Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[innerdude]

Passionate responses to what?

To being told that they aren't RPGing but are boardgaming? Or MMOing? Or Storygaming?

To being told that they need trainer wheels, or need their hands held? Or are roll-playing and not roleplaying?

To being told that they hate D&D? Or wrecked D&D? Or both?

Hmmm, I think my question may have come across incorrectly. I was actually genuinely admiring the way 4e proponents defend the system. There's clearly something that resonates with those that have truly embraced it. While as you say, 4e doesn't do anything entirely "unique," in the sense that other systems have similar mechanics, there seems to be some formula or play style in the way 4e uniquely brings together those elements in play.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] gave a very good response in the "Best thing from 4e" thread that addresses some of that, but I always appreciate your insight as well, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

It might be from 7 years ago but those arguments are still used against 4e today. I heard them brought up in a podcast I listen to a couple weeks ago.

They are valid enough statements to an extent and if 4e's mechanisms are looked at from a purely objective view and people are open to looking at them without any prejudice for or again it then when we play the game it does have a fairly distinctive play style (if style is the right word).

It is a Tactical game when it comes to combat.
It does use minis.
All measurements are in Squares, not feet.
This is the most combat focused of all D&D editions based on presentation and how the classes and powers are organized.
It honestly does have a board game method to it on how combat gets resolved.
It does have what looks like some video game/MMO elements to it, based on presentation and class structure.
Its balance is based around the idea that there will be a party of 4 with 1 of each class role (note all editions have this to an extent... Its just way transparent in this edition).

These are just some of the things about 4e, and they are valid statements about the game.

Now, whether or not these are good or bad is the subjective part because we know that where one sees it as not good another see's it as awesome and both are right opinions to have. Neither is wrong.

The only wrong part about it all is when people try to convince others that their opinion is right and others are wrong.

I personally have had a lot of fun with 4e and the powers really let me feel like I am playing a badass hero who can kick a lot of tail. That is what helps me to roleplay better also. It feels cinematic to me. It feels like a high octane, action movie where no two combats are the same. The AEDU split of the powers let's me have a wide variety of potential and I see them as just some epic cool stunts.

And the best part is I don't have to come up with my own stunts all the time like I would in Wushu or Exalted or Feng Shui. Especially in Exalted... It gets boring quick in that game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the subject of dissociated mechanics, Justin Alexander released a further clarification of the concept a few years ago. I think he may have also talked about it again since then and evolved his position a bit. Where I personally found it useful, was it did help me identify something that seemed to be really troubling me when I played 4E (in the essay he is trying to explain the extremely negative reaction some folks have to the system). Some important points he made that get lost is he is not saying dissociated mechanics are anything new or unique to 4E, nor is he saying they are always bad or that they have no place. I think his point was more that some folks how lower thresholds of toleration for them (just like some folks might have lower thresholds of toleration for non-unified subsystems or involved mechanics like THAC0). Dissociated mechanics is one of many possible explanations behind reactions to 4E. For me it made a certain amount of sense. Imposing my own experience of that on others, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Where it has been very useful for me is in design. I owe a lot to the idea in how I approach making games. I do generally find in practice that mechanics I might describe as dissociative tend to pull me out of the game a bit. Not everyone has that experience, not everyone will view the same mechanics as dissociative, but it is handy concept as long as one isn't using it as a bludgeoning instrument to ruin peoples' enjoyment of 4E (and I am aware some, including myself, were using it in this way).

I do like Justin Alexander's writings at the Alexandrian. I've found his stuff unusually helpful in gaming. One of the reasons for it I think is he gives himself the freedom to take chances with ideas. He can definitely be on the passionate side and I understand that sometimes leaves a negative impression with folks if they disagree with him (heck I've had heated debates with him myself here and on other forums). But I do think his writings have contributed a lot to the hobby.

I think for some reasons about 4E just have this tendency to take a dark turn, even when people start out trying to be friendly. At some point, one side offends the other, the other retaliates, and it just becomes this for tat thing. I don't believe anyone is going in with that intention. I think people are just going in trying to express what it is they like or they don't like about the game, but it always seems to become this war where we have to convince each other that our way is the right way.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I can agree with all that. 4e seems to bring out a lot of emotion in us D&D fans, for good and for bad.

My least favorite part is how they tried implementing Skill Challenges. If there is a part of this game that feels forced and gamey its this. As soon as the GM lists the skills and the successes to fails for the challenge I check out. Then it became nothing more than looking on the sheet, roll die, check either success or fail.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hmmm, I think my question may have come across incorrectly. I was actually genuinely admiring the way 4e proponents defend the system. There's clearly something that resonates with those that have truly embraced it.

Nothing leaps to mind. 4e is a decent game - it's balanced, clear, and playable, hitting minimum standards that make an RPG system technically 'good' (adequate). That's far from unique or special. There have been many such games. The only thing unique about 4e was that it also had 'D&D' on the cover.

The edition war was a time of high emotions, but, for the most part, '4vengers' were merely reacting to the vehemence of 'h4ters.'

When I hear the 4e stalwarts describe it, they make it sound like I've somehow completely missed out on a formative RPG experience.

Your formative RPG experience is prettymuch just your first RPG experience. That's usually with D&D, since it's the only RPG with any mainstream name recognition. 4e was more accessible than other editions, and thus, IMX, retained more of the few new-to-RPG players who tried it than I'd seen other editions do. On one hand, that's startling and remarkable, OTOH, it has little bearing on the 4e experience for those already in the hobby. So, no, assuming you've tried other decent systems - I believe you settled on Savage Worlds - missing it is not a big deal.

 

[fjw70]

One of the biggest tradegies of 4e was that it was a very flexible system presented in a non-flexible way. Just by varying the timing of rests and minion usage you could significantly change the way the game was played.

Something like making shorts rests once per day and long rest requiring a week of rest would change the narrative a lot. Now healing potions and avoiding a fight would be come much more important. a With this change an adventure could be filled with minion groups until you get to the big set piece boss fight.

The transparency of 4e makes these changes pretty easy to do for anyone that wanted to.

 

[TwoSix]

When I hear the 4e stalwarts describe it, they make it sound like I've somehow completely missed out on a formative RPG experience.

No worries. I've never run any of the famous modules people reference, or even done a dungeon crawl, and those are about as formative of an RPG experience as there is. You'll survive your lack of the formative 4e experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The edition war was a time of high emotions, but, for the most part, '4vengers' were merely reacting to the vehemence of 'h4ters.'

I don't think either side had clean hands in those debates. Both seemed to blame the other. I suppose one could go back and try to pinpoint when the first salvo was fired, but I just think it was an organic, back and forth. You ask someone who was defending 4E, they'll tell you it was to ward off attacks by 4E critics. You ask critics and they say they were tired of being told they had to like 4E by its defenders. Those of us who were still posting two or three pages in to any of those discussions probably can't claim any kind of high ground. It ultimately just became scoring points against the other side for its own sake.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's probably pretty fair.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think either side had clean hands in those debates. Both seemed to blame the other.

There were certainly trolls who took delight in using the rhetoric of either side to insight further conflict. But, there's simply no pretending that h4ters didn't hate on 4e, and 4vengers didn't defend it. By definition, the latter is reactive.

I suppose one could go back and try to pinpoint when the first salvo was fired

H4ters have said they consider 4e, itself, or the attitude of WotC at its introduction as the 'first salvo,' but that still lets rank-and-file 4vengers off the hook. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] already traced one of those first h4ter salvos to 'The Alexandrian,' in a review of an advance copy, dated May 20th, 2008 - before any would-be 4vengers would even have had a chance to get the edition war ball rolling based on how the game they hadn't yet seen 'resonated' with them. There's not even much point to [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] wondering what, about 4e, had set the Alexandrian off, when it's clear from his earlier comments, going all the way back to August 2007, that he had it in for WotC and 4e from the moment it was even intimated it might be coming.

I just think it was an organic, back and forth. You ask someone who was defending 4E, they'll tell you it was to ward off attacks by 4E critics. You ask critics and they say they were tired of being told they had to like 4E by its defenders.

Why would you be 'told you had to like 4e' if you hadn't already launched some screed against it? You wouldn't be.

Those of us who were still posting two or three pages in to any of those discussions probably can't claim any kind of high ground. It ultimately just became scoring points against the other side for its own sake.

C'est la Internet.