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

[Wicht]

Idk... I am not sure I can equate a game with a spouse. That's really two different things on different scales of importance. I see where you are coming from though.

Well, I do in all honesty, hope people love their spouses more than the game. People are far more important than games.

But its a good analogy for a thing with an emotional investment.

I am just not attached to these games or hobbies to the point to take other peoples opinions about games and the hobby personally. Sure I am passionate about what I find fun... I can also see both sides of whatever is being discussed and even if I have a harshly negative opinion about something in a game I will always acknowledge that I think its cool that others like what I don't like and I always admire people who get great enjoyment from it.

That sounds like a very healthy perspective.

But if my words are "AD&D 2e is a bad game because (insert reasons here)"... Is not the same thing as saying " the people who play it (insert negative words here)". Its two very different statements. One is a commentary on the game itself separate from anything else and the second is a direct attack on the person.

Unfortunately, a lot of people blend the two into one when their passions take over.

Again, emotional attachments are tricky things. One should tread carefully in assessing how one's words might be received.

But also, in the case in point, people's attitudes were directly criticized, so its a moot point. That line was crossed.

Be a penguin... Let other people's opinions be like water and let them be water sliding off your back so they don't stick to you.

I don't care about the opinions (well, I do, but in a genial way). Rudeness, and things like it, is what annoys me. People should play what they like and recognize that others are doing the same and its ok not to all like the same things.

 

[Aribar]

As someone who has played since AD&D, I don't understand how someone can become so emotionally invested in a game that they personally take offense when someone criticizes it. Like, how are we supposed to have any discussion about the games that isn't just a positive echo box? Is complaining that the 5E Beastmaster or Champion are underpowered and have incredibly lackluster features going too far? Or is saying the martial/magic balance in 3.5 can and has ruined games insensitive?

I'm also really unsure where this "mechanics are subjective/your opinion" thing has come from. We're all buying books of rules under the impression that it will invoke a certain atmosphere of game and story. I think people can definitely have meaningful and objective discussions on game mechanics. Like if a mechanic fails to do its job (hi 3.5 monks), appears better designed than in other systems (hi 4E post-MM3 monster math), or is an elegant mechanic (hi 5E advantage/disadvantage).

Edit: If this post is too off-topic or whatever, feel free to just ignore it. I just think these kinds of things make discussion on message boards incredibly unproductive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just curious... have you checked out 13th Age or Dungeon World?

13th Age, yes. I've played it at conventions a few times, run it once. It's a very D&D-like game, much as the authors stated was their intent. It has a few cool little mechanics that you can easily lift for D&D, which also seems like part of the point. It's a little amusing that 13A went full-bore into a couple of things that 5e intended to do but didn't carry through on, like being played 'TotM' by default, backgrounds determining skills, and even arbitrarily differentiating classes with mechanics, while not completely sacrificing encounter balance (through the heavy-handed rubric of quick rests after every encounter, full heal ups every 4th encounter, and campaign losses for deviating from the formula).

Can't say I enjoy running it as quite much as 5e, and playing has definitely been hit or miss (even though I've played with DMs whom I know from past experience are very good). But it hits the basics: clear, roughly balanced, playable.

As someone who has played since AD&D, I don't understand how someone can become so emotionally invested in a game that they personally take offense when someone criticizes it.

It might not be easy to understand, but it's hard to deny. Hobbyists do get very obsessive, 'fan' is just short for 'fanatic.' People really care about this stuff.

Like, how are we supposed to have any discussion about the games that isn't just a positive echo box? Is complaining that the 5E Beastmaster or Champion are underpowered and have incredibly lackluster features going too far? Or is saying the martial/magic balance in 3.5 can and has ruined games insensitive?

It's an issue, yes. You can try to separate fact from emotion, but it's very difficult to keep it separate, both because you get sick of typing weasel-words, and because people just won't let you put anything in the 'fact' box if it challenges their preconceived notions. The insistence that 'everything is subjective' comes up over and over again, to dismiss even the most solidly supported logic - let alone more tenuous supported ideas like the ones being brought up here.

I'm also really unsure where this "mechanics are subjective/your opinion" thing has come from. We're all buying books of rules under the impression that it will invoke a certain atmosphere of game and story. I think people can definitely have meaningful and objective discussions on game mechanics.

There are things that are clearly objective mechanics - the d20 core dice resolution mechanic is what it is, you can calculate average DPR for a certain fighter build, there's no arguing the number of slots a class gets at a certain level, etc - there are emotional reactions to them that can be positively contradictory, even from the same poster.

Like if a mechanic fails to do its job (hi 3.5 monks), appears better designed than in other systems (hi 4E post-MM3 monster math), or is an elegant mechanic (hi 5E advantage/disadvantage).

And then there are things about mechanics that are qualitative, not quantitative, but still not entirely subjective, yes. And those get /very/ hard to discuss rationally.

 

[Wicht]

As someone who has played since AD&D, I don't understand how someone can become so emotionally invested in a game that they personally take offense when someone criticizes it. Like, how are we supposed to have any discussion about the games that isn't just a positive echo box? Is complaining that the 5E Beastmaster or Champion are underpowered and have incredibly lackluster features going too far? Or is saying the martial/magic balance in 3.5 can and has ruined games insensitive?

I'm also really unsure where this "mechanics are subjective/your opinion" thing has come from. We're all buying books of rules under the impression that it will invoke a certain atmosphere of game and story. I think people can definitely have meaningful and objective discussions on game mechanics. Like if a mechanic fails to do its job (hi 3.5 monks), appears better designed than in other systems (hi 4E post-MM3 monster math), or is an elegant mechanic (hi 5E advantage/disadvantage).

Certainly people can have meaningful discussions on mechanics, and what works why and how. But such discussions should be done with some humility, as they are, in all honesty, highly subjective for the most part. And they should also be done in good faith, understanding that other people might have legitimate differences of opinion. I personally feel that the AC system of 3rd edition is a vast mechanical improvement over Thac0 (not that Thac0 ever bothered me). And I don't mind discussing why, but if someone else prefers Thac0, they are not wrong; because mechanics are not a right/wrong issue. They are a taste issue. Same with edition preferences.

There is a difference between saying, "I feel like the 3.5 monk is poorly implemented" and "Only dimwits enjoy playing the 3.5 monk." One is constructive and reflects opinion; the other is insulting. Likewise, there is a difference between saying, "Third Edition is not the edition for me," and saying, "Third edition is a broken waste of a game and its impossible to have a good time playing it." In the case in point, adamantly saying that the Dungeons and Dragon's rules have always been an albatross holding the hobby back from popular appeal and that the game is irredeemable, is a poor way to have a conversation unless both sides agree with the premise.

There are constructive ways to say things. And then there are the other ways.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As someone who has played since AD&D, I don't understand how someone can become so emotionally invested in a game that they personally take offense when someone criticizes it. Like, how are we supposed to have any discussion about the games that isn't just a positive echo box? Is complaining that the 5E Beastmaster or Champion are underpowered and have incredibly lackluster features going too far? Or is saying the martial/magic balance in 3.5 can and has ruined games insensitive?

I'm also really unsure where this "mechanics are subjective/your opinion" thing has come from. We're all buying books of rules under the impression that it will invoke a certain atmosphere of game and story. I think people can definitely have meaningful and objective discussions on game mechanics. Like if a mechanic fails to do its job (hi 3.5 monks), appears better designed than in other systems (hi 4E post-MM3 monster math), or is an elegant mechanic (hi 5E advantage/disadvantage).

Edit: If this post is too off-topic or whatever, feel free to just ignore it. I just think these kinds of things make discussion on message boards incredibly unproductive.

I do get what you are saying. I think a lot of times people leap on posters who are basically just trying to say "I don't like this game because of X". But what I think people are reacting to are posts where someone isn't just saying they dislike a particular rule, but where they make blanket statements about a type of rule that just runs counter to other peoples experiences and preferences. As an example the parity issue with game balance. Yes, there are rough edges in a game like 3E but we could honestly have a discussion all day about how balanced it is because balance means so many different things and different players prefer different levels of it. I think 5E kind of got this one right because they seem to understand that a lot of folks want balance but not total combat parity (I don't want every character to be equally balanced for combat, but I do want every character to be balanced across the system---at least in D&D). But even here there are players who want less balance. There is a legitimate case to be made for a style of play where your character creation choices matter and some decisions or events lead to better characters. So I think it is hard to say a particular rule is broken in a vacuum. It is all about what the system is trying to do and what people think will best serve that system. As another example, I really like the old XP progressions from AD&D and 2E. I think they could use some tweaking but basically I like the idea of a mage that starts out weak and gets progressively more powerful. Balance over time works for me. I know other people who feel the same way. If someone were to make a game with us in mind, something based on the old XP progression would be a good design choice. But for the current edition of D&D? Probably not a good idea because most people don't seem into that these days. So again, it is this idea of isolating a mechanic and saying it is bad for all time you see people objecting to.

Also lets be honest about some of the phrasing here. Many of the posts have been more than just simply saying "I don't like X". In many instances it has been phrased as "I don't like X and anyone who does is a uncreative and afraid of change". That is going to get a reaction from people.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wow. I just...wow. The staggering size of the excluded middle is leaving me dizzy and breathless.

Not only must I agree that 4e failed (when, by comparison to any other RPG except the breakaway success that is Pathfinder, it was a RIOTOUS success), but I either have to say that 4e wasn't D&D because it wouldn't have "failed" without that name, or I have to say that 4e was simply inherently flawed and could not possibly succeed under any circumstances.

I can see that the conversation has gone pretty far afield now, but...again, just wow. Couldn't at least have put an "other" in case people disagreed with something about both of the positions you provided, since it's not possible to dispute that 4e was a failure, with the way you've written them? As it stands, the poll is of the same form as, "Confirm or deny: you are still beating your spouse." Thus my own answer is the same as my answer to that question: mu. (And not simply because I don't have a spouse.)

 

[pemerton]

Not only must I agree that 4e failed <snippage> but I either have to say that 4e wasn't D&D because it wouldn't have "failed" without that name, or I have to say that 4e was simply inherently flawed and could not possibly succeed under any circumstances.

<snip>

it's not possible to dispute that 4e was a failure, with the way you've written them?

This is why I didn't answer the poll!

 

[Wicht]

This is why I didn't answer the poll!

Yeah, I couldn't answer the poll either. But several of the original posters captured my opinion on it well enough...

 

[Dausuul]

Absent the D&D name, 4E would have been a fantasy dungeon crawl game competing with D&D for space, without benefit of the unique circumstances that made Pathfinder a hit. I think it would have achieved a small, devoted following, and that would have been that. The 4E community today would be... well, just about the same as it is today.

 

[Evenglare]

Wow. I just...wow. The staggering size of the excluded middle is leaving me dizzy and breathless.

Not only must I agree that 4e failed (when, by comparison to any other RPG except the breakaway success that is Pathfinder, it was a RIOTOUS success), but I either have to say that 4e wasn't D&D because it wouldn't have "failed" without that name, or I have to say that 4e was simply inherently flawed and could not possibly succeed under any circumstances.

I can see that the conversation has gone pretty far afield now, but...again, just wow. Couldn't at least have put an "other" in case people disagreed with something about both of the positions you provided, since it's not possible to dispute that 4e was a failure, with the way you've written them? As it stands, the poll is of the same form as, "Confirm or deny: you are still beating your spouse." Thus my own answer is the same as my answer to that question: mu. (And not simply because I don't have a spouse.)

It IS not possible to dispute that 4e failed at least in the market. If you want to convince me it's still alive please, show me where I can get the latest 4e book that D&D put out this past year. The company isn't supporting the game, they moved onto another edition. The game as a whole failed. There is no dispute. You may still play it, and you might make stuff for it, but as a game that is profitable in the eyes of consumers paying money for it, it no longer exists as a game that is being supported by the parent company.

Everyone seems to ignore the word primarily. I'm incredibly astonished that I have to explain this. But let me put it in simple terms. Wizards stopped supporting the game. That's a fact, again if you want to dispute this show me where I can buy the latest and greatest 4e product from Wizards. The consumers voted with their money. Why did the consumers stop buying the game? Was it because they didn't think that 4e delivered the classic D&D experience they expected (primarily the name of the game did not hold up to expectations) OR because the game itself was a flawed game where too many of the games mechanics did not hold up well during play. Key word. Primarily. I have never said that it couldn't be from multiple reasons, but the word primarily means that the name of the game was the #1 reason the game met its demise. The name contributed the most to the game not being currently supported anymore by Wizards.