D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis

[BryonD]

Ask yourself: "Are there people there who play 4e and roleplay in it both happily and successfully?"

Ask yourself: "Are they a) horrible liars, b) just messing with the entire world as an elaborate prank, or c) insane?"

If the answer to the first is yes and the answer to the second is no, guess what? Your initial rant is wrong. It is not simply "a bad opinion," it is factually incorrect. Now, "I have problems roleplaying in this edition" is perfectly acceptable. "I dislike how this edition works" is fine. But when there are literally people on this very message board that you claim don't exist, then your argument is lacking some weight.

This ground has been covered many times before.

There is no question that anything that can be roleplayed in 3E can be roleplayed in 4E. Roleplaying is brought to the table by the players. When comparing editions it is not what the players bring that is important, it is what is between the covers of the books.

Your exact same argument could be used to "prove" that Chess or Monopoly are also perfectly fine role playing games. I can happily and successfully create narratives and roleplay the events of either game.

So either you are claiming I don't exist or you admit that 4E is no better than monopoly as a roleplaying game.

And, bottom line, if someone has a blast roleplaying Monopoly, then, for them, IT IS just as good a roleplaying game as 4E.

But Monopoly is far far more gamist than 4E. So much so that it is hard to find examples. Not impossible, but hard.

If you don't find 4E any more gamist than 3E then my reply is: 3E is an extremely adaptable system, it seems obvious to me that you were using the ruleset in a way notably different than me. I think that while 4E certainly appeals to gamist play better than 3E, it is still true that 3E offers more to gamist players than 4E offers to simulationists.

Your logic demands that all perceptions and preferences be equal and collapses at that point.

 

[Umbran]

Is it just me or is something strange here? If my original hypothesis is incorrect, or at least with only a vague amount of truth, what are some alternatives? Again, I don't buy the "It is just a matter of personal preferences" line. The negative reaction to 4E is just too strong, too prevalent.

In Europe and South America, soccer games have been frequently known to end in riots where people die. In America, Big 10 football has brought about massive property damage, and sofas burned in the streets. Getting passionate and over-reacting is something humans are very good at.

And here, we have a nice, comfortable internet and message boards - where you are mostly anonymous, and if you act like a complete jerk very little happens to you. Much of the degree of dislike presented seems to me to be more about the medium than the opinion of the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In my personal experience...I have found TO A PERSON that the only ones that will not even give 4e a chance or even play it to try it out are those who started with 3e.

And in my personal experience, I know a lot of veteran gamers who amazingly have "something else to do" every time 4Ed is to be played on our regularly scheduled game night. A night we've been gaming on since 1998.

 

[Marius Delphus]

I have personal knowledge of several longtime players (1E or earlier) who won't touch 4E with a 10' pole, despite it being a "decent game, overall." My sense is that the hypothesis in the OP is unsupportable.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Another aspect that keeps getting ignored is that some people just don't like a lot of rules changes. Every other year you have to deal with rules changes because somebody somewhere has to say "OMFG That rule is unrealistic so it's gotta be changed" and it just gets really tiresome.

Especially to people who play lots of different games and each of them has three or four editions at least.

MSH has at least four.

DC Heroes has at least three.

Mutants and Masterminds is now in its third edition and is moving awayh from the d20 format it started with.

Hero System has at least five.

Warhammer FRPG has at least three.

Gurps has at least four. Not to mention all the little add on rules for each of its different settings.

PALLADIUM's settings each have at least three different editions to them as well.

The longer you play and the more games you play, the more resistant you get to rules changes.

You just want to stick with what's familiar.

There should be nothing wrong with that either.

Yeah yeah I know, old is scary. Must stick with the new.

 

[UHF]

I feel that 4e solves a problem which most 'good' DMs\Players don't have a problem with.

All this is In My Opinion... and I am a 4e fan.

Older games had rather inconsistent play, and were hard to learn. It was more art than science. So... 60% ish of players (the other 2/3) of older editions had a terrible time and probably quit. Some of us soldiered on. (The kind of play foul ups that occur in the various editions seem to corroborate this. 4e seems to have less subjective issues.)

Most of the people who had a bad time aren't on any of these forums. I suspect that is why there are TV spots advertising 4e to lapsed players.

4e's appearance can't be interpreted as anything but a slap in the face of those who mastered the older version(s) of the game. (Know how to DM? Got good players? What is this new stuff? What was wrong with the way it worked before?)

In short, the above average players really didn't need 4e to come along. They are still active because they had good experiences with the game. And really they don't want change. It works for them, and its not busted in their eyes. (And really... it isn't.)

This is not to say that 4e is for below average players\DMs. I think I can easily say it works fine in a broader range of hands.


Anyways, this comes from my experience. I never had a really good AD&D experience until I hit university, and I never could DM or create adventures for any older edition. I know how to DM and play 4e, and I love its ease. Something I didn't get out of older editions.

Lastly.. I went to one (and only 1) Encounters session at the LGS. I did not have that much fun, it was kind of like the games I played as a kid. But one of my DMs was a player I knew from an AD&D campaign. He was not the brightest spark... yet he was able to run 4e and bring off an acceptable experience. I don't think he could have achieved that with another edition.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

This ground has been covered many times before.

There is no question that anything that can be roleplayed in 3E can be roleplayed in 4E. Roleplaying is brought to the table by the players. When comparing editions it is not what the players bring that is important, it is what is between the covers of the books.

Your exact same argument could be used to "prove" that Chess or Monopoly are also perfectly fine role playing games. I can happily and successfully create narratives and roleplay the events of either game.

So either you are claiming I don't exist or you admit that 4E is no better than monopoly as a roleplaying game.

And, bottom line, if someone has a blast roleplaying Monopoly, then, for them, IT IS just as good a roleplaying game as 4E.

But Monopoly is far far more gamist than 4E. So much so that it is hard to find examples. Not impossible, but hard.

If you don't find 4E any more gamist than 3E then my reply is: 3E is an extremely adaptable system, it seems obvious to me that you were using the ruleset in a way notably different than me. I think that while 4E certainly appeals to gamist play better than 3E, it is still true that 3E offers more to gamist players than 4E offers to simulationists.

Your logic demands that all perceptions and preferences be equal and collapses at that point.

D&D has never been "simulationist." Ever. In fact I never even heard anyone every thinking it was...until 4e came along, when suddenly people began claiming their D&D games are really full of geo- and sociopolitical arguments about assisting the plight of the lower class peasants and establishing a democracy amongst the monarchies to best simulate how life would really be no I can't even finish this sentence. The argument of 3e being simulationist was created whole cloth to insult 4e - so I can't really blame them too much since that's why Forge-isms exist in the first place, zing!

It's just hilarious because when these Forge-isms were made, everyone here that argues 3e was "simulationist" was decrying them as being BS. Yet now they're totally believable? Not buying it.

No, D&D has never been simulationist. It's never been a simulation of anything other then wish fulfiilment and monster killin'. There is no simulationism in being able to cast time stop, a spell that nobody agrees on how it works in the world at large, in part because nobody cares.

So my question comes down to this: Does 4e let and encourage you to write and make the same stories eople did in 3e? That's where roleplaying comes into question. Now if D&D for you is focused literally around spellcasters running everything and non-spellcasters being second class citizens who are gentle phased out when higher levels are reached - something completely antithetical to just about every myth and legend out there - then yes, 4e is not D&D. But if D&D is about heroic fantasy - and I guran-damn-tee you that every PHB in every edition says it is - then no, 4e is D&D. It's a different D&D then you are personally used to, but just as 3e was D&D, just as 2e was D&D, and just as AD&D was D&D, then 4e is too.

Oh, and by my logic, everyone can have an opinion, but that doesn't stop opinions from being wrong.

 

[Dausuul]

4e's appearance can't be interpreted as anything but a slap in the face of those who mastered the older version(s) of the game. (Know how to DM? Got good players? What is this new stuff? What was wrong with the way it worked before?)

Say what?

I've been playing D&D for 23 years, and most folks I've gamed with consider me a solid DM. I can run Basic, 4E, and any edition in between. But I didn't feel slapped in the face when 4E came out; in fact, I was a big 4E proponent at first... my current, more ambivalent position only developed over time, partly as I gained experience with 4E's shortcomings and partly due to discussions on this very board reminding me of the things I liked about TSR-era D&D.

Even so, I still think 4E is very strong in many ways, and chief among its strengths is the way it supports the DM. I'm perfectly capable of running a game without that support, but that doesn't mean I want to.

 

[Marius Delphus]

4e's appearance can't be interpreted as anything but a slap in the face of those who mastered the older version(s) of the game.

As someone who mastered older versions of D&D, I can tell you categorically that I interpret 4E's appearance as anything *but* a slap in the face.

 

[Imaro]

No, D&D has never been simulationist. It's never been a simulation of anything other then wish fulfiilment and monster killin'. There is no simulationism in being able to cast time stop, a spell that nobody agrees on how it works in the world at large, in part because nobody cares.

I have a hard time buying this since most play in earlier versions seems to have centered on sandbox style, where the DM advice was centered (for good or bad) around worldbuilding with adventure coming from the "simulation" of a fantasy world and the PC's interaction with the world. Later the game shifted it's focus more towards story... but even then there was a wealth of direction, rules support, etc. for worldbuilding... 3e seemed to take it back in the direction of the "simulated world" but also offered support for the story style through it's mags and various 3pp's. I think it's 4e's heavier focus on the game elements of building encounters (even moreso than the design of an actual adventure) and minimal focus on worldbuilding or even story that is different, IMO, from other versions of D&D.

So my question comes down to this: Does 4e let and encourage you to write and make the same stories eople did in 3e? That's where roleplaying comes into question. Now if D&D for you is focused literally around spellcasters running everything and non-spellcasters being second class citizens who are gentle phased out when higher levels are reached - something completely antithetical to just about every myth and legend out there - then yes, 4e is not D&D. But if D&D is about heroic fantasy - and I guran-damn-tee you that every PHB in every edition says it is - then no, 4e is D&D. It's a different D&D then you are personally used to, but just as 3e was D&D, just as 2e was D&D, and just as AD&D was D&D, then 4e is too.

Oh, and by my logic, everyone can have an opinion, but that doesn't stop opinions from being wrong.

I'm sorry but by your own definition above... almost every fantasy rpg ever produced is D&D, as well as some boardames like Descent & Castle Ravenloft... I think your definition of what makes something D&D is so broad as to be virtually useless (what is "Heroic fantasy" anyway)... especially in examining whether a particular edition retains enough of what makes D&D...D&D (as opossed to any other game of heroic fantasy)to be considered a successor or evolution of past editions. I think a better question for you to answer is what makes something "not D&D"?