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

[Cadfan]

Indeed. The proudest moment of my life was when I finally got back my official 4e permission slip so that I could change my assumptions and start creating monsters according to my needs and goals, rather than slavishly following the process and being forced to care how I got there. 4e changed everything.

It was dark days before that. That was no kind of way for a DM to live, especially someone like me who can't perform computational neuronal network modeling.

You KNOW that people aren't saying that.

You KNOW this and yet you chose to write otherwise anyways.

 

[Barastrondo]

Thanks for the explanations comparing 3e and 4e. I think I would have to just make a 4e NPC myself to really see the difference. Because it sounds exactly the same to me as far as the time spent customizing an NPC in both editions. The difference is the time you want to spend in 3e to customize an NPC in a very specific way...and that to me seems like a choice, not a requirement. What I get from these explanations is that a 3e player has more tools to use if he wants to use them. A 4e player doesn't have as many tools to use, so it keeps things simple. So then you pick which system that best fits your tolerance...do you want to spend time with options to make something very specific, or do you want to settle on a concept that will be a bit general, but time saving. Is that pretty much what people are doing when choosing one over the other? I can see the appeal for either preference.

Absolutely. I have a friend who builds characters as a hobby. He's always looking for a new system that will allow him to build whatever's closest to the image in his head, or that suggests new and exciting character possibilities. He prefers 3e to 4e (and I believe Mutants & Masterminds to both).

On the other hand, my wife sees character creation as a necessary evil to what she really likes in gaming, which is the at-the-table interaction. She wouldn't use 3e-level complexity to its fullest, so that complexity wasn't as high a value for her, and she likes the combat system of 4e so much that it adds to her perceived value of at-the-table interaction. It suits what she wants out of a game better.

So it just depends. I work at a company with a lot of gamers, and they do everything -- running Wilderlands campaigns with indie systems from the Forge, trying old-school Erol Otus red-box D&D for exploration games, wonky 4e reskins, WoD fantasy hacks, 350-point Champions-style fantasy superheroes, and that's just for the fantasy genre alone. I'm lucky enough to be from a place where fewer people "pick sides."

Of course, I was already doing what 4E was giving me license to, almost as if they saw what I was doing and responded to my play style of the time. Kinda like what they did with 3E way back when...

I had fiend-blooded people and anthropomorpic dragonmen as player races back in my 2e days, pre-Planescape. I feel like I'm owed royalties or something.

 

[SteveC]

Hmm.
Indeed. The proudest moment of my life was when I finally got back my official 4e permission slip so that I could change my assumptions and start creating monsters according to my needs and goals, rather than slavishly following the process and being forced to care how I got there. 4e changed everything.

It was dark days before that. That was no kind of way for a DM to live, especially someone like me who can't perform computational neuronal network modeling.

...and here's a classic example of what I mentioned where we talk around what we really mean in order to not break the rules of the forum. Wulf, you've been around here long enough to know better than this passive aggressive stuff!

But seriously, we get it: you can just write down whatever stats you want for your monster or NPC. However, 3X expressly isn't designed that way: it's designed so that everything is created and statted out with the same rules. That's a feature that normally gets touted for it.

So you decide to stat out your monster by what "feels right". What guidance or assistance do you have that your creature will be an appropriate challenge for your group? None at all. And what do you say when a player asks you how the shaman ogre they just fought had an AC of 23? "Uh, that seemed like an appropriate challenge..." Sure you can say that, but if you do, you can expect the same comments that people give when you do it in 4E.

So yes, you can design monsters in 3X like you do in 4E, 4E just actually gives you guidelines to do so. You could have said all of that without the snark.

 

[Voadam]

Thanks for the explanations comparing 3e and 4e. I think I would have to just make a 4e NPC myself to really see the difference. Because it sounds exactly the same to me as far as the time spent customizing an NPC in both editions. The difference is the time you want to spend in 3e to customize an NPC in a very specific way...and that to me seems like a choice, not a requirement. What I get from these explanations is that a 3e player has more tools to use if he wants to use them. A 4e player doesn't have as many tools to use, so it keeps things simple. So then you pick which system that best fits your tolerance...do you want to spend time with options to make something very specific, or do you want to settle on a concept that will be a bit general, but time saving. Is that pretty much what people are doing when choosing one over the other? I can see the appeal for either preference.

In 3e the default NPC is one made just like a PC but with less gp worth of items. It also provides some sample base ones in the DMG to use off the rack.

Its been a while since I read the 4e DMG but I believe their default NPC creation guidelines are that NPCs are monsters but as an option you can make them as a simplified PC style class. The NPC gets a few class powers and are then done but also notes that if you want to make them as a full character you can. The default option though is to treat NPCs wholly as monsters, using the handful of thematic monster powers, optionally reskinning existing inappropriate ones to look how you want them to look, and then you are done. So a human guild wizard could be a mindflayer psychic crusher or whatever, be described as human, and be ready to go.

In 3e in general you do a lot with full classes as a default. In 4e it is with the simplified monster stat blocks.

 

[Umbran]

It was dark days before that. That was no kind of way for a DM to live, especially someone like me who can't perform computational neuronal network modeling.

We could do without the snark.

"You can always do something other than what the rules say," is true (I tend to do this when I run 3e), but let us be honest - it wears thin as a defense. After you have to say that enough times, you do have to question why you aren't using a system that does what you want in the first place.

 

[Phaezen]

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.

I am trying something like this for my upcoming Iron Heroes game, details here

 

[SSquirrel]

The fact is both 4e and 3e are not immune to criticism or dislike from people. And people should be free to express that, even comparing the two editions, without being jumped on for edition warring.

Really all the edition warring is silly. WotC won the edition war. They get our money for both editions. This also means 4E won b/c they decided it was what they would rather market. *shrug*

Calling a system teeball so you can imply its players aren't playing a "real" game is lame. Feel free to let WotC know what you think worked well and poorly about 3.x. Let them know the same about 4E. You know they will eventually release 5E

The t-ball comparision came up in another thread, generated an eruption in this thread, and pretty much been completely moved past in the original thread.

they probably didn't want to derail the thread and then this opened so they could come here and discuss it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I really don't comprehend all the things that one supposedly can't do with a given edition/system.

You CAN'T roleplay with 4E
You CAN'T make up monsters simply with 3E
You CAN'T create interesting characters with 1E

Since I have been able to do all of the above, where is all the CAN'T coming from?

The size of a rulebook never precludes independent creative thought or at least it shouldn't. I think the majority of gamers have simply forgotten the true meaning of the word CAN'T. It does not mean "unless reference to such a practice can be found on page X".

RAW is a prison that we make for ourselves.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You KNOW that people aren't saying that.

You KNOW this and yet you chose to write otherwise anyways.

It hints at a certain recalcitrance.

...and here's a classic example of what I mentioned where we talk around what we really mean in order to not break the rules of the forum. Wulf, you've been around here long enough to know better than this passive aggressive stuff!

Really? Snark is against the forum rules?

And what do you say when a player asks you how the shaman ogre they just fought had an AC of 23?

I know. I used to dread the last hour of every session where I was required to hand over my DM notes to the players so that they could double-check my work for accuracy.

Not to mention the fines subsequently levied.

I've probably saved the purchase price of 4e several times over in fines alone.

So yes, you can design monsters in 3X like you do in 4E, 4E just actually gives you guidelines to do so.

And I have praised 4e for it. Frequently.

We could do without the snark.

Your unofficial "No Snark" request is noted and filed "off thread."

 

[BryonD]

You KNOW that people aren't saying that.

You KNOW this and yet you chose to write otherwise anyways.

I hate it when that happens....