Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
Toric_Arthendain said:
In a forum that 4e supporters were banned from talking about 4e in for months. In polls that 4e supporters don't give a rats ass about. DUde, whatever just go play a freaking game
I don't get what you'all are saying
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
In a forum that 4e supporters were banned from talking about 4e in for months. In polls that 4e supporters don't give a rats ass about. DUde, whatever just go play a freaking game
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Charwoman Gene said:
Well, again, that is about whether people like or dislike 4E ... or have grievances with WOTC, or have angry feelings, or other things.
I know all that exists, in large amounts, but that isn't what I'm about here, on this thread.
On this thread ...
I'm asking only for opinions on why some people feel 4E 'crimps their style' as it were. See my OP.
Toric_Arthendain
Explorer
Charwoman Gene said:
Not sure the rude reply was called for. I wasn't trying to get anyone up in arms with that statement. I was just pointing out that polls here have been split in response to Najo's blanket statement that those that disliked 4e are a vocal minority which in my opinion is not entirely accurate.
That said, I'm not sure that you can use the argument that 4e supporters on ENWorld don't care about these polls. The 4e supporters here are just as rabid when defending 4e as the 4e haters are when bashing it. To say that the bashers are voting in droves or multiple times and that only a small number of supporters are voting because most of them don't care about the polls is short-sighted.
ENWorld is certainly not the only place to have very mixed reviews on 4e. The first review on rpg.net for the Player's Handbook was not entirely positive and more than half of the reviews on Amazon are 3 stars or less. There would seem to be a very broad and even divide between those that like it and those that don't.
As for going and playing a freaking game, I will be a week from Friday...my 3.5 Forgotten Realms game!
Last edited:
ExploderWizard
Hero
Edena_of_Neith said:I always thought of 3.0 as having the most Open Architecture. The most possible Player Choice. The most nasty and villainously vile min/max combos to give headaches to DMs with.
So, they sorta went back to an OD&D type approach, did they? A simplified system like OD&D, where options are limited?
(considers that)
EDIT: It sounds like a situation where I - if I were DMing - would combine 3E and 4E. Use 4E as the base, and pile 3E on top of it. (Sort of a variant of what we did historically with the restrictive rules of OD&D)
EDIT: Example:
At first, elves had to be fighter/mages.
Then, with 1E, elves could be multi-classed (a lot of things) but had level limits.
Then, with early 2E, elves could be multi-classed, with more classes open to them and higher level limits.
Then, with later 2E, elves could be multi-classed, in most classes with no level limits. And we had the bladesingerAnd High Magic. And lots of elven goodness (and even more good drow goodness.)
Then, with 3E, we had elves who could be anything they wanted to be, plus Prestige Classes and whatnot, and have all the elven goodness you could talk the DM into letting you have (in one variant of the bladesinger, she could cast ANY arcane spells she wanted AND fight simultaneously AND wear armor AND ... lol)
And so on. Dwarves could only be fighters, then they could be really nasty fighters, then eventually they could be anything they wanted to be (eat your hearts out, elves!
Perhaps 4E will evolve like this?
4E is nothing like OD&D and never will be. 4E does not prohibit roleplaying any more than any other edition either. It does put a load more work on a DM that wants a world that makes any kind of sense. If the DM confines the game to the action happening on the combat grid and doesn't think too much about the larger world then 4E runs smooth as butter. Don't ask the questions and you won't have to groan at the stupid answers.
1: The relative balance and usefulness of all characters in D&D is based solely on their combat prowess.
I don't know about you, but for me an RPG is not defined exclusively by combat. Craft skills become relevant in a campaign where you can't just walk into a shop (on a deserted island, trapped in the underdark, stoneage setting). Social skills become relevant in any campaign where the first best option is to start killing everything you meet. Physical skills become important in a campaign where the environment is just as much a challenge as the foes you face.
When I run a game, I include all of these. 3e had mechanical support for all of them. 4e does not.
2: All classes are nearly identical, only the role differentiates (and only ever so slightly) the function of powers.
I don't want homogeny. Magic is magic, it probably should not be mechanically identical to swinging a sword. It removes a lot of flavor and style when everything feels the same.
3: 4e can not ever portray anything less than superheroics. It isn't possible to replicate cinematic heroes, much less ordinary humans. Hell even ability checks scale up with level.
My favorite game is d20 modern. In it the characters are heroes, but they are not perfect. They have limitations. And no matter how many levels of smart hero/field scientist someone may have, his ability to shoulder check a stuck door does not improve (unless he pumps his strength up or multi-classes to strong hero). Likewise the strong hero/martial artist won't automatically gain enough ranks in every skill to earn doctorate degrees in physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, computer science, history, education, theology, philosophy, etc. just because he became awesome enough to disable a tank with his bare hands.
I don't know about you, but for me an RPG is not defined exclusively by combat. Craft skills become relevant in a campaign where you can't just walk into a shop (on a deserted island, trapped in the underdark, stoneage setting). Social skills become relevant in any campaign where the first best option is to start killing everything you meet. Physical skills become important in a campaign where the environment is just as much a challenge as the foes you face.
When I run a game, I include all of these. 3e had mechanical support for all of them. 4e does not.
2: All classes are nearly identical, only the role differentiates (and only ever so slightly) the function of powers.
I don't want homogeny. Magic is magic, it probably should not be mechanically identical to swinging a sword. It removes a lot of flavor and style when everything feels the same.
3: 4e can not ever portray anything less than superheroics. It isn't possible to replicate cinematic heroes, much less ordinary humans. Hell even ability checks scale up with level.
My favorite game is d20 modern. In it the characters are heroes, but they are not perfect. They have limitations. And no matter how many levels of smart hero/field scientist someone may have, his ability to shoulder check a stuck door does not improve (unless he pumps his strength up or multi-classes to strong hero). Likewise the strong hero/martial artist won't automatically gain enough ranks in every skill to earn doctorate degrees in physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, computer science, history, education, theology, philosophy, etc. just because he became awesome enough to disable a tank with his bare hands.
lutecius
Explorer
My problem with 4e is that it looks like it was built on combat movement and everything else was just slapped on (and yes, i know that is how dnd began but I think it's a huge step backwards.)
The result is a lot of nice wargamey rules with vague attempts at in-game explanation and consistency.
Powers are a good example of this. I understand things like "I hit someone so poof! I teleport / heal my allies or do other completely unrelated stuff" from a mechanical pov but they don't make sense in-game to me.
You could find convoluted justifications for most of these powers but they just don't simulate anything in real life or fantasy.
Same thing with per encounter/day actions for every class, or abilities being suddenly forgotten and replaced by new ones.
I think the rules should be inspired by in-game action and fantasy tropes, not the other way around. These considerations should have been worked around, not shoved aside to achieve balance, simplicity or tactical fun.
Sure, every edition had some of that. But until 4e, every new edition seemed to move further away from that approach.
The result is a lot of nice wargamey rules with vague attempts at in-game explanation and consistency.
Powers are a good example of this. I understand things like "I hit someone so poof! I teleport / heal my allies or do other completely unrelated stuff" from a mechanical pov but they don't make sense in-game to me.
You could find convoluted justifications for most of these powers but they just don't simulate anything in real life or fantasy.
Same thing with per encounter/day actions for every class, or abilities being suddenly forgotten and replaced by new ones.
I think the rules should be inspired by in-game action and fantasy tropes, not the other way around. These considerations should have been worked around, not shoved aside to achieve balance, simplicity or tactical fun.
Sure, every edition had some of that. But until 4e, every new edition seemed to move further away from that approach.
Last edited:
TheSleepyKing
First Post
To (kind of) answer the OP's question, I’m actually having a hard time pinning down or articulating what troubles me about 4e (I don’t hate the new system BTW, but I’m not yet sure that I like it either). There’s just a vibe about it that bothers me.
I guess for me D&D was always about overcoming challenges. It isn’t really a roleplaying game to the same degree as, say, the World of Darkness games. I never saw a D&D player invest in their character the way they have in other some other games. Sure, I’ve seen some pretty healthy roleplaying, but mostly the game was about overcoming the difficulties that the character faced, and everybody I’ve played with always had the most fun when they came up with clever solutions to problems. There was nothing quite so satisfying as coming up with an ingenious plan to defeat the dragon without so much as drawing a blade, or using an illusion to lure enemies into a clever trap, or simply solving a complex puzzle thrown at them by the DM.
For me, 4e seems to de-emphasize that kind of play. It seems that most 4e play is about choosing which of the player’s suite of powers or skills to inject into a given situation, which is something I find about as evocative and exciting as choosing which card to throw out when playing a hand of Gin Rummy.
Now many posters on this board have rightly argued that there’s nothing in 4e that specifically forces this kind of play of rejects the creative problem solving element of D&D, and that’s totally true. But it seems to me that the 4e game as written is very much about winning tactical encounters (and even role playing encounters seem to have been boiled down to faux combats using the skill challenge system). Levelling and the existing spell and power system don’t give the players the tools to use cleverness to defeat their enemies or solve problems – it just allows them to hit a little harder and do more damage in combat. And as someone who finds tactical combat gets old very quickly, this worries me, and I’m very much getting the feeling that 4e won’t have the kind of longevity for me that 3e had.
(sorry about the rambling post, BTW)
I guess for me D&D was always about overcoming challenges. It isn’t really a roleplaying game to the same degree as, say, the World of Darkness games. I never saw a D&D player invest in their character the way they have in other some other games. Sure, I’ve seen some pretty healthy roleplaying, but mostly the game was about overcoming the difficulties that the character faced, and everybody I’ve played with always had the most fun when they came up with clever solutions to problems. There was nothing quite so satisfying as coming up with an ingenious plan to defeat the dragon without so much as drawing a blade, or using an illusion to lure enemies into a clever trap, or simply solving a complex puzzle thrown at them by the DM.
For me, 4e seems to de-emphasize that kind of play. It seems that most 4e play is about choosing which of the player’s suite of powers or skills to inject into a given situation, which is something I find about as evocative and exciting as choosing which card to throw out when playing a hand of Gin Rummy.
Now many posters on this board have rightly argued that there’s nothing in 4e that specifically forces this kind of play of rejects the creative problem solving element of D&D, and that’s totally true. But it seems to me that the 4e game as written is very much about winning tactical encounters (and even role playing encounters seem to have been boiled down to faux combats using the skill challenge system). Levelling and the existing spell and power system don’t give the players the tools to use cleverness to defeat their enemies or solve problems – it just allows them to hit a little harder and do more damage in combat. And as someone who finds tactical combat gets old very quickly, this worries me, and I’m very much getting the feeling that 4e won’t have the kind of longevity for me that 3e had.
(sorry about the rambling post, BTW)
wingsandsword
Legend
Why should it be necessary?Edena_of_Neith said:I remember something like that back in OD&D. Elves were always fighter/wizards. Halflings were always thieves. Dwarves were always fighters.
But we were able to work around those restrictions. We had fun in spite of those restrictions (and heh, we overthrew those restrictions, when we got tired of them!
Is this not possible in 4E?
3e was about removing needless restrictions. Rangers didn't all have to be good aligned, druids could be one of 5 alignments instead of true neutral only, any race could be any class, level limits were right out the door.
4e seems about adding restrictions in the name of "fun", and building characters entirely around their combat role (striker, defender, controller, whatever) instead of around a character concept.
SweeneyTodd
First Post
Or, to put it another way:
4e is centered around the assumption that the PCs will form a functional "party". That party is going to need to be able to handle various challenges in and out of combat. They will need to be able to work together, and not have too much duplication of roles, while covering the general bases.
3.x worked exactly the same way, if your game used the CR/EL guidelines for combat encounters. A rogue x2, bard, and wizard party in 3.x was not going to find a CR X encounter the same difficulty as fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. I don't think that's a very controversial statement (again, assuming you used CR/EL as written).
One key difference is that there are fewer roles in 4e, and they have more overlap. The rules as written for combat aren't balanced around having a Cleric, they're balanced around having at least one character who can fulfill the Leader role in combat.
I think people are getting hung up on roles as "This is what my character must be". They're not, they're "This is the thing we need, that my character is good at." They don't overshadow your characterization and fleshing out of your PC any more than they did in 3.x. If your cool character concept doesn't fit a class that can fill the Defender role but your group needs a Defender, then talk to the rest of the group. Figure out how you guys can all play characters you'll enjoy while also covering your tactical bases.
--
Here's another way to look at it: 3.x's flexibility allowed you to have a campaign start off with four players bringing socially-focused PCs to a dungeon crawl. That wasn't going to work without some heavy lifting on the part of the GM, but you could do it. 4e is like, "Hey, you can do that, but you might not want to."
If you want to run games that don't focus on mechanically balanced combat challenges, and you already own and like using 3.x for that, then awesome -- why not use that? There are a lot of RPGs out there, and 4e is not trying to replace them all. It's trying to do one thing, and if that's not what you want to do, it's not wrong or broken because of your preferences.
I kind of enjoy the push-and-pull effect of building interesting, dynamic characters that also can work together tactically to overcome challenges. Our group doesn't have any issues with the roleplaying side of things, and I'm looking at 4e as an opportunity to incorporate some interesting tactical stuff into the roleplaying.
4e is centered around the assumption that the PCs will form a functional "party". That party is going to need to be able to handle various challenges in and out of combat. They will need to be able to work together, and not have too much duplication of roles, while covering the general bases.
3.x worked exactly the same way, if your game used the CR/EL guidelines for combat encounters. A rogue x2, bard, and wizard party in 3.x was not going to find a CR X encounter the same difficulty as fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. I don't think that's a very controversial statement (again, assuming you used CR/EL as written).
One key difference is that there are fewer roles in 4e, and they have more overlap. The rules as written for combat aren't balanced around having a Cleric, they're balanced around having at least one character who can fulfill the Leader role in combat.
I think people are getting hung up on roles as "This is what my character must be". They're not, they're "This is the thing we need, that my character is good at." They don't overshadow your characterization and fleshing out of your PC any more than they did in 3.x. If your cool character concept doesn't fit a class that can fill the Defender role but your group needs a Defender, then talk to the rest of the group. Figure out how you guys can all play characters you'll enjoy while also covering your tactical bases.
--
Here's another way to look at it: 3.x's flexibility allowed you to have a campaign start off with four players bringing socially-focused PCs to a dungeon crawl. That wasn't going to work without some heavy lifting on the part of the GM, but you could do it. 4e is like, "Hey, you can do that, but you might not want to."
If you want to run games that don't focus on mechanically balanced combat challenges, and you already own and like using 3.x for that, then awesome -- why not use that? There are a lot of RPGs out there, and 4e is not trying to replace them all. It's trying to do one thing, and if that's not what you want to do, it's not wrong or broken because of your preferences.
I kind of enjoy the push-and-pull effect of building interesting, dynamic characters that also can work together tactically to overcome challenges. Our group doesn't have any issues with the roleplaying side of things, and I'm looking at 4e as an opportunity to incorporate some interesting tactical stuff into the roleplaying.
Last edited:
Agamon
Adventurer
ExploderWizard said:
Well, that...or it makes it easier on the DM, one of the two. I'm running a homebrew for the first time in years because of the ease of doing so.
And while I don't really think 4e and oD&D are really similar, it is the only other version of D&D I'd want to play, for whaever that's worth..
Similar Threads
