4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[JRRNeiklot]

Originally Posted by cwhs01

This is an "i hate apples because they aren't oranges" type of argument. And highly irrelevant and very counterproductive.

No, it's an "I asked for an orange and you gave me an apple, yet insist on CALLING it an orange argument."

[RefinedBean]

Sweet, half-orcs comin' soon! My thoery is that Eladrin were swapped in for Half-Orcs due to a printing error. Because seriously, Eladrin? C'mon.

The discussions on ENworld are no better or worse than pretty much any other Internet forum I've been to, excluding 4Chan.

It's getting delightfully easier to spot threads that devolve into a "My fun is better than yours" or some other massive pile of inanity. This has been an emotional year for people: We're having a worldwide economic troubles, an election of a new PotUS, high unemployment rates, and other things that rile people up. When someone feels insecure about something in their life, they struggle to maintain security somewhere else, like D&D. 4E was just the polarizing force that people latched onto. Ultimately, I think ENworld (and every other board on earth) will settle down.

But I'm an optimist, and my glasses are decidedly rose-colored, and I definitely think there's room for improvement in how 4E is criticised, as well as defended. (shrug) That's the nature of the beast.

[firesnakearies]

Originally Posted by RefinedBean

My thoery is that Eladrin were swapped in for Half-Orcs due to a printing error. Because seriously, Eladrin? C'mon.

I dunno, I like Eladrin. It's funny, actually. I never cared much for Elves in the earlier incarnations of D&D. But now, the way they've set up the division between Eladrin and Elves, I suddenly find them (both races) much more interesting and cool.

Half-Orcs do rock, though. One of my favorite characters EVER was a Half-Orc Monk. Guess it'll be awhile before he sees the light of 4th edition.

[cwhs01]

Originally Posted by JRRNeiklot

No, it's an "I asked for an orange and you gave me an apple, yet insist on CALLING it an orange argument."

This is an "only one true game" type of argument. Slightly more useful, but not much.

[rounser]

This is an "only one true game" type of argument. Slightly more useful, but not much.

Disagree. With 30 years of expectations of what the D&D brand represents, it's not unreasonable to at least expect them to get the core implied setting "right".

If 4E's new implied setting is an attempt at a franchise reboot, ala Batman Begins or Casino Royale, then they've done the opposite of what those did. Those movies got back to roots when the franchises had gone wahoo. 4E appears to me to be attempting to go wahoo as a franchise reboot. Not very attractive IMO.*

*: Probably not a good comparison without a very large grain of salt indeed, as D&D is not movies, and movies is not D&D.

[WalterKovacs]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

This thread was in response to a quote from another thread that spoke of people responding as if 4E should be immune to criticism, and my response that a lot of the so called criticisms are statements of preference as opposed to discussion points, and other ways that "criticism" isn't criticism. After recent posts, I would add that a lot of negative 4E comments aren't criticism as much as they are salvos in an "edition war".

I'd say that it's definitely not "constructive" criticism. There are definitely things that can be fixed that need to be addressed, and some confusions that popped up. Heck, lots of people complained about the skill challenges and it got errata'd. Some of those problems seems to be tied to problems that pop up a lot in any kind of game ... especially when the people designing and the people playtesting are on the same wavelength ... they know what a power is supposed to do, but they may not necessarily know how to word it, so you end up with RAI vs. RAW issues ... or in the case of the skill challenges, there seemed to be some sort of expectations (I think I remember in one of the pre-errata defenses, the intention was a lot of use of aid another being assumed to make it possible).

Anyway, there is a big difference between pointing out problems in the system, especially ones that can potentially be solved (even some of the "the system lacks X" can translate into "they should have this class in the next edition") and just nitpicking.

4e isn't immune to criticism, heck, criticism helped bring about actual changes in the game, most notably the skill challenges, but some other things like the errata of the ranger power to "one-shot Orcus".

It's just that a lot of what passes for criticism is not only not constructive feedback, it's also a lot of "next verse, same as the verse", some of the same complaints/criticisms made at the game's released and most of the threads end up going over the same ground. So if they are immune to anything, it's to the arguments that have been tossed at it over and over again without much effect.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

I believe both sides believe, at least somewhere in the back of their minds, that they are fighting for the "soul" of D&D. The people who are sticking with 3.5e feel that if they reach a critical mass of people who reject 4e that they can topple it and force a 5e that is much closer to 3.5e. The 4e supporters(or at least me, since I can't speak for everyone) simply want more people to accept the new edition so we have more people to play with.

I'm generally sympathetic to 4e and post in the defence of its mechanics, but not out of any desire to fight for the "soul" of D&D. I personally don't think that there is a soul of D&D - the various editions have had quite different orientations (and sometimes multiple conflicting orientations) in terms of the play that they support, and have been put to extremely varied uses by different play groups.

My defence of 4e rests on a fairly simple foundation: it's a pretty coherent set of rules for a narrativist-oriented but thematically mainstream fantasy RPG. Thus it's desirable to me as a game to play. And I get irritated when people criticise 4e's rules as if narrativist gaming was impossible, or made no sense, or didn't exist before 4e was published. Those who simply want a different set of rules (mostly, critics seem to want a more simulationist rules set) I have no quarrel with - fortunately for me, unfortunately for them, WoTC went with my preferences.

[cwhs01]

Originally Posted by rounser

Disagree. With 30 years of expectations of what the D&D brand represents, it's not unreasonable to at least expect them to get the core implied setting "right".

Your argument is that the core implied setting hasn't changed in 30 years until 4e. IMO this is not remotely close to true.

But even so, 4e has all of what you'd expect from a dnd game including classes, races, monsters and magic. It has fighters, clerics, thiefs and magic-users (maybe named differently, but they are there). The basic objective of the game is still to kill the monsters and grab their loot, eventually acruing enough xp to advance a level. It still allows you to play more complex games involving politics and diplomacy. It's still a task resolution, highly gamist approach to an rpg. A little less simulationist, and a little more narrativist than 3x, but 3x was by far the most simulationist of any edition of dnd.
There's a reason a lot of people say this edition reminds them of 1e adnd.

[rounser]

Your argument is that the core implied setting hasn't changed in 30 years until 4e. IMO this is not remotely close to true.

Bollocks. Look at the contents of every PHB for every edition. With the odd addition or subtraction of something that's been there since the first booklets like Blackmoor (e.g. monk/mystic) and some halfbreeds, the core implied setting has changed very little.

But even so, 4e has all of what you'd expect from a dnd game including classes, races, monsters and magic.

It also has eladrin, warlords, dragonborn, which are like anchovies on pizza - some love them, others hate them. The books even assume you use them in the "D&D world" and the artwork, and the flavour text.

This is not generic, not the fodder for a thousand worlds of imagination like mythologically solid races like elves and dwarves are....it seems like a recipe for a very specific world. Like a recipe, it's as much about what's left out as what's put in.

You can get experimental and wahoo, but the first PHB is NOT the place to do it, IMO. Not even for cleverpants brand identity purposes.

[Allister]

Can I nominate Stalker0's as an exemplary poster?

From both his criticisms and praise, he gives explanations (and even at times, solutions!!!Love your skill challenge) that I consider well thought out.

If all 4E discussions were like Stalker0's posts, I doubt 4E discussions would be as it is....

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Allister

Can I nominate Stalker0's as an exemplary poster?

From both his criticisms and praise, he gives explanations (and even at times, solutions!!!Love your skill challenge) that I consider well thought out.

You can give him XP and urge others to do the same (especially when you can no longer because you first have to spread around your XP to others...)

If all 4E discussions were like Stalker0's posts, I doubt 4E discussions would be as it is....

You think if things were different, they would be different! Interesting thought, but I would have to see it in practice to believe it.

[cwhs01]

Originally Posted by rounser

Bollocks. Look at the contents of every PHB for every edition. With the odd addition or subtraction of something that's been there since the first booklets like Blackmoor (e.g. monk/mystic) and some halfbreeds, the core implied setting has changed very little.

I still don't believe it to be true, that the core setting hasn't changed in 30 years. But even so, it begs the question, why shouldn't it?

People who like the implied setting of a specific previous edition will disallow eladrin, warlords and dragonborn. And still have a good game. Others will use the new shiny stuff and like it. Why is this a problem?

People will always houserule and homebrew the implied setting to smitherines as they have allways done.

Originally Posted by rounser

This is not generic, not the fodder for a thousand worlds of imagination like mythologically solid races like elves and dwarves are....it seems like a recipe for a very specific world. Like a recipe, it's as much about what's left out as what's put in.

Actually, i find eladrin to be a closer approximation to celtish sidhe, than the elf race from earlier editions ever was. Can't get more mythological than this. halflings have moved away from the hobbit, but 3x did this as well. Dwarves are still around and still very dwarvish.

Originally Posted by rounser

You can get experimental and wahoo, but the first PHB is NOT the place to do it, IMO. Not even for cleverpants brand identity purposes.

So you dislike dragonborn. Fair enough. I just wish people would voice their disagreements and discuss solutions, even if it means not switching editions, instead of using weird ad hominem attacks as these.

[firesnakearies]

Originally Posted by rounser

With 30 years of expectations of what the D&D brand represents, it's not unreasonable to at least expect them to get the core implied setting "right".

Could you explain what, exactly, about the core implied setting in 4E is inherently wrong, or a betrayal of the traditional spirit of D&D? I don't see a serious departure, really, at least not on some deep, fundamental level which would make this version of D&D "less D&D" than the previous versions. What is it that makes you feel this way?

I don't deny that the feel of the game has changed, there are definitely differences. But I don't understand what, in those changes, makes the core implied setting "wrong" now. Could you expand on this idea?

I'm not being argumentative, I actually want to know.

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by firesnakearies

I dunno, I like Eladrin. It's funny, actually. I never cared much for Elves in the earlier incarnations of D&D. But now, the way they've set up the division between Eladrin and Elves, I suddenly find them (both races) much more interesting and cool.

Half-Orcs do rock, though. One of my favorite characters EVER was a Half-Orc Monk. Guess it'll be awhile before he sees the light of 4th edition.

This, except I've never liked Half-orcs and no-one in my groups ever bothers with them. Down with half orcs!! If WotC produces anything with half-orcs in them I might burn something... Or write an inflamitory post or something...

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Please, for the sake of the discussion, don't bring Dragonborn and Warlords into a discussion with rounser! This way leads madness!

Instead... hey, what's that - look over there, a flying holy bovine! *covers up Dragonborn and Warlord references*



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mustrum "First D&D 4E character was a Dragonborn Warlord, and I liked it" Ridcully

[rounser]

But even so, it begs the question, why shouldn't it?

Perhaps it should; perhaps the franchise needs a reboot. But IMO not in that way.

A core more generic, more mythological might have been appropriate. Less arbitrary. Clerics seem pretty arbitrary and specific, much as the newcomers dragonborn and eladrin do. I wouldn't shed a tear to see "clerics" get a rename and an overhaul, or see Paladins renamed Knight or Crusader or something, or Ranger turned into Scout.

Less D&Disms, not more, would have been the way to go, IMO.

WHY?

Because so far as I can see, people USE d&d as a sort of fantasy worldbuilding kit. Specific, D&Dism stuff in the core implied setting just alienates the game from that (and by core implied setting, I mean contents of the PHB everyone is assumed to use). Down the track, if you want to go Cthulhu with your mind flayers and aboleth and Elder Elemental God, or steampunk with your warforged and artificers and magitech, or all Wire Fu with physics-defying martial arts and ninjas and kappas, then that's a personal decision. Right next to you is a person who doesn't want that. The implied setting should cater to both of you, at least out of the gate.

The default is (or was, or should be) D&D's Tolkienismesque implied setting, because the Professor kind of hit a nerve there, putting all this rich mythology together (yes, I know he wasn't the first but he was the most well known) and D&D profited immensely from copying that (even if it were via a circumspect route, as Gygax swears that Tolkien wasn't the source). Dragonborn warlords and eladrin blinkathons straight out of the gate, non-optional, compromise that, IMO. There's more "what the heck" there than rich mythology.

Why don't we have that? I expect it's related to selling books and miniatures. If you have an all-inclusive core, continually piling on the splat as non-optional, people will buy everything. May as well get them used to the idea by putting in arbitrary, random, thematically mixed stuff in the first PHB.

Or maybe they'll become fed up, and buy nothing.

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by rounser

The default is (or was, or should be) D&D's Tolkienismesque implied setting, because the Professor kind of hit a nerve there, putting all this rich mythology together (yes, I know he wasn't the first but he was the most well known) and D&D profited immensely from copying that (even if it were via a circumspect route, as Gygax swears that Tolkien wasn't the source). Dragonborn warlords and eladrin blinkathons straight out of the gate, non-optional, compromise that, IMO. There's more "what the heck" there than rich mythology.

What are you talking about? Eladrin are the most mythological of all the PHB races, except maybe Tieflings. And it was high time that DND cut some of the ties with Tolkien.

Your mixing up Tolkien mythology with real mythology.

[rounser]

What are you talking about? Eladrin are the most mythological of all the PHB races, except maybe Tieflings. And it was high time that DND cut some of the ties with Tolkien.

Your mixing up Tolkien mythology with real mythology.

Ask anyone in the street what an eladrin is. Then ask them what an elf is.

I rest my case.

And I don't care about your protestations about sidhe and Tuatha de Danaan - your argument is shot down on a name basis alone. D&D deserves better than this in the core.

[Keefe the Thief]

The day when hyena-people are okay but dragon-people are hands-off is the day i´ll get off the D&D train.

[cwhs01]

Originally Posted by rounser

A core more generic, more mythological might have been appropriate. Less arbitrary. Clerics seem pretty arbitrary and specific, much as the newcomers dragonborn and eladrin do. I wouldn't shed a tear to see them get a rename and an overhaul, or see paladins renamed Knight or Crusader or something, or Ranger turned into Scout.

Less D&Disms, not more, would have been the way to go, IMO.

A lot of people, even you in your earlier post, complain that 4e departed from what was the core implied dnd setting. And now you want to remove the original parts? Wouldn't that make it even less dnd?

But i agree with you. I'd also like to see a generic version of dnd 4e, with pointbuy race creation rules (for the dm to use in his homebrew campaign), and only four basic classes based on the archetypes or roles. And a pointbuy system for acquiring powers. And rules for new and more skills.

In the meantime until someone makes this for 4e (if ever), i quite like the approach wotc used, with an implied setting in the core ruleset, and not going "generic universal ruleset", like gurps.