pete’s sake. We can talk about how much work it is to retrofit 4e to not be mini dependent, but saying it’s zero retrofit just flies in the face of reason.
@Main Event – you definitely have a point. Although I think 3e and 3.5e really only struck at #2, the minis in gameplay. It didn’t do much cosmology shift – all the campaign worlds moved on without much event – or mechanics with game effects over realism. (Balance can be achieved without hurting world simulation.) What could they have done in 4e?
Well, their stated design goals were good. I agree with each one of them as stated in the Wizards Presents and Excerpts etc. It’s the implementation where it falls down for me.
Fluff. They could have either a) not changed it, and it seems like a whole lot of change no one was crying out for, or b) not made it part of the ‘core rules.’ If you want a new “points of light” campaign world with a Feywild and Shadowwhatnot and primordials warring against the gods – OK, that’s what we call a “campaign setting.” I think they’ve done the game a disservice by hardcoding more default setting into the core rules.
Minis. It’s not hard to not make minis such a fundamental part of the rules. Combat has become more tactical than it has been since OD&D itself. I don’t know if they just want in on some of that WH40k money or what, but it’s a change that to me, does not make the game any more fun and it makes it considerably more complicated. I learned to play D&D in the back of a car going to Scout camp; apparently that’ll be quite difficult without a game board and a dozen minis. They talk a LOT of smack about making the game easier, but in 2e we just rolled to hit the imaginary orc without having to set up a game of Squad Leader to do it.
“Realism.” Means different things to different people, I know. But I want to be able to look into the game world through the lens of my character’s eyes and have things make sense, given the obvious deviations from realism like magic, monsters, etc. They clearly just did not have this as a design driver at all, but they could have. “Marking” and other stuff are gamist tactical powers without clear in-game explanation which could easily have been replaced/modified with no additional work if that was a design goal. Heck, they’ve largely reduced the monsters to just stat blocks – have you read the MM excerpts? They don’t even bother with a *description* of some of the monsters! (ahem, orcs.) “Here’s a stat block, buy the mini!”
Omnus, from a ways back up there:
“Bartoneus: Try playing the game. You’ll find that if done right, the players NEVER have the book in their hands, unless they’re a spellcaster looking up spells. With every modifier and attack roll outlined on the character sheet, I go through several nights without cracking open my book. The book only proves necessary for advancement. I’m not confused one bit.”
First off, blow me if you think I don’t play this game. ‘If done right’ is a strong statement of opinion, and when half the classes are spellcasters that ends up giving you a lot of PHB in hand time for looking up spells. The game you’re playing in/running may not have much PHB in hand, but I know ours has a ton and almost every player references a PHB many times in each adventure.
Your base statement that Wizards releasing more and more material for the game which invalidates everything released beforehand has some truth to it in the sense that the newer stuff they release is more refined and as was the case with recent 3.x books, a testing ground for development of a new edition. But the base PHB and Monster Manual are not invalidated because they’ve released things which are better than what’s in them, they simply add more options and most likely players have used everything that’s out already and want to try new things.
Eeesh, I think I hit a nerve. I guess I’m just spoiled by my veteran players. I meant no offense to anyone who plays in a different way than I or my players do.
One thing you forget about is the WotC owns and publishes D&D. They use the same formula they do for Magic: the Gathering. Each “expansion” gets just a little more powerful, just a little more useful, to hook us into buying the next round. New prestige classes, weapons, spells all the time. When Sword and Fist came out, I suddenly had two players wanting mercurial greatswords. Coincidence? *laughs* When each new book gets brought to my attention I have to go through it with a fine tooth-comb to determine how the balance is getting thrown out of whack each time, or judging if I want to elevate my world up a little bit to match them. If anyone thinks this is not the case, you’re being naieve. Each new thing may not make a critical difference, but it’s the whole “slippery slope” argument. Pretty soon, things get silly. Of course, you can adjust. I’ve been DMing too long to not be able to do so. But when you adjust a party’s level by five or higher because of the new weapons, spells, and abilities they get because of the supplements, something’s a little bit broken.
Long-timers may remember when the 1st edition changed a bit with the advent of the Unearthed Arcana Book and Oriental Adventures. The 2nd Edition had its Tome of Magic and Players Options books, as well as all those bloody kits from the Guidebooks. This escalation is nothing new, nor is it unique to D&D. It’s not a refinement, it’s marketing strategy.
I just got my hands on the new adventure, Keep on the Shadowfell. I glanced at the new characters, the monster blocks, and digested some of the mechanics. Is it “D&D”? YES. Does it have a different feel to it? YES. Is it better than 3.x? In my mind, it isn’t but it isn’t worse either. It’s very, very different, and I think I’ll have to reserve total judgment for the future when I get the corebooks in my hand and absorb some more. BTW, don’t buy the bloody thing unless you have money to throw away. The maps are pretty, but the whole adventure is a bit of a joke for what they’re charging.
They use the same formula they do for Magic: the Gathering. Each “expansion” gets just a little more powerful
Actually… on average, magic doesn’t do that. The power might be up a tad, but they also reign in the design from overpowered cards from old sets.
In fact, many of the best cards from older sets are still unmatched today. Lightning Bolt, for instance (one red mana for 3 damage as an instant) hasn’t really been around since 4th edition. It’s been replace by cards like Flare (3 mana, for 1 damage and a card draw) and kindle (2 mana, for 2 damage, plus one for each kindle in the graveyard, so once you spend 4 you spent 8 mana for 14, where lightning bolt was 4 mana for 12). There are some other comporable ones around, but not too many for the cost.
If 4e is taking the M:tG approach, what we’ll see is a scenario where most powers will never be completely outdated, and new powers/items will open up new options, without being overpowered in comparison.
I like this.
If anyone thinks this is not the case, you’re being naieve.
So, you’re right, and anyone who doesn’t think so is obviously wrong. Yeah, okay.
Exception based systems often have the appearance of power creep, due to increased synergy between various options, but don’t necessarily have power creep within specific cards/powers/etc. And it really shouldn’t matter where the thing comes from, badly designed is badly designed, whether it be a Mercurial Greatsword from Sword & Fist, the Berserker from Complete Fighter, or Harm from 3.0 PHB. So sayeth Dave.
I’ve enjoyed what we’ve played of Keep on the Shadowfell so far, but not enough to judge it as a whole. I’ll be very surprised if it’s a “joke” though. And maybe it’s because of my publishing experience, but $30 for 96 color pages, the folio covering, and poster maps doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
3.5 Power Creep = Vow of Poverty + Divine Fist (Cleric/Monk Prestige class). GROSS
TME: Broken does not equal power creep.
Why not? It seems like its power creep to the extreme?
@TME -
Power creep is a constant (usually slow) steady increase in power. A single jump in brokenness for one combo is bad, but is not power creep.
Gah, can’t edit.
To differentiate it, power creep is also an across-the-board increase in power.
My previous statement about H1: The Keep on the Shadowfell being a bit of a joke is in regards to the stiff price. Though it has pretty maps, I would pay about $10 for the actual adventure itself. The rest of the cost is the 4th Edition preview materials. I appreciate having access to this, I just wouldn’t spend my money on it. The adventure IS serviceable.
If you take all the broken bits out of the supplements, Dave, I’d agree with you, but they tend to pile up. When brokenness becomes the mainstream, it gets very hard to right the ship, necessitating another edition. I’d even agree with the “refinement” theory…if DMs were the only ones who bought supplements. The fact is, I’d estimate that half of all RPG material are bought by players, instead of DMs (though I could be wildy off, having no figures to support this theory). In the main, these players are looking for advantages for their characters. The writers are looking to feed these customers too, so these “broken” bits keep creeping in, or supplements like Tome of Battle or Players Advantage: Combat get published. And let’s not forget about other publishers! In an effort to get their sales niche, many of them use the system and add on even more powerful items and powers, as well. It’s not wrong, it’s just good business sense, but it doesn’t help my game. And 4th Edition will be no different, it’ll just be a new set of challenges.
I think some of this is drifting into opinions of KotS, which would probably make more sense being in the comments of our review. But basing pricing on quality of the adventure… well, that’s pretty subjective. I do think $30 is a wee bit steep, but for everything you get, I wouldn’t expect it to be a $10 adventure.
As far as “power creep” goes, as Graham pointed out, the general usage of the term tends to imply an overall rise in power levels. I’d argue that if you take all the bits in supplements of a whole that you’ll find more “suck creep” in the many, many sucky options for characters. Additionally, there’s plenty of stuff that was overpowered in the PHBs (3.5 is kind of weird because they had a second crack at balancing stuff in the book) so calling it a creep is difficult for me to agree with… there was a high bar to begin with.
[...] So what IS D&D anyway? : Critical Hits – One of the reasons I stopped going to the gaming store in Charlotte was the incessantly negative talk by the store owner about new versions of D & D or any system that wasn't Palladium or 3E D & D. "That's not real D & D," he'd say. This article is a re [...]
“And 4th Edition will be no different, it’ll just be a new set of challenges.”
I’m certainly afraid that this is true, but I have some hope that they’re supposedly including some very cool options within the base PHB such as a Gryphon mount, magic items, and other things we know of like Tiefling and Dragonborn as PC races, which bring a lot of what we’re discussing as “power creep” from later books into the very beginning of the game.
If they present cool enough options to start with, then when they release awesome stuff later on it should fit right in.
You’ll know when it goes too far when you can roll up a first level demi-god with his Force Dragon steed.
But if that’s what you get at first level, imagine what you’d get at twentieth!
“You’ll know when it goes too far when you can roll up a first level demi-god with his Force Dragon steed.”
Can you do the equivalent of that in 3.x now?
Besides, you don’t become a demi-god until level 30.
Until the first supplement comes out. Then there’ll be a new class Demigod. Only elves can be one at 1st level. :p
[...] look! Another blog and discussion about what is and isn’t [...]
[...] the heated discussions on various blogs like these two posts (here & here) on Chatty DM, Critical Hits, and another two posts (here & here) on Geek Related. Hell, just Google or Cuil (a new hip [...]
[...] the heated discussions on various blogs like these two posts (here & here) on Chatty DM, Critical Hits, and another two posts (here & here) on Geek Related. Hell, just Google or Cuil (a new hip [...]