The Campaign Builder's Guild

"Pandering to the masses" is what's also known as "marketing."

Quote from: EvilElitest[...] But the new guys are fool out demonic. [...]

Devilish. Tielfings are a race of former human beings who made deals with (and subsequently got corrupted by) devils. Devils. Not demons. :-/

Quote from: EvilElitest[...] Elidaron are kinda cool on there own, but are just a crop out for the elf problem. [...]

Are you talking about Eladrin? Because I never heard, saw, or read the term "Elidaron" despite dming 4E once a week for several months now...

Because this seems relative: what I do for rollplay vs.roleplay is to have the players roll for social interactions, but they still have to roleplay it.

Quote from: MonikerI've never played or read anything about White Wolf with exception of Exaulted. Which is a POS, seriously.

It has a terrible backbone for the way they handle the mechanics and combat resolution, and the world they present is way, way over the top. It's definitely "inspired", and not in a good way - it seeths of Westernized anime "creep"/fanwank, similar to Book of Nine Swords but to a whole different level.

I rather enjoy the setting of Exalted, and I'm currently GMing a long-running campaign in it. It really made me think differently about high-powered campaigns.

Too many campaigns - in any system - are "quest-based". That is to say, the PCs have to pursue a goal and achieve it, whether it is imposed on them by circumstances or by a patron asking them to do it. There is nothing wrong with this kind of campaign, but it can get somewhat repetitive.

The approach Exalted takes is different. It basically tells the players: "You have the power to change the world. The world is a mess in a large number of ways. So, what are you going to do about it?"

And from the very start, the PCs have real freedom in making choices and pursuing their own agendas. They can choose whom to fight, whom to ally with, and whom to trick into fighting someone else. They can try to build their own empire or encourage the growth of an alliance of nations. They can choose to become conquerors or wandering heroes. There is no Elminster-type powerful NPC telling them what to do - or rather, all the powerful NPCs wanting to tell them what to do have their own agendas which do not necessarily fit in with the goals of the PCs.

By giving the PCs the power to change the world, the game also gives them the responsibility to change the world. What they do with that responsibility is up to them - and it makes for some great tales indeed...

BJ-
1) Except 3E doesn't actually make the same mistakes.  They are flawed certainly, balence was horrible, it was disorganized, nobody (including the creators) understood how the game worked, too much conflicting infomation, and who ever made diplomacy should have be beaten
2) Well D&D has fluff, but that isn't exactly setting specific.  They have specific settings certainly, but you don't need them to play.  They are still interesting and add a lot to the game, making it feel like something that is actually alive rather just a bunch of useless statistic.  Now something being settings specific i can see your argument.  I mean Exalted for Example is extremly setting specific, so i can see how changing it might be annoying.  Thast being said, it still makes the game really interesting and adds a lot more to it.  But i digress.  3E has, or better put, has when it puts some effort into it, a great combination, detailed and interesting back story, that isn't  tied to any one setting (greyhawk really doesn't count).  FR and ebberon are nice, but you don't need them at all in 3E.  Or in 4E but you don't really have much of any fluff there
3) Its there, but not really.  Its just a bunch of platitudes and empty phrases.  Its essentially added content, nothing special.  But i think i've noticed something here.  4E doesn't force you to play in a certain setting any more than 3E, it forces you to play in a certain style.  That is something quite different.  Setting wise, 4E is generic to the point of dull/lifeless but it does put a lot of effort in a singular style of gaming, IE combat angle, which you have to admit, is very well handled in terms of being effective, if not in terms of fun if your not into that sort of thing
4) 3E dragon born was a whole Baptism theme.  Basically, a mortal who worshiped the Bahamut, the good dragon god (there were optional rules saying it could be another good deity) could choose to perform a ritual and enter an egg, where they will be reborn as a dragon person.  The theme was very much rebirth, baptism, and being a whole knew level of enlightened being, and yet being somewhat alien as your mindset has changed.  And yet the new one are basically just Dragon kin.  Remember them from the 3E MM, one article everybody forgot about them?  4E ditched the old version of Dragon born and slapped a new name upon Dragon kin.  Tieflings s are also radically different, its just ripping off the name of a theme that had only token appearance to the them.
5) No, I agree that they needed a rule reform, 3E is horrible broken.  But it isn't a real reform, its just avoiding the issue. Balance is very important, but make sure you don't dumb down the game in the process of bringing it about.  Was 3E a convoluted mess of confusing, contradictory, and counter productive words (horary for C words)?  Yes, ergo horrible balance.  Was it still an efficient game?  Yeah, just bad rule set/organization.  But here the medicine was worst than the illness, in order to make balance, WoTC just cut out most of the complexity, and if you simplify anything you can balance it out.
6) I'm talking about fluff. They just add some minor details in, the main basis of the game is in the combat, much like a war game.  It makes a very good war game too ironically enough, but not a good Table top.      
7) But when you look at it, it is really just taking powers that were normal in older editions and making them a side issue, IE non combat, which are essentially just rituals now, not important.  Also, it misses the point of rituals.  Ritual magic is cool because it makes magic a mystic, a weird unknown and hard to understand power that requires much focus and chanting.  Magic is subtle, non flashy, mystical, and makes you feel like the old pagan stereotypes or a more mystical world, not like a magic system where everything is flashy and high powered.  But 4E wizards are essentially blaster cannons, absurdly flashy and high powered, so rituals are more like a catch all place to put non combat powers.  Separate but equal in importance, but like real segregation, rituals get much less focus and much less time (ergo why they are more unbalance
8) Its more of an example of defining rule style and game focus.  Everybody having magic automatically lends you to a high magic powered world, and considering the powers themselves, a very combat heavy high magic powered world.  Its far more limiting and demanding.  What I like about 3E is that, at least in theory, you can choose for a low magic, high magic, or mid, depending on how common the classes are.  Now of course this doesn't work (see also balance issues) but it is a great idea.
9a) You can justify any arbitrary claims if you take the time, the point is Wizards didn't justify it, they just said 'Its changed now'¦because we said so'.  Even if you can get an explanation, it still doesn't fit with the prior editions and is unneeded.  Also, the other problem isn't just change, but a system that contradicts itself
9b) That's the problem, 4E is essentially a new game.  If Wizards had a spine, they would have realized it as a totally new game, with some relation to D&D, maybe like a table top version of the miniature game.  If it was realized as its own game, fair enough.  It's a separate game, not my thing, but it is good if your into a well rounded combat heavy war game.  But as a new edition to D&D, it is a cosmic failure
10) Pretty much.  4E lack of fluff really makes it flavorless
11) I can see your point with the new races certainly.  I don't think the fluff in the old edition is really that setting specific, but I can see your argument when it comes to Tieflings and Dragon born.    
12) Both actually, but more the second one.  3E tries its best to be a genetic system that can appeal to anybody, or anybody within a certain broad range of fantasy RPGs.  It fails horrible, but it tries.  And there is very little in terms of setting specific fluff apart from the cosmology, which is very useful in understanding the manner of souls and what not.  So yeah, one of the good things about 3E and the bad things about 4E is that it is too focused on a singular playing style.  
13) I agree, but that doesn't mean the fluff should be bad, just genetic enough that anybody can use it.  
14a) 3E does appeal to me.  I think it is the best RPG we have out so far for my style of gaming.  It is just filled with a massive amount of holes and flaws, and a new edition is needed, but it is still a great game in conception
14b) That's missing another essential part of 3E's charm.  That it tries to appeal to a large group of play styles.  In theory, you should be able to use 3E to play a low magic, gritty song of Ice and Fire style setting, or play a mish mash FR setting, or play Ebberon without that much modification.  However, this isn't possible because 3E is more unbalanced than the nation's economy, and so wizards/clerics/druids ect dominate the game more than anybody else.  
15) Lol, fair enough.  I'l l rephrase that, it is wonderfully well rounded combat game.
16) The thing is, I'm not making a game.  I'm not publishing a game produce.  I don't mind arrogance, its just unjustified pretentious that is what upsets me about WW.  
17) Wait so its

Quote

?
E-Elf (my nickname for you because I'm EE lol)
1) Um, there is a much easier solution.  In 3E D&D MM, there was a race called 'Dragon Kin' who were basically dragon folk and had nothing to them other than that.  You could just make them the new 4E, they are essentially fluff less and could use all of the detail they can get.  Considering Bahumut is a powerful deity in 4E, the old cool dragon born could work.  And if 4E wanted to make it more accessible, just make it general to any diet could do this dragon trick, or maybe any dragon, not just 'Dragon people, enjoy'
2) But there lack of society was kinda cool actually.  It was these subtle, hinted at creatures who had distinct racial traits, like Half Orcs or Half Elves.  Fiendborn (as I will call the 4E Tieflings for the sake of clarity) are just a genetic demon race.  If they had there own back story and name, that would be fine, if kinda out of place, but they are just taking advantage of the popular name and violating old fluff, which is bad form.  
3a) The solution for the elf problem was not a crop out divide, but organization.  The problem still exists, its just manifesting differently.  The way to solve the problem is to either make each elven brand distinct enough that you essentially cover every concept you really need, or make the elf race generic enough it can fit any situation.  The problem is still there, its just different
3b) Why the name through?  It's a rip off of the angel race and doesn't make sense
3c) And you could do that plane accessible thing (which personally I find to setting specific) with already existing planar races, like Gith.  
4) Warhammer doesn't pretend to be anything other than an absurdly morbid war game with a horribly traumatic back-story.  That's fine.  4E however is a Wargame in denial, pretending to be a table top, that's the problem.  Warhammer also has some very good fluff and puts a lot of detail into there back story, which is more than 4E can say.  But I'm not saying Wargames are bad, I'm saying that War games in denial are bad, that 4E is bad because it is a war game in denial, pretending to be a Table Top, and in that it is a failure.
7a) The thing is, 4E is limiting in terms of game play, not fluff (the fluff issue is more the arbitrary and unneeded changes) in that it is designed around a singular style of gaming, one where everything is built upon how it relies upon combat.  This is more limiting than say, White Wolf's games.  I can play Changing the Lost (which I remind everybody here is a bloody great game) as a subtle low magic horror game, a fighting brawl game, a medieval game, a detective game, a dark age based game without any rule alternations necessary (apart from making states fo medieval weapons maybe) and it's a niche game.  In 3E I can play almost any play style within its genre, just badly.  4E however limits you to a singular play style of combat, because that is what the rules are built around.
7B) 3E's is also really limiting yes, but it comes from balance issues and horrible organization, not malice or a deliberate attempt to simplify the game.  
7c) Please stop that assertion.  D&D evolved from a war game yes, but even in 1E, and certainly in 2E it had already moved into an entire realm of gaming (you could argue that Exalted is descended from D&D, which evolved from a war game, that doesn't make it a war game).  2E and 3E are there own style of game, Table Top RPG, and while they have there roots in wargaming, they aren't the same thing.  Pretty much the exact same level of Exalted and other White Wolf games.  
8) One of the main reasons why Exalted is such a good game is because they have a great background and fluff.  4E's simplification of the fluff and there dumbed down cosmology makes it almost the polar opposet to Exalted games. And I reject your assertion that D&D 2E and 3E (I can't speak for 1E) isn't designed with Role Playing in mind, any less than White Wolf's game.  Apart from the claim, how is this the case?  It's something that White Wolf certainly wishes was true, but other than not using a drama based rule system, how is it not made for Role Playing?
9a) Not really.  I noticed on OOTS there was a great call for simply a better organized and better focused logical game, along with word of mouth responses from many players I know.  More importantly, the philosophies the older generation often supported the ideals of 3E, if not the execution, see also the original 2E books and the ideas of the old D&D writers.  
9b) I never trust the WotC forums, its normally the worst place to get viable information
9c) Wait, so fluff is good when it goes into the details of how the regent of the empire, um, spends his time, but the details of how races spend there time is bad? Ok, to be fair, the guys who wrote the 'races of' series hired some really bad writers, but that doesn't ruin the idea of a 'Day in the life of' being useful in terms of perspective, I mean that was one of Kurosawia's original ideas for a movie introducing the West to Japan (the day in the life of a Samerai, where he kills himself at the end as part of the irony).  While I admit presented badly and suffers from writer problems, that information is certainly good, and is no less invalid than a lot of the seemingly minute details that WW seems to focus on.
10a) The societies in theory or the societies in practice?  In theory they vary, but as a rule they aren't bad.  In practice no, but that is the fault of horrible balance and really sloppy organization (I mean logically wizards would rule the world, along with house cats).  That doe not justify segregation of fluff and mechanics, which is a sloppy and heavy handed way to solve the problem.
10b) Also the societies are hardly more focused or more logical than they were before  
11a) White Wolf doesn't do that, so where does that put them?  More importantly, that is just pandering to the masses, and you can never get any quality goods that way. Its like writing a book, you can take the talent out to make it popular (The Divinci Code, Eragon, Twilight ect) or you can actually stick to making a quality book with a detailed and complex story (Song of Ice and Fire).  I mean, call me an Obama fan, but I don't think simplifying concepts is a valid justify for decline in quality, and if you focus yourself on making a good product you can get a following non the less.  
11b) Well that depends if you are a company have actual standard or are just a group of hacks?  If you want to satisfy you consumer base you can either do what made 3E the most popular game in the market and do it better with some actual over haul or just evade the point and make a whole new game under the old title.  
12) Did they rip off legends?  Certainly, but they were the first in making a massive table top game, and started a lot of the clichés.  I can forgive them for ripping off other fantasy when they created there game, and they were the first in there presentation of the concepts that are cliché today.  And they have plenty of orgingal ideas, I mean Dragonlance, FR, Spacejammer, Ravenloft, Planscape and Ebberon are full of them.  Baldur's gate and Planscape torment come from this game.  
Jack of hearts- What about Whit Wolf?  I mock them for a lot, but they don't pander to the masses.  The best quality items are always those made with the intention of being good quality, not just selling.
Ra-Triel
1)   For all intents and purposes, they are a demonic race now, not the same theme as the old tielfings
2)   Dyslexia, go figure.  

Jurgen Hubert- I won't say Exalted radically the genre nor does it bring anything absurdly new, I mean I've been playing D&D in a non quest based style for ages now.  It is just a well-done game with lots of creative ideas and what not.  

I'm going to say this:I think that the real reason for lack of non combat crunch in 4E is that you are expected to ROLEplay, not ROLLplay, thus you don't need non-combat rules. You said it yourself that the 3E non-combat rules suck, so why not just make due without them? The rules don't really add anything to the game except, "I rolled a 16, do I convince him?"

[blockquote=Evil_Elitist] Warhammer doesn't pretend to be anything other than an absurdly morbid war game with a horribly traumatic back-story. That's fine. 4E however is a Wargame in denial, pretending to be a table top, that's the problem. Warhammer also has some very good fluff and puts a lot of detail into there back story, which is more than 4E can say. But I'm not saying Wargames are bad, I'm saying that War games in denial are bad, that 4E is bad because it is a war game in denial, pretending to be a Table Top, and in that it is a failure.[/blockquote]Absurdly morbid eh?  Careful how you throw that word around.  I assume we're both talking about Warhammer 40K, which is what Elemental_Elf was talking about (although fantasy Warhammer isn't all that different), and which I prefer to fantasy Warhammer.  Sure it's the grim darkness of the far future and there is only war - yes, it's got a pretty dark backstory.  But for all their fascism and fanaticisim the good guys of the setting (Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, etc) do have their redeeming features.  And lots of games considered quite highly in the gaming community - Dark Sun, World of Darkness itself, heck even Eberron - have comparably dark backstories full of war and dark gods etc etc etc.  Is it fair to term the backstory "absurdly" dark/morbid, as in either a) far too dark to be appealing (to which I'd strongly disagree, along with thousands of fans) or b) so dark as to be silly (which can be fun in its own right, but I don't think 40K qualifies)?  You seem to be criticizing Warhammer/40K, then turn around and say that it has some very good fluff.  This puzzles me a little.

All of this is somewhat tangential to the point at hand.  Elemental_Elf was trying to say that wargames can entail very rich storytelling experiences because of their detailed fluff (some of the offshoot games from Games Workshop, such as Inquisitor or Mordhiem, especially exemplify this).  Obviously not all wargamers are going to enjoy the story aspect, but then again a lot of DnD players don't, either.  Your criticism around 4E as a wargame in denial seems to be that its a wargame that has pretensions of being more than a wargame, of being a role-playing game, which you associate, I think, with an emphasis on storytelling.  You're not saying that wargames are bad, but you were saying that they were essentially hack and slash affairs without an emphasis on story.

Your retort to Elemental_Elf didn't really acknowledge that wargames aren't incompatible with detailed storytellig - in fact, Warhammer 40K has better fluff/story than basic 4E, I would argue.  So, at least from my perspective, 4E's problem isn't that it's too much like a wargame (since if it was too much like a wargame it could still have a great storytelling element, as in Warhammer).  It's problem, I think you'll agree, is that it emphasizes hack and slash or combat over storytelling - even if it' possible to play a 4E game and still tell a good story, 4E seems prejudiced towards a low-story, high-combat, low-thought, high-dice-roll sort of game.  Where we part company is the wargame element - I don't feel that wargames automatically entail combat>story, and would cite Warhammer 40K as evidence.

I don't want to be too argumentative - I think our feelings on 4E are pretty similar.  I'd just like to dispute the idea that what makes 4E low-story, high die-roll is necessarily a similarity to wargames, unless in fact you choose to completely separate the fluff/setting/"backstory" elements from wargaming, which I don't.  And I also don't think that the 40K backstory is "absurdly" morbid.

Just a nitpick, Steerpike... You listed the Eldar as being amongst the "good guys" of the 40k universe... Much as that term must be relative in that setting, I think it's a complete fallacy that the Eldar are in any way "good"

Sure, they're not capital-E Evil the way, for example, Chaos is (although even there there's room for grey areas. I'm sure some of the traitor marines joined he forces of Chaos more out of a hatred for the Imperium's totalitarianism than a genuine love of Khorne, Tzeench and the rest), but really, they're a dying race who will do just about ANYTHING to stave off their inevitable extinction. Much as I think the Dark Eldar minis look totally badass, I do think that the introduction back in the day of an "evil Eldar" faction planted the seed for people to think "Oh, so, if the dark Eldar are like Eldar only evil, then that must mean that regular, Craftworld Eldar must be good, right?"

Okay, I've had my short rant, you can get back on topic now :D

Steer pick, i read Song of Ice and Fire, I honestly don't thing being morbid is a bad thing.  It is a horribly horribly dark setting, even by the standards of dark fantasy games.  That doesn't make it bad.  Normally that makes it good, its still very very dark.  MOrbid isn't a negative words, its just saying that it has a horribly horribly grimdark setting

And my point is that a wargame can have a good back story and fluff, but in terms of play style it does one partiular thing.  Thats fine, war games are good for those who enjoy them, warhammer is a fine example of of a good wargame.  4E's fault is that they are claiming to be a table top game, but using a war game style of design
from
EE

It is absurdly morbid.  Again, i'm not saying that is a bad thing, but that world has almost no good fraction in the world.  The good guys are the Imperian of Man essentially.......and that says a lot

I think we just attach different meanings to the word "absurd."  I define it as either connoting excess (that is, there's so much of it that it is detrimental) or silliness.  I think you're using it slightly differently.

The Eldar aren't exactly knights in shining armour, true - but neither are the setting's actual knights in shining armour.  I think I'd rather live on a Craftworld enjoying a life of decadent hedonism than on a theocratically controlled industrial purgatory...  the Eldar seem to have a sense of aesthetics and nobility that's lost on even the zealous Imperium or the utilitarian Tau.  I guess its those dim but not yet extinguished values that I consider "good," in contrast with the brute piety of the space marines.  But a good point from both Kindling and Evil_Elitest that there aren't ever pure "good guys," only shades of gray darkening quickly into black (my kind of world!).

Actually i think the world is so crapsack that it is almost borderline parody, you need to have a sense of humor to possibly get through it, it is such a cruel evil existance.  
from
EE

[blockquote=EvilElitist]you need to have a sense of humor to possibly get through it[/blockquote]Oh absolutely, a sense of humor is crucial - as it is when reading A Song of Ice and Fire (which I love, by the way) and which in some ways is more gruesome than 40K - it certainyl delves into the grisly specifics of atrocities in a way that the sweeping, baroque darkness of 40K never attempts.  But when I think of "absurdly morbid" things I think of things like Wormwood: Gentleman Corpse, a very silly, very funny, and very morbid comic that's absurd in the sense of ridiculous if not "excessive to the point of detriment" (the only thing I can really think of that I'd term absurdly morbid in the sense of unpleasantly excessive rather than goofy or parodic would be the Saw series...).  There's definitely a black humor to a lot of 40K, but it doesn't deegnerate into outright absurdism for me.

Semantics, basically.

Woot, tangent!

Song of Ice and Fire is intended to be a very serious work through at heart, about deconstructing the fantasy genre and producing a realistic and logical story.  It is still funny but its main goal isn't humor, and i Feel Warhammer, which is still a good storyline game humor aside, is really aiming for humor in its horrible horrible universe (see also the orks), and its grimdark setting is almost a thing of humor.  
from
EE

There is an over-the-top feel to it, definitely, and I'd agree that humor is an element of that.  I do love the orks - the comic relief of the world, really.  In fact I've got a 2000 point army of the little greenskins.

*Thread spins out of control*