D&D 4E In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective

Tony Vargas · Jun 15, 2019

Bobble said:
One cannot RP while playing Gauntlet

Well, you can, if you want to, it just doesn't have much impact.

But, it's funny you should mention Gauntlet: it's a fair analogy to how certain classes played in most editions of D&D: grind damage in melee, heal with found potions (food) or Clerical assistance, when briefly not in melee, grind out damage at range.

That's a fighter in TSR D&D, or a barbarian in 3e, or an Essentials Slayer or 5e Champion.

But it's not how any AEDU class played.

thanson02 · Jun 16, 2019

Bobble said:
Yes, the internal world logic is broken badly. See minions, powers, getting them back, et al. In a video game that doesn't matter because you are NOT RPing but you are straight jacketed into something limited by the S/W. One cannot RP while playing Gauntlet

4E was an attempt to make a P&P version of Gauntlet, as told to me by one of the 4E after release.

Well..........

1: There are a ton of people who have no issue role playing in 4E, so yeah.........

2: If you are looking at the rules as a form of physics, then it makes sense that there was confusion, since 4E saw the rules a medium to express plot points in a story. That is like expecting your English class to teach you Science. You might get some science in your English course, but not as much as you would if you actually took a science class. On the flip side, science textbooks are excessively boring versus English literature which, granted it depends on what your story is, is a far more enjoyable read.

Bobble · Jun 16, 2019

thanson02 said:
then it makes sense that there was confusion, since 4E saw the rules a medium to express plot points in a story.

Exactly. So many players and DMs got "confused" that it crashed the product line and sales. Like how New Coke "confused" its consumers. It takes rolling 1 multiple times in a row in marketing to screw up that badly.

Tony Vargas · Jun 16, 2019

thanson02 said:
If you are looking at the rules as a form of physics, then it makes sense that there was confusion,

No version of D&D has ever worked well as laws of physics - at best you end up with a setting Terry Pratchette might've come up with, at worst, you run a crap campaign, both is not out of the question.

But, 3e did come pretty close in a few areas, particularly character generation, which worked about the same for PCs, NPCs, & monsters. But, it wasn't trying to, rather it was leveling the roles of player & DM - which coincidentally, enabled comparatively 'fair' adversarial DMing & PvP modes of play - something 5e finally reversed.

Ironically, 4e didn't reverse that - even as it took PvP, at least 1:1 off the table -but did revert to rules modeling tropes of fiction instead of imaginary laws of physics. So there mightve been some whiplash, but, by itself, probably not enough to trigger the factions of the fan base that fought the edition war. If, for instance, 4e had kept 9 spell levels, and not given martial characters dailies, it might not have provoked such hostilities, no matter how dramatic the shift to the narrative side may have been in other ways.

thanson02 · Jun 16, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
But, 3e did come pretty close in a few areas, particularly character generation, which worked about the same for PCs, NPCs, & monsters. But, it wasn't trying to, rather it was leveling the roles of player & DM - which coincidentally, enabled comparatively 'fair' adversarial DMing & PvP modes of play - something 5e finally reversed.

Ironically, 4e didn't reverse that - even as it took PvP, at least 1:1 off the table -but did revert to rules modeling tropes of fiction instead of imaginary laws of physics.

That's what I really loved about 4E. They weren't trying to create a table top simulator. If your focus is on telling a story, the fictional tropes are a lot more effective in doing this, at least in my experience. The key is keeping it modular enough so you can modifier what you need to tell the stories you need to tell. And given how modular 4E is, I also think they did a good job in that area as well.

Garthanos · Jun 16, 2019

thanson02 said:
That's what I really loved about 4E. They weren't trying to create a table top simulator.

Runequest (Stormbringer) was how I figured out no D&D ever was trying for simulating anything but heroic fantasy RQ had vivid combat that made you involved in attacks and defenses the advancement system was very oriented, where any attack might kill or disable in a stroke but your character never felt heroic. Gygax made an argument against critical hits which explains it. He said that Conan would never fall to the random arrow from some schmuck ... now why not? It was because of story. Conan is also a picture perfect example of why minions work they definitely fit his story and Elrics story and many of the source material from early on.

All game systems simplify things but they also play to tropes.