Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Matt James]

Rules shouldn't define balance. It is the responsibility of the storyteller to ensure all participants are obtaining enjoyment out of the given landscape. Analytical people will break every system.

This thread was doomed from the start with the title. I don't consider myself on a bandwagon and think it is insulting to label an entire group for their play choice.

 

[tyrlaan]

This thread was doomed from the start with the title. I don't consider myself on a bandwagon and think it is insulting to label an entire group for their play choice.

Doomed? It's gone 20 pages on civil debate.

 

[Fifth Element]

Doomed? It's gone 20 pages on civil debate.

Fairly civil, yes. Though I don't think anyone has really pointed out the negative connotation carried by the term "bandwagon."

 

[ExploderWizard]

That opens a line of enquiry that goes all the way back to the merits of random character generation.

Is roleplaying about generating the character you imagine, or imagining the character you generate?

Thats a good point and one that the group should be on the same page about before play.

To build or generate? That is the question.

 

[Guest 85555]

I am more of a 3E guy, but I do think (and I don't actively play in a 4E game at this time, but have in the past) that 4E did address some of the balance issues people once complained about in 3E. But it is always important to remember, mechanics do impact how the game is played. And it is a little like whack a mole. You fix one problem, but another might crop up.

No edition is perfect. Each edition of the game tries to handle the game in its own way (often by correcting flaws in the previous edition). Naturally, each edition, because it uses different mechanics, will have a different feel, and people will fall into different camps over which edition they prefer.

I do have to say, I am impressed with the revamping from a design perspective. They created a lot of interesting innovations. The biggest problem they faced was, they were not creating a new game, but establishing the next edition of D&D, and people are pretty attached to the brand.

To address the OPs question, I think a more sensible approach is to keep 4E on the shelf, but just take a break from it. Often we tell ourselves that D&D is the only game we can play. Or that we can only play a single edition of the game. But in my group, we switch from game to game every few months (sometimes every 6). Sometimes we play 3E. Other times we play pathfinder, or maybe 4E. And sometimes we try other systems like GURPS, TRI Stat, Unisystem, Savage Worlds, etc. Playing different games, what we've learned to do, is pick the system that achieves the feel we want most for the campaign.

 

[Dausuul]

Fairly civil, yes. Though I don't think anyone has really pointed out the negative connotation carried by the term "bandwagon."

Well, now you have. It's not much of a negative connotation, frankly. I'd be more inclined to call it an "unfortunate choice of words," and even that's giving it more weight than it really deserves IMO.

The fact that the thread went on for 20 pages before anyone expressed a problem with the title - despite plenty of 4E enthusiasts posting - suggests that most folks either didn't have a problem with it, or didn't have enough of a problem to bring it up. For those who do, I suggest pretending the thread title was "Having problems with 4E" and letting it go at that. The OP was clearly not intending to denigrate the 4E community, rather expressing his own growing disillusionment with certain aspects of the system.

The analogies, Captain... they canno' take much more o' this!

Nice. You'd get XP if I didn't have to spread it around.

As regards the balance/creativity trade-off, I've been pondering this lately. I do agree that 4E has limited the scope of creativity in combat, largely by trying to eliminate any possibility of taking out an enemy without slogging through that enemy's hit points. And in that sense, "balance" is indeed the enemy of creativity, since hit point and damage ratios are a core element of 4E's brand of balance.

But there are other possibilities for balance. Instead of trying to force everything into a mathematical model of hit points to damage, the goal could be to provide PCs with an array of flexible, general-purpose tools both in and out of combat, and balance them (in a much more intuitive and less mathematical sense) by distributing them as evenly as possible, so that each class has a toolbox of roughly comparable size.

This does run into the problem that magic is expected to do extraordinary things. Casters legitimately expect to have tools to which non-casters do not have access. There are ways to deal with that issue, though; by giving magic costs that non-casters don't have to pay (e.g., ritual components), or by arguing that casters must specialize in magic to an extent that precludes learning advanced non-combat tricks and skills, so non-casters get tools to which casters do not have access as well as vice versa.

 

[fuzzlewump]

As regards the balance/creativity trade-off, I've been pondering this lately. I do agree that 4E has limited the scope of creativity in combat, largely by trying to eliminate any possibility of taking out an enemy without slogging through that enemy's hit points. And in that sense, "balance" is indeed the enemy of creativity, since hit point and damage ratios are a core element of 4E's brand of balance.

And not 3E? Doesn't this apply to D&D in general? Bring the monsters to 0 HP to kill them? Do you mean that there are no longer any save or die spells (which would still bring them to 0 HP...) Or are you talking about the lack of Diplomacy cheese? At least intimidate is still nice and cheesy (and ignored in my games, most of the time. Intelligent enemies usually give up when half of them are dead and the players are still up, but not before that.)

 

[Obryn]

Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies. Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies. Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.

You cannot have it both ways.

I don't think this axiom works. It sounds pretty, but it's IMO flawed.

If a designer forsees synergies, but does not spell them out, does that really mean a player isn't being creative by finding them?

Do creative and unforseen synergies necessarily unbalance a game?

-O

 

[pawsplay]

This thread was doomed from the start with the title. I don't consider myself on a bandwagon and think it is insulting to label an entire group for their play choice.

In what way? A bandwagon is a group of enthusiastic supporters and promoters of an idea. I think that is an apt description of adopters of a new gaming system. I would happily agree that I am on the Pathfinder bandwagon. Bandwagons make me think of parades and popcorn. It's really a compliment.

 

[Garthanos]

. It's really a compliment.

No somebody else is always driving the wagon... you are just along for the ride you quit making your choices (hah) at least that is the negative connotation of "band wagon". Its kind of the lemming heard insult in a different form.

Edit - maybe thats wrong and its just the All or Nothing fallacy.

In any event I think people just decided it wasnt meant insultingly... whatever term was used.