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

[Herremann the Wise]

If I set "free form" and "programmatic" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most programmatic, 4e would be a 9. 3e would be an 8.5.

I disagree. I think 3e would be less than this.

Seriously, what else can you say about a system that assigns a vast number of abilities to specific levels of specific classes or prestige classes, requiring you to jump through numerous hoops to combine them as you please? You must have six levels of this in order to get that class ability, you must have these prerequisites to dip two levels of that to get this other class ability, you need these other five prerequisites to get that feat you wanted so you'll need some levels of fighter to qualify before the end of your career...

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. In 4E, the most suitable options for a particular "build" are more obvious or defined if you will. For example if I make a warlord with the tactical build, then most of my "options" are pretty clear cut otherwise I'm not taking advantage of what my character is supposed to do well. 3E greyed the lines somewhat but I think most would agree that this makes for a more organic character creation process (although with this flexibility comes the ease of abuse and irrelevance).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Holy Bovine]

That's correct - although it capped at 20d6, IIRC.

Gary Gygax assumed that the rule had appeared correctly in the books, which caused a lot of scratching of heads when Unearthed Arcana where he used the system he intended to use in the description of the Thief-Acrobat and the editing changes were discovered.

Of course, then you got d6 per 10' in 3e, where it made falling one of the safest things that could happen to a high-level character!

Cheers!

Safe? Hell it was the preferred mode of transport to get from the high tower of the castle (300') to the ground floor for my players!

I always used the system from Unearthed Arcana even before it came out as I misunderstood the rule as written in AD&D! It's like I was reading Gary's mind!

 

[Nebten]

Based on what I saw in the previews (since I haven't actually played or DMed 4E), I do not think 4E is a beginners/training game at all.

In fact, I doubt you could ever call 800+ pages of core rules (PHB1/DMG1/MM1) a "training" game.

OD&D however - that's for babies!

Its not like you have to read all of those pages to understand the game. Players only need to read the PHB (and really only the parts on their class and race). DMs just need to know the core mechanics to run monsters out of the MM (I ran Keep on the Shadowfell before the books came out). The DMG is mostly fluff anyways and could be bypassed by anybody who's run any kind of RPG in the past.

But like anything else, the more somebody want to get into a hobby, there is more information out there for them to digest.

Honestly, 4th ed at its core fits around that 120 page mark, if not less.

 

[Henry]

Of course, then you got d6 per 10' in 3e, where it made falling one of the safest things that could happen to a high-level character!

Cheers!

I had forgotten about that! I was actually referring to the fact that in OD&D, all characters used d6's for hit dice -- even the fighting men, and con bonuses weren't something you saw much of. So, if you fell a good 100 feet, chances were you were just as dead whether you were a wizard, holy man, or tough guy. The cumulative thing that was revisited later just made it all the sweeter. They have suggestions on capping heights to certain amounts based on the level your characters are, but screw that, I want the first level guys looking over that 50 foot ledge and quaking in their boots.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

However, a sharply up-curving scale of damage is not accurate to real world physics. My physics may be rusty, but I believe the amount of force you hit with after 1 second (~30 ft. fall) is half that you hit with after 2 seconds (~90 ft. fall).

Of course, both a 30 ft. fall and a 90 ft. fall are probably going to kill or at least cripple you.

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.

 

[fanboy2000]

If we're going to play the analogy game, I say that D&D 4e is Go and D&D 3.x is Chess.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm going to agree with Merric here essentially 100%.

By breaking the game into player and GM 'labors', the GM can focus on bringing the fun and the players can focus on their characters.

Given that BryonD's comment is absolutely absurd and deserves scorn: no, it's not a child's game. It's not teeball, whatever that is.

4E is an odd beast that you have to evaluate in two parts: what it means for players, and what it means for DMs. (In truth, you should do this for every RPG, because the game the players are playing is not the game the DM is playing).

For DMs:
D&D 4E is a game that tries to get out of the way of the DM as much as possible whilst still maintaining a mechanical framework for challenges that is (mostly) balanced.

For new DMs, the game maintains the ease of creating balanced encounters that 3e pioneered (for D&D), but takes the massive load of references out of the equation that 3e suffered from.

For Players:
D&D 4E is a game that gives a lot more "hard-coded" options for the players to use.

This is part of the disconnect with 4e for me: it's getting out of the way of the DM to allow the DM to do his job easier, but the power system codifies the options for players a lot more than previous editions did (well, in respect to fighter-types, that is).

A 4E fighter is far more challenging to play than a 3e Fighter at 1st level, IMO (if not least because you have to first grok the Fighter's marking power and how it works). The 4E Ranger is a better beginning class. You need to worry about teamwork more. Groups that master the teamwork of 4e - which isn't really that hard - will do very well indeed.

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

On a note related to the linked thread above, I don't like calling any DM a "sucker", but I don't think AllisterH was meaning the definition of a man duped. I think he was talking about the inexperienced fellow that was picked from the group of players to DM the next session.

I've never heard "sucker" be used to mean an inexperienced fellow. That seems a rather radically forgiving contortion of the term.

Do you dispute that simple to DM was one of the design goals, and one of the advertised features of 4E? Because all I said at first was "Welcome to simple to DM D&D".

Not only did AllisterH refer to DMs as "poor suckers". He stated that they were thrown "into the deep end". From my point of view, Allister was the one insulting 4E DMs. I am certain he did not mean it that way. But he said it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My main point is that 4e D&D is far from a child's entry game.

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".

 

[JoeGKushner]

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".

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

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.

 

[BryonD]

Given that BryonD's comment is absolutely absurd and deserves scorn: no, it's not a child's game. It's not teeball, whatever that is.

cool. Scorn based on someone else's out of context interpretation of what I said.

I'm getting so much attention!!!!!!