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

[thecasualoblivion]

I didn't read that correlation at all. I interpreted him to mean, "4e is good if you are new and have no skills, and it is also good if you are bad and have no skills. In either case it is going to limit the development of your skills."

And this is supposed to be less inflammatory/insulting?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Here's the conversation you're objecting to:





I'm missing the part where he conflates New and Bad.

He is implying that the fact that 4e allegedly assumes that you are bad makes it a lesser game. That implication is pretty clear, especially in other statements made in this thread.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But you're still left with his assertion that 'harder to use' = 'better', which is the part I find a little nutty.

Out of context, that is a little nutty.

But BryonD specifically doesn't find the rules harder to use, and so rather he finds that "more complex" = "better," despite the fact that "more complex" = "harder to use" for a lot of other players.

His assertion is that 4e is a "simpler" game (for various definitions of "simpler") and folks are bent out of shape about the impolitic ways he expresses that.

That impolitic expression leads to the following amusing reaction to his posts:

"4e is not a simpler game! You take that back!"

Two minutes later,

"I just prefer 4e because it is simpler for me to run."

 

[Rel]

His sig is a baiting action against anyone who identifies themselves as a 4e fan... it is part of his edition war paraphernalia. He flies the flag very high and must be dating all the moderators sisters.

There are lots of things that people do at ENWorld that I don't feel cross the line into actual "breaking the rules" that make me think less of them. Just because I think less of them doesn't mean that they need moderating. Like when somebody implies that I'm showing favoritism based on who my sister is dating? I don't need to moderate that.


P.S. If BryonD is actually my brother in law, Ken, then I'm a bit offended that he's never mentioned gaming to me since he's been in the family for 8 years or so! But maybe that's because he knows I run a 4e game...

 

[El Mahdi]

... But maybe that's because he knows I run a 4e game...

Oh! You're from that side of the family.

 

[Garthanos]

Like when somebody implies that I'm showing favoritism based on who my sister is dating? I don't need to moderate that.

My sense of humor isnt always pretty I admit... did I need a smiley. I will say that the line is wishy washy to an extreme ... and highly subjective. And that I think this entire thread is screetchingly close to worthless edition war material.
If somebody started a thread with the premise that 3e is designed for elitist nerds to feel better about their pitiful anti-team play selves by making it intentionally complex when it need not be. I would expect that to be ... canned as insulting... where as a thread implying 4e is designed to retard dm development.... runs on like a train.

I am going to grant that it has to hard as hell to moderate this stuff....

 

[Rel]

My sense of humor isnt always pretty I admit... did I need a smiley. I will say that the line is wishy washy to an extreme ... and highly subjective. And that I think this entire thread is screetchingly close to worthless edition war material.
If somebody started a thread with the premise that 3e is designed for elitist nerds to feel better about their pitiful anti-team play selves by making it intentionally complex when it need not be. I would expect that to be ... canned as insulting... where as a thread implying 4e is designed to retard dm development.... runs on like a train.

Well so far this thread has mostly been a discussion, not a heated argument. That's what we do here at ENWorld. Sure, it's had plenty of comments that caused me to roll my eyes and scratch my head. Allowing a discussion to continue is not an endorsement of all the posts in it.

 

[Obryn]

Out of context, that is a little nutty.

But BryonD specifically doesn't find the rules harder to use, and so rather he finds that "more complex" = "better," despite the fact that "more complex" = "harder to use" for a lot of other players.

His assertion is that 4e is a "simpler" game (for various definitions of "simpler") and folks are bent out of shape about the impolitic ways he expresses that.

That impolitic expression leads to the following amusing reaction to his posts:

"4e is not a simpler game! You take that back!"

Two minutes later,

"I just prefer 4e because it is simpler for me to run."

Sure, it looks all kinds of contradictory if you conflate the various definitions of "simpler." At the very least, it's one of those terms which can be used for either praise or dismissal, depending on context, so I can't see how objecting to the term in one context negates its utility in other contexts.

The implication I see from quotes like ....

I didn't read that correlation at all. I interpreted him to mean, "4e is good if you are new and have no skills, and it is also good if you are bad and have no skills. In either case it is going to limit the development of your skills."

and

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.

...is that a complex game enables a richer play experience or a higher form of DMing by virtue of its complexity. Say, that with 3e you could get a richness of play which varies from 1 to 10, but with 4e your play experience might vary from 2 to maybe 7 or so - so, by extension, the richest 3e games are always richer than the richest 4e games. I don't find that matches my experience whatsoever, no matter what analogies you might want to use - from tee-ball to training wheels to chutes-and-ladders.

Now, there are all kinds of personalized statements which shouldn't cause controversy, IMO. "For the settings I enjoy and the games I like to run, the 3e toolset works better," is an awesome statement, and while you can certainly discuss it, anyone who gets mad about it is nuts. "DMs who run 4e are basically practicing for a game which doesn't assume they suck," isn't. It's the movement from personal to universal that causes the angst.

-O

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A complex game enables a richer play experience or a higher form of DMing by virtue of its complexity.

No, the specifics of its complexity may or may not enable a richer play experience, just as the specifics of 4e's simplifications may or may not enable a richer play experience.

I have co-opted a great many of 4e's simplifications into a richer, better play experience for me. And likewise retained a great many of 3e's complexities.

The fact that we have not discussed those specifics (in this thread) does not mean that anyone is suggesting that complexity is its own virtue.

Come on.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Out of context, that is a little nutty.

But BryonD specifically doesn't find the rules harder to use, and so rather he finds that "more complex" = "better," despite the fact that "more complex" = "harder to use" for a lot of other players.

His assertion is that 4e is a "simpler" game (for various definitions of "simpler") and folks are bent out of shape about the impolitic ways he expresses that.

I really don't see 4E as being less complex than 3E. Due to the flood of OGL products 3E could become much more complex but WOTC core to WOTC core measured in identical time frames from initial release, 4E is just as complex as 3E. More of the complexity has shifted from build/ prep to actual gameplay but its still there.

What 4E did do more than any previous edition was to dictate playstyle through rules presentation down to telling the reader what was fun about a zillion times. This does not make the actual rules any simpler or "easymode" in any way.

The veteran DM or player who already knows what aspects of the game are most fun for them might see this heavy handed presentation as a simplification and jump to the T-ball conclusion.

The Basic D&D I played as a child was ( to stick with the analogy) a baseball game design kit. The framework of the rules was presented and the players could use them to play everything from pee wee T-ball to the World Series. The level of complexity was simple as a default and as expandable as the imagination of the players. Put another way, Basic D&D action was a well pitched Nolan Ryan game. 3 up, 3 down ,the game moves on.

The added complexities of WOTC D&D (both 3E and 4E) actually make playing t-ball much harder to do if the players wanted it. In fact both games are Major League affairs as written with the action playing out like a Mike Hargrove at-bat.