Critiques of 4e: about style not substance?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
ExploderWizard
Hero
I played 4E this past weekend at the game day for the first time. I had a good time playing but I credit the experience to the great people I gamed with rather than the ruleset. Style and substance are very intertwined and hard to separate.
Honestly I would play 4E again and I would even run it as the tabletop mini battle game that it is. I would not choose it as the system of choice for a long running fantasy game. The whole system seems be a skeleton of D&D with extra safety rails bolted on. I don't care for the amount of restrictive substance that stomps on style. As a break open a battlemat, get some minis and fight game it works fine. Having to make those mechanics fit into a world I need to describe outside of combat is asking too much.
The mechanics are so involved and in the foreground that they become hard to forget (3.X was like this too) Narration for all the different powers can be creative and fun but in the end you still have combats that last longer than they have to. At least in 3.X longer combats didn't get too hectic until higher levels. After the combats play out you still haven't advanced the story any more (or less) than in any other edition. With as many rules as 4E has that are just "DM decides" why not play Basic D&D? It just feels like the combat rules of 4E want to tell you what to do and micromanage your every option and the rest of the rules handwave the resolution of non combat events. I don't mind making things up when running a game. I can do that with existing editions AND enjoy more combat rule freedom.
As far as I can tell from what I played, the mechanics (at least with pregens and a published adventure) are balanced. If balanced means taking 6-7 round plus to take down a few kobolds then its spot on.
Honestly I would play 4E again and I would even run it as the tabletop mini battle game that it is. I would not choose it as the system of choice for a long running fantasy game. The whole system seems be a skeleton of D&D with extra safety rails bolted on. I don't care for the amount of restrictive substance that stomps on style. As a break open a battlemat, get some minis and fight game it works fine. Having to make those mechanics fit into a world I need to describe outside of combat is asking too much.
The mechanics are so involved and in the foreground that they become hard to forget (3.X was like this too) Narration for all the different powers can be creative and fun but in the end you still have combats that last longer than they have to. At least in 3.X longer combats didn't get too hectic until higher levels. After the combats play out you still haven't advanced the story any more (or less) than in any other edition. With as many rules as 4E has that are just "DM decides" why not play Basic D&D? It just feels like the combat rules of 4E want to tell you what to do and micromanage your every option and the rest of the rules handwave the resolution of non combat events. I don't mind making things up when running a game. I can do that with existing editions AND enjoy more combat rule freedom.
As far as I can tell from what I played, the mechanics (at least with pregens and a published adventure) are balanced. If balanced means taking 6-7 round plus to take down a few kobolds then its spot on.
pawsplay
Hero
There's nothing wrong with the fluff in the Yeenoghu article. Witness discussion of coolness. But the article also shows what I think is wrong with 4e.
First, what is up with all of his immobilizing attacks? When he flails someone and they can't move for a round, what does that look like? Is it supernatural? Are they off-balance? Is it an abstraction of his speed and ferocity, relative to the PCs?
Second, he and his aspect are different "classes." That wasn't true in 3e; aspects were medium HD outsiders with relatively simple powers. But they had the BAB, saves, etc, and of the more powerful being. In 4e, Yeenoghu is a Solo creature, but his aspect is a Skirmisher, one that is implied to run with a pack of gnoll allies. There's no basic problem with the idea of different Yeenoghus having a different feel, heck, you could write different versions of the demon lord himself for different encounters, but there is, for me, something of a continuity problem there. There is no "big" Yeenoghu and "small" Yeenoghu, instead, you have a Solo creature and a skirmisher. They are both different in level and different in kind, which means it's hard to guess when and how to use the different versions as encounters. In 3e, you could glance at CR, hit dice, movement modes, and main powers, and guess what to do with them. In 4e, you have about the same, but XP value is much more fluid and the different versions have less in common mechanically.
It raises weird questions, like, would you come up with different versions of a juvenile red dragon that served, respectively, as a boss monster, a mount, or part of a war party?
Third, nearly everything about his attacks is a special case. So... can someone disarm him and use his flail? If so, what powers does it have? There is no separation between the monster and the gear. There is no simulation, no "NPC-like" robustness that allows us to pull apart his stats and find some underlying traits we can use to answer unexpected questions about him. How much damage does his flail do? Does it immobilize in the hands of others? Is it a Superior weapon? And so forth. 3e didn't cover everything, but it had the greater issues covered. AD&D didn't cover as much as 3e, but it tried to cover enough.
First, what is up with all of his immobilizing attacks? When he flails someone and they can't move for a round, what does that look like? Is it supernatural? Are they off-balance? Is it an abstraction of his speed and ferocity, relative to the PCs?
Second, he and his aspect are different "classes." That wasn't true in 3e; aspects were medium HD outsiders with relatively simple powers. But they had the BAB, saves, etc, and of the more powerful being. In 4e, Yeenoghu is a Solo creature, but his aspect is a Skirmisher, one that is implied to run with a pack of gnoll allies. There's no basic problem with the idea of different Yeenoghus having a different feel, heck, you could write different versions of the demon lord himself for different encounters, but there is, for me, something of a continuity problem there. There is no "big" Yeenoghu and "small" Yeenoghu, instead, you have a Solo creature and a skirmisher. They are both different in level and different in kind, which means it's hard to guess when and how to use the different versions as encounters. In 3e, you could glance at CR, hit dice, movement modes, and main powers, and guess what to do with them. In 4e, you have about the same, but XP value is much more fluid and the different versions have less in common mechanically.
It raises weird questions, like, would you come up with different versions of a juvenile red dragon that served, respectively, as a boss monster, a mount, or part of a war party?
Third, nearly everything about his attacks is a special case. So... can someone disarm him and use his flail? If so, what powers does it have? There is no separation between the monster and the gear. There is no simulation, no "NPC-like" robustness that allows us to pull apart his stats and find some underlying traits we can use to answer unexpected questions about him. How much damage does his flail do? Does it immobilize in the hands of others? Is it a Superior weapon? And so forth. 3e didn't cover everything, but it had the greater issues covered. AD&D didn't cover as much as 3e, but it tried to cover enough.
Ruslanchik
First Post
I don't own the 4E books, but I have looked through pretty much all of the PHB. Because of this, I have an "impression" of it and that's about it.
Based on this impression, I have to say that I dislike both the style and the substance of it.
As far as the books go, some of the art is really good, better than the 3.5 PHB, but some of it makes me want to turn the page or play a game that NOT like that. The page layout is not appealing. In the 3.5 books, the pages looked good even it the page was just text or charts. With 4E, the pages are just white so when they fill 6 straight pages with powers I am not compelled to read them.
I do not like dragonborn. I think that is just a bad idea and reading the PHB has not made me feel any better about it. They are ugly and they do not look like they fit in the setting with dwarves and elves. Seriously, they got rid of half-orcs (which is one of the coolest RP races) and gnomes for this? Tieflings are a little better, but I think they took the "4E is going to be metal!" thing a little too far.
As for substance, I feel like 4E is a minatures game. The combat seems like it is well-balanced and fun, but the options are extremely limited. Basically you can deal damage or you can deal damage and shift or you can deal damage and let one of your allies shift. Seems like lots of good strategy elements, but not good fantasy. 3.5 was great for options at the expense of balance. You could be anything you could imagine and your character might be powerless or powerful. 4E is balance at the expense of options. You can only play a few archetypes, but you will be pretty much at the same power level as the other archetypes you are playing with.
I also agree whole-heartedly with the OP about the need for 0-level characters. I used to hate playing 1st level characters in 3.5 because they would die if they tripped over a tree limb. The ubiquitous 1st level wizard with 5hp was a problem. But I do not think that a 1st level wizard should be able to cast unlimited magic missiles. There is no transition from normal folks to heroes to super heroes. There is just superheroes. That goes to style and substance.
Based on this impression, I have to say that I dislike both the style and the substance of it.
As far as the books go, some of the art is really good, better than the 3.5 PHB, but some of it makes me want to turn the page or play a game that NOT like that. The page layout is not appealing. In the 3.5 books, the pages looked good even it the page was just text or charts. With 4E, the pages are just white so when they fill 6 straight pages with powers I am not compelled to read them.
I do not like dragonborn. I think that is just a bad idea and reading the PHB has not made me feel any better about it. They are ugly and they do not look like they fit in the setting with dwarves and elves. Seriously, they got rid of half-orcs (which is one of the coolest RP races) and gnomes for this? Tieflings are a little better, but I think they took the "4E is going to be metal!" thing a little too far.
As for substance, I feel like 4E is a minatures game. The combat seems like it is well-balanced and fun, but the options are extremely limited. Basically you can deal damage or you can deal damage and shift or you can deal damage and let one of your allies shift. Seems like lots of good strategy elements, but not good fantasy. 3.5 was great for options at the expense of balance. You could be anything you could imagine and your character might be powerless or powerful. 4E is balance at the expense of options. You can only play a few archetypes, but you will be pretty much at the same power level as the other archetypes you are playing with.
I also agree whole-heartedly with the OP about the need for 0-level characters. I used to hate playing 1st level characters in 3.5 because they would die if they tripped over a tree limb. The ubiquitous 1st level wizard with 5hp was a problem. But I do not think that a 1st level wizard should be able to cast unlimited magic missiles. There is no transition from normal folks to heroes to super heroes. There is just superheroes. That goes to style and substance.
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
sinecure said:
While I suppose I can see where someone who says that that new mechanics are junk is coming from, I cannot express my disagreement as strongly as I would like to with that statement.
This is the first version of the D&D rules that I have seen that make a full out effort to keep the game mechanically balanced at all levels and for all classes. The mechanics make sense, and are easy to learn, and easier to teach. This is not an edition where you will have to deal with the intractable problems of previous editions. High level combat will not get bogged down in tedious book keeping. Low level characters will not fall over dead if someone looks at them funny and uses harsh language. And though it is too early to tell, I expect that we will not have problems where one class ends up dominating play in a consistent manner.
In that regard, the mechanics are better than they have ever been.
For people who do not like the new mechanics, I suspect that it is a matter of the mechanics not re-enforcing their sense of disbelief. While players are long used to the idea of Wizards not being able to use certain spells more often than once per day, they may have problems accepting the idea of a Fighter or Rogue having powers that are usable only once per day. The 'its magic' explanation for an ability can be used to handwave all sorts of things. But for powers that are usable by a class that is by definition not magical at all, it may be harder to accept.
To put it another way, there are aspects of the new rules that are unapologetically mechanical, and for people not inclined to accept those limitations on the basis that 'it is a game and it needs to be balanced', the new mechanics will not be very pleasing.
Anyway, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Just like when 3rd edition came out, there will be many discussions debating the merits of the new system relative to the previous. The only thing to do is to try the system and see how it feels in play. For any system, judging it based solely on the rules and 2nd hand opinions is not really a fair way to assess the merits of the game.
END COMMUNICATION
pawsplay
Hero
LostSoul said:
I want it to look like something out of a game where flavor and mechanics support each other, so unfortunately, you are not correct. To me, it looks like somebody had what they thought was a great idea, but unfortunately, I don't know what that idea was or why it seemed so great to them. Completely devoid of context, I have no idea if this was going to be awesome or not.
I don't feel I should have to supply the awesome. If I have to redesign and "skin" D&D just to play it, there are a ton of games out there that offer more for less effort.
Similar Threads
