Forked Thread: Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

[Felon]

Bua? How so?

Maybe because combat feels like mashing hotkeys in an MMO, with pre-programmed effects that reliably repeat themselves in every battle with little variation. Rinse-and-repeat.

Maybe because the game's economy of actions is designed for the player, not the character. Load a crossbow as a minior action? Sling a shiled as a minor action? Sure feels artificial designations based on the action's "worth" to the character, rather than an approximation of how much time the action should actually take.

I don't hate 4e by any stretch, but is combat way more "gamist" than "immersive"? Yep,

 

[Tewligan]

Then I'd have to ask... why aren't you *playing* your so-called "D&D"?

It's not "so-called" D&D. It really is D&D. You can tell because it says "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, see.

And if you can't find anyone else to play them with you... perhaps there's a good reason that. Maybe 1E or 2E really aren't that great of games after all. Looking back in nostalgia / rose-colored glasses and all that, as they say.

No, they're pretty great. My regular gaming group made up of both veteran gamers and rank newbies is having plenty of fun with 1e, and every time I run a 1e one-shot at the FLGS I have to turn players away once I reach the 8-player mark. That's not nostalgia, that's pure awesome!

 

[Irda Ranger]

It's not missing anything some splat can't fix. But it already has too much of other stuff.

Too much systemization. (Shift, Move, Push, Teleport, Slide, ...)
Too much dependence on grid location. (Boardgame)
Too many quasi-martial powers that can't really be explained martially. (Kewl Powerz)
Too much similarity between by character sheet and my M:tG deck.


These factors don't make the game a bad game, but the place barriers between me and PC/campaign/world immersion. They don't make roleplaying impossible, but they make it just hard enough.

 

[Irda Ranger]

every time I run a 1e one-shot at the FLGS I have to turn players away once I reach the 8-player mark. That's not nostalgia, that's pure awesome!

Hmmm. If my new signature block doesn't scare up some players (BLATANT PLUG - SEE MY NEW SIGNATURE BLOCK) I might have to try that.




Hey look. Sig block.

 

[Mercule]

economy of actions

Oh, how I've grown to hate that term -- simply because I hate the concept.

Economy of actions is preventing a decent summoner, a decent enchanter, and some good magic items on occasion.

I've started to accept that the "economy of actions" serves a narrative function for magic items -- at least in some ways. But I'm not sure how 4e will ever get a good summoner whilst constrained by their precious actions. Honestly, I've seen my 3e game slowed more by the ranger trying to decide whether to use Rapid Shot or Multi-shot or the wizard trying to figure out which spell to cast than by the summon-monkey druid moving himself, his companion, and his two summoned squids/eagles/elementals.

My first request for 5e is to please change the socialist economy of actions to a free market. Please. Please. Please. It's not that the current classes play poorly. It's that it constrains future development.

 

[The_Gneech]

Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

Well, it's missing gnome illusionists and half-orc monks for a start.

But I think one of the other current threads (I forget which one now, alas) is getting very close to it in regards to the lack of support for different playstyles. I see people on the boards here saying that 4E could easily support a low-magic game, or an all-warrior game, or what-have-you, but when I look at the books themselves it sure doesn't seem that way. Heck, the chapter on encounter design explicitly says to "magic it up" because that makes an exciting encounter.

Well, for those who like "magicked-up" encounters, no doubt it's true. On the other hand, for those (like me) who balk at things being turned up to 11, especially at 1st level, it's not just wrong but 180-degrees from what I want.

"So go play some other game!" always comes back the snarky reply. Well yeah, that's what I'm doing. So why do I care about the state of D&D? Because love it or hate it, D&D is the 900-lb. gorilla of the gaming world and depending on your circumstances may be the only thing going. In previous editions, there was enough support for my favored style of play that I could at least come close enough to what I wanted and enjoy myself, while the player across the table who wanted neon-lit wuxia could have his fun too.

Now, at least if you go by the books, anything that's not neon-lit wuxia need not apply.

That's what 4E is missing -- inclusiveness -- and I think that's why the people who dislike it are so vehement about it. Once upon a time, if you wanted to play something that wasn't already in the game, the philosophy was "Okay, we'll shoe-horn it in somehow!"

4E? "Don't want to play something from Column A or Column B? Then get the #&$@ out."

-The Gneech

 

[Remathilis]

Oh, how I've grown to hate that term -- simply because I hate the concept.

Economy of actions is preventing a decent summoner, a decent enchanter, and some good magic items on occasion.

I've started to accept that the "economy of actions" serves a narrative function for magic items -- at least in some ways. But I'm not sure how 4e will ever get a good summoner whilst constrained by their precious actions. Honestly, I've seen my 3e game slowed more by the ranger trying to decide whether to use Rapid Shot or Multi-shot or the wizard trying to figure out which spell to cast than by the summon-monkey druid moving himself, his companion, and his two summoned squids/eagles/elementals.

My first request for 5e is to please change the socialist economy of actions to a free market. Please. Please. Please. It's not that the current classes play poorly. It's that it constrains future development.

See, I saw a seven-attack ranger, and a summoner wizard (casting two spells + moving two creatures to full attack) both in action at the same time. My puny three attacks was nothing compared to the 5-10 minutes we spent on ginsu and the 20+ minutes it took our summoner/mage to adjuncate his entire turn.

Granted they were 20th level, but NO PC should command 20 minutes per turn playing 2-3 different characters at the same time.

 

[jdrakeh]

It's not "so-called" D&D. It really is D&D. You can tell because it says "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, see.

If only the people squealing that 4e isn't D&D could remember this

 

[crazy_cat]

That's what 4E is missing -- inclusiveness -- and I think that's why the people who dislike it are so vehement about it. Once upon a time, if you wanted to play something that wasn't already in the game, the philosophy was "Okay, we'll shoe-horn it in somehow!"

4E? "Don't want to play something from Column A or Column B? Then get the #&$@ out."

Well said.

 

[Darkthorne]

Most of the non-combat related fluff that inspires some people is either glossed over/minimal or removed. While the DMG is created to help newbies out (and I like some of what they have done in there) by the same token the fluff that a newbie could use from a monster manual for non combat purposes is not there (also 4eFR campaign setting is just there). It's contradicting itself. It first makes the assumption that you're new to the game so they give you good info in the dmg but when it comes to the MM it's makes the assumption your experienced enough to not need it. If people are new why wouldn't they need both mechanics for the crunch and inspiration for the fluff?