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

[BryonD]

Doesn't history show us otherwise? That DMs stopped running games when using 3.5 or this 'deep end'?

No.

Or is D&D a 'manly' game where only the best of the best can play? Because if so, it's big brother Hero System is waiting for some converts.

But here is the shocker...
I think throwing people in IS a better choice because I believe that a lot more people CAN be great DMs if they want to.

 

[Cadfan]

I think you're missing the key point of RangerWickett's insightful post. The level of restriction is not as damning as you make it out to sound. Because of how easy multiclassing was in 3E (and in some thematic ways, way too easy in my own opinion), the interlinking of paths was more vivid/profuse than in 4E's rather rigidly set class options.

I'm not talking about how easy it is to mix classes. That's irrelevant unless you're only worried about mixing themes.

It may be easy to mix and match levels in 3e, but its insanely difficult to mix and match class abilities. This is because they're stuck to classes and have ENORMOUS prerequisites. Let me put it this way- if you want to obtain the level 7 ability from the Duelist PRC, you not only have the prerequisite of dodge, mobility, weapon finesse, five ranks in tumble, three ranks in perform, and a +6 base attack bonus, you also have the prerequisite of six entire levels of the duelist prc, all of which contain class abilities you may or may not want! That's HUGE! And that's not even addressing issues of whether more carefully mixing and matching class levels can let you meet that enormous prerequisite earlier in your career (instead of going straight rogue to level 8, you could go fighter to level 7, or else you could go fighter 4, rogue 3, swashbuckler 6... etc). And if you wanted to obtain that level 7 duelist ability and combine it with a particular ability from another class, heaven help you unless that other class ability is available at a very low level.

I do not consider this free form. This is intricately mechanical and hardcoded. The whole system is filled with IF you want this, THEN you must do that. That's not free form at all.

I had FUN with it, don't get me wrong, but I knew darn well that I wasn't doing free form character creation.

 

[ggroy]

But my problem is that, honestly, it is worse than tee-ball.
Teeball is intended for young children who are assumed to move on to actual baseball once they develop.
4E has elements designed with those inexperienced "poor suckers" in mind, but you are not supposed to go beyond it. There is no baseball to graduate into.

Even those good DMs who are taking the game beyond teeball, are still working with rules that assume that DM is an inexperienced "poor sucker".

Perhaps some of these "poor suckers" will graduate on to something else like Palladium Fantasy, 3.5E D&D/Pathfinder, Rolemaster, etc ...

 

[Mallus]

However, if parts of 4E are designed with a key goal of making it easier for a newbie to run than other games, then that is strikingly similar to the idea of putting a ball on a tee to make it easier for a newbie baseball player.

You're operating under the assumption that the game should be challenging to run. This strikes some people as odd. It's like suggesting the more difficult a tool is to use, the better a tool it is. Some remarkable things are made with simple tools.

Even those good DMs who are taking the game beyond teeball, are still working with rules that assume that DM is an inexperienced "poor sucker".

A complex game can be run with simple rules. Conversely, complex rules do not ensure a complex game. Kinda like a koan, ain't it?

 

[BryonD]

You're operating under the assumption that the game should be challenging to run.

Wrong

 

[JoeGKushner]

No.

No based on what? Based on 4e going the route of making the game easier for new DMs to run?

Uh... that would be Yes.

 

[BryonD]

Perhaps some of these "poor suckers" will graduate on to something else like Palladium Fantasy, 3.5E D&D/Pathfinder, Rolemaster, etc ...

Sure, but that is not the intent.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I''m a little curious as to what BryonD thinks that 4e holds Game Masters back from. A lot of the little bits I've been thorwing into my gaming blog are essentially system free but I'm always thinking of how I'd use them in 4e.

Is he worried about new game masters getting a lot of solid advice and system neutral material in the Dungeon Master's Guides that have come out this far or just by making the game easier to run with the split between player and GM duties that it weakens game system mastery?

 

[BryonD]

No based on what? Based on 4e going the route of making the game easier for new DMs to run?

That shows:

That DMs stopped running games when using 3.5 or this 'deep end'?

???


I'll stick with "no".

 

[BryonD]

Is he worried...

I'm not worried about anything. I just called it like I see it and got my own celebrity thread.