D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?

[Tony Vargas]

How many times did I say that all of the downsides are things that are actually features/strengths that I simply am not enjoying any more? Or that doesn't produce the play experience that I want?

Let me know if you have anything to discuss about what I'm actually saying.

There really isn't much to discuss. You find good, functional rules not to your taste. You like bad rules, instead. That's a personal preference. It's not even a hard to understand one. I feel the same way about the 1st ed of Gamma Word - it's a terrible game, mechanically/objectively - but, in large part because I played it when I was a kid, I find it's flaws positively charming, now.

But, I don't insist that the latest ed of Gamma World be as deeply and pervasively flawed as the classic that I enjoy.

4e made some innovative improvements to D&D, and, while it lost less of the classic D&D feel than I would have expected, it lost some, and there's nothing wrong with playing the classic game to get that classic feel. There /is/ something wrong with wanting the modern game to adopt the flaws of the classic, though. We already have the old game, flawed in it's familiar ways, we don't need a copy of it with a more recent copyright date.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

There really isn't much to discuss. You find good, functional rules not to your taste. You like bad rules, instead. That's a personal preference. It's not even a hard to understand one. I feel the same way about the 1st ed of Gamma Word - it's a terrible game, mechanically/objectively - but, in large part because I played it when I was a kid, I find it's flaws positively charming, now.

But, I don't insist that the latest ed of Gamma World be as deeply and pervasively flawed as the classic that I enjoy.

4e made some innovative improvements to D&D, and, while it lost less of the classic D&D feel than I would have expected, it lost some, and there's nothing wrong with playing the classic game to get that classic feel. There /is/ something wrong with wanting the modern game to adopt the flaws of the classic, though. We already have the old game, flawed in it's familiar ways, we don't need a copy of it with a more recent copyright date.

It's got nothing to do with bad rules good rules. Some people prefer the rules of football and some people prefer the rules of baseball. To some people, football is boring while baseball is exciting.

I don't think you quite understand what NNMS is fully saying. 4th edition rules are what they are, nothing more and nothing less. Being good rules or bad rules are down to personal opinion and not a fact. The way the current rules are does not appeal to him and he wishes for something different. If he likes the old rules then he probably likes the old rules that actually worked and not the parts that didn't. There is nothing wrong with people wanting the old rules, but having them redone to fix what was wrong and still give the same play experience that the old editions gave us minus the problems.

4th edition has nothing to actually compare it to in order to deem it better rules or not. 4th edition rules appeal to some while other RPG's appeal to others. All editions and other RPG all have their flaws as well as 4th edition. 4th edition has a lot of flaws in and of itself. You can't say well 4th edition has this and does it better than 3rd edition because the systems are both totally different. Now you could compare Pathfinder to 3rd edition but each system has it's own unique set of perks and it's own set of flaws.

 

[pemerton]

It's got nothing to do with bad rules good rules.

<snip>

4th edition rules are what they are, nothing more and nothing less. Being good rules or bad rules are down to personal opinion and not a fact.

The implication of this is that there is no such thing as better or worse design.

I don't agree with that. Relative to a given purpose, or range of purposes, RPG rules can, in my view, be better or worse designed. A very simple example: if the game is clearly intended to make both rapier fighters and knight-in-shining-armour fighters viable, but makes one of those builds considerably more combat effective than another for a given budget of character build resources, then the design is flawed.

 

[billd91]

The implication of this is that there is no such thing as better or worse design.

I don't agree with that. Relative to a given purpose, or range of purposes, RPG rules can, in my view, be better or worse designed. A very simple example: if the game is clearly intended to make both rapier fighters and knight-in-shining-armour fighters viable, but makes one of those builds considerably more combat effective than another for a given budget of character build resources, then the design is flawed.

Unless that game is trying to make them viable, in general, though not necessarily viable against each other. The fact that one may be stronger in combat really doesn't say much about the viability of the other.

 

[pemerton]

Unless that game is trying to make them viable, in general, though not necessarily viable against each other. The fact that one may be stronger in combat really doesn't say much about the viability of the other.

I don't think that anything I said presupposes player-vs-player.

But you're right that I had in mind viability in combat - that's why I talked about these hypothetical PCs as fighters.

Of course, viability can be context-sensitive. For example, if part of what a rapier-wielder gets is better athletics and acrobatics, then encounter design - more chandeliers, less charging down the lists - can change the balance between the two builds. In my view, good rules would mention this, and would give the GM advice on how to approach encounter building depending on the sorts of PC builds s/he is hoping to facilitate. (Which is to say - tranparency of encounter design is another area in which, in my view, rules can be better or worse designed.)

Similar points would apply to an attempt to generalise the balance of a build across non-combat activities. It's a weakness of Rolemaster, for example, that it permits PCs to be built who have comparatively little combat utility, but that it has an XP system which makes it much easier to earn XP from combat than from non-combat actions. A related weakness of Rolemaster is that its character build rules emphasise the uniqueness of each PC, requiring time and effort to be lovingly applied to get the PC just right, but its combat rules - especially at low levels - are almost guaranteed (without modification) to produce a high attrition rate on those PCs, rendering them in effect meaningless entries in a ledger of the dead and maimed.

That's not to say that Rolemaster doesn't have many interesting and attractive features as a game. But it is to point out that it can be criticised in a way that goes beyond just expressing or rejecting a preference for purist-for-system simulationist RPGing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I It's a weakness of Rolemaster, for example, that it permits PCs to be built who have comparatively little combat utility, but that it has an XP system which makes it much easier to earn XP from combat than from non-combat actions. A related weakness of Rolemaster is that its character build rules emphasise the uniqueness of each PC, requiring time and effort to be lovingly applied to get the PC just right, but its combat rules - especially at low levels - are almost guaranteed (without modification) to produce a high attrition rate on those PCs, rendering them in effect meaningless entries in a ledger of the dead and maimed.

Um... I don't think that the first is a weakness at all when combined with the second. You gain much more XP from combat than non-combat. But given the attrition rate of low level rolemaster combat, you really ought to. And you still ought to avoid combat where possible if a fighter. Slow XP with a good chance of surviving beats fast XP and into the grave. (The second absolutely is a weakness).

And this only reinforces your core point. That it's possible to discuss the detail of the strengths and weaknesses of a system and have differing opinions on what they are.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's got nothing to do with bad rules good rules. Some people prefer the rules of football and some people prefer the rules of baseball. To some people, football is boring while baseball is exciting.

Comparing 4e to other eds of the game is not like comparing baseball and football. It's like comparing modern American football to football as it was played in America before the forward pass.

Rules can be good or bad and can be judged as such. There are both qualitative and quantitative assessments to be made, and both objective observations and subjective impressions that might go into that judgement, of course.

Being good rules or bad rules are down to personal opinion and not a fact.

Whethere you like a rule set is opinion. Whether a rule set fails to function in areas it was intended to cover is not. Prior eds of D&D broke down over much wider ranges of use than 4e does. 4e is a better rule set by that criterion, among others.

That a game has well-designed, functional rules doesn't oblige anyone to like it, though.

The way the current rules are does not appeal to him and he wishes for something different. If he likes the old rules then he probably likes the old rules that actually worked and not the parts that didn't.

I rather doubt that. The functional aspects of, say, 3.0 or AD&D were mostly clustered in a level range - arguable, but maybe 3rd-12th or 4-7th - 4e expanded that range. If you liked AD&D when it was working, you'd probably like 4e, when it's working (which is most of the time). OTOH, if you enjoyed the spectacle of AD&D breaking down at higher levels, you'd be dissapointed by 4e, which may become a bit less functional at Epic, but not in nearly the same way AD&D or 3e used to.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting the old rules, but having them redone to fix what was wrong and still give the same play experience that the old editions gave us minus the problems.

Actually there is. It's self-contradictory. The play experience of an old ed is a combination of it's good points /and/ it's flaws. You 'fix' an old ed, you change it's feel. If you're out to find an old feel, you're looking to re-institute old problems.

4th edition has nothing to actually compare it to in order to deem it better rules or not.

Well, there is every other ed of D&D - and it does come out ahead by many a reasoned comparison.

You can't say well 4th edition has this and does it better than 3rd edition because the systems are both totally different.

Totally different? They aren't both medieval fantasy games? They don't both use a d20 vs a DC resolution mechanic? Classes? Hps? Races? Feats? Skills? Wizards who prepare spells? Cyclical innitiative with Delay and Ready actions? They don't both favor 'focus fire' as a tactic, or require a party to have some healing resources to succeed?

Actually they're quite similar, not least of all because they /are/ both D&D.