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

[teach]

No system can possibly eliminate intelligent conversation.
4E certainly doesn't. I've certainly never claimed it does.

Then please explain your signature, because right now I can't possibly see another way to read it.

 

[BryonD]

As others pointed out early on, your signature says differently.

No it doesn't.

"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal."
That sentence clearly states that if D&D brings those three things, two of which are pointedly visceral, then everything needed is present.

For that person, intelligent conversation is clearly quite optional. That doesn't even say that intelligent conversation is absent. But it is most certainly optional.

To me it is not optional. I require it as part of the fun.

That is all my sig says.


Do I think this is a decent soundbite for the subgroup of 3E haters who are now 4E fans? Yeah. Does it represent every individual? Hell no.

But it is a snapshot of how I perceive the center of mass of the appeal of 4E vs 3E. If added simplicity and rawr rawr are the start and the end of the improvements for the "new" fans, then that is a shame.

 

[Jack99]

I believe if you consider for a moment you will as well agree that 3E is very much the superior game, despite your clear personal dislike for it, when it comes to generating the kind of game that the guy with the misspelled loser name prefers.

*cut a few things*

That doesn't in any way contradict you finding 4E vastly superior for the game *you* want.

First of all, I hope you didn't feel targeted by my fun fact moment. I certainly did not mean to imply anything by it. I just sorta typed what went through my head.

Anyway, it seems that we agree. 3.x does the D&D you prefer better, 4e does the D&D I prefer better.

Nuts, I just agreed with Bryon..

Cheers

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So do "powergamers" not exist in 4e? You don't need to worry about making sure a 4e adventure is challenging to every PC of the same level?

Wouldn't the way to go about making an adventure be for the writer to assume the PCs are "normal" PCs built with the "average" builds provided from the core books? Then leave it up to the DMs to adjust things depending how many optional books & rules he has allowed in the game?

My problem near the end of 3.5E was that the curve between the "system master" player characters and the non-system master player characters was too wide of a gap. Both types of player would try to make the best character they could, but the difference in power level made it difficult to design challenges that mattered to the system masters while not destroying the non-system masters on a regular basis.

I have not had the same experience with 4E. The system masters still make better characters, but the non-system masters are still able to make effective characters. One would have to intentionally try to make a bad character to make the gap too wide. And even then I don't think the gap would be as wide as the one in 3.5E.

 

[Barastrondo]

Well, yes, I do think that. But I also add that "easier to run" doesn't take away the "bad DM" part. Now practice with an easier system can certainly be a good step to moving from bad to good. But if you do, rather than move on, you still have a game that assumes you are bad.

Could we maybe bury this whole "newcomers are bad gamers" correlation forever? And a day on top of that? I've been in this industry long enough to see brand-new, inexperienced gamers who brought more joy to the table in half an hour than some veteran gamers managed to do in 100 man-hours. I have gotten more joy from an enthusiastic newbie with a poorly optimized character who loved the game she was playing than from a number of "skilled players" who were interested only in "beating the adventure."

We need more people like her in the hobby. And the habit of calling people like her "bad" because they don't have all of a veteran's skills yet is something I would be delighted to see purged from the vocabulary of gamers everywhere. It's not just insulting to the newcomers: it paints veteran gamers in a pretty bad light as well.

Do you know what became of Rob Hatch?

I haven't seen him personally for a while, but I understand he's still in the area and has crossed paths with some of my coworkers now and again. He's not much of a self-promoter, though, and he seemed disinterested in continuing with the RPG industry, so I'm not sure what he's been working on or anything.

 

[Garthanos]

Then please explain your signature, because right now I can't possibly see another way to read it.

His sig is a baiting action against anyone who identifies themselves as a 4e fan... it is part of his edition war paraphernalia. He flies the flag very high and must be dating all the moderators sisters.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Could we maybe bury this whole "newcomers are bad gamers" correlation forever?

I didn't read that correlation at all. I interpreted him to mean, "4e is good if you are new and have no skills, and it is also good if you are bad and have no skills. In either case it is going to limit the development of your skills."

 

[ExploderWizard]

No system can possibly eliminate intelligent conversation.
4E certainly doesn't. I've certainly never claimed it does.

Never said you did. I was responding to a comment made by someone else.

 

[tyrlaan]

For that person, intelligent conversation is clearly quite optional. That doesn't even say that intelligent conversation is absent. But it is most certainly optional.

To me it is not optional. I require it as part of the fun.

That is all my sig says.

Or the quoted 4e fan didn't mention intelligent conversation because he/she (a) didn't think it needed to be said or (b) was making a specific point where he/she felt including it would dilute his/her argument.

Your follow-up line reads in such a way that implies you're assuming that the omission of intelligent conversation in the 4e fan's quote means that it's considered completely optional to that person. This is especially true since the two lines are now 100% out of their original context. And while that might be true, there are plenty of other ways to interpret that omission (I gave you 2 above).

Think of it this way:
Fred: "Hey Bob, I'm grilling up some burgers and dogs. What do you want?"
Bob: "Give me a burger with some cheese and I'm good to go."
Fred: "Oh, so no bun then?"

 

[Barastrondo]

I didn't read that correlation at all. I interpreted him to mean, "4e is good if you are new and have no skills, and it is also good if you are bad and have no skills. In either case it is going to limit the development of your skills."

I'm not really sure how else I'm supposed to read "you still have a game that assumes you are bad." On what evidence is this based? The entirety of this whole tortured teeball metaphor comes from the statement that WotC designed 4e to be a good game for newcomers to the hobby to run and play. If the statement was "you still have a game that assumes you may not have all the skills it would be good to develop", there's no way I could see that as insulting to newcomers. That wasn't the statement I read there, though.