When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Thasmodious]

Again, that's a mindset I find laudable, but I see no evidence in the RAW for it. Appealing to the stat block's simplicity doesn't tell either way. And, as I said, I find it telling that the p.42 in the DMG is solely designed to cater for "actions" of the PC "the rules don't cover".

There is no rule #278: Monsters are more than their stat blocks. But their is ample evidence, from the MM and the DMG that this is so.

Page 7 of the MM says monsters have healing surges, but very few monsters have a way to spend them in battle, so they are not included in the stat blocks. That right there shows that monsters have attributes outside of the stat block. Many of the creatures are Outsiders, yet their stat blocks don't detail how they came to this place. The Aboleth hails from the Far Realm but on the Prime they live in the Underdark. Imps often serve human masters, but no details or ritual is listed as to how that comes about. The most devout Deathpriests of Orcus can summon Aspects of Orcus, but the Deathpriest stat block contains no mention of this ability.

Ah, here lies the source of the trouble. Where 3E erred on the side of covering every tedious bit of the game by the same rule mechanics, this leading to an extreme quantative inflation of rules, 4E is hard to digest because it provides rules only for combat,

Well, let's be clear here, 4e provides rules for encounter resolution not just combat. This includes the mechanical side of social encounters, skill challenges, terrain hazards, stand alone traps...

leaving the remainder of the game not integrated into the core mechanic; or, to put it otherwise, leaving the relation the remainder of the game bears to that "core part" unclear and up to the DM. I had never understood and grokked that until I read this mind-blowing review of 4E, which really sold me on 4E. You see, 4E critics are right that 4E is in a sense about "combat only": it only provides rigid mechanical rules for combat. (Note how much this argument relies on the 3E mentality of "if it's not codified in the rules, it's not in the game.") Every other aspect of the game is entirely left for the DM to administer, skill challenges being a case in point. Now that's what makes 4E liberating to DM.

Some interesting points. I agree that some of the critics that are heavy 3e champions could well be objecting over the rejection of that 3e mentality by the new edition. Hence the cries of "4e doesn't allow roleplaying" and "4e is only about combat", which they have to know is simply not the case (unless they haven't read the books at all and only listened to others, much like how the anti-D&D hysteria of the 80s spread).

The review is an interesting piece. I don't agree with the reviewer at all that 4e is "not any D&D you know". I think it's very much D&D, with a healthy dose of the old school, an infusion of modern RPG development, and a rejection of what I see as the failed experiment of 3e's PCs/Monsters/NPCs-same thing. I do agree it is markedly different from every other edition.

The author is right that 4e is a combination of a more free form style of RP mixed with a more codified tactical combat system. But the two are not seperate. 4e's grand experiment is to combine the two into a seamless RPG. In my games, thus far, it's been successful. We'll have to see how it plays out over the course of the edition for final judgment, but I think that is clearly the attempt. The hard rules in the core books exist to service encounter resolution and the guidelines exist to aid building the game world, encounters, adventures... the usual suspects.

I think the DMG does an excellent job of encouraging the DM to "take flight" and embrace the traditional role of the DM, and this is where much of its old school flavor comes from. I'm not sure if it does such a good job of taking a completely new RPG player, picking up D&D for the first time, and conveying all this to that person. It would be a difficult task, as no one qualified to do that can see from the perspective of the new player. Maybe the DMG or MM should state more explicitly that a stat block is not the extent of the monster, it is just his combat stats. Again, I think this is heavily implied, if not ever clearly stated.

But I also find this design approach a pain in the back, since the complete separation of those two "halves" of the game - combat and non-combat

As I mentioned above, I don't they are seperated. I think the goal is integration. This is seen in things like pg.42, skill challenges, 'the DMs friend' mechanic and other elements present in the books. Now, with a heavy dose of free form, they certainly could be seperate, but that is really a group design, a playstyle thing. Groups that enjoy heavy RP will find it easier to integrate with the system, the DM quietly running a skill challenge during a tense negotiation played out through RP, for example; while groups that don't want to RP much at all will be left with a solid tactical combat game, with a mechanical substitution for RP in skills and skill challenges.

To be honest, I think a great amount of DMs will be discouraged by this complete shift of responsibility from 3E to 4E.

I hope not. I know myself and many others here have found it remarkably freeing. To me, that's what DMing is about. The freeness, combined with how easy and quick prepping encounters and adventures have become has resurged the joy I get from DMing.

And it's here that I find this type of response to the problem I raised (with Graz'zt limited teleport ability) deeply unsatisfactory. I raised a problem about the RAW, because simply that's the only common ground we'll ever get on a board to discuss the merits and demerits of an edition. So to bring in "but you can forego/delete/arbitrarily add on to the RAW" isn't a defense of the RAW in my book. Not by a long shot.

We disagree about what the RAW is. I think the clear implication is that monsters can do things outside of their stat blocks. I'm not talking RAI, either. The books may not state it outright, in a concise, clear statement (and I agree perhaps they should have), but the reality of that position is everywhere. And, conversely, no statement exists to contradict the stated notion that such things are the DMs responsibility.

Interesting and productive discussion, sir. This is a much more productive means to wage edition war

 

[Thasmodious]

In previous editions roles (classes) encompassed the character's place in the team for the whole game, not just for combat. Now it is more like everyone is the same outside of combat. I admit 3E was moving in that direction already, but to me, and it seems many others, 4E took it to the extremity.

It did, but not to the extremity you think. Earlier editions - your class defined your character. A thief was not a fighter was not a wizard, but a thief was a thief was a thief. They were all really the same, and didn't account for character much. Esepcially outside of combat. 3rd edition attempted to account for character with the rules system, specifically skills. But trying to dance the line between leaving the thief role of skill monkey intact and balancing the other classes around that left the system very limiting. Fighters could still only fight. You had to multiclass to have a fighter that was knowledgable and capable of being a military leader (solid cha, diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc), for example. To pull of many character concepts you had to multiclass.

4e doesn't say all fighters are the same. They say fighters all have similar approaches to combat. But the character himself is left to the player. The fighter can be a highly skilled blacksmith, or a smooth talking military officer or a samurai warrior steeped in history and haiku. The most some of those take to pull off is a feat for a necessary skill, but much of that isn't confined by the encounter-centered skill system. Thieves are good at thievery and have a style of combat that fits them well, the thief character can be anything else and still be good at his core adventuring roles. He can be the face, the grifter, the bard, the burglar, the jack of all trades, whatever, and the system doesn't confine him. 4e says adventuring classes define adventurer roles, character is left to the player.

No two characters have to be the same outside of combat ever again.

 

[The_Gneech]

I think it's very much D&D, with a healthy dose of the old school, an infusion of modern RPG development, and a rejection of what I see as the failed experiment of 3e's PCs/Monsters/NPCs-same thing.

This is another of those "don't speak the same language" things -- I saw the 3E PC/monster/NPC sameness experiment as a spectacular success.

-The Gneech

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And, that you or your DM, if it was someone else, didn't control the optional material being used at the gaming table is the game's fault?

IMO, yes. Most absolutely. I will explain further in response to your other points.

The ability to do all that stuff is available to you in 3e. If you need some official justification, refer the players to rule 0. Furthermore, there are several passages in the first twenty pages of the DMG (well, at least the 3e version) that tell the DM
a) that they are in charge of the rules
b) they determine the material that gets used;
c) they can create new monsters, new spells, and new traps; and
d) they can even change the rules.
e) good players recognize that the DM is in charge and can change the rules

My biggest problems with 3E ended up being multiclassing and stacking. The multiclass rules seemed like a really good idea at first, but added to my aggravation every time I wanted to add a new element to my game. I like new options, whether I created them or found them in a new splat book. But the ability to cherry-pick Prestige Classes made it very hard to balance any new option. Add in the fact that the designers seemed to ignore their own Stacking rules, leaving new bonuses unnamed more times than I care to remember. Every new addition was just begging for the min-maxer to create his new uber-combo.

If necessary quote the relative passages once to the players. If they argue continue to complain, smack them on the nose with a rolled newspaper or the DMG- or just remove them from the table.

Their has to be a balance though. A draconian DM will soon find himself with no players.

Nope, tell them it was a special spell (the DM guide let's you create new spells). If they want to research it, let them. Just remember, nobody says the research has to be easy.

Except the rules never gave any guidance on how to make research difficult. And some players just don't care. Whatever they have to go through to get that new piece to maximize their build, they will.

Stacks can be a problem and something that needed to be addressed, I definitely give you that. However, I think that there are other ways that they can be handled beginning with the DM controlling the options that come into the particular game they are running. The other is with the mechanics of buffs and halving the bonus and just using that as a modifier to appropriate rolls.

Or you could create a system where one option takes the place of another and stacking is reduced to nearly a non-issue. That is how I view 4E (so far). From the 4E books and previews that have emerged so far all I see is new options, not new ways to create that new monster combo build.

 

[Greg K]

Fighters could still only fight. You had to multiclass to have a fighter that was knowledgable and capable of being a military leader (solid cha, diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc), for example. To pull of many character concepts you had to multiclass.

Reread the PHB section on character customization again.

 

[billd91]

It did, but not to the extremity you think. Earlier editions - your class defined your character. A thief was not a fighter was not a wizard, but a thief was a thief was a thief. They were all really the same, and didn't account for character much. Esepcially outside of combat. 3rd edition attempted to account for character with the rules system, specifically skills. But trying to dance the line between leaving the thief role of skill monkey intact and balancing the other classes around that left the system very limiting. Fighters could still only fight. You had to multiclass to have a fighter that was knowledgable and capable of being a military leader (solid cha, diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc), for example. To pull of many character concepts you had to multiclass.

4e doesn't say all fighters are the same. They say fighters all have similar approaches to combat. But the character himself is left to the player. The fighter can be a highly skilled blacksmith, or a smooth talking military officer or a samurai warrior steeped in history and haiku. The most some of those take to pull off is a feat for a necessary skill, but much of that isn't confined by the encounter-centered skill system. Thieves are good at thievery and have a style of combat that fits them well, the thief character can be anything else and still be good at his core adventuring roles. He can be the face, the grifter, the bard, the burglar, the jack of all trades, whatever, and the system doesn't confine him. 4e says adventuring classes define adventurer roles, character is left to the player.

No two characters have to be the same outside of combat ever again.

And in 3x (or any previous edition) all characters had to be the same outside of combat? I find it interesting that you're basically taking the complaint that a lot of people direct at 4e--that it's combat focus to the detriment of role-playing--and throwing the same cannard at earlier editions.

Characters have never been limited to their statistics, though their stats may inform the success they have at game-relevant tasks. Every character in every edition has had a lot of potential to be unique depending on how the stats are spread around and how the character chooses to present the character. Non-combat skill systems have added ways to give those different presentations some teeth over the years so that players can see actual, in game, benefits of their different development choices.

You could always have played a fighter skilled as a blacksmith or a smooth talking military leader or samurai skilled at haiku and knowing something about history. That really hasn't changed, just the mechanics for representing such things has changed from time to time. From being basic background and fiat, to non-weapon proficiency, to skill ranks, and back to a mix of skill ranks and basic background and fiat, the ability has been there. Claiming that's new to 4e is really a non-starter.

 

[MrMyth]

And, that you or your DM, if it was someone else, didn't control the optional material being used at the gaming table is the game's fault?

Clerics and Wizards and Bards are optional now?

But even when considering all the various optional material - what if a DM wants to have that extra content, but doesn't want the skewing of balance that comes with it? Shouldn't that be a worthwhile goal to works towards - especially setting a framework in place that handles additional content much more smoothly?

The ability to do all that stuff is available to you in 3e. If you need some official justification, refer the players to rule 0. Furthermore, there are several passages in the first twenty pages of the DMG (well, at least the 3e version) that tell the DM
a) that they are in charge of the rules
b) they determine the material that gets used;
c) they can create new monsters, new spells, and new traps; and
d) they can even change the rules.
e) good players recognize that the DM is in charge and can change the rules

If necessary quote the relative passages once to the players. If they argue continue to complain, smack them on the nose with a rolled newspaper or the DMG- or just remove them from the table.

Sure, you could just do what you wanted - but I think it hard to deny that 3.5 encouraged an equalizing of power between the DM and the players, and encouraged having the DMing following closely to the same rules players are bound by. Traps and encounters and monsters are supposed to be carefully constructed using the various formula for doing so, not thrown out or improvised on the spot.

You certainly could ignore this and do as you wanted anyway, and change monsters as desired, and let PCs do crazy stunts or pursue creative solutions, etc. But 4E actively supports that sort of improvisation and DM control of elements that should be defined more by plot than by formulas.

This isn't to say this is the only way to play - as the Gneech points out, some people will prefer a game where the mechanics are the same for everyone, and others prefer a game where that isn't the case. This is definitely one area when there are clear pros and cons of both, and nothing wrong with it simply being a matter of personal preference as to which one enjoys more.

But I think it is also clear that 3.5 favors the game where everything is more strictly defined, while 4E favors putting more control back into the DMs hands. You could certainly run either edition otherwise - you can run a 3.5 game via DM improvisation, or create a 4E game where you have carefully detailed every single element of how powers interact, with various changes in place to put PCs and monsters on identical playing fields. But, in the end, that isn't the natural direction of either system.

 

[Greg K]

I
My biggest problems with 3E ended up being multiclassing and stacking

Multiclassing and stacking was my big issue as well only from the beginning.(if I liked DND above level 12, my biggest issue would have been Wizards, Clerics, and druids).

But the ability to cherry-pick Prestige Classes made it very hard to balance any new option.

And PrCs were optional. They weren't required to be used. Furthermore, they were intended to be tailored/included by the DM based on their individual campaign setting. That DMs ignored this is not the game's fault.

Add in the fact that the designers seemed to ignore their own Stacking rules, leaving new bonuses unnamed more times than I care to remember. Every new addition was just begging for the min-maxer to create his new uber-combo..

And, it is the DM's responsability, for the sake of campaign, to slap uber combos down if they had a negative effect on the game, because the designers have no idea what you are allowing at your table.

 

[Allister]

This thread has been very insightful. I know exactly WHY I like 4E so much.

I like the fact that outside of combat, classes don't determne role as much.
I like the fact that monsters and players are built on different assumptions.

 

[Tetsubo]

Because I liked 3e quite a lot. I just like 4e more.

I pity you in return. Your inability to see how remarkably similar 3e and 4e happen to be is sad, and is much more attributable to you than to the game.

As I said, there are differences between 3.5 and 4E. For me those differences are deal breakers. 4E "fixed" things that I didn't think needed to be "fixed". It made changes to the game that take the system in directions that I do not think it should go in. In addition I think many of those changes were made so that the two versions would not be backwards compatible. Designed to specifically drive sales of 4E at the cost of the game and the hobby.

If you enjoy tactical miniature games with a fantasy element, 4E seems to be the system for you.

It simply doesn't suit my idea of what a role-playing game is.