Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?

[Barastrondo]

But, all the extrapolations and distortions aside, if pro-4E people continue to state (as they have) that 4E has things designed specifically for a newbie DM built in then the actual point I made remains and is only further demonstrated.

I find it difficult to see a way in which this statement could not be applied honestly to any RPG that ever explained what a roleplaying game is in its introduction.

(And roleplaying games that don't provide some sort of explanation for newcomers are probably much easier to count, if somewhat harder to find, than those that do.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

See, I never insinuated any such thing. On at least two occasions I said the opposite.

My point is that *despite* the fact that I'm certain you can do it, AllisterH called 3E DMs (such as yourself) "poor suckers" and praised 4E for having features that assume people can't handle it.

[Analogy Game]
Your goal is to build a house. You really want that house.
So you do all the usual stuff, digging out the foundation, schlepping stones around, making cement, installing the windows.
It's awesome. At the end, you have a house and you can live there the next 53 years and 6 months when you die from an heart-attack you get while laughing about a rerun of Monty Python.

Your grand-son wants to build a house. He really wants that house.
So he contacts an agent of a prefab company. He sits on the computer and designs his house from ready-made walls, selects the colors and windows.
It's awesome. At the end, he has a house and he lifes there the next 53 years and 6 months when he dies from heart-attack he gets while watching a rerun of Monty Python.

If you really liked the stuff of digging out the foundation, schlepping the stones around, making cement or whatever else, yeah, you really would prefer the first method. But if you just wanted a house to live in there for the next decades, the second method is brilliant.
[/Analogy Game]

The distinction is not really about "smartness" or "experience", but what you are actually interested in. Do you really like the entire mechanical process of "world-building", "campaign-planning" and "monster-building" like in 3E? If you are, 4E will not satisfy you. If what you want are the results, the campaign the players run in, the encounters the players deal with and so on, 4E will get you to that result a lot easier.

A newbie will most likely have the impression that the game is what happens at the table, not what he does at home to prepare for it. A system that provides quick mechanical ways to get you material for the game at the table is preferable. It makes getting into the game and thus understanding how it plays easier.

 

[Nebulous]

4e is a big ball of "stuff that works awesome" and "stuff that doesn't work as good." As a whole, i find it a genuinely very fun game that has a totally unique spin on roleplaying games. For better or worse, WotC has created a totally NEW game that is different than anything else out there.

But i think that running a good 4e game really depends on past experience from running ANY rpg (but especially D&D). A lot of the game is art, not just number crunching, that derives solely from experience and understanding the ebb and flow of the gaming table.

I think that there is way too much focus on player powers, to the point that if it is not on a little card in front of the players that it ceases to be an option in the game world. I have introduced several powerful magic items to the party, including a Wand of Wonder, A Bag of Tricks, and a Deck of Many Things, but BECAUSE they are not on cards that they see, they've never been used. They're scribbled down in inventory, but for whatever reason that relegates them to something as useful as a tallow candle or extra socks.

A big strength of 4e is encounter balance, and the multitude of tricks that monsters can spring on a party, but the party has a deep bag of tricks too that can constantly surprise a DM.

Magic in 4e, i hate to say, has been largely nerfed and is dull. The payoff is that martial classes are far better than they have ever been before.

Despite my qualms with 4e i cannot deny how much fun i've had with it, and the online tools are hands down the best i have ever seen.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I said "no" to this:

I don't see how a new edition after nearly a decade run shows that you are right. If anything it disputes you.

So anything new is worse than what came before it? How exactly does that work?

 

[Barastrondo]

I think I've set my finger on what was bugging me about the "tee-ball" description applied to any roleplaying game.

The implication is that a "tee-ball" RPG will not teach you to run a "big boy" game, obviously. However, RPGs don't work like that. When you talk about throwing someone into the deep end or forcing them to come to grips with a big robust system, that doesn't make them a big boy, either. The real skills of game mastering come when you aren't particularly happy with stuff right out of the book and start tinkering to find something that suits you better.

System mastery isn't the sign of a good GM. It's the sign of a system master. Someone who's mastered a simple system is not innately any less proficient at running a game as someone who's mastered a complex system. There are too many other elements to running a game, such as knowing when to leave the dice alone, how to build an interesting plot, and how to read your fellow players. If you can make a complex system jump through hoops and produce the result you want, great, that'll help you out. But so will the ability to make a simple system jump through hoops and produce the result you want.

One of the key elements to becoming a "big boy" gamer is, interestingly enough, dissatisfaction. People push themselves to do more with a system when they can't just pull what they want out of a book. People devise new monsters, antagonists, and player character powers when the ones provided aren't enough. You don't develop critical thought without having something to critique.

The only way 4e could produce new gamers who don't ever "graduate" to picking up those skills would be if it were so perfect for them that they played it without modification, cradle to grave. I like the system, and I don't think it's that perfect. People who don't like the system obviously don't think it's that perfect. So what's the worry?

 

[catsclaw227]

cool. Scorn based on someone else's out of context interpretation of what I said.

I still say it wasn't quoting out of context. I quoted your post, and then in my second post, mentioned the context and quoted the second post you are referring too (that I am apparently out of context about).

Your sig confirms my point as well.

Teeball is primarily intended for very young kinds to get used to swinging the ball and hitting without a pitcher.

I have often claimed that 4e D&D made entry for DMs easier. It has tools to help even the most experienced DM prepare. But, 4e doesn't require a graduate game to take it into complexity. It does it just fine by itself.

 

[Henry]

And speaking for those people who find the "extra effort" to be trivial and the "improvements in game results" to be very significant, there are overwhelming reasons to have my point of view.

To clarify your statement in my mind, do you believe, for example, that preparing a 10th level Druid NPC, for example, or a Pit Fiend as a larger example, by the rules in 3E for use against a party is trivial, compared to the work in preparing a similar threat against a group of PCs in 4E?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It doesn't change the fact the 4E assumes you are new.

You base this "fact" on that some people have said that is the case? Saying something is a fact, doesn't make it so.

Hmm. What if the people saying it are on the design, development, and marketing teams for 4e?

 

[BryonD]

So anything new is worse than what came before it? How exactly does that work?

So we are going to start putting words in each other's mouths now that have nothing to do with the other's actual point?

 

[Rechan]

Is anyone OTHER than Byron making this claim, or is this thread just "Everyone arguing with one guy's view"?

Because all the posters in the world aren't going to change a person's opinion if they're that opinionated.