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

[Henry]

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?

BryonD's T-Ball argument, however, seems to go further as to say that the elements that lessen 4E's system mastery requirement also makes the game suffer - which is something I really haven't seen in my experience.

Side Digression - Honestly, with all the digression people have over how player choice is more limited, If they could make a system that looked like 3E on the player's side of the screen, but like 4E on the DM's side of the screen, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. Maybe it's the whole "at-will/encounter/daily powers" interface, I don't know, but so many people seem to have good things to say about the defense scores, and simplifying the middle and high-end math, and about simplifying conditions in combat, etc. - but when it gets to those green, red, and black bars, and the pushes, pulls, and slides, it's like the Bridge Too Far. I shouldn't be surprised - heck, it was for me for the longest time.

 

[Cadfan]

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?

Well, yes. Of course you're missing something. I'm surprised you missed it, actually.

He made an argument that can be defended on strict denotative grounds (there are aspects of 4e that are simpler than 3e), but he phrased it in an indefensibly insulting connotative manner that he refuses to affirm or deny.

If you read ByronD's comment in a strict denotative sense- "4e is less complex to run or play than 3e," then its mostly true and there's not much to argue. We could talk about some of the places complexity increased, or we could discuss specific issues like whether 3e style monster design is really necessary or whether every experienced DM had already figured out to apply 4e style benchmark related monster design practices. But mostly we'd just be fiddling around the edges of his argument while ultimately agreeing with it.

But if you read it in a connotative sense, he's saying that 4e is stupid and childish in comparison to *real* or *grown-up* D&D. And hence this thread, in which page after page is expended either trying to get him to admit that he's insulting people, or trying to use evidence from other threads or his signature or his past behavior to convict him of wanting to insult people, or arguing that simpler rules for things like monster design or character creation do not necessarily mean less worthwhile or mature gameplay.

So, yeah. I'm surprised you missed that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Do you mean the ability of a ruleset to "survive" or keep working to remove rules? That I would consider a strength.

But the ability to replace or ignore existing rules and improvise something is a strength of the person doing the improvisation. He gained enough system mastery to know how to do it without breaking stuff.

 

[billd91]

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.

But, this being a refereed RPG, what rules aren't ultimately optional?

Shortcuts, whether widely known or idiosyncratic, have been used by DMs since the earliest editions in building NPCs, detailing monsters, pretty much everything. In 3e, there happens to be tools to develop more detail should you choose to use them.

 

[Oryan77]

What if I even suck at playing Teeball? Does that mean I'll struggle with 4e? Am I doomed?

And if we're comparing 4e to Teeball, what does it mean if I like to use a whiffle bat & a whiffle ball in my Teeball game? Which D&D system should I be using then? Is there anything easier than 4e....maybe WoW? I don't need to know the rules to play WoW do I? Are there whiffle bats in WoW?

I really don't understand why everyone keeps saying it takes longer to create characters in 3e, so therefore 4e is easier to DM. Hello.....do what I do and buy premade 3.5 characters on Ebay. That's what you do in MMOs if you need a high level character and don't feel like doing all the work making it.

On a serious note, I've only been a player in 4e and have never DMed it. But my assumption based off of my experience seeing my options as a player would be that a big reason creating an NPC in 4e is easier is because there are way less options for a 4e character than there are in 3e. Is there any truth in that? Is that what people are talking about when they say 4e is easier to manage? Or is character creation easier for another reason?

 

[Barastrondo]

On a serious note, I've only been a player in 4e and have never DMed it. But my assumption based off of my experience seeing my options as a player would be that a big reason creating an NPC in 4e is easier is because there are way less options for a 4e character than there are in 3e. Is there any truth in that? Is that what people are talking about when they say 4e is easier to manage? Or is character creation easier for another reason?

It's a design philosophy thing. Smaller stat blocks, don't build an NPC to the same level of detail you'd build a PC, stats are focused on roles rather than in-character taxonomy ("brute" and "artillery" rather than "giant" and "dragon"), that sort of approach.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If they could make a system that looked like 3E on the player's side of the screen, but like 4E on the DM's side of the screen, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.

:staredown:

 

[tyrlaan]

This.

The teeball analogy implies that 4e never reaches a higher level of complexity or difficulty. Its also subtly patronizing.

And this.

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?

Seriously, how long has 4e been on the shelves now and those of us not interested in the edition war nonsense must still endure it? Who else is getting sick and tired of the "subtle" digs, the snark, the condescension, and so on? Steve says it right and it saddens me that more people can't seem to wrap their heads around the mentality he expresses here.

The fact is both 4e and 3e have strengths AND weaknesses. Play what you want to play (and let other people play what they want to play) and just let it rest already.

 

[rjdafoe]

For myself, I think I would enjoy 4E significantly more as a player if all the wonderful ideas, powers and concepts could be mix and matched more permissively than current.

I think they can. Having the Character Builder makes is way easier as well. I think that after 1 year, woth the additions in the game, that the above statement is false at this time.

Now, say what you will about the requirement of the DDI, but your above problems have pretty much been rectified with the Character Builder. The only cost would be a $10 one month sub to get it, cheaper than a book that gives options.

 

[Halivar]

I want to know what everyone has against T-Ball. Baseball snobs!