Opinions on "Does Format Matter"

Was he correct that the 4E format threw 3E people?

  • Yes he is exactly right, the old format was better

    Votes: 6 8.5%
  • Eh, maybe a bit right

    Votes: 29 40.8%
  • There was a different format?

    Votes: 3 4.2%
  • Totally wrong, the format didn't matter

    Votes: 7 9.9%
  • The format made all the difference, way better

    Votes: 26 36.6%

SSquirrel

Explorer
Saw this on the front page and curious what people thought? Here is the link to the original article, poll is above.

Does Format Matter?


Er, option 5 might be confusing. I meant that the 4E option was way better for that one.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Prestidigitalis

First Post
To borrow the term used by one of those commenters at the linked article, the effect was indeed "jarring". But it was jarring as in "I was jarred when all of a sudden the people around me suddenly stopped speaking gibberish and started speaking well-enunciated, grammatical sentences."
 

Harlekin

First Post
Saw this on the front page and curious what people thought? Here is the link to the original article, poll is above.

Does Format Matter?


Er, option 5 might be confusing. I meant that the 4E option was way better for that one.

I think your pol is conflating two issues: The utility of the new format and the initial reaction it provoked.

In the short run, the difference in format alienated many people. I was for example irritated by the similarity it had to many computer game guides.

In the long run though, it is a better format, it is much faster to find all the necessary information.
 

Incenjucar

Legend
Every change in format is going to be jarring. However, I am quite happy with 4E's pre-Essentials format. Essentials formatting I do have a problem with, but that's most likely just because of the physical format and not the organization methods.

4E's monster presentations are pretty fantastic overall, and has gotten all the better with the recent revision.

Anyone who finds the format change a big enough reason to not play the game was very unlikely to play the game anyway.
 

Keldryn

Adventurer
I prefer the previous formats

Yes, the format matters. It matters a great deal.

There are aspects of the 4th Edition rules that I take issue with, but I find that the format of character abilities is no small barrier for some players.

I have two players in my current D&D group of four who are completely new to tabletop RPGs. We started a 4e game near the end of last year and played three sessions to complete The Slaying Stone. The two new players were not enjoying the game that much, as they were finding it to be too complicated, with too many decisions to make.

While there are elements of 4e that are complex (triggered actions and new combinations of status effects each round), the powers system isn't actually that complicated -- but it looks complicated. Standarizing how abilites are presented is a good idea in some ways, but also ends up adding a lot of extra clutter that doesn't communicate anything useful.

For example, the majority of melee attack powers for fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords share the following characteristics:
Keywords: Martial, Weapon
Action: Standard
Range: Melee Weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs AC
Damage: 1[W] + Strength modifier

Of what use is it to repeat all of this for every attack power? While it makes for a more consistent presentation across the lineup of game products, it takes a lot of space just to say "when you hit an opponent in combat, you can also do this additional effect."

The attached example included as a sample which illustrates this:
Tide of Iron: Whenever you hit with a melee weapon attack while using a shield, you can
choose to push the target 1 square and then shift 1 square into the square the target vacated.

Everything else about Tide of Iron conforms to the above parameters. Without all of that stuff that likely applies to just about every ability the character has, a couple of lines on a character sheet is good enough and no power card is necessary. Other examples might include:

Passing Attack (Encounter): Make a melee attack. If you hit, you may shift 1 square and attack one creature other than the primary target with a +2 bonus on the attack roll.

Comeback Strike (Daily * Healing): After you hit with a melee attack, you may choose to inflict 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you may spend a healing surge.

Twin Strike: If wielding two melee weapons, you may attack with each weapon. If you are using a ranged weapon, you may make two attacks. Your attacks do not have to target the same creature. Each attack inflicts 1[W] damage.

These are all descriptions as they might appear in a book, with specific enough wording to handle "but what about when..." questions. For the most part, they player doesn't need to write it down word-for-word, and this is about all that is really needed on a character sheet:

Comeback Strike (Daily): 2[W] + Str damage, spend a healing surge

It takes a bit of experience with the system to be able to recognize these types of powers for what they are -- variations on hitting a creature with a melee or ranged weapon (standard action, Str/Dex vs. AC, 1[W] + Str/Dex mod damage). Wording them in this manner might have them easier for my new players to grasp, as in their eyes, the stack of power cards looked like half a dozen completely different concepts to have to learn.

Obviously, some character classes will have fewer parameters that apply to all or most of their powers, but D&D has always had characters classes which are more complex to play than others. Powers which function as spells in earlier editions have a diverse range of effects, so they need a longer write-up. Powers which essentially modify a basic melee or ranged attack don't need to include what isn't different.

I have a hard time reading through the walls of power descriptions, as well as the walls of magic item descriptions. I realize that the information contained in a 4e item description is much the same as it is in a 3.x item description, but for some reason it's a lot more boring to read. Pages upon pages of neatly-arranged and color-coded statblocks just make my eyes glaze over.
 

SSquirrel

Explorer
I think your pol is conflating two issues: The utility of the new format and the initial reaction it provoked.

In the short run, the difference in format alienated many people. I was for example irritated by the similarity it had to many computer game guides.

In the long run though, it is a better format, it is much faster to find all the necessary information.

Someone in the comments makes much the same point you do. My poll only talks about his opinion that the format change threw people. Personally I think that both the format and the content are better, but I'm not asking about content. I'm doing my best for this not to be edition war related :)


For example, the majority of melee attack powers for fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords share the following characteristics:
Keywords: Martial, Weapon
Action: Standard
Range: Melee Weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs AC
Damage: 1[W] + Strength modifier

Of what use is it to repeat all of this for every attack power? While it makes for a more consistent presentation across the lineup of game products, it takes a lot of space just to say "when you hit an opponent in combat, you can also do this additional effect."

Could they have said "All powers for this class share the below features unless specified otherwise"? Yes they could have, but that would have made different powers be significantly different sizes on the page and would honestly detract IMO.

You also have to consider multi-classing. Let's say you are an Arcane class and so all your powers have a different set of assumptions than that Fighter you multi'd into. You also have classes like the Ranger and Rogue that allow many (but not all) of the powers to be used with melee or ranged.
 

Dice4Hire

First Post
I think it made it easy for epople to dismiss the game, with a 30 second flip through the books.

But overall, I do not think it mattered much.
 

The layout didn't irk me. The art did. I much preferred the art style of early 3e to early 4e. I've been playing since '92, but Sam Wood and Todd Lockwood are the artists who most epitomize what I think D&D should look like.

I don't get how WotC can have such fantastic artists for Magic, and not use any of them for D&D.

Oh, and I like Keldryn's suggestions.
 

Primal

First Post
I don't think it was the new format that turned people away from 4E; I think it was the art and the new design principles. I know a lot of guys who just didn't like nigh-absolute balance between the classes, "martial magic" and the new races and classes.

Having said that, I personally prefer the new format; it's easy to read, once you get the hang of it. It's also more elegant; I know I've said this several times, but it reminds me of bibliographic records a lot (with the keywords as subject headings). But what's really important is that it shows you explicitly how each power works and interacts with other mechanics. I think one of the biggest headaches for players and GMs alike in 3E has been how feat/spell/item/class feature X interacts with feat/spell/item/class feature Y. And we're still having the same problems in PF; just last session we were wondering about, for example, the wording on Cleave (namely, whether the enemies you want to cleave need to be adjacent to each other, or just you).

Unlike Keldryn, I don't think they're wasting space on this format; it's certainly no more than how much text spell, item and feat descriptions take in 3E/PF. A lot of errata in PF RPF is related to action economy, e.g. which action it is to use Spring Attack or domain power Z. You don't have that problem in 4E, because each power states it very clearly which action you need to spend to use and/or maintain it.
 

Remove ads

Top