Critiques of 4e: about style not substance?

[Mercurius]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most critiques of 4e are related to its style, not its substance. That is, the look and feel of it, not the actual game mechanics and playability.

I suppose it is too early to really critique the substance, as few have really had a chance to play it in depth, but we can get a sense from just reading the rules, from getting a sense of how they work, and getting our first taste of actual play.

The reason I ask is that, not having the books (yet) I haven' been able to really sit down with the rules and get a feel for them. But what I see so far I like: it seems to be the most playable, flexible, and stream-lined version of D&D yet. I don't really resonate with the Eberron-meets-World of Warcraft style of it; I don't like Dragonborn and Tieflings, or not having the option for "0-level" players, but overall it seems like a(nother) evolution in the game system itself. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I'm an old-timer, that is I started gaming before the "second wave" of RPGs (White Wolf, etc) came out in the early 90s, and well before the "third wave" in the late 90s/early 2000s, which reflected a younger, video-game-playing, generation. Heck, I remember when TSR hardcovers jumped up to $12.95 (I think it was about the same time comics went from 65 cents to 75).

What I'm most concerned with is that the game itself is sound, and that there are plenty of options to choose from. I can, we all can, put our own style to it. So I ask those that don't like the game: Is it the style or substance? If it is the former, can you not flavor the system itself with your own style? Or are the two--substance and style--to interwoven to disentangle?

 

[sinecure]

Seriously? Most of the complaints I've heard are the opposite. The new style looks cool, but the mechanics are junk.

 

[Khairn]

Style and Substance are so intertwined that its difficult to seperate them. As an example, take a look at magic. In previous editions all magic used a very similar mechanic in regards to casting time. In 4E all combat spells are now powers that share the same mechanic as melee powers while non-combat "spells" are now rituals which can take 10+ min to cast.

Are the changes made to magic style or substance? In my opinion they're both. I find that a few of the other 4E changes impact both style and substance at the same time which is why you can't look at one without considering the other.

 

[Psion]

What I'm most concerned with is that the game itself is sound, and that there are plenty of options to choose from. I can, we all can, put our own style to it. So I ask those that don't like the game: Is it the style or substance?

What's style and what's substance? I'd guess you'd call my objections to 4e "style", which is not to say it is free of substance problems.

I think when it comes down to numerics, the system will work pretty much as the designers intend, and where they don't, there hasn't been enough play to reveal them.

If it is the former, can you not flavor the system itself with your own style? Or are the two--substance and style--to interwoven to disentangle?

That, I'm more dubious about. Style is more deeply entrenched than you seem to think. The PHB is more than just a rulebook; it's a basis for player expectations. Yeah, maybe I could rule out tieflings and dragonborn, but players excited about playing with them will be actively displeased by such efforts and it will take some work to overcome that.

Further, things like the decision to make character balance focus almost exclusively on combat means that it is, in fact, more effort than its worth to retool it to run the sort of game I am interested in running. And once I have done that, the design effort that went into the game is almost meaningless for the purposes of my game and really doesn't bear on it anymore. At that point, addressing the style issue becomes a substance issue.

 

[The Cardinal]

The new style looks cool, but the mechanics are junk.

Amen!

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I agree with Devyn and Psion. My feeling about the 4th Edition is that the substance of the game was directed to feed a specific game style, the two traits are intertwined in the game, and I won't be able to use the system to roll the kind of game I prefer without working very hard on some very basic stuff. In this sense, 3rd Edition is a far superior game system, it works pretty well under different assumptions.

Cheers,

 

[haakon1]

Style: The thing I like best about 4e is the art on the armor and weapons -- looks like real gear, instead of fantasy silliness.

Substance: It might be OK to play, but I'm not seeing it as a D&D. So I'm in "I'll play but I will not run it" camp.

 

[Mark]

As soon as words are layered onto the math/formulas, style fuses with mechanics (what is termed substance by the OP). Even the simplest expressions will engender some style bias, and some of the math/formulas are meant to steer the style in particular directions. It's inevitable.

 

[Mercurius]

Style and substance might not have been the best choice of words, but what I mean by them is: Style - the look and feel of the game, the implied setting and style of campaign; substance - the game mechanics, character options, nuts-and-bolts.

Based on just a few responses thus far it seems that it is generally agreed that style and substance are interwined, perhaps too much to separate. But I wonder about this. I mean, aside from "player expectations," a DM can take whatever he or she wants from the style of the game; the rules and options are a basis, and the most important thing seems to be what you can do with the game("substance"), rather than what Wizards seems to advocate as the most appropriate way to play ("style").

That being said, my main reservation thus far has been that it seems difficult to run "off the farm" style campaigns. While I like the fact that low-level characters have more options in terms of what they can do and overall power level, it seems that you couldn't do an epic-style fantasy campaign where the characters are, say, commoners drawn into adventure. This is where I see the old 1ed "0-level characters" as being a useful option for Wizards to look into.

I agree with Devyn and Psion. My feeling about the 4th Edition is that the substance of the game was directed to feed a specific game style, the two traits are intertwined in the game, and I won't be able to use the system to roll the kind of game I prefer without working very hard on some very basic stuff. In this sense, 3rd Edition is a far superior game system, it works pretty well under different assumptions.

I'd like to hear more. Actually, try this thread , because it seems like it is a good topic unto itself.

 

[DonTadow]

I actually think the style is good, The book is very pretty. That said, its not Dungeons and Dragons. It reminds me of that first Final Fantasy movie they came out with a decade ago. Sure it was called Final Fantasy and it had people in it, but it sure didn't have a lot of the key elements that make a final fantasy.

The mechanics feel very child like to me. the tone of the book is as if they are speaking to six year olds. I find it kind of offensive.

It doesn't capitalize on anything that makes a tabletop a tabletop game. If I want fast combat and "rules light" game where I make up my own actual role playing rules, I'd play an MMO.

I find it sad that another company was able to make 4e a lot better than the one who currently owns the license.