Reading 4e

[Scribble]

What is it about 4e that makes it so dull? The lack of fluff? The disconnect between what fluff there is and the mechanics? The endless fiddly details?

Could it just be that I'm old? I recall eagerly reading the 1e PHB spell setions and absorbing all that data. I never managed to do that in 2e, or 3e, or 3.5e. I just didn't care enough to make memorizing 1000 spells worthwhile.

I think it's a little of both.

When I started playing D&D everything was new and exciting... Oooooh a new spell!

After a while you get a bit jaded... A new spell. It does damage. someone gets to save. Is it betetr then x? Cool.

There also isn't as much flavor text which can make reading it a bit more instruction manual like at times... But then again in game it makes getting the needed info a bazillion times easier.

Uggg can't tell you the number of times it's late at night, everyone is tired, and looking at me asking if they get a save or what happens, and I run into the dreaded... "see description." I hate those two words.

 

[DandD]

Andor makes his/her opinions on 4E known, often. That's fine.

It's phrases like: "4E is unpolished and dull," and "Everyone's a Wizard" that put people on edge. These are opinions posited with no thought towards really showing that they're only opinions.

It's about as annoying as the standard 4E defense of "Use your imagination, everyone! Use it, and fly into a magical mystery of wonder!" Which usually doesn't solve anything, and just pisses people off more.

I mean, each "side" has their annoying points. Some sweet day*, we'll all look back on this and laugh.

*Probably a bit further out than any of us think

Yeah, by the time 5th edition comes out, in like 3 months.

Oh well, time to build a time machine, so one can get his hands on the ultimate D&D-edition, made by Microsoft in the year 2012. Then we can start dissing it.

 

[RefinedBean]

Oh well, time to build a time machine, so one can get his hands on the ultimate D&D-edition, made by Microsoft in the year 2012. Then we can start dissing it.

"I can't believe the 'Soft nerfed Invokers! And what's with the new diceless system? This isn't Amber, you &@#!*$%s!"

"Dude, just use your imagination. It's flawless."

And then someone will start talking about any addition before 3.x, and everyone will pretend to care.

 

[JVisgaitis]

What is it about 4e that makes it so dull? The lack of fluff? The disconnect between what fluff there is and the mechanics? The endless fiddly details?

What do you think?

I think its because 4e reads like a game which really shouldn't be a surprise. Its a big difference from reading all of the evocative text in the older editions to a bunch of rules in 4e. I liken it to going from a novel to reading the instructions for Monopoly. Not something you want to be doing in your spare time...

In all of the previous editions I've read all of the classes (even the friggin' Cleric!). In 4e, I'm lucky if I've read anything aside from the Ranger and the Warlord both of which I have characters for. It's not just you as I feel the same way. I think this shows the most in the monster entries. I never liked the gutted entries in 3.x and 4e takes it even further.

Gone are the days when I'd pore over the PHB or DMG for hours. Regardless of all that, I still think its the best version of the game to date and does almost everything right IMO. Presentation is just icing on the cake. I have my DM to weave the evocative tapestry.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm with ya. I do think they might be working out the details now (the barbarian was pretty neat, too, for the most part).

I think this is one of the big reasons that the powers system needs to be burned to the ground and regrown using its own ashes, and that books like the Draconomicon are so much better than snoozers like Martial Power or the Monster Manual.

It's a little more insidious than simply "writing for the game," though. If you can't spark the imagination with your main product (which, in D&D, is the core books), you're relying on someone else to fill in the gaps. That's work. Most people (those who don't already have a history of running table top RPGs, or who haven't been inspired by the good DMs that they've had) won't be willing to do that. They won't have a REASON to do that. It's too opaque and uninteresting.

Reference books sell because they help clarify and organize information that already exists out there in the world. Everybody talks a language, so a dictionary is a useful reference. No one who is learning a language would pick up a dictionary and go "this sounds like it would be fun to pronounce!" though. The core books might be a useful reference (though this is debatable), but no one is going to want to play D&D when they buy the core books. They're either going to be already into D&D (via social networks or legacy or ad campaigns), or they're not going to be interested in it.

 

[Piratecat]

Interestingly, MP is full of fluff. Take a look at the paragon paths; they've got a ton of plotty and historical goodness in them.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Does anybody else think there are two audiences, one who buys the books to read and another who buys the books to play? 1E AD&D continues to this day to be an amazing read, but unless you have it memorized the books are painful to run a game out of. In addition, we have a lot of collectors in this hobby who buy piles and piles of books they will likely never use, just because they like collecting and reading systems. On the other hand, there are people in this hobby who spend most of their time in this hobby playing and running games. Books are only useful in their direct application to the game at hand. The best example of this are casual players who buy the PHB and the splats that directly pertain to the character they are playing, and nothing else, and don't read these books beyond playing their characters.

Given that D&D is the most popular RPG and the most played, is it that unreasonable a concept for the game books to be aimed at the second group, the people who play and run games?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I am a huge 4e fanboy.

I think the power and equipment list chapters are as dull as dull as a bad math text book. I keep them on my nightstand to put me to sleep.

 

[Andor]

What more "fluff" was there in the third edition player's handbook, compared to its 4th edition counterpart? Why are the descriptions of the spells and the feats in the 3rd edition handbook not dull, whereas 4th edition spells, rituals, feats and powers are, according to you?

3e spells are fairly dull, I said I've never read the whole PHB spell list, let alone the spell compendium.
As for the "de-fluffing" it's the shift from a simulation oriented description to a total focus on game effects. This has been a gradual change throught the editions of D&D, but 4e finished the journey in a hurry.

E.G: In 1e a fireball was like a fuel/air bomb. It didn't work under water or in a (god help you) vaccum. In a confined space it would expand untill it ran out of fuel (85,000 cubic feet, remember guys? That was a lot of squares in a 10'x10' corridor). In 3e it probably worked underwater, didn't fill available space beyond it's radius if constricted, but it was still fire and ould still light combustibles etc. In 4e? It does 3d6+Int fire damage in a burst 3. Work under water or in space? Sure. Burn a box of tissue paper? Nope. Powers only effect what the power description says they can effect (phb 271-272) and the fireball spell specifies creatures.

So a Fireball isn't really a ball of fire. It's magic that damages creatures, and happens to do more damage to those vulnerable to fire, and less to those with reisistance. They literally tell you to feel free to describe it anyway you please to suit your witch doctor or master of burritos. So how evocotive can a spell be when the system literally tells you that the fluff is mutable and the word fire doesn't mean 'Ai! It burns!'?

Also, why are you starting another anti-4th edition rant?

Wasn't intended as a rant. I posted it to see if anyone else thought wotC might be learning how to be evocative and engageing in writing for 4e. The opening was merely to ensure no one thought this was some sort of subtle attack on 4e or Wotc. I failed.

These questions above are something I'd like to see answered, so to better understand what irks people who are vehemently against the new edition and have to complain about it all the time, in this case about this "dulleness".

I do think you're misreading me and my intentions. I've been pretty consistently (I thought) clear that while 4e isn't really my cup of tea, I don't hate it, I don't hate those who play it, and I don't think it will lead to the death of gaming. It's still an RPG, and playing it is a good thing. War between 3e players and 4e players is really, really, REALLY pointless.

 

[Duncan Haldane]

Could it just be that I'm old? I recall eagerly reading the 1e PHB spell setions and absorbing all that data. I never managed to do that in 2e, or 3e, or 3.5e. I just didn't care enough to make memorizing 1000 spells worthwhile. Now in 4e you have no choice. All classes are wizards.

To be fair I think it would be better to suggest all classes are Sorcerers rather than wizard - you pick your powers at leveling and then that's all you get to play with.

As for your original question, I too find the books dull to read. I remember trying to pour through the first ed DMG, and how dense the text was, and the number of words I needed to look up.

Now in 4th ed I've hardly opened my DMG or MM. To be fair, I wasn't one to flip through all the pages of my MM in previous editions. And although I've been DMing 4th ed stuff, it's been on prewritten scenarios, with the monsters provided so I haven't needed to flip through the MM looking for the right monster for the job.

I do think it's to do with age, and repetition. I probably didn't read 3rd ed as much as I should have, but it all feels like more of the same. 4th ed certainly does repeat this - the powers are all about damage and slight variation on how to dish it out. In previous edition there were a lot of spells that could be used out of combat - you wanted to know those options, to be aware of them, so you could help the party better when unusual situations arrived. Now we have some utility powers, a few rituals, and damage damage damage.

Really, do you need to be aware of the many ways one can do damage? No.

Duncan