Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Bedrockgames]

I like 4e because it provided me with a Final Fantasy Tactics like experience. Almost every turn based strategy RPG for a console is praised universally. Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, Vanguard Bandits, XCOM, Front Mission, Tactics Ogre. All of them contain extremely engrossing story lines and very tactical combat, yet for some reason people act like 4e cant provide these kinds of stories because of the mechanics. I just... it makes no sense. I certainly hope these people that bash 4e aren't the same people who have played the myriad of masterpieces on consoles. I simply don't understand which is why I created this topic. I honestly think Square could have gotten this and re-skinned it as Final Fantasy Tabletop Tactics and no one would have batted an eye at it.

If it is helpful at all, one of my early negative reactions to 4E was due to what I call the Phantasy Star Effect. This is something that occurred for me a bit in 3E also, but basically it is the sense of everything around the characters shifting to a tactical grid when combat occurs (the way things shift from the exploration screen in Phantasy Star to the combat screen). I'm sure plenty of people didn't have this reaction, but for me it was the fact that it reminded me of games like this that is what troubled me initially. There is more to my response than that of course, and I don't think the game itself presents certain kinds of story lines from emerging. For me I definitely found myself thinking of video games like this when I played.

I think in the end, it is pretty hard to pinpoint why you don't like something though. All I can do is tell people I gave it several tries. I attempted to get into 4E on multiple occasions, but for me it just wasn't happening. I guess what I find a bit frustrating about threads like this is that if feels like folks are still trying to convert me to the system. If it works for others, if others like it, that is totally cool. My business partner played 4E (he also was really into OSR and his favorite edition was 1E) and he never had any big issues with the game (there were a couple of things that annoyed him, like the Warlord healing, but they were problems he considered minor and not unlike issues he had with other editions).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But it does bring up the point---what is it about 4e that evokes such passionate responses from proponents? Is the drifted narrativist "Pemertonian scene framing" with tactical combat style that 4e handles best really that compelling of a gameplay experience? When I hear the 4e stalwarts describe it, they make it sound like I've somehow completely missed out on a formative RPG experience. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the answers to this question.

The tactical combat is part of it; I do love action, and 4e certainly delivers on it. But I also prefer 4e because it's so...tidy and transparent. Which really helps me as a DM without a ton of experience, and a fairly...literal way of reading. Most of my DMing experience prior to 4e came from DMing 3.x, and there were quite a few times where I made encounters either cakewalks or TPKs. Not because I was running a sandbox campaign and I was expecting players to know when to stand and when to run, but because I was trying to make fun heroic combats with roughly-assigned CRs and ballpark-it encounter guidelines. So there were quite a few disappointing cakewalks and a couple of big behind-the-screen fudgings. I'm sure I would have gotten a handle on it all with enough practice, but 4e monster levels and encounter guidelines made it so much easier to strike the right balance for fun heroic combats.

As a player, I like the lack of die-rolling during chargen. (Rolling for abilities is of course presented in the PHB, but it requires DM approval, and I've never seen it happen in 4e.) 4e chargen is in general very very intuitive, and strikes a great (but not perfect) balance between customization and simplicity. I've introduced a handful of gamers to D&D via 4e; I offered to help each of them make their first characters, but most of them turned me down and were nevertheless able to go through the entire process without intervention. Oh, and there're fewer legacy quirks; paladins aren't restricted to LG, turn undead finally operates under the unified d20 mechanic, etc.. There are still some quirks that make me roll my eyes though, like the earlier mentioned swordmage class.

And then there are a lot of little things that make 4e appealing. Like how 4e has the yin-yang of both attack-and-AC-by-level and damage-and-HP-by-level. I know that most gamers don't think anything of thac0/BAB, saves, and hit points rising with level while AC and damage don't, and some gamers are even offended by the idea of 'double-dipping' offense and defense as 4e does, but to me it just makes 4e so much more pleasing. Both from a simple aesthetic PoV and a simulationist PoV. It may sound strange to others, but this is actually not such a little thing for me. In fact it's a pretty big thing.

Anyhow, when 4e was young I wrote a lengthy blog post on this topic; it's a compilation of all the reasons that 4e fans love 4e.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

No he didn't actually. Nostalgia would be finding a game the most fun because that is the first one you were exposed to and you associate it with happy memories of a particular time in your life (i.e. liking monopoly because you associate it with memories of Dad and Mom taking you to a summer cabin in Maine). But liking something because it is the version you find the most fun, that also happens to be an early version of the game, isn't nostalgia.

When you encounter a group of people who enjoy an antique thing despite the easy availability of a newer and demonstrably more user-friendly thing, and who are again and again unable to articulate what advantage the antique thing has or why they like it beyond 'it's the version I find most fun,' do you have to be Sherlock Holmes to make the nostalgia deduction?

I've gone back too -- to editions and retroclones which predate my first D&D experiences -- and I've heard the 'Disparate subsystems are easier to house rule' sentiment before. And I still think it's clear that nostalgia plays a sizable role in the D&D fanbase, but I don't want you to feel like I'm trying to convert you or anything, so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I like 4e because it provided me with a Final Fantasy Tactics like experience. Almost every turn based strategy RPG for a console is praised universally. Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, Vanguard Bandits, XCOM, Front Mission, Tactics Ogre. All of them contain extremely engrossing story lines and very tactical combat, yet for some reason people act like 4e cant provide these kinds of stories because of the mechanics. I just... it makes no sense. I certainly hope these people that bash 4e aren't the same people who have played the myriad of masterpieces on consoles. I simply don't understand which is why I created this topic. I honestly think Square could have gotten this and re-skinned it as Final Fantasy Tabletop Tactics and no one would have batted an eye at it.

I think if this had happened people might have been more accepting of the game. How you describe why you like it is why I like it.

Combat in 4e is just so freaking cool and visually fun that its the one edition of D&D that I get excited about when battle takes place. Its seriously just a blast to play.

I believe that this system can make a comeback. Wizards can't stop others from adapting 4e to different games. If they could than they could have put a kabash to the entire OSR revival.

4e is the only edition of D&D with a balanced enough system to really pull off a gladiatorial themed campaign. Just knowing all players have similar enough options with fairly equivalent powers makes it feasible whereas in just about all other editions there is that huge disparity of power imbalance between casters and noncasters.

Of course, all these arguments between all the pros and con's of D&D just makes me appreciate FantasyCraft so much more. It fixes D&D.

I can see why some people don't like 4e. Its just so jarringly different. It was so different and in your face with its balance, and how classes were formatted and appeared to look so similar that to many all classes looked samey. Also, because all classes had such a strong focus of Ability Score focus within the classes lead to a lot of dump stats that honestly didn't affect roleplaying at all. It did often lead players towards a metagamey, power gamey style that might have made it difficult to get into characters. And.. It did require all combat encounters to be balanced and a bit of system mastery for GMs. It made it hard for GMs to do random encounters just by cracking open the MM and say "hey, you see this" while pointing at the monster.

So 4e is probably the most pros and con's disparity of all editions as what makes up its pros are also its cons.

So appreciate it for what it did well while also recognizing its faults.

 

[Bedrockgames]

When you encounter a group of people who enjoy an antique thing despite the easy availability of a newer and demonstrably more user-friendly thing, and who are again and again unable to articulate what advantage the antique thing has or why they like it beyond 'it's the version I find most fun,' do you have to be Sherlock Holmes to make the nostalgia deduction?

I've gone back too -- to editions and retroclones which predate my first D&D experiences -- and I've heard the 'Disparate subsystems are easier to house rule' sentiment before. And I still think it's clear that nostalgia plays a sizable role in the D&D fanbase, but I don't want you to feel like I'm trying to convert you or anything, so I'm going to leave it at that.

I think that is a pretty big straw man. It is also the kind of reasoning one could turn right back at 4E players to try to make their preference into some sort of undesirable shortcoming. But in my view that isn't an honest discussion that considers peoples actual preferences, it is just a way of scoring points in an edition debate. I can say pretty clearly that nostalgia isn't much of a factor for me at all, for the reasons I have already given. Most people I know will give similar reasons. You can ignore the reasons people provide and continue with the straw man but understand why people find it a bit insulting and why they feel the need to respond in kind (because it is a fairly hostile posture to take in a discussion about what sort of mechanics and games we enjoy). Reducing a person's enjoyment to mere nostalgia isn't much different from reducing it to a lack of creativity, an inability to do simple math, or an overabundance of hormones.

I would also just add that simply because someone can't express in words why they continue using an older mechanic over a newer one others may think is an improvement, doesn't mean they are being nostalgic. Most people are not that good at getting at the heart of why they like something. But just because they fail to express it or even understand it, doesn't make Nostalgia the only or most likely explanation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When you encounter a group of people who enjoy an antique thing despite the easy availability of a newer and demonstrably more user-friendly thing, and who are again and again unable to articulate what advantage the antique thing has or why they like it beyond 'it's the version I find most fun,' do you have to be Sherlock Holmes to make the nostalgia deduction?

And there's nothing wrong with nostalgia. I can watch old TV shows or listen to old music or re-read a favorite book without having to pretend the special effects in ST:ToS are better than anything on today or anything like that.

 

[innerdude]

I can say pretty clearly that nostalgia isn't much of a factor for me at all....

Totally agree. At no point when I was "soul searching" for an RPG system back in 2010/2011 was "nostalgia" a factor. It was a highly pragmatic inquiry of, A) will this give me the kind of play experience I want, and B) even if it gives me that experience, am I willing to run it?

I was open to pretty much anything....new stuff, old stuff, stuff in between. I looked at Runequest, True20, New World of Darkness, Arcana Evolved, GURPS, Fate/Legends of Anglerre.
I even revisited my Rules Cyclopedia, and checked out old 1e stuff. Ultimately I realized that I didn't WANT to go back to an older version of D&D. Some of my fondest memories of roleplaying as a teen revolve around the Rules Cyclopedia.....and I had zero desire to go back and actually play or run it. Simply put, there were "better" systems out there now. The RPG world had evolved a great deal since 1989.

In fact, my ultimate choice of Savage Worlds largely came to fruition because it provided a BECMI-like feel in play, but with radically improved resolution mechanics.

Even now, my RPG purchasing decisions are based on the same criteria. The only other factor is even if I would never run the system / module in question, I might still purchase it if it provides enough compelling background / world building / inspirational / encounter material.

You can ignore the reasons people provide and continue with the straw man but understand why people find it a bit insulting and why they feel the need to respond in kind (because it is a fairly hostile posture to take in a discussion about what sort of mechanics and games we enjoy). Reducing a person's enjoyment to mere nostalgia isn't much different from reducing it to a lack of creativity, an inability to do simple math, or an overabundance of hormones.

To a point, I sort of understand the whole, "Get over your nostalgia and get with the times" argument. Claiming that a 1970s stereo with scratchy speakers and 8-track player is objectively "better" than a brand new set of high-end Klipsch speakers attached to a top-of-the-line Denon receiver is, on its face, ludicrous. The only reason for making such a claim really would be nostalgia----the memories of listening to music on that 1970s stereo trump the actual equipment used during the experience.

But it's a bit more nebulous than that with an RPG system, for the simple fact that the emotional component is really at the heart of gameplay. Comfort, familiarity with a system and its tropes, experience working through its mechanics, all may lead to the "right" experience where the emotional resonance trumps everything else. An RPG produces an experience, it isn't the experience itself. To use the music metaphor, sound equipment is pretty much moot without some actual recorded music to play on it. I personally happen to think that newer RPGs make it easier to produce quality experiences, but someone who really groks 1e, for example, may likely produce an equal or better experience for his or her group than I do with mine using Savage Worlds.

I actually think the stereo metaphor isn't all that inappropriate---the choice of recording is equivalent to the RPG "play experience" we want. If we don't want to listen to polka music, don't put one in the CD player (or turntable). Likewise, if I want to play a space opera sci-fi campaign, don't bring over your copy of Dread. But if we DO want polka music, the choice of equipment (i.e., RPG system) may determine in some regard how well that music is reproduced and consumed.

In this case, a highly modded game of 1e would be the equivalent of someone taking that 1970s sound system and making their own self-made improvements---"See what I did to the speakers there? And how I soldered this diode on to the circuit here? That improves the sound reproduction."

 

[Bedrockgames]

And there's nothing wrong with nostalgia. I can watch old TV shows or listen to old music or re-read a favorite book without having to pretend the special effects in ST:ToS are better than anything on today or anything like that.

Nostalgia on its own isn't a good or bad thing. The problem is people are basically being told what they like is bad, but they can't see it because of nostalgia. It is dismissive. Lets not pretend it is meant as a compliment here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To a point, I sort of understand the whole, "Get over your nostalgia and get with the times" argument. Claiming that a 1970s stereo with scratchy speakers and 8-track player is objectively "better" than a brand new set of high-end Klipsch speakers attached to a top-of-the-line Denon receiver is, on its face, ludicrous. The only reason for making such a claim really would be nostalgia----the memories of listening to music on that 1970s stereo trump the actual equipment used during the experience.
"

I appreciate what you are saying here. I get that and I do think it happens. People do like things they might not otherwise due to nostalgia (and there are certainly people in the OSR who are probably doing that). But I don't think the bulk are. I think mostly what is going on is people have gone out into the wilderness and rediscovered mechanics they may have written off. As I pointed out to before, it isn't like people are trying to resurrect THAC0. Most OSR games have adopted parts of d20 that most would agree are improvements. Where folks tend to get the nostalgia label leveled at them is on the stuff where there is disagreement over whether new approaches are better. I think that is because a lot of this stuff gets into the territory of trade offs. Yes unified mechanics are more streamlined and usually simpler (I use them myself) but the downside of tossing out a bunch of discrete subsystems is you have less control over individual parts of the game. This is a problem I've encountered first hand designing with unified systems. It is a real downside to the unified approach. While it is one I am more than willing to deal with, I can appreciate why some people might want more varied subsystems in game.

When I mined the past for stuff to use in my current gaming, like you, I did it with an eye for things that would add to my experience, improve it. I was just very surprised by what I found and where I found it.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I can admit how there are some games that I am wanting to get again because I have fond and fun memories of playing them when I was younger despite them having rather archaic game systems in them, Heroes Unlimited being the top on the list... but another factor is that while I know that nostalgia is a part of it... the game does some things different than games today are being made and the way it does things is different enough to make the experience of playing it also different and not the same as playing other games... and ultimately that's what we all want... a good experience playing these games that give us the kind of fun we all desire.

Is HU faulty... oh yeah, very... is it up to the standards of Mutants and Masterminds or Fate or ICONS or Marvel Heroic... very much not so... but can it play and do something the other games can't... to me that answer is Yes. And that's where the game is Fun for me.

I am sure a lot of other games are fun for many of you for reasons that might be along similar lines. We all like what we like because of something in the games that draws us to them. That's what makes rpgs special, IMO.