Forked Thread: Rate WotC as a company: 4e Complete?

[Fenes]

I'm going to stop you right there.

With all due respect, D&D is a combat engine.

That's why 95% of the rules revolve around combat, in every edition. That's why all the splatbooks are geared towards combat options. I do not believe there has ever been "1001 Outfits and Chamberpots to fill your castle" book.

D&D came out of chainmail, which was a wargame. It has, and unfortunately, always will be shootin' fireballs at orcs.

Regardless of how you play it, this is how it is treated by, I feel, the vast majority. People can put as much fancy decoration as they want, but the system's function is to facilitate combat.

WotC designed 4e by using market research, and gaming data. They did a lot of research on how people played the games. They designed 4e to cater to how people played D&D, rather than how "they should" or "they might". It's practical application of "What do most people do when they sit down in front of their character sheet across from the DM screen".

In my opinion, your playstyle doesn't really have anything to do with what edition, or even what system you're playing, because what you seem to care about is the story and the interaction of Character to NPC. So I don't think you should be concerned with what's in the Core 4e book or not, because it's not going to really be catering to your tastes in a game.

Of course it matters what edition I play. I've been playing D&D since over 15 years. When 3E came out, I switched after reading the PHB for 30 minutes - it was simply so much better than 2E for my playstyle for all the options it offered, and the flexibility. With 4E, the reaction wasn't the same, it feels more limiting for my playstyle.

So, regardless of what the majority does - for me, 3E catered to my playstyle. So far, 4E does not. Maybe once it has a bit more options than the PHB, and might introduce (more) rules that deal with non-combat stuff, it might fit my playstyle.

Until then, 4E feels incomplete to me, since it offers less than what 3E does, and - and this is important - les sof what I want out of a game.

 

[Rechan]

Because for me, the game is more than "combat action". Pages dealing with differnt clothes, lots of gear, and monsters one would talk to more than fight them are not wasted for me. If judging by playtime, I spend a lot more time in out of combat scenes than in combat scenes.

Not wasteful to you but at the cost of being discarded by far more than those who would use it. As a company, WotC cannot try to please everyone's play style. They have to appeal to the most people they possibly can with their product. That includes how most of their customers use that product.

That's how a company runs a business. It would not have been as successful had it been Dialogue and Diplomacy.

For instance, the fact that the MM is bare bones with fluff has pleased a lot of people here (to my dismay). It was a conscious choice that was made to strip fluff from the books. Probably because of the market research WotC got back from DMs said "Hey we make up our own monster fluff", I don't know.

And generally, I consider playtime/spotlight time to be the baseline one balances classes and characters after, not killing power.

And "How much spotlight time" is not quantifiable in a game system, because that is entirely dependent on who is playing, their preferences and campaign. Your entire game could focus on Farmer Brown and his boys. Does that mean that we should have a fully balanced CropGrower class with several pages on how many rounds it takes to plow a field? Or Boyish Scamp and using the Mischief skill to construct a slingshot?

The type of specialization that you are talking about are why expansion books were Invented. There wasn't room for discussing boats and castles in the PHB, that's why they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide. For the weapons buff, there wasn't room to cover every historical weapon or geegaw imaginable, ergo the Arms and Equipment guide.

 

[Jhaelen]

Because for me, the game is more than "combat action". Pages dealing with differnt clothes, lots of gear, and monsters one would talk to more than fight them are not wasted for me. If judging by playtime, I spend a lot more time in out of combat scenes than in combat scenes.

Of course it matters what edition I play. I've been playing D&D since over 15 years. When 3E came out, I switched after reading the PHB for 30 minutes - it was simply so much better than 2E for my playstyle for all the options it offered, and the flexibility. With 4E, the reaction wasn't the same, it feels more limiting for my playstyle.

I'll have to admit I have trouble reconciling these two statements. I've always felt that 3E was a bit lacking in the fluff department which is why I went back to look at my 2E collection to get more background information.

What is your playstyle exactly? What was it that made 3E perfect for it while 2E and 4E aren't?

 

[Fenes]

I'll have to admit I have trouble reconciling these two statements. I've always felt that 3E was a bit lacking in the fluff department which is why I went back to look at my 2E collection to get more background information.

What is your playstyle exactly? What was it that made 3E perfect for it while 2E and 4E aren't?

We're roleplay focused. 3E offered much better multiclassing, prestige classes to flesh out concepts and backgrounds, various skill points, a robust skill system compared to 2E, more classes, more customising options with feats, and a streamlined rules system (d20, roll high).

2E in comparision offered mostly kits, and not much flexibility. Fluff works for both anyway - I tend to tailor fluff to my campaign from various sources - but the 3E feels like the mechanics fit the fluff better.

4E in comparision feels limited. They cut down so many skills, especially perform. it also feels pigeonholing with regards to classes, and focused on rigid roles, and tactical combat - and draws those out.

That may change with time, but at the moment, 4E simply is not offering enough. If it was food, then 4E would be a possibly very good meal, planned by an expert system, with perfectly balanced main and side dish, and the right mix of carbs, protein and fiber.
3E is a buffet stocked with food from all over the world (3PP). Sure, some combinations might not be tasty, and even unhealthy, but it has variety in spades, and if one meal doesn't taste right to someone, he might find something more to his taste (like Iron Heroes, Conan, or some optional adds to 3E).

I'd rather pick and choose for myself than eat what's on the table, day in and out.

 

[wayne62682]

My opinion is simple. If you were running a 3rd edition game with just the core books and then decided to switch to 4th edition, the new game isn't complete if you can't accommodate all of the characters in the campaign. If you happened to be running a half orc barbarian or a gnome bard, I guess you're out of luck.

This is half nonsense to any decent group. The Gnome is still there, just in a different book. The Bard I admit would be a little difficult to make in 4E as it stands, although you could probably make a reasonable one with a Rogue/Wizard multiclass wit a lot of flavor reworking (musical instrument as Implement?). Half-Orc barbarian could be done with rules for an Orc Fighter. Rage is largely superfluous and could be flavor only (you'd obviously be taking the more heavy-hitting Fighter powers, so just say that you froth at the mouth and howl during those attacks), or if you really wanted to the DM could create some kind of ability to sub in.

Of course there's the whole "Oh that means it's broken, because it requires DM Fiat" argument (which is, again, nonsense) but it *could* be done. It wouldn't be a total crossover, but I don't see how anything from 3E could be 100% transated to 4E just because the dynamics totally changed (for the better, I might add).

Saying "I can't play my Half-Orc Barbarian anymore thanks to 4E" is one thing. Saying "I can't play my Half-Orc Barbarian because of 4E, and me and my group are unwilling to work out a temporary solution for me" is totally different.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That may change with time, but at the moment, 4E simply is not offering enough. If it was food, then 4E would be a possibly very good meal, planned by an expert system, with perfectly balanced main and side dish, and the right mix of carbs, protein and fiber.
3E is a buffet stocked with food from all over the world (3PP). Sure, some combinations might not be tasty, and even unhealthy, but it has variety in spades, and if one meal doesn't taste right to someone, he might find something more to his taste (like Iron Heroes, Conan, or some optional adds to 3E).

In hongs day and age, generic food metaphors used ice cream and peanut butter, and they liked it!

Your analogy is nice, but the original topic is not whether 3E offers you more at the moment, but whether 4E is complete as a game. (And Conan and Iron heroes cannot really count as "3E". If they can, then 4E could count as 3E, too! You're leaving the realm of 3E and entering the land of the d20 System.)

The meal you describe is pretty much complete. The buffet is nice, but - after all, I can only eat one meal at a time...

 

[Fenes]

In hongs day and age, generic food metaphors used ice cream and peanut butter, and they liked it!

Your analogy is nice, but the original topic is not whether 3E offers you more at the moment, but whether 4E is complete as a game. (And Conan and Iron heroes cannot really count as "3E". If they can, then 4E could count as 3E, too! You're leaving the realm of 3E and entering the land of the d20 System.)

The meal you describe is pretty much complete. The buffet is nice, but - after all, I can only eat one meal at a time...

But a game I don't want to play for lack of options is not complete for me.

Also, d20 is 3E. Most of the sourcebooks can be easily used.

 

[Fenes]

This is half nonsense to any decent group. The Gnome is still there, just in a different book. The Bard I admit would be a little difficult to make in 4E as it stands, although you could probably make a reasonable one with a Rogue/Wizard multiclass wit a lot of flavor reworking (musical instrument as Implement?). Half-Orc barbarian could be done with rules for an Orc Fighter. Rage is largely superfluous and could be flavor only (you'd obviously be taking the more heavy-hitting Fighter powers, so just say that you froth at the mouth and howl during those attacks), or if you really wanted to the DM could create some kind of ability to sub in.

Of course there's the whole "Oh that means it's broken, because it requires DM Fiat" argument (which is, again, nonsense) but it *could* be done. It wouldn't be a total crossover, but I don't see how anything from 3E could be 100% transated to 4E just because the dynamics totally changed (for the better, I might add).

Saying "I can't play my Half-Orc Barbarian anymore thanks to 4E" is one thing. Saying "I can't play my Half-Orc Barbarian because of 4E, and me and my group are unwilling to work out a temporary solution for me" is totally different.

Saying "3E is not working since my group and me are unwilling to house rule it so it works better" is not different though. It's not that difficult to implement many of 4E's tricks into 3E (Minions, Skill challenges). And the dynamics changed a lot with ToB already.

 

[wayne62682]

Right. Besides, would anyone really shift mid-campaign from 3.5 to 4E, knowing full well that things aren't compatible? That whole argument seems like its bollocks due to that very reason. Wouldn't anyone with some sense finish out the 3.5 campaign and then start a new one with 4E? Then there's nothing to complain about:

Player: I want a gnome bard for this campaign!
DM: Gnome is okay since it's in the Monster Manual, but Bard isn't around yet. It'll probably be released in a future book. You'll have to play something else.
Player: Hmm... okay let me read up on some things...

IMO if the player throws a hissy fit over not being able to play something, then either they're narrow minded and only play one thing, or they're just being a jerk and trying to come up with any and all excuses to show how 4E is badwrongfun.

 

[Fenes]

Right. Besides, would anyone really shift mid-campaign from 3.5 to 4E, knowing full well that things aren't compatible? That whole argument seems like its bollocks due to that very reason. Wouldn't anyone with some sense finish out the 3.5 campaign and then start a new one with 4E? Then there's nothing to complain about:

Wouldn't anyone with some sense not change the system when the game is working for them?

Even if I had a campaign ending right now, I'd not be starting a 4E campaign because it simply doesn't offer me what I am looking for in a D&D game. That may change, but so far, it's lacking a lot of options. And why should I spend time and energy on recreating those options when I could spend that time on working on a campaign instead?