Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6602995" data-attributes="member: 22779">Honestly, I think you hit on what, for me, is the big issue with 4e and why it was so strongly rejected by critics.&nbsp; People talk about how 4e was the &quot;MMO&quot; edition.&nbsp; I can see where they're coming from, but, I think they didn't quite think things all the way through.&nbsp; 4e isn't the MMO edition, it's the Organized Play (OP) edition.&nbsp; And that's really, really key to understanding 4e and all it's design goals.Think about it for a second.&nbsp; The push for 4e was for there to be a very large growth in the number of gamers.&nbsp; There was supposed to be a virtual tabletop over the Xbox right out of the gate.&nbsp; The idea was that you would be able to play D&amp;D at any time you wanted to play.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, you'd be playing with strangers.&nbsp; It's no different than playing in a convention game or OP game at an FLGS.&nbsp; Thing is, in order to do that, you really have to nail down the mechanics.&nbsp; Which brings me around to your point.Imagine for a second that you want to run a game for 4 or 5 strangers.&nbsp; You say, &quot;Hey, I have a 12th level adventure, so bring 12th level characters&quot;.&nbsp; In 3e that would be an absolute nightmare.&nbsp; Of the 5 characters at the table, two would almost certainly be mathematically wrong, 1 would be built using the Charops board and fifteen different splat books and 2 would be mostly ok.&nbsp; The game would be extremely difficult to run.&nbsp; Never minding that during play you run into all the high level 3e goodies like Polymorph and various other issues.&nbsp; I wouldn't dream of doing that in 3e.&nbsp; I'd have to nail down a very large list of restrictions and then audit the player's character sheets before I'd even consider starting to play.But in 4e?&nbsp; With 5 characters built using the DDi?&nbsp; Wouldn't bother me in the least.&nbsp; I would know that 4 out of those 5 characters would be perfectly fine.&nbsp; That one guy who likes to exploit stuff might be a problem, but, odds are, not so much.&nbsp; There just weren't that many mechanical loopholes to exploit.And there's the rub.&nbsp; The game was extremely tight.&nbsp; Everyone was built using the same (more or less) mechanics.&nbsp; The powers are discrete and largely self-explanatory with very little room for creativity, at least to the degree we saw in earlier editions.&nbsp; On one hand, it makes playing with strangers extremely easy.&nbsp; But, for established groups who've already sorted all the quirks and kinks of 3e, it wasn't going to be very welcome.&nbsp; And IMNSHO, virtually all the criticisms of 4e have their roots in this idea that 4e was the RPGA edition.&nbsp; It was built so that Calvinball (for good or for bad) just wasn't a thing at the table.&nbsp; Which critics viewed as needlessly restrictive, and, since I do believe that most of the most vocal critics rarely play with strangers, they just never saw the point of a game where the mechanics are so tightly woven.Anyway, that's my little pontification for the day.&nbsp; I hope you find it useful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6602995, member: 22779"] Honestly, I think you hit on what, for me, is the big issue with 4e and why it was so strongly rejected by critics. People talk about how 4e was the "MMO" edition. I can see where they're coming from, but, I think they didn't quite think things all the way through. 4e isn't the MMO edition, it's the Organized Play (OP) edition. And that's really, really key to understanding 4e and all it's design goals. Think about it for a second. The push for 4e was for there to be a very large growth in the number of gamers. There was supposed to be a virtual tabletop over the Xbox right out of the gate. The idea was that you would be able to play D&D at any time you wanted to play. But, you'd be playing with strangers. It's no different than playing in a convention game or OP game at an FLGS. Thing is, in order to do that, you really have to nail down the mechanics. Which brings me around to your point. Imagine for a second that you want to run a game for 4 or 5 strangers. You say, "Hey, I have a 12th level adventure, so bring 12th level characters". In 3e that would be an absolute nightmare. Of the 5 characters at the table, two would almost certainly be mathematically wrong, 1 would be built using the Charops board and fifteen different splat books and 2 would be mostly ok. The game would be extremely difficult to run. Never minding that during play you run into all the high level 3e goodies like Polymorph and various other issues. I wouldn't dream of doing that in 3e. I'd have to nail down a very large list of restrictions and then audit the player's character sheets before I'd even consider starting to play. But in 4e? With 5 characters built using the DDi? Wouldn't bother me in the least. I would know that 4 out of those 5 characters would be perfectly fine. That one guy who likes to exploit stuff might be a problem, but, odds are, not so much. There just weren't that many mechanical loopholes to exploit. And there's the rub. The game was extremely tight. Everyone was built using the same (more or less) mechanics. The powers are discrete and largely self-explanatory with very little room for creativity, at least to the degree we saw in earlier editions. On one hand, it makes playing with strangers extremely easy. But, for established groups who've already sorted all the quirks and kinks of 3e, it wasn't going to be very welcome. And IMNSHO, virtually all the criticisms of 4e have their roots in this idea that 4e was the RPGA edition. It was built so that Calvinball (for good or for bad) just wasn't a thing at the table. Which critics viewed as needlessly restrictive, and, since I do believe that most of the most vocal critics rarely play with strangers, they just never saw the point of a game where the mechanics are so tightly woven. Anyway, that's my little pontification for the day. I hope you find it useful. [/QUOTE]

Verification