D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Obryn]

But, of course, it would be disingenious (at best) for you to claim that there is an obvious objective difference between some kinds of role-playing, but not between others when it doesn't suit your position.

Either the "rules of the game" create an objective difference in the role-playing experience or they do not. If they do, then it is fair to say that the rules of one edition create an objective difference in role-playing experience. If they do not, then Monopoly is as much of an rpg as D&D.

That's not what I'm arguing. Here; I'll quote myself.

As I read it - like I read it before - he's saying that there's some objective measure by which one way of playing an elf is better than another way of playing an elf, and that you are blind to these obvious, objective differences.

Wouldn't you agree there's a substantive difference between an "objective difference" (which is inarguably the case) and "objective superiority" (which is arguable at best)?

I'm not arguing against the former. I'm arguing against his implication of the latter. Differences are great - it's how you decide on your preferences. Not everybody likes the same thing, and that's wonderful. RPGs are (or should be) a big tent where lots of different people play lots of different games.

When someone expands their preferences to be objective, that's where I take issue.

Of course, ByronD didn't say that "kids with towels on their shoulders" were oobjectively worse, he said they were objectively different and didn't have "a similar view" of roleplaying compared to him.

When you take it completely out of context of the rest of his posts, maybe.

Maybe.

But given the aforementioned tee-ball analogy in a separate thread, and his recent posting history (general theme: "4e is for those who can't handle the pressure of 3e"), this is my take on what he was saying.

-O

 

[Irda Ranger]

For my groups in 1E and 2E, all the combats took place without a battlemat and it was simple and *fast*. When 3E came out, I used a battlemat & counters for the first time. It took some getting used to, but I have grown to really like the visual part of it (especially with the release of the prepainted minis). However, with 3.x, 4-5 combats a session is about the max whereas in 1E/2E, we could get through twice that (or more) with ease.

3E, in essence, added an enhanced combat simulation framework ruleset into its core, which has been revved up even more in 4E. Perhaps it has simply gone too far for some of us that have played since the early editions. It's not that you can't roleplay or use your imagination in 4E--of course you can--, but with the focus of the game so much on the combat mechanics, maneuvers, and powers, it may simply be that it has taken over as the focus of the game rather than enhanced the RPG aspect. I think 3.x was on the verge of crossing that line (and it certainly did for some), so maybe it's a natural progression, but this is probably why so many are considering and/or going back to OD&D, BEMCI, 1E and/or 2E.

Yes.

Re: I think 3.x was on the verge of crossing that line ...

The nice thing about 3E combat was you could remove AOOs and go back to the 1E/2E "no battlemat" method for the most part. That didn't solve the other problems I had with the system, but it sure helped. 4E makes it straight-up impossible though. Too many classes and powers depend on knowing exactly where everyone is standing.

Also, agreed on the "terminology" issue. The differences add up. Having recently looked at my Rules Cyclopedia I see that PCs can use a "Fighting Retreat" or "Run Away!" to escape from a field of battle, the latter of which triggers a free attack from enemies. Not that different from 4E, really. But it is a little different. The terms are more concrete and descriptive ("Fighting Retreat" is much more descriptive than "Shift" or even "Withdraw").

Also the lack of systemization reinforces the feel that "this is not like other things; it is its own thing." Although many people hate the 101 little rules, each different, there is a reason for them (they are modeling different things) and each of us has to find their own balance of "This is easier and good enough" vs. "I grok this concept at a deep level." Universal terms (like Universal mechanics) replace affinity with easiness and convenience. I like easy and convenient, but 4E's balance is just a bit off for me.

 

[LostSoul]

Of course, ByronD didn't say that "kids with towels on their shoulders" were oobjectively worse, he said they were objectively different and didn't have "a similar view" of roleplaying compared to him.

He also said:

But if you want to roleplay, there are a range of better options available.​

I can accept that he meant to say "But if we want to roleplay..." or "if you want to roleplay like I do...". But then he brought up kids and towels and six of one, half a dozen of another, and I have no idea what that means.

 

[Markustay]

Freshblood > Old Asshats, Tradition, the DnD Feel , and all that jazz

Normally, I have a "Live and let live" attitude about editions, but its statements like this that make me despise these 'freshblood' types.

I have been teaching D&D to younger people for 30+ years, and this is the first edition that I haven't felt the urge to.

le sigh

I guess its time to move aside and let the video-game generation decide what is roleplay and what isn't.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes.

Re: I think 3.x was on the verge of crossing that line ...

The nice thing about 3E combat was you could remove AOOs and go back to the 1E/2E "no battlemat" method for the most part. That didn't solve the other problems I had with the system, but it sure helped. 4E makes it straight-up impossible though. Too many classes and powers depend on knowing exactly where everyone is standing.

3.X crossed that line by quite a bit.

I remember using battle maps and minis for AD&D combats 20 or more years ago and they were fun to use and helped see at a glance who was in melee, if you could see around a corner, who got caught in the fireball, ect. The focus of the play at the table stayed on describing the action and roleplaying during combat.

We were not so impressed with 2nd ED and played a lot of GURPS during that era. GURPS advanced combat is very detailed and involved. During fight scenes we were very focused on the tactical map and combat maneuvers. It became all about the board, and positioning. The GURPS system is a great gritty machine but a little too detailed for casual D&D style action.

When 3rd Ed was released we decided to give D&D another go. At first we were very mini/map focused because of learning the rules. As time went on the map focus stayed with us. The rules for flanking, AOO's and other fidgety rules kept us and our attention firmly on the map. Having just finished a decade of GURPS made the map focus seem a bit less intrusive but it was there.

4E has taken the map focus from 3.X and cranked it up several notches with the addition of push, pull, slide, teleport,..................

I have come to the conclusion that among other things that bug me about the 4E system, the detailed combat action is not what I want. For me, a fight with a half dozen normal kobolds should not take the better part of an hour or more. If a game session is going to be combat focused I prefer being able to run 6-8 moderate combat encounters in a session. The only way that happens is fast and loose action and simple combat resolution mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

Freshblood > Old Asshats, Tradition, the DnD Feel , and all that jazz

Polite and respectful posters > people who cannot remember that we have rules about insulting others, and all that jazz. You won't be posing in this thread again.

Anyone else really want to consider crossing lines, don't cross that one.

 

[IanArgent]

Ok, there is the night and day between you and me.
Is there any point of further discussion?

I guess there isn't a point to continuing our side discussion, no. I thought I was going into depth on why 4E was doing it for me (but not in the Book of Erotic Fantasy sense, thanks - my keyboard is a little flaky apparently). I was playing off your comments.

Game mechanics are a necessary evil, and I prefer my mechanics simple, easy, and straightforward. I don't mind source bloat, or even a bit of power creep, in sourcebooks. I can tell players not to use those bits if I don't like them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wouldn't you agree there's a substantive difference between an "objective difference" (which is inarguably the case) and "objective superiority" (which is arguable at best)?

Indeed I would.

But I fail to see where he is saying his preferences are objectively superior. He says 3e is objectively more complex than 4e in the T-ball analogy, but not objectively superior.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

He also said:

But if you want to roleplay, there are a range of better options available.​

I can accept that he meant to say "But if we want to roleplay..." or "if you want to roleplay like I do...". But then he brought up kids and towels and six of one, half a dozen of another, and I have no idea what that means.

Sure he did.

You can roleplay in Monopoly, but that doesn't make Monopoly the best role-playing vehicle available. He is making a statement that 4e is objectively not the best role-playing vehicle available. While you may disagree with that statement, it isn't a claim that 4e is objectively worse to play than any other game.

If you believe that the more chess-like a game becomes, the less adequate it is as a vehicle for role-playing, then it is reasonable to follow through that 4e is less adequate as a vehicle for role-playing than the editions that came before it. I happen to feel this way myself.

Either the rules do not affect how you can role-play, in which case Monopoly or Chess is as adequate an rpg as 4e, or the rules do affect how you can role-play, in which case it is reasonable to put forward a case that 4e is a better role-playing vehicle than Monopoly....or that 3e is better than 4e in this regard....or that 4e is better than 3e.

Whether or not there actually is an objective difference is, of course, open to debate. Suggesting (or stating your belief) that there is an objective difference shouldn't be taken as insulting. It isn't the same as saying one is objectively better than the other. IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[joethelawyer]

my answer is here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...players-not-characters-stats.html#post4498843