When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

The "roles" in earlier editions weren't combat roles -- they were dungeon exploration roles. Some guy was the combat role (the Fighter), but combat being only part of what you do in the dungeon, there were other roles. There was the "scout" role (the mobility and trap-handling-ness of the thief/rogue), there was the "recovery" role (the cleric's ability to restore hp), and there was the "toolbox" role (the wizard's ability to pull out just the right spell for the job!).

These roles are not quite as refined as they were in other editions (partially because of a smaller skill set, or a universalizing of "recovery" or "toolbox" with healing surges and rituals).

4e is a combat game. The abilities and the descriptions and the point of the game is combat. Combat was, before, part of somethng else you did -- that something else was dungeon exploration.

Now, that's not to say that 4e went the wrong way. Certainly making every class able to contribute to all aspects of dungeon exploration in different ways would be a pretty admirable goal. You don't get complaints of "coardboard wizards," or of "fighters who can't do anything but swing swords."

But 4e didn't pursue that goal. they wanted every class to contribute to combat in different ways. In narrowing the focus like that, they've lost sight of many of the reasons that people played D&D -- not to fight goblins, but to plumb the lair and uncover their mystery. This involved combat, sure, but it also involved avoiding deadly traps ("gotcha monsters!"), and communicating with friendly slaves ("what's the use of Charisma, anyway?!"), and figuring out how to escape from the tomb you've been sealed in ("I'm a wizard, so I can walk through walls!"), and, ultimately, beating up the goblins ("I'm a fighter! I put pointy things into squishy things!").

This is, I think, for me, part of why 4e doesn't seem as "rich" as previous editions. Like it's a step back and down, away from possibility toward selling minis and internet toys, and designing a system that can handle minis and internet toys better than previous editions.

I agree with this. Very well said. Couple this with the feeling that classes are defined by powers, with less flexibility to imagine different character concepts with the mechanics, and that would pretty much sum it up for me.

However, this isn't to say that 4E didn't accomplish the goals the designers set out to achieve. I believe it did. They made the game simpler, faster, and much easier to DM. It's just that it's now too simple and easy for my tastes. Not WoTC fault though, there's no way they can please everyone. This time it just wasn't me. I will be interested in where feedback takes the game in a year or so. And also interested in what that may foreshadow about 5E.

[Halivar]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

You just gave a good definition of what multiclassing has been, ever since AD&D 1e. (Did it exist in OD&D? Not sure). Now, of course, multiclassing means something different. Another sacred cow slain . . .

Mechanically, yes, that's exactly what it was (if you played a human). But this approach wouldn't work in 4E. Therefore, the challenge to designers is how to incorporate the themes and overall function of multiclassing within the new rules framework? It asks the question, "what do players want out of multiclassing, and how can we give it to them without kludging?" IMHO, the solution, while novel and unprecedented in D&D history, is elegant and effective. Is my player's Ftr-Mu really "multiclassed" in the traditional sense? No. He only has levels of wizard. But do the rules provide a mechanism for him to swing a sword, wear platemail, and use fighter abilities as good as a fighter could? Yes, and more effectively than in any previous edition. In my book, that's mission accomplished.

[firesnakearies]

I see a lot of THIS going on:


"I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese."


Just sayin'.

[Kamikaze Midget]

"I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese."

Y'know, I know this quote sounds familiar from somewhere...

Regardless, yeah, that is a problem for those concerned about where the world of cooking (or, in this case, the game of D&D) is going.

It's not a problem for what you do in your own home, but this thread was never about what some guy does in his own home, and has been about trying to kind of puzzle out what WotC (or the Better Joy people) were thinking.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

I agree with this. Very well said. Couple this with the feeling that classes are defined by powers, with less flexibility to imagine different character concepts with the mechanics, and that would pretty much sum it up for me.

However, this isn't to say that 4E didn't accomplish the goals the designers set out to achieve. I believe it did. They made the game simpler, faster, and much easier to DM. It's just that it's now too simple and easy for my tastes. Not WoTC fault though, there's no way they can please everyone. This time it just wasn't me. I will be interested in where feedback takes the game in a year or so. And also interested in what that may foreshadow about 5E.

Well they could have set out to make a roleplaying game instead of a combat simulation game, wherein the roleplaying game allows for combat, but a combat simulator doesn't need any roleplaying.

They could have made a second game. So I would say whatever 4th edition is, is 100% the fault of WotC. Be that good or bad, the player's didn't write the game, WotC did. So whatever becomes of it will be solely on their heads, and not something to try to blame on the customers with "we made it and they stopped buying it", or something similar if it ends.

So they will have to accept responsibility for it either way it turns out, just like every one else in the adult world.

[Aeolius]

Originally Posted by firesnakearies

...the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese."

Mac & Cheese ain't got nothin' on:


I always thought Monterey Jack sounded like the name of an adventurer.

[Kamikaze Midget]

So they will have to accept responsibility for it either way it turns out, just like every one else in the adult world.

Given that I'm sure every one of them worked their butts off to bring us the best game they could, and that no edition of D&D has ever not been successful (barring goofy executive asshattery), I don't think they'll have a problem with this.

I'm not exactly sure what pushed them in such a combat-centric direction, but I'm sure it wasn't just one thing. Selling minis and internet compatibility were probably part of it. Customer feedback was undoubtedly part of it. RPGA may have been a part of it. And it might not have been a bad decision -- certainly the initial core book sales speak volumes about how many people are at least interested to learn about this new path.

4e will almost certainly be a success, probably no matter how many people don't like it, because of the D&D name if nothing else.

Pretty much all they'll have to measure against is "how much of a success is it?", but the metrics for that are pretty subjective and sometimes tough to determine. Regardless, I think everyone working at WotC has more than earned their keep on this, even if it doesn't turn out as well as they would have hoped.

Living with it and accepting responsibility for it won't be a problem, because it is something to be proud of (even if it's not for me).

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Well they could have set out to make a roleplaying game instead of a combat simulation game, wherein the roleplaying game allows for combat, but a combat simulator doesn't need any roleplaying.

You can play any prior version of D&D as only a combat simulator if you want to.

[firesnakearies]

Maybe I'm just dense here, but I've been playing D&D in all of its incarnations for 22+ years, and I don't see, at ALL, how 4E is noticeably more "combat-focused" than any previous version.

Can someone explain, with specifics?

[ProfessorCirno]

Originally Posted by firesnakearies

I see a lot of THIS going on:


"I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese."


Just sayin'.

And other people see the differences as "Hey, uh, this cookbook lists the ingredients for Mac and Cheese as 'chicken breast and marinade.' I like chicken breast, but how the hell is that Mac and Cheese?"

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

And other people see the differences as "Hey, uh, this cookbook lists the ingredients for Mac and Cheese as 'chicken breast and marinade.' I like chicken breast, but how the hell is that Mac and Cheese?"

This might be an apt analogy if the cookbook did not clearly contain most of the same ingredients as previous editions. The spices have certainly been changed, and maybe they added a little something that wasn't there before or taken something away, but claiming that the ingredients have changed completely is ridiculous.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by firesnakearies

Maybe I'm just dense here, but I've been playing D&D in all of its incarnations for 22+ years, and I don't see, at ALL, how 4E is noticeably more "combat-focused" than any previous version.

Can someone explain, with specifics?

Name all the spells/powers that are not for use in combat.

Most say target enemy/ally IIRC.

The focus is on combat because those are the rules that are easier to define what happens when something occurs.

The rules cannot including something for every role-playing aspect, but the books do read a bit like many wargame rules books. Oddly many wargame rules books contain a LOT more fluff.

Maybe the lack of fluff making the PoL setting more open-ended to fit any playstyle, settings, or game make it seems only focused on combat?

Add in one damnig thing such as distances measures in map grip squares that takes shift perspective from 1st person to 3rd person, so that things are looked at from the POV of the player making things seem less likely to put you into the action yourself and more like watching the action as you would a movie.

There are many other things people have said since 4th was released about what makes it more combat oriented, and the Wizards boards are full of threads about it if you can locate them.

Mostly it seems the prose in the books itself and focus on what is presented within them, or what isn't presented in them.

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by Tetsubo

Yes. I fundamentally don't consider 4E to *be* D&D. I consider it a tactical miniatures game with a fantasy expansion pack tacked on. WotC got D&D *right* with the 3.5/OGL model. It wasn't perfect I admit. But it needed a bit of a tune-up, not a rebuild.

Essentially 4E is the first edition of a brand new game that bares little resemblance to D&D. They kept the D&D identity for marketing purposes. I understand why of course, it's a valuable brand name. But the game is too far removed from what I consider the most perfect version of D&D.

Thankfully with the OGL there is always the possibility that others will keep the game alive. It saddens me that future gamers who are introduced to D&D as a new game will see 4E as D&D. Which I don't think it is.

We few grognards will have to school these younglings.

Long live 3.5!

Heh. How many times did we see that exact same post (except a -1 to the numbers) when 3e came out, word for word, just replace WotC with TSR and add in a few references to the evil takeover that will end RPGs forever?

[Kamikaze Midget]

Maybe I'm just dense here, but I've been playing D&D in all of its incarnations for 22+ years, and I don't see, at ALL, how 4E is noticeably more "combat-focused" than any previous version.

Can someone explain, with specifics?

Not to be too snarky, but they're right above. This page, the previous page...lots of details about how 4e's material is, speaking in focus, on combat, in the core rules.

They do address other things, but every class power, every monster in the MM, and most of the words about set-up, encounter design, and rewards in the DMG, are about combat. The four roles are combat roles. Rituals aren't spells because spells are for combat. You don't have class/profession skills because they have no use in combat. The rogue is a ninja because it needs combat balance. Healing surges exist so that there can be more combats. Play sessions are combats chained together through dialogue. An encounter is either a combat or a skill-based combat (and the skill-based combat has mechanical problems pointed out elsewhere on the boards).

Perhaps the strongest case, the one that sold me, was that the roles were once "dungeon exploration" roles (trap guy, swiss-army-knife guy, fighting guy, recovery guy), and now they're expressly "combat" roles (fast guy, healing guy, crowd-control guy, damage absorbing guy).

It can be (and has been) vastly overstated before, but I'm beginning to get why this impression is there. It is there because, yeah, combat is a bigger part of what the game is about in 4e. Even though it was always a huge part of what the game was about, it was never the ultimate end point, just an important part of getting to that end point. Now, it seems to be the endpoint. Everything is cleaned up and refined around that purpose.

For many critics, that is all well and good, but it leaves the parts of the game that the liked (exploration, for instance) by the wayside.

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by firesnakearies

Maybe I'm just dense here, but I've been playing D&D in all of its incarnations for 22+ years, and I don't see, at ALL, how 4E is noticeably more "combat-focused" than any previous version.

Can someone explain, with specifics?

The focus on the game is no more on combat than it always has been. Combat has always been the central area of concern for D&D.

The only difference with 4e is that the rulebooks don't include a designer approved set of extra subsystems (that have changed from edition to edition) to deal with what the designers at the time felt were needed subsystems outside of encounter resolution. Those are left to sourcebooks and houserules.

All versions of D&D have been combat focused, its the central element of the game. Both the 3e PHB and the 4e PHB have a 7 page chapter on Exploration. The 4e DMG has only 15 pages on combat and the rest is on building adventures, encounters, social situations, world building, the environment...

It's a colored perception by people who want to see it that way, no more true than when the 2e grogs used the same line of attack against 3e. The only real difference in 4e is that they trimmed the fight to present a concise system from which to build the edition over the life of the edition. The design is modular. As sourcebooks are released you can plug in new systems if you like, but their absence from the core rules takes away the weight of "official" to them, which is a good thing. 4e tells you - play the game the way you want - here's the rules for the core element of D&D gameplay: encounter resolution. That doesn't force the game to focus on combat more. When you play it, you see that simpler, more concise rules for combat means you have to focus on it LESS.