4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Knowing the rules in 3E can be exactly what makes life so difficult. Adjudicate something seemingly simple as Wall spells (where do I place it? How can I shape it), or Lines (what happens if I use a 20° angle).
Handle Sunder, handle trip, handle disarm.

Some rules are easier to learn, some are worse. Some you can't. (Unless someone can - "proving" all his explanations in the rules- explain all the grapple rules and tell me the number of attacks a monster has while grappling when using a grapple check or when using natural attack, what damage it deals, how Constrict stacks with normal damage and so much more. And, after explaining all that to me, explain why grapple is so broken with larger creatures...).

This all stuff you learn and is purely mechanically. It is ultimately totally useless in regards to problem-solving or for conducting "gaming fun".

Understanding tactics isn't easy, or for everyone. But at least it is a clear example of problem-solving that can conduct fun (if you like getting tactical). You don't really have to understand or learn each power, because it's fundamentals are still all simple.
Power X and Y both can slide the target. They also have extra effects (maybe one lasts longer, or one allows a larger distance, or one is daily and deals more damage...). The fact that it slides your targets alone is an important aspect for tactical thinking. A general understanding of tactics will tell you when it is useful to use it (like: When the enemy is not in any flanking position yet, standing close to a squishy, when there is 100 ft chasmn or a fire pit) and when not (the enemy is standing right between the Rogue and the Fighter).
Power Z is a close area effect. Close area tells you it is a good idea to use when there are a lot of valid targets around you. If not, either move or pick a different power.

 

[WizarDru]

After playing 3e/3.5e weekly for, what, 8 years now? We STILL have to go check the books for stuff like grapples, coup de graces, dispels and other such wonky stuff. It's not hard, but it's counter-intuitive to rules mastery. 4e seems to alleviate that, so we'll go with it.

For me, an RPG's best utility is to provide a framework without getting in the way. 4e appears to do that for me more than previous games. I had fun in AD&D. I had fun in Basic. I had fun in GURPS. I had fun in Talislanta. I had fun in 3.X. And I expect to have fun in 4e.

 

[Scribble]

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.

Sure, just like any game you do still need to actually learn the rules, and the more you know about it the better. However, I don't consider this "rules mastery."

They've done a pretty decent job of eliminating the "haha you picked this power, now you suck stupid noob!" pitfalls.

For the most part any power you pick will be a viable option. You might still have to learn to sue it to best effect, but it's not going to be a detrimental thing.

They've also made the system pretty polished. They seem to have boiled it down to: "here is a set of rules based on one system that will account for 90% of the things that will happen in the game. For those things that don't here is the base mechanic, so ad-hocking is simply a manner of choosing the appropriate parts."

Thats the beauty of the system. It allows you to handle VERY complex ideas without getting bogged down by the details.

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.

Sure, but this is true of almost any game out there... (except maybe candyland...) There's always going to be an element that you need to get better at. It's what makes the game a game.

Knowledge of how to play the game better is one thing. In the player, it creates a sense of; wait I can do better then that! It makes them want to come back and try harder.

Knowledge of simply HOW to play the game... Is another. It makes people just give up in frustration.


To use your chess example...

I like Chess. I'm not the worlds greatest chess player, but I know the rules and it's fun. Even when I loose. It challenges me to try new things and improve my game.

Conversely, I HATE the card game -Hole. I can't for the life of me get the rules. Everytime someone suggest to play it, people are normally drunk, and have so many various house rules that the game devolves into: "Dude you can't play that card... why didn't you play that card.. you forgot to do this..." and finally when I loose "haha you suck stupid noob!"

Consequently I don't ever want to play -hole... EVER.

 

[Imperialus]

I don't really agree that 4e is "rules lite" - depending what the measure is, of course, but it seems to have mechanics considerably more complicated than Call of Cthulhu, for example.

I'm also not sure I agree with your timelilne - Basic Roleplaying, for example, can be a very rules light system if some of the RQ complexity is stripped away, and it has been around for ever. Tunnels and Trolls likewise is venerable and rules light. And one of the most mechanically complex and clunky RPGs - Rolemaster - is nearly as old.

Note to mods. I'm dancing pretty close to the no politics rule here, it was just the best 'real world' example I could think of. Edit away if you think I've crossed the line.

Perhaps rules lite isn't the best way to describe it, rules... streamlined? perhaps would work better. There is also a whole range of rules complexity running the gamut from Red Box D&D all the way up to Rolemaster. It's like trying to pin someone on a political spectrum (intended for example not debate). You have Michal Moore on one side and Anne Coulter on the other. 99% of people fall somewhere in between the two.

I think 4E has moved towards the rules lite side of things, it certainly has when compared to 3.X. Also while rules lite and rules heavy systems have always existed they tend to fall in and out of favor with the larger gaming community, just like how the political climate swings back and forth between conservative and liberal (again example, not debate).

It's a generalization, but I think it's fair to say that during the 90's there was a trend among the more popular systems to increase the complexity of the rules. Gamers wanted to know how difficult it was to do X, Y or Z and have the rules to back them up. After a certain point though this begins to become untenable. Rules systems become too unwieldy and you end up with things like grapple checks and 300+ cleric spell lists.

After 3.5 was released there was a very distinct reversal of the trend. Games like Mutants and Masterminds, True 20, and Castles and Crusades were published and attracted a fairly significant following. It's not D20 related but Shadowrun also made a similar transition between 3rd edition and 4th edition where they unified the system, and eliminated floating target numbers making it 'rules lite' in comparison to 3rd edition. 4th ed is the most popular SR edition to date, and this is in spite of that horrible video game.

I think 4th edition is trying to capture the same sort of audience that was attracted to T20, C&C, and whatnot. It's still much more rules heavy than either of them but, when compared to 3.5, it's much simpler.

 

[Dlsharrock]

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.

I still don't understand the point you're making. Isn't this about DM moderation, not rules? If I run a game with a group of players who prefer deep, immersive, characterisation, I don't run kick-the-door-down dungeon crawls, so if I run a game with a group of players who lack tactical smarts why would I trip them up with tactically challenging situations? I may be misinterpreting, but you seem to be saying that this is the situation, because the DM is directly competing with players in 4e??

That pretty much goes against my whole philosophy for GMing any system, so if that's what 4e advocates I don't think I will give it a go after all.

Nah, I'm just being obtuse. I will really. But I am a bit confused by the point you're making Imaro.

 

[Spatula]

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.

Then you're not a noob, at least not in the way that the comment was meant, I think. There's people who are new to something and thus inexperienced, and then there are those who are simply not interested in learning more than the surface features. I believe the "noob" comment was referring to the latter type, which comprises (IME) the majority of the WoW player base.

 

[Intense_Interest]

It's a generalization, but I think it's fair to say that during the 90's there was a trend among the more popular systems to increase the complexity of the rules. Gamers wanted to know how difficult it was to do X, Y or Z and have the rules to back them up. After a certain point though this begins to become untenable. Rules systems become too unwieldy and you end up with things like grapple checks and 300+ cleric spell lists.

-snip-

I think 4th edition is trying to capture the same sort of audience that was attracted to T20, C&C, and whatnot. It's still much more rules heavy than either of them but, when compared to 3.5, it's much simpler.

The catalyst for the early-90s complexity-in-gaming era is Street Fighter II. It's a well-documented if not globally accepted moment in gaming history.

And having more or less rules don't matter if the rule systems are kludgy add-ons that don't contribute to a tenable learning curve.

 

[Agamon]

After playing 3e/3.5e weekly for, what, 8 years now? We STILL have to go check the books for stuff like grapples, coup de graces, dispels and other such wonky stuff. It's not hard, but it's counter-intuitive to rules mastery. 4e seems to alleviate that, so we'll go with it.

I'll say. On DDGD, not one of us had played before. As DM, I looked up bull rush (and found I didn't need to, as I was right with how it worked) and potion of healing, and that's it. The players didn't even have books. I had fun spending more time adjudicating some weird stuff one player kept trying that wasn't in the rules than looking stuff up. Now that, plus a high level of tactics, are the hallmarks of a great game to me.

 

[Agamon]

The catalyst for the early-90s complexity-in-gaming era is Street Fighter II. It's a well-documented if not globally accepted moment in gaming history.

The RPG? Yeah, that was a rules-heavy, very broken game. My first WW game that then turned me off of all WW games (until Exalted, which was kinda cool).

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's a generalization, but I think it's fair to say that during the 90's there was a trend among the more popular systems to increase the complexity of the rules.

Increased complexity is the natural state of things. It's an essential feature of the splatbook treadmill. OD&D got more complex with the release of Blackmoor and Greyhawk. AD&D became more complex after Unearthed Arcana. The only time complexity might be reduced is when a new edition is published, the examples from D&D being 2e (1989) and 4e (2008).

I disagree with your idea that the 90s was the decade of increased complexity. The top selling games of the period were 2e (less complex than 1e prior to the splats) and Vampire (which I would characterise as medium complexity). GURPS and HERO, both highly complex and reasonably well selling games, debuted in 1986 and 1981 respectively. The 90s was, if anything, the decade of a return to simplicity with the publication of Feng Shui and 7th Sea.

After 3.5 was released there was a very distinct reversal of the trend. Games like Mutants and Masterminds, True 20, and Castles and Crusades

Mutants & Masterminds isn't particularly simple. According to Ken Hite's State of the Industry column, Troll Lords had 1% market share in 2005, which is insignificant. Compare D&D at 53% and White Wolf at 19%.

I think 4th edition is trying to capture the same sort of audience that was attracted to T20, C&C, and whatnot. It's still much more rules heavy than either of them but, when compared to 3.5, it's much simpler.

That doesn't make sense. If 4e was trying to capture these fans (all three of them) it would be of equal complexity.

A far more likely hypothesis is that by far and away 4e's main target audience is fans of 3e. It was created by doing market research to find out what the flaws were with that system. The results highlighted issues such as class balance and SoDs, which 4e fixes.