Byronic said:
As for the second part, I'm not saying that they have BadWrongFun. I'm saying that some simply don't have as much fun.
I don't see those statements as being all that different. The latter is just a slightly less judgmental rewording of the former.
I'm thinking you might have meant to say something else there that just didn't come across. Maybe you can clarify?
Byronic said:
Some people consider it the most fun if the game from one battle to another. Perhaps loosely connected with a story and a goal or two. 4.0 is perfect for these people. It's build for tactics, balanced fighting etc. If they made the renaissance character I mentioned earlier they would love the 4.0 version.
I don't think 3.0 is really any less geared towards tactics and balanced fighting. I don't think the primacy of combat in any version of D&D is really a debatable point.
But at least 4e gives us a solid mechanic for non-combat encounters. Previously, that wasn't even given the courtesy of an afterthought in D&D.
Byronic said:
Another extreme might be people who want to deal with other aspects of the world. Let's say the renaissance character managed to win a keep and wanted to deal with the administration, hold a ball and talk to some people about art and woo the girls there so he could marry her and add more land to his own (a more political social based game) then 3.x seems a lot better then 4.0.
Unsurprisingly, I tend to disagree. In 4e you can do an extended skill challenge which can take place episodically over a series of sessions or even adventures. The DM has the leeway to give out free successes for really good roleplaying.
The player is free to narrate his skill challenge and be creative with the next steps he or she wants to take. Even better, you get experience points for it. Rewards tied in that aren't handwavy.
Even better than better, it can be a part of a quest or an encounter and be balanced as such. Maybe you're sent as an envoy by the king to win over the warlords to the south. Complete the skill challenge? Boom, XP. Complete the Quest? Boom, more XP.
Now your Baron socialite can work his way up the Heroic tier on the strength of his words, not his blade. i'm not saying it couldn't happen in previous editions of D&D. But I am saying it wasn't a core rule.
Maybe a guideline at best.
As a further example, the 'renaissance man' can now have some super-duper utility in combat (outside of using a blade or quarrel). Now, the Baron can decipher Abyssal runes of the magically sealed door while the party fights off the beasties.
Not that it couldn't happen in previous editions. But never has it been so integrated with D&D's flagship of conflict resolution (combat) before.
Furthermore, in 4e, either situation (setting up the grand ball or deciphering the runes) is dynamic and has a system that provides tension and complexity.
In 3e, it's roll a skill, add your bonus, check the DC. You pass or you fail. Done. Anything else is pretty much just a house rule or a good DM being nice.
Granted, I can see some of your points about the changes in 4e -- the reduction of the skill list, the removal of the more background oriented skills. But the overall comparison between 4e and 3e I really don't follow.
4e is the first edition of D&D where skills really shine. From their humble beginnings as 'non-weapon proficiencies', they've finally emerged from the ghetto of the PHB into their own fully fledged mechanical representation.
From where I'm sitting, 4e was designed to support
exactly the type of contests you're talking about.
Now, if you're looking for a system that arguably does it better, then I could not disagree if you'd compared 4e to HeroQuest, Hero's Banner or (maybe) the new Song of Ice and Fire.
But 3e?