4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med

[The Little Raven]

And 3e gave you instructions for determining it, thus making 3e support this more than 4e does.

I find sentences or a paragraph that describes how a race matures, when it reaches full maturity, and when it gives in to old age to be better support than "Starting Age: 15 + 1d4."

Still no feats for 'em...whereas in 3e, the evil gods had domains right in the PHB, thus making 3e more supportive of this than 4e.

I'll concede that 3e had more support for making evil characters right out of the core books.

But nothing specifically Good to equal the specific Evil of the devils or demons. 3e had LG angels and the like, thus making 3e more supportive of this than 4e.

More supportive of what, exactly? Having more Good aligned monsters in the MM? Does making more monsters Unaligned instead of Good or Evil suddenly mean it's harder to run a campaign with evil characters, because there aren't as many "Always Good" monsters, despite more monster being universally useful as encounters in either good or evil campaigns?

But nothing specifically evil like the [EVIL] spells in the 3e PH, thus making 3e more supportive of this than 4e.

Supportive of what? Alignment as a hard and fast game mechanic? Does that really even matter? If the fact that there's no [EVIL] spells means it's less supportive of evil games, then the fact that there's no [GOOD] spells must mean it's less supportive of good games.

And I'm not saying that 4e should, would, or could support this as well or better than 3e did, I'm just saying choices were made and that some people obviously disagree with those choices, and perhaps that disagreement is simply on principle in some cases.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing claims that you made, by saying "4e does not support these specific things," which it actually does. However, you came in after that claim and try to qualify it with specific 3e mechanics that it's not replicating, which is not what you stated in your original assertion. You're fixated on mechanics for things, not simply support.

 

[Scribble]

Yeah, the execution fell flat in some areas. But the goal was a strong one, and its one that has a lot of supporters. "A rule for everything, and everything with a rule" is going to alienate some, and serve others, just like "Only the rules we think you need" is going to alienate some.

Therein lies the elegance, as that's not what's happening at all!

In fact I'd say it's almost opposite of what's actually happening.

3e says here are all the rules we think you need in an adventure game setting boiled down to various different bonuses and penalties. Oops you thought of something else you need? Add it in... but wait... every other aspect of the game is linked to that rule, so make sure you change all that too otherwise the system as a whole will suffer.

4e gives you this: These are the rules people most comonly use in an adventure game system. However, should you find there are OTHER rules not covered here, the system is designed to handle their inclusion.

Creating monsters isn't the whole game.

And they give you more then monster design info.

They don't reveal why some races get +2 to two ability scores that reflect the same defense, but others don't.

They don't tell you what damage codes balance out the Immobilized status or Thunder damage.

Not sure what you mean by this?

They don't tell you how to set up rules for underwater combat,

Well, as others have said they do... Neither did 3e though. 3.5 did, but original not so much.

or how to use NPC's as PC's,

Again not sure what you mean by this.

or monsters as PC's,

They give you many playable races. They recomend against it, but give you the option.

3e took a while to even consider the idea, and then when they did it was a flunky system.

or what age your PC starts at, or what job he had before he was an Adventurer,

I'd rather not have rules for that...

or, if he worships an evil monstrous god, what enemies he can fight and what abilities he can take, or if he's not a divine-powered PC, what choosing a god even means....

Ok I'll give you that they seem to have taken a stance on PCs should approach the game as the heros. (or at least the anti-heros...)

3e expressly told you a lot of that out of the starting gate. They also told you how to make monsters (it was just a more involved process).

No they did not on the monsters. In 3.5 they did, but not the whole story.

But if you're one of those people desperately seeking an aquatic campaign, or one of those who likes having Beholders as PC's, or one of those who likes playing Mundanes who become heroes rather than heroes who become bigger heroes....

Aquatic campaign you have the basic framework. And the basics of varying it up. It's much easier then say if I wanted a weird campaign in 3e. No/low magic? Oh oh, how do we heal now. Ok we use the heal skill? Oh wait, but who spends points on that when they need to spend it in other areas... and wait no magic so how do we fight certain monsters... It could be done sure... but it took a lot of work. Changing 4e seems much easier.

They probably know what most poeple want, but they don't know what everyone wants.

Show me the man who does and I'll bet his name is god.

3e's solution to that problem was to give you as much as you could possibly need and have you choose to use what you wanted or needed at the time...a toolkit.

3e solution was to think up as much as they thought you needed and make it work together. But we've been through this already.

4e is not nearly as concerned with those who want to play the game differently (though, as I've said many times, its a continuum, not a binary choice).

They make a game designed to be played, and allow it to be flexible enough to be changed by teh ones who want to change it.

Simplistic is a value statement. I think everyone using the same basic forumla for powers (at-will/encounter/daily) is simplistic because it doesn't give me the complexity that I desire and that is fun for me.

I view it thusly:

3e: 2 = (4 + 4) /4

4e: 1 + 1 = 2

If you want to call that simplistic? Sure, why not.

In that respect, I'm one of those outliers that 4e isn't concerned with. They don't care as much if I'm not having fun with that set up, because MOST people will be having fun.

Sure, that's true of any game. I'd personally say 4e cares more because they're trying to give the most people the most fun while still leaving the system open for tohers to make what they want of it.

3e did kind of care, because they gave me new systems for resource management all the freakin' time, so I could play a Warlock or a Fighter if I wanted something straightforward or a Barbarian if I wanted a per-encounter mechanic, or a Wizard if I wanted a pool of per-day abilities, or...whatever.

Which muisked up the system.

I was measuring intent, not execution. 3e wanted to be Open Source D&D, to be a toolkit to tinker with and develop new things with. 4e, like a girl, just wants ta have fun.

Again I dissagree. it was WAY to hidden to be truly open source.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm disputing claims that you made, by saying "4e does not support these specific things," which it actually does.

No, I said that 4e was weaker at supporting these specific things than 3e, in response to the assertion that 4e is actually more of a toolbox than I'm giving it credit for (specifically that it makes it easy to tinker with). 4e certainly can be tinkered with, but 3e was, on the whole, more open to tinkering, specifically because it supported a broader range of possible play styles, in order to fully embrace as many outlying players as it could, thus reflecting its nature as "quintessential" D&D in a way that 4e has no interested in being.

You're fixated on mechanics for things, not simply support.

Of course, that isn't really what I'm talking about, regardless of how accurate it is or is not. The discussion is about, AFAIK, divergent points between 4e and 3e in the basic design and philosophy of the game. It is my contention that one of these is that 3e was designed more to be an inclusive toolbox than 4e is, because 4e is designed more to be playable out of the box than 3e was.

If you don't disagree with that, then we don't have a whole lot of relevant conversation to have.

If you DO disagree with that, I'm presenting several handfuls of laundry lists of things that 4e doesn't have interest in giving me rules for that 3e did have an interest in giving me rules for. In fact, I'll even set this off in order to emphasize it.


Because the move from toolkit to ready-to-play is a continuum, not a binary solution, I don't really have to show that 4e isn't interested at all in being a toolkit, nor do I have to show that 3e did a good job of accomplishing rules for being a good toolkit. All I have to show is that 3e was interested in giving me more diversity than 4e is, at the launch. Heck, if we can even agree on one thing that 3e tried to give players at the beginning that 4e does not even try to give, I have shown the intent.

Chaotic Neutral Half-Orc Druids.

4e doesn't want this at launch. 3e did. This shows that in at least this area, 3e was more concerned with supporting fans of this thing than 4e is. Why did 3e want it? Because some people liked to play with it, and 3e wanted to give people the tools to run the D&D they liked. Why doesn't 4e care about those people? Because there probably aren't very many of them, and other considerations [ickiness, wild shape complexity, alignment simplifying] took precedence over the fact that some minority liked them, partially because those other considerations might be able to win them over despite their affection for the discarded thing.

Is it worth it? Depends on how important those things (or any of the other things that 3e gave you that 4e does not) are to you. If they are important, you're going to feel angry and abandoned because suddenly it will get much harder to play that, because the world's most popular RPG won't be supporting that out of the gate, if ever.


Replace Chaotic Neutral Half-Orc Druids with anything, anything from the vast galaxy of things that 4e has chosen to ditch in favor of its own design goals. Whatever your opinion on 4e, I'm not sure you can cogently argue that 4e has ditched nothing.

Replace it with "Evil Campaigns."

Replace it with "Monster PC's."

Replace it with "Firearms."

Anything, anything at all that 3e had at launch that 4e lacks at launch. No matter what it is. All there needs to be is ONE THING, and 3e instantly becomes more diverse in comparison.

Everything else is just getting lost in the analogies and specificities.

I personally believe that WotC could have entertained the idea of supporting the outlying campaigns better at launch, if they had decided to. But they didn't. They had bigger fish to fry this time around, and I don't really blame them for it. I like 4e, but that doesn't mean that 4e is as good a toolkit as 3e is (though it might be Good Enough, and that's really the only threshold that really counts).

 

[Scribble]

You have two seperate arguments going here.

1. That 3e was inherently more suited to tinkering then 4e.

and

2. That 3e supported more "styles" of play then 4e straight out of the box.

As for 1, I still dissagree. Just because the game had more instances of concrete "this is how this thing woprks in this game" rules in it does not imply it is easier to tinker with.

It means it has more things cluttering up the rules system. It also has a directly opposite reaction. it makes tinkering with things HARDER because it changes everything else.

2. I can somewhat give you. I can understand someone being upset because their style of play is not directly supported. Thats life though. Ultimately, however, I think that it allows the game to concentrate on being a better game, instead of diluting itself into too many difefrent areas all at once. Thus, once they DO come out with the various fringe styles, those styles will ultimately be better as well.

Until then, since it's easier to tinker with the new system, putting them in place on your own isn't that difficult.

 

[Intense_Interest]

You have two seperate arguments going here.

1. That 3e was inherently more suited to tinkering then 4e.

and

2. That 3e supported more "styles" of play then 4e straight out of the box.

Neither of which are about how "casual" one game system is, so I'm pretty sure the thread has run its course and deserves a new topic.

If you DO disagree with that, I'm presenting several handfuls of laundry lists of things that 4e doesn't have interest in giving me rules for that 3e did have an interest in giving me rules for. In fact, I'll even set this off in order to emphasize it.

3E gave you a haberdashery of usually idiosyncratic rules that didn't mesh, and called out for splat-books for the truly divergent styles of game (Storm and Sea, Desert and Sun, Cold and More Cold).

4E wants to sell you a capable and modular game system, and then sell you what you want to add onto it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You have two seperate arguments going here.

1. That 3e was inherently more suited to tinkering then 4e.

and

2. That 3e supported more "styles" of play then 4e straight out of the box.

They're actually very closely related arguments, I think, because a system that supports a larger variety of campaigns is going to be inherently more suited to tinkering, because it gives you more to tinker with.

I'm not about to say that 3e did a perfect job of delivering on that ideal of being a tinkerer's choice (the Jenga comparison, I think, is pretty apt). I'm not debating the quality of the rules, just their existence. But diversity goes hand in hand with the ability to change the game to suit your desires, by giving you more rules to choose from. I can play a game of 3e right out of the basket of purely aquatic races in an undersea land with guns and katana, or I can take one of those elements and combine it with the Medieval Baseline, or I whatever...that's a lot of freedom to tinker.

4e, because it lacks those options, also lacks the ability to play with those options and combine them in different ways, making it, in my view, less suited to tinkering (regardless of how hard 3e was to get "right").

 

[I'm A Banana]

Neither of which are about how "casual" one game system is, so I'm pretty sure the thread has run its course and deserves a new topic.

Actually, they're BOTH about how "casual" 4e is in comparison.

Because the more tinkering a system requires, the less casual it can be.

Thus, 4e, in comparison, seems very casual indeed.

3E gave you a haberdashery of usually idiosyncratic rules that didn't mesh, and called out for splat-books for the truly divergent styles of game (Storm and Sea, Desert and Sun, Cold and More Cold).

4E wants to sell you a capable and modular game system, and then sell you what you want to add onto it.

"3e drowns puppies and 4e gives me free ice cream and sex" is useless to talk about their very real differences.

 

[Scribble]

They're actually very closely related arguments, I think, because a system that supports a larger variety of campaigns is going to be inherently more suited to tinkering, because it gives you more to tinker with.

They're related. The reason I pointed it out was because you seemed to merge the two at times.

I dissagree with the argument, however. More rules doesn't mean the system is easier to tinker with. Again I say it's just the opposite.

More examples of concrete rules implies :this is how it is done.

Advice on how to create rules based on an underlying principle gives more ability to tinker and modify.

Complexity does not = more room to work.

I'm not about to say that 3e did a perfect job of delivering on that ideal of being a tinkerer's choice (the Jenga comparison, I think, is pretty apt). I'm not debating the quality of the rules, just their existence. But diversity goes hand in hand with the ability to change the game to suit your desires, by giving you more rules to choose from. I can play a game of 3e right out of the basket of purely aquatic races in an undersea land with guns and katana, or I can take one of those elements and combine it with the Medieval Baseline, or I whatever...that's a lot of freedom to tinker.

Maybe we have a different idea on what "tinkering" is?

4e, because it lacks those options, also lacks the ability to play with those options and combine them in different ways, making it, in my view, less suited to tinkering (regardless of how hard 3e was to get "right").

4e lacks concrete rules for those options, but gives you the ability to easily create them when needed.

Getting it right is part of tinkering. What's the point in a system allowing you to modify it if the modifications ultimately don't work anyway?

Sure again, I'll give you 3e put more examples of concrete rules options right out of the box. But they HAD to because it was so difficult to modify the system.

4e doesn't have to, because it's easy enough to modify to suit your tastes if you're the type that needs them.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Actually, they're BOTH about how "casual" 4e is in comparison.

Because the more tinkering a system requires, the less casual it can be.

Thus, 4e, in comparison, seems very casual indeed.

"Casual" is a slam meant to make the user seem "Supercool Hardcore". Chess isn't a "casual" game at Master levels even though the greatest tinkering in the past three-hundred years is the advent of the pawns-double-advance-from-start rule. Monopoly has an accepted amount of tinkering with the rules (Free Parking) yet doesn't have the same depth of play. Tinkering is a separate distinction from how serious you can treat the game play.

"3e drowns puppies and 4e gives me free ice cream and sex" is useless to talk about their very real differences.

Ad Hominem, great.

Why don't you respond to the fact that the 3E splat books and 4E modular systems are a parallel development?

Eberron is a MagicTech world, FR is a High Level Simulationist one, Storm and Sea is used if you want to do more than shift around a coastline and Sand and Sun if you want to do more than roll Endurance checks. Where ARE the spells that let you guide by stars in the PHB? Or the domain for a cleric that worships the Desert?

3E gives you underwater rules (so does 4E) and then piles Freedom of Movement, divergent damage tables, and unclear magical effects (is a fireball still hot? How about lightning bolt) on top.

 

[The Little Raven]

Because the more tinkering a system requires, the less casual it can be.

A system that requires tinkering is a poorly executed one. A system that promotes tinkering is a cleverly executed one.