4E - 18 Months Later: Love it or hate it?

[rjdafoe]

I think you have some very important, very basic misconceptions about how 4e works. Pretty much your entire second paragraph here is false wherever it tries to describe 4e.

I agree. However, there is no real point in arguing over the rules with him. At this point, if they have been playing for that long and ignoring a big part of the game, then that is just their playstyle.

Unfortunately, what it appears to me, based on his first post, is that for whatever reason, he is playing in a system or style of game that he dislikes. I would encourage him to find a game he can enjoy, rather than argue with people that like the system or style on a continual basis.

 

[Shemeska]

Doesn't fit my playstyle, and the marketing and certain designer statements about prior editions did not exactly predispose me towards it even before it came out. Everything I've read since then hasn't changed my mind. Some people will like it, but it's not for me.

 

[jdrakeh]

I would ask you to look up Heal as a skill - what type of action is it?

While there are rules included for using the skill in combat (And why shouldn't there be? After all, we have combat medics in real life.), there are also rules for using it out of combat (specifically to treat diseases over an extended period of time). And, of course, you're going out of your way to ignore that, just as you're going out of your way to ignore all of the other non-combat skills that have already been specifically mentioned. Your initial claim was, and I quote:

The lack of out of combat mechanics has killed any real form of out of combat roleplay in terms of giving players a framework to do clever things like create a wagon theft alarm system for instance.

Clearly, the game does have "out of combat mechanics" — and, yes, you can ignore them all that you like, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist. Again, there's a whole chapter devoted to them. 13 pages. Right there on pages 176 to 189 of the PHB. Again, I have no problem with somebody disliking 4e (you'll note that I, myself, have never played it), but watching them invent reasons to dislike it is incredibly irritating.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Mixed bag...

Some things I love, others I can't stand; although most of this has been done to death in previous threads. However, there are a few further points I'll add six months since the last thread with unfortunately most being in the negative:

- I tried to like the magic items but they got through my will defense. In the end, I think the economic system is an abomination with magic items leading the way. Most of them are completely forgettable and about as "non-magical" as I could imagine. They exist as a mechanic and only a mechanic and usually a repetitive mechanic at that (1/day, imbue condition or effect). Any flavour requires bolting on by the DM (or player - putting them in the PHB for the first time was an abominable decision, although I can appreciate why they did it). Creating flavour takes up room and takes time to create - something I wish the 4e design crew had prioritized rather than not.

- The genius of the Powers system for ease of game play has been further emphasized to me 6 months on. While I think that there are too many barely distinct powers, the actual mechanism itself is fantastic. While it does generate the "need" for power cards, this is not disimilar to what I was producing in previous versions (spell cards, item cards, attacks cards for more complex attacks such as a power attack grid and so on).

- The Skill Challenge system is an absolute sham. After working with it now for 18 months, I think it is fatally flawed. It provides nothing extra to the game over previous editions and provides a poxy-mechanism that tends to take players out of the world and into a mechanic-infested wasteland of distraction as well as giving the DM a burden of work that has a productivity ratio close to zero. In the end, DMs don't need a little table of successes and failures to work out whether the party has succeeded, partially or not at a particular "task". It focuses the group more on their skill set, highest modifier and probabilities rather than on interacting with the world and mindscape that the DM creates. The skill challenge mechanics are fine for a boardgame but are completely unnecessary in a role-playing game (please note the non-use of the term RPG here; something I now associate with computer games rather than those at a table top).

I can imagine some will disagree with me here saying that they roleplay their way through skill challenges and that by looking at novel ways to apply their capable skills, it improves their roleplaying. To those I ask: "You didn't do this in previous versions? What have you gained here that you could not do or were not doing in previous versions?" This is why I believe the mechanic has added nothing to D&D as a role-playing game.

- Healing surges still suck. They still feel like "provisions" in the fighting fantasy game books (for those of you who remember such things). I like them more than I did originally but that maybe does not say that much. Becoming dulled to a mechanic after repeated use does not perhaps a glowing endorsement make.

- WoTC adventures REALLY suck. They have some magnificent authors doing their stuff (Piratecat's Haven of the Bitter Glass is an absolute standout) but for some reason 4E does not seem to translate to good modules - most end up feeling restrictive and needing substantial opening up to breathe. Perhaps that Haven is almost twice the size of other installments is significant?

- But perhaps the greatest thing that "sucks" is that the D&D gamer base seems more divided than it has ever been (and please don't automatically attribute this to interweb "noise" alone). While not entirely the fault of 4e, I think that the design team threw the baby out with the bathwater on several issues and this has left many former players and their gaming preferences stranded.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[haakon1]

Why the hate?

I wish it had never been created, and I avoid it as completely as possible, even though I'm constantly reminded of its annoying existence. Eventually, I will likely be dragged into participating, I suppose, but I'm not looking forward to that day. Unless that happy day when it goes away/stops mattering comes first . . .

(Just like my feelings on Facebook and Twitter, oddly.)

So I think "Hate it" is the only honest answer on this for me. Don't begrudge the gamers their game, just don't want to play it and wish it's existence hadn't marginalized what I do like.

 

[Kafen]

Oddly, prior to D&D 3e, there were roughly the same number of rules governing non-combat action as there are in 4e (i.e., almost none).

Aroo? Looks like you were talking about d20 to me. And for the record, Dragon Mag was the official core rules update system for 2e. While I think it sucked, the result is a tone of core rules for out of combat events.

jdrakeh, you can not ignore the action costs of those skills without affecting the balance of the game because the system is based on encounters. That is what you are ignoring.

rjdafoe, if they had a valid point - I would love to hear it. I gave 4e a try...and continue to try it for my friends sake, but the simple truth is that 4e does not support non-combat events beyond a few pages. And, I never do anything halfway. If you are going free-style RP, you should go free style. If you are going with rules, you should not go with a system that gives you like maybe a dozen options for non-combat RP with zero game breaking influence. That is the fatal flaw of the encounter powers system. It just does not stand up very well in comparison to the older systems when it comes to house rules. In the old systems, we could dump what we liked in the skill systems while keeping the core classes intact for basic balance....which is not an option in 4e. Heck, even d20 suffered from that point to a degree, but the core classes remained balanced. I guess if I had to boil it down to one line, I would say that the old systems had viable non-combat mechanics while 4e should be held liable for its non-combat mechanics forcing players into a combat state to enact non-combat events. EDIT: I will add this, the people that find a way to remove action based mechanics without upsetting overall game balance from a mandatory encounter/action based system like 4e should be on WOTC's payroll.



...



Mind you, I actually like the Powers 4e system itself for Supers game as a general theory. That would flat out rock my world. The skill system could stand to be gutted, but I would love to see a Supers version of 4e come out if anyone can fix the skill system.

 

[jdrakeh]

Aroo? Looks like you were talking about d20 to me. And for the record, Dragon Mag was the official core rules update system for 2e. While I think it sucked, the result is a tone of core rules for out of combat events.

Wrong. Dragon material was, for the most part, entirely supplemental — thus why it is not included on the Core Rules CD-Rom. Only errata introduced in Dragon was considered "core." The core rules for 2e consisted of the PHB, the DMG, and the MM. Same as for AD&D 1e, D&D 3x, and D&D 4e.

jdrakeh, you can not ignore the action costs of those skills without affecting the balance of the game because the system is based on encounters. That is what you are ignoring.

Skills like Bluff, Heal (when used to cure disease), and so forth don't have action costs. That said, I think that this argument has pretty much run it's course. You continue to ignore the 4e RAW and misrepresent it, despite explicit references being cited that disprove your assertions. At this point, I think that any further discussion with you would be time wasted.

 

[Dragonblade]

Love it. Best version of D&D ever, hands down. Not even close. Though I do have some nostalgic love for 1e.

The only thing missing are more published Adventure Path 1-30 adventures, and a new highly detailed campaign setting. I don't like the new 3 and done campaign setting philosophy and I'm tired of the Realms and Eberron. As much as I'm looking forward to Dark Sun, I want something new. Something built from the ground up to incorporate all the tropes of 4e, and I want lots of sourcebooks for it.

 

[Kafen]

Wrong. Dragon material was, for the most part, entirely supplemental — thus why it is not included on the Core Rules CD-Rom. Only errata introduced in Dragon was considered "core." The core rules for 2e consisted of the PHB, the DMG, and the MM. Same as for AD&D 1e, D&D 3x, and D&D 4e.

I refer to the errata, and you admit the errata comes from Dragon Mag. Hence my point...

And for the record, the heal action confirms my point. It is an action - not a non-action. In a closed encounter system, nothing happens in a void. That action has to have consequences or the system breaks down. previous systems operate their skill systems outside the class mechanics which lets GMs alter things outside the class void without severe breakdowns. Call it an inclusive/open system if you like, it has been one of the basic tenants of DND - up until 4e- since Gygax put his name to it.

 

[El_Gringo]

- The Skill Challenge system is an absolute sham. After working with it now for 18 months, I think it is fatally flawed. It provides nothing extra to the game over previous editions and provides a poxy-mechanism that tends to take players out of the world and into a mechanic-infested wasteland of distraction as well as giving the DM a burden of work that has a productivity ratio close to zero. In the end, DMs don't need a little table of successes and failures to work out whether the party has succeeded, partially or not at a particular "task". It focuses the group more on their skill set, highest modifier and probabilities rather than on interacting with the world and mindscape that the DM creates. The skill challenge mechanics are fine for a boardgame but are completely unnecessary in a role-playing game (please note the non-use of the term RPG here; something I now associate with computer games rather than those at a table top).

I can imagine some will disagree with me here saying that they roleplay their way through skill challenges and that by looking at novel ways to apply their capable skills, it improves their roleplaying. To those I ask: "You didn't do this in previous versions? What have you gained here that you could not do or were not doing in previous versions?" This is why I believe the mechanic has added nothing to D&D as a role-playing game.



- WoTC adventures REALLY suck. They have some magnificent authors doing their stuff (Piratecat's Haven of the Bitter Glass is an absolute standout) but for some reason 4E does not seem to translate to good modules - most end up feeling restrictive and needing substantial opening up to breathe. Perhaps that Haven is almost twice the size of other installments is significant?

I can strongly identify with these two points. I can appreciate the intention of what the designers were trying to do with skill challenges, but as a subsystem it has failed. The fact that it has gone through more than one revision attests to that. I haven't used skill challenges for almost a year now in my game and am certain that the players don't miss it.

I don't know if I would say the WotC adventures suck. I'd probably say they're the best example of binding adventures too closely to the rules. An adventure should consist of more than just a series of monster filled rooms loosely connected by a flimsy plot. Granted, we're playing D&D here. That doesn't mean we're 12 year olds playing D&D.