When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[ProfessorCirno]

Someone stated upthread that they feel "attacked" by "rabid 4E fanboys."

Well, let's see why that complaint comes about.

It's claims that 4E is nothing but a boardgame or combat skirmish game that to me seem like thinly-veiled claims of badwrongfun. This is when 4E fans feel attacked and come to the defense of the game. Adding "IMHO" to a condescending implied "you're not really playing D&D" doesn't cut it.

So you're angry that people disagree with you?

I see people discussing the specifics of what they like or don't like about 4E and everything goes fine. Its when people come in with the 4E hate buzzwords (too WoW, combat skirmish game, boardgame, pushing plastic) that imply that those who enjoy the new edition are playing the game wrong that the edition wars erupt again.

So those two bolded things? Both were brought up in this thread in a non-insulting manner, in fully intelligent and understandable posts meant to encourage further discussion. You have stated that these are nothing but buzzwords, and that the person who made those posts is just trying to attack others. You have very pointedly reduced several posts with discussions following to nothing but an angry tirade.

That's why people refer to a rabid fanbase - because to you, "discussing 4e" equates to "not saying things I dislike."

Edit: Furthermore, I've seen several posters comment on new gamers refering to 4e as reminding them of WoW. And you know what? They said it in a positive way. I'm sorry, but unless the poster IS making just an angry tirade, cutting their post and, more importantly, their thoughts and opinions, is what makes so many people here think of RABIES. They don't see someone discussing a game at that point - they see someone defending it with gnashing teeth.

 

[Simon Atavax]

In the game I play in, I decided my paladin was not going to be a defender. The class roles my look like straitjackets, but they aren't. Creative use of race/class combos and feat selection can turn any class into a stand-in for any other class.

This is something that I think *bothers* a lot of folks about 4e. The idea of the classes essentially being interchangeable; the idea that every class is a potent spellcaster (but instead of "Spells" they cast "powers"); the idea that the goal of the game is not to play a class, but to pile on powers to the point where "Class" ceases to be a meaningful term.

The trick is to think outside the box: if multiclassing = having levels in multiple classes, then yeah, it's a disappointment.

You just gave a good definition of what multiclassing has been, ever since AD&D 1e. (Did it exist in OD&D? Not sure). Now, of course, multiclassing means something different. Another sacred cow slain . . .

 

[Simon Atavax]

We few grognards will have to school these younglings.

Long live 3.5!

Bah! You can't call yourself a grognard unless you dream of having a negative armor class! Now get off my lawn!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a fan of class based systems, but the reason I am so is that classes inform what the game is about. A change in the focus of the classes is tantamount to a change in the focus of the games AFAIAC.

I can really see this.

The "roles" in earlier editions weren't combat roles -- they were dungeon exploration roles. Some guy was the combat role (the Fighter), but combat being only part of what you do in the dungeon, there were other roles. There was the "scout" role (the mobility and trap-handling-ness of the thief/rogue), there was the "recovery" role (the cleric's ability to restore hp), and there was the "toolbox" role (the wizard's ability to pull out just the right spell for the job!).

These roles are not quite as refined as they were in other editions (partially because of a smaller skill set, or a universalizing of "recovery" or "toolbox" with healing surges and rituals).

4e is a combat game. The abilities and the descriptions and the point of the game is combat. Combat was, before, part of somethng else you did -- that something else was dungeon exploration.

Now, that's not to say that 4e went the wrong way. Certainly making every class able to contribute to all aspects of dungeon exploration in different ways would be a pretty admirable goal. You don't get complaints of "coardboard wizards," or of "fighters who can't do anything but swing swords."

But 4e didn't pursue that goal. they wanted every class to contribute to combat in different ways. In narrowing the focus like that, they've lost sight of many of the reasons that people played D&D -- not to fight goblins, but to plumb the lair and uncover their mystery. This involved combat, sure, but it also involved avoiding deadly traps ("gotcha monsters!"), and communicating with friendly slaves ("what's the use of Charisma, anyway?!"), and figuring out how to escape from the tomb you've been sealed in ("I'm a wizard, so I can walk through walls!"), and, ultimately, beating up the goblins ("I'm a fighter! I put pointy things into squishy things!").

This is, I think, for me, part of why 4e doesn't seem as "rich" as previous editions. Like it's a step back and down, away from possibility toward selling minis and internet toys, and designing a system that can handle minis and internet toys better than previous editions.

 

[El Mahdi]

Bah! You can't call yourself a grognard unless you dream of having a negative armor class! Now get off my lawn!

In colloquial game use a "grumbling" veteran of any past edition would be a Grognard, so both of you qualify. However, for a more literal modern day definition, unless either one of you are the proud bearers of a DD form 214 (or foriegn equivalent), then neither one of you are.

Now get out of my LZ! (or flightline, flight deck, etc.)

 

[El Mahdi]

The "roles" in earlier editions weren't combat roles -- they were dungeon exploration roles. Some guy was the combat role (the Fighter), but combat being only part of what you do in the dungeon, there were other roles. There was the "scout" role (the mobility and trap-handling-ness of the thief/rogue), there was the "recovery" role (the cleric's ability to restore hp), and there was the "toolbox" role (the wizard's ability to pull out just the right spell for the job!).

These roles are not quite as refined as they were in other editions (partially because of a smaller skill set, or a universalizing of "recovery" or "toolbox" with healing surges and rituals).

4e is a combat game. The abilities and the descriptions and the point of the game is combat. Combat was, before, part of somethng else you did -- that something else was dungeon exploration.

Now, that's not to say that 4e went the wrong way. Certainly making every class able to contribute to all aspects of dungeon exploration in different ways would be a pretty admirable goal. You don't get complaints of "coardboard wizards," or of "fighters who can't do anything but swing swords."

But 4e didn't pursue that goal. they wanted every class to contribute to combat in different ways. In narrowing the focus like that, they've lost sight of many of the reasons that people played D&D -- not to fight goblins, but to plumb the lair and uncover their mystery. This involved combat, sure, but it also involved avoiding deadly traps ("gotcha monsters!"), and communicating with friendly slaves ("what's the use of Charisma, anyway?!"), and figuring out how to escape from the tomb you've been sealed in ("I'm a wizard, so I can walk through walls!"), and, ultimately, beating up the goblins ("I'm a fighter! I put pointy things into squishy things!").

This is, I think, for me, part of why 4e doesn't seem as "rich" as previous editions. Like it's a step back and down, away from possibility toward selling minis and internet toys, and designing a system that can handle minis and internet toys better than previous editions.

I agree with this. Very well said. Couple this with the feeling that classes are defined by powers, with less flexibility to imagine different character concepts with the mechanics, and that would pretty much sum it up for me.

However, this isn't to say that 4E didn't accomplish the goals the designers set out to achieve. I believe it did. They made the game simpler, faster, and much easier to DM. It's just that it's now too simple and easy for my tastes. Not WoTC fault though, there's no way they can please everyone. This time it just wasn't me. I will be interested in where feedback takes the game in a year or so. And also interested in what that may foreshadow about 5E.

 

[Halivar]

You just gave a good definition of what multiclassing has been, ever since AD&D 1e. (Did it exist in OD&D? Not sure). Now, of course, multiclassing means something different. Another sacred cow slain . . .

Mechanically, yes, that's exactly what it was (if you played a human). But this approach wouldn't work in 4E. Therefore, the challenge to designers is how to incorporate the themes and overall function of multiclassing within the new rules framework? It asks the question, "what do players want out of multiclassing, and how can we give it to them without kludging?" IMHO, the solution, while novel and unprecedented in D&D history, is elegant and effective. Is my player's Ftr-Mu really "multiclassed" in the traditional sense? No. He only has levels of wizard. But do the rules provide a mechanism for him to swing a sword, wear platemail, and use fighter abilities as good as a fighter could? Yes, and more effectively than in any previous edition. In my book, that's mission accomplished.

 

[firesnakearies]

I see a lot of THIS going on:


"I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese."


Just sayin'.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese."

Y'know, I know this quote sounds familiar from somewhere...

Regardless, yeah, that is a problem for those concerned about where the world of cooking (or, in this case, the game of D&D) is going.

It's not a problem for what you do in your own home, but this thread was never about what some guy does in his own home, and has been about trying to kind of puzzle out what WotC (or the Better Joy people) were thinking.

 

[justanobody]

I agree with this. Very well said. Couple this with the feeling that classes are defined by powers, with less flexibility to imagine different character concepts with the mechanics, and that would pretty much sum it up for me.

However, this isn't to say that 4E didn't accomplish the goals the designers set out to achieve. I believe it did. They made the game simpler, faster, and much easier to DM. It's just that it's now too simple and easy for my tastes. Not WoTC fault though, there's no way they can please everyone. This time it just wasn't me. I will be interested in where feedback takes the game in a year or so. And also interested in what that may foreshadow about 5E.

Well they could have set out to make a roleplaying game instead of a combat simulation game, wherein the roleplaying game allows for combat, but a combat simulator doesn't need any roleplaying.

They could have made a second game. So I would say whatever 4th edition is, is 100% the fault of WotC. Be that good or bad, the player's didn't write the game, WotC did. So whatever becomes of it will be solely on their heads, and not something to try to blame on the customers with "we made it and they stopped buying it", or something similar if it ends.

So they will have to accept responsibility for it either way it turns out, just like every one else in the adult world.