I'm confused.
The OP says in his first post. I'm not a troll, though I was, but I'm not anymore. Than backs it up at least two times, that I read, that this clearly isn't a trolling post, take it seriously.
Meanwhile, in the same post, he explains he still doesn't like 4E, which love it or hate it, this forum is for 4E rules. You want to debate how to interpret a game mechanic, ask for ideas in beefing up an encounter for your players, or simply share an interesting adventure idea you had. I want to see it. You don't like 4E? Why are you talking here?
He's not finished yet though. He basically says that by not supporting classes having pets, we are all uncreative and taking the creativity out of the core of fantasy (Maybe you have to slap on a definition when you say "core of fantasy" because that's a broad term. Tolkien gets saddled with being the core of fantasy, don't recall alot of pets in there. Gandalf did summon that horse though. Never really helped him in combat. Don't remember original edition D&D having pets either. Is that core?) But he makes sure to mention that this isn't the point he wants to discuss, just wanted to make sure we knew how uncreative we for disagreeing about pets.
Neither of course is the economy of actions, which he realizes will be the retort most people would give to the point he doesn't want to discuss (I'm not sure how you don't mention something that really is at the backbone of 4E. Streamline combat, less rolls, more action.)
No, what he really wants to discuss is why we are all sheep. Yup, sheep. Oh, he said "Instead, it's about people leaping onto whatever droppings spill from the developers' lips." but I read that as "You are sheep." Of course, if we play 4E, we must accept every single thing the developers had in mind as gospel, right? Honestly, I'd have prefered sheep, I find that more tasteful than being called a dropping leaper. (Well put that way, it seems silly)
He then goes on to post seven times, and every post he is simply taking what someone else says and reaffirming why he still disagrees with this point listing the same reasons he's already given.
So, this is why i'm confused.
Is he a troll, still? I mean, this has all the characteristics required for me to label someone as a troll, but he very clearly explained that those days are behind him. He seems sincere. I have this sinking feeling i'm being duped though. Kind of like a shady looking fellow I very clearly saw rob a bank last week on the news, wanders into my bank, and very plainly explains he doesn't do that anymore, but there he is, looking all shady and bank robbery.
*ahem*
Sarcasm aside, here are my thoughts, not to convince you of anything. You are a troll, and now matter how many times you tell me otherwise, you will still be a troll. Luckily, i'm a counter troll, I will post my reply and never ever check to see if you disagred with me. Ha, take that!
First off, there isn't a "core of fantasy" it doesn't exist. You can't take something which if it had a core, it would start with things that not existing is kind of the point, and try to set it to some sort of standards or requirements. Fantasy, simply put, has to take place outside of the real. Anything goes.
Second, Role-playing isn't about rules and regulations, even if half of the discussion here is over that, role-playing is supposed to be fun, wether that's rolling dice to resolve combat over and over, or hour long in character discussion in the tavern before you even head for the dungeon. Every rule, every mechanic, is simply a guideline. To give the cops and robbers make believe that is roleplaying a way to say "No, you really did shoot the robber."
Lastly, 4E isn't the end all be all of roleplaying games, it can't be, and nothing that came before it or after it will ever be. It's just the current set of guidelines WotC is selling and you can use it if you want. Play an older edition if you want, go play World of Darkness and use the D10 dice pool system, go make your own and resolve combat actions with staring contests if you feel it best defines your roleplaying game.
Does playing 4E make me agree with every mechanic it suggests (and they are suggestions, every last thing in every book they write, it's a suggestion in my book, i'll use the good ones, junk the bad ones, and all that matters to me is my players and I had fun) mean I agree with them all? Of course not, take for example, bonuses not stacking, I disagree with alot of them. My dwarf wants to have dwarven weapon training and weapon focus? Why can't I have both the damage bonuses. Most dwarves are good with hammers and axes, I'm just really good with axes! That's their rule, i'll use it, or maybe I'll decide they do stack if I feel it isn't unbalancing.
Really, your question shouldn't be, 'Why are you all sheep?', but instead ask, 'If I see these things about the game I don't like, several things, how or why do you all play anyway? What works for you that isn't for me?'
I'll even answer that question to save time. I've played D&D since original edition, back when dwarves were simply a class and a race. I played through AD&D, and told my friends how it redefined D&D, than played 3rd edition and said how it redefined D&D, than did it again when they released 3.5 with the errata included, and for run-on sentences sake, I did it again when 4E came out. During that time, I also ran and played West End Games Star Wars, WoTC Star Wars (3.5 edition and Saga) World of Darkness Tabletop and LARPed, played Palladium (TMNT and other strangness is made of win), this really bad d6 system Dragonball Z game, several D20 shoot offs, and the best gaming system ever conjured up, the WWF Roleplaying game. I've been simply a player, a dungeon master, a game master, a story teller, and a referee (I dont' mean a rules referee, but in WWF the GM was called the referee) And in every game here are the points I wanted and needed for the game to be fun.
1.) Easy to run, easy to play. Rules should be simple to teach to other players, easy to remember, and not bog the game down. Several RPGs fail when I sit down with someone new to the game, or worse new to all roleplaying and try to explain how actions are performed. I don't want to lose someone with a good imagination and a mean recipe for nacho cheese dip because they don't have the love of numbers and remembering every formula, table, and detail from the book needed to play. I want to explain it in a few words, they grasp it easily, and we are off. I don't want a book so worried about having the rules for every situation that that literally listed the rules for every situation and I feel i'm betraying the game if I don't look them up everytime. Despite my love of math, I don't want every combat roll to be a math problem depending on if the wind is blowing from the north, the enemy knows latin, and your character was properly motivated to hit the evil wizard of the land or not.
2.) DMing should be fun, not a part-time job. I enjoy playing, but I love running the game. Nothing is a more powerful creative outlet than to conjure up every other aspect of a game. Where does it take place, who are the enemies, the allies, why are the doing this? Than sitting back and watching as the players move through it and the story left in their wake. But DMing becomes tiresome and difficult when to make the game balanced and enjoyable for the players, I have to put so much extra work into building every encounter just right.
3.) Fake should feel real. Truth be told, despite often pretending to be one, I am not, infact, a 5' tall dwarf built of solid muscle, wearing platemail, using a heavy shield, and brandishing a warhammer who has a redneck scottish accent. However, when I pretend to be one around the table on weekends, I want the game to feel like the things I do and the actions I'm capable of feel real, better yet, they feel cinematic, they feel heroic. If I can't perform an action because there is no rule for it, or the rule is too complicated or bothersome I don't want to use it, or simply the rule feels just unnatural than it isn't fun. You say that realism, grittiness, isn't fun. I can't disagree more. I want my actions to make sense, to have a logical conclusion at the end. Even if the action i'm taking is completely impossible, the result should feel real.
Why am I listing these points? 4E meets them more than the other games for me. The economy of actions makes the game easier to teach and play. Less math, less rolls. Combat plays faster, making gaming sessions more meaningful, as we have more to look back on and talk about. DMing is FUN, because adventure building is fun! Such a simple formula to change and work with. The game is built to stay balanced with whatever level, so are the enemies, and so is the formula for deciding what to throw at them. Forever have I been plagued trying to find the right combo to challenge the players and have it turn out far too easy, or far too hard. Lastly, the game feels cinematic. I played a human ranger who used two short swords in a 3.5 game. I was a blur of attacks, and my turn was longer because of it. But there was never alot of decision process that went into my actions. Just, where do I move, so next turn I can let loose my full attack action with both swords. Oh, we'd flank for the bonus, but mostly just did the same attack over and over. 4E feels cinematic, oh sure, sometimes I just use reaping strike when there's only one enemy left, over and over, but at some point during that encounter I used the others hopefully to great effect, I saved my encounter power for the best time, and finally let loose that daily just to hear the rest of the party cheer. I made sure to use my action point at just the right time and made the fight alot easier than it could have been. It just feels right.
So, do I agree with everything the developers came up with? Nah, but I like most of it. Should there be pets? /shrug. They by no means define any class in my book, but if they do yours, than make them a static bonus that doesn't stack with an implement but provide the same effect. Keeps with the economy of actions and gives them that pet they want. Make it a feat and apply a skill bonus that doesn't stack with the specialization. (Hell, in our last 3.5 game, only thing our wizard's hawk did was give him his perception bonus usually) If that ain't enough for you, make it an appropriate level monster and give the pet it's own turn. Only people you'll have to answer to are you players, i'm pretty sure the developers won't track you down for adding pets to your game.
In closing, what have we learned? That's right. The DM controls the game, players flesh it out and make it whole, and the developers gave some suggestions. Turns out, I think they had some pretty good ones.
