D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis

[Mercurius]

It has enough D&Disms...in your subjective opinion.

But not only my subjective opinion, and it is an opinion that can be backed up by a lot of proof. We could make a list of hundreds and thousands of D&Disms, from iconic monsters and magic items to rules elements, and I think find that 4E holds quite a bit in common with 3.5 and other versions of the game to claim that it is part of the same lineage with a fair amount of certainty.

In one thread a couple months ago I used the analogy of the band King Crimson, who has had numerous quite distinct versions over their 40+ years. The only common member is Robert Fripp, and there are really four or five distinct lineups and eras, with many sub-variations in-between. I personally prefer the '73-'75 era and am not so much into anything after about '95 or so, but I can still recognize '95 and beyond as King Crimson, even if I don't like it.

Now of course D&D has no Robert Fripp; actually, D&D's Robert Fripp left the game in 1985, only 11 years after its first publication, and thus less than a third of the way into its history. D&D's Robert Fripp died in 2008, just a couple months before 4E came out, so we never got to know what he would have thought of it (but afaik I know he didn't like 3E much). So by one criteria we could say that "real D&D" ended in 1985, that Unearthed Arcana was the last true D&D book.

We could take a different route and say that D&D is a living tradition with many different variations and "streams." This is a more inclusive perspective, yet doesn't sacrifice anything in terms of identity. It just recognizes that things change, and so does D&D. The river flows onward and no one snapshot or moment in that flow "is what it is." We cannot define D&D by any moment, any iteration, any edition. Just as King Crimson is not only "21st Century Schizoid Man," it is also "Level Five."

I disagree, since I see this as an entirely subjective matter. If it isn't D&D for one and it is for another, both viewpoints are valid for their holders.

See, again, we lose something when we fall back on the "everything is subjective" mode. Sure, it allows everyone to rest easy in their beliefs without feeling challenged, but it also impedes anything meaningful from being said or a greater collective understanding to be found and created.

I would rather say, why don't we--the community of EN World--come up with a definition of what D&D is and is not? Can we do that? Can we sit down and go through the game and say "this is what D&D is?"

The only time an onus if proof arises at all is when one tries to convince the other of the validity of his viewpoint.

True. But I think when we're discussing whether 4E is or is not D&D, the default truth is that it is D&D and that to say that it is not requires some degree of proof in order for that statement to hold any water. In a similar sense that if I am to claim that you are no longer you because your cells are completely different than what they were seven years ago I have to come up with a solid argument backing that up, because the collective human agreement is that a person remains who they are no matter what their cells are.

I am only the same me only so long we all agree that sentience is the defining characteristic of human identity, not my physical composition.

I don't think we need to agree to that to say that you are you. But I didn't say anything about being the same. This is the differentiation I was making with Theseus' boat, and why it doesn't need to be the same boat he started with for it to be the same boat.

D&D doesn't have that luxury, and even if it did, there is no agreement on what the universal essential defining characteristics of the game are. If there were, this thread would not exist.

As I said above, maybe it would be a worthwhile discussion? At the least it would negate the need for such threads to arise!

The classic SoT analogy is valid- they are both things, not conscious beings. Depending on now you examine them, you can reach either conclusion.

As long as the changes are close replacements, for Theseus and his men (even the ones who joined mid-journey), it is the same ship by any standard they care about- its smells, sounds & textures; its dimensions; the way it handles and parts function; it's graceful lines. It's builders would recognize it...as would anyone who is a shareholder in ownership.

OTOH, at some point it is more new than old, thus in some way a different ship. Not that the crew will notice or care.

However, I'd the changes improve or worsen the ships handling or appearance, Theseus and crew (again, even those who joined mid-voyage) will note the change, and may even lament that the ship is not the same...though they may not agree upon what particular change did it for them.

And despite this, Theseus' creditors will insist that it's the same ship he left on and where's their payment, thank you very much.

The same is true of D&D: by some standards, 4Ed is still D&D, by others, it's not even close.

What I was taking issue with in this analogy was your use of "the same ship" or "the ship he started on." We can all agree that 4E is not the same game, and for most of us it is not the game we started with. But if we followed either of those criteria, either only OD&D would be real or true D&D--a view that 99.9999% of D&D players would disagree with--or that only the version I started with is real D&D, which is verging on solipsism.

The bottom line is that nothing is lost for everyone to agree that 4E is a form of D&D, even if it is not one's preferred version, if for no other reason that many people see it as D&D. I dislike heavy metal music but I can still see it as a valid form of music; I can still recognize that it has its own variations and even genius.

In the end I think there are three general positions that people who don't like 4E take:

1. 4E is not real D&D, plain and simple. Anyone who thinks it is real D&D is mistaken.
2. 4E is not real D&D to me; it may be real D&D to you, but it is not to me.
3. 4E is a real form of D&D; it may not be my preferred version, but it is still part of the D&D tradition, and thus still D&D.

We can probably all agree that 1 is just flat-out wrong, a form of "badwrongfun." What the argument boils down to is whether there is any validity to 2 or not, or how valuable it is as a position compared to 3. I would say that it holds a subtle kind of aggression and is not as embracing or truthful a perspective as 3, that there is nothing to lose by modifying one's position of 2 to 3.

Personally speaking I am not offended by or dislike people holding position 2, I just think it is not a very embracing viewpoint and, in the end, holds less water, less inter-subjective truth, as 3.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I agree with much of what other people (Elf Witch, Celtavian, Dausuul, many others) have said.

Here's another thing I dislike about 4e that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread. It is an intellectual void in a way that no other edition has been.

The void begins - the stars start to wink out - when you look at 4e's writing. As has been often noted, there are high-school level mistakes that are ubiquitous in 4e's writing, including ridiculous overuse of adverbs, cliches everywhere, "fluff" descriptions that have no relation to the gameplay or rules, sentences that contradict other sentences on the same page, sentences that assume the reader is not thinking critically, "grab" doesn't mean "grabbed," etc. Did earlier editions have awkward and bad writing? Sure. Sometimes. But nothing like 4e. I have never read more than a chapter of any 4e book without cringing and remembering when I've corrected that exact error in high school papers. Usually this happens at least once per page.

But flouting prescriptive grammar and style rules is not enough to make the game an intellectual void. Even the game's self-contradictions do not do that. The problem is that there's nothing there to fill in the blanks. In 0-1e, just the idea of RPGs was new enough that it had some intellectual heft to it. Plus you had things like Gary elucidating the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom by citing Edith Bunker and Richard Nixon. You had physics debates on falling damage and probability debates on dice fairness in Dragon magazine, you had comments about the "gold rush" economy, you had the stunning, groundbreaking iconic monsters and locales and adventures. In 2e, you had a lot of new, richly imagined settings (not that I liked all of them). 2e took some steps backward, but it went after story and setting with insight and creativity. 3e had innovations in rules, new ideas (or new, significant takes on ideas) like mobs and organizations and ships, fun characters and new settings like Meepo and Eberron, and the grand fascinating experimnt that was the OGL and d20.

In 4e, I don't see anything that sparks me to think. At least, not to think about art, economy, human nature, what it means to be a hero, or any of the other things I used to love to ponder when reading a D&D book. 4e might make me think about moving pieces on a battlemap in an optimal way, but that's not intellectual. Not too many chess departments at major universities.

 

[BryonD]

See, again, we lose something when we fall back on the "everything is subjective" mode. Sure, it allows everyone to rest easy in their beliefs without feeling challenged, but it also impedes anything meaningful from being said or a greater collective understanding to be found and created.

<snip>

Personally speaking I am not offended by or dislike people holding position 2, I just think it is not a very embracing viewpoint and, in the end, holds less water, less inter-subjective truth, as 3.

It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways here.

When being subjective and accepting various opinions as equally valid hurts your point of view it is just a cop-out.
When being subjective helps your view, anything less is inadequately "embracing"

And, I think at the end of the day "embracing" is a good word for this issue. I believe that 3E turned away from some sacred cows and alienated some players. I believe that 3E was more adaptable and thus "embraced" a larger pool of players. Yes, there were people that hated 3E and you can find similar isolated examples of practically the exact same comments for both editions. But in the end 3E's simulation design space was much more adaptable to a gamist approach than 4E's gamist design is to simulation. And what you end up with is the same things being said, but the proportions of people saying the things are dramatically different. 4E may embrace YOU much better than 3E did, but it doesn't embrace the overall gaming community as well.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But not only my subjective opinion, and it is an opinion that can be backed up by a lot of proof.

That is flat out wrong. Focus on "enough". . . see?

Moving along. . .

Can we sit down and go through the game and say "this is what D&D is?"

Yeah, as if that hasn't been thrashed "enough". . .

But I think when we're discussing whether 4E is or is not D&D, the default truth is that it is D&D and that to say that it is not requires some degree of proof in order for that statement to hold any water.

No. No more so than vice versa, at any rate. So again, flat out wrong.

The bottom line is that nothing is lost for everyone to agree that 4E is a form of D&D, even if it is not one's preferred version, if for no other reason that many people see it as D&D.

. . . and many people do not. So, there goes that reason.

In the end I think there are three general positions that people who don't like 4E take:

1. 4E is not real D&D, plain and simple. Anyone who thinks it is real D&D is mistaken.
2. 4E is not real D&D to me; it may be real D&D to you, but it is not to me.
3. 4E is a real form of D&D; it may not be my preferred version, but it is still part of the D&D tradition, and thus still D&D.

We can probably all agree that 1 is just flat-out wrong, a form of "badwrongfun."

No. I don't agree, though that is most certainly a popular way to attempt to shut down such views, wherever they may be put forward. "Badwrongfun" is so ironic, when used in such ways. . .

Personally speaking I am not offended by or dislike people holding position 2, I just think it is not a very embracing viewpoint and, in the end, holds less water, less inter-subjective truth, as 3.

Personally speaking, I am not offended by whatever the heck other people might think about 4e, 3e, 2e, 1e, BD&D, OD&D, or any other game. That's their prerogative, and I respect that, even if I might - on occasion - happen to completely disagree. Or partially. Whatever. And yes this is one of those occasions. Being free to disagree, and accept that others are as well, is important, I believe.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would rather say, why don't we--the community of EN World--come up with a definition of what D&D is and is not? Can we do that? Can we sit down and go through the game and say "this is what D&D is?"

Because there is no one definition- beyond the one that says "it has D&D on the cover and is produced by those with the legal rights to make products by that name (the valueless tautological truth)- that we could all agree upon.

What I was taking issue with in this analogy was your use of "the same ship" or "the ship he started on."

The analogy holds- please take a read to see how Aristotle, Heraclitus and others wrestled with this.

As long as Theseus thinks it's the same ship, it is; if accumulation of changes makes him feel otherwise, it isn't the same ship...to him. (Sound familiar?). In Aristotelian terms, it has the same formal, efficient and final causes, but not material cause.

When changes are not mere replacement of new for damaged or worn out parts, the change becomes more perceptible. As they accumulate, they resultant ship loses identity with the original ship's formal cause, and enough change may occur that it loses identity with it's efficient cause.

And still, since they share a final cause, some may still consider the ship to be the same...but others will not. (Sound familiar?)

You're fine with 4Ed only sharing the same final cause with earlier editions and calling it D&D; others are not.

4E is not real D&D to me; it may be real D&D to you, but it is not to me.

This is where I stand, and I feel pretty safe there. The first was without merit (except to diaglo); the third is merely the tautological truth mentioned at the beginning of this post, which adds nothing of value to the discussion.

 

[the Jester]

Saying that 4e is not D&D is a lot like saying that The Phantom Menace isn't a Star Wars movie based on personal dislike. It's a fine opinion, but ultimately we don't have the right to say what D&D (or Star Wars) is. There are people that own the property, like it or not, and they decide.

That said, I could see a point where D&D could morph into something unrecognizable except for the name. Would I keep playing it based on brand loyalty alone? No, but I might keep playing it if it were a good enough game.

More on the thread's original topic, I've played every edition from BECMI on up to 4e and loved them all. Some I remember less fondly than others- 2e, I'm looking at you- but even those have shining points (specialty priests!). Whenever 5e eventually comes out, I think my view on 4e will largely depend on its continued evolution. I liked it at first with some reservations; as time and experience mutate the system, it keeps getting better. I'm loving the Essentials line, I dig the revised monster creation guidelines, skill challenges keep getting better and better, etc. At this point, I would say that 4e lacks a certain level of viciousness that I prefer in my D&D; I like long-term effects, wounds that take more than a night to heal, etc. But there are ways to implement those with the disease track without even having to use new mechanics.

 

[Zil]

In the end I think there are three general positions that people who don't like 4E take:

1. 4E is not real D&D, plain and simple. Anyone who thinks it is real D&D is mistaken.
2. 4E is not real D&D to me; it may be real D&D to you, but it is not to me.
3. 4E is a real form of D&D; it may not be my preferred version, but it is still part of the D&D tradition, and thus still D&D.

We can probably all agree that 1 is just flat-out wrong, a form of "badwrongfun." What the argument boils down to is whether there is any validity to 2 or not, or how valuable it is as a position compared to 3. I would say that it holds a subtle kind of aggression and is not as embracing or truthful a perspective as 3, that there is nothing to lose by modifying one's position of 2 to 3.

First off, legally D&D is whatever the trademark holder wants it to be. It could be trading cards sold with bubblegum if the holder wanted to that with the name.

That said, the differences between position 2 and 3 are not as subtle as you suggest. Someone fitting into the position 2 argument is essentially saying that they feel that 4E represents a dramatic break from what they consider to be their ideal of what D&D is or should be. Position 3 on the other hand is a much more mild stance and is more like someone saying "I didn't care for 2E because they got rid the the assassin" or "4E is lame because the classes are too bland" or "3E is too hard to run at high levels so I don't like it".

Position 3 is a matter of simple preference whereas position 2 (and of course position 1) is a much stronger statement of personal belief around their ideal of what D&D is - it's not just a simple matter of preference to them.

 

[Daazimal]

I started ODnD and ended in 2nd edition. I played some 3rd edition and it was okay, just too rule based, or so I thought. The story has more impact than just a typical hack and slash, granted most DMs do take that hack and slash route, but you fuel a good story behind and everyone has a good time. The games that I enjoyed so much were the endless dungeon crawls or the complete the quest before such and such. Interactions between PCs and NPCs were a matter of imagination and player interactions. Sometimes our games would have not one single battle in them, well not the martial type, sometimes it would be a battle of words or wits.
Fourth edition sounds like what all of us players of older editions have thought up years ago. Where our players have more interactions in the battles that took place, made us feel our characters owned that battle and it became ours. We can actually visualize where our characters are in the scheme of things, and then make or change tactics according to situation.
If any of you old players have glued a piece of poster paper to a piece of cardboard and painstakenly drew grids and squares on it to use as a battle map, then used army men to show formations and where the characters and monsters were and what they were doing, then you too have played a basic fourth edition game. The only difference was the players have changed in the game. Although I don't agree with some of the character races and classes, I do think the game is quite fun. The mechanics of the game have changed as did with the rules but the good thing about FRPGS is that it can be changed to model anyones "play preferences".
Imagine taking the 3rd or second edition element, adding it to the fourth edition element with the basic character classes and races that they offered and then putting and epic story behind it. Amazing adventure would be what I call it. But! then it is all about taste there., and the willingness for someone to do it.





P.S. I quite remember that the same issues were happening when the older versions were released. The edition wars have been in effect since ODnD. Not much has changed in the war. Editions come and go, the only difference was the leap from 2nd to 3rd edition, but then the major complaints was back when the player options starting coming out. I believe that is where 3rd edition took route from. The game in my opinion just started to get loaded down with rules and basics seemed irrelevant back then, that most of us avoided that altogether.
The two mechanics changed so completely that some of us got caught up in it, but once we hashed out the rules and made changes here and their that suited us we were fine with it. The major drawback was the cash flow. After hundreds of dollars spent in this edition, why in the hell would I want to go out and start over anew. Seems like a waste to spend all that money when we were already having fun with what we had.

 

[gamerprinter]

First off, legally D&D is whatever the trademark holder wants it to be. It could be trading cards sold with bubblegum if the holder wanted to that with the name.

Personally, as a gamer, I could give **** less what a lawyer, judge or CEO thinks, so just because the owner of a given trademark might be able to label anything they want as D&D - that means absolutely nothing to me. If D&D is not on an RPG, its simply wrong.

D&D in my mind is a concept of fantasy based RPG. Its almost a generic term to describe all RPGs. When discussing Pathfinder, I often say 'D&D games' interchangeably with Pathfinder games.

GP

 

[Mercurius]

It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways here.

When being subjective and accepting various opinions as equally valid hurts your point of view it is just a cop-out.
When being subjective helps your view, anything less is inadequately "embracing"

Hmm. I had to think about this a minute to make sure, but I don't think that is what I'm doing. My view is that all opinions are valid, but not equally so. It is the true-but-partial thing; or we can look at it from a Hegelian pov--thesis and antithesis aren't necessarily right or wrong, and when we're talking about opinions they're both "right", but there is also a synthesis that is "more right."

In this context, I'm saying that the view that "4E is a form of D&D, even if I don't like it" is a synthesis of lesser truths.

And, I think at the end of the day "embracing" is a good word for this issue. I believe that 3E turned away from some sacred cows and alienated some players. I believe that 3E was more adaptable and thus "embraced" a larger pool of players. Yes, there were people that hated 3E and you can find similar isolated examples of practically the exact same comments for both editions. But in the end 3E's simulation design space was much more adaptable to a gamist approach than 4E's gamist design is to simulation. And what you end up with is the same things being said, but the proportions of people saying the things are dramatically different. 4E may embrace YOU much better than 3E did, but it doesn't embrace the overall gaming community as well.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. In fact, I can buy the argument that instead of creating a very different edition with 4E, WotC could have simply streamlined 3E. I think that is what they did to some degree, but they took it a step further and codified a specific default mode of play. This is actually one of the things I don't like about 4E.

Personally speaking, I am not offended by whatever the heck other people might think about 4e, 3e, 2e, 1e, BD&D, OD&D, or any other game. That's their prerogative, and I respect that, even if I might - on occasion - happen to completely disagree. Or partially. Whatever. And yes this is one of those occasions. Being free to disagree, and accept that others are as well, is important, I believe.

Aus Snow, I'm going to bypass the first few comments as I suspect we're not going to go anywhere fruitful. As for the above, yes, I agree as well. But there is a fundamentally different attitude or stance to the three options I mentioned above. The first is outright hostile to 4E players; the second is exclusive; and the third is embracing. It is saying, "Hey, I'm not into your preferred edition but it is all D&D!" It doesn't take away from one's own personal preference.