D&D 4E 4E No Focus

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmmm...

Like the lack of focus on improved easy of play for DMs. Nah, 4e TOTALLY didn't focus on that!

Like the focus on improved resource utilization for players. Nah, ...

Like the focus on more consistent encounter resolution. Nah, ...

Like the focus on more flexible and open-ended non-combat mechanics. Nah, ...

Like the focus on making all classes playable at all levels (and just making play WORK at all levels). Nah, ...

I could go on. The thing is 4e has a huge focus on playability and quality of the core rules systems. Anyone that can't 'get' that after playing for a couple months, I just don't know, maybe they have a hard time really seeing what the design is about. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[satori01]

Sigh.....one big change is the continual patronizing tone any time someone questions the prevailing zeitgeist....Not what Enworld used to be.

Guys 3E sense of focus was The D20 Mechanics and simplified saving throws. the systems is robust, easy to use, and frankly can be simple to use even as a DM, if one throws slavish devotion to use all rules and balance the stats like an accountants book sheet.

4E basically said it would be better....that is the essential design philosophy....ohh and less time for DMs. In 3e I want a Flind Monkish Warlord....I take a gnoll, add some Monk levels or PRC levels, ignore prereqs, ignore skill points, and it works.......which is basically 4E monster design......except 4E design is more akin to 1e & 2e in creatures are designed from whole cloth which is sometimes harder, than tweaking.

Obviously, for successful games design gets more refined....but 4E is one a faster release cycle than previous editions. I do not think it unreasonably especially given the small amount of time from PHB1 to PHB 2 that more time in development would have helped refine the initial release. As someone that has played every edition of D&D....I do not find it acceptable to have people just say...yeah the Wizard sucks.

As to the online support....many people are Mac-ties and extreme Jobians....they just see the books.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As to the online support....many people are Mac-ties and extreme Jobians....they just see the books.

As has been pointed out to me- quite rudely, as a matter of fact- its possible to run most of DDI on Mac, just not CB.

To which I responded it wasn't merely my preference for Mac that kept me from using DDI, but that plus a host of other reasons.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sigh.....one big change is the continual patronizing tone any time someone questions the prevailing zeitgeist....Not what Enworld used to be.

Guys 3E sense of focus was The D20 Mechanics and simplified saving throws. the systems is robust, easy to use, and frankly can be simple to use even as a DM, if one throws slavish devotion to use all rules and balance the stats like an accountants book sheet.

4E basically said it would be better....that is the essential design philosophy....ohh and less time for DMs. In 3e I want a Flind Monkish Warlord....I take a gnoll, add some Monk levels or PRC levels, ignore prereqs, ignore skill points, and it works.......which is basically 4E monster design......except 4E design is more akin to 1e & 2e in creatures are designed from whole cloth which is sometimes harder, than tweaking.

Obviously, for successful games design gets more refined....but 4E is one a faster release cycle than previous editions. I do not think it unreasonably especially given the small amount of time from PHB1 to PHB 2 that more time in development would have helped refine the initial release. As someone that has played every edition of D&D....I do not find it acceptable to have people just say...yeah the Wizard sucks.

As to the online support....many people are Mac-ties and extreme Jobians....they just see the books.

I don't actually have a problem with 3.x. Hardly ever played it actually and never ran it, though I think I have a decent sense of the game.

Of course a slower release cycle would have made 4e better. The question really is if it is good and would we have wanted to wait a couple years for it to be better. It wouldn't be up to the state it is now in some respects had it stayed at WotC HQ for another two years either, so its kind of a hard question. It had to be released at SOME point.

Personally I don't really even OWN a copy of Windows technically. I do have access to MS stuff though due to MSDN I need for some of my consulting work, so I can manage to run CB, though it is inconvenient. I'd LOVE a platform-neutral CB, but I seriously doubt we'll ever see it.

4e isn't at all perfect. They did TRY hard though, and did a lot of interesting stuff with it. I DO think it improves on 3.x but that's just how I see it. All fun games are good!

 

[Mistwell]

Sigh.....one big change is the continual patronizing tone any time someone questions the prevailing zeitgeist....Not what Enworld used to be.

Sat, not cool. There is no patronizing tone. There is no prevailing zeitgeist. You asked what people thought of an opinion you have, and they gave you their opinion in return. They simply don't agree with your opinion. It's not cool to group all those answers, that people put thought into, and bash them all in some generalization.

Consider the possibility that people just don't agree with you. It happens.

Guys 3E sense of focus was The D20 Mechanics and simplified saving throws. the systems is robust, easy to use, and frankly can be simple to use even as a DM, if one throws slavish devotion to use all rules and balance the stats like an accountants book sheet.

Some agree it was easy to use, and others disagree. It's a matter of taste.

4E basically said it would be better....that is the essential design philosophy....ohh and less time for DMs. In 3e I want a Flind Monkish Warlord....I take a gnoll, add some Monk levels or PRC levels, ignore prereqs, ignore skill points, and it works.......which is basically 4E monster design......except 4E design is more akin to 1e & 2e in creatures are designed from whole cloth which is sometimes harder, than tweaking.

I completely disagree here. As a DM, who loved 3e and has nothing against it now, it was an absolute nightmare sometimes for me to make challenges well. In 4e, it's a breeze. A lot of that is the electronic tools they give you to use. Perhaps if 3e had better electronic tools it would have also been such a breeze. Regardless, in no way is 4e challenge design from whole cloth, and in no way was 3e challenge design mere tweaking relative to 4e, in my experience.

There are plenty of ways to compliment 3e, and criticize 4e, but tweaking vs. whole cloth challenge design? Naw, that does not seem to be a good argument to make from my perspective.

Obviously, for successful games design gets more refined....but 4E is one a faster release cycle than previous editions. I do not think it unreasonably especially given the small amount of time from PHB1 to PHB 2 that more time in development would have helped refine the initial release. As someone that has played every edition of D&D....I do not find it acceptable to have people just say...yeah the Wizard sucks.

First, I do not think the cycle is faster that before. Second, a lot of folks (myself included) loved the Wizard of 4e.

As to the online support....many people are Mac-ties and extreme Jobians....they just see the books.

Define "many". Fewer and fewer Mac owners are unable to also run windows on their machines. This sort of issue seems to have died out in the last year and a half or so. I heard this complaint a lot in the beginning, but not so much anymore. People found ways to use the tools. They are being used. Most people use the tools now, in some manner, and like them a lot.

Anyway, your complaint was about focus. But, now it seems to be all over the place. You have a scatter-gun approach to your complaint now which...well...lacks focus. Is this just a general list of stuff you don't like about 4e, or is it about the refinement over time issue you seemed to bring up earlier?

 

[evileeyore]

...this iteration of D&D just suffers from an overall lack of cohesive vision...

Lack of what?

The only lack of vision is your mistaking your dislikes as something more than they are.


I hates D&D and think 4e went in the wrong direction for me, but I wouldn't ever complain it had a lack of vision or direction. It seems for focused in on what it's doing, which is it's strongest point.

It does "old school" as well as the old school does.

 

[Ahnirades]

As I understand it 4E is the most focused vision of D&D to date, being built almost entirely around the encounter.

 

[jbear]

I know many people are diehard 4E supporters...but with the Essential line coming out.....this iteration of D&D just suffers from an overall lack of cohesive vision...which coupled with a intensive release schedule is a detriment to the pocket book of the customer.

PHB 2 classes showed a refinement that I wished was in the PHB 1....something I feel might have been possible with more development time.
Overall I feel like, I am paying money for what has been an extended beta test.

Now I like schools of magic....I like the ideas they are presenting...and growth is needed and to be expected.....but frankly more design time could have shook some of this out.

I write and perform comedy theatre shows. Before you actually perform the show, there is only so much you can do. You can imagine what is going to work and what won't. A dress rehearsal will help you iron out the structure. But until you get an audience in there you just don't know. The first show you perform is a totally different animal than the one you perform 2 weeks later. D&D isn't comedy theatre, but they both share a similar creative process.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sigh.....one big change is the continual patronizing tone any time someone questions the prevailing zeitgeist....Not what Enworld used to be.

You mean that Enworld used to let pass statements that were blatantly wrong?

Guys 3E sense of focus was The D20 Mechanics and simplified saving throws. the systems is robust, easy to use, and frankly can be simple to use even as a DM, if one throws slavish devotion to use all rules and balance the stats like an accountants book sheet.

"Robust ... easy to use ... balance..." You are joking, right?

4E basically said it would be better....that is the essential design philosophy....ohh and less time for DMs.

It is less time for DMs. It's better balanced with no one being irrelevant. What it doesn't do is either gritty games or old high level play. It's more focussed.

In 3e I want a Flind Monkish Warlord....I take a gnoll, add some Monk levels or PRC levels, ignore prereqs, ignore skill points, and it works.......which is basically 4E monster design......except 4E design is more akin to 1e & 2e in creatures are designed from whole cloth which is sometimes harder, than tweaking.

And here you don't understand 4e. If designing from whole cloth in 4e you start with role (skirmisher/soldier/brute/controller/artillery), function (solo/elite/standard/mook), and level. That gives you basic hp, attack values, defences - tweak by a couple of points. Add a racial trait or two and you've got your base. Total time with the character builder for this phase: Three minutes or so once you know why you want a monster. Possibly another couple for traits.

Next phase: Keep the melee basic attack - or edit with rider and select which defence to hit. Maybe a minute. Final step: Add powers (blatantly stolen from monsters of about the right level). Rule of thumb: Mooks need one, standards 3, elites 5, and solos 7-9 plus a defence.

Final phase - use it. Everything I need is in the statblock orn on the DM screen. Which really isn't true for a 3e monster.

And try doing a 3e Dragon straight out of the MM. Pick your spells carefully... I can just open any 4e MM to the right page and I'm ready to go.

Obviously, for successful games design gets more refined....but 4E is one a faster release cycle than previous editions.

False. TSR was at one point pushing out a book or two per week.

I do not think it unreasonably especially given the small amount of time from PHB1 to PHB 2 that more time in development would have helped refine the initial release.

Oh, probably. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a much more balanced and consistent game than any previous edition despite not having twenty odd years development behind it.

As someone that has played every edition of D&D....I do not find it acceptable to have people just say...yeah the Wizard sucks.

He doesn't. When he came out he was slightly weak by the standards of 4e classes. But if you think the PHB wizard sucks I've got a few people to introduce him to. The 3e monk (both versions). The 1e monk. The 3.0 ranger and bard. A 3.X fighter who's just seen what a druid can do. And when he's done there, I'll take him and a wizard from every other edition and introduce each of them to a few housecats.

 

[Herschel]

Sigh.....one big change is the continual patronizing tone any time someone questions the prevailing zeitgeist....Not what Enworld used to be.

.......I do not find it acceptable to have people just say...yeah the Wizard sucks.

First, you come on to the 4E forum proper and complain about how it isn't focused. Who is the one being patronizing?

Second, the Wizard doesn't suck, he's just different now. He's not the be-all/end-all blaster of previous editions, he's not even a striker, and he's certainly not a party unto himself at mid-high levels. This was a HUGE departure for many people that some still haven't come to terms with. Different people have different goals with characters and some want to just blast stuff in to oblivion and leave the rest of the party behind.

4E is not the game for them.