Another Sad Reality

[anarchangel23]

Rob Donoghue has had a lot of interesting things to say about 4e recently. Last month he posted about page 42, the most important rules in the current incarnation of D&D, those for stunts. Today he posted about his hopes for a streamlined D&D in the forthcoming Red Box.* Like him, I'm not holding my breath for something that would work for me

Comments

[paka]

Whereas I feel that 4e's tactical emphasis will return the game more to roleplaying.

Like we all know, players do exactly what you don't expect out of them. So a very tactical game focused on combat mechanics is pretty much screaming for players to largely work on peaceful interactions, negotiations, exploration, skill challenges, and world-building.

[grandexperiment]

Interesting theory, though it doesn't match quite a number of edition changes that I am aware of or the general trend in RPGing at the moment.

What I think is more likely is a fantasy game much like 4e will appear with a lower tactical focus (much like True 20 did for D&D3e). I think this would even be possible under the GSL. The issue though is that people are much less willing to tackle the GSL than the d20/OGL.

[anarchangel23]

"More to roleplaying" as opposed to what? And "return the game" from where?

I disagree with the latter. Not doing what a GM expects and playing a different game to the GM are entirely different things. If the players are spending all their time doing something other than the expertise of the game, then maybe they ought to be playing a different game. That said, yes, D&D can do all of those things just fine, so it a group is having fun with that, and digs the crunchy tactical combat and has no problem with the time it takes, then great!

[grandexperiment]

On Rob Donoghue's comments

[anarchangel23]

I don't really have any hopes for Red Box myself because I think my requirements are better catered elsewhere.

4e presents a different kind of action to my ideal type. I prefer more wuxia-style swashbuckling action than D&D caters for. I would be hard pressed to think of a game that does the type of action that D&D does better than 4e, but that type of action isn't really my bag at the moment.

I certainly don't think that 4e is "just a miniatures game", or "too much like WoW" or any of those complaints. There's plenty of room for story and roleplaying in 4e, I'd just like to be able to cram more fights into the same time than D&D allows. I'm sure a practiced group can speed it up and fit more in, but I don't have time for a learning curve.

In terms of punch and fun in a wargame, for me, DBA is hard to beat.

[grandexperiment]

The length of combat was raised on RPGnet recently. IMO I don't think length by itself is all that useful for me. What is important is that the combat feels exciting and meaningful all the way through. If an RPG provides for greater excitement for longer than that's more important than a quick combat. As such, I don't have an issue with 4e's 40 minute to 1 hour combats. In fact, I think that length is needed for them to be as exciting as they can be.

FWIW I am not saying that you are wrong by any means. Length of combat is a common complaint on 4e and many RPGs and I can understand that.

"In terms of punch and fun in a wargame, for me, DBA is hard to beat."

DBA?

[anarchangel23]

Yep, that's why if I'm going to play for a day (or, say, 6 hours), D&D is still a game I will consider (at that length, possibly the only game I'd consider!), but my group plays for 2-2.5 hours at a time, and not necessarily weekly, so a one hour combat really cuts into the other aspects of the game in a dissatisfying way.

DBA is a historical wargame using armies comprising 12 units from mostly preset ancient and medieval army lists which plays to a result in 30 minutes to an hour. It's regaining popularity in Christchurch, but I'm not sure how popular it is in Wellington.

[hafwit]

I just find D&D (the latest version) too much work, too much prep and too expensive. I get to game so rarely that we need to be able to get the show on the road fairly quickly. Playing Warhammer Quest seems to get me the same bang (right down to being confused by my Imperial Noble's special abilities) with less work.

Also, I'm not much of a tactician.

[anarchangel23]

By comparison with previous editions of D&D, I find 4e requires less prep, but I can do a coherent and engaging, mostly on-the-fly session of other games with very little prep at all, so by those standards 4e is the lumbering giant.

[grandexperiment]

That's a good point. As a someone who likes to (but doesn't need to) prep, 4e feels prep light. Actually, that's not quite accurate. Perhaps prep focussed is a better term. When prepping for 4e, I know exactly what needs to be done and can get it done quickly with no drama. I am never left scratching my head about what things mean or what I need to do.

This also means that 4e has one of the more enjoyable preps out there, not that it would make you enjoy prep if that was something you don't like :)

[anarchangel23]

From what I've seen of your games, it seems that there is an ever-present threat of violence, but little actual violence, and that's not 4e's strength.