Forked Thread: Did 4e go far enough or to far?

[Fifth Element]

Thus why there's no such thing as a monster who's good, and why many of the elemental planes that you couldn't as comfortably adventure on are gone.

I rather think the point is: if you're not going to be fighting it, it doesn't need combat stats. If it is good, it's not a "monster" by the everyday definition of the word.

 

[Imban]

I rather think the point is: if you're not going to be fighting it, it doesn't need combat stats. If it is good, it's not a "monster" by the everyday definition of the word.

Well, I wasn't bringing the whole monster manual thing into it, because I see the argument there. I was pointing out that the published 4e adventures present situations in which stats would actually be useful but aren't provided at all, too - though being as how Sea Reavers is one of my least favorite adventures, I pick on it a lot.

"If you're not going to be fighting it, even if it's fighting alongside you, it doesn't need combat stats." is a statement that's slightly harder to get agreement on.

 

[Umbran]

In other words, in 3e, it was generally assumed that stats were objective statements about the things so statted, whereas in 4e it's assumed the same being may have completely different stats if encountered alone, in a group of five, or in a group of twenty. (And no meaningful stats whatsoever beyond "what the DM thinks" if it's encountering people who aren't the PCs.)

Do you mean that the individual named "Bob the Centaur" is going to have his stats differ? Because I'm not sure that's how the system is supposed to be used at all.

If Bob shows up in an encounter with a particular set of stats, and then shows up later in a different situation, I would not expect his stats to change. mayhaps I missed it, but I don't recall any statements to the effect of "if they meet the same individual later, throw out continuity and restat it"

For a particular type of creature, you expect some variation between individuals. And there's nothing stopping your DM from tossing in an encounter with a lone minion, or a group of 5 solo-statted critters. If you assume the GM is going to always follow the guidelines, well, that's your own lookout

 

[Imban]

Do you mean that the individual named "Bob the Centaur" is going to have his stats differ? Because I'm not sure that's how the system is supposed to be used at all.

I did mean that, but looking into things it's not really a supported statement. For some reason I thought the boss of Trollhaunt swapped between Elite and Solo between the times you met him, but he doesn't. The only one who I can find who does is the boss of Pyramid of Shadows, and his stint as a Solo monster also sees him as a mutated abomination from the Far Realm instead of an evil wizard dude.

 

[El Mahdi]

I agree that all that really matters is whether they went far enough for the game to be economically successful, and the answer is yes.



However, that's just too boring, so -



I think they went too far, and, didn't go far enough.


I agree we don't have a WoTC design document to judge exactly what they were shooting for, so I'll just go with what they released of their goals.

I feel they started with feedback concerning problems customers and fans had with the current edition of the time, 3.5E. They came up with goals and concepts to fix those perceived problems, many of which were playtested in some 3.5 products (Bo9S), others tried out in a related system (Star Wars SAGA), and others revealed in Races and Classes and Worlds and Monsters. All of which made me really excited about the direction they might be taking the game.

But then, instead of taking 3E and applying their changes and fixes, they completely stripped the system down to it's bare bones (going too far) and started over making an entirely new game. Their efforts to make the new game (IMO) fell short (didn't go far enough). They made a good, simple, fast, and easy game (the just right part), but didn't do enough to provide ample complexity and variety to facilitate things previous editions could (the not far enough).

Of course, for a lot of people, 4E hits the sweet spot. So, I think the question is completely subjective from person to person. In the end, I think they went just as far as they needed to go to make it successful and fun. And that may be all that really matters.

 

[Lanefan]

That helps me understand what Lanefan is saying, although I like to hear it from him. I still like specific examples though, what is 4e lacking that 3.x or previous editions of D&D had that causes this?

I'll have to get to this later...right now I've got players arriving and a game to run.

Lanefan

 

[Simon Atavax]

2e was an excellent example of the later - no one liked having to game hard for years just to gain a level at higher levels. You are stuck with the same stats for a long period of time, with nothing meaningful to look forward to.

"Nothing to look forward to?"

But, like, what about, like, the, err, *adventures* you are going on?

Is "levelling up" really the whole point of the game?

This is one thing that I noticed with 3.x that really bothered me. The focus of the game ceased to be going on adventures, and instead became "levelling up." With 4e and its huge emphasis on powers and combat, this trend will probably only increase.

Back in the day, completing an adventure was its own reward. Of course there was XP and levels, but it wasn't the whole *point* of the game like it is now.

Pre-4e (and often pre-3.x)---> Dungeon exploration, going on adventures

4e (and some 3.x)--->Combat, building a character, levelling up

 

[firesnakearies]

"Nothing to look forward to?"

But, like, what about, like, the, err, *adventures* you are going on?

Is "levelling up" really the whole point of the game?

This is one thing that I noticed with 3.x that really bothered me. The focus of the game ceased to be going on adventures, and instead became "levelling up." With 4e and its huge emphasis on powers and combat, this trend will probably only increase.

Back in the day, completing an adventure was its own reward. Of course there was XP and levels, but it wasn't the whole *point* of the game like it is now.

Pre-4e (and often pre-3.x)---> Dungeon exploration, going on adventures

4e (and some 3.x)--->Combat, building a character, levelling up

This paradigm shift can probably be blamed about 90% on the rise of video game RPGs, especially MMORPGs.

 

[Tetsubo]

Too far. Way too far. Seeing as I think they went so far as to make 4E not D&D.

I own copies of Senzar, World of Synnibarr, Spawn of Fashan and Cyborg Commando. And I refuse to purchase any 4E materials. I consider it such a bad idea, poorly executed and horribly marketed that I can't even buy it as an ironic Bad RPG. Heck, I'd refuse to keep a copy if it were a gift.

Hasbro sacrificed D&D on the altar of Profit. The Marketers have won.

 

[Fifth Element]

And I refuse to purchase any 4E materials. I consider it such a bad idea, poorly executed and horribly marketed that I can't even buy it as an ironic Bad RPG. Heck, I'd refuse to keep a copy if it were a gift.

Question: how do you know it's so badly executed if you don't even have it?