4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Imaro]

Really? How much message board space has been devoted to a few niche 3e spells that only become problematic if wildly abused (polymorphs and calling spells, for example)? How about the people who keep bashing the core fighter even after supplements were released to add new options or new classes? How many criticisms of 3e relate to playstyle issues that aren't in the rules at all? How much of this keeps going years after the last 3e release? How many bad game design decisions have been made (throughout the industry), because of these irrational criticisms? If you ever frequented the WotC boards, I can't imagine where you ever got the idea that other versions of D&D got a pass on anything.

4e (and everything else out there) gets off easy by comparison.

Now as to why the older D&D editions don't have the same issue, I think it's simply because they're pre-internet.

Yep, pretty much sums up my thoughts on that statement.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: Furthermore I would say maybe the fact of the matter is that there are too many niggling things in 4e that people don't like and for some, especially those who have either found an edition they enjoy or have tweaked and changed an edition into what they wanted it to be... the money and work factor to get 4e to the point where it gives the same returns just isn't worth it to them.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yup, a social statblock for 4e NPCs would be great. A very happy medium between 4e's name-only and 3e/Pathfinder's page-long statblocks for every Tom Dick & Harriet.

Is a social statblock different than just describing the NPC's goals and personality somehow? Does anyone have an example of a good "social statblock" they can post or link to?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Looking at a lot of the criticisms of 4e, I'm baffled that people cannot make fairly simple, obvious changes to fit what they want. HP recovery too fast? Ok, slow it down. Is that really so difficult? No social statblocks on NPC's? Add 'em yourself. That's what we did for the past thirty years, why suddenly change now? On and on and on. It's almost like any criticism of 4e is couched in an absolute concrete reading of 4e without any ability to think for yourself.

So, why would I kludge 4e when there are at least 3 other perfectly good editions sitting around that do what I want?

Why slow down 4e's HP recovery, when I can just play 1e, and get the HP recovery I want better?

For me, what 4e offers as an improvement from 1e (or 2e or 3e or OD&D or BEMCI) isn't enough of a value proposition. I COULD beat 4e into the approximate shape I wanted, but why bother? When I'm looking for particular solutions to 4e's problems for me, I find other e's generally looking like a better baseline. I can take what I like about 4e and back-port it into an edition that sucks more on that metric much more easily than I can take all the things that don't work about 4e for me out of 4e and move forward the stuff I liked about other e's that 4e lacks.

I'm still a big fan of 4e (I play it more regularly than any other game!), but it's not the best baseline for me, because I'd have to do much more work to get 4e to play like the game I want to play than to get, say, 2e to play like the game I want to play.

Is a social statblock different than just describing the NPC's goals and personality somehow? Does anyone have an example of a good "social statblock" they can post or link to?

Aside from the Wis and Cha entries in the stat block, I usually put the following into my NPC's:

Alignment (plus three quick one-word supporting descriptors)
Attitude (Friendly, Hostile, etc.)
Goal (the thing they want, with a one-word motive explaining why)
Fear (the thing they want to avoid, with a one-word aversion explaining why)

So, like:

Alignment: Neutral Evil (selfish, sadistic, arrogant)
Attitude: Unfriendly
Goal: Make an undead army (motive: vengeance)
Fear: Losing control of her undead army (aversion: chaos)

In play, this allows me to role-play the character well with just a glance. Mechanically, it also lets me key specific things to PC actions: if one of the characters talking to this NPC was to mention an item that could raise the dead faster than necromancy alone, she'd be interested, and they'd get a bonus to their checks to persuade her. If the party included a cleric who could wrest control of the army from this NPC, they'd be at a disadvantage: she'd hate that guy. If the party had a character obsessed with vengeance, she might feel a sympathy for that character, but if the party had a character who was some sort of wild mage or barbarian, she might really dislike that character.

Aside from a simple quick scene, this block could also support an escalation to a more long-term challenge smoothly: given the Wis and Cha scores of the character, I could give the PC's DC's and make opposing checks, so that they could work on affecting her attitude while she resisted and shut down their attempts, until the encounter went on for long enough that I felt the party was significantly challenged for the goal they want to accomplish.

'tain't much, but it gives me a lot to work with on the fly at the table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Possibly perversely I find 4e a better sim of the real world than previous editions. People moving as they fight, people driving others around as part of their standard techniques, hit points as stamina or stun? All (once you get round the overnight recovery) fit the real world to me much better than 1 minute combat rounds, hit points being weird wounds with no penalty, and almost entirely static combats. And AEDU is a better match for the OODA loop than anything else D&D has ever had except the Bo9S Crusader. People move properly, they think almost properly, and they recover almost properly.

Indeed. I think that the people who dislike 4e strongly tend to be those who think Sim is the only worthwhile way.

I certainly never understood the idea that 4e is WORSE simulation than previous editions. None of them are terribly realistic. Maybe older E's are a little more loose and could be played tighter to a sort of gritty and real feeling tone, but no edition of D&D comes close to providing ANY degree of realism, and I don't think any of them ever made any real attempt to do so.

My problem is that I do not trust either WotC or Paizo to do a decent social statblock. Evil Hat? Yes. Margaret Weis Productions? Since Smallville, hell yes. Lumpley Games? Definitely. Robin Laws? Probably. Paizo? I don't trust them not to produce Prone Shooter or Supernal Feast. And I don't trust WotC much further. Also the statblocks of the companies I mentioned are all designed for simplicity - I don't want to have to scramble through books to find what I need.

Yeah, that's always been my fear. As soon as you put structured rules all over it then people min/max and game it and feel like they're entitled to have things work a certain way regardless of what makes sense or is fun. People complained about that with combat, I'd hate to see how they would butcher social interactions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Really? How much message board space has been devoted to a few niche 3e spells that only become problematic if wildly abused (polymorphs and calling spells, for example)?

Polymorphs? Niche spells? Anyone would think that there isn't an entire class that gets Wild Shape at level 5.

How about the people who keep bashing the core fighter even after supplements were released to add new options or new classes?

If the supplements had fixed the problems with the fighter this might be a relevant point. None of them other than the Bo9S fixed the two fundamental problems - firstly that the fighter goes down like a chump on his will defence. Secondly that the fighter specialises in waving a pointy bit of metal around and there's a serious limit to the amount of things you can do with a pointy bit of metal, especially when a Level 13 Wizard is quite capable of not just Angel Summoning (and that if they even bother with Summon Monster) but Angel Creation in the form of a Simulacrum of a Solar.

How many criticisms of 3e relate to playstyle issues that aren't in the rules at all?

The playstyle the rules encourage is a function of the rules. If you play 3e trying to push the rules, it breaks and leads to ridiculous results that the rules don't warn you about. This is a problem with the rules.

How much of this keeps going years after the last 3e release?

Given that Paizo are still releasing a version of 3e, I don't know.

How many bad game design decisions have been made (throughout the industry), because of these irrational criticisms? If you ever frequented the WotC boards, I can't imagine where you ever got the idea that other versions of D&D got a pass on anything.

Citation needed that the criticisms are irrational.

4e (and everything else out there) gets off easy by comparison.

Complete and utter nonsense. Polymorph is often brought up. But is not remotely niche compared to Come and Get It; one of almost a dozen options at level seven for one class. Healing Surges are routinely brought up when they are less unrealistic than hit points in older editions.

Now as to why the older D&D editions don't have the same issue, I think it's simply because they're pre-internet.

Older editions mostly don't have the same issue because even people who like older editions don't defend THAC0 (or worse yet the 1e lookup tables) much any more. Also because older editions don't have the same problem with wizard and cleric power levels 3.X has, or with fighter power levels.

Aside from the Wis and Cha entries in the stat block, I usually put the following into my NPC's:

Alignment (plus three quick one-word supporting descriptors)
Attitude (Friendly, Hostile, etc.)
Goal (the thing they want, with a one-word motive explaining why)
Fear (the thing they want to avoid, with a one-word aversion explaining why)

So, like:

Alignment: Neutral Evil (selfish, sadistic, arrogant)
Attitude: Unfriendly
Goal: Make an undead army (motive: vengeance)
Fear: Losing control of her undead army (aversion: chaos)

In play, this allows me to role-play the character well with just a glance.

Heh. You aren't far short of a full Smallville PC statblock there. Or a FATE one. And a Leverage Mark (i.e. episode boss) has two strengths at d12, a weakness and a need at d4, and a colour ability at d8.

'tain't much, but it gives me a lot to work with on the fly at the table.

It's enough to be useful.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Polymorphs? Niche spells? Anyone would think that there isn't an entire class that gets Wild Shape at level 5.

What percentage of the PHB spells chapter is devoted to polymorph spells? What percentage of spellcasting characters actually select them? How many variants are there for druids to trade out wild shape for something more concrete (precisely because it can be a headache)?

The broader point is this: if you have a fighter with randomly selected feats and a wizard with randomly selected spells, the fighter will pretty much own the wizard, up until perhaps the highest levels. Maybe. If you take the same two characters, and have a beginner build them, the same will be true. If you take a reasonably well-designed set of characters, the wizard will probably pull ahead marginally around double digit levels. Even if you take polymorph this will be true, unless you cherry-pick powerful polymorph forms out of esoteric monster books. This last thing is a conceptual problem with the game, but not a practical one, because not many players will try it and not many DMs will allow it. The fix is to add some restrictions to the spell; it hardly justifies redesigning all the classes from the ground up. And yet it's routinely used to justify that.

The playstyle the rules encourage is a function of the rules.

For some points sure, that's valid. But sometimes people will complain about prep time "in 3e", as if it were a function of the rules. Which it isn't. There's nothing in the rules that requires or even strongly encourages a DM to prep excessively, or at all. That's irrational.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't see how having the actual stats for the "pegicorn" stops a DM from deciding that the PC's running into one is just window dressing? It's like saying because we have stats for dragons in the book, a dragon can never just fly over the PC's and off into the distance without swooping down and attacking. I think when the stats are present however it facilitates more playstyles... and not necessarily just ones centered around combat... What if the PC's come up with a plan to capture and use the pegicorn as a mount? It's stats could be relevant to whether the plan succeeds or fails... they could also be relevant if it does succeed and they now try to use it as a mount.

I agree with this, in as far as supporting a specific playstyle goes (the one I currently employ). I also wanted to have PCs recruit some men-at-arms and change their stats (eg. AC or damage) based on equipment upgrades they give the NPCs. So having statblocks and how/why the numbers are the way they are is important to me.

My goal is to have something like "Thick hide; wild predator; flies as fast as a horse; hoof stomps, bites, swoops and tramples; a pegicorn" be all that you need to build the complete statblock (AC; level, fort, ref, will; speed; attacks; skills).

For other playstyles - I don't know if this would work or if it would be worth it.

 

[Fox Lee]

Hey OP, I'll back you up on that. I think 4e is great. It's tight, it's self-contained, it's cinematic, it draws a clean line between its rules and its fluff, and it's downright refreshing for those of us who prefer the modern, pulpy approach to fantasy instead of the classic approach. Sure, it has its flaws, but it's still the best-defined and best-balanced tabletop game I have ever met - and that, in my opinion, provide the strongest base upon which to roleplay, tell stories, and build your own worlds (and the hell with anyone who wants to pretend that The Stormwind Fallacy isn't exactly that - a fallacy). Of course it's not to everybody's tastes, but most "criticisms" I've read of 4e are simply a matter of opinion - like wanting a more realistic game, or a more "classic" fantasy world - and don't address any actual problems with the game.

And for crying out loud, are Dragonborn really worth complaining about guys? I don't like them at all, so you know what I did? I dropped them from my setting and NOBODY CARED. Worked out great.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What percentage of the PHB spells chapter is devoted to polymorph spells? What percentage of spellcasting characters actually select them?

Far, far more than of the PHB powers section is devoted to Come and Get It. And including Alter Self? A lot. Almost all druids, the combat wizards, and the tricksters.

The broader point is this: if you have a fighter with randomly selected feats and a wizard with randomly selected spells, the fighter will pretty much own the wizard, up until perhaps the highest levels.

And in apples to oranges comparisons, if you have a fighter armed with a banana, what happens then? Because that's a fair comparison for a wizard with spells selected randomly. A fighter with weapons selected randomly, including improvised weapons. Spell selection for a wizard is an in game choice, and most spells a wizard could take are ones that won't be generally useful.

Wizards are meant to be smart. You seem to want the wizard's pointy hat to have the letter D on the front of it.

Maybe. If you take the same two characters, and have a beginner build them, the same will be true.

And? This just shows that System Mastery is a thing in D&D.

If you take a reasonably well-designed set of characters, the wizard will probably pull ahead marginally around double digit levels.

Last time I checked, double digits were not 7. Personally I'd have said the wizard was ahead at level 1.

Even if you take polymorph this will be true, unless you cherry-pick powerful polymorph forms out of esoteric monster books.

Polymorph isn't the only problem out there. It's obviously broken, but there's plenty more where that came from.

For some points sure, that's valid. But sometimes people will complain about prep time "in 3e", as if it were a function of the rules. Which it isn't. There's nothing in the rules that requires or even strongly encourages a DM to prep excessively, or at all. That's irrational.

Tell me, is D&D the only RPG you have ever played? Because there's plenty in there encouraging high prep time including the inane decision that PCs and NPCs use the same rules, the heavy simulationist element which means there's a 'right' answer, and a near-complete lack of improv tools.

In Leverage, my most recent main villain of the caper's total stat block is:
Connected d12
Interbank CEO d12
Savoyard d8
Enemies d4
Arrogant d4

That's the biggest type of NPC statblock in the game.

By comparison, a random unnamed mook in 3.5.

	Halfling, 1st-Level Warrior
Size/Type:	Small Humanoid (Halfling)
Hit Dice:	1d8+1 (5 hp)
Initiative:	+1
Speed:	20 ft. (4 squares)
Armor Class:	16 (+1 size, +1 Dex, +3 studded leather, +1 light shield), touch 12, flat-footed 15
Base Attack/Grapple:	+1/-3
Attack:	Longsword +3 melee (1d6/19-20) or light crossbow +3 ranged (1d6/19-20)
Full Attack:	Longsword +3 melee (1d6/19-20) or light crossbow +3 ranged (1d6/19-20)
Space/Reach:	5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks:	Halfling traits
Special Qualities:	Halfling traits
Saves:	Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +0
Abilities:	Str 11, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8
Skills:	Climb +2, Hide +4, Jump -4, Listen +3, Move Silently +1
Feats:	Weapon Focus (longsword)
Environment:	Warm plains (Deep halfling: Warm hills) (Tallfellow: Temperate forests)
Organization:	Company (2-4), squad (11-20 plus 2 3rd-level sergeants and 1 leader of 3rd-6th level), or band (30-100 plus 100% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 5 5th-level lieutenants, 3 7th-level captains, 6-10 dogs, and 2-5 riding dogs)
Challenge Rating:	½
Treasure:	Standard
Alignment:	Usually neutral
Advancement:	By character class
Level Adjustment:	+0

That's how many stats? An entire mountain of nonsense I don't even have to think about.

 

[Argyle King]

I honestly would have no problems with a foreshortened social statblock for NPC's. OTOH, we're talking about something so trivial I'm not sure how much it's really needed. We got away without them for three editions previously (lots of supplements didn't tell you more than Human:Normal), so, not having them in 4e isn't something I've particularly missed.

OTOH, I really get the sense that people expect a hell of a lot more hand holding in 4e than they do in other editions. Looking at a lot of the criticisms of 4e, I'm baffled that people cannot make fairly simple, obvious changes to fit what they want. HP recovery too fast? Ok, slow it down. Is that really so difficult? No social statblocks on NPC's? Add 'em yourself. That's what we did for the past thirty years, why suddenly change now? On and on and on. It's almost like any criticism of 4e is couched in an absolute concrete reading of 4e without any ability to think for yourself.

Yet, every edition previously was given a pass on a lot of stuff - just adjust it this way is a perfectly acceptable answer to a lot of the issues in any edition. Yet in 4e, whenever that answer was given, it was brushed off by critics pointing to chapter and verse in books and refusing to budge from a single, almost mono-maniacal view of the mechanics.

It's utterly baffling to me to be honest. We've gone, as a community, from a group of tinkers who constantly massage and tweak our games to pissing and moaning over single feats like Prone Shooter, or single powers like Come and Get It.

People cherry pick single lines out of the books "Skip to the fun!"=complete rejection of playstyle, while ignoring the three pages of material that came before it detailing what that fun actually might be.

Personally, I made plenty of changes to 4E.

However; in the beginning, I obviously hadn't played 4E before (since it was at that time a new edition) so I was taken by surprise when I had a lot of the problems I had. I was especially surprised because a lot of the problems I had were problems which cropped up when I attempted to use the official advice concerning how to run the game. In a different thread I have a post about an encounter I had involving gondolas; the way things panned out weren't at all when I expected. In hindsight; now that I'm more knowledgable about the game, I realize things I could do differently. As a new DM, I didn't know those things though, and the game was marketed as being easier to DM (which in many ways it is,) so it was a bit of a buzzkill when I hit some of the walls that I hit.

With any game, house rules and tweaks will develop. Though, somehow it does surprise me that I have as many tweaks to 4E that I have in order to get it to work in a manner I'd like. As somewhat mentioned already, some surprise also came from realizing I was better off in many cases ignoring some of the official 4E advice and not using the game in the way that was advertised as being the right way. In particular, a lot of early skill challenge advice wasn't very good; a lot of early monster design advice wasn't exactly good either, and the mechanical structure of the game really didn't (in my opinion) support what was presented as what should be the fluff (fluff which I actually liked.) Things I've rewritten for myself for when I run games include (but aren't limited to) how skill challenges work, the monster XP tables and XP budgets for encounters, and the DC table (mine differs from both the values given in DMG1 and the ones given in DMG2.) None of those changes are necessary for the game to work; it does work and I can play the game without them, but I find some of them necessary if I want the game to work as well as I expect it to. The only reason I'm not still tweaking the game is because I haven't played 4E since sometime last year.

I don't hate 4E. There are certainly things about it which bug me, but I dont hate it. Though, I do often find that I feel there was some disconnect between how the game was designed to work and how the game was advertised to work.