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

[Erechel]

Uhm, I think that I'm a bit confused. I do see a vitriolic response in the original Tequila Sunrise post, that I had already quoted. About my language, Manbearcat, it was basically a reaction to what I percieved as a pedantic prick saying "If you don't like 4th edition, you are a dinosaur. I'm so chick, I appreciate change...", hence my language. Sure, I don't like the 4th edition. I still find many interesting ideas in it, ideas that were recreated in 5th edition (the new edition).
Pemerton, please, don't take your own thoughts as proven facts. Your self-called rant about Justin Alexander doesn't prove your points, and many other people in a more "neutral" ground (as Bedrock, for example) replied your points.
And, in fact, I find you a lot more vitriolic than I am. You seem like you don't tolerate any criticism to your game, and reply with "This is . It doesn't deserve a reply" which IS a reply, but only one with no argument. I do recognize that my language was flamy in my first post, and I explain my reasons, but I do think that my ideas has some sustain. So do you of your own, but even you did not read every post I made. I commited a mistake taking "inches" for "squares" in OD&D. Also I do recognize that I don't already play it, but the argument remains the same. Squares and inches aren't the distances that the characters think about, hence the dissociative mechanics I see. Of course, you can easily refluff it, and say something like: one square=3 feet, or 1 meter, or whatever you like in-game, and it won't be such a pain in the ass to do so, but take this as a sign of the heavy metagaming factor.
One of the things I did not like in any edition, not only 4th (as I said prior, is not the innovations what I did not like).
One of the others is the power scalade, also present (if not more so) in other editions, specially in 3.5.

And moreso, you may not have read it (as you see the flaming language, from which I apologize; and a thing I recognize as a problem later on) in several of my posts, I say it one more time: What do I see as problems of 4th edition, are not only in this game, but in D&D as a whole, only that, in 4th, some of them were aggravated (as I say, metagaming factor, which is not only aknowledged but embraced in this particular edition).

You may think that I'm an old dinosaur, a flamer troll that does nothing but rant about 4th edition, because "it betrayed the soul of D&D". I'm not. I actually acknowledge some of the points of 4th edition (better maths, rituals, some of the balance, although I don't think at all that it was flawless, combat non magic maneuvers), but I do think that overall, the "soul of D&D flaws" are there but aggravated, like Vancian system in a more limited timeframe (call it Powers System, and you don't have to "memorize" the spells -a roleplaying mechanic, ultimately-, but you do have a "limited resource" factor -the metagaming factor of it- with no other explanation that balancing classes) and applied to every class. Many of the flaws are still in 5th edition, only, as I said earlier, polished. Others are not.

I'm very suspicious of people that defend anything in the name of "innovation" without thinking about the value of it, or if it's really innovation. Like I said earlier, some of the posts may be read as "I'm the hype hear; all the others are naked savages screaming about some trees or forests. Or retro hippies, that are the same thing".

 

[Wicht]

Because without probabilistic calculations you can't tell whether using the feat is increasing or reducing your damage output.

How is it good feat design that, unless you can do the maths, the feat you took to increase your damage output might result in you doing less damage over time?

And in the fiction, what is happening? The expert fighter is continually misjudging his/her attacks and swinging wildly but wide?

With all respect, some of us, many of us I suspect, don't really play the game that way, nor care how the math washes out over the long haul; especially as, in practice, Power Attack is not an always-on power, but is able to allow you, at times, to increase your damage and, in our games (that is my games), it works just fine to allow the one using it the option of going for all or nothing in damage, or really showing up those he/she knows there will be little difficulty in hitting. The Player who insists on using Power Attack, even when it is clear that doing so is making them hit less often is at fault, not the feat itself, which is merely an option - its never mandatory to use. But even having said that; the reckless fighter who always uses it still fits some character concepts and that can be fun too... regardless of actual effectiveness.

To me, the whole thing is absurd.

And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion on the matter.

It's purely metagame, playing the maths of the system.

Again, don't play that way, calculating for maximum effectiveness. So I am not sure your accusation is valid: that those who like it are "playing the math." Some may just like it as an option. (I have one son, in fact, who is very, very fond of the feat).

A better approach to modelling wild or reckless attacks would be to take a penalty to AC in order to gain a damage bonus.

I would not have a problem with such a feat... I don't know that its "better" but it can certainly be an option. Generally I think the more options the better. YMMV

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would not have a problem with such a feat... I don't know that its "better" but it can certainly be an option. Generally I think the more options the better. YMMV

I am fine with such a feat as well, and am with Wicht that it is kind of a toss up on what would be better. One problem you into when trying to simulate real fighting is you can just endlesshing keep hashing over the possible options and what they mean. Lowering defenses makes sense to me for a powerful attack, so does not hitting as accurately. Another one I like is if you have an easy way to track a person's level of energy, having your extra damage come out of there. In D&D HP might be able to carry that, but a lot of folks might find it odd, so I would possibly take it out of con temporarily instead (maybe real quick too like you get it back in ten minutes time). There are all kinds of ways to do this and I think they all connect enough to the reality to be plausible. Power Attack seemed perfectly serviceable to me in that respect.

 

[Erechel]

Thank you for the support, Wicht. Sometimes it's difficult to me to properly write in English, and maybe I'm being unintentionally rude (although in my first post I was rude, given the situation of being indirectly called dinosaur; but we Argentinans have a long tradition of being aggresive, not at all polite talkers. If you go through the Spanish speaking communities, you see it).

And Pemerton, I never wanted to call every 4th edition player a munchkin, I was saying that the 4th edition designers took a more munchkinesqe approach to the game, that they embrace powergaming as a core factor in the game, forcing the gamers to do it as well. Maybe I did not say it in here, but I am prone to recognize great players and DMs in every game.

But the game and the system actually matters to me, as the approach levels the game to places that I did not see as productive or good at all, as e.g. powergaming or metagaming. You may think the same way, as you consider "munchkin" as an insult. YMMV, but an actual munchkin may see it as a valid perspective to play, and be proud of being called that way (I've encountered several ones). I even play a game called Munchkin when I'm feeling in that mood. Or LoL. Or Diablo II. Only that I don't see it as productive in a TTRPG, where there is so much more than that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And Pemerton, I never wanted to call every 4th edition player a munchkin, I was saying that the 4th edition designers took a more munchkinesqe approach to the game, that they embrace powergaming as a core factor in the game, forcing the gamers to do it as well.

I can see how you might make that mistake. 4e was designed with balance as a priority, which means the designers had to take optimization into account. To the degree that it was successful (and it got a lot of updates to fix what wasn't), it actually cut down on the effects of such things. It was also a pretty clearly-presented system, so you could quite easily see it shaking out. There were optimal choices, they were easy to spot, so you didn't need to be a 'munchkin' (have lots of system mastery) to use them, and the reward for system mastery was less dramatic. In that very real sense, it was a 'less munchkin' game. In contrast, 3e was consciously designed to add extra rewards for system mastery, making it a very 'munchkin' game in the sense you're using it.

Conversely, 5e keeps it's rules vague and DM-dependent, so, aside from "gaming the GM" and outright old-school Monty Haul, the 'munchkin' factor should be lower than 3.5, anyway.

But the game and the system actually matters to me, as the approach levels the game to places that I did not see as productive or good at all, as e.g. powergaming or metagaming. You may think the same way, as you consider "munchkin" as an insult.

'Munchkin' was an insult, in the earlier days of the hobby, when it referred to very young gamers, so was an insult to a teen or adult. Today it's just mostly fallen out of use, but in-between it was a derogatory term for powergamer (a very unsophisticated and blatant powergamer, as opposed to a 3.x-era optimizer), as well, which is how you're using it.

'Optimization' is what it gets called since late 3.5 - the idea is that you're 'optimizing' a character, making the best character possible, rather than merely grabbing the biggest bonuses and looking to go on a childish wish-fulfillment power trip as 'munchkin' tends to imply.

YMMV, but an actual munchkin may see it as a valid perspective to play, and be proud of being called that way (I've encountered several ones). I even play a game called Munchkin when I'm feeling in that mood.

The SJG card game? It is a direct reference to the old meaning, it's supposed to recall how younger kids played D&D in its early days.

They're are proud optimizers, certainly, they'd object to 'munchkin' not for suggesting that they powergame or meta-game, but for implying that they're not so good at it or subtle about it.

 

[tuxgeo]

[off-topic]so how about them Philadelphia Eagles? can they sign too many quarterbacks, or what? i mean TEBOW? really?[/off topic]

Alright, struggling to get back onto topic, here:
The "demise" of D&D 4E was caused by a combination of factors, and the fact that it was titled "D&D" wasn't one of them.

 

[Remathilis]

Alright, struggling to get back onto topic, here:
The "demise" of D&D 4E was caused by a combination of factors, and the fact that it was titled "D&D" wasn't one of them.

Disagree. The name "Dungeons & Dragons" brings certain expectations, and those expectations for many were not met; regardless of how good the actual product delivered was.

For example, a player opening the PHB would be dismayed to see a lack of certain elements: bards, druids, and gnomes for starters. They would be confused that elves were no longer wizards and that a new type of "super elf" had shown up to take that place. They'd see the discarding of the Great Wheel, the renaming of monsters (or the changes to established lore about them), the appropriation of Mystara, Ravenloft, and Greyhawk iconic settings into Nentir Vale, and radical altering of Eberron and Forgotten Realms to accommodate this new lore.

And that doesn't even begin to touch mechanical elements, like the discarding of Vancian magic or the healing-surge based HP economy.

In short, 4e lobbed away too much in an effort to reinvent itself. At times, it felt less like D&D with new rules and more like some new game wearing D&D's skin. Even if it was a good game (or would become a good game), the fact it didn't hew close enough to the expectations of many former players is enough to earn the right to be called "D&D" by them. It was the changes to mechanics, to lore, to settings, etc, that felt like it was trying too hard to "change D&D".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In short, 4e lobbed away too much in an effort to reinvent itself. At times, it felt less like D&D with new rules and more like some new game wearing D&D's skin.

That post & the quoted summation pretty much sums up why our group eventually ditched it. Despite its good points- of which it had some I really appreciated- it didn't scratch the "D&D" itch for most of the players in our group.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I find you a lot more vitriolic than I am.

People, people, people. Let's not get into 'oo is more vitriolic than 'oo...

If it feels like its getting personal, step away. If you feel like getting personal, step away.

(We also have ignore lists.)

 

[billd91]

Because without probabilistic calculations you can't tell whether using the feat is increasing or reducing your damage output.

How is it good feat design that, unless you can do the maths, the feat you took to increase your damage output might result in you doing less damage over time?

And in the fiction, what is happening? The expert fighter is continually misjudging his/her attacks and swinging wildly but wide? To me, the whole thing is absurd. It's purely metagame, playing the maths of the system.

A better approach to modelling wild or reckless attacks would be to take a penalty to AC in order to gain a damage bonus.

I guess you never played baseball. Home run hitters also tend to have higher strikeout rates. Babe Ruth may have had a record in home runs for a long time, but he also had a record for strikeouts - that he suffered. It's almost like they're giving up accuracy for more power on the hit or something...