Forked Thread: Rate WotC as a company: 4e Complete?

[Fenes]

IMO if the player throws a hissy fit over not being able to play something, then either they're narrow minded and only play one thing, or they're just being a jerk and trying to come up with any and all excuses to show how 4E is badwrongfun.

If the DM wants to force a game that doesn't cater to the player's preference down their throats, then he's the one being a jerk. If a player has the most fun playing a gnome bard, why try to force him to change?

Is this somehow badwrongfun, to prefer some character concpets to others? Is it badwrongfun to play something one likes, instead of something one likes less?

 

[wayne62682]

I didn't think we were arguing switching to 4E, but rather the idea that 4E isn't complete because some options that were available in 3.5 but almost never used aren't available anymore without some tweaking.

Personally, I think if the group is unwilling to compromise then there's a bigger issue at hand, and BOTH DM and players are being jerks.

Is this somehow badwrongfun, to prefer some character concpets to others? Is it badwrongfun to play something one likes, instead of something one likes less?

No, but IMO it's not a good thing to only play one concept. It's not "badwrongfun" (I've been guilty of it myself), but it certainly limits your perspective on things.

 

[Fenes]

I didn't think we were arguing switching to 4E, but rather the idea that 4E isn't complete because some options that were available in 3.5 but almost never used aren't available anymore without some tweaking.

If I cannot switch my campaign, then it means the game doesn't offer me what I am looking for, and is therefore, for my game, not complete. If 3E offers me the options I want, and 4E doesn't, then 4E offers less to me.

No, but IMO it's not a good thing to only play one concept. It's not "badwrongfun" (I've been guilty of it myself), but it certainly limits your perspective on things.

So? Better to limit your perspective in a game than your fun.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't think we were arguing switching to 4E, but rather the idea that 4E isn't complete because some options that were available in 3.5 but almost never used aren't available anymore without some tweaking.

Personally, I think if the group is unwilling to compromise then there's a bigger issue at hand, and BOTH DM and players are being jerks.

Yeah, this is a bit of a tangent... however I wanted to comment on this statement. I don't think the group or the DM not wanting to compromise is a sign of "bigger issues" or "being jerks". I believe there are just too many factors involved in this, for it to be a blanket statement.

First regardless of what people argue as far as math, balance, etc. The point of a game is to have fun. If the DM or majority of the players are having fun playing 3.5, why are they "jerks" or have "issues" for not wanting to switch to 4e?

Second is investment. If the majority of the group is happy playing in a 3.5 game and have made a significant investment (both in time learning rules and money) in it, why are they wrong for not wanting to invest in another edition? I mean contrary to what most people claim here, RPG's are a good investment in fun vs. cost... if you actually enjoy and play the game. Otherwise you just spent $100+ to have books take up space on a bookshelf.

Last I'd like to comment further on the whole, try it then judge it sentiment. It's cool in theory, but how many posters here have tried every rpg game...I mean I'm willing to bet there are a significant number of posters here who only play D&D and have no interest in anything outside of it. Personally I think they're missing out on some great games... but ultimately I respect their decision whether they've tried every game out there or not. I don't consider them "jerks" for not wanting to try something before deciding it's not for them. Personally I'm not a fan of hard sci-fi games and as such I don't buy them, my only sci-fi (more like sci-fantasy) games are Star Wars and Fading Suns. I don't need to compromise and try a hard sci-fi game to know it's not my cup of tea.

 

[wayne62682]

I think the point is this: Play what's good for you. If you like 3.5 and don't care to switch to 4E, then play 3.5. What 4E does isn't anymore concern to you because you're not going to switch (at least not any time soon).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wouldn't anyone with some sense not change the system when the game is working for them?

Even if I had a campaign ending right now, I'd not be starting a 4E campaign because it simply doesn't offer me what I am looking for in a D&D game. That may change, but so far, it's lacking a lot of options.

I would say it is a complete game. You can play a campaign covering 30 levels with it and would not miss any rules to play the game successful.

Your point is that that's not enough - you want more options (and probably a few specific ones).
But then, a lot of games suddenly become incomplete - even original 3E D&D (or OD&D), and that's why I 'disagree' with this definition. I could always use more stuff, and going back from 30 core classes and hundreds of PRCs and feats might be hard for some, but that doesn't make the game "incomplete". The game can be played without additional material.

And why should I spend time and energy on recreating those options when I could spend that time on working on a campaign instead?

Snarky answer is because 4E is just the better system. But obviously, that's not universally true for everyone.

 

[Jack99]

It's that you're treating that as an absolute. Like there's some kind of completely objective scale. There's none such. There are different tastes and different needs so different tools will achieve better results in different circumstances.

For the kind of D&D I currently enjoy, C&C is superior to 4e in almost every way. If I were to claim that C&C was absolutely a superior version of D&D it would raise a few eyebrows, and be almost the same as what I see you do around here.

Is 4e better for what you want out of the game? Well, you'd know. Is 4e better for everybody? It looks like that's what you're claiming and the only way that could possibly be true is if all the people who don't like 4e are playing D&D wrong.

I think you are reading way too much into my posts. My opinion of 4e's superiority in all aspects, is just that. My personal opinion. I am not trying to claim that it is better for everyone.

Cheers,

 

[vazanar]

While I do not miss any of the features mentioned above, I fully understand why some people feel that it is something that should be included in the first core books.

But, as Rechan explained quite well, there is a reason. And I prefer them to add these features as they figure out how to make them balanced, instead of breaking the game from the get-go, which they did in 3.x (IMO, ofc).

Cheers

I did mention plenty of groups saw it broken. I agree with the reasoning even if it wasn't a huge problem for my group. As I said in the following paragraph it should be left to the dm. If a group can't handle it don't use it. 4e is a very balanced system. However, a lot of things in fantasy are not balanced which will always lead to problems. I wonder if a wand of wonder will ever appear?

To my oringial point, my group is currently converting a campaign over (we wanted to test high level 4e). Overall people are happy (even our Wizard and Cleric) and I let people keep familiars etc as npc's. However, the magic items, seem less magical. The main complaint is the lack of neat items (I don't so much mean weapons which were only truly special if they were unique or artifacts). I would have liked to see more in the dm about adding those type items in (pipes of sewers etc). Ones that dont have as straight forward a bonus to combat. Then again putting them in the players handbook could bring wierd rules and debalance the system, so maybe its better as a dm special design.

 

[Desdichado]

I think the idea that the game is incomplete is absolute nonsense and the claim doesn't even make any sense to me. In terms of raw numbers of what's available to play, it compares very favorably to 3e when it first launched.

Granted, some of the options are different, so if you think playing a gnome bard is integral to the D&D experience, then chances are you're less than thrilled about the prospect of a dragonborn warlord or tiefling warlock.

Also, "complete" and "robust" are two different things. 3.5 was a very robust game, but it was largely robust because of the vast variety of splatbooks that were released over the course of its run. 4e will, naturally, eventually get to that point, but comparing late era 3.5 to early 4e is a nonsensical comparison. Comparing 4e to 3e when it first launched is a sensical comparison, and I think they compare very well to each other in terms of "completeness."

 

[Jack99]

To my oringial point, my group is currently converting a campaign over (we wanted to test high level 4e). Overall people are happy (even our Wizard and Cleric) and I let people keep familiars etc as npc's. However, the magic items, seem less magical. The main complaint is the lack of neat items (I don't so much mean weapons which were only truly special if they were unique or artifacts). I would have liked to see more in the dm about adding those type items in (pipes of sewers etc). Ones that dont have as straight forward a bonus to combat. Then again putting them in the players handbook could bring wierd rules and debalance the system, so maybe its better as a dm special design.

Mearls mentioned that many of the items who were left out, were so on purpose, due to needing more time in order to make them right. They will be in the Tome of Treasures, or whatever the name is. I agree though, Magic items are probably the weakest link in 4e (in my opinion).