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

[Haffrung Helleyes]

completeness

I still maintain that a fantasy game without rules for necromancy, illusion, enchantment, or summoning is not complete.

I don't care about the classes nearly as much. I doubt that I would miss the bard -- I always thought singing in combat was silly. And I'll be the first to agree that Barbarian can be rolled back into the fighter class without much loss, especially since the fighter class needed broadening.

But 4E doesn't provide the tools to simulate much of the magic that is common in myth and folklore, nor to allow spellcasting characters to do the sort of magical things that they could do in other FRPGs.

And the whole thing with economy of actions -- well, I grant the point, but there are other ways of solving it. For example, one could say that it took all of a spellcaster's concetration to control a summoned monster.

Instead, we got a gutted spellcasting system. Sure, they'll probably put a lot of stuff back in the expansion books that come out in the future. But that in no way makes what is currently out there 'complete'.

Ken

 

[Obryn]

My opinion is simple. If you were running a 3rd edition game with just the core books and then decided to switch to 4th edition, the new game isn't complete if you can't accommodate all of the characters in the campaign. If you happened to be running a half orc barbarian or a gnome bard, I guess you're out of luck.

Wait - so if 5e doesn't include Warlords and Tieflings, it will be incomplete?

-O

 

[Cadfan]

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.

Ergo, Mechwarrior is not a complete role playing game, because I can't use it to play a gnomish bard.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wait - so if 5e doesn't include Warlords and Tieflings, it will be incomplete?

-O

I think that would be true for some people. There seems to be a logical conclusion that new edition means "everything we had before, but better (and then some more)" - it is a new game, it has to be better in every respect! (And more classes are always better then fewer, right?)

Of course, if reduced to this words, it becomes a little too obvious why this can't hold true forever.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

I see three different kinds of "Complete";
1) A complete RPG (ready to play and have fun with):
4e fits here I'm sure.
2) A complete Fantasy RPG (ready to play with the fantasy tropes intact)
Here is where I think 4e fails. Lacking many of the elements that make high fantasy (and with such a plethora of magic, it's high...) what it is, necromancy, summoning, freeform flight, shapechanging...
3) The Complete D&D Experience (everything old is new again!)
Obviously 4e fails here, it lacks half orcs, barbarians, bards, gnomes, et cetera.

So, I'm mostly debating on #2, since I think most of us can agree on #1 and #3.

(I think 3e is probably the one that does the best job of #3 at launch really. It brought all kinds of stuff in.)


A note: With EN crashing so frequently, it's amazing that this thread jumped 2-3 pages since I could last read it

 

[Ander00]

The rules are fairly complete. However, it appears there wasn't time for a close, hard look at them after they were completed. A glaring example of that would be the chapter on skill challenges to be found in the errata document.


cheers

 

[Vocenoctum]

The rules are fairly complete. However, it appears there wasn't time for a close, hard look at them after they were completed. A glaring example of that would be the chapter on skill challenges to be found in the errata document.

For me, a lot of 4e feels like they didn't start serious design until they'd announced it, or somesuch. Lots of early sneakpeeks were invalidated, and a lot of systems didn't get done. While I'm sure some stuff was held back so they could make money on followup books, I think some stuff (like grapple) was just not ready in time or backburnered due to time constraints.

Or, as it were, they set the deadline and had to get the most complete D&D out they could within that deadline, rather than a more organic design.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I see three different kinds of "Complete";
1) A complete RPG (ready to play and have fun with):
4e fits here I'm sure.
2) A complete Fantasy RPG (ready to play with the fantasy tropes intact)
Here is where I think 4e fails. Lacking many of the elements that make high fantasy (and with such a plethora of magic, it's high...) what it is, necromancy, summoning, freeform flight, shapechanging...

So, is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay a complete game?
Or Shadowrun (which doesn't have necromancy, and greatly limits shapechaning)
(Mind you, Shadowrun is not a "pure" fantasy game, so I am fine with it not getting counted here. )

 

[Vocenoctum]

So, is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay a complete game?
Or Shadowrun (which doesn't have necromancy, and greatly limits shapechaning)
(Mind you, Shadowrun is not a "pure" fantasy game, so I am fine with it not getting counted here. )

Never played Warhammer, Shadowrun had plenty of shapechanging. I've avoided FanPro stuff since they drove me away at the end of SR3, so can't judge current stuff.

Shadowrun was a good example for the debate though, since 2 & 3 lacked options in the core that had upgraded the previous editions (like magic initiation) and added them later. Core to core they were the same, but... different.


Also, that was sort of my point, that #1 and #3 we should all mostly agree on, and #2 is where the debate lies.

 

[billd91]

So, is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay a complete game?
Or Shadowrun (which doesn't have necromancy, and greatly limits shapechaning)
(Mind you, Shadowrun is not a "pure" fantasy game, so I am fine with it not getting counted here. )

Does the current edition of Warhmmer Fantasy Roleplay cut out traditional elements of earlier editions?
Does the current edition of Shadowrun cut down on the scope of what Shadowrun's previous editions used to deliver?

Would a version of Call of Cthulhu be a complete version of Call of Cthulhu without some variety of insanity? Would Traveller be a complete version of Traveller without spaceship combat? Would Mechwarrior be a complete version of Mechwarrior without either scout or heavy mechs or house factions?

Probably not.

Games carve out their niches and get a chance to define what that niche is over time. How would you feel if that niche changed or, in this case, narrowed in focus or breadth? Would it feel as comprehensive as previous editions? Would it feel lacking, even if it were eminently playable?