4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact!

[Fenes]

How can you miss something that never existed? (Actually, according to the Gin Blossoms, the I Ching of the Human Experience, you can, but I digress...)
Previous editions never had such things; Class design was a total shot in the dark.

Because 4E has a dreadful lack of classes atm. If we had the system for building classes, we'd have more options.

 

[Fifth Element]

Previous editions never had such things; Class design was a total shot in the dark.

Perhaps it's a reference to the rules in the 2E DMG, which gave you a formula to calculate the XP progression of a class, based on its abilities. (I don't think it worked for the core classes, and they even admit that in the book, but there you go.)

 

[Fifth Element]

Because 4E has a dreadful lack of classes atm. If we had the system for building classes, we'd have more options.

I believe Kishin's point was that since this never existed in previous editions, it doesn't fit in with what the OP is asking for (what is 4E missing that previous editions had).

 

[justanobody]

But the problems with that paragraph have nothing to do with the number of times the word "fun" is used. It has to do with the examples being crap, because they do not apply in all (or even many?) cases.

I agree that that paragraph needs to be rewritten. But that has nothing to do with the use of the word "fun".

The word fun added to make it worse than crap though. Like the reader was being told what fun is for the first time, so the word had to be used so many times in order to stress the subject was to define "fun". When it actually tried to describe something else and came out as telling people how to have fun. Other than bad examples, the tone of the paragraph was problematic because of that word... IMHO.

NOTE 1: We both think the passage suffers from poor examples.
NOTE 2: I think the overuse of the word "fun" made a bad thing worse.

Just to make sure we are on the same page about it. The word fun does become moot at looking at the paragraph as useless for other reasons, but doesn't diminish that maybe the examples were bad because of trying to stick all those "fun"s in there.

We would have to actually ask the editor and writer of that passage what they were thinking to go further than that really.

 

[Krensky]

Yeah, this is one of the suggestions they give on how to deal with absent players and XP. They also explicitly discuss only giving XP to characters involved in the encounters, and say "There's nothing wrong with that."

So there's a problem with them suggesting a couple of different ways to do something, and saying that they are both fine?

Except that's not what they did. Rhetorically, "There's nothing wrong with that." means "That's wrong, but I am attempting to avoid having to say so." Especially when the rest of the advice in the XP section tells you to do it the other way, and a few paragraphs before the book tells you that you really should give PCs XP even if they're not at the session because things work better that way.

 

[Fifth Element]

Except that's not what they did. Rhetorically, "There's nothing wrong with that." means "That's wrong, but I am attempting to avoid having to say so."

No, that's an assumption on your part. Indeed they do describe the other method as preferable, and give some reasons as to why. That's not the same thing as saying one method is wrong. Sometimes "there's nothing wrong with that" means, well, "there's nothing wrong with that".

Especially when the rest of the advice in the XP section tells you to do it the other way, and a few paragraphs before the book tells you that you really should give PCs XP even if they're not at the session because things work better that way.

If you read it like that, sure. Or you read it as "we think it's better this way, and here's why, but it's up to you."

Given the amount of prescriptive and proscriptive comments in the much-ballyhooed 1E DMG, the ire raised by the suggestions in the 4E DMG is surprising.

 

[Krensky]

No, that's an assumption on your part. Indeed they do describe the other method as preferable, and give some reasons as to why. That's not the same thing as saying one method is wrong. Sometimes "there's nothing wrong with that" means, well, "there's nothing wrong with that".


If you read it like that, sure. Or you read it as "we think it's better this way, and here's why, but it's up to you."

Given the amount of prescriptive and proscriptive comments in the much-ballyhooed 1E DMG, the ire raised by the suggestions in the 4E DMG is surprising.

I assume nothing. That is what that phrase actually means when used as the writer did. He may not have consciously intended it, but that does not change that it, along with the entire section says: Give XP regardless of attendance, or bad things happen. Only if you ignore context, subtext, and rhetorical form can someone reach your interpretation.

I have never read the 1e DMG, and from what I've seen of the 1e PHB and OSRIC, I have no interest in it. It's contents, however, are not pertinent to this however.

The 4e DMG is crammed full of this sort of thing; subtly implying that if your game doesn't jump from combat to combat to skill test to combat with nothing in between, you're doing it wrong and not having fun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Only if you ignore context, subtext, and rhetorical form can someone reach your interpretation.

Context in 4e is like crying in baseball. There's none of the former in the latter.

4e is a cold mathematical formula without context, subtext, or rhetoric! It achieves a high level of fun, y, by plugging in the ruleset, x, reliably and repeatedly with no variation and no emotion! The Maths are Perfect! The Maths are Sublime! The Maths will take us away to a happy field where there are no gnomes!

The 4e DMG is crammed full of this sort of thing; subtly implying that if your game doesn't jump from combat to combat to skill test to combat with nothing in between, you're doing it wrong and not having fun.

But....that's what the Maths say! We must listen to the Maths. They cannot be wrong. They are computers of fun!

Sorry, got a little out of control there for a moment. I certainly don't think that that's what 4e means to imply, but I won't dispute that you have come to this conclusion, specifically because of the existence of paragraphs like that, which say "We know what's fun for you!" I'm willing to chalk it up to poor writing and misplaced confidence more than deliberate malicious intent to tell you you're having badwrongfun, though.

 

[Krensky]

Context in 4e is like crying in baseball. There's none of the former in the latter.

4e is a cold mathematical formula without context, subtext, or rhetoric! It achieves a high level of fun, y, by plugging in the ruleset, x, reliably and repeatedly with no variation and no emotion! The Maths are Perfect! The Maths are Sublime! The Maths will take us away to a happy field where there are no gnomes!



But....that's what the Maths say! We must listen to the Maths. They cannot be wrong. They are computers of fun!

Sorry, got a little out of control there for a moment. I certainly don't think that that's what 4e means to imply, but I won't dispute that you have come to this conclusion, specifically because of the existence of paragraphs like that, which say "We know what's fun for you!" I'm willing to chalk it up to poor writing and misplaced confidence more than deliberate malicious intent to tell you you're having badwrongfun, though.

I don't think the tone is malicious in intent, Hanlon's Razor argues against that even if nothing else did. I also don't believe that 4e's rules are as... non-organic as your joke implies. They're not to my taste, but can I see how people like them. I do think the DMG not so subtly encourages a frenetically paced play style that ignores everything between combat or it's poor cousin the skill challenge. This isn't a problem with the rules of 4e, but with the presentation of them. It would have been nice to see it written in a more play style neutral fashion.

 

[Fifth Element]

I assume nothing.

I'm sorry, but you do. You are interpreting a meaning beyond the face value of the written words. You are inferring a meaning, which you even admit was not likely the author's intent.

Your understanding of the phrase "there's nothing wrong with that" does not agree with my own. I think it's a stretch to read it to mean the opposite of its apparent meaning.

"We think doing XP is better this way, and here's why, but you can do it the other way too, and there's nothing wrong with that."

The 4e DMG is crammed full of this sort of thing; subtly implying that if your game doesn't jump from combat to combat to skill test to combat with nothing in between, you're doing it wrong and not having fun.

Are you sure the book is impying that, and not that you're inferring it? I've read the 4E DMG, and while there are some rather weak bits in it (the paragraph being discussed is a good example), I don't get what you get from it. Overall it's an excellent DMG, especially for newer DMs.