I don't see so much rules bloat as class bloat.
IMHO, much of that could have been avoided if the base classes had been more flexible in the first place.
The main offense, though, were the amazing number of redundant or nearly useless PrCls.
D&D 4E 4E = BadWrongFun
- Thread starter Andor
- Start date
I don't see so much rules bloat as class bloat.
IMHO, much of that could have been avoided if the base classes had been more flexible in the first place.
The main offense, though, were the amazing number of redundant or nearly useless PrCls.
Doug McCrae said:
Well, the mods disagree, in part.
Coming in and making a start negative statement that doesn't add to the conversation we consider to be threadcrapping, and we don't like it.
However, opposition to the whole idea of 4e made in a civil manner with support so that it adds grist for intelligent discussion is quite acceptable.
Celebrim
Legend
The_Gneech said:When do we see B.B.B.B.A.S.P. (Bother-Bother-Bother-Bothered About Sock Puppets)?
-The Gneech
I think that right now its alot more like 'Brothers Against Brothers Bothered About Sock Puppets'. I mean, isn't this thread basically, 'How dare someone criticize our new sock puppet masters! I like sock puppets! They roxor!!!!111!!1lll'
And straw men too.
Perhaps on account of such turns of phrase as "we all blindly follow the crowd like good little sheep?" Implying (and with such clichéd rhetoric, no less) that the people excited about 4e are lemmings, while those opposed to it are profound existential rebels, is just deeply, deeply silly.Shadeydm said:
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Andor said:
If you take some management courses you'll eventually come to the section on managing change. It's such a large and important subject that many people make their living showing others how to manage change.
Lots of people despise change, especially if it comes from 'on high' with no perceived input from them. They'll do anything to avoid it. It's scary, and pulls them out of their comfort zone. They'll invent the most outlandish lies and justifications and personal beliefs to stay there. Try to take a dog off his nice warm spot and you'll see the same reaction. Getting entrenched people to go along with change is one of the hardest things in the world to do (this is also the reason I beleive that 3E, 4E and probably 5E are all just signposts on the road to where D&D will ultimately end up as a fully-fledged modern game; they are incremental steps to help the massive fanbase manage change more effectively).
You also know what the other lesson is for change management? Learn to adapt to and love change or be ground to dust under it, because it's going to happen whether you like it or not.
danzig138
Explorer
Luckily, you're not in charge, since I think you're utterly wrong. This forum (sub-forum) is labelled 4e D&D. Not "We love 4E". So it seems to me like this is exactly the forum to come to talk about how you might not like the entire idea of 4th edition. Since, you know, it's the 4th Edition forum. It strikes me that what you seem to be saying is "I don't want to read opinions that disagree with mine." Which, if that's the case, cool. That's what the ignore list is for. I know mine is filling up. But I think you'll accomplish more by using your ignore list than by continuing to repeat your flawed idea.Doug McCrae said:
Celebrim
Legend
WayneLigon said:
On one level, this is just more 'Not liking 4E = BadWrongFun' and 'if people aren't liking what they are seeing from 4E, then there is something psychologically badwrong with them', only it is a little more explicit about it than most. At least it is explicit about it, but at that level its hardly worth responding to.
On the other hand, it is a bit more intellectual of an insult than the usual fan boy crap, and on that level its interesting.
"Getting entrenched people to go along with change is one of the hardest things in the world to do (this is also the reason I beleive that 3E, 4E and probably 5E are all just signposts on the road to where D&D will ultimately end up as a fully-fledged modern game"
I'd be really interested in hearing your definition of a 'fully-fledged modern game'. It seems to me that it would require quite a bit of contortion to claim that D20 is not a fully-fledged modern game system representing the latest tried and proven technology in the RPG world.
Yes, RPG's are new and the technology that they run on is therefore new and like all new technologies it is rapidly evolving. But RPGs are going on 40 years and D20 is hardly a 1st generation game system. It is (and especially was when it came out) every bit as cutting edge technology as any other universal system out there, and based on comparitive sales I'd suggest that it probably has advantages as well as drawbacks compared to rival game platforms. It's not like we are still talking about a 1st generation game like OD&D. It took D&D longer to divorse itself from its 1st generation roots and embrase (what are we at now?) 4th gen technology, but that's understandable from a business perspective. No since in fixing what isn't broken, and only when the limitations of your technology are causing you to shed customers do you need to risk a big transformation of the underlying technology.
Change has costs. Change has risks. It's not like all fear of change is irrational. Ask anyone who programs large software applications about the cost of change.
The thing is, at some point we are going to have a highly evolved paper based RPG technology. Paper based RPG technology is highly constrained by the real world platform it runs on. At that point, change won't be about progress. It will be about change. It will be about someone deciding what sort of game that person will want to play and adapting the technology in ways that are well understood to achieve the effect that is desired. It won't be about making things better, just making them different. So when 5E, or 6E or whatever comes out after that point, the design goal won't be to make the game run on a 'better' paper based technology (and that's even assuming you agree that 3rd edition represents progress over OD&D, which some don't), but will be simply conforming the game more closely to the designers idea of fun or else simply change for the sake of having something new to sell.
You see this problem alot in the software world, where new editions of a utility application come out, and its not always the desire to make the application better which is driving the most apparant changes in the app, but things like whim, personal preference, and the need to keep selling software.
What's to say that 4E represents progress, or just whim?
Change is not inherently good. Change is not a virtue any more than stasis is a virtue. (Can you tell that I'm nuetral with respect to the law/chaos axis?)
Celebrim said:
More accurate, I think, is to say that each is a virtue when it is necessary. Sometimes it is best to stand pat, other times moving on is a very good thing. Being constructive is a virtue - and both change and stasis can be constructive, at the right times.
Andor said:
More options = more complexity and more time expense. If you're depending on the DM to analyze everything and snip parts out, and judge all the ways that the deletions effect other stuff = more time expense on the part of the DM. Perhaps overwhelmingly so for any prospective first-time gamers.
Personally, I don't see why a very stripped-down core ("Basic rules"), followed by all the options you like as supplements, is a bad way to go.
Similar Threads
