4e / GSL Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

If you don't want to engage me, fine. Engage somebody. All you seem to be saying is that we have you wrong. That rings a little hollow. If we have you wrong, set us right. If you don't want to talk to me, talk to this thread as a whole.

Best of gaming to you

[Hussar]

Ok, now this blows major amounts of ass:

Originally Posted by vBulletin Message

Sorry Wulf Ratbane is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Funny that.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Ok, now this blows...

Wow. Unexpected and unintended, I'm sure.

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart, post #188

In 3e, you take a base creature, then ...

Even in the context of writing "official" adventures, that's a fundamental change from how Gygax, et al (maybe even Cook, Tweet and Williams) viewed the game. This whole notion of the DM playing some sort of solitaire puzzle-game, thereby adding hours to preparation for the real game -- and making the books such severe constraints on creativity -- is a basic problem that remains central to 4e.

Having such helps available as an option is one thing. If anything is a "newbie crutch", it's the belief that such a thing is necessary to (or even capable of) delivering a good D&D game.

[JoeGKushner]

Originally Posted by BryonD

How in the world do you get that
it says that?
All it says is that the game lived and was enjoyed for a full life. Which disputes your prior claim. It in no way whatsoever says that no game can compare to it and trying to force that bizarre spin onto it is putting words in to my mouth.

Doesn't history show us otherwise? That DMs stopped running games when using 3.5 or this 'deep end'?

I didn't say that the game was abandoned. I said that DMs stopped running games when using 3.5. Too much prep time. Several 'fixes' for it, several of them spun out as their own game including True 20, Trailblazer and Pathfinder among others. No where do I say that no game can compare to it. I did say that 4e was designed listening to the people's issues with the previous edition.

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

Yes. Sometimes 3 or 4 times a round. As soon as one of the extremely powergamed characters says "I hit AC 35" and I say "Miss", they immediately say "WHAT? I hit 35. There's no way that missed. How did it get that?"

And then I have to say "Well, it is a creature who started with a +12 natural armor. Then it got a template that adds a +2 deflection bonus. It is wearing +3 Fullplate designed for its size. Then it gets +1 from Dex."

Then they say "Wow...I can't believe you cheesed up the monster by adding a template and giving it custom +3 armor. Most of the monsters we fighter have around AC 25. It's a full 11 points higher than usual."

Because, if I'm off by one point, they'll notice. They'll call me on it. After all, the only way the game is fun for them and for me is if we play "fair". If the rules let you make something, it's fair. If it's just made up, then they might as well not play. After all, it's easy to beat them if you can arbitrarily make a monster AC 36. It's hard if they have to follow a set of rules to get to AC 36. At least, that's how they look at it. Or how they did look at it in 3.5e.

Now, in 4e, I simply say "It's a level 10 monster, it has appropriate defenses for it's level. There's no rules for what AC it can have. This one is higher than normal."

Wow.

1. 4e has rules for what AC a monster can have, there are guidelines in the DMG for ranges of AC based on monster role and level.

2 3e does not. It has rules on what things add to AC and in what ways, but no rules on how much AC to give a monster. There are no limits on how much natural armor a monster can have for example, only examples of what some exemplar monsters do have in the MM.

3 Majoru, your example is not that you did not play by the rules and therefore did not play fair, your players are complaining that you played by the 3e rules legally and they don't like it. They want you to stick to core MM stat blocks apparently. You played "fair" by your example of what you say your players required in 3e. 3e rules allow a ton of arbitrary flexibility while still playing by the rules.

NEw monster at AC 36. 10 base, +8 full plate, +2 shield, +16 natural. Done. Legal according to the rules of 3e. And they will only get non magical full plate and a shield as loot.

Originally Posted by SteveC

Pretty much this. I won't say that my players are this critical, but they all really understand the rules and have an encyclopedic knowledge of monster stats. As a result, if things do go outside the lines, they'll know about it.

Beyond that, what happens when your group sends a dispel magic over at your "made up on the fly" creature? How does that affect its stats. My group also had a spell from (I believe...it's been a while) the Spell Compendium that did damage to you for each spell that was currently affecting you. So I had to keep track of the number and kind of buff spells that I gave my creatures pretty much all the time.

In 4E, I can design much more to taste.

I know a lot of people must read a post like this and say "what the heck?" but if you say that you're likely not playing with a lot of "system mastery" type players. They do exist, and in my group's case are some of the best friends and roleplayers you'd ever want to meet.

What the heck?

Your players memorize monster stats but apparently ignore the parts about adding levels, advancing by HD, adding templates, and the ability of the DM to create their own monsters.

In 3e you can't say "oh its just an orc" with confidence. You don't know if it is the sample level 1 warrior from the MM, a level 20 barbarian, some type of 4HD monstrous humanoid mega orc variant race from a weird monster or race book or some black orc super unholy templated monstrosity from the Book of Templates Deluxe Edition 3.5.

My high system mastery face to face players know this very well.

I assumed most players with system mastery and an understanding of the 3e rules would realize it too.

Or that a DM who understood the rules could communicate that.

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Beyond that, what happens when your group sends a dispel magic over at your "made up on the fly" creature? How does that affect its stats. My group also had a spell from (I believe...it's been a while) the Spell Compendium that did damage to you for each spell that was currently affecting you. So I had to keep track of the number and kind of buff spells that I gave my creatures pretty much all the time.

In 4E, I can design much more to taste.

In that case you have to make a spot decision, are there any spells affecting this monster, how many, and what caster level. My AC 36 Ankylosaurus? No. My AC 36 wizard, yeah more than a few and it should be adjudicated.

Dispel magic is a definite speed bump nit picky problem spell. I like the pathfinder variant much better where it only knocks out one spell.

4e only solves the problem by yanking out the 3e style dispel magic.

[Vartan]

I know I'm late for the party in this thread: after reading through it I saw a lot of posts to which I wanted to respond, but I can answer the OP's question more succinctly:

I was talking to someone who has been out of D&D for four or five years, but with whom I've played since 1990, and he asked me what I thought of 4th Edition. I told him that the whole system was more "crunchy" and that I didn't like some of the choices made with regards to the core setting and race/class options for 4E. I told him that 4E moved closer to video game territory than I would have liked and that some of the convention games I had played reminded me more of M:tG or a board game than I would have liked.

My friend thought for a moment and asked, "But we'll still play our game right?' And I said "Oh yeah, definitely!" By "our game" he meant that, assuming he came back to the table, I would still run a deeply-layered, story-oriented campaign with lots of opportunites for roleplaying, character growth and setting development.

"Yeah," he said, "we'll always play our game."

I told him about how balanced game mechanics have become. I told him that the crystallization--call it simplification, if you like--of the rules took some of the pressure off of me in terms of judgment calls and made it easier for me to focus on being a good DM. I told him how much I liked the skill challenge system because it provides a commonly understood, reward-centric structure to non-combat encounters.

I could easily run a 3.5 game, of even a 2E game, tomorrow and have plenty of fun...but the 4E system has its advantages. There's nothing about it that keeps me or my players from playing our game.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Vartan

I told him about how balanced game mechanics have become. I told him that the crystallization--call it simplification, if you kike--

I know its a typo- oddly, one missed by the board's censors- but you might want to edit that one before someone takes offense!

*shakes fist*

Too late! GRRRR!

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Vartan

By "our game" he meant that, assuming he came back to the table, I would still run a deeply-layered, story-oriented campaign with lots of opportunites for roleplaying, character growth and setting development.

See, now this is what separates 'advanced' D&D from 'T-ball D&D'. Rules ain't got nothing to do with it...

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by Mallus

See, now this is what separates 'advanced' D&D from 'T-ball D&D'. Rules ain't got nothing to do with it...

But intelligent conversation doesn't exist in 4E, and 4E sets limits on how 'advanced' or 'sophisticated' D&D is allowed to be.

[Theroc]

Originally Posted by Mallus

See, now this is what separates 'advanced' D&D from 'T-ball D&D'. Rules ain't got nothing to do with it...

Hm... not trying to nitpick or do some other negative flaming thing, but does this mean that a combat heavy adventure/campaign is 'T-Ball D&D'? Or is this just saying that differentiating "Our Game" from the ruleset is a mark of advanced D&D?

Just wondering, as I happen to greatly enjoy combat, and haven't seen much of late, as it seems to make people think I'm a 'powergamer' and I always get a negative vibe when I hear it.

[nightwyrm]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

The 2e DMG.

Seriously, was there ANY advice on how to actually run a game to make it enjoyable for people in that DMG?

During the 2e era, I learned DMing from a splat book called "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide". My favourite 2e book by far.

[fuzzlewump]

Originally Posted by Theroc

Hm... not trying to nitpick or do some other negative flaming thing, but does this mean that a combat heavy adventure/campaign is 'T-Ball D&D'? Or is this just saying that differentiating "Our Game" from the ruleset is a mark of advanced D&D?

Just wondering, as I happen to greatly enjoy combat, and haven't seen much of late, as it seems to make people think I'm a 'powergamer' and I always get a negative vibe when I hear it.

Playing D&D with only combat, is like using a hammer to pound nails into boards that you throw away, rather than building a house with them. Hammering things is fun enough, but it doesn't contribute to the creation of something beyond the sum of its parts.

That said, you said combat heavy, not combat only, so you focus more on the nail hammering, but a house is still being built, even if slowly. Play on! In a more direct way, combat with nothing else is essentially an exercise in dice rolling, and might as well be left to a computer simulation.

[Theroc]

Originally Posted by fuzzlewump

Playing D&D with only combat, is like using a hammer to pound nails into boards that you throw away, rather than building a house with them. Hammering things is fun enough, but it doesn't contribute to the creation of something beyond the sum of its parts.

That said, you said combat heavy, not combat only, so you focus more on the nail hammering, but a house is still being built, even if slowly. Play on! In a more direct way, combat with nothing else is essentially an exercise in dice rolling, and might as well be left to a computer simulation.

I find much character development can arise from a character's reactions to events, both favorable and non, during combat. It also can often get me more excited to roleplay my character once I feel I am accomplishing these feats and overcoming such obstacles.

I enjoy roleplaying, but I love smashing the baddies a great deal too. I tend to find one enhances the other for me, in many cases. COmbat helps me solidify the character in my mind, which makes it easier to get in their head, and vice versa.

Granted, you're assuming once combat erupts that there is no roleplaying, which isn't always the case.

Anyways, just wanted to toss that in there. Apologies for the somewhat offtopic question.

[Dice4Hire]

kudos tothe last 3-4 posters ofr getting this back on track.

I jsut do nto see 4E as teeball. SOme parts are easier, and the simplicty of choos\ing monsters for an encounter can be nice, and less variable mechanics can make starting off easier, but there is still a lot of depth inthe game for people to explore.

With T-ball, what you see ifs what you get, it never gets mroe complicated.

I think 4E is easier to start up, especially for an experienced player with a group of newbies, hand out sheets, give them a few choices and let them go. A handful of power cards would help also. But 4E is nto a simple game, far from it.

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

I don't play D&D as a competition between myself and the players, so that definitely skews my perception a little bit.

In my game, the intent is for everyone to have fun, DM and players. It's a cooperative play style.

Absolutely. And if the players feel that the DM is cheating and setting arbitrary numbers designed to thwart their strengths, they may well get offended by that. If a player cleverly and carefully designs his PC to have a to-hit number 4 higher than normal for his level, but then you arbitrarily adjust the ACs of your monsters so that he has the same percentage chance to hit as if he did not make those clever choices, he may well feel slighted that you cheated him out of his choices. Choices he paid for at the expense of other options.

If you set your ACs arbitrarily high and can't justify why they are that high (by knowing the numbers that make up that AC), then the PC wizard who focused on debuffing monsters gets short-changed. The PC who focused on increasing his damage output above the norm is slighted when you jack up HP because they are killing monsters quicker than you like.

Point is, with such a micro-managed system as 3e, a lot of player choice has specific, defined, expected advantages within gameplay that is thwarted if you "cheat" on your monster/NPC creation and just do whatever makes it as hard as you think it should be for the PCs. You are short-changing the choices they made, and the knowledge they've gained and put to use about how the game is expected to work.

It's no different than watching while a player spends three hours creating an awesome Loremaster when you know your DM-style is not to utilize knowledge skills hardly at all, and you never call for PCs to make knowledge rolls.

If the strength of a system is meaningful choices, you undermine that when you make those choices meaningless.

In 4e, what they did is change the balancing trigger from being building everything on the PC framework, to building a set framework for monsters/NPCs, but one that is nonetheless affected by meaningful PC choices. A PC focusing on applying effects to monsters can know and have a reasonable expectation of how that will work, what basic numbers to expect in defenses, etc. If you arbitrarily change the numbers, you undermine their choices. The difference in the editions is that 4e makes it much easier, and much, much less time consuming to stick to the math that is built into the system.

[thecasualoblivion]

Most everyone in this thread seems to think that the 4E as "newbie teeball" analogy doesn't hold up. Only a few odd people and ByronD seem to be arguing in favor of teeball.

[catsclaw227]

I am sorry. I wish I never forked this. I don't like edition wars.

(EDIT: Sorry, ByronD)
(EDIT, EDIT: Sorry, BryonD)

We all love D&D in it's many incarnations, so instead let's lean upon the magic it has given our lives.

Neither verbal riposte, nor snappy resonse are productive to describing and defending all our own ideaologies. What D&D will give us the most satisfying, deepest experience we can have? We each find and play those editions that satisfy that goal and then call it our own and we hold the fort and love our game.

Great!

Moving on now....

[MerricB]

And it isn't ByronD.

It's Bryon. Sort of like Brian, except spelt with a Y and a O.

Cheers!