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

[Aus_Snow]

For me anyway, it's not even the crunch in the DMG that impressed me about 4e.

It's the fact that 4e actually teaches a player HOW to be a DM and is the best DMG ever for doing this. I don't know why this gets ignored but this to me is 4e's true accomplishment.

Oddly enough, I don't find myself disagreeing.

It's probably worth noting that DMing is what teaches a person how to be a DM. It's a bit like swimming, in that regard. However, some good GMing advice is worth including in RPG books, generally speaking, and yes, the 4e DMG does have some. Sadly, this is rather unusual, in the RPG world as a whole.

 

[BryonD]

Then I have a simple request: Say it again, as clearly as possible, and shed some light on all of this. Instead of just saying "thats not what I said" 137 times when everybody else disagrees with you.

Well, being as I have clearly explained far more times than I have said "that's not what I said", I really doubt one more will help you.

And frankly, feel free to ignore me because there are plenty of 4E fans I think I can have a straight conversation with, but you are not one of them. Some people consider me a 4e hater vitriol thrower. My advice is to not care what I say if that is how you see it.

But you've tossed plenty of 3E hating vitriol of your own. And I don't see me and you getting anywhere. And you ignoring the repeated clear statements that I have made and instead calling out me for correcting one of a handful of times I been directly mis-stated as "137" times and claiming I "just" do that is pretty rock solid evidence that this exchange isn't even intended to be founded on honest discussion.

So no. I won't engage you.

Best of gaming to you.

 

[BryonD]

For me anyway, it's not even the crunch in the DMG that impressed me about 4e.

It's the fact that 4e actually teaches a player HOW to be a DM and is the best DMG ever for doing this. I don't know why this gets ignored but this to me is 4e's true accomplishment.

Do you realize I have not disputed this?

 

[Oryan77]

I don't play D&D as a competition between myself and the players, so that definitely skews my perception a little bit.

In my game, the intent is for everyone to have fun, DM and players. It's a cooperative play style.

But a loooooooooot of players don't look at D&D like this. I've had to boot a dozen players out of our group because they couldn't get past the DM vs Player attitude. That attitude really makes a DM look like a jerk when he isn't trying to be one. When a player sees it as a competition, it makes it hard for the DM to roleplay well because the player will hold a grudge thinking that the NPC only did something because the DM is mean or wants revenge. And I'm sure there are a lot of DMs that actually do do things out of revenge because they also see D&D as a DM vs Player game even though they don't realize they do. But this way of thinking really ruins a game whether it's intentional or not.

The line you quoted proves this. I had to become a rules lawyer just because the players I didn't boot would call shenanigans if I was ruling off the fly (ya know, like we did in earlier editions to speed up play). Players nowadays just have to make sure the DM is doing everything legit or else they say, "well why play if yer just gonna make rules up". That line of thought is a 'player vs DM' way of thinking. Why? Because rather than trust the DM that he's ruling for the better of the game, they want to make sure he's ruling "correctly" so he definitely isn't being unnecessarily hard on the PC. I remember the days when I used to make a half-assed ruling just so the game keeps going....not because I'm out to get the PCs. My 3e players have to stop the game and look up a rule every single time they think my ruling is wrong. And after being right most of the time, they still have to question me At least they seem to trust me overall, but questioning my rulings like this still makes it seem like I may be out to get them.

The newer editions have definitely spawned more Player vs DM attitudes.

 

[Scribble]

The newer editions have definitely spawned more Player vs DM attitudes.

Hrmm... I'd say this attitude has been with the game for a LONG time.

As for the topic at hand- my answer is no.

I don't really feel that 4e is an update to 3e so much as both 3e and 4e are updates to 1e/2e.

In my opinion 4e achieves the update in a more streamlined and smooth fashion. It gives me the updates and options I felt were missing in 1e/2e version, without all the hoops I felt 3e added. (And I didn't even realize they were there really until I started playing 4e and felt how much more fun the game was without them. Don't get me wrong, 3e was a ton of fun, because it added those options, but I feel 4e is more fun because it removes the extra fiddly bits...)

For me it's like two versions of baseball. One has something called foulwhacks. If your at bat, and you hit a foul ball, it counts as a foulwhack. If you get 2 foulwhacks and a strike, you're out.

The other version just counts them as strikes to begin with.

Either way you get to the same place, but in my opinion, I'd rather not have to also track foulwhacks if there's not really a reason to do so.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Players nowadays just have to make sure the DM is doing everything legit or else they say, "well why play if yer just gonna make rules up". That line of thought is a 'player vs DM' way of thinking. Why? Because rather than trust the DM that he's ruling for the better of the game, they want to make sure he's ruling "correctly."

And because 4e doesn't have any rules for how AC is derived that they can correct you on, it's smooth sailing?

4e actively changes the hearts and minds of your players?

They really should have played that up more in the marketing.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So do "powergamers" not exist in 4e? You don't need to worry about making sure a 4e adventure is challenging to every PC of the same level?

Powergamers exist. But the "average" PC is a lot easier to define due to a lack of extreme customization. At level 11, I know that the bonuses to hit are going to range (vs AC) between +13 and +18(lower than 13 is possible if you completely ignore the PHB's advice on how to make a character, +19 or +20 might be possible with some extreme powergaming). I can safely put the enemy's AC at 26 and know that PCs will have between a 40% and 65%(between 30% and 75% if we extend it to the absolute limits) chance to hit. Which means a reasonable chance for anyone. Plus, the way the game scales is that the difference between lowest and highest should stay close to the same for all 30 levels(it grows by 15%).

The difference between best and worst is small enough that I don't have to PLAN for the powergamers, they just have a slightly easier time of it. The lower end of the scale can purposefully flank or have leaders to give them bonuses to overcome the small disadvantage they have as well.

Contrast that to 3.5e where the minimum at 11th level is the 6 strength wizard who decides to use his non-magical staff to attack(+3) vs the 26 Strength Half-Orc Barbarian who is raging, has Reckless Rage, Weapon Focus, and a +3 weapon, (+27) means that an AC 27 creature can be hit between 5% and 95% of the time. The highest misses only on a 1, the lowest hits only on a 20. The difference between weakest and strongest gets further and further apart the higher level you get in 3.5e. At 20th level it is possible to have one character have 4 attacks with a 95% chance to hit while the lowest hits only 5% of the time with ALL his attacks.

Wouldn't the way to go about making an adventure be for the writer to assume the PCs are "normal" PCs built with the "average" builds provided from the core books? Then leave it up to the DMs to adjust things depending how many optional books & rules he has allowed in the game? I can't imagine creating adventures with the goal in mind to make it balanced for every type of PC...that would be a nightmare. It's the DMs choice to use more options. If he chooses to go down that route, then it should be his responsibility to make adjustments.

We were writing for Living Greyhawk. The worldwide campaign where the DMs didn't have a choice about what kind of characters to allow. Nearly everything was allowed(with a small list of 30 or so banned items due to them being very overpowered). 28 point buy. DMs are not allowed to modify the stats of the creatures, the adventure must be run as written to avoid favoritism or "unfair" games(i.e. getting a bunch of XP for defeating hard monsters when your DM lowered the difficulty on them or having your party wiped out because the DM didn't like you).

The thing is, I'm not even sure what to assume average IS in 3.5e. If you consider the 16 strength 11th level Rogue with a +1 weapon and no feats to add to his attack bonus. That's +12. It hits on a 16 what the above Barbarian hits on a 2. If the Rogue is "average" and you create an adventure for that(AC 26 enemies to make a 55% hit chance) then the powergamers can walk through the adventure without any challenge whatsoever(the barbarian hits with his SECOND attack 85% of the time).

Now if this isn't even an issue in 4e, that's good. But is it not an issue because there aren't as many options yet? Could a writer like yourself be in the same boat as you were during 3e several years from now when there are more character options for 4e? Or are the rules setup where this just can't happen and players are unable to powergame now?

The stacking rules have been set up in such a way that almost nothing stacks with each other. That helps. The authors of 4e have realized this exact math problem(they've posted about it a couple of times) and have purposefully avoiding putting in any more feats or items that give you any more bonuses to hit.

In 3e, they never knew about this...so they didn't avoid breaking the game. I currently have my fingers crossed that they stick to their guns and avoid publishing anything else that stacks.

 

[Barastrondo]

And because 4e doesn't have any rules for how AC is derived that they can correct you on, it's smooth sailing?

4e actively changes the hearts and minds of your players?

Dude, Oryan77 was asking about 4e because he didn't have much experience with it. Your sarcasm long nines are aimed at the wrong target.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Dude, Oryan77 was asking about 4e because he didn't have much experience with it. Your sarcasm long nines are aimed at the wrong target.

I'm aghast that you would suggest that I am "aiming" at "targets."

It is against the forum posting rules to ascribe motives to other posters.

All of my posts are meant to be read verbatim without any inflection that is not present in the written word. Any such sarcastic or snarky inflection is wholly in the mind of the reader.

I apologize to Oryan for using "you" and "your" in a post that was an observation on 4e and "aimed" at no one in particular.

 

[Ariosto]

I think it a good idea to assume that new DMs will be among the readers; the opposite assumption could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy! The 1st ed. AD&D books, by Gygax's own later estimation, took prior D&D experience too much for granted (for all that they were labeled "Advanced" works). The original set, by the same token, had assumed too much familiarity with customs of the miniature-wargames hobby.

I am not sure that 4e actually suits beginners much more than 3e. What I have mostly seen is evidence that it better suits some experienced DMs who may be almost a decade older than when they first embraced 3e. It may be drawing in newbies, but it's that already-in "bulge in the python" demographic that really stands out (and indeed makes the usual arguments for the whole "edition" strategy sensible in the first place) .

By the same token, streamlined rules sets are part of what makes old TSR-D&D (or even the likes of RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip) more attractive than either WotC game to some very experienced D&Ders.

Complicated mechanical systems are not fundamentally what D&D is about, to the extent that they might be what (say) RoleMaster or HackMaster is about. Other kinds of complexity won for it the enthusiasm that made not only the name of the game but the popularity of the RPG hobby.