Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?

[Barastrondo]

This is going to sound really self-serving in a "well, yeah, you work for them" kind of way, but I actually learned part of my GMing skills from Vampire: The Masquerade. Not in the sense of specific techniques like preludes, but in the sense that you could actually go for certain themes and moods. Once I realized that advice wasn't game-specific, there was my revelation. D&D with a little attention to consistency of theme and mood was delicious for me.

I think it also helped that I really started paying attention in 2e's era of "good settings," too. Hey, FR gives you the inspiration to pay attention to detail. Greyhawk has a great feel. Planescape and Dark Sun are examples to go further. Al-Qadim is freaking inspirational in all sorts of ways. Oh yeah, and remember that World Builder's Guidebook?

(I will admit I didn't care as much for the Villain's Handbook, but that was in a purely personal way: they frequently were describing antagonists with the word "villain," and that didn't ring true for me. Plus also some alignment issues I had with the approach there. However, the Complete Necromancer's Handbook made up for that and then some... but I just like necromancers, particularly with Clark Ashton Smith inspiration.)

Good times to learn your trade, really. Good times.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But intelligent conversation doesn't exist in 4E, and 4E sets limits on how 'advanced' or 'sophisticated' D&D is allowed to be.

What? Intelligent conversation can take place wherever there are intelligent people conversing, no matter what system is being used.
D&D is "allowed" to be whatever the participants want it to be.
How can a book set such limits on play?

 

[BryonD]

Anyway, I think I get you. You are saying that 4e is easier to run (than 3.x) for a bad DM? If so, we completely agree.

Well, yes, I do think that. But I also add that "easier to run" doesn't take away the "bad DM" part. Now practice with an easier system can certainly be a good step to moving from bad to good. But if you do, rather than move on, you still have a game that assumes you are bad.

You think it's the simple design, I think its the superior design - I guess that's where we disagree

Well, obviously I don't think it is "superior" design for generating the kind of game *I* want. And, just as obviously, I think it is superior design for generating the kind of game *you* want.

I believe if you consider for a moment you will as well agree that 3E is very much the superior game, despite your clear personal dislike for it, when it comes to generating the kind of game that the guy with the misspelled loser name prefers.

That doesn't in any way contradict you finding 4E vastly superior for the game *you* want.

And I also don't think it is "simple design".

Allister (and others before) praised 4E for being easy to DM for newbies who don't have the skills for other systems.
4E is D&D modified to be easier than other versions.
Teeball is baseball modified to be easier than other versions.[/QUOTE]

 

[BryonD]

What? Intelligent conversation can take place wherever there are intelligent people conversing, no matter what system is being used.
D&D is "allowed" to be whatever the participants want it to be.
How can a book set such limits on play?

No system can possibly eliminate intelligent conversation.
4E certainly doesn't. I've certainly never claimed it does.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's a fair point, but it is predicated on the assumption that "The Game" is a competition of mechanics, and the story is only a framework designed to showcase those mechanics; as opposed to The Game being a cooperative story, and the mechanics merely facilitate the unfolding plot twists so that the outcome is unknown by any of the participants.

I think it is part of "The Roleplaying Game" that there are mechanical elements you want to win at. The unique thing in RPGs for me is that they mix the mechanics and story to facilitate each other. The story basically creates reasons to use the mechanics.

Part of the fun in playing roleplaying games is that you get to beat up bad guys and take their stuff. The beating up stuff is motivated by the story and changes the story, the mechanical part allows you to win.

If the mechanical parts fail, the story doesn't the way you wanted, and often in ways you don't like either.

If the monsters are too weak, the "Game" part of the RPG feels disappointing. It's like constantly getting the best games in a poker game. It might be fun at first, but in the end, you miss the challenge. At least in RPGs the story might make up for it.

If the monsters are too strong, the "Game" part of the RPG also feels disappointing. You're way out of your league, as if trying to play against Kasparov and you don't even know how to castle or constantly getting bad cards in a card game.

In either case, this can either be compensated by an awesome story so you don't mind if it's a little harder or easier - or it makes it worse. A total party kill in a situation that's not particularly interesting from a story point and before the big climax where you deal with your characters nemesis will be disappointing. A walkover might mean that the players beat the enemies way too quickly to create an interesting storyline with twists and turns, the party can work independent of allies and doesn't have to make any questionable deals because they just can beat any threat themselves.

 

[BryonD]

"well, yeah, you work for them"

Do you know what became of Rob Hatch?

 

[jdrakeh]

No system can possibly eliminate intelligent conversation.
4E certainly doesn't. I've certainly never claimed it does.

As others pointed out early on, your signature says differently.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The unique thing in RPGs for me is that they mix the mechanics and story to facilitate each other. The story basically creates reasons to use the mechanics.

If the mechanical parts fail, the story doesn't the way you wanted, and often in ways you don't like either.

Absolutely.

Where there seems to be a difference of opinion is in the proper response to a mechanical failure.

If the engine just doesn't run, period, under any circumstances, then you need a new engine.

If the engine fails because the operator keeps redlining it, then you have two options:

a) You explain to the operator that redlining the engine is going to be detrimental to its performance over time, but you nevertheless leave the engine alone so that the operator can have that extra performance if he wants or needs it;

b) You assume that all operators are going to continue redlining the engine, and so you put a governor on the engine to prevent it from going above the ideal speed.

 

[BryonD]

I think it is part of "The Roleplaying Game" that there are mechanical elements you want to win at.

...

If the monsters are too weak, the "Game" part of the RPG feels disappointing.
...

If the monsters are too strong, the "Game" part of the RPG also feels disappointing.

I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just pointing out differences. But this instantly reminded me of our recent debate regarding CMDs in Pathfinder.

To me an RPG feels disappointing when the monster doesn't feel like the monster it is supposed to be. I would never make the two statements you made. To me it is a very different approach to gaming, with, apparently, a different goal for how it is enjoyed. There must be many many points of commonality. But, clearly, there are differences.

 

[Drkfathr1]

As others pointed out early on, your signature says differently.

Honestly, the only thing in his sig that mentions 4E is a lable indicating that a particular quote came from a 4E fan. Everything in his sig is actually pretty edition neutral.

Perhaps its disingenuous to list the quote in that way, but I won't presume to attribute any motives.

I think we're all projecting our own prejudices on what are fairly neutral statements.