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

[Dannager]

Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that 4e doesn't require the same level of system mastery as 3e?

I certainly would.

 

[malraux]

Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that 4e doesn't require the same level of system mastery as 3e?

Certainly not to DM. For the question under discussion, changing the level of mid level opponent for the PCs to fight, it clearly does not require system mastery to do it under 4e. To do it under 3e, it clearly does. You either have to learn enough about the class it is taking levels in, plus which feats are worthwhile, which spells work best, etc to go by the book, or you have to know how to shortcut around that, which the rulebooks never hint at how to do. Both of those require mastery of a huge amount rules, both in the book and in actual play.

 

[fanboy2000]

I thought of more analogies:

3.x is Windows 95, 4e is Windows XP (2e is Windows for Workgroups, everything earlier is DOS)
3.x is vi, 4e is Emacs
3.x is Perl, 4e is Python

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, ignoring a significant portion of the rules and then claiming that it's a strength of the system seems a bit contrary. If the system was aiding you, why do you have to eject a significant portion of it in order to cut your workload?

I would argue that, in any ruleset, the ability to ignore a significant portion of the rules, when it makes sense to do so, is a strength. Indeed, it is probably the most fundamental strength of any ruleset, to the degree to which it is possible.


RC

 

[Hussar]

It's not contrary at all. It's there when I want it or feel I need it for a particular application.

There's a difference between optional rules and rules being ignored though. There is nothing in the 3e ruleset that denotes which elements can be safely ignored and which ones can't. The only way to arrive at this point is through trial and error.

BryonD is claiming that it is a strength of 3e that you can ignore large sections of the rules and get a satisfactory result.

My point is that the only way you achieve that strength is through a significant period of experimentation which results in a lot of wasted time and bad games before you reach that level.

Again, how is that a strength of the rule set?

Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that 4e doesn't require the same level of system mastery as 3e?

I'm not suggesting a comparison at all.

What I am suggesting is that being able to ignore large sections of the rules means that large sections of the rules are superfluous and can be safely excised.

You can paint an entire army of miniatures with a standard #1 brush (and I have) but I certainly appreciate having that #00 in there for painting my army commanders. I might even get crazy and paint on the pupils with a #0000.

The fact that I don't often use the #0000 does not make it redundant nor unnecessary. The existence of the #0000 in my paint kit is a strength.

This is not a contrary position.

Of course, the basic starter miniatures painting kit will often not include high quality, fine detail brushes, and someone who limits himself to the starter kit is unlikely to develop into a world-class miniatures painter.

That's the danger of analogies though. You're trying to claim that these rules are there if they are needed. However, this is where your analogy falls down. You KNOW when you need a different paint brush without a great deal of experimentation. If something is too small for your brush, then it just is.

However, how did you arrive at the point where you can safely ignore six levels of spell memorization and only worry about the seventh and eigth level spells? How did you arrive at the point where you can safely ignore skill point allocation? How did you arrive at the point where you can easily ignore feats or simply choose feats which never change from round to round?

All of these things required some degree of experimentation. It is not a strength of the toolset to know when you can ignore the rules. That's a weakness of a toolset. If it was a strength, you wouldn't have to ignore it in the first place.

See, the idea that you need extra-complicated rules to develop into a world class GM is ridiculous. It's actually pretty insulting too. You're pretty much saying that only 3e GM's (in the D&D category anyway) can become world class GM's because 3e is more complicated than any other version of D&D.

That's utter and complete tosh.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is nothing in the 3e ruleset that denotes which elements can be safely ignored and which ones can't. The only way to arrive at this point is through trial and error.

BryonD is claiming that it is a strength of 3e that you can ignore large sections of the rules and get a satisfactory result.

My point is that the only way you achieve that strength is through a significant period of experimentation which results in a lot of wasted time and bad games before you reach that level.

I would agree with you about trial & error being required, although I would disagree with you that this time is therefore wasted or that the games will perforce be "bad".

Moreover, it seems to me that you are effectively making the T-Ball argument here. If 3e is more complex to understand/run/play, then wouldn't that make 4e less complex to understand/run/play? And isn't that ByronD's T-Ball argument?

Or am I missing something?

EDIT: And RCFG is definitely T-Ball compared to 3e by that analogy!


RC

 

[malraux]

I would agree with you about trial & error being required, although I would disagree with you that this time is therefore wasted or that the games will perforce be "bad".

Moreover, it seems to me that you are effectively making the T-Ball argument here. If 3e is more complex to understand/run/play, then wouldn't that make 4e less complex to understand/run/play? And isn't that ByronD's T-Ball argument?

Or am I missing something?

EDIT: And RCFG is definitely T-Ball compared to 3e by that analogy!


RC

The teeball analogy implies that 4e never reaches a higher level of complexity or difficulty. Its also subtly patronizing. If I were analogizing, I'd say 4e is more akin to softball.

 

[SteveC]

This thread is interesting. Every once and a while we have threads on ENWorld where everyone is working very hard to stay within the rules of the forum so that no one ends up saying what they really intend. Let's see if I can step around that, shall we?

As one of the people who have said that running a high level 3X game made my ears bleed, I'm one of those people who Bryon is talking about. Now I find it interesting that as someone who has run games ranging from Spirit of the Century to Hero, Rolemaster and even Phoenix Command that somehow I don't have the sense to run a 3X game. Honestly, when running a high level Rolemaster game is less daunting, both in prep and during the equivalent game in 3X, I believe something is amiss with 3X.

Now what could that be? In broad terms, when I'm running a game I'm doing two kinds of things: bookwork and bringing the awesome. For about the last year or two of 3X both of those things were increasingly difficult to do, to the point where I made the comment about poking my own eyes out.

Why? Well, I run a game that includes all of the core products that WotC produces. I have tended to avoid third party stuff for the most part, largely because my players haven't asked for it. I have a great group of players: they are some of the best roleplayers you'll ever encounter. They bring the awesome every single session. The problem is that they also pick up all of the splats WotC makes, and have optimization skills that would make folks on the Char Ops board blush.

In 3X there can be a difference in character power that goes way beyond two standard deviations, and my group was on the extreme high end of it. Everything was legal, everything was done correctly, and the characters were all interesting and fun to play. The problem is they were able to consistently crush everything I put against them that wasn't custom designed with the same rules.

The last game I ran was Shackled City, and towards the end of it I was having to rebuild all of their opponents so that they'd have any sort of challenge, and really, so that they'd have any fun. If you've played through that adventure, it's NOT easy: frankly none of the Paizo stuff is.

So I'd end up going over the different splat books putting together combinations of feats, spells and magic items that would make the opposition reasonably difficult but not overwhelming. This was not fun. Not even a little bit after a while. If you think that you can spend five minutes putting together a high level spellcaster opponent and have it not be a joke, I'm calling shenanigans on you.

Now when I came to the game itself, my goal was the aforementioned "bring the awesome." At the same time, with all of the rules, feats and abilities I found it increasingly difficult to just run the game in a fast paced manner that was exciting and dramatic. Analysis paralysis set in. I couldn't just let character X do some stunt because there was already a skill trick mechanic in place that told me how he could have spent SP to accomplish the same thing. Well I could have, but my players were all too quick to point out that this cheapened the purchase by the one person in the group who thought to learn it. Sigh. The game slowed down. Options became far less. The awesome was brought far less often.

And then 4E came around. Could you do everything in it that you can in 3X? Not really at the start, but now, for the most part, yes. Things were streamlined and balanced much better, and the game itself was optimized for a faster play, which was exactly what I was looking for. The game was giving me what I wanted out of it, and my players were having more fun.

I run games with a lot of roleplay, investigation, character development and fast paced action. Let's let that setting in for just a minute, because it's supposed to be impossible to run that kind of game, yet I find it trivial to do so. I run them in 4E with much less work on the bookwork side and find the awesome much easier to bring in actual play.

So with all of that said, 4E is the game I want to play now, and it's Dungeons and Dragons. That second part doesn't sit too well with a lot of people, and I can respect that, but it's true. I carry around a lot of dislike for 3X, but I don't trot it out on display because it doesn't accomplish anything. A lot of people I respect like 3X and who am I to tell them they're wrong?

And that's what I ask in reverse: if you don't like 4E, great, but don't feel the need to tell me I'm playing some dumbed down superhero game full of mutants that is nothing but a MMORPG for the brain dead. How is that concept hard to grasp or understand?

--Steve

 

[Hussar]

I have no real issue with saying that 4e is easier to run that 3e. That seems to be pretty true.

I do have an issue with the implications of the terms though. Claiming that 4e is tee-ball is essentially saying that it's a training game, and not a "real" role playing game. After all, you are intended to graduate from tee ball after a year or so of play.

That's my issue in a nutshell.

Saying that 4e is simpler than 3e is pretty much straight up true AFAIK.

But, simpler =/= dumbed down (an Americanism I loathe). That was the criticism of 3e by earlier edition players. They had made the game for stupid people to play and real gamers play 1e or 2e. The implication here is that real gamers don't play 4e.

That's the trouble with using analogies and trying to force comparisons. It just causes confusion and winds up starting arguements. It would help an awful lot if people would simply state directly what they mean instead of trying to rely on comparisons all the time.

 

[Obryn]

If 3e is more complex to understand/run/play, then wouldn't that make 4e less complex to understand/run/play? And isn't that ByronD's T-Ball argument?

The problem is that "Tee-ball" has a number of other connotations which make the analogy unpalatable. Including, "This is what you play in second grade when everyone sucks too bad to do anything else. Come play this other game when you grow up." I don't think there'd be an argument about a less-condescending and snide analogy.

I'd certainly argue that 4e is simpler than 3e in ways which I value and which I feel don't detract from my group's gameplay experiences. That doesn't make the analogy apt, because the analogy has other baggage with it.

-O

EDIT: Wow, ninja'd like 3 times!