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

[Dannyalcatraz]

jaerdaph
Well, you can't spell "analogy" without the...

...log?

...y?

 

[pawsplay]

There is no such things as a newbie teeball RPG. It doesn't matter if your rules are 2 pages or 800, the complexity comes when a player says, "I don't trust this Gandalf guy. I stab him as soon as he turns around."

 

[jdrakeh]

b) that character design for PCs is as open and free-form as 3e

How has PC design in any edition of D&D ever been "free-form" ?

 

[Aus_Snow]

No. That is not what I consider 4e to be.

 

[RangerWickett]

How has PC design in any edition of D&D ever been "free-form" ?

Eh, yeah, sorta.

4e is branching. You pick a class, and it has 2 or 4 builds. You pick a build, and there are a few feats for that build, and you can't take feats for the other build. Often there are feats that you can't take, even if they might fit your build, because of your race. And sure, you can take any of the powers from your class, but usually there are few that are just better because they give you a benefit from your build.

You can multiclass to get powers from other classes, but you can only do so much of it, and even if you do, usually your class abilities are designed so narrowly that they won't synergize with the multiclassing. Ever tried to be a barbarian-rogue in 4e? You want two-handed weapons, or light blades, and you can't combine powers, just switch between them.

4e character building, in my opinion, makes creativity feel like a sacrifice.


3e is interwoven. You can pick multiple classes as you level up. You can take feats that work for any race class combo. You don't have to be a half-orc barbarian to take Shock Trooper; you just need to have taken a few feats in the chain. Your shock trooper can be a barbarian, a fighter, or even an eldritch knight.

Sure, spellcaster multiclassing at high level was weak, but it was kind of fun to be a barbarian 8/druid 2 with an array of little magic tricks, or to be a sorcerer/monk who can deflect arrows and have really awesome shocking grasps.



Whenever something new came out for 3e, you could find ways to integrate it with older material. Whenever something new comes out for 4e, there's usually only a handful of ways to use it. Sure, it's more balanced that way, but I think there had to be other ways to keep the game balanced without having to codify your options so strictly.

 

[jdrakeh]

Eh, yeah, sorta.

4e is branching. You pick a class, and it has 2 or 4 builds. You pick a build, and there are a few feats for that build, and you can't take feats for the other build. Often there are feats that you can't take, even if they might fit your build, because of your race. And sure, you can take any of the powers from your class, but usually there are few that are just better because they give you a benefit from your build.

You can multiclass to get powers from other classes, but you can only do so much of it, and even if you do, usually your class abilities are designed so narrowly that they won't synergize with the multiclassing. Ever tried to be a barbarian-rogue in 4e? You want two-handed weapons, or light blades, and you can't combine powers, just switch between them.

4e character building, in my opinion, makes creativity feel like a sacrifice.


3e is interwoven. You can pick multiple classes as you level up. You can take feats that work for any race class combo. You don't have to be a half-orc barbarian to take Shock Trooper; you just need to have taken a few feats in the chain. Your shock trooper can be a barbarian, a fighter, or even an eldritch knight.

Sure, spellcaster multiclassing at high level was weak, but it was kind of fun to be a barbarian 8/druid 2 with an array of little magic tricks, or to be a sorcerer/monk who can deflect arrows and have really awesome shocking grasps.



Whenever something new came out for 3e, you could find ways to integrate it with older material. Whenever something new comes out for 4e, there's usually only a handful of ways to use it. Sure, it's more balanced that way, but I think there had to be other ways to keep the game balanced without having to codify your options so strictly.

Ah. I see. In that light, I think it's fair to say that 3x was less confining than 4e, but "free-form" denotes a complete lack of structure with regard to character creation (see The Window, Formless Collaborative Roleplaying, SLUG and other such games for examples). D&D has never had that.

 

[pawsplay]

Free form poetry still has to use language and not suck. Free form just denotes open boundaries, not an infinitude of possibilities. Mind you, I usually think of "free form" char gen as writing a paragraph, then circling some "traits" or somesuch, but 3e is clearly at some midpoint between hardcore free form gaming and programmatic, 4e style gaming.

 

[Henry]

I wouldn't say 4E is any more a "training wheels" game than OD&D was. In fact, I keep returning to analogies between the two quite frequently, much to people balking at such. Both get out of my way as a DM; both clearly define the archetypes of game play; both (to me at least) even play similarly (in terms of the math involved) throughout the levels they were meant to be played at; and finally, both leave me enough room to make new elements on the fly if I so choose for either the players or myself.

Finally, both make falling damage something to be starkly feared.

But in the end, I'm playing whatever version nets me players, a good story, and a fun day playing. I'm in the planning stages of a Pathfinder game now, run by another gamer, and I expect I'll have a lot of fun, even if my character is sacrificed on a devil-worshipper's altar while trying to stop some dramatic event...

 

[Hussar]

Some time ago I started a rather lengthy thread about having to sacrifice things in order to get other things in game design. 4e has sacrificed player options in order to gain streamlined play and ease on the DM as compared to 3e.

3e sacrificed elements of 2e in order to gain things as well. 2e did the same to 1e. It's just a natural evolution of different games. You have a limited amount of time to spend gaming, either at the table or designing adventures between sessions.

Look at GURPS for a second. In GURPS, you have hugely detailed combat rules - very simulationist. However, this comes at a cost, glacially slow combat. Even simple combat that can easily take a very long time at the table to resolve. It's all about what you, the player want in a game.

3e, for example, sacrificed 1 and 2e's very simplistic combat for minis based, tactical combat. It easily extended the time it takes to resolve combat significantly. On the flip side, you need far less combats in order to gain levels. It all comes down to what you want.

Comparing those choices to children's games, OTOH, is just button pushing and flame baiting. It's insulting and condescending. To me, criticisms couched in such language say much more about the critic than the game.

 

[MerricB]

Finally, both make falling damage something to be starkly feared.

Indeed. Where would we be if an editor's mistake had not made AD&D falling damage to be "d6 per 10'"...

Cheers!