Is this what you went through with 3rd Edition?

[I'm A Banana]

The same old video game crap that's been around for almost a decade? The same old "It's not D&D" diatribe we've been hearing for years? Gimme a break.

It's hard to argue something so vague and subjective, usually, so those complaints rarely stick.

But take a look at the "like a card game" observations this time around, and I think you can see something that is drawing a truth, here. The nature of powers is that your character will build a "deck" of powers, play some every turn, play some once per battle, and play others once per day. The request for "power cards" is already out there, and I bet that it's going to be one of the first non-rulebook supplements that we see for 4e.

In 3e, there was little to pin this on, no more than there really was in earlier editions. In 4e, this appears to be a little more accurate.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm kind of for it, really. But that's one specific observation that sticks better this time around than it did 8 years ago.

You state Right solution and wrong solution based SOLELY on your personal preference, which you flat out state above, and then try to claim that the complaints are "more founded" this time around?

Well, I did say that, for me, the 4e is different from 3e, and part of the reason is because of what is right and wrong from me from a gameplay standpoint. That has changed between the new edition and the last edition, and it's not a change that is right for me.

The "more founded" was more for examples like "like a card game." Even, to an extent, "like a video game" is more founded this time around. Again, not necessarily a negative thing, but more true now than it was 8 years ago.

It's two separate points. One of which is that 4e makes some descisions that are wrong for me. The other is that certain arguments against 3e make a bit more sense when levied against 4e.

No, it's the complaints happen to fit more with your personal tastes is more like it. It's it a Robin Laws quote that conflating personal taste with objective quality is a constant failing? Something like that.

Actually, that would be true if I was saying 4e is somehow an objectively bad edition.

I'm not.

I'm just saying some of the criticisms from 8 years ago have a bit more truth to them this time around, because the game is moving (and choosing to move) in a direction that is similar to the philosophies behind these other games.

In my mind, this is some of the good stuff.

And that's really separate from my position that some of the moves 4e is making are wrong for me.

 

[Umbran]

Well much of this sort of psychology is just showing us that the person generally fears change.

No, it isn't. This is an internet discussion forum, not a psychologists office, and we are not licensed mental health professionals. You generally do not have enough information to make generalized judgments like that about people around here - and the tendency to do so is one of our major sources of arguments, as one person assumes they know what's really going on in another person's head.

This is showing that the person has an opinion right now. Either you are told explicitly what that opinion is based on, or you don't know the basis. That's all you know.

And, that opinion is subject to change. Whether it is because a person gets comfortable with change, learns more and changes their mind, has their overall outlook on gaming change - it doesn't matter. The change is still legitimate.

 

[Andor]

Psion- the reason you are having trouble explaining this to people is:

Many of us do not and have not ever played in the D&D default setting. Because the D&D default setting did not appeal to us, we played in homebrews that contained significant changes to the baseline assumptions about, amongst other things, D&D monsters and classes. Apparently the default D&D setting did appeal to you, but now it does not. I can see how that might feel like a loss. However, from our perspective it just puts you in the same position we've been in for years.

Okay.... But.... Does it seem reasonable to you to expect Psion to spend time and money in order to move from the comfortable position he is in, to the uncomfortable position you are in?

 

[Steely Dan]

all of the people gushing about 4th edition like a middle school girl about her first boyfriend are going to be disillusioned and looking for other options.

…Subtle.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

For instance, IMO:

PROBLEM: It's annoying if someone uses a human shield every round.
RIGHT SOLUTION: Make it difficult or un-ideal to use a human shield except in very specific circumstances, and even focused characters can't do it all the time. This will mean that people won't use it that often.
WRONG SOLUTION: Say only Bugbear Stranglers can use a human shield.

To me, this is another example of The Big 4E Myth: Exceptionalism means that PCs cannot do certain things. Given all the examples of the core mechanic of 4E out there, it is obvious that everything a PC wants to do can be done through the "RIGHT SOLUTION". The exceptionalism of 4E is that certain encounters are going to be ones where certain events happen. Certain PCs will be able to pull of amazing feats every so often and certain monsters are going to have a certain narrative flavour. (NOT "NARRATIVIST" FLAVOUR.)

 

[Fobok]

Okay.... But.... Does it seem reasonable to you to expect Psion to spend time and money in order to move from the comfortable position he is in, to the uncomfortable position you are in?

See, I don't see it as an uncomfortable position. To me, making the game world is part of the fun.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nah, this isn't what I went through with 3e.

With 3e, I was gung ho. I liked everything they were changing. I thought they kept a bit too much, but everything they changed, I liked. It seemed like they were making the game that was 1e and 2e the way that 1e and 2e were supposed to work, but never really did. Everything they were doing was fixing what was broken, and leaving the rest untouched. They re-built the skeleton, draped the skin over it again, stitched it up, and said "There! Good as new!"

4e seems to be building an entirely new creature. I'm not a fan of purely results-oriented design like they have going on. I'd like for the results to flow naturally from the mechanics and the assumptions of the game, not be forced on it from outside.

For instance, IMO:

PROBLEM: It's annoying if someone uses a human shield every round.
RIGHT SOLUTION: Make it difficult or un-ideal to use a human shield except in very specific circumstances, and even focused characters can't do it all the time. This will mean that people won't use it that often.
WRONG SOLUTION: Say only Bugbear Stranglers can use a human shield.

So, in a word, no, this seems at least slightly different from the complaints we heard with 3e, or, if they are the same complaints, that they are more founded this time around than they were 8 years ago.

This instance you describe probably shouldn't be discussed in this thread, in danger of leading this off-topic, but I think you're wrong here.
making things difficult mechanically means that the options is always suboptimal since your chances of success are too low, until you specialise, so that it's always a good option for you. But that's not what the goal is - the goal is that you use the option, but don't overdo it. Because it's boring if you trip/grapple/human shield every round, every combat, every day.

 

[Psion]

Okay.... But.... Does it seem reasonable to you to expect Psion to spend time and money in order to move from the comfortable position he is in, to the uncomfortable position you are in?

To be fair, I wasn't getting that vibe, not from Cadfan at least.

Unless you were trying to say something about the other posters.

 

[Psion]

See, I don't see it as an uncomfortable position. To me, making the game world is part of the fun.

And I'm not questioning your decision. I was stating the basis for mine.

 

[MichaelK]

it is obvious that everything a PC wants to do can be done through the "RIGHT SOLUTION".[/b])

To be honest I don't know what you mean here.