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

[Obryn]

In this instance, I'm more talking about adjudicating improvised actions in this example. Handling unconventional thinking and plans.

Which is, seriously, the point of the 4e DMG. It seems to me that you've taking your preconceptions and trying to mangle the actual book's text until it justifies your beliefs.

What you haven't done is illustrate how - if at all - the 4e DMG is fundamentally different from DMGs that have gone before, and that this influences the playstyle. Because to me, the 4e DMG1 most resembles the 3.5 DMG2 in its advice. And the 4e DMG2 most resembles Robin's Laws more than anything.

-O

 

[Jester David]

Which is, seriously, the point of the 4e DMG. It seems to me that you've taking your preconceptions and trying to mangle the actual book's text until it justifies your beliefs.

What you haven't done is illustrate how - if at all - the 4e DMG is fundamentally different from DMGs that have gone before, and that this influences the playstyle. Because to me, the 4e DMG1 most resembles the 3.5 DMG2 in its advice. And the 4e DMG2 most resembles Robin's Laws more than anything

The DMG is only a small part of the issue. The issue is the player books and the actual game. Again, the DMGs are two books of the more than twenty books published for 4e (excluding campaign settings). They're a small minority, and the actual non-combat advice (while excellent) is a minority of those books. You can't hand people a stack of pages with arguably 1% relating to role-playing and non-combat but 75% relating to combat and expect PCs not to get into fights.

And, as mentioned earlier, 5/6ths of the table isn't expected to have glanced at the DMG, let alone read it cover-to-cover so you can't put the full onus of role-playing and improvisation on that 15% of the player base.
The DM cannot tell players how to improvise or do the unexpected. Otherwise it's expected and the DM is telling the player how to run their character. The best the DM can do it set-up the environment for creative thinking (which is a lot of work) and *hope* the players take the bait.

The players need to be told to improvise. There need to be examples of improvisation in combat and out. The focus needs to be on them, especially as they outnumber the DM around 5:1.
And the DM needs to be told how to handle improvisation. Multiple instances and types of improvisation: improvisation that just deals damage, improvisation that takes a monster out of a fight, or improvisation that avoids (or ends) a fight altogether.
And the adventures need to have creative rooms with details and features beyond just those that compliment tactics and provide cover.
The monsters need to have built-in hooks, personality quirks, desires, and motives that encourage creative thought and fire the imagination.

 

[Obryn]

The DMG is only a small part of the issue. The issue is the player books and the actual game. Again, the DMGs are two books of the more than twenty books published for 4e (excluding campaign settings). They're a small minority, and the actual non-combat advice (while excellent) is a minority of those books. You can't hand people a stack of pages with arguably 1% relating to role-playing and non-combat but 75% relating to combat and expect PCs not to get into fights.

So... Now we're talking about the entire product line for percentages? I seem to have misplaced the goalposts. Could you tell me where you put them?

And, as mentioned earlier, 5/6ths of the table isn't expected to have glanced at the DMG, let alone read it cover-to-cover so you can't put the full onus of role-playing and improvisation on that 15% of the player base.
The DM cannot tell players how to improvise or do the unexpected. Otherwise it's expected and the DM is telling the player how to run their character. The best the DM can do it set-up the environment for creative thinking (which is a lot of work) and *hope* the players take the bait.

The players need to be told to improvise. There need to be examples of improvisation in combat and out. The focus needs to be on them, especially as they outnumber the DM around 5:1.
And the DM needs to be told how to handle improvisation. Multiple instances and types of improvisation: improvisation that just deals damage, improvisation that takes a monster out of a fight, or improvisation that avoids (or ends) a fight altogether.
And the adventures need to have creative rooms with details and features beyond just those that compliment tactics and provide cover.
The monsters need to have built-in hooks, personality quirks, desires, and motives that encourage creative thought and fire the imagination.

OK, here's the deal. Show me where the 4e books are substantially different from the other ones on the market. I'm not asking chapter-and-verse, just basic examples. I've played probably 20 different RPGs over the years, and I'm familiar with more - but we can stick with D&D if you'd prefer. And 4e has more than most about how to make an interesting character, roleplay them, and just make stuff up as you go along.

Do I think more explicit training of the players would be good? Yes, but this goes for every game; 4e is no different in this regard. But there's also only so much a book can repeat itself before it becomes repetitive.

If you want to argue that the 4e H-P-E series (and others that kept 3.5's delve format) make for crappy examples of adventures, I'm on board. If you want to argue that Encounters is likewise a pretty good counter-example, fine - I've never played a session of it. But the core books? Nope.

-O

 

[Jester David]

OK, here's the deal. Show me where the 4e books are substantially different from the other ones on the market. I'm not asking chapter-and-verse, just basic examples. I've played probably 20 different RPGs over the years, and I'm familiar with more - but we can stick with D&D if you'd prefer. And 4e has more than most about how to make an interesting character, roleplay them, and just make stuff up as you go along.

Done and done.

Blog on why 4e has a combat slant.
Much oder blog on role-playing in 4e compared with another game.

Happy with the first, but long. The second is a few years older and likely angrier in tone.

 

[Dragonhelm]

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.

In many ways, we are similar where 4e and roleplaying are concerned. The few 4e games I've run have been filled with roleplaying, but that's likely because I'm an experienced gamer.

However, I've played Encounters a couple of times, and I've come to hate it. The last time I tried to play, there was a guy who was all about the tactics, and none of the other players roleplayed. It was all about the rules elements for them.

So I'm not doing Encounters again. I would rather play with friends and have fun.

 

[Obryn]

Done and done.

Blog on why 4e has a combat slant.
Much oder blog on role-playing in 4e compared with another game.

Happy with the first, but long. The second is a few years older and likely angrier in tone.

Um, that doesn't really address my questions at all. It's mostly just the same claptrap bandied around both above and in various forums. Just long-form. Honestly, it's very 2008. ENworld is giving me a huge case of deja-vu these days.

And the second one which is comparing two For Dummies books... I'm not really asking about those, so it's not relevant to my question. I'm asking about the core rulebooks - PHB, DMG, whatever - and their advice to players and DM about improvisation, roleplaying, etc.

If you're just worried about comparing 4e to - as mentioned in one of your blags - a FATE-based system like Dresden (or for that matter Burning Wheel) ... well, you needn't bother. No, 4e does not have as robust a system for mechanized social encounters, nor does it tie background as directly to the PC. It comes the closest of all D&Ds to formal social encounters with skill challenges, but D&D has a long tradition of just playing "make stuff up" when it's time to negotiate. But at that point, you're facing the fact that most D&D players (of any edition) don't want those roleplaying mechanics - 4e players included.

-O

 

[Jester David]

Um, that doesn't really address my questions at all. It's mostly just the same claptrap bandied around both above and in various forums. Just long-form. Honestly, it's very 2008. ENworld is giving me a huge case of deja-vu these days.

If the arguments haven't changed in four years maybe, just maybe, they have a point or there's an underlying issue that hasn't been resolved.

And the second one which is comparing two For Dummies books... I'm not really asking about those, so it's not relevant to my question. I'm asking about the core rulebooks - PHB, DMG, whatever - and their advice to players and DM about improvisation, roleplaying, etc.

Which is a trap. It's setting the parameters of the argument to be favourable to you. 4e does have more direct advice on crafting a rounded character. The discussion to the core rules skirts the argument due to artificial constraints.

Comparing earlier editions with 4e is not only comparing apples with apples (albeit red apples with green apples), as I said repeatedly in the second blog, 4e does a better job than earlier editions in explaining some of the basics of role-playing.
But, when you compare 4e (and much of earlier editions of D&D) with almost any other actual role-playing games, it doesn't come out favourably. And I'm not about to drop $40 to pick-up a copy of the Core rules of Vampire: the Requiem to compare.

However, that would be an especially unfair comparison because the core rules for VtR are in the World of Darkness book. And comparing that book with 4e would be unfair as that book was meant to be simple and focused on just the rules before buying one of the species books. Heck, most RPGs are tricky to compare as they only have one core rulebook so gamemaster advice is included and they have to be very selective with text that can be included.

That's a big reason why I went with the Dummies books. Both were trying to do the same thing in the same space for the same audience. It was a clear and concise way of comparing the tone and emphasise of the two games.

Now, as has been stated in the two blogs and above, 4e has more content on roleplaying and creating characters for players than earlier editions (i.e. a couple pages rather than none) the issue then is why 4e can be so combat-focused. As I've said before, this is an awareness issue. If you do not acknowledge the potential problem areas, you'll never fix them and improve the game, you have no way of minimizing or mitigating them in your game.

I do tend to put the lion's share of this on combat-focused attack powers. Every time you level up you get a feat that improves your combat effectiveness. Everyone gets the same awesome new attack power at the same time, so the entire party is itching to try out their shiny new power or option at the same session.
It's just something to be aware of. When the party hits 5th level you put them up against an extra tough solo brute boss monster. You just do. Otherwise they'll pick a fight with a city guard just to Daily action point Daily.

But at that point, you're facing the fact that most D&D players (of any edition) don't want those roleplaying mechanics - 4e players included.

I think the financial failure of 4e (phew, say that five times fast) has shown you cannot say "the fact that most D&D players (of any edition) don't want _____". That making majority statements of D&D games is risky at best. Heck, sometimes I'm not even sure the majority of D&D players want ability scores handled the same.

 

[Obryn]

If the arguments haven't changed in four years maybe, just maybe, they have a point or there's an underlying issue that hasn't been resolved.

And that issue is? I mean, seriously. There's a major echo chamber phenomenon in RPG forums. "People making the same argument for 4 years" means nothing other than "people who are making that argument think they're right, and have not changed their minds in the message board echo chambers." Duration of argument gives zero weight to the actual content of an argument.

People have been arguing for a flat earth for centuries, but their arguments don't magically gain weight because they still believe it.

Which is a trap. It's setting the parameters of the argument to be favourable to you. 4e does have more direct advice on crafting a rounded character. The discussion to the core rules skirts the argument due to artificial constraints.
....
That's a big reason why I went with the Dummies books. Both were trying to do the same thing in the same space for the same audience. It was a clear and concise way of comparing the tone and emphasise of the two games.

If you weren't interested in talking about the core rules, then why did you bring up the core rules? I get that you're trying to shift the goalposts to a more favorable position by bringing in stuff like the entire product line, Dummies books, telepathic messages from the designers, etc., but count me out.

I think the financial failure of 4e (phew, say that five times fast) has shown you cannot say "the fact that most D&D players (of any edition) don't want _____". That making majority statements of D&D games is risky at best. Heck, sometimes I'm not even sure the majority of D&D players want ability scores handled the same.

Yes, clearly you can safely say that D&D players want different things out of their games. Obviously. These differences are vast - and that's okay. But really - social conflict resolution is one of those near-universals. Bring in Burning Wheel style social resolution as a default, and you'll lose more than 4e ever did.

Now - again - the issue comes in when you take the group out of the Game + Group equation.

And really, that about ends my interest in this discussion. Sorry to duck out like this, but I'm 4 years older than I was in 2008 with two more children, and this little walk down memory lane is providing me with zero fresh insights or arguments. I am sure you probably feel similarly. So, quick digital handshake - I'm done.

-O

 

[wrightdjohn]

[MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION], [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]

The only criticism I have for you guys is that you attempt to "argue" that issues people have with 4e are invalid. Keep in mind that we have an issue and that is indisputable. We give reasons for why we have an issue and they may or may not be 100% valid. So even if you are successful at convincing me that my explanation is not completely accurate, I will just seek another explanation. The fact there was an issue can't be disputed.

I found playing 4e to just not be fun. It was boring. In fact I'd prefer working to playing 4e. That's no comment on others enjoyment of the game. I find baseball to be equally boring and there's plenty of baseball fans.

So yes. I try to explain. But I resent being treated like an idiot when I give explanations. The truth is in those explanations even if the explanations are not perfect. The seeds of the answer to my issues with 4e are in there. I'd appreciate some attempt on your part to understand instead of saying what I experience or feel is totally invalid.

 

[Obryn]

If you can find anywhere where I say it's not okay or valid to like other games, or that someone who doesn't like 4e is somehow wrong in their opinions, please show me. Because you're reading an awful lot into what I'm saying here.

The dispute above was in regards to specific claims of facts, not claims of opinions. If you don't care for 4e and have a game you like, go ahead and have fun doing it, and I'm genuinely glad you have a game you like. I'm genuinely puzzled by, and frankly entirely sick of arguments that (1) 4e is some kind of lesser form of roleplaying (or not even an RPG at all; (2) that 4e is not D&D; and (3) That something like "dissociated mechanics" or whatever the new zeitgeist is makes for an objectively lesser RPG. I'll also add, (4) The insistence that when you're in combat or using the mechanics of the game that you're not role-playing.

Those bug me. Someone who just doesn't find 4e their cup of tea and spends productive time talking about games they do love and playing them ... well, I think that's great.

Edited to add: Also remember - this is a discussion forum. And, within limits of politeness, you can expect your posted positions to be challenged - be they opinions or statements of fact. That's part of the reason we're here. Your facts can be questioned, and your opinions can be challenged. (Not in the sense of, "your opinion is wrong" but in the sense of, "what led you to that conclusion?") As for me, I'm a lot less active on these forums these days because I get nothing out of re-hashing these same arguments over and over again. Really, pull up any thread from 2008 or 2009 and you will find basically identical arguments by largely the same people.

-O