Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?

[Umbran]

You have left critically important parts of the conversation out.

BryonD, look at your sig for a moment. Specifically:

"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me

Given that you have chosen to say that every time you post, I think you'll have to do a bit more than claim lack of context to get folks to believe that it isn't a fair representation of your position.

I am not a big 4e fan. It has its strengths and weaknesses, like all systems. But I don't see it as teeball, nor lacking in intelligent conversation.

 

[Barastrondo]

Based on what I saw in the previews (since I haven't actually played or DMed 4E), I do not think 4E is a beginners/training game at all.

In fact, I doubt you could ever call 800+ pages of core rules (PHB1/DMG1/MM1) a "training" game.

Nope. There is a certain simplicity and elegance to the play, and obviously it winds up streamlining some things, but it's not really as though "making it easier to run" and "aiming it at new roleplayers" are the same thing. Games that are easier to run also have a target audience in veteran roleplayers who just can't or won't sink as much time into gaming as they used to back in college or whenever.

That isn't to say that everyone who doesn't have as much time as they used to will prefer a simpler and more streamlined ruleset, of course. But it's a selling point, and I've seen many examples of how it's gotten that purchase among people who don't have a lot of time and don't notably prefer a more elaborate ruleset.

 

[jdrakeh]

I do not play D&D 4e (nor do I care to), but I do not consider it the "tee ball" of D&D. I do think that it is easier to comprehend than many other editions of the game, though I think that comes from being better organized and more clearly written than those other editions, not from some kind of dumbing down as the quoted poster seems to suggest. In fact, D&D 4e is complex enough that I would not recommend D&D 4e to a complete hobby newcomer as their first RPG.

 

[Mallus]

A D&D campaign is only as intelligent or complex as the people playing it, regardless of the rule set used.

Which is why my 4e campaign is a heartbreaking work of staggering genius .

(T-ball, really? That was inane last year when it first got trotted it. Age hasn't improved it)

 

[Rechan]

A D&D campaign is only as intelligent or complex as the people playing it, regardless of the rule set used.

Yeah, I don't make insinuations about the intelligence of a person based on their system of choice.

Maybe about their level of masochism, but not intelligence.

It's like making perseonality judgments based on sports team preference.

 

[RefinedBean]

Yeah, I don't make insinuations about the intelligence of a person based on their system of choice.

Not even if the system is FATAL?

 

[Wik]

It's like making perseonality judgments based on sports team preference.

Wait, that's..... wrong?

Leave it to a Rangers fan to say something as silly as that.

 

[Rel]

I'll go with a different analogy (it may suck -- I thought of it just now).

I feel like 4e is a pocket knife, compared to 3.x's Swiss Army Knife.

No, it doesn't have tweezers, a corkscrew and a magnifying glass. But I don't really need those tools most of the time anyway. I find 4e more streamlined and better at being a knife than 3.x.

If others value versatility more then I'm glad they have a better tool. But for me, right now, I just need a good knife.

 

[billd91]

I think a lot more people should go back to the originally linked thread to really get what BryonD was saying.

I wouldn't refer to it as T-ball, but I think there is a difference between 4e and a game like Hero, GURPS, or even 3e that make it a safer ride but at a cost to certain kinds of performance.

 

[AllisterH]

My complaint was that I always found the RULES adequateto wonderful in previous DMGs but the 4e DMG1 (and now the added support in DMG2 and DDI) went beyond THE RULES.

It actually talked about the nitty gritty details in actually RUNNING the game. All the things that it seemed like you were supposed to get by osmosis.

For an experienced DM, you want more crunchy heavy rules on how to kitbash the mechanics, but I actually think this is the LEAST important part of being a DM.

The most important part IMO of course, is being able to make the RPG fun for both you and the players so that they will come back. Something that gets ignored for example is the "types of players" and what they are looking for and how to deal with them...even if it's just simple sitting arrangement.

ALL of this, is what I think D&D truly needs to grow. It needs DMs not players so much (even during the dark days of latter 2e when it seemed like TSR would fold, FINDING a player was never a problem for me. Finding a guy (or gal) who wanted to DM?

That's where I've aways thought D&D has done poorly.