4E Poorly Rated on Amazon...

[MRTrice]

Just a note

A small point in the edition war going on between hong and rousner, but 4E's writing ( not the rules per se) draws a compromise for you two. While 4E offers clean rules on stats, it also suggests that changing flavor on power and monster descriptions is a great way to keep players on their toes.

So it does seem the writers favor the idea of a player not knowing what a strange monster is. This seems to transcend edition, and isn't so insipid at all.

4E also makes it quite easy to assign new powers to a monster (even a human 'monster') with little external explanation. It may be cheap mystery for some, but it's mechanically well-supported cheap mystery--and that's across all editions.

While "I" think 4E can be a bit more narrow a game (for good and bad), it does still rely upon a number of the same tricks D&D has always has. No reason to fight that front.

 

[rounser]

Of course, you are not "first discovering" D&D anymore. Constantly wanting to do the same thing you did on "first discovering" D&D is indeed rather shallow and insipid.

But I don't want to do that. I simply recognise that doing so, or supporting that, isn't shallow and insipid. Now we've abandoned the straw man we're attempting to play the man, not the ball, are we?

"Prevent"?

Absolutely. In order to prevent the shallowness and insipidness from infecting the games of those poor DMs and players out there having their badwrongfun unknowingly, of course.

While we're going off on tangents which are almost but not quite totally unrelated to the issue at hand, I like peanut butter.

Badwrongfun is exactly what you're talking about.

Campaign secrets are "rules" now?

Anything with rules attached can't possibly be kept secret? Hmm. Better throw out all campaign secrets involving magic items, pronto.

No, it's shallow and insipid, like opening the same wrapped present that you opened 20 years ago, and 19 years ago, and 18 years ago, and in fact every year up to the current date.

Again, attacking me because you don't make sense. Where did I say I want to relive the past? Nice try buster, just like everyone else I've got all the monsters and magic items in my head, I just don't agree that it's insipid and shallow to keep the existence of magic items a secret, at least at first. All I'm saying is that you're wrong about your badwrongfun statement, but I doubt you'll recant.

Anyway, I'm off for now, so no replies from me for a while.

 

[hong]

But I don't want to do that. I simply recognise that doing so, or supporting that, isn't shallow and insipid. Now we've abandoned the straw man we're attempting to play the man, not the ball, are we?

Of course you want to do that. There is no other reason for hiding stuff you already know about.

Absolutely. In order to prevent the shallowness and insipidness from infecting the games of those poor DMs and players out there having their badwrongfun unknowingly, of course.

I was not aware that my 100-foot Internet arms allowed me to reach across the expanses of space and time to take the books away from you (not that you should mind, since you are basically saying that you don't want to know what's in them). Clearly being WotC's bitch has empowered me in ways of which I was not previously aware.

Badwrongfun is exactly what you're talking about.

Or something. I also like ice cream.

Better throw out all campaign secrets involving magic items, pronto.

A campaign secret involving backstory, motivations and plot development does not, indeed, having anything to do with rules. Said secrets also are not shallow and insipid, as opposed to trying to keep the rules secret. Is this clear?

Again, attacking me because you don't make sense. Where did I say I want to relive the past?

Where you made reference to the

delight I experienced when first discovering D&D​

of course.

Nice try buster, just like everyone else I've got all the monsters and magic items in my head, I just don't agree that it's insipid and shallow to keep the existence of magic items a secret, at least at first.

You can always pretend it's a secret. Just like you're pretending to be an elf.

 

[AllisterH]

re: Magic items

As long as the PCs can create magic items, I'm not sure the rules should be mysterious.

Technically, 1E/2E allowed for magic item creation but it was so DM dependant (anyone remember the philter of love example from PO:S&M?) that it made sense to keep magic items in the DMG. Really, in 1e/2e, magic items deserve to be in the DMG.

In 3e/4e where magic items can be created by the PCs as a DEFAULT condition and PCs can sell and buy them? Nope, I got to agree with others that not only should the magic item creation rules be explicit but also that it be in the PHB.

 

[rounser]

Where you made reference to the

delight I experienced when first discovering D&D


of course.

I did not say I wanted to relive it.

That's just you with the wishful thinking again, because you want to attack me because you're wrong, and want to distract people from that fact.

Anyway, did I say no more replies from me? Yes, I did, and broke my own rule. I'm out of here.

 

[Jhaelen]

Paranoia hides rules because it's funny when the PCs don't know what's going on.

You keep mentioning Paranoia.
I don't think it's a good idea to compare it to D&D.

In my experience Paranoia is a game for one-offs. It's fun to play a game once in a while, like once a year, maybe.

D&D is about playing campaigns. Sometimes lasting several years or even a lifetime. Completely different goals.

Hiding game rules from the players will only result in one thing: Frustration.

If the players are not able to make informed decisions when creating/advancing their characters because they're not given all the facts, everything will feel completely arbitrary to them and they'll look elsewhere for a good game.


Following your reasoning, the power descriptions should also be in the DMG. Because where's the mystery and fun in discovering new abilities, if they're all spelled out in the PHB?

Basically, the conclusion would be that the PHB shouldn't include anything at all but fluff. Maximum Mystery = Maximum Fun, right?

 

[Tervin]

As for people complaining that players get too much info in the PH, and not enough is a mystery... I have run into groups playing AD&D 1E and 2E where the players aren't allowed to look at any rule books at all - including the PH. They tell the DM what kind of character they want, get a few choices and then in the end have a character sheet, and perhaps some spell s with descriptions.

4E can be played like that too. It is not for me, but if people want that kind of game it is not a problem. Thinking about it, using Power Cards and a decent character sheet (like the Excel sheet talked about in the fan page here) this edition is the best D&D version yet for playing like that.

What I want to say with this example is that a good game can be played in many different ways, no matter in which books things are printed. IMC magic items in the PH are simply the well known items that people will be able to figure out without Arcana checks or research. Other items have all the mystery that DM wants them to have.

 

[rounser]

Following your reasoning, the power descriptions should also be in the DMG. Because where's the mystery and fun in discovering new abilities, if they're all spelled out in the PHB?

Reductio ad absurdum. Try again.

As for people complaining that players get too much info in the PH, and not enough is a mystery... I have run into groups playing AD&D 1E and 2E where the players aren't allowed to look at any rule books at all - including the PH.

Look, what's with the counterattack, 4E fans? I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying that the converse isn't badwrongfun. Stretch too far either way and you get trouble. Hong was saying that towards one extreme was the only way to go to avoid shallow and insipid DMing, and that's clearly not true. I disputed that, and now all these strawmen are being thrown my way.

 

[Tervin]

Look, what's with the counterattack, 4E fans? I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying that the converse isn't badwrongfun.

What's with the pricklyness? I didn't even "counterattack". And I don't divide people into who is a 4E fan or not. That just gets stupid.

I didn't suggest that you suggested what I wrote in my post. I even suggested that was a viable way of playing. All I did was say how I am going to use this, and sort of suggest that arranging things the new way doesn't really stop another way of playing.

 

[Derren]

Keeping the rules mysterious is the shallowest and most insipid form of mystery you can get.

Something one should remember when the next time the solution for a rule problem in 4E is DM Fiat, because what is DM Fiat if not another word for "The DM knows the rules and the players don't"?