DND 4E Is different! (Why is that bad?)

[Piratecat]

"Opportunity Attacks"

There was absolutely no reason to change from the familiar Attack of Opportunity. (I have my own opinions as to why the change was actually made, but game-wise there is no good reason.)

Sure there was. It's generally a bad idea to name something with the same unique name when it works substantively differently. A 4e OA is different from a 3e AoO, and probably shouldn't be called the same thing.

That being said, my players mock this too.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Sure there was. It's generally a bad idea to name something with the same unique name when it works substantively differently. A 4e OA is different from a 3e AoO, and probably shouldn't be called the same thing.

That being said, my players mock this too.

In the spirit of being facetious, 4e works 'substantively differently' than 3e did. Maybe they should have called it Dragons & Dungeons?


Nothin but love, PC.

 

[feuer_faust]

Dragons and Dungeons... its got a ring to it. Here's hoping for fifth edition in 2012.

 

[billd91]

Changes for the sake of change:
Storm giants are now evil
Unicorns are unaligned
Driders are a social upgrade instead of outcast
Dryads' primary means of attack are now physical instead of magical
Gnomes disappear when attacked

It may be that calling these things changes for the sake of change makes it sound like WotC are just being punks and changing things simply because they can. I'm sure they'd say they were doing it to make the game more interesting, because they have different ideas they'd like to follow for those creatures, because they wanted to forge a different brand identity, whatever. But since none of these changes have a thing to do with the core changes of the game's mechanics, they ultimately fall into the category of "Change because we wanted to do something different" which is functionally the same as change for the sake of change.

The fact of the matter is: there are things that were changed that a lot of people didn't think were broken and were content with. If the changes I like don't outweigh the changes I don't like, why would I adopt the new edition?

The OP asks why not change. I ask why not stay where I am if it's the game I like?

 

[Felon]

I'll be brief and to my point. A major complaint of DnD 4E is that isn't different, that its not like previous editions. Well, this isn't a new thing, as the races and world in general are different in each edition. So, instead of complaining "why", ask "why not?"

New rules, new races, new setting... so why stick to The Way it Used to Be?

Sounds like a straw man presented under the facade of a question, as it implies that heterogeneity in general is what's being criticized, not the nature of specific changes.

 

[TerraDave]

1. High Magic is gone in 4E (as pointed out before).

Rituals, people, rituals. (and level inflation. but also rituals).

 

[Piratecat]

In the spirit of being facetious, 4e works 'substantively differently' than 3e did. Maybe they should have called it Dragons & Dungeons?

Nothin but love, PC.

Phbbt!

Monte once discussed an important concept in 3e's redesign, the need to make changes big and easy to remember. It was one of the things that 3.5 did wrong; all those little fiddly changes with the same name as before made it more difficult to gain mastery over the rules.

I think that's what they're trying to do in the case of OAs. Giving them a different name makes it easier to remember that they're a different beast. I'm not sure it worked.

Of course, maybe I'm talking out of my butt and WotC thought AoO was a little awkward to say.

 

[feuer_faust]

Sounds like a straw man presented under the facade of a question, as it implies that heterogeneity in general is what's being criticized, not the nature of specific changes.

I'm sorry, but what?

 

[Piratecat]

I'm sorry, but what?

He's generally saying it's hard to discuss this, because you're talking about change in general instead of the appropriateness of specific changes.

 

[TheWyrd]

Roleplaying in and of itself doesn't require rules. You can tell a story with the GM just arbitrarily saying if what you are doing succeeds or not. But the fact of it is, rules matter. Even within the basic D20 rules, there are a ton of little changes from new races and changed skills through to different spellcasting methods and taint rules. Never mind jumping to different systems.

Why does it matter? At the root, the rules provide a structure and feed to the game. So many of the little tweaks that d20 got over the years were an attempt to change the way the game felt for people. Ways to make things feel more tense, more cinematic, or more gritty. The rules are one method of changing the dynamic at the table and elliciting a mental or emotional response to what's happening. Genre conventions are similar.

If you as a player don't like how you feel at the table then you are within your rights to change that. Maybe you're not getting the sense of nostalgia you want. Maybe you as the GM feel you're putting in too much prep time for not enough reward. Maybe the setting you are using is straining your suspension of disbelief too much. Whatever the case.. the rules matter and your subjective experience at the table matters. It can be easy to dismiss that reaction as fear of change or jumping at the latest shiny new rules set but I think its important to respect that subjective experience as an important part of the hobby.