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

[Oryan77]

And because 4e doesn't have any rules for how AC is derived that they can correct you on, it's smooth sailing?

4e actively changes the hearts and minds of your players?

They really should have played that up more in the marketing.

Before you are quick to be "snarky" as the mods are saying....you should be careful who you're being snarky with and what you are being snarky about.

I've never said 4e has eliminated rules arguments. I've never even hinted at 4e being better. I in fact am not "pro" 4e. I am merely "tolerant" about 4e because it's not my preferred edition, but I understand why people like it. I do have a 4e PC that I play when I get the chance and I do enjoy playing him. I don't DM 4e and will never DM 4e. I love my 3.5 and that will be my go to edition.

Calm down, breath, and go reread my post. I was agreeing with your comments about player vs DM attitude. That text you quoted was saying that I find it annoying that newer edition players nit pick the rules more than before (from my experience). My complaint about Player vs DM is towards both 3e (oh no, that's my edition!) and 4e (oh no, I hope nobody hates me).

The newer editions have definitely spawned more Player vs DM attitudes.

You do a mighty fine job turning a topic into an edition war

I find it silly that I even have to mention this, but in case the mods care, no I am not arguing with Wulf or trying to start an argument. There is no need to "parent" us and lock the thread based off of my comments. I think it's funny that he turned my post against me when I was actually agreeing with him. I hope he knows I am also not trying to argue with him. I only mention this because I'd hate to see the thread locked as if we're children that can't discuss a topic like intelligent adults. It happens way too often here so I am letting it be known that I am not & will not be going down the road that leads to a thread getting locked due to flaming or insulting comments. All I want to do is point out to Wulf that he's barking up the wrong tree. Please do not lock this thread based off of this post as if I'm being an antagonist....that is not my intention.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't play D&D as a competition between myself and the players, so that definitely skews my perception a little bit.

It's not so much a competition as it is an understanding that something doesn't pose a challenge if the DM is unfair.

Either they are purposefully lowering the stats of the monster to make it easier on you, in which case you get the impression that it doesn't matter what you roll, you were going to win anyways. Or the DM has purposefully raised the stats of a monster in which case, it doesn't matter what you roll because you were going to die anyways.

If the DM used a book with a distinct formula on how to make up monsters that the designers swear is balanced, then we can say "CR 8 monsters are a challenge to Level 8 characters. If we beat them as level 6 characters, we accomplished something special. We are better than expected." If the monster has the AC of a CR 6 creature but the hitpoints of a CR 8...how do we know if we accomplished anything special?

People like to build characters. When my friends made up a character that started with a 20 strength and got a Belt of Giant Strength +4 and took Weapon Focus, they expected battles to go easier for them. They expected to distinguish themselves above their companions. The only comparison they had was the monsters in the book. How fast can you beat a Green Dragon? How about a Mind Flayer? And so on.

In my game, the intent is for everyone to have fun, DM and players. It's a cooperative play style.

It is about being cooperative. We cooperate in order to defeat the monsters, because we are more powerful working together. The DM makes an adventure that is interesting and challenging without putting in anything overwhelming in order to keep it fun. Everyone knows the odds are often stacked in the PCs favor. But there is a real chance that they could all die every combat. Otherwise it's no fun.

And in 3e, you absolutely positively cannot say, "It has appropriate defenses to challenge you guys."

No. The rules say you build a monster by figuring out all of its defenses and attacks by using the formula in the book. If we fight a creature with 20 hitdice and it only has +3 to hit...well, that's just not right. It has too small attack bonus for its hitdice. That's not very fun. It would have beat us if it was built the proper way. How can you feel accomplishment knowing you were fighting against enemies who weren't legal? Same thing in reverse...if they are artificially too powerful, then it is no fun. They were an attempt by the DM to kill everyone.

Ignoring the rules when they exist <> strength of the system.

Ignoring the rules when they don't exist = strength of the system.

They rules DO exist though. They are just slightly more vague. In 4e the rule actually IS "Use these numbers in this chart. Adjust a couple of points in either direction to taste". Therefore, fighting a monster who has an AC 1 point lower than usual is within the parameters set up by the game. It is fair, because the game and the designers intended that to be part of the game.

When your players say to you, "How did that ogre get a 23 AC?" the correct response (regardless of system) is, "I gave it an AC appropriate to challenge you all."

It has to do with a difference in philosophy. In 3e, the game system reported to be a "physics emulation". It made this opinion clear in a number of ways. So when that Ogre is wearing leather armor that is suddenly as strong as +5 Full Plate....well the laws of physics seem screwed up.

 

[AllisterH]

I think it a good idea to assume that new DMs will be among the readers; the opposite assumption could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy! The 1st ed. AD&D books, by Gygax's own later estimation, took prior D&D experience too much for granted (for all that they were labeled "Advanced" works). The original set, by the same token, had assumed too much familiarity with customs of the miniature-wargames hobby.

I.

The 2e DMG.

Seriously, was there ANY advice on how to actually run a game to make it enjoyable for people in that DMG?

 

[Oryan77]

I'm aghast that you would suggest that I am "aiming" at "targets."

Looked like it to me

I apologize to Oryan for using "you" and "your" in a post that was an observation on 4e and "aimed" at no one in particular.

That's cool, but I'm still confused about your reply to what you quoted from me. I was agreeing with you. the quote you took from me was agreeing with you. I was basically criticizing both 3e & 4e, yet your reply made it sound like I was saying that 4e was the golden child. I'm not sure where that came from.

 

[fanboy2000]

Have your players in 3e really asked in the middle of a game how the monsters got their AC numbers?

Yes. I actually had to institute a house rule: don't reverse engineer the monsters.

This didn't protect me from my players now reverse engineering the encounters. If one encounter was especially tough, they'd get on my case it's EL level. I stopped figuring out EL and just eyeballed the encounters so I could claim plausible deniability. (This was only possible after I moved to level independent xp from Unearthed Arcana.)

I loved my old group. They were good friends and great guys. But geez could they whine! They'd survive an encounter and then whine about hard it was! It's enough to make a DM roll to see what random demon prince decides to invade the prime material on the very spot the PCs are standing.

 

[CleverNickName]

Woah. This thread practically exploded with comments. Just a few hours ago, it was only a couple of pages. Now there's like, a billion of them.

No, I do not consider 4e D&D to be "newbie teeball." But nobody is ever going to quote me in a reply if I leave it at that, so I'll elaborate.

-----

During the development of 4E, one of the largest gripes about the previous edition was the lack of simplicity. Combat took too long, character creation was too complicated, there were too many of one kind of option and not enough of another, creating an adventure was too much work, etc. So the designers listened to us, made some changes, and tried to give us a product that we would like. We could still play the older edition, we just wanted something new and different.

Teeball was created for a very different reason. Small kids wanted to play baseball, but they couldn't...or at least they couldn't very well, using MLB rules. Being able to hit an airborne object with a stick requires a certain degree of cognative ability that most small children do not physically have. Therefore, certain elements of the game were removed (namely, the airborne object) so that everyone could play.

4e cannot be compared to teeball very effectively, because they came about for very different reasons. The implication is that people who play 4E do so only because they lack the cognative ability to play older editions. And that's not only wrong, it's insulting.

You KNOW that people aren't saying that.

You KNOW this and yet you chose to write otherwise anyways.

Aw come on, Cadfan...that was funny.

 

[Cadfan]

And... time to update something.

 

[BryonD]

4e cannot be compared to teeball very effectively, because they came about for very different reasons. The implication is that people who play 4E do so only because they lack the cognative ability to play older editions. And that's not only wrong, it's insulting.

On multiple occasions people have complemented that one of the great things about 4E is that it lets people who "CAN'T" DM other editions, be the DM.

That is not MY claim. I dispute that claim. But that exact claim has been made.

At this point I don't recall Allister precise words (beyond "poor sucker" and "newbie"), but the implication was certainly there.

And note the HUGE distinction that the oft praised statement that 4E is modified for people who are not up to DMing other systems is NOT AT ALL the same as "people who play 4E do so only because they lack the cognative ability to play older editions". Again, I have repeatedly said exactly the opposite of this.

 

[Oryan77]

Yes. I actually had to institute a house rule: don't reverse engineer the monsters.

I've also seen players question the DM about their abilities. I think it's only happened to me once...and that person no longer plays with us (guess why). I've even seen DMs on Enworld complain that their players questioned their NPCs stats.

On a funny note, I've even had 1 player question me about why a monster wasn't using a power that she thought it should have had. This person did this often and seemed to want me to screw over the group. What her metagaming knowledge didn't realize was that the creature I was using was not the version of the creature she thought it was.

They'd survive an encounter and then whine about hard it was!

My players do this exact same thing to me. It really makes me confused on if I'm running encounters that really are too difficult, or if they are just being crybabies. They keep surviving, so I must be doing things ok.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, being as I have clearly explained far more times than I have said "that's not what I said", I really doubt one more will help you.

And frankly, feel free to ignore me because there are plenty of 4E fans I think I can have a straight conversation with, but you are not one of them. Some people consider me a 4e hater vitriol thrower. My advice is to not care what I say if that is how you see it.

But you've tossed plenty of 3E hating vitriol of your own. And I don't see me and you getting anywhere. And you ignoring the repeated clear statements that I have made and instead calling out me for correcting one of a handful of times I been directly mis-stated as "137" times and claiming I "just" do that is pretty rock solid evidence that this exchange isn't even intended to be founded on honest discussion.

So no. I won't engage you.

Best of gaming to you.

If you don't want to engage me, fine. Engage somebody. All you seem to be saying is that we have you wrong. That rings a little hollow. If we have you wrong, set us right. If you don't want to talk to me, talk to this thread as a whole.