D&D 3E/3.5 Ed Wars: 4E Fan Finally Gets 3E Fans' POV

[varden]

I’m a 4Eer since it came out.

I’m a story-teller and method actor, roleplayer not rollplayer, and I find 4E supports that really well. More importantly, my game group likes it. We have all the types of players and they all find something to like in it.

It’s easy to DM on the fly too.

I’m also the guy who took actual enemy fire in Edition Wars: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...-d-d/325922-took-enemy-fire-edition-wars.html

Last week I heard the first real compelling argument in favor if 3E/Pathfinder against 4E – the roleplaying element.
The guy who owns our FLGS told me he watches kids playing both versions. The 3E kids roleplay and get into the story. The 4E kids are only about “leveling.”

I told him we’ve never seen that at our game group, or my teenage nephew’s.
He countered that it’s likely me, as a 30-year gamer, who’s probably driving that roleplaying element. It’s true, I DMed the nephew’s group through 1st level. Then their genius-prodigy friend took over. They’re also all in Speech and Debate or Drama Club.

He said that up till 4E, there was enough vagueness in the rules that players were forced to do some original thinking. The simplified rules encourage roleplaying in experienced gamers, but stifle it in new gamers.

My group and I will never go back to 3E or try Pathfinder, but I finally understand one of the issues their fans are talking about, and I respect their point of view.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Personally speaking the quality of my level of roleplaying, my urge for roleplaying, my concern with leveling vs. the story, and the depth and quality of the games that I run has improved over time. The systems that we played in aren't responsible for this change, it's personal experience and personal maturity that's responsible.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Last week I heard the first real compelling argument in favor if 3E/Pathfinder against 4E – the roleplaying element.
The guy who owns our FLGS told me he watches kids playing both versions. The 3E kids roleplay and get into the story. The 4E kids are only about “leveling.”

Out of curiosity are the 4e kids playing Encounters? Because ther story there is almost irrelevant. Which is a better explanation IMO.

 

[Herschel]

The guy who owns our FLGS told me he watches kids playing both versions. The 3E kids roleplay and get into the story. The 4E kids are only about “leveling.”

I told him we’ve never seen that at our game group, or my teenage nephew’s.
He countered that it’s likely me, as a 30-year gamer, who’s probably driving that roleplaying element. It’s true, I DMed the nephew’s group through 1st level. Then their genius-prodigy friend took over. They’re also all in Speech and Debate or Drama Club.

He said that up till 4E, there was enough vagueness in the rules that players were forced to do some original thinking. The simplified rules encourage roleplaying in experienced gamers, but stifle it in new gamers.

He's full of crap and an ignorant edition warrior himself. The amount of roleplaying any group does is due to the players and DMs desire to role play, nothing else. I've seen groups in every edition who only wanted to level and gain loot, I've also seen groups in every edition who wanted to role play more. Edition has NOTHING to do with it and all you're doing is feeding the trolls.

Mod Note: Please see my post below. ~Umbran

 

[billd91]

He's full of crap and an ignorant edition warrior himself. The amount of roleplaying any group does is due to the players and DMs desire to role play, nothing else. I've seen groups in every edition who only wanted to level and gain loot, I've also seen groups in every edition who wanted to role play more. Edition has NOTHING to do with it and all you're doing is feeding the trolls.

Because someone else's observations and experiences can't be right if they contradict yours, can they?

 

[Pour]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having trouble figuring out what you're saying in the opening post here. Is it you understand why some people perceive a problem with 4e that really isn't there? Or are you saying there is a roleplaying problem but you don't experience it? Are you tying a roleplaying issue to 3e or 4e, or neither?

I do agree with a lot of the posters responding to this exact thread of yours on RPGnet, though. There's some wisdom there.

 

[Herschel]

Because someone else's observations and experiences can't be right if they contradict yours, can they?

No, it's that there' observations are, at best, completely biased on such an illogical premise as well as a self-selected, insignificant sample size as to have no validity.

 

[billd91]

No, it's that there' observations are, at best, completely biased on such an illogical premise as well as a self-selected, insignificant sample size as to have no validity.

About on par with yours or mine, I'd say.
The man's experiences are his experiences. His perspectives are his perspectives. There's no a priori reason to think they're less valid than your own. Why not accept and respect them even if you disagree with them like the OP does?

 

[Umbran]

He's full of crap and an ignorant edition warrior himself.

Now, you might say to yourself, "The guy I'm talking about isn't on this site. He won't know, and thus cannot object, if I say bad things about him." But, in so thinking, you're forgetting the logical implication - if that guy is "full of crap and an ignorant edition warrior", then anyone who agrees with him is also the same.

So, basically, you just said that about a bunch of people here. And we're going to get a stack of reports about how you're being rude and over-aggressive.

You could have said much the same thing, in more polite language. So, this post is a prime example of, "maybe a good point, but threw tact to the wind, thus discarding the possibility it would have much constructive effect."

Remember, always, that there's a bunch of people here who feel as strongly as you do, but who don't agree with you. If you don't want a fight, treat them with respect - saying they are "full of crap" is *not* what we call respect around here.

Thanks all, for your attention.

 

[Umbran]

The amount of roleplaying any group does is due to the players and DMs desire to role play, nothing else.

There's a flaw in that argument - you seem to ignore the fact that design, structure, and presentation matter, and can influence how players and GMs approach the game.

Yes, a GM and players can look past the rules as written, and take an eagle's eye view, and play as they like. But, especially for new players, there's a certain amount of "cannot see the forest for the tress" that can go on. People can get stuck in mental habits (even ruts) without realizing it.