DND 4E Is different! (Why is that bad?)

[feuer_faust]

I'll be brief and to my point. A major complaint of DnD 4E is that isn't different, that its not like previous editions. Well, this isn't a new thing, as the races and world in general are different in each edition. So, instead of complaining "why", ask "why not?"

New rules, new races, new setting... so why stick to The Way it Used to Be?

 

[Gruns]

Background: My small group of four (three plus me, the DM) made the jump to 4E upon release. Out of the four of us, I was clearly the one that looked most forward to it. The others kind of went into it with an "Errr... I guess..." attitude.

Recently my wife(one of the players) revealed to me that just doesn't like 4E as much as older editions. I asked her why, and she basically said it feels like the 'wonder' or 'magic' is gone. Everything now feels too structered. I pointed out that I think this is only a perceived limitation, and you can do anything you could do in previous editions. It's just much easier on the DM to figure out. I pointed out that in our very first session, when they didn't know that they so limited, the group did some crazy stuff. Like, swinging from chandeliers kind of stuff. (Actually, it was swinging from a Skull-Skull rope). It seemed that they had a bit of fun with that session. After that, we figured out how to print out power cards and keep them in front of you to help see the info and let you know when you've used Encounter and Daily powers. I think this is where the notion of being too limited came about. Now instead of thinking about what they want to do on their turn, they're staring at their power cards deciding which one would be best in the current situation. They had a near TPK (with one of them actually dying) in a recent encounter when the bad guys used a Darkskull to turn all the lights out. NOT A SINGLE PC thought it would be a good idea to try to use a Sunrod or something, and instead they fought various undead in total darkness. And when the paladin lie bleeding to death on the ground, no one thought to feed him a potion or perform a Heal check on him. These are things they would have done without a thought in 3.5, so why not now?Because none of the power cards said they could/should do either of these things?
I think one of the biggest, and overlooked, changes in 4E is the addition of these cards that unfortunately seem to limit PCs actions more than they should.
Later!
Gruns

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'll keep my reply also short and to the point: Because "we" (those that prefer 3E) dislike the solutions more than the "problems."

As for "why not?", because a) most don't like change merely for the sake of change and b) a lot of complaints about 3E weren't even "fixed" by 4E, they just became different. Instead of long rounds leading to long combats, now lots of rounds lead to long combats. Instead of waiting half an hour to do something due to round length, you're now waiting that long to do accomplish something because of the lessened amount of absolutes, higher failure chances, removal of the full attack for more chances to do something per turn, etc.... Instead of fighters needing magic items to stay relevant, now wizards need them just as much as the fighters do -- but they're still needed in general. And so on...

 

[Regicide]

A Volkswagon beetle is different than a Aston Martin DBS V12 too. Some people even prefer a beetle.

 

[timbannock]

I'll keep my reply also short and to the point: Because "we" (those that prefer 3E) dislike the solutions more than the "problems."

As for "why not?", because a) most don't like change merely for the sake of change and b) a lot of complaints about 3E weren't even "fixed" by 4E, they just became different. Instead of long rounds leading to long combats, now lots of rounds lead to long combats. Instead of waiting half an hour to do something due to round length, you're now waiting that long to do accomplish something because of the lessened amount of absolutes, higher failure chances, removal of the full attack for more chances to do something per turn, etc.... Instead of fighters needing magic items to stay relevant, now wizards need them just as much as the fighters do -- but they're still needed in general. And so on...

There's no doubt that some of what you say is true, but as someone who prefers 4E, I have to say that 4E did fix some of 3E's issues BY becoming different. High level play in 3E is not fixable for a vast majority of people it seems (just read the oodles of posts about it on the Pathfinder playtest boards) without changing some fundamental facet of the core 3e system. 4E high level play is something I enjoy, rather than something I loathe.

Just by way of comparison, my 3e house rules was a living document that I struggled to keep under 3 or 4 pages of pretty small font-size type. My 4e document struggles to take up a page...it looks bad having all that white space!!!

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying either is fundamentally better. But as a long time DM (eek! going on 20+ years here), 4e definitely meshes with my preferences a lot more than 3e ever did. But yes, it's mainly BECAUSE it's fundamentally different from a rules standpoint.

As for the fluff, they definitely changed for change's sake. Of course, that was the easiest thing for me to change out...took about 6 minutes of jotting notes, and I was good to go. For the first time ever, I'm running a classic-style Greyhawk campaign.

 

[Belphanior]

As for "why not?", because a) most don't like change merely for the sake of change (snip)

While I feel that everybody is free to like or dislike 4e as much as they want, this argument feels very incomplete to me. "most don't like change merely for the sake of change" is a statement I can accept as being true without further support. But the implication is that 4e has changes that were made purely for the sake of having a change. I'd like some evidence and examples of that. I don't think it is true. As it stands, argument A simply hangs around without proving anything.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

I'll be brief and to my point. A major complaint of DnD 4E is that isn't different, that its not like previous editions. Well, this isn't a new thing, as the races and world in general are different in each edition. So, instead of complaining "why", ask "why not?"

New rules, new races, new setting... so why stick to The Way it Used to Be?

Why not change? Frankly, I don't know. Multiple attacks per round didn't solve anything for high level play, the monsters were unbalanced, and nothing worked as it was written in 3.5. 4th works AS written, all the time, every time.

Why not change? I honestly don't know.

 

[Mistwell]

How is this a rules discussion?

 

[feuer_faust]

How is this a rules discussion?

I saw a section for "Rules" and "Homebrews." I figured that this deals more with DnDs fluff and rules than anything I made up, so here we are.

Thank you for your vigilance.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

While I feel that everybody is free to like or dislike 4e as much as they want, this argument feels very incomplete to me. "most don't like change merely for the sake of change" is a statement I can accept as being true without further support. But the implication is that 4e has changes that were made purely for the sake of having a change. I'd like some evidence and examples of that. I don't think it is true. As it stands, argument A simply hangs around without proving anything.

Thinks I _think_ I've seen associated with "Chance for the Sake of Change" (and my "refutations")
- Tieflins are a core race now. Change for Sake of Change or making a race core that proved popular in the past?
- Dragonborn are created and a core race now. Change for Sake of Change or creating a new core race whose theme ("dragon-like creature") proved popular?
- Warlords are a new core race. Change for Sake of Change or filling an archetype that hadn't been adequately presented in 3E (except the Mini handbook?) Providing ways to heal without requiring a specific class?
- New Cosmology - where's my Great Wheel? Change for Sake of Change or creating a cosmology that feels closer to (western?) mythology (Feywild!)? Creating a cosmology that is more inviting and contains places for adventurers to visit and explore?
- New Alignment System. Change for Sake of Change or fixing many of the typical alignment conflicts (Lawful Evil, Chaotic Neutral?).

Sure, somebody might say: "These reasons are not good enough!" "The implementation sucks!". But still, I don't see "Change for the Sake of Change". The change always seems to have a clear motivation to me that is beyond "I change because I can!".

---

So otherwise, I don't know. D&D 4 is different from D&D 3. I see that as a good thing. Even if D&D 3E was my favorite game and the best system I could think of, if someone creates D&D 4, it should be different. Maybe it'll become the favorite game of someone else, maybe all these new kids with their MMORPGs or videogames or all their gamist/narrative thinking. At least they are not on my lawn now!