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

[teach]

I've seen numerous prior posts where people have been critical of 3E by saying things like their "eyes still bleed", or their "heads ache" or they "wake up screaming" when they just think about DMing 3E. (I've actually seen all of these statements, amongst others). It boggles me. These people are insulting themselves. They don't seem to realize it.

If someone walked up to you and said that just thinking about algebra made them wake up screaming, I think you would assume this person sucks at math. They may be competent at basic arithmetic. But they are not going to be the person you want teaching your kid even the parts of math they do get.

AllisterH (and others) are essentially saying that 4E is good because it is basic arithmetic for the guy whose eyes bleed over algebra. I find that insulting. Now, I'm fully certain that this isn't the beginning and the end of what AllisterH would say is good about 4E. It was simply the topic of the moment.

I would think that person doesn't want to spend their free time doing complex mathematics, just like I don't want to spend my free time trying to figure out what every feat does on a monster that is in a module I'm trying to run. I just want to roll some dice and have some fun, which for me includes not having to learn a complex system that I don't see much value in. I am not insulting myself. Instead I am rewarding myself for finding a game that I get to have fun in.

Also, as much fun as analogies are, I really wish people would avoid them. I have yet to see one that actually convinces anyone, instead it just seems to entrench the two sides of any argument even more with their implied value judgments.

 

[Thasmodious]

I've never bought this idea that 3e character creation is so free and wonderful. I always found it confining, and confounding. I HATED making characters in 3e. It's as Cadfan describes it, a ridiculous level of jumping through hoops to meet prereqs and twisting and contorting mechanics into some representation of what your concept actually was. I have some friends who were big 3e optimizers and half the time I just dumped the crunch off on them, they enjoyed that kind of thing. "Here is my concept, here is what I want him to be able to DO." And I'd await the ridiculous 3 base class, 4 prestige class, feats from 8 supplements solution.

Since we're on analogies, I'd say 3e character creation is like a restaurant menu that's 37 pages long. Sure, it seems like they have almost anything, free-form eating, but it's really a long, convoluted list of items. The menu is enormously complex, often referencing other parts of the menu - Tortellini - as ravioli but with pork sausage and a ragu with basil instead of oregano. While other choices cut you off from ordering other things - Raspberry Cheesecake - must not have ordered the Duck, must have had at least one pasta or bread item and wine. And a number of the choices on the menu sound delicious but are intentionally made terrible tasting. Why? Because the Chef thinks its funny when new customers order the bad food and likes to reward his regular customers for having learned that those are choices to avoid.

 

[Mallus]

Wrong

Then why do you keep trying to paint making D&D easier to run as a bad thing? Why do you keep pushing your dreaded T-ball analogy?

3e isn't a game system for experienced DM's. It's a game for people who like 3e's particular kind of play experience. The 4 DM's in my group (3 of whom have been running D&D for over 20 years) went from 3e to 4e. Hint: it's not because we were suddenly all struck with amnesia and became beginners again...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And that is very consistent. I've seen numerous prior posts where people have been critical of 3E by saying things like their "eyes still bleed", or their "heads ache" or they "wake up screaming" when they just think about DMing 3E. (I've actually seen all of these statements, amongst others). It boggles me. These people are insulting themselves. They don't seem to realize it.

You are misrepresenting people here. The issue isn't that 3.5E prevents people from being great DMs. The issue is that 3.5E is so much damn hassle that it isn't worth the effort. As a DM I have to spend three times the time and effort to run a quality game of 3.5E compared to running a quality game of 2E or 4E. If I can get the same quality experience with 1/3 of the effort, 3.5E's complexity isn't worth the hassle.

If you find 3.5E's style to be exactly to your liking as a DM it might be worth the extra work. But if it isn't...

If your eyes bleed over algebra, you won't be a good arithmetic teacher.
If you are in over your head in other games, then you won't be a great 4E DM.

Again, the issue isn't that you can't, its the amount you have to put into it to get a constant result. If I have to spend 6 hours to DM the same game in 3E while it would take 2hrs in AD&D/4E, thats triple the effort for the same result, aka not worth the hassle.

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.

A good DM can do vastly more than 4E than have it be a child's entry game. I never disputed that. The point of the conversation was those "poor suckers" DMs.

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.

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".

Which is it? You say you can do more with 4E than be a child's entry game, but then you say that 4E is a child's entry game. You're talking in circles. You're also making accusations that 4E is designed to encourage you not to go beyond a child's entry game, which is frankly insulting.

It isn't about making it easier for a newbie to run. Its about making it easier for ANYBODY to run. A good DM can get the same result with less of his precious time and effort, which is a good thing. This, incidentally, makes it easier for a newbie to run, which is also a good thing.

 

[Mallus]

I've never bought this idea that 3e character creation is so free and wonderful.

That's because it's not. 3e can't hold a candle of invocation to games like M&M when it comes to the flexibility of character creation.

 

[nightwyrm]

Actually I attended an interesting physics lecture back in 1995 by Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki at Sydney Uni where the hypothesis was that a cat falling from the top of a 6 story building was far more likely to die than one falling from the top of a 30 story building.

The explanation went that as the 6-story cat was still accelerating downward, the cat was tensed up and so the landing force would break just about everything there was to break. The 30 story building cat however, reaches terminal velocity, stops accelerating downwards, relaxes (somewhat) and thus the vitals are not as directly damaged as the force is more evenly dispersed. Go figure hey.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Numerous cats died in ratifying this hypothesis but none of them were pushed... like deliberately... by the scientists at least. And correct, there was no practical component to the lecture.

PSS: I also have not used this "fact" in game, although I have been tempted.

I've heard that story too but it was in my stats class where it was used as an example of a wrong conclusion that was reached due to a flawed methodology. The scientists didn't throw cats off a building (coz that would be inhumane and illegal). They looked at survival data from fallen cats that were brought into vet clinics by their owners.

The data was biased because it was filtered through whether owners brought in their fallen cat. The reasoning was that if the cat fell just 6 stories, the owners would very likely bring in their cat and just hope their cat survived even though the cat may not show signs of being alive. But if the cat fell 30 stories, the owner would only bring the cat in if it showed some signs of life. Thus the data showed the survival rate for a 30 story drop was higher than the that for a 6 story drop.

Moral of the story: GIGO.

 

[BryonD]

I've heard that story too but in was in my stats class where it was used as an example of a wrong conclusion that was reached due to flawed methodology. The scientists didn't throw cats off a building (coz that would be inhumane and illegal). They looked at survival data from fallen cats that were brought into vet clinics by their owners.

The data was biased because it was filtered through whether owners brought in their fallen cat. The reasoning was that if the cat fell just 6 stories, the owners would very likely bring in their cat and just hope their cat survived even though the cat may not show signs of being alive. But if the cat fell 30 stories, the owner would only bring the cat in if it showed some signs of life. Thus the data showed the survival rate for a 30 story drop was higher than the that for a 6 story drop.

Moral of the story: GIGO.

Cool. I'd heard the same story.

 

[BryonD]

You are misrepresenting people here.

Uh, No, I most certainly am not.

 

[Barastrondo]

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.

How much credence do you give to the idea that increasing ease of running a game also makes a game attractive to veteran roleplayers who find themselves having less time than before, and prefer to assign a higher percentage of their leisure time to actual play than prep time?

There's a certain value to the game master of having stat blocks that get plenty of use, for instance. A complicated stat block is worth the investment if you get plenty of re-use out of it: a villain from a superhero game that is low in lethality, for instance. Simple stat blocks that can be tweaked or reskinned are also good for games in which the enemies are expected to be disposable. Reskinning isn't the most novice-friendly of concepts, but it's terrific for the veteran game master without the time he or she once had. Given 4e's emphasis on reskinning, it seems reasonably obvious to me that newcomers aren't even close to the primary market.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Uh, No, I most certainly am not.

Address the point then. 4E isn't necessarily about making DMing easier, its about making DMing less work. While it was a good game I enjoyed at the time, 3.5E did not justify the extra work it took to run it well. Not compared to other editions of D&D, which include 1E and 2E AD&D. In 3.5E, DMing was more work, more number crunching, and more mastering the system, and without an improvement in game results in equal measure to the extra effort. Parts of the extra effort in 3.5E, particularly in the greater demand for system mastery, made things more difficult for less experienced DMs. It certainly reduced the amount of people willing to run it.

4E has reduced the load on DMs. This is a good thing in and of itself. DMs should be allowed to have a life. Reducing the load on DMs makes it easier for inexperienced DMs in addition to its inherent benefits.

It is worth noting that similar benefits can be obtained by switching from 3.5E to earlier editions.