4E is unacceptable

[cinderember]

Your post has been weighed, your post has been measured, and it has been found wanting.

Wow, thats how I feel about 4E as well.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I think the core of the issue here is that despite both sides owning the same books with D&D 3.5 on the cover and using the same rules, we were playing different games. Some of us played games where combat and conflict were less important then characterization, immersion, and storytelling. Others played games that focused more on overcoming challenges and defeating the environment and NPCs. This is a difference in play style. Some of us prefer mechanical underpinnings to our character's flaws and played with other people who shared that opinion, where your comments seem to imply your and your friends played in a more... well, the only word I can think of is cut throat fashion. I don't mean that as a pejorative, I honestly can't think of another phrase.

I think this post hits on a key issue: RPGs are different things to different people. Now as much as I prefer 3rd edition, I have to admit that the 4E DMG is pretty solid because it gives a lot of the theory behind RPGs. Much of what is there doesn't just apply to D&D, but it applies to most (if not all) RPGs out there.

Specifically, it talks about the different types of players, starting on page 8: actor, explorer, instigator, power gamer, slayer, storyteller, thinker, and watcher. I believe in the validity of those classifications of players and I also believe that just like the players, DMs can be any of those.

When I've played D&D with different groups, I've seen a huge spread of different play styles. I've seen D&D played like a board game, where the characters were little more than a collection of stats as they moved quickly from one encounter to another. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I've seen fully immersive playing where everybody talks in funny voices and the combat rules are played loose in order to move it along quickly so the group can get on to the next RPG encounter. I've seen games that are deadly to players, where every decision must be carefully calculated so that you don't overkill something because you'll need those resources later, and I've seen groups where the DM doesn't even try to make the combats overly challenging because the players are having so much fun moving from one bad dude to the next.

As someone points out in a different posts, different editions emphasize different play styles, and that's not a bad thing. After giving 4E a go, and even being pretty impressed with it in the first session, I realized that it doesn't suit my style of DMing. It doesn't sit right with me. It's not a bad game. In fact, from a purely design perspective, it's a dang streamlined high octane sports car of an edition. I like my mid-size coup with AC, power windows, reclining chairs, room in the back seat for passengers, and all the other options.

What's more is that RPGs are unlike other forms of entertainment because we become really personally invested with them. Unlike novels, comic books, or movies, we interact in a very direct way with the story. I think it's this personal investment that causes people to get upset when they see changes they don't like. I know that I've been a little upset since 4E was released, and the reason is that the D&D system that really fired up my imagination and brought tons of enjoyment has just been made obsolete in favor of something that really doesn't inspire me. 4E was made for people who aren't me, and as someone who has played D&D for 24 years of my life and had the game influence many facets of my personality, that hurts a bit. The problem is that rather than feel like I've just been kicked in the gut, I need to either roll with the changes or stick to what I like. I've decided to stick with what I like.

The 3.5/Pathfinder crowd needs to accept that the 4E crowd is not their enemy and the 4E crowd needs to realize that the 3.5/Pathfinder crowd is not their enemy.

So to sum up my point, and this post really has gone into a lot more depth than I originally intended, 4E isn't unacceptable, it's just different. It's different in a way that some people really like, and it's different in a way that other people don't really like. And that's cool.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

SMB1>Halo3 by so much it isn't even funny.

Quoted for truth and GREAT JUSTICE!

 

[Hussar]

The only time character rewrites are neccisary are 1) when the player is purposefully trying to break the game, and 2) when the player is completely knew and has no clue how to build the character. In both of those situations, you'd be taking them aside to tell them to knock it off or to give advice anyways. This is no different then it will be in 4e when you tell your new player that his warrior probably shouldn't grab all the axe-related abilities if he's using a sword.

In my experience, this is untrue.

For example, in my last campaign, I had a player do a Paladin/monk/Devoted Templar (is that the right PrC?). He wanted to be able to make saving throws. And he could. High saves all the way around, abilities which meant no half saves, all saves were complete negates. Worked well.

Until he got into combat. Couldn't hit anything, and, when he eventually got lucky and did tag something, did little damage. Utterly pants in combat.

He basically brewed himself right out of an effective character.

Now, we could just say, tough noogies - he built it, he should live with it. And, to some degree, I agree with this. It was his fault for designing this character. But, the rules were such that he could design this character and, it's not like he intentionally went out of his way to break the game or was innexperienced. It was just an unforseen result of his build.

Not everyone wants to break the game. Having a very weak character can just happen sometimes as well. And the rules have to wear some of the blame for that.

 

[Jhaelen]

Sometimes I'd wish there was an ignore thread button...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I always thought good DM's either let their players know beforehand, what the emphasis in a campaign would be ... or actually looked over their PC's sheets and let their players decisions inform the type of challenges and campaign they would run...besides, with the retraining rules from PHB II is making a wrong choice really that serious of an issue?

But what if my group actually doesn't want itself to be nailed down to one type of campaign? What if we want some deep immersive storytelling, followed by a brutal dungeon crawl, followed by a murder mystery? What if a DM uses published adventures that he finds look interesting, and they have variable goals?
Most RPGs support all these possibilities - why not also have characters that support all these possibilities? Why not ensure that all characters support all these possibilities?

One of the strange things of D&D is that its a mish-mash of everything. If you want to focus on only one aspect, there are other games that support them better, in more detail - but if you don't want that focus, D&D is one of the best - if not the best - choice to do so. And 4E got even better at that...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sometimes I'd wish there was an ignore thread button...

There is. Look a the top of the thread -> Thread Tools

 

[WhatGravitas]

The 3.5/Pathfinder crowd needs to accept that the 4E crowd is not their enemy and the 4E crowd needs to realize that the 3.5/Pathfinder crowd is not their enemy.

The problem is: Some people easily fall into the trap of "the one true way" or doing "real roleplaying". It's like trying to mention D&D on the White Wolf boards!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Imaro]

But what if my group actually doesn't want itself to be nailed down to one type of campaign? What if we want some deep immersive storytelling, followed by a brutal dungeon crawl, followed by a murder mystery? What if a DM uses published adventures that he finds look interesting, and they have variable goals?
Most RPGs support all these possibilities - why not also have characters that support all these possibilities? Why not ensure that all characters support all these possibilities?

One of the strange things of D&D is that its a mish-mash of everything. If you want to focus on only one aspect, there are other games that support them better, in more detail - but if you don't want that focus, D&D is one of the best - if not the best - choice to do so. And 4E got even better at that...

No one said you couldn't do this, but then the DM and the players need to sit down together and build their characters in tangent with this idea.

Basically all I'm saying is that, just like a number of point buy games, D&D 3.5 needs for everybody to be on the same page when creating their character and for a DM to take an active role during character creation.

The upside to this is, just like a point buy system, it has great flexibility in designing nearly any type of character you want...even if said character may not be good for a particular campaign style (though it may be perfectly viable in the style of campaign someone else chooses to run).

I don't think it's fair to leave the players in the dark and then get mad because you choose to run a harsh and unforgiving dungeoncrawl, while Bob made up a character specialized for diplomacy, bluff and sense motive. And again, it is possible for characters in 3.5 to retrain so I don't think it's that big of a deal to make a wrong choice every once in awhile.

EDIT: As far as 4e doing this better... why do you think this is true? IMO, 4e only makes sure you're equal in combat...outside of that it has less options and ways to customize a character. In 3.5 if I want to run a game that isn't based on combat, then players have more ways and options to customize...and on a more granular scale. The only problem I've run into with 3.5 in this area is that it gives less feats and skill points than I would like, but that's easy to houserule.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No one said you couldn't do this, but then the DM and the players need to sit down together and build their characters in tangent with this idea.

What if they did not? What if everything I tell my players is that I'd like a balanced party (one of every role, and the rest as you see fit)? And if the party doesn't have anyone capable of diplomancing, at 2nd level already they can!

EDIT: As far as 4e doing this better... why do you think this is true? IMO, 4e only makes sure you're equal in combat...outside of that it has less options and ways to customize a character. In 3.5 if I want to run a game that isn't based on combat, then players have more ways and options to customize...and on a more granular scale. The only problem I've run into with 3.5 in this area is that it gives less feats and skill points than I would like, but that's easy to houserule.

You don't need customisation. Nobody cares wether I have 9 or 10 ranks in Diplomacy, or if I get a synergy bonus from Knowledge (Nobility) or Bluff. None of the customisation options I remember from 3E resulted in anything different then a better skill modifier.*

What's important is that someone has the ability to cover this, and that this someone can be anyone that wants to do it. It might take 1 or 2 levels to get there, but you don't have to change your entire "build" or plan for it from 1st level. It's a lot easier to grow your character organically into this. If the Paladin didn't think of picking Diplomacy, but sees the party is missing it - he can pick it up soon and be effective at it - he doesn't even lose anything major in the process. And he doesn't have to worry about "keeping it up" over several levels - he makes the decision once.

If someone _really_ wants to play the "dipomancer", he can still do that - without becoming useless outside of combat.


*) And if I have something to complain about 4E is that this is still true in 4E. Why are their no "non-combat" powers (aside from a few utilities?)? How about a "Connection" power that you can use once per Adventure (or Act?) to find someone to get your plot further. Or an "Idea" power that gives the partys sage a hint that can help solve the mystery they are trying to solve? Or an "Short-Cut" power that allows the parties tracker and guide to find a quicker route to his goal. Or heck, maybe just provides an automatic success in a skill challenge.
I hope there will be a "d20 Storyteller" or "d20 Modern" that will explore such options.