On the marketing of 4E

[Betote]

There were no Eberron-shattering events, and the 3.5 ECS was pretty awesome. Nonetheless, a lot of people (including me) purchased a 4e Eberron Campaign Guide, and rather more picked up an Eberron Player's Guide. Becuase the 4e book was also awesome, and introduced just enough new and interesting stuff and 4e stats for old stuff to keep things interesting.

For Eberron, I can understand people buying the 4e Player's Guide, as it has all the crunchy stuff. The Campaign Guide is maybe a bit more streamlined, but of less use to someone who already has the 3.x Campaign Setting.

Nevertheless, it's a very good idea from WotC having their Campaign Guides mostly crunch-free. I can see myself buying the Dark Sun one to use it with Pathfinder or Labyrinth Lord.

 

[MrMyth]

I think the changes to carrying capacity fell under, if not "change for the sake of change", then "change we didn't even think about for a minute".

I mean, I assume they didn't change carrying capacity from sense to nonsense just because it would be different, but it's the only change in 4e that I absolutely can't defend from any standpoint - it needed either less text (say, just its first line, where it says "You can carry whatever you want as long as the GM doesn't think it's stupid") or less change (you know, just using the version from 3e), but instead they went and supplemented "well you can carry anything within reasonable limits" with rules that technically prevent dragonborn from riding on any kind of mount ever.

From my viewpoint, they changed it from a terribly complex system to a simple and intuitive one. The 3rd Edition version was just difficult to deal with, and required constant looking up to keep track of how burdened a character was. The 4E version is easy to handle and calculate, and lets you preserve the concept of a carrying capacity without having it completely bog down the game.

I mean, I'm rather amazed to see this called out as an example of 'pointless change', given that my friends and I viewed it as one of the most pleasing surprises of 4E. I can certainly accept it if you disagree with that - but to, again, simply dismiss my viewpoint (and that of the designers who felt this was an improvement) as nonexistent... well, it bothers me.

Rather than address the opposing viewpoint, this entire argument attacking 'change for the sake of change' is simply an excuse to dismiss the other side without conceding them a right to their own opinion. It is almost worse than the 'bad-wrong-fun' approach: you aren't just saying that my opinions on gaming are wrong, you are trying to claim they don't even exist.

Now, that might not be your goal - you might genuinely be unaware that there is an opposing viewpoint on these matters. And that is the very problem with this argument. "Change for the sake of change" gets thrown around constantly, and the majority of the time, it just isn't true. People have reasons for what they do - as has been pointed out, when the designers made the decisions they made, they genuinely felt they were making good decisions. You can disagree with them and feel they made mistakes, but there really is no basis in reality to simply assume they were just randomly altering things without reason. And until one does put aside the 'change for the sake of change' viewpoint, and acknowledges that the designers may have had reasons for what they did, it makes it impossible to have a genuine discussion about those changes themselves.

 

[MrMyth]

Double post, my apologies...

 

[Imban]

From my viewpoint, they changed it from a terribly complex system to a simple and intuitive one. The 3rd Edition version was just difficult to deal with, and required constant looking up to keep track of how burdened a character was. The 4E version is easy to handle and calculate, and lets you preserve the concept of a carrying capacity without having it completely bog down the game.

Um, the 4e one also doesn't make any sense. Yeah, it's easy to calculate, but the numbers you get are pretty much actively ridiculous for anything but a human, which defeats the point of being easy to calculate.

Seriously, "you can carry whatever you want within reason" is actually a pretty good rule. It's the one I use in my games, even!

...but it's backed up by the 3e carrying capacity rules if we really have an argument about what's within reason, and would be even in 4e, because in 4e whenever the numbers for it actually come up, the game is worse off for it.

 

[MrMyth]

Um, the 4e one also doesn't make any sense. Yeah, it's easy to calculate, but the numbers you get are pretty much actively ridiculous for anything but a human, which defeats the point of being easy to calculate.

Seriously, "you can carry whatever you want within reason" is actually a pretty good rule. It's the one I use in my games, even!

...but it's backed up by the 3e carrying capacity rules if we really have an argument about what's within reason, and would be even in 4e, because in 4e whenever the numbers for it actually come up, the game is worse off for it.

"Whenever the numbers come up"? I've never run into any issues with the 4E version, and find it a vast improvement over the 3rd Edition rules. I rather like the fact that average/low Strength characters aren't automatically burdened by carrying basic gear, but while having high Strength still feels like a benefit, allowing you to carry extra items and a variety of gear. Looking it over, it seems like the issue is that it works great for PCs but doesn't work well for dealing with mounts. That's a fair enough complaint - though I still prefer it over the previous version, which was a problem for the characters themselves.

...but, the thing is, the fact that each of us have reasons to like one system over the other is exactly my point. There are reasons the changes were made, and there are people that find it a better system than the previous one. Dismissing those viewpoints as nonexistent by claiming it was 'mindless change' just doesn't fly. It's a cheap tactic to try and wave away the opposing viewpoint, and I'm reasonably certain the same is true on every other topic people are claiming were simply 'changes made for the sake of change.'

 

[Imban]

"Whenever the numbers come up"? I've never run into any issues with the 4E version, and find it a vast improvement over the 3rd Edition rules. I rather like the fact that average/low Strength characters aren't automatically burdened by carrying basic gear, but while having high Strength still feels like a benefit, allowing you to carry extra items and a variety of gear. Looking it over, it seems like the issue is that it works great for PCs but doesn't work well for dealing with mounts. That's a fair enough complaint - though I still prefer it over the previous version, which was a problem for the characters themselves.

Well, it's a basically a problem whenever you're carrying anything other than basic gear. For the same reason that dragonborn can't ride horses, carrying the corpse of your dragonborn comrade requires a wagon, while even a wimpy halfling can pretty much just fold another halfling up and stick him in his pack.

And, well, if all you're going to be doing is carrying basic gear plus or minus a few extra swords, "whatever your GM thinks is fine" is really all the rules you need.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, lets examine alignment.

As stated, I love the 9 point system, but I know its not for everyone.

For those who dislike alignment or only like them in a minimalist sense, a G-U-E system is straightforward and intuitive in a way 4Eds system will never be, and elimination of alignment would probably be preferred.

And if this thread is at all indicative, it seems as if alignment has been functionally eliminated in actual play.

I don't know how much time, effort and ink went into the 4Ed alignment redesign, but it seems as if they could have saved it all by simply saying "Let's ditch it!"

 

[MrMyth]

And if this thread is at all indicative, it seems as if alignment has been functionally eliminated in actual play.

I don't know how much time, effort and ink went into the 4Ed alignment redesign, but it seems as if they could have saved it all by simply saying "Let's ditch it!"

Well... that is basically what they did. They divorced alignment from the game mechanics, which was simply a great idea. Most gaming groups I knew already largely handled alignment in their own way - now they could do so without having to worry about how that affected actual alignment-based spells/classes/etc.

4E then also presented a different base alignment system than before... but that really strikes me as almost an afterthought. Some people use it, some people stick with the 9 point system, some people toss it out entirely - just like things were before, but without any impact for each group on the mechanics of the system itself.

The 4E alignment spectrum... I could take it or leave it. But the real change, the separation of alignment from mechanics - that was an effort well spent by the design time, and one I'm definitely grateful for.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well... that is basically what they did. They divorced alignment from the game mechanics, which was simply a great idea.

You forgot the "IMHO."

But that does support my point: if it has no game effect, why is it even a part of the game?

 

[Imban]

You forgot the "IMHO."

But that does support my point: if it has no game effect, why is it even a part of the game?

I think it's a bit of White Wolf game theory, actually - by putting alignment in there and having it explicitly do nothing, you reinforce that alignment should not exist in any meaningful form in 4e more than if you just removed it, because then there's a clear objection to houseruling it back in.