4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med

[Dlsharrock]

Noobs still won't put in the effort to learn a game with a 300+ page rulebook. Not going to happen.

3.5 wasn't exactly a ripping yarn.

 

[Imaro]

Allright, played my first session yesterday and all it did was reinforce my suspicions about 4e. You still need rules mastery, not only of such things as combat mastery and flanking, etc. but also of your powers, how they interact with others powers, etc.

You also need to be a tactically oriented player as all it takes is one that doesn't understand tactics (and a DM who isn't shabby in that department) to send the whole party spiraling towards defeat.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I would like to point out that WoW noobs don't bother with looking things up on WoWwiki, or virtually any other online resource for that matter. However, they sometimes read the small book that comes with the CDs that covers generic commands and has a brief description of the races and classes.

I'm a WoW noob. First thing I did was find WoWwiki.

Anecdotal, perhaps, but less silly than this over-generalization. We live in the era of itunes. Anyone who's a n00b in WoW is going to look for online resources as a matter of instinct.

I don't even open an instruction manual anymore without checking for online resources first.

 

[Dlsharrock]

You also need to be a tactically oriented player as all it takes is one that doesn't understand tactics (and a DM who isn't shabby in that department) to send the whole party spiraling towards defeat.

[sarcasm]Tactics in combat? Whatever will those crazy spliff-smokers at WotC think of next![/sarcasm]

 

[Imaro]

[sarcasm]Tactics in combat? Whatever will those crazy spliff-smokers at WotC think of next![/sarcasm]

I guess my point was something like this... which is the more widely and casually played game... chess or checkers?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Sounds very wrong, too. Most video games these days are absolute crap, and that's not because of nostalgia goggles.

The problem with removing "obstacles" is that you also remove the reward of surmounting them. When there's no obstacles - when there's nothing to work for - then there's no reward.

Also, Family, you realize that 1) CAD is a horrible comic, and 2) B^U openly admits in a thread that he has NO IDEA what he's talking about with that comic, and he just made it to jump on the 4e bandwagon?

1) Most examples of anything are crap, with a few standing out. This hasn't changed over time.

2) Exactly what sort of obstacles are you talking about?

3) I thought that comic was pretty funny, actually.

I also agree with the general thrust of the first link, and it has made me realise why so many gamers have such negative reactions to 4e - it is simpler to pick up (although it can't make you decisive!) and it does run faster (with a bit of practice).

I honestly feel like I did when I got 3e - this is so much of a better product than the previous game. It'll never be perfect, but right now it's great.

 

[Dlsharrock]

which is the more widely and casually played game... chess or checkers?

Chess?

Or do you mean, which is easier to pick up and learn from scratch? In which case checkers. Not that I get the link you're trying to make. Are you saying checkers/4e is easier to lose/die because the rules are simpler?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm genuinely interested and lapping up these 4e/good/bad discussions as I'm toying with buying the books and running a 4e session.

 

[Imaro]

Chess?

Or do you mean, which is easier to pick up and learn from scratch? In which case checkers. Not that I get the link you're trying to make. Are you saying checkers/4e is easier to lose/die because the rules are simpler?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm genuinely interested and lapping up these 4e/good/bad discussions as I'm toying with buying the books and running a 4e session.

sorry, IMHE, checkers is the more played game.

4e however is like chess, though from read throughs alot of people are claiming it's much simpler than 3e and harkens back to a simpler 1e in operation. My oppinion is that 4e is deceptive, like chess which has rules which aren't all that numerous or hard to pick up ... however to play a good game of chess it takes alot more than just knowing the rules. 4e is the same way, From the two combats I ran last night the players really have to not only have rules mastery of such things as combat advantage, flanking, movement, their powers, how their powers interact with others powers, etc.

They also have to use all of this knowledge in a (group) tactically sound way. If the DM and the players have a large disparity in their tactical ability this game will definitely bring that to the forefront in every encounter. It will either be super easy or super hard for the PC's.

 

[mhensley]

Is it easily compatible with every edition of D&D too?

It isn't compatible with any of them.

 

[mhensley]

3.5 wasn't exactly a ripping yarn.

I never said it was. The only version of D&D that did a reasonable job of pulling in the uninitiated was Basic D&D. That was your D&D for the casual player.