D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis

[UHF]

Say what?

I've been playing D&D for 23 years, and most folks I've gamed with consider me a solid DM. I can run Basic, 4E, and any edition in between. But I didn't feel slapped in the face when 4E came out; in fact, I was a big 4E proponent at first... my current, more ambivalent position only developed over time, partly as I gained experience with 4E's shortcomings and partly due to discussions on this very board reminding me of the things I liked about TSR-era D&D.

Even so, I still think 4E is very strong in many ways, and chief among its strengths is the way it supports the DM. I'm perfectly capable of running a game without that support, but that doesn't mean I want to.

So... you're a solid DM... You obviously don't need 4e. You must have good players too. Sounds like agreance with the rest of what I said.

 

[Xris Robin]

Personal experience is not data, no matter how many people post it. The hypothesis can neither be proved nor disproved by a message board.

This is exactly like trying to figure sales by working off what the guy at your local FLGS said.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Hopefully, we can head off another edition war before it starts. But I'm just jaded enough to doubt it.

But if D&D is about heroic fantasy - and I guran-damn-tee you that every PHB in every edition says it is - then no, 4e is D&D. It's a different D&D then you are personally used to, but just as 3e was D&D, just as 2e was D&D, and just as AD&D was D&D, then 4e is too.

As soon as we all start arguing about "what is D&D," we have to be very careful. For me, there is only one line if inquiry, that I know of, that might actually further the discussion. To date, I have yet to receive an answer. It is:

At what point, in your opinion, do the accumulated changes to a game actually produce a different game? In other words, what would have to happen to a hypothetical future edition of D&D to make it "not D&D anymore," despite having the brand name on the cover?

If you can't answer that question, then your definition of D&D is functionally meaningless. It would be like trying to do science with a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Marius Delphus]

A statement that asserts, "no one can..." is disproved if someone correctly and honestly says, "I can."

 

[Dausuul]

So... you're a solid DM... You obviously don't need 4e. You must have good players too. Sounds like agreance with the rest of what I said.

I don't need 4E in a strict sense. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what 4E does for me.

You said 4E "solves a problem that most 'good' players/DMs don't have a problem with." I'm not entirely sure what you mean there. If all you mean is that DMs who don't need 4E's support, don't need 4E's support... well, yeah, can't argue with that. But as with most tautologies, it doesn't really tell us anything.

If on the other hand you're talking about specific solutions to specific issues, I can and will argue.

For example, 4E introduced the self-contained statblock, which makes it possible to run any monster, no matter how powerful or complex, through an entire combat without reference to any other book. Do I need that? No. I can run monsters the old way, looking up their spell-like abilities in the PHB as needed. But I sure do have a problem with the old way--it takes a lot longer! The convenience of having all that data at my fingertips is huge.

Likewise, 4E's carefully balanced math and avoidance of insta-kill effects means that I can design a monster or encounter and have a good idea in advance how tough it's going to be. I could go back to the old way and just ballpark everything, then fudge numbers on the fly if the encounter starts spiraling toward a TPK or looks like being absurdly easy. I don't have to do that any more, though--I've started rolling in the open as DM, which is a first for me. And being able to do that is a major plus in my book.

And the whole slap in the face business... don't know where you got that idea. Generally, when people take 4E as a slap in the face, it's because it took the game in a direction they disliked, not because it gave them easier options for things they'd learned to do the hard way.

 

[BryonD]

D&D has never been "simulationist." Ever. In fact I never even heard anyone every thinking it was...until 4e came along, when suddenly people began claiming their D&D games are really full of geo- and sociopolitical arguments about assisting the plight of the lower class peasants and establishing a democracy amongst the monarchies to best simulate how life would really be no I can't even finish this sentence. The argument of 3e being simulationist was created whole cloth to insult 4e - so I can't really blame them too much since that's why Forge-isms exist in the first place, zing!

I find your claims fail to match my experiences.

No, D&D has never been simulationist. It's never been a simulation of anything other then wish fulfiilment and monster killin'. There is no simulationism in being able to cast time stop, a spell that nobody agrees on how it works in the world at large, in part because nobody cares.

Oh, I see, you don't understand what is meant by the term. Either that or you are intentionally being misleading.

Either way, you have ignored my actual points and simply tried to smokescreen with faulty proclamations. So be it.

So my question comes down to this: Does 4e let and encourage you to write and make the same stories eople did in 3e? That's where roleplaying comes into question.

Again, people bring roleplaying to the game. The question about how systems compare comes down to how the mechanics handle it.

From a simulation point of view 3E supports the story vastly better than 4E. That isn't the only valid point of view. I don't in any way claim it is. But, it is the point of view I take. It is the point of view a lot of people take.

The REALLY funny point is, YOUR claim that I replied to was that logic was faulty if it ended up concluding that people didn't exist. And yet in no time at all here you are telling us that simulationist D&D players don't exist.

lol

Oh, and by my logic, everyone can have an opinion, but that doesn't stop opinions from being wrong.

The only claim you have both made and successfully proven.

 

[wolff96]

So back to my main point: It is my view--more of a hypothesis than a theory--that most of those who have reacted negatively to 4E are people who were new to D&D with 3E; in other words, it is the contrast and difference between 3E and 4E that people are (for the most part) not liking, not the contrast and difference between older editions and 4E.

What do you think?

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon of disagreement. I go way back, my first experiences were Red Box and (other than mostly skipping 2e for RL reasons) I've played everything since. 4E isn't for me. I played in a game for most of a year, trying to give it a fair shot. I'm glad others like it, but I'm back to playing/running 3.5, Pathfinder, and WFRPG (v. 2).

Amusingly enough, out of all the people I game with across several games, only one actually enjoys 4th. He started playing RPGs with 3.0.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At what point, in your opinion, do the accumulated changes to a game actually produce a different game? In other words, what would have to happen to a hypothetical future edition of D&D to make it "not D&D anymore," despite having the brand name on the cover?

If you can't answer that question, then your definition of D&D is functionally meaningless. It would be like trying to do science with a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

How many boards need Theseus replace on his ship before it isn't the one he started on? How many times has your body replaced every cell, rendering you a completely new being?

Essentially it's a matter of perception.

As long as every change is minor, incremental and everything looks the same, Theseus may well tell you that he's still on the same ship, despite having mo original parts.

You probably think you're still the same "you" from when you were born, but except for neurons in your cerebral cortex, the human body replaces every cell in your body about every 10 years. You may LOOK like "you" and think like "you," but really, your brain gets a new chariot every decade.

So where "new" comes into the equation regarding RPGs is a matter of entirely subjective perception. Changes that made 4Ed "not D&D" to me (to answer your question, 4Ed achieved that status for me) may not be enough to sway someone else from accepting it as the same game they've always loved...maybe better.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Sigh. Nothing ever changes:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wg1DNHbNU]YouTube - Talking Heads - "Once In A Lifetime"[/ame]

 

[Aus_Snow]

Oh, and by the way, I started with B/X (as far as D&D goes), and moved through a few other versions of "classic D&D", including BECMI, AD&D 1e, and later, RC. Most recently, OD&D as well.

I (still) have a good appreciation for classic D&D. 3e, I like too, though it's a slightly different beast - and well, a clunky cow at very high levels, quite frankly. 4e. . . I'd rather not go anywhere near. I read the [first batch of] core books, and that was more than enough, thanks.

All the people I know, and those I've met, who also happen to dislike 4e as a game, either started with classic D&D of some kind, or otherwise did not start with 3e (came from other RPGs altogether, for example).

And that's rather a lot of gamers, too. It seems there's a lot to dislike about 4e. YMMV, blah.


edit: Even so, on occasion, I've posted my thoughts on the strengths/advantages of 4e. In list format, at least once. It does have some, certainly. If the overall effect, along with many a detail, wasn't so repulsive, I'm sure it would make for a neat thing of some sort.