D&D 4E So all these wacky arguments are still about 4e, right?

[dmgorgon]

Many of these issues started with 3e and were included in 4e as a result. So it's more a case of things some people hated 10 years ago and things people didn't mind or like 10 years ago. Such as fighters with powers, NPCs using PC rules, slow healing, lack of at-will spells, spell lists in monsters, the fragility of low level PCs, alignment (number, related spells, and restrictions), and QW vs LF.

I agree, but I think that 4e is an overreaction to some of the problems 3.5e introduced.

In my 2e games I use PC rules to build NPCs all the time. In fact, monsters are a pseudo class. When I ran a 4e game for a while I found myself spending a lot more time building encounters because much of the knowledge I gained as player wasn't transferable. Using several matrix tables full of formulas isn't fun.

Hit points are a major point of contention. I'm rather surprised that the designers failed to recognize that. Early on in the playtest they discovered that people wanted optional resting rules and they even included them in the playtest document. What I don't understand is why they didn't continue to add optional rules. I think that train of thought left the moment Monte Cook vacated. Since then they have tried to create a compromise edition, and that's why we have so many arguments.

Take the DoaM debate. It would not be happening if WotC would just recognize the playstyle differences related to hit points. You can put DoaM, martial healing, coddling resting rules, surges, etc into an optional play-style bucket for those who like them.

 

[Obryn]

You can put DoaM, martial healing, coddling resting rules, surges, etc into an optional play-style bucket for those who like them.

... or vice versa. An insistence on what should be modular and what should be default fits back into my general thesis statement that these arguments are more about being right - about the true soul of D&D - than they are concrete mechanical concerns.

 

[keterys]

Take the DoaM debate. It would not be happening if WotC would just recognize the playstyle differences related to hit points. You can put DoaM, martial healing, coddling resting rules, surges, etc into an optional play-style bucket for those who like them.

I don't think it works, because then people just argue about which rules should be optional.

For example, if the default style had martial healing, surges, and whatever "coddling resting rules" is, and every other option was placed in a special optional bucket, then you'd presumably feel that it was not evoking the version of D&D you want.

 

[Umbran]

So Next just a proxy battle for the same damn Edition War that's been crapping up forums for about the past 6 years, right?
...
Am I missing something here, or just spelling out the bleedingly obvious? What, if anything, can be done about it? Or should it?

The bleedingly obvious thing being that those who didn't like mechanics that came to the fore with 4e will rather naturally not like them now, either.

It is rather glib to dismiss all such complaint as edition warring. Folks are allowed to not like things, and to state that. When they have seen D&D do the things they want in the past, they have just as much right to say they want more of that as anyone else.

What can be done about edition warring? Stop discussing matters with people who are too aggressive or rude. Don't rise to the bait. Use the Ignore List.

The "fight for the soul of D&D" is predicated on the idea that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and being squeaky on EN World has notable effect on development choices. At this point, that's not a reasonable expectation. Even if the developers read EN World, and even if they take the small number of very vocal folks we have here as telling (which I doubt, as I suspect they all have a better understanding of statistics than to do that), if they are releasing this summer, it is too late to effect major change in the structure of the game. Details may change, but the base mechanics have to be pretty solid at this point.

Which means that the game doesn't need you as a Chosen Defender. It will be what it will be. It's value will be determined not by your rhetoric, but by the buying patterns of the bulk of the market - who don't post on or read this board!

 

[Herschel]

No need for a flame-war if it doesn't impact you at all. . . .

Irony? (Not directed at you, personally, just in general)

 

[ExploderWizard]

Which means that the game doesn't need you as a Chosen Defender. It will be what it will be. It's value will be determined not by your rhetoric, but by the buying patterns of the bulk of the market - who don't post on or read this board!

But you forgot the most important thing ever that doesn't have squat to do with design, OR development.

The oh so popular I TOLD YOU SO factor.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snippage of three (3) whole paragraphs > . . .
The "fight for the soul of D&D" is predicated on the idea that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and being squeaky on EN World has notable effect on development choices. At this point, that's not a reasonable expectation. Even if the developers read EN World, . . . < also snip >

(Excellent use of the word "predicated." The dictionaries need to catch up to current usage of that word.)

Which means that the game doesn't need you as a Chosen Defender. It will be what it will be.

And then we will be able to say (along with Tiger Woods), "It is what it is."

 

[Uller]

I don't think it works, because then people just argue about which rules should be optional.

For example, if the default style had martial healing, surges, and whatever "coddling resting rules" is, and every other option was placed in a special optional bucket, then you'd presumably feel that it was not evoking the version of D&D you want.

This is what almost every 5e related arguement boils down to...my playstyle fits well with any game that supposrts well the 3 pillars of rpgs, is fantasy based, has the iconic classes, monsters, spells etc and other elements that are easily recognizable as D&D...(hp, levels, d20 to resolve actions Most of these arguements are peripheral to that which is why I usually side against whatever side takes the "if X is core I quit."

I've never played an RPG I haven't houseruled somewhat but only after playing it RAW first to see how the game works in practice at my table.

 

[Uller]

The bleedingly obvious thing being that those who didn't like mechanics that came to the fore with 4e will rather naturally not like them now, either.

Funny...I interpretted the OP as the exact opposite...that 4e folks who don't want to see the game regress to older editions are guilty of edition warring...whatever...its a game. New editions will have new rules that change the nature of the game a bit...I'm an old school gamer...I liked 4e when I first tried it but quickly realized it is overburdenned with things that slow the game down. So I want to see a return to a simpler, purer game but I don't want to se the baby thrown out with the bathwater...there is a lot to like in 4e.

 

[dmgorgon]

I don't think it works, because then people just argue about which rules should be optional.

For example, if the default style had martial healing, surges, and whatever "coddling resting rules" is, and every other option was placed in a special optional bucket, then you'd presumably feel that it was not evoking the version of D&D you want.

IMO, anyone who thinks that way isn't being reasonable. We can't possibly have a system for everyone without some mechanics being optional. Which mechanics are optional (in side bars) or not is irrelevant.

Personalty, I don't care what the default game looks like. I don't need my play style validated by the default game. All I care about is that I can play my game by selecting and/or ignoring options as needed. With that said, I do expect that my playstyle will be viable with the PHB alone.