When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[The_Gneech]

This thread really exploded overnight. So it's a little late for me to respond to this, but I don't want to have just "vanished," either.

While not familiar enough with Saga to know what you are looking for - what 'unfashionable play style' do you feel 4E is somehow against?

At this stage, I don't know how to answer this in a way it hasn't been already. Heck, the whole thread has been more or less on this topic. Much as I love to hear myself talk (or read my own text?) even I don't want to hear it again.

I have found the 4E class building system to have a remarkable level of versatility and customizability. The opening of skill access and former class features via feats allows one to adapt to almost any character concept they might have.

I'm willing to admit it might be there, and that I just haven't seen it. Really I am. It could be that if the game was stripped down to pure mechanics and all the other stuff that irritates me was out of the way, I could see it, but until there's some way to see the rules removed from their context, I'm not sure I can force myself to do the in-depth study it would require.

You mention being frustrated that others forced your fighter to act as meat-shield - that is a group problem, not part of 4E.

It wasn't other players, it's right there in the text. The fighter's job is to suck up damage. The ranger's job is to do damage. The warlord's job is to buff. And so on. Yes, those roles were implied in previous editions, but they were only implied and could be completely ignored without the "you're doing it wrong" vibe.

Maybe it's the writing in 4E I don't like?

Each class can generally fit into several roles, even if they have some specific ones they default to. Fighters are Defenders with a bit of Striker, and can just as easily be heavy-hitting warriors as meat-shields. If you want to play a Fighter as a damage-dealing machine, the system is more than ok with that

If that's truly the case, it would help me feel better about the whole thing. I sure didn't get that impression in my attempts to read the PHB.

the only thing standing in your way, apparently, is the group you play with.

Again, it wasn't my group. I'm one of two people in my group even willing to look at 4E.

Only in the same way that 3.0 was bad for roleplaying because you couldn't play a Dragonborn Warlord/Warlock.

Considering that neither dragonborn nor warlocks were core elements before 4E, I don't think that's a very compelling answer. I don't object to the addition of dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, and warlocks to the toolbox, but I do object to the removal of gnomes, half-orcs, bards, and druids. And I'm certainly not happy about them being "sold separately!"

And that, at least on this topic, feels like the important thing to me. The core multiclassing rules for 4E seem better suited to building character concepts than in 3rd Edition.

I'll re-read the multiclassing rules when I get the opportunity and see what I'm missing, then -- everything I saw suggested that multiclassing was "Here, you get one power from the other class, now don't bother us you weirdo."

-The Gneech

 

[Andor]

3E was just as bad in terms of editing errors, bad examples, and unclear verbiage, especially the splats.

Really? Could you tell me where in 3e the rules examples use what were plainly earlier iterations of the ruleset as the 4e PHB does on page 276? Or had to errata an entire damage subsystem in the first month after release?

As for the inbredness, it can't be worse than 3E, which tried to be both a class-based and a classless system at the same time, and tried to incorporate all facets of RPGdom, be them gamist, simulationist, or whatever simultaneously.

In my opinion, trying to include everything waters the game down and makes it cumbersome. A tighter, more focused game runs smoother and does what it aims to do more successfully.

I'm confused here, are you agreeing or disagreeing?

In any event you misunderstand me, I think. I'm not saying that including elements of different game types is bad, I'm saying they got so caught up in the gamist elements of what they were creating that they forgot to make sure it was still an RPG.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Here is my take on the edition wars:

Take your own lesson from this.

 

[jensun]

Considering that neither dragonborn nor warlocks were core elements before 4E, I don't think that's a very compelling answer. I don't object to the addition of dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, and warlocks to the toolbox, but I do object to the removal of gnomes, half-orcs, bards, and druids. And I'm certainly not happy about them being "sold separately!"

The change from 1e to 2e removed half orcs, Illusionists as a seperate class, Monks and Assassins amongst other things. Things change between editions, railing against it is really quite pointless.

 

[Hussar]

That had me wondering for a while to - what he means is that he disagrees with the idea its a conspiracy theory since it was said out in the open. I am not sure anyone called it directly conspiracy theory (I think Hussar might have, but I am to lazy to go back now), but, well. In a way it always comes off as such as long nothing is backing it up. But there is stuff backing it up.

I did call it my personal little conspiracy theory because I hadn't read any supporting evidence from the designers.

Nice to know I called that one all on my own. Heck, I posted about this months before the release of 4e. Whee.

Sorry, didn't mean that there was anything nefarious going on. I called it a conspiracy theory because I had no supporting evidence, not that there was any actual conspiracy going on.

 

[ssampier]

When Hasbro started dreaming they could tap into the WoW market.





edit* fwiw, they lost me when they made all these crazy splats (imho, the early attempts at WoW- type munchkinism). My WotC buying dropped sharply, but 3rd party publishers picked up more of my money.
To everyone, try not to take my post as flame bait. Its my opinion.

2nd edit* Im 39 as well in case anyone is keeping track.

I am a bit like you. I picked up 3.0, liked it. I was really disappointed by the splat books. I like core games, mostly. d20 publishers were my new friend. They produced products with my kind of flavor in them. After Wizards dropped the ball the 3.5 and d20 publishers dried up, I pretty much gave up buying anything new. With 4e and the more restrictive GSL, same situation. As for the WoW market, how is that working out for them by the way? My cynic in me says it might not be the cash-boon they hope for.

I am 27, almost 28.

 

[Delta]

Because the biggest problem with D&D is that it's D&D.

I must say, a year or two ago my biggest fear was that "D&D is being taken over by people who fundamentally don't like D&D". Observations like this are pretty good confirmation of that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I must say, a year or two ago my biggest fear was that "D&D is being taken over by people who fundamentally don't like D&D". Observations like this are pretty good confirmation of that.

There are so many different and conflicting opinions on what IS D&D that this would have been true no matter what happened. They had to **** off somebody.

 

[MrMyth]

At this stage, I don't know how to answer this in a way it hasn't been already. Heck, the whole thread has been more or less on this topic. Much as I love to hear myself talk (or read my own text?) even I don't want to hear it again.

I honestly haven't seen a specific answer on this topic, aside from the standard claim that 4E is somehow less accepting of roleplaying (which, I think, has been pretty largely shown to be a meaningless claim.)

It wasn't other players, it's right there in the text. The fighter's job is to suck up damage. The ranger's job is to do damage. The warlord's job is to buff. And so on. Yes, those roles were implied in previous editions, but they were only implied and could be completely ignored without the "you're doing it wrong" vibe.

Maybe it's the writing in 4E I don't like?

That might be it, but like I said - I feel this was more of a problem in previous editions. I saw countless games where debates broke out over clerics being forced to play as healers, and other roles definitely were equally present.

Yes, 4E has suggested roles, but there is not in any way a "you're doing it wrong" vibe except the one you are yourself placing into the text. The vast majority of classes have secondary roles they fill. Healers have been made so they can actually interact in combat while doing their thing. And all the classes really participate in winning every fight.

Sure, you might get a bad group of players that for some reason can't imagine a paladin designed to deal damage - but that is a problem with the players, not the edition.

If that's truly the case, it would help me feel better about the whole thing. I sure didn't get that impression in my attempts to read the PHB.

Like I said, I really do think this might be an issue that some elements were viewed through a biased lens, and made it harder to see what is there. I can certainly understand your concerns - they just aren't supported by the experiences of anyone I know playing the game, or what the rules themselves seem clearly capable of.

Considering that neither dragonborn nor warlocks were core elements before 4E, I don't think that's a very compelling answer. I don't object to the addition of dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, and warlocks to the toolbox, but I do object to the removal of gnomes, half-orcs, bards, and druids. And I'm certainly not happy about them being "sold separately!"

But why is the elements you prefer somehow the better ones? Is the concept of a minstrel more core to the D&D fantasy elements than a warleader? The concept of someone who channels the power of nature more core than the concept of someone who bargains with dark forces for power? Are gnomes and half-orcs really more worthy, or was it simply that they were there first?

I can think of countless elements I might have liked to see in the 3.0 core rules that weren't there. But I don't see their absence as a flaw in the games - there simply isn't enough room in the rules to contain every player's personal preference, and deciding arbitrarily that one thing is 'required' over another is, frankly, ridiculous. Claiming that your personal preferences are what define a system as complete is entirely absurd. You can certainly claim it is what makes you prefer one system over another! But stating it is somehow an objective failing of the game is a completely meaningless criticism.

I'll re-read the multiclassing rules when I get the opportunity and see what I'm missing, then -- everything I saw suggested that multiclassing was "Here, you get one power from the other class, now don't bother us you weirdo."

What is it you want out of a multiclassed character? Is it a character who is equally adept at multiple elements? Because 4E lets you do that, and well. You don't get to stack class features from every class, admittedly. But I don't think that has anything to do with concepts - just, once again, mechanics.

But the multiclassing is only part of the character customizability - for that, we need to look at 4E feats, which have become vastly more useful for defining characters. You can use Skill Training to become good at whatever skills you want without needing to multiclass. Without doing any multiclassing, you can have a fighter who picks locks, hides in shadows, and evades fireballs. You can have a wizard who wields a greatsword and wears heavy armor. Redefining basic elements of a character is much more feasible in 4E - and that, combined with the multiclassing system, is what I think helps make it more versatile than it might initially appear.

 

[Fifth Element]

Here is my take on the edition wars:

Take your own lesson from this.

Okay, you win the edition wars.