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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.