4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)
Scribble
First Post
It always inspires in my mind the idea of Eladrin sort of loosing touch with what they once were.
Once they were wild creatures of the fey, but now the mortal realms are begining to take hold, and they're loosing much of their magic.
Once they could step into either realm with but a thought, but now... They exist mostly in the mortal realm, and can only travel to the feywild for a moment or so.
Makes me see them as a sad race... Unable to really accept the fact that the world is changing all around them.
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
Yes, how dare people criticize a game... gods, your snark even has smaller snark hanging off of it. Which is impressive in the way that a facehugger is adorable.
Don't you talk trash about Lamarr!
4e solved a lot of my problems with 3e, which for the most part focused around ease of use, especially at high level. There are many legitimate problems with both editions, and I consider myself to be a fairly impartial commentator, given my edition sluttery. I like both editions, a lot. I dislike 4e multiclassing, I'm impatient for a lot of 3e stuff to get converted, and I'm also of the opinion that so far they're only just scratching the surface of things that can be done with exception-based design, which frustrates me. I don't need to talk about what's wrong with 3e, because the Rules Forum archives are still there.
But I don't see a lot of serious criticisms of the edition, in the way that I saw a lot of serious criticisms of 3e while 3e was still the king of the hill. A lot of the criticisms amount to "I don't like this," which is legitimate, but not something you should expect anyone to take seriously. As I jokingly suggested, there seems to be a lot of resentment from these people that the edition happens to be something they don't like, not because it's not a good game or anything, but because it does things in a way they don't personally approve of. And this is presented as some kind of affront, rather than just a different design sensibility. They post like the changes to the game contain footnotes explaining how those changes were made to annoy them, personally, and come here to be upset about it.
Back in 2006, people were deconstructing 3e and fixing all the bits they didn't like. Criticism of the game, when not followed by "and that's why 1st ed/2nd ed/OD&D is better than 3e," was generally constructive...perhaps because fewer people willing to jump ship on 3e in favour of an older edition than seem to be doing just that with 4e. Now there seems to be far less constructive criticism and more griping. But I remember the same thing happening in 2000, and I expect that it will pass, especially as more new gamers start playing the new edition, which is also what happened after 2000.
Yeah, the standard setting in 4e leaves quite a bit to be desired ("No sir. I don't like it."). But that's not really what I'd call a major issue, considering that you can slap a campaign setting on it and your problems are solved. I've got ten different homebrew cosmologies I could use, and none of them were ever impacted by the Great Wheel, so I doubt they'll be impacted by the new standard cosmology.
Raven Crowking
First Post
I think that the OGL helped foster (correctly or incorrectly) a sense of inclusiveness, and that fan work was valued.
As far as the base world for 4e, I think that given that the core was going to be doled out in chunks, there is little else WotC could do. EDIT: I was thinking you meant POL, etc., instead of the Great Wheel. Well, in the 1e DMG, the Great Wheel was given as a sample cosmology, and I see no problem with seeing 4e's cosmology as another sample.
RC
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
There needs to be a ritual that can be used by Eladrin (and maybe High Level Elves or anyone higher level with a teleportation power?) that allows them to cross over to the Feywild. Fey Step is not strong enough to let them stay there, but the ritual would be.Yeah the range isn't a problem. Its not that much real distance that is travelled, the key is the other plane. Its yet another nice bit of flavor that seems limited to mostly combat use. Heck I could see an Eladrin stepping in, getting a bit of sleep, and returning to the prime material in the morning.
----
In my experience there are some criticismn I am interested in and I can agree or at least argue with, and there is some stuff that I find totally useless.
The "umbrella" under which I mostly find the latter is:
1) Is this really D&D? (Dragonborn in, Gnome out? AD&D didn't have Warlords in Core! If I can't play a Gnome Barbarian/Bard, the game is wrong!)
- This is not a philosophy course or a religion. It's a frigging game and I want to play this game.
2) It doesn't support my play style and that means its bad.
- It might not support your play style - so play something that does!
3) WotC is evil and just wants my money - Well don't give it to them.
The kind of criticism and discussion I find typically interesting:
- Does Rule X work? Why or why not?
- Does mechanic Y support play style A? Why? Was it intended to do so?
- Where do the rules fail? Why? Is this true only for certain goals or play styles, or does it just not work?
- What are the differences between games and editions? Are there any? How did they achieve them?
Stuff I am not so thrilled about, but can be interesting...
- Did the marketing work?
- Is labeling stuff as Core really just a marketing trick? What are the disadvantages of these discussions
- What are the goals of the GSL? What are its drawbacks?
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
See, I agree with the statement, and I think it's a valid criticism. I just don't think it's a very compelling criticism. The reason that they bumped the half-orcs and added eladrin is IMO a bit spurious, but given that half-orcs will eventually be added (circa March, apparently), it's kind of the same as criticisms regarding gnomes or frost giants or beguilers or [insert a race, class, or monster from 3.x that you didn't get in the first core books]. Some things made the cut, and the rest we have to wait for. Such is the way things work with a new edition.
I think that it's important to differentiate between valid criticisms and good criticisms. A personal gripe is valid, so long as it's not factually incorrect. But it's only good if it's a big deal for more than just you. The criticisms levelled against the skill challenge system are good criticisms. That thing is broken, and the DC changes in the errata seem like a half-assed last-ditch patch. That's something that is worth worrying about, especially given how central to the game the system was supposed to be. And the response to the problem has been very positive. Problems were identified, WotC has at least tried to address them, and Stalker0 has come up with two excellent fixes for the system. But you can't fix issues of personal taste like that. All you can do is complain and hope that someone else chimes in to complain with you to vindicate your opinion.
You know what? I think this might have something to do with the 4e previews. Back in 2007 and early 2008, we had the ear of the designers. We undermined the implementation of Emerald Frost and Dragon's Tail Cut. Issues of personal taste were apparently taken seriously by the design team, and we had a situation where we knew very little about the mechanics, so we talked about the fluff instead. Now that the books are printed, we can't pressure Design & Development to change issues of personal taste, and so we yearn for those heady days in which some people complaining on the internet changed the course of the final draft. We, as a community, were spoiled rotten, and we're still acting spoiled.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I keep thinking this is the crux of a lot of this, even though people never say it. A lot of people rip 4E while praising 1E/OD&D with no mention of 3E. 3E pooped on 1E/OD&D to the same extent 4E does IMO, and the only explanation I have for the people who rip 4E in this manner is that they felt that the combination of 3E and the OGL provided the inclusiveness of what they really want.
To me then, it isn't an issue of D&D serving people or not, but the removal of mainstream D&D from the OGL community that is the real issue, and people complaining about 4E are just dodging or misstating their true issue.
It also irritating to listen to when they do this, because they aren't complaining about what is truly bothering them.
Fifth Element
Legend
QFT. For example, the oft-heard assertion that 4E is "dumbed down". This implies that if you like 4E better than previous editions, your are, for lack of a better term, dumb.
The use of derogatory buzzwords is also a problem. When someone posts "4E is just like WoW", you know they don't mean it in a good way, unless they then go on to clarify that they mean it in a good way. Generally it's just left at that, a jab at anyone who enjoys 4E signifying they're not really playing D&D but a video game.
Just remember that we are not discussing all criticism of 4E. Just a subset of it. The non-constructive stuff. There has been plenty of constructive criticism of 4E here. But loads of garbage as well.
Obryn
Hero
Actually, I included this in my homebrew setting.
Stepping completely into the Feywild can only happen at points of great convergence. Permanent convergence points are the entrances to many of the great Eladrin cities. You Fey Step, and poof! You're in the Feywild until you find a way out.
When an Eladrin isn't at one of these gateways, they are just dipping their toe into the Feywild. They've learned to use this to their benefit as a kind of short-range teleportation.
Poof! Instant flavor to justify the mechanics.
-O
Raven Crowking
First Post
I actually like the amount of vocabulary Gary made me learn. To my mind, 1e had the steepest learning curve of any edition. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing......well, YMMV.
I think you can also say that one edition is a more "PC friendly" edition than another. I suspect that 4e is not really a PC friendly edition, despite its healing surges, and that long-term campaigns might either (1) rack up body counts that make oD&D look weak in comparison, or (2) begin to show signs of a resurgence of "smart play" ala oD&D.
I wouldn't call 4e "dumbed down".
EDIT: Except in the sense of not seeming like homework. In this particular case, 4e is "dumbed down" in a good way. I am also trying to ensure that RCFG is dumbed down to remove the homework aspect of 3e. So, in this context, definitely not an insult!
That sounds way cool.
RC
Last edited:
Similar Threads
