Dungeons & Dragons 4e - A First Read
I have been reading Dungeons & Dragons' 4th edition and I must say I'm really dissatisfied with what I read. I can't say I'm disappointed anymore because after nurturing high hopes for this new edition since november 2007, I have found out it was really not what I wanted out of an RPG since march 2008. So, I'm beyond the disappointed stage.
I understand Wizards of the Coast was aiming at creating a good RPG system aimed mainly at attracting new players and providing an easy to use system. While both aims are laudable, they are far from the aspects I look for in a RPG system when I want to GM something. That, of course, raises pertinent question of what I look for in an RPG system.
Well, for starters the initial proposition of the famed forge article "system does matter" mirrors several aspects I have thought about over the years (before delving into the now well-known and sometimes maligned Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist characterization of role-players with which I can't completely agree). I think the system does influence many aspects of a role-playing game. The selected system will influence the outlook of new players as they sit at the table. The system will reward one way of playing over another and the system may make things that should be simple and fun boring and time-consuming.
I don't need a game that is specially good for new players. I'm not a new player. I have been GMing for a mere 15 years. I know there is people GMing for over 30 years and still very much at it. But I think 15 years is enough to be considered a veteran. Most of the people I play with are not beginning players either and if I do get a newbie, I expect to offer that player the opportunity to mature and become a more experienced player instead of getting everyone else at the table playing an oversimplified game. Secondly, I have been told time and again by experienced D&D players that D&D is aimed at killing monsters and taking their stuff. That is very much not what I am looking for. Although I enjoy a good combat scene in a role-playing game, I always thought that violence should be a last alternative (less true in rpgs as in real life, but still not the basic solution for every problem) and the "taking their stuff" aspect grates at me for two reasons: I don't think players should be encouraged on their actions mainly by giving characters "stuff" and I don't think that is a good thing to reward players for killing creatures. I think the rewards should take several aspects and items should be just one of them (and often a minor one at that) and that the rewards should be from accomplishing things within the game (and, ideally, in line with a great narrative) instead of simply from killing.
Mostly, I want options from a game. In a published game, I also want inspirational material (ideally an inspirational read, but that is harder to come by). I expect a good level of internal consistency and I prefer if a system does not require too much suspension of disbelief to make it work. I want the system to offer good mechanics for the aspects I want to have the game to focus on while my players and me are gathered to play. I can't say 4e offers much on any of those aspects.
The opinions presented above are not an evaluation of the D&D 4e system as fitting or unfitting for the general public, but really as fitting or unfitting for me and the people I usually play with - or rather, to the style of play I enjoy when getting together with other people to play an RPG session. And it is ultimately found unfit.
Given that conclusion, what are my options? Of course, I can look for another rpg system. There are many out there in the market and maybe there may even be one fit for me. That would be a good option. I don't, however, know of any system really fit for my needs right now. Another aspect to consider is that 4e has a good chance of becoming hugely popular and the de facto standard for rpg systems to be compared to as much as 3e managed since the year 2000 (though I must say I don't really believe 4e will fare as well).
That last consideration is relevant as it makes it harder to simply create something completely new and propose it as the system for players I want to GM to. It is possible, but it really makes acceptance harder. My solution, then, becomes adapting. At least until I manage to get enough credit with a given group of players for them to let me GM whatever I want (and then I may be able to introduce an all original system).
How to adapt then?
I understand Wizards of the Coast was aiming at creating a good RPG system aimed mainly at attracting new players and providing an easy to use system. While both aims are laudable, they are far from the aspects I look for in a RPG system when I want to GM something. That, of course, raises pertinent question of what I look for in an RPG system.
Well, for starters the initial proposition of the famed forge article "system does matter" mirrors several aspects I have thought about over the years (before delving into the now well-known and sometimes maligned Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist characterization of role-players with which I can't completely agree). I think the system does influence many aspects of a role-playing game. The selected system will influence the outlook of new players as they sit at the table. The system will reward one way of playing over another and the system may make things that should be simple and fun boring and time-consuming.
I don't need a game that is specially good for new players. I'm not a new player. I have been GMing for a mere 15 years. I know there is people GMing for over 30 years and still very much at it. But I think 15 years is enough to be considered a veteran. Most of the people I play with are not beginning players either and if I do get a newbie, I expect to offer that player the opportunity to mature and become a more experienced player instead of getting everyone else at the table playing an oversimplified game. Secondly, I have been told time and again by experienced D&D players that D&D is aimed at killing monsters and taking their stuff. That is very much not what I am looking for. Although I enjoy a good combat scene in a role-playing game, I always thought that violence should be a last alternative (less true in rpgs as in real life, but still not the basic solution for every problem) and the "taking their stuff" aspect grates at me for two reasons: I don't think players should be encouraged on their actions mainly by giving characters "stuff" and I don't think that is a good thing to reward players for killing creatures. I think the rewards should take several aspects and items should be just one of them (and often a minor one at that) and that the rewards should be from accomplishing things within the game (and, ideally, in line with a great narrative) instead of simply from killing.
Mostly, I want options from a game. In a published game, I also want inspirational material (ideally an inspirational read, but that is harder to come by). I expect a good level of internal consistency and I prefer if a system does not require too much suspension of disbelief to make it work. I want the system to offer good mechanics for the aspects I want to have the game to focus on while my players and me are gathered to play. I can't say 4e offers much on any of those aspects.
The opinions presented above are not an evaluation of the D&D 4e system as fitting or unfitting for the general public, but really as fitting or unfitting for me and the people I usually play with - or rather, to the style of play I enjoy when getting together with other people to play an RPG session. And it is ultimately found unfit.
Given that conclusion, what are my options? Of course, I can look for another rpg system. There are many out there in the market and maybe there may even be one fit for me. That would be a good option. I don't, however, know of any system really fit for my needs right now. Another aspect to consider is that 4e has a good chance of becoming hugely popular and the de facto standard for rpg systems to be compared to as much as 3e managed since the year 2000 (though I must say I don't really believe 4e will fare as well).
That last consideration is relevant as it makes it harder to simply create something completely new and propose it as the system for players I want to GM to. It is possible, but it really makes acceptance harder. My solution, then, becomes adapting. At least until I manage to get enough credit with a given group of players for them to let me GM whatever I want (and then I may be able to introduce an all original system).
How to adapt then?
posted by Infax at 6/01/2008 10:10:00 PM
0 comments
