Now that 4e is out, are you into it or sticking with a prior edition?

[BryonD]

When people post actual criticisms, look they get reasonable responses.

I have to dispute this claim.

 

[Hussar]

I have to dispute this claim.

I dispute your disputation.

And rebut with actual evidence

You get what you give. If you post nothing but negative, hot button, provocative statements, don't be shocked when you get dog piled.

 

[BryonD]

Indeed. Hate 4e all you want, but smack talk like "It's a fine tabletop wargame, but it's not a roleplaying game" is just BS. In fact it's as rude as the now-banned (?) "that's a fine house rule, but it's not the RAW".

It's just being said for effect - it's untrue (and even the person saying it knows it) - it adds nothing of value to a conversation, and I certainly believe it's normally said just to get up people's noses.

It is a shades of grey thing.
Are you trying to get up someone's nose when you tell them they CAN'T roleplay Descent? Does that mean Descent IS a roleplaying game? Does it mean Descent isn't a roleplaying game?

I think it was in Seven Habits that the author talked about a test done in a college class. The guy took one of those illusions where it can look like and attractive woman or an old hag depending on how you looked at it. First he gave everyone in the class versions of the image that had been edited so that one version or the other was immediately obvious. Half got each version. Then he showed the illusion version on the screen and started conversation. Of course, everyone saw the version they had been conditioned to see. And in short order people were calling each other idiots for being incapable of seeing something so obvious as what a hag/hottie that image was.

An important part of the point is that in real life, these conditioned elements are not simply a function of which 50/50 chance picture you were handed first. Instead, they can be much more ingrained to an individual. But that doesn't mean that more than one point of view can not be right at the same time.

Can you roleplay 4E? Hell yes, most absolutely. It most clearly is intended to be played that way. But, has it placed as much emphasis on consistent world interaction as 3e? I'd say no.

If you rate roleplaying on a scale of 1 to 50 then I'd say that rock paper scissors is a 1, chess is a 3, Descent is a 15, 4E is a 30, and 3E is a 45. That is a totally off the cuff throwing of some abstract quantifications that may be different if you ask me tomorrow. But the basic idea won't. 4E has sacrificed a lot of "the rules are physics", "the rules apply to everyone the same", an complexity to meet an expectation (amongst other elements) in exchange for simplicity of prep and play. And 4e lovers are trumpeting these as features. To me they are major bugs that take away from the level of feedback and reward that comes from roleplaying.

A roleplaying game isn't simply about talking in funny voices and pretending. To be a good RPG, the game mechanics must consistently and excellently respond and engage the roleplaying. And they can't go telling me how I have to look at things a different way in order for it to work.

I rate 4E closer to 50 than to 1. But, for what I want, for what I can easily have, it isn't good enough and doesn't meet the minimum standard to qualify. I've got no desire to speak for you, but for me, it isn't close enough to be a roleplaying game. I'm not saying that to get up anyone's nose. I'm saying that because for my expectations it is pure and simple truth. And if anyone can't accept that as my point of view, then I have to wonder if they are simply being obtuse just to trey to get up MY nose.

 

[BryonD]

I dispute your disputation.

And rebut with actual evidence

You get what you give. If you post nothing but negative, hot button, provocative statements, don't be shocked when you get dog piled.

And example of it happening once is far from establishing your claim as truth. I readily agree that good exchange happens here.

Your statement remains predominately untrue and it is a pleasant surprise and exception when it works out.

 

[Hussar]

And example of it happening once is far from establishing your claim as truth. I readily agree that good exchange happens here.

Your statement remains predominately untrue and it is a pleasant surprise and exception when it works out.

I've shown you mine, let's see yours. You're making claims that it's impossible to criticize 4e without people dogpiling and attacking. I've shown that it is quite possible. It's 100% possible in fact.

Additional evidence that reasonable posts lead to interesting discussion.

Your statement remains predominantly unproven and it's no surprise to me at all.

I rate 4E closer to 50 than to 1. But, for what I want, for what I can easily have, it isn't good enough and doesn't meet the minimum standard to qualify. I've got no desire to speak for you, but for me, it isn't close enough to be a roleplaying game. I'm not saying that to get up anyone's nose. I'm saying that because for my expectations it is pure and simple truth. And if anyone can't accept that as my point of view, then I have to wonder if they are simply being obtuse just to trey to get up MY nose.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with what you just posted.

Are you going to claim that all critics of 4e give such reasoned responses?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I just put the question of conversion to the players in my revised Third Edition Rise of the Runelords game. All three of the ones who aren't my wife were in favour of converting, and I know my wife is happy to play the new edition, so when next we play we'll be converting characters and going from there.

I'm also planning to start a new Eberron game, using the H series (though probably starting with "Kobold Hall" in the Dungeon Master's Guide) and the conversions on the D&D website.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A roleplaying game isn't simply about talking in funny voices and pretending. To be a good RPG, the game mechanics must consistently and excellently respond and engage the roleplaying. And they can't go telling me how I have to look at things a different way in order for it to work.

Quoted for troof!

 

[pr1]

My experiences playing late 3.5 edition (as of last fall) and hearing about 4e pushed me back to playing 1st edition. The thing that had kept me semi-optimistic about 3.5 is trying to run Goodman Games' line of modules. I quit the last group I played in because they were running a whole campaign around Stormwrack, with pirates and whale people and... that's just really cheesy to me -- no offense to those guys or people who like that sort of thing is intended. After hearing about 4th edition and all of that, I just decided to be that contrarian consumer and I bought the 1st edition core books. I didn't even play 1st edition as a kid, I played 2nd ed!

But whatever. The thing is, I like Megaman 2 (and to a lesser extent, Megaman 1) and NES Super Marios better than their 3D cousins. It's just more fun to me. Part of my problem with 4th edition (and 3rd) is that.

The other part of it is the art. I just don't get what people like about slick, anime-style art for a fantasy roleplaying game that was invented in the 70s. Again, to me, Marvel and DC took a real nose-dive with the same artistic trend I see in contemporary comics. Again, that's what I really liked about Goodman Games products. But even their previews for their new stuff looks kind of cheesy, and I don't know how much they're going to support 4.0.

I don't really care about the rules (although swarm monsters? dragonborn? At a glance, that seems really lame, but I don't know much about it, and to each his or her own anyway), because I think most players and DMs are able to make the rules work for pretty much whatever type of game they actually want to run. If it matters, I thought 3rd edition was a very balanced rules set; I don't know that much about 4th. But I really don't care, either. 1st edition, some of 2nd ed. (IMHO before Skills & Powers and all of that nonsense), basic editions, etc., capture the feel of D&D better, and I know that there will always be people whose interests are more about running the type of game I want to run than the average 4e player who are playing 1st & 2nd editions.

So no hostility here. I just don't think I'm that interested in 4e.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by BryonD
A roleplaying game isn't simply about talking in funny voices and pretending. To be a good RPG, the game mechanics must consistently and excellently respond and engage the roleplaying. And they can't go telling me how I have to look at things a different way in order for it to work.

But, whenever you buy into any game system, the game system tells you how to look at things. The mechanics of that system dictate how you will view the action in the game. Whether it's highly abstract like 1e D&D with 1 minute rounds, or highly detailed like GURPS. Before you start playing any game, you are forced by that system to view things through a certain lens.

Now, you can certainly choose to not like that lens. I'm 100% behind that. But, that doesn't mean that there are problems with the mechanics trying to tell you how to view things. It's just that you don't like that particular view. I don't like Paladium games, for example. I don't like how combat works in that system, nor do I like the skill system.

But that's not a flaw in the system, that's just a personal preference.

 

[Aqua Vitae]

Or do you see 4e as a step in the wrong direction, and are sticking with 3e? Or did you never stop playing 2e or 1e, or have decided to go back?

Both, actually!

Well, in a sense. I have decided to use the Troll Lords game system, Castles & Crusades. I downloaded the PDF "condensed" version of the C&C PhB yesterday, and was sufficiently impressed.

It uses OD&D flavor, even some rules, with very, very streamlined versions of D&D 3/3.5. Game-play is very, very smooth.

The "reason" I reject 4E is because I disagree with the multi-classing system and I am not too comfortable with the very juvenile feel of some of the material. Feat names, and PC races ("Dragonborn") just seem very flaky to me. I prefer more traditional, generic stuff.

I am not going right back to 3.5 because I'm finding C&C to be very malleable to my interests. It is blatantly nostalgic for AD&D, and I am an old school gamer (I weep when I see the 1E picture of the goblin). Also, it relies on basic 3.5 mechanisms with which I'm familiar.