D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[AbdulAlhazred]

Of course. That's part of my point - that there are very different views about the role of GM force, and that 4e (and especially a power like CaGI, or 1 hp minions) is designed to work better from one rather than the other approach.

This is pretty outrageous.

I liked previous editions of D&D - esp Moldvay Basic. Plenty of 4e players, like Hussar and Obryn, liked 3E.

And 4e is not "completely different from an rpg". It's completely different from your preferred approach to RPGing, but your preferences don't define the hobby.

Yeah, let me just add my 2 cents here, I started playing D&D in 1975, obviously with 'OD&D', and played Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and at least a smattering of the various other flavors. I favor 4e and enjoy its approach. That doesn't mean I don't like previous editions of D&D, that's just wrong. It means that I've over the years evolved a style of play which is well-suited to using 4e for. I don't think 4e is perfect either, but it works for me. If I play in my Sister's games then we play 3.5 (sort of), and some other friends of mine run 2e. I don't complain about that, its fun, but not what I prefer to run, that's all. I've played DDN too, but again I find 4e to be more my speed. Surely part of the reason is the way it can support a different factoring of player/DM authority and a more dynamic type of narrative and pacing than AD&D was designed for. Its no doubt true that 2e is better equipped for say doing a dungeon crawl than 4e is.

I think Ahnehnois wasn't saying that 4e is complete different from RPGs, just that it is completely different from D&D. In some respects I understand the sentiment, but to be honest I don't think 4e is THAT much different. I did the same sort of author stance stuff in 2e back in the early 90's that I'm doing with 4e now. I run the same setting, etc and it largely all works well. 4e isn't 2e and you can certainly favor one over the other, but I think 'completely different' is going too far. Even 4e is still largely in the same tradition as earlier editions in terms of its expectations and basic play mode. Certainly 4e, 3e, and 2e overlap.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So when Bedrockgames says "i have been following these discussions since they began and i think there is plenty of bad faith on both sides.", why does Hussar seem to question that? I mean, Bedrockgames just said that people argue in bad faith on both sides. I still don't get the what the purpose of the reply was. As always, play what you like

I think his point was that when someone focuses constantly and nearly exclusively on one tiny bit of a game system and argues that the whole thing is unacceptable based on a theory built around that one tiny piece that isn't even mandatory to use then when it has been pointed out probably 100's of times how trivial that argument is and yet it crops up again and again almost to the exclusion of any other line of discussion then one might begin to consider it not really a discussion that is focused on arriving at anything except to keep harping about that one tiny knit as a way of casting aspersions on the entire system without actually having to engage in a wider-ranging discussion. Some people are labeling this 'bad faith', like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].

Just to clarify, I'm not criticizing [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]. Frankly I think he's articulated a pretty general explanation for his dislike of 4e. I also think that people tend to focus their arguments down on a single point and latch onto it. That doesn't mean they don't have a more general point, it is just what happens at a certain point when the debate has gone back and forth without any real movement for years at a time now. IMHO its really about time we all just moved on.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think Ahnehnois wasn't saying that 4e is complete different from RPGs, just that it is completely different from D&D.

Indeed. And not necessarily every possible example of D&D. In many ways it seems more like the pre-WotC versions than like 3e. What it isn't is the next iteration of the OGL, 3e version of the game. And like I said above, if you removed the "D&D 4e" label from it, called it something else, and released a 4e that was a revision of 3e, then we'd be in a better place.

In some respects I understand the sentiment, but to be honest I don't think 4e is THAT much different.

The quote that struck me was one several pages ago in which you indicated that 4e had changed the role of the DM, and that you preferred the 4e DMing responsibilities. Which is fine, but changing the nature of the DM/player relationship is not what I'm looking for in a revision; to me that makes it a different rpg. That's a much bigger deal than changing classes or spells, in my eyes.

 

[innerdude]

Well I know for me that I actually really enjoy academic arguments such as CaGI because I like the opportunity to explore my own reasoning, and to see other viewpoints. I may not fully understand the viewpoint, but I think making the attempt helps you better understand the person making the argument, which for me tends to build mutual respect, and an appreciation for learning. It's a humanist endeavour, of sorts in that regard.

Interestingly, I don't particularly have a horse in the D&D race at the moment, since I'm generally disaffected with most of the D&D "way of doing things." As a player, I found 4e to be a conglomeration of the things I disliked most about D&D generally (the ultra-tight focus on combat, every class becoming "Vancian" when I despise "Vancian" magic to begin with) layered over a more "gamist" chassis than any prior edition.

That said, I also have half a dozen Pathfinder books that I'm looking to sell, because the likelihood of me running that system again in the next 3-5 years is almost nil, because I'm just tired of D&D-isms.

I've discovered that I don't like "gonzo," but I don't like overly "gritty" either (GURPS, which I've just recently started experiencing is way too far on the other side of the spectrum from either 3.x or 4e).

But I do find aspects of 4e intriguing. A 4e with with slightly less rigid codification of powers, a major revamp of the entire healing surge paradigm, with more mechanical support for the pillars of exploration and role playing would interest me greatly. But 5e doesn't appear to be that game.

To the original OP--the bottom line is that there's a balance to be found surrounding expectations about what magic is really capable of, and how far you're willing to stretch the subjective believability of fighter types. As long as we EXPECT magic users to turn people into frogs, fly, and teleport, then there's going to have to be some serious trade-offs in other mechanical aspects for mages. Otherwise we end up with Angel Summoner and BMX bandit. Frankly, at this point, I find both 3e and 4e's implementations of that balance lacking.

 

[Guest 85555]

Getting back to the original thread topic, the only criticisms I recall seeing in this thread were largely of 3.x and the caster imbalance issues. This is something that is neither factually incorrect, nor particularly unfair, as caster power was kind of the main topic here, which was nicely derailed into opinion-based criticism of 4e instead.

I think caster balance is a legitimate concern, but I also think this assertion is hotly debated among gamers. Just like people debate how believable CAGI is, people also debate how imbalanced 3E and earlier editions are (I happen to think 3E has some balance issues, but that they are not as bad as people often say, at least not for me). Ultimately, like CAGI, it is largely a playstyle issue. Plenty of people who believe 3E is balanced or can be, would probably take issues with some of the arguments stating it is imbalanced (and characterize them as unfair or not entirely accurate). Personally I think because this so frequently comes down to playstyle, what problems you do run into will vary considerably from table to table (which is why I think its a legitimate concern). But the question of whether the resolution is to give the fighter powers in the way that a wizard has powers, is something folks are quite divided about.

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, let me just add my 2 cents here, I started playing D&D in 1975, obviously with 'OD&D', and played Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and at least a smattering of the various other flavors. I favor 4e and enjoy its approach. That doesn't mean I don't like previous editions of D&D, that's just wrong. It means that I've over the years evolved a style of play which is well-suited to using 4e for. I don't think 4e is perfect either, but it works for me.

I didn't start until 1981ish, myself, at the ripe age of 7 or so, with that typical early-80's potpourri of BX/BECMI and AD&D rules, but pretty much ditto this.

I think Ahnehnois wasn't saying that 4e is complete different from RPGs, just that it is completely different from D&D. In some respects I understand the sentiment, but to be honest I don't think 4e is THAT much different. I did the same sort of author stance stuff in 2e back in the early 90's that I'm doing with 4e now. I run the same setting, etc and it largely all works well. 4e isn't 2e and you can certainly favor one over the other, but I think 'completely different' is going too far. Even 4e is still largely in the same tradition as earlier editions in terms of its expectations and basic play mode. Certainly 4e, 3e, and 2e overlap.

I pretty much have no patience remaining with "4e is not D&D."

-O

 

[Ratskinner]

The distinction was specified in line one, he was pointing out the bad faith arguments are one sided. (with improper criticizing of 3e being virtually non-existent)

I consider myself a relatively neutral observer in these edition spats....and I believe what you're looking at here is confirmation bias. I see plenty of poor behavior from both directions. It tends to be different poor behavior, but its there.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think caster balance is a legitimate concern, but I also think this assertion is hotly debated among gamers.

Yes, it's hotly debated, but by this point it shouldn't be. LFQW is well established, which you and others who like and play the game have come to realize.

Just like people debate how believable CAGI is, people also debate how imbalanced 3E and earlier editions are (I happen to think 3E has some balance issues, but that they are not as bad as people often say, at least not for me).

The key words in your statement being "not for you". And the others also saying it's not a problem for them. But, in almost every case where people don't have this issue, it's because they've houseruled around it, have a social contract at the table (spoken or not) that avoids the problem, use copious amounts of GM adjudication to suppress it, or otherwise have players that make choices that don't cause problems (sometimes deliberately, sometimes not).

Ultimately, like CAGI, it is largely a playstyle issue. Plenty of people who believe 3E is balanced or can be, would probably take issues with some of the arguments stating it is imbalanced (and characterize them as unfair or not entirely accurate). Personally I think because this so frequently comes down to playstyle, what problems you do run into will vary considerably from table to table (which is why I think its a legitimate concern). But the question of whether the resolution is to give the fighter powers in the way that a wizard has powers, is something folks are quite divided about.

If you consider massive application of houserules to avoid the issue a "playstyle" then sure. They are otherwise not even remotely equivalent. LFQW is a rules issue that manifests through playstyle, while CAGI is a playstyle issue that becomes a problem through its expression in the rules. Not the same thing at all.

Clearly there is much division on the issue. I don't hold it against the folks that don't want to see 4e-style options for martial characters in Next, but, if those options don't exist, then 5e is not going to interest me (can't speak for everyone who liked 4th, but it likely a lot of others who liked what 4e did for martial types).

I think even if it is their intent to include those options in Next (can we at least agree that this is a desirable goal?), then their biggest challenge is going to be keeping the game balanced between groups that use those options and groups that don't. Granted, the groups that won't use those options don't seem to care as much about balance, but some might, and regardless, if they don't even attempt to do so, they'll be facing a lot of criticism from both sides for it.

 

[Guest 85555]

I dont think these issues are as black and white as you are shading the, nemesis destiny. There are plenty of people who find 3E balanced. It all depends on your assumptions about what a balanced game means. For me 3E boosted wizard powers too much, but 2E felt right. 3E could easily have been brought into balance for me by adopting better use of casting times, spell backfires, and decreasing the numbers of spells characters get each level. Giving fighters a baseline damage bonus that increases with level wouldnt have been a bad idea either specialization approaches this but could go further). Either way, the issue here is total class parity isnt necessarily the same thing as balance. For a lot of gamers there are other ways to balance classes, that do a much better job of capturing the D&D flavor they want. Like I said its a subjective preference a playstyle issue. People are going to disagree. That doesnt mean those who do are just refusing to accept the facts. They have legitimately different experiences of the game and reactions to the system.

 

[Ratskinner]

IMHO its really about time we all just moved on.

Hear Hear!

The edition wars are over, we all lost.