Andy "Errata" Collins got laid off

[darjr]

So, kind of an obvious question here....Who's Belen? You don't cite the quote you referenced.

If you click the little blue box with the > in it it'll take you the post in question.

 

[shieldknight01]

Simple

There are some things in your post which I regard as misconceptions.

4e is not simple. 3e is simple:

Perhaps you misunderstand my use of the word simple. I find 4E is simple in the sense that there is the basic rule, and that all other rules either modify or change that rule. It's also simple in smaller instances. For example, movement is simpler, one square equals one square no matter how you move into or through that square. Simpler as in the powers themselves describe and activate what happens, not feat trees or feat combination's. These things make it easier to teach 4E to an 8 or 10 year old compared to the rules heavy 3.5 edition. I also find that it is simpler to teach said 8 or 10 year old because they really don't have to read the whole rules book to understand how to play, i.e. - its a lot easier to just step into it. That is a few of the things I find simpler.

I won't get into an edition war in this forum. It's all based on personal preference.

 

[Jack99]

Lots of funny people in this thread. Thanks for the amusement.

I would be pissed at 4e as well if a combat took me 3-4 hours. Luckily, for my group and probably 99% of the other groups out there, it doesn't take that long. I have trouble guessing how it could even come close to that, without insulting the people in the group, so I won't.

And one confirmed promotion - Mike Mearls is now D&D RPG Group Manager

Via Twitter

\o/

Anyone knows what that means? (As in, what are his new responsibilities?)

 

[Felon]

Bad teamplay = bad gameplay... that's not exactly an edition-specific or even system-specific problem.

And here I was nice enough to provide a heapin' helpin' of system-specific bad-teamplay distinctions for you to dismiss with a sweeping generalization. I'm a heck of a guy.

Perhaps you misunderstand my use of the word simple. I find 4E is simple in the sense that there is the basic rule, and that all other rules either modify or change that rule. It's also simple in smaller instances.

AH. I gotcha. "Simple" as in "in 3e, they didn't seem to understand the power of bullet points". OK, conceded.

Lots of funny people in this thread. Thanks for the amusement.

We have fun here, don't we?

And while I'm thinking about it, I forgot to give a shout out to KD. Thanks, man. You really made my day.

 

[blargney the second]

And here I was nice enough to provide a heapin' helpin' of system-specific bad-teamplay distinctions for you to dismiss with a sweeping generalization. I'm a heck of a guy.

It's true, that was a great example of how to describe bad teamplay in 4e. You would, of course, use different terminology to describe the same bad teamplay in a different game.

 

[Dice4Hire]

There are some things in your post which I regard as misconceptions.

...snip...

4e requires synergies that many players simply don't appreciate. I've had to play a class I didn't want to play because everyone else wanted to play some melee brute. I'd bite the bullet and play the caster who attacks NADs, who uses close, range, and area attacks. I've played a leader because I knew the guy who was going to play the leader still calls them "healers" and thinks that's what every power they have should be about. I've had to convince somebody else to play a defender because the guy already playing a fighter doesn't care about defending anyone, he just likes having the highest AC. Mind you, in 3e most of this wouldn't be an issue, but in 4e it makes for a devastatingly bad gameplay experience.

And those books you don't want to use? Hate to say it, but they do address a lot of stuff that has to do with those long combats you can't stand.

This is a fairly condescending post. I think most of your examples above are not edition specific, and are really aiming into edition war territory.

I have not found a lack of teamwork to be a killer in 4E, at least no more than in any other edition, and I would tend to say in any game system, though I have not played enough of them to make that judgement.

Hoewever, I would agree that in 4E, the rewards of eamwork are a lot stronger. If you take bonuses from your allies, and make sure allies are within X squares of you when you or they use specific powers, the reward is a lot higher than in earlier editions.

 

[darjr]

Felon, did you appreciate Andy's work on the errata? I take it when your playing 4e you don't use it in your game. Why not? Was it Andy's contributions to the errata you had issue with?

 

[Felon]

This is a fairly condescending post. I think most of your examples above are not edition specific, and are really aiming into edition war territory.

I have not found a lack of teamwork to be a killer in 4E, at least no more than in any other edition, and I would tend to say in any game system, though I have not played enough of them to make that judgement.

Hoewever, I would agree that in 4E, the rewards of eamwork are a lot stronger. If you take bonuses from your allies, and make sure allies are within X squares of you when you or they use specific powers, the reward is a lot higher than in earlier editions.

Your claims of condescension and edition-warring are more inflammatory than anything contained in my post. That you dismiss my examples as not edition-specific seems argumentative at best, since they are germane to 4e's inception of defined class roles. What was the established role of a 3e ranger, monk, or wizard in previous editions? Purely arbitrary. Characters only fell into them incidentally most of the time.

You agree that in 4e the emphasis of teamwork is a lot stronger. This is the crux of the argument that you just cast away. In 4e, there are hardwired interdependencies. Overall, a good thing.

Felon, did you appreciate Andy's work on the errata? I take it when your playing 4e you don't use it in your game. Why not? Was it Andy's contributions to the errata you had issue with?

My group uses the Character Builder heavily. I have little choice but to incorporate it all. Moreover, since many updates were welcome tweaks, I would be throwing out the baby with the bath-water.

With regards 4e, I'm quite ambivalent. Some things they did were bold. They killed their share of sacred cows. And then when they tried to decide what to replace the cow with, they punted and went for something easy rather than elegant.

In my naivete, I did not know to associate a specific individual with rules updates (remember, not errata). I don't object to it, but I do see it for the sleight of hand that it is, and am perplexed and bemused that others don't. Likewise, I did not object to 3.5--I was always like "hey, these guys acted on our feedback"--and was likewise perplexed at the sheer vitriol directed at it. One is reviled as a scam while the other is commended as a welcome service, yet the net result is the same: players are steered into an EOL cycle for the books they purchase.

 

[KarinsDad]

4e requires synergies that many players simply don't appreciate. I've had to play a class I didn't want to play because everyone else wanted to play some melee brute. I'd bite the bullet and play the caster who attacks NADs, who uses close, range, and area attacks. I've played a leader because I knew the guy who was going to play the leader still calls them "healers" and thinks that's what every power they have should be about. I've had to convince somebody else to play a defender because the guy already playing a fighter doesn't care about defending anyone, he just likes having the highest AC. Mind you, in 3e most of this wouldn't be an issue, but in 4e it makes for a devastatingly bad gameplay experience.

Yikes. I cannot imagine being so wrapped around the axle on the roles and how players play their PCs that I play a class that I don't want to.

Personally, I always play whatever I want to play. If we have 5 Defenders in the group, oh well. We'll still manage to have fun. Usually, our groups do have one of each role, but the core of our current group had 2 Defenders, 2 Leaders, and a Controller at one point, and 2 Defenders, a Leader, and a Striker at another.

 

[Piratecat]

Your claims of condescension and edition-warring are more inflammatory than anything contained in my post.

Yeah, not so much. See my PM.

Thread closed.