An Essay to Wizards of the Coast

[Dannager]

Ah, got it. You're a fanatic. There's no reasoning with you.

That is a mature way to handle an honest request for clarification that does not in any way dismiss me as unreasonable.

Then again, this is the internet. Par for the course.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I don't understand, Dannager, are you trying to argue that:

a) His experience of playing 4E isn't true, and he's misleading us?
b) His experience of playing 4E is unnecessary, but due to an error in how he approached the game?

The passive-aggressive constant questioning is beginning to come across as badgering.

I had a very similar experience with 4E, as did A LOT of other people. Accept those views as honest and not due to inability to engage with the system, and you'll get a lot further in debating them.

 

[Dannager]

I don't understand, Dannager, are you trying to argue that:

a) His experience of playing 4E isn't true, and he's misleading us?
b) His experience of playing 4E is unnecessary, but due to an error in how he approached the game?

I'm trying to receive answers to the questions that I've asked. The questions are straightforward, so it's a little concerning that they haven't been answered.

The passive-aggressive constant questioning is beginning to come across as badgering.

If he's not interested in answering the question, he can say so. But the questions I'm asking are straightforward, and he brought up the criticisms we're discussing in the first place. I don't think that falls under the heading of badgering.

I had a very similar experience with 4E, as did A LOT of other people. Accept those views as honest and not due to inability to engage with the system, and you'll get a lot further in debating them.

It would be enlightening for me to understand where those views come from, which is what I'm trying to elicit. I could certainly have started by explaining what I think to be the case, but given that a few straightforward questions resulted in my being called an unreasonable fanatic, it looks like my decision to avoid that was a good one.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I see. Well, we'll have to agree to differ on what constitutes badgering.

If you're interested in exactly why so many people didn't engage well with 4E as a game after trying it, there are a few million words already on the subject scattered around the internet. I believe the majority of those words were written honestly and by people who did give it a fair go.

I think the line of your approach has probably discouraged Number48 from engaging with you in the way you'd prefer, so you may find it more fruitful, if you're interested in understanding where those views come from, to read one of the thousand or so other threads on the topic.

 

[Number48]

Last time I address you directly Tannager. I told you what failings 4E has and been very forthright in all my answers, to which you told me "nuh uh." You aren't listening and I think you know it. I have even praised what 4E was good at, but I don't think you listened to that either, choosing to brand me an enemy.

As for me having "given it a try," I ran it for 2 years, at first with great enthusiasm. Even the only failing 4E had was being incapable of communicating to the gamers buying it how great it could be, that would be failing enough.

 

[Dannager]

Last time I address you directly Tannager. I told you what failings 4E has and been very forthright in all my answers, to which you told me "nuh uh." You aren't listening and I think you know it. I have even praised what 4E was good at, but I don't think you listened to that either, choosing to brand me an enemy.

As for me having "given it a try," I ran it for 2 years, at first with great enthusiasm. Even the only failing 4E had was being incapable of communicating to the gamers buying it how great it could be, that would be failing enough.

You're imagining some weird kind of persecution here. I asked about a specific claim you made: namely, the parts of the character sheet that made your character feel less like a noble diplomat than your character felt in previous incarnations. An answer to that would be cool, but it's fine if that's not something you're interested in discussing.

As for any "nuh uh" moments, those were yours. A lot of our interaction has been you saying that something can't be done in 4e, and my saying, "Sure it can, I've done it/seen it done."

There's no need for the hostile tone you're putting forward, or for name calling. Neither has any place here.

 

[Dannager]

I see. Well, we'll have to agree to differ on what constitutes badgering.

If you're interested in exactly why so many people didn't engage well with 4E as a game after trying it, there are a few million words already on the subject scattered around the internet.

What I'm interested in are the important differences between 4e character sheets and other character sheets that make noble diplomats feel less like noble diplomats.

If Number48 isn't interested in talking about this, maybe you are?

 

[avin]

In what way are 1st level characters in 4e heroes, while 1st level characters in 3.5 are not?

4E characters are stronger than 3.5. Internet has been killing my memory, but I think 4E books say that you character start a hero, while 3.5 not... I'm too lazy to get my 4E books and find...

Having played both editions with no quarry in the so called edition war I have to say it's easier to feel 3.5 chars as noobs, while 4E seem heroes from beginning.

What you can't mechanicaly do in 4E is making your players use npc classes (commoners, etc) and make the story how they evo to their future classes.

I don't think that would be hard to create a 4E mechanic for that, but you don't have this tool like you had in 4E.

And that won't be hard for Wotc to put on books, I guess they just decided 4E would focus on "heroes against darkness".

Which things are mages able to do in 3.5 that they are unable to do in 4e?

Dude, we have played 4E, you and I know that answer... utility spells. Wizards could do that before, now they need rituals.

Some old edition players who like Wizards dislike 4E just because that power doesn't come from their class anymore, but from rituals.

And that's something I think should be given back to them... (but not their quadratic damage progression).

 

[MarkChevallier]

What I'm interested in are the important differences between 4e character sheets and other character sheets that make noble diplomats feel less like noble diplomats.

If Number48 isn't interested in talking about this, maybe you are?

I'm perfectly happy to talk about this, as long as I believe you're engaging in good faith.

For me, there is a large difference in emphasis between 3E and 4E characters; 4E characters have, in general, a much larger number of dedicated combat abilities and also have little in the way of background skills (ie, crafting, profession etc). This, to me as a player, implies that their definition is largely built around what they can and cannot do in combat.

If I'm playing a certain kind of noble diplomat character, I might want to play someone who relies on his bodyguards to protect him; someone who is not necessarily good at fighting himself but relies on his companions more if battle erupts. My emphasis would instead go into other areas: an extensive skill list and knowledges, for example. I might be a bard, or a cleric, or a rogue or a fighter or anything; I'll put points in my mental stats and I probably won't be that good in combat compared to Conan.

4E makes it harder for me to shift my emphasis as a character away from combat. All the stats can be useful in combat: if I'm smart, I'm also somehow good at avoiding blows and leaping out the way of explosions. I will also, by necessity, have combat tricks exclusive to my class (moreso than would be the case in 3E or older editions). I'm tougher, in terms of pure resilience to damage - at first level, it takes several sword blows before I drop.

Now, I can be all those things and still be a noble diplomat; but not in the way I'd envisioned for my character. And it isn't the presence of one or two things that change the feel of the game, but the preponderance of them.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Phaezen]

What you can't mechanicaly do in 4E is making your players use npc classes (commoners, etc) and make the story how they evo to their future classes.

I don't think that would be hard to create a 4E mechanic for that, but you don't have this tool like you had in 4E.

And that won't be hard for Wotc to put on books, I guess they just decided 4E would focus on "heroes against darkness".

There are some very good rules for 0 level characters in DDI - Dragon 403

Dude, we have played 4E, you and I know that answer... utility spells. Wizards could do that before, now they need rituals.

Some old edition players who like Wizards dislike 4E just because that power doesn't come from their class anymore, but from rituals.

And that's something I think should be given back to them... (but not their quadratic damage progression).

What is the difference between utility coming from class abilities (spells) versus general abilities (rituals) other than they are not the sole providence of the all mighty magic user, cleric or druid?

If the ruleset you are complaining about does not outright support what you are looking for then yes it may not be the right rules for you, but if you are going to ignore a whole section of the rules and then complain that a certain playstyle is not supported this is a totally different matter.