Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Obryn · Jul 7, 2012

billd91 said:
But why should you be immunized from having the game rules you DM criticized?

I think it's fair to acknowledge that "4e/3e/1e is not an RPG" is a different kind of statement than "I don't like 4e/3e/1e." It's way different from, "I don't like this rule or assumption of 4e/3e/1e." This goes alongside the old 2008/2009 favorite "4e/Pathfinder is not D&D."

I think we're all here to criticize the games we play and build a better 5e for it. This sort of edition war nonsense goes nowhere towards doing that. If you find 4e to be a "miniature skirmish game" and not an "RPG" figure out why you think that, make some real criticisms with substance, and let's go to town.

-O

Cadfan · Jul 7, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
I think this here says more than any rebuttal I could make. If you can't accept that I am being honest about my own opinion, and if you insist on twisting it, there can be no discussion.

I think you're honest. I just think you're wrong.

Respect other people's opinions, please. Take a break from the thread for now. Issue started with this post. - Lwaxy

Cadfan · Jul 7, 2012

Mercutio01 said:
This is a ridiculous strawman and doesn't represent any game of D&D I've ever played.

EDIT: It does, however, represent at least a few games of Shadowrun I've played in.

...it represents EVERY game of Shadowrun I've played in. And RIFTS.

Bedrockgames · Jul 7, 2012

Cadfan said:
I think you're honest. I just think you're wrong.

Well I am not wrong about my own opinion. Just because you can't understand why I would find a mode of play fun doesn't mean it is not fun for me. Sometimes the shine moments in a game are that much better when they are contrasted with instances where your character is less effective. For me this produces a more enjoyable overall experience. Plus I like taking a breather to let someone else step up and take on some shine time. Games where my character is always good at every situation reduces my pleasure because it gets dull.

Herschel · Jul 7, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
Well I am not wrong about my own opinion.

Just entirely uninformed IF (and only if) the following is truly how you feel:

Sometimes the shine moments in a game are that much better when they are contrasted with instances where your character is less effective. For me this produces a more enjoyable overall experience. Plus I like taking a breather to let someone else step up and take on some shine time. Games where my character is always good at every situation reduces my pleasure because it gets dull.

In any edition, no character is "good in every situation", including 4E. What 4E set out to do was give you something to actually do in most situations. Maybe your only social skill is insight. Whomever still has their spotlight mojo working still has it, it's just that you're the one watching the count/crowd/whatever to try and discern what may help them or how their efforts are being received. They're still in full chutzpah mode.

Characters also shine organically because the system is well balanced, decreasing the need for the DM to artificially balance things. Some times the controller hoses an enemy, sometimes a defender locks them down and pulls them off a squishy, sometimes the striker lays down a crit of doom and sometimes the leader sets everyone up for a round of glory or bails everyone's bloodied butt out of the fire. Sometimes the Bard will have to shmooze the party out of trouble, sometimes he'll botch it and the group will have to try and recover. Sometimes there will be an answer in the bell tower and and the Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian or Warlord will have to climb up the old-fashioned way while Mr. Squishy plays lookout down below. Etc.

Characters even in 4E are more or less effective all the time, rogues are just not generally reminded that fist can be a verb whenever they face certain entire types of enemies and they and fighters aren't required to play with the safety scissors while the spellcasters get to alter reality.

billd91 · Jul 7, 2012

Obryn said:
I think it's fair to acknowledge that "4e/3e/1e is not an RPG" is a different kind of statement than "I don't like 4e/3e/1e." It's way different from, "I don't like this rule or assumption of 4e/3e/1e." This goes alongside the old 2008/2009 favorite "4e/Pathfinder is not D&D."

I think we're all here to criticize the games we play and build a better 5e for it. This sort of edition war nonsense goes nowhere towards doing that. If you find 4e to be a "miniature skirmish game" and not an "RPG" figure out why you think that, make some real criticisms with substance, and let's go to town.

-O

The difference between "4e is a glorified skirmish game" and "I think 4e is a glorified skirmish game" is mainly semantic. The latter makes explicit what the first assumes - that this is a person's judgment. And yes, as others have alluded, we've been over this territory again and again and again on these boards.

billd91 · Jul 7, 2012

pemerton said:
But there are no action resolution rules for diplomacy.

Page 9 of the DM's Guidelines offers some pointers. Works for me. They're sketchy, but so are the rest of the play test materials.

billd91 · Jul 7, 2012

Herschel said:
In any edition, no character is "good in every situation", including 4E.

<snip>

Characters even in 4E are more or less effective all the time,...

That may be true as long as your definition of "good in every situation" does not equal "more or less effective all the time." But if they're close enough as definitions, and I can see how that may be the case, then I think your argument against Bedrockgames is pretty weak.

Herschel said:
... and fighters aren't required to play with the safety scissors while the spellcasters get to alter reality.

Now, I'm going to be charitable here and put in the assumed "I think" before that statement rather than put you in the doghouse for making statements equivalent to "4e is not a role playing game." I'd like to think we can agree to do that before the pedantic wars start up next.

Obryn · Jul 7, 2012

billd91 said:
The difference between "4e is a glorified skirmish game" and "I think 4e is a glorified skirmish game" is mainly semantic.

I agree. And neither are productive. This isn't a matter of adding "I think" to it.

-O

billd91 · Jul 7, 2012

Obryn said:
I agree. And neither are productive. This isn't a matter of adding "I think" to it.

-O

For this thread's topic, getting 4e fans to consider 5e, you may be right. I touched on it mainly as an example of a critique of 4e that shouldn't be taken personally since it's directed at the game, not the people who play it.

Had this thread been about getting 4e critics to come back to D&D, then I think discussing the statement would be pretty relevant. It's probably the most common criticism leveled at 4e by players that have not adopted it that I hear in face to face conversations or read about well away from the message boards.