D&D 4E Where the break between pro and anti 4e is

With all this talk about grognards, I realized that those who didn't like 4e had a list of objections to what they have seen. No grognard has all the points on this list, and depending on the edition they prefer, often disagree with each other. The points seem to be summarized as follows:

• 
  [1]The reorganization of the planes and monsters is too much of a departure from D&D's established continuity (and/or my personal campaign setting).
  [2]Dragonborn & Tieflings are not traditional races, and are too monstrous to integrate with other races believably.
  [3]I will not get to play the race/class combinations that I have been traditionally allowed to play in prior editions.
  
  [4]D&D has embraced wargaming elements too much, making it a tactical wargame instead of a roleplaying game.
  [5]Giving martial characters superhuman ability is too cinematic/cartoonish, making the traditional setting of the medieval world with magic and monsters "less gritty" where ordinary people confront supernatural menaces.
  
  [6]Healing Surges and the loss of Vancian magic takes away resource management aspect of the game, and may make characters invincible. (Unless of course you fight in several encounters in a row. Instead of calling it the end of the 15 minute workday, they should have called it the end of the 4 easy challenges and 1 difficult challenge workday.)
  [7]Using healing surges to recover from wounds may be a good way to simulate an action hero shrugging off broken ribs or deep cuts, but I want a serious wound to cripple or kill my characters.
  [8]1st level characters can't be killed with one blow anymore
  [9]There are too many abilities granted to 1st level characters, which means that 1st level heroes are professionals instead of apprentices.

The most common complaints that keep coming up are the first five in the list. Number #4 & #5 seem to be the complaints that cause the visceral "It is not D&D anymore!" to be spoken among people who prefer to stay with 3rd edition. Healing surges (point #7) and every point that comes after it, seems to be an extension of point #5. I think whenever people were saying it is too "anime" or too "WoW" or whatever, I think that's what they were getting at.

Now, to the pro-4e people, characters were always a little bit superhuman even if they weren't wizards. Even though you just rolled for attack, when you fought a giant or a dragon you didn't stab him in the ankle. You jumped, leaped, deflected and found the vulnerable spot to stab him greviously. HP's weren't just a sense of how far away you were from that fatal sword thrust, but a gritty mix of losing luck and proliferating flesh wounds. If the DM declares that someone got you in the shoulder with a pilum and did 10 points of damage (out of a total of twenty) you didn't act as if you were severely wounded, you pulled that barbed, bent sucker out and killed three more hobgoblins.

I don't think the line is that distinct. I think if that many of of the people who choose to stick with 3e D&D will not be stabbing the giant in the ankle. I don't think they will say that their characters are never wounded seriously except when they lose their last hit points. The name of the spell cure serious wounds is pretty hard to ignore. However, I think the idea of an everyman facing a world of supernatural peril is a compelling one. I don't think that any edition really did that really well (certainly not in higher levels), and I don't think this really happened in anyone's home game... but I'll concede the point that with 4e that ideal is just a little more distant.

I've been fairly vocal about supporting 4e, but I found it helpful to take a step back and look at what people on the other side were articulating. Now I'm posting it to the message board to see if I'm as insightful as I think I am.

As far as I have seen, this appears to be very acurate, and I have been lurking way too much considering I have finals going on.

I don't think I've seen anyone say healing surges reduce resource management, in fact they're one of the few daily resources left. People were complaining about per encounter/at will healing removing resource management before they know how it works, but I don't think anybody's complained about healing because of that since we've seen how it works. (although people have complained that it breaks their WSoD.)

There's also been a bunch of people put off by int to AC/ref.

A few people have been complaining about the wizard getting nerfed, saying that means 4e can no longer simulate fiction.

One serious source of contention that I don't see listed here is the amount of player and character separation. Rules elements like Daily and Encounter Powers for martial characters, Action Points, the new Skill Challenges rules that involve a measure of stake setting, Death and Dying rules that reinforce PC protagonism, and the further abstraction of hit points are all potentially jarring because they involve players interfacing with the rules in ways that do not directly represent their characters' interactions with the game world. Using game rules as narrative devices in this manner seems wrong on a fundamental level to players and GMs who value immersion more than game play or narrative elements.

You forgot the 1-1-1 diagonal thing, which might be a subpoint of 4.

And thing where dragonborn boobs makes it difficult to take them seriously.

Both of these generated huge threads.

Before this becomes a list of every complaint talked about, I realize the list is general and not exhaustive. I was writing up that list ie. "rings aren't available before 10th level", when I realized it was beside the point. There has been complaints over every single piece of information that has come out about 4e. However, I was trying to group them into themes, and to make it the thing which makes people viscerally react "D&D 4e is not really D&D" rather than simply something they might house rule.

Campbell> A lot of what you are saying is an extension of the criticism that D&D is moving back to its roots as a wargame, but I'm not sure I understand the rest. Is this the idea that D&D rules should be the physics of the game world, rather than rules for making your PC's kick ass that are different than the rules for monsters or lesser mortals? I might add that one, because it does qualify for the ("and that's why 4e is not D&D clause".) Of course, unlike most of the points I listed above, I don't the criticism at all seriously. Like the healing surges making character's invincible, I would have to footnote it.

Duncan McCrae> I doubt if the people complaining that the wizard is now not the most powerful class in the game were ever 4e's customers. That was supposed to have been resolved in 3.0, and if you didn't like it then you probably stuck with 1st or 2nd edition. There were a few converts from 1e to 3e, but I doubt if 4e (or any edition) is going to win the remaining holdouts.

Campbell said:

One serious source of contention that I don't see listed here is the amount of player and character separation. Rules elements like Daily and Encounter Powers for martial characters, Action Points, the new Skill Challenges rules that involve a measure of stake setting, Death and Dying rules that reinforce PC protagonism, and the further abstraction of hit points are all potentially jarring because they involve players interfacing with the rules in ways that do not directly represent their characters' interactions with the game world. Using game rules as narrative devices in this manner seems wrong on a fundamental level to players and GMs who value immersion more than game play or narrative elements.

Click to expand...

wow. I wouldn't have thought you of all people, would define my main concern so accurately

I think you're over thinking it a bit with your list- its largely a matter of taste, not really a checklist. Different people want different things.

lutecius said:

wow. I wouldn't have thought you of all people, would define my main concern so accurately

Click to expand...

I'm a fairly swell dude, most of the time. That being said, I'm not entirely sure why it should be so surprising. Your main source of contention is also my ray of hope. It all comes down to our play agendas being diametrically opposed. I want a game system that hands more authorial power to the players and provides satisfying tactical game play. The strong emphasis that you place on immersion usually comes at the cost of my play priorities. It is virtually impossible to create a game that adequately performs the jobs that both of us need a game to perform.

I understand that the changes they are making will have a detrimental impact for folks with your play priorities. I advocate these changes only because I'm a selfish git who wants to see a game that gels with my own tastes.