In defense of 4E

[Dannyalcatraz]

IME, the amount of errata is pretty consistent across systems and companies, at least with game books. With 4e, a lot of the errata was 'inflated' in size by including an explanation and a completely reformatted block for whatever was changed - which I'd view as a good thing to include.

That's not my impression at all.

I recall some stuff from 1-3.5Eds (and the other 100+ RPGs I've played)- missing weapons, spells without stat blocks, art swaps, "xeroxed" stat blocks, etc.- but I've never seen anything like 4Ed's problems in 34 years of gaming.

Most of them are minor, true, but they are (as I said) hallmarks of amateurish editing practices, like an overreliance on editing software.

(FWIW, I don't even know what WotC's policy is. I'm just comparing 4Ed to other products with which I'm familiar.)

 

[Dannager]

It's not the existence of errata that ticks people off- mistakes will happen, after all- it's the amount and nature of errata in a supposedly professionally done product that is galling.

Why is this galling?

No matter how professionally you craft a product as complex as D&D, you're going to have many facets of it that are deserving of change or adjustment in order to improve the game experience.

Given this, you can go one of two ways:

1. How things were done in the past; that is, infrequent errata released without significant explanation years after the original problems were identified.

2. How WotC handles things now; that is, frequent errata/updates with explanations released in a timely manner.

The first strategy makes things nice and simple, but fixes little. The second fixes everything that needs fixing, but requires that you keep up with the errata (which, honestly, is not difficult and usually goes something like "Hey, this particular rules item seems too powerful/weak, I should check to see if there's an updated version!"). To boot, DDI integrates errata as it's released, so if you're a subscriber you don't really have much to keep up with anyway.

I hate to do this, because I just know that there are one or two people who will read this who actually believe that D&D 4e is like WoW on paper, but you don't need to look any further than WoW for a good example of what I'm talking about. WoW makes changes constantly to ensure balance and fix bugs. It's almost guaranteed that you will see changes occur on a weekly basis, and when things are particularly hectic they will push hotfixes daily.

Does this reflect on Blizzard's professionalism? Absolutely - in their favor. Regular and thoughtful updates make it clear that they care about the quality of their game, pay close attention to how it is played, and dedicate significant resources towards fixing any problems that crop up in a timely manner.

The idea that Blizzard can be lauded for acting as a responsible and dedicated shepherd of its game system, while WotC is derided for doing the same, is a little appalling.

Oh, and if you're coming from the standpoint of "They should have gotten these things right the first time around!", you're speaking from ignorance. It is not possible to develop an intricate, expansive game system (whether a tabletop roleplaying game, video game, or otherwise) without later discovering things that ought to be fixed, especially after release when your effective crew of testers (your entire audience) begins to identify problems.

 

[Dannager]

That's not my impression at all.

I recall some stuff from 1-3.5Eds (and the other 100+ RPGs I've played)- missing weapons, spells without stat blocks, art swaps, "xeroxed" stat blocks, etc.- but I've never seen anything like 4Ed's problems in 34 years of gaming.

Most of them are minor, true, but they are (as I said) hallmarks of amateurish editing practices, like an overreliance on editing software.

(FWIW, I don't even know what WotC's policy is. I'm just comparing 4Ed to other products with which I'm familiar.)

The majority of WotC's errata is actually comprised of updates based on balance tweaks. These were not seen in previous incarnations of the game, save the tail end of 3.5 (polymorph errata, and such). You haven't seen anything like 4e's errata before, because no one cared enough or had the infrastructure in place to release regular balance fixes before.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Don't get me wrong, friend. I have nothing against players that wish potential for storytelling. THAT is wicked, and once I almost wished I had not a scarred mind when a player came with a well built Minotaur to me.
He made fluffy background with race specific interpretation and actually spent his time researching how minotaurs act, reproduce, socialize, interact with others, what they eat, etc. He dictated whys and whens and hows so well I could only hug him while I added the character to the game.
In the same session a player made Half-Dragon Dragon Shaman who used skills from Oriental Adventures (because he liked them), was raised by elves (have no idea why) and lived with dwarfs (just because he wanted to have a mithral breastplate). He wasn't acting like a dragon half-breed at all, just a random guy with scales and it was hard to put him with the group, he felt very left aside. But what kind of plot can I show someone that has no personality, no past (worth mentioning), nothing except his complete lack of hair?

I think you need a copy of either the DMG2 or Robin's Lawes of Good Gamesmastering. Not all plots come from the background - and there are plenty of stories you can put characters with weak backgrounds through. If anything I normally go light on my backgrounds; my characters have a history but only a short one and what they do is what comes out in play rather than the tome that might or might not fit the DM's vision.

Note the same happened in another game of nother friend of ours. His character was a ninja and just... stood there, without a real personality or well built background. The only thing he had was a katana with a demon inside he could summon, much like a Bleach deal.

Sounds like he wasn't roleplaying for stories - butt-kicker I'd suspect. Which is valid - just a bad mix for your game.

Telling tales is a dying practice nowadays, thought. I feel sad that people cares less and less about it and more and more about balance and what is ruled and what is not.

And there, I think you misunderstand balance. Balance is information, pure and simple. It means that people who are supposed to have equal focus will get it. Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit might be entertaining, but it would suck to play BMX Bandit. For that matter, I'd be bored rigid playing Angel Summoner. To take another example, I enjoy playing a Scrappy Kid in a game of Feng Shui. This in no way makes me as powerful as the Old Master. But I signed up for that when I signed up to play a Scrappy Kid. The system isn't balanced - but tells you openly how it isn't, and isn't too badly unbalanced.

That's the feeling 4ed passes down to me. They overlook many a good tale, or even where it did came from (Eladrin, Drow, Half-Dragon, to name a few), only for the mere amusement of a massing group that feels no excitment for the real stories. Contrary to what I feel when I read Lankhmar or Elaine Cunningham's Daughter of The Drow (I'm not even sure if she knows what THACO is), even Order of The Stick has more dept than numbers.

Oh, absolutely. I also feel that The Lord of The Rings is far more entertaining than an instruction manual on how to write well. That's because they are doing completely different things. Daughter of the Drow is written to entertain, 4e is written to give you a good toolbox to write with. In that respect, the rulebooks are more like a computer instruction manual. You aren't comparing like with like here.

To use another analogy, 4e reminds me of a bin of lego bricks. Hardly inspiring unless you start playing with them. But there's a reason lego is trememdously popular despite being mostly very functional, and your objection from this angle appears to be that Lego isn't preformed plastic toys.

PS: A writter takes 5 years to write a good book. WotC took 3 years to make 5 new books and new entire game. Take any conclusions you want.

Some writers take 5 years. Asimov wrote hundreds of books in his lifetime. And WoTC is not one person. Once again, you are comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's not my impression at all.

I recall some stuff from 1-3.5Eds (and the other 100+ RPGs I've played)- missing weapons, spells without stat blocks, art swaps, "xeroxed" stat blocks, etc.- but I've never seen anything like 4Ed's problems in 34 years of gaming.

What problems? Wizards will errata things because one line is wrong or one word doesn't mean what they meant it to say. It is IMO the single most problem free ruleset there has ever been for D&D. The errata is then polishing it until it shines and you can see your face in it. Not something that any other RPG has ever bothered with as far as I know - and something that would be fundamentally pointless in previous editions because the systems were so shaky.

Are you seriously telling me that the Invoker level 7 Rain of Blood spell (errata'd to do 1d6 less damage and dropping the radius by 5ft) is more broken than the various polymorph spells in 3.X? Yet the 4e developers don't leave it as just a slightly overpowered spell (there were loads of those in previous ediitons), they tweak it so it's balanced.

 

[GreyLord]

I saw this thread and groaned thinking, that looks like a war thread if I ever saw one. Surprisingly it's hasn't devolved to that.

Ironically, I prefer to DM 3e at High levels more than I like to DM 4e at High Levels. I like playing 4e however, and at lower levels prefer 4e.

I like the Monster aspect of 4e a LOT. It's easy, quick and simple.

I like the way players can advance in 4e better.

I like the skill system a LOT better.

I like the class dynamic and how each has a role to play.

I like that it's harder to munchkin, but at the same time even someone who has no clue on the system can create a character that is worthwhile.

All of those make my life as a DM a LOT easier than 3.5 was.

What I don't like is remembering the characters.

Perhaps I am too controlling of a DM, but I like to scan each player's character prior to play. It enables me to know what they can or cannot do, what their goals are, and whether they cheated (aka...gave themselves more points in point buy then allowed...rolled 6 18's miraculously in a row...etc) in creation...whether by accident or on purpose, and finally whether or not their character actually makes any sort of sense in the setting (for example...a Dark Elf casually living in the middle of an Elven settlement in some parts of the forgotten Realms is extremely rare...and probably would be killed on site. The Dark elf is more acceptable than a Ogre or Troll as a character...they probably wouldn't survive infancy...hence probably not going to be allowed as being players without an EXCELLENT excuse...which most munchkins can't come up with).

Maybe it's just familiarity...but 3e is actually infinitely easier for me to do this with at high levels. 4e is simple enough at the Heroic tier but once they get to paragon tier...there gets to be too many powers going off at once for me to actually remember if someone's character can actually do that or not. Sure, I double checked them all previously, but there simply is so many powers each has that each can do it becomes more than I can keep track of.

As a Player, I love 4e. It's simple, straightforward, and I know what powers my character has...and most of the big highlight ones the rest of my party has when we want to synchronize abilities.

Some may argue 3e has a lot of spells and feats, but I typically know those rather well. Maybe it is familiarity, whereas I'm not as familiar with everything available in 4e. In addition (in 3.X), I DO limit players to a maximum of 3 classes, and apart from spells, most classes have far fewer "specials" then 4e classes do, especially when you get to the higher levels. Edit: Somemay say this is an artificial limitation which makes 3e easier...BUT...even with 3 or 4 or even 5 classes for 3.X...comparatively With 4e even one class per player character in combat presents so many different abilities and powers that differs so radically, I simply can't keep track of them all.

So overall I probably prefer 4e currently (who knows about the future), but at high levels, especially where combat is concerned, I switch up and definately prefer 3.X edition.

Of course, that said, I think I prefer older editions of D&D (probably BECMI or AD&D 1e) over any of the newer editions.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

What problems? Wizards will errata things because one line is wrong or one word doesn't mean what they meant it to say. It is IMO the single most problem free ruleset there has ever been for D&D. The errata is then polishing it until it shines and you can see your face in it. Not something that any other RPG has ever bothered with as far as I know - and something that would be fundamentally pointless in previous editions because the systems were so shaky.

Are you seriously telling me that the Invoker level 7 Rain of Blood spell (errata'd to do 1d6 less damage and dropping the radius by 5ft) is more broken than the various polymorph spells in 3.X? Yet the 4e developers don't leave it as just a slightly overpowered spell (there were loads of those in previous ediitons), they tweak it so it's balanced.

On the other hand errata that changes the DCs of every skill in the game, most often by ten or more, was a sign of a pretty danged big blunder. And one that their playtesters had tried to call attention to....

Not listening to your playtesters is bad. Even if you later fix it the failure shows a poor choice of focus.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mallus]

LOL
But you have to agree with me that it only works in a select number of cases.

I have a hard time imagining a D&D campaign that wouldn't be enriched by a dragon shooting laser beams out of its eyes, but yes, I admit they exist .

I have a hard time, if not a FFFFun time, picturing Herculoids in a oriental diplomatic campaing. HAHA

Now I'm picturing Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, except with a dragon shooting laser beams out of its eyes -- thanks... I think...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No matter how professionally you craft a product as complex as D&D, you're going to have many facets of it that are deserving of change or adjustment in order to improve the game experience.

I'm a lawyer; I look at intricate & complex documents, codes and so forth all the time.

I'm not talking about the rules revision type errata, I'm talking about the various outright mistakes documented in the errata thread, like directives to "refer to page X" that are simply wrong.

 

[Dannager]

I'm a lawyer; I look at intricate & complex documents, codes and so forth all the time.

I'm not talking about the rules revision type errata, I'm talking about the various outright mistakes documented in the errata thread, like directives to "refer to page X" that are simply wrong.

Right, this sort of stuff I have no way of judging with comparison to other RPGs or editions. The best way to find out if 4e really contains a disproportionate number of errors would be to crack open a first-printing set of 3rd Edition (not 3.5) core books and tally up the mistakes therein.