"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[Zustiur]

Side Note: Something I've noticed with 4e is that it's fans are often quick to interpret many of it's ambiguous and/or unclear rules and then act as if that is the only way they could possibly be understood or interpreted... when the answer is more likely th rules really weren't explained or written well. And even further this is often held up as a strength of 4e. Now I agree freedom to make rulings is a benefit, but not when the basis to make those rulings on is poorly written and/or explained.

This isn't specific to 4E fans. We all do it, for our favoured edition. I'm as guilty as any other.

Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.

Yes, that's right. 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3E. That's intentional. As others have already pointed out, 1-3 is the level range of nearly the entire populace. To give some vague real-world comparisons we had mention of money. Billionaires are lvl 15-20. Multi-Millionaires are say 8-14th level. And so on. But where's the majority of everyone? 1-3.
Some of those skill examples are extreme, I agree, but they're heroes by right. Reaching 9th level in the first place trumps all of those listed cases.
World war 1 pilots were considered Aces if they took down a mere 5 enemy planes. 5! Compare that to the number of monsters a character must have slain to reach 2nd level!

One of my issues with 4E is the assumption that characters are heroes at level 1. This has been a theme in some of the 4E defenses - "X is okay because they're heroes". Well, yes, okay it's true. X IS okay if we're dealing with heroes. But in such comments against 3E, the equivalent problems with 4E are often ignored.
Stretch out 3E's 20 levels to 30. Level 9 becomes about level 14. Run those same sorts of examples through 4E and see what happens.

The level 14 bard doesn't get to perform at all because perform doesn't exist. Wow, that's a great fix.

The level 14 rogue started with 16 dex, and now has 20 due to level increases. That's +5. He's trained in acrobatics, that's another +5. And he's level 14, for a +7. So we have +17 vs a DC 25 check. Taking 10 that's an automatic 27. You only get to move at half speed when balancing in 4E, it doesn't even provide an option for trying to move faster. Otherwise, there is no change.

The level 14 barbarian now has 20 strength (+5) training in athletics (+5) and is level 14 (+7), for a total of +17 vs DC 25 up most mountains in the rain. Again, we only climb at half speed... but wait, in 3E you only climbed at 1/4 your speed, so I suspect the distance given in the 3E example may be wrong (sarcastic gasp!). I'm not certain of the figures because the 3E examples did not go into full detail about where the DCs came from.

The beguiler cannot trick anyone as there is no disguise. Another great fix. Perhaps we can fix all of DnD's problems at once by removing all the rules?

I cannot find track from flicking through the skills in 4E, so I suspect the ranger is out of luck too.

So what do we have in summary?
No change for those skills which didn't get canned, and for those that did - well that's up to each DM's interpretation of the highly suspect page 42.
Can someone from the '3E skills are broken, 4E fixed it' please explain how 4E is NOT broken in exactly the same manner?

Perhaps when 5E rolls around someone will dare to make a skill system the relies on diminishing returns. Where doing menial tasks becomes exceedingly easy at high level, but where truly astounding heroics never becomes a take 10 issue.
Or there again, perhaps those who find either system broken could just house rule that if there's a significant penalty for failure (falling off the ledge) you cannot take 10?

Equated roughly, there tiers are as follows

Tier     3E lvl      4E lvl
Heroic    4-6       1-10
Paragon  7-12     11-20
Epic       13+       21-30

4E cuts out level 1-3, or there-abouts. There is no point where PCs are roughly on par with NPC commoners and such. I take objection to this, as I suspect would the E6 players.

There's another thing... but I'd better stop myself before I make this post any longer.

 

[Zustiur]

Here is the next factor I alluded to. Please forgive the self-indulgence of making this post which is essentially off topic.

I work in the information technology industry. I've recently noticed that one of the 'tools' we use applies to DnD and the edition wars.
In IT we use a weird and wonderful standard called ITIL. This is used to provide clear definition of certain words so that we can all communicate a little more clearly. The part that is relevant to DnD can be summarized as follows:

Any single occurrence that hinders work is call and incident.
The impact of that incident is a combined factor of the number of people affected, and how badly they are affected (ie, can they still work?)
Repeated incidents indicate an underlying cause. This cause is called a problem.
Our goal when dealing with incidents is therefore twofold.

1) We seek a work around as quickly as possible so that the affected users can continue working.
2) We try to identify the underlying cause (problem) so that we can actually fix it and thereby prevent further incidents of the same type.

To translate this to DnD:
An incident is a single instance of a gaming group finding something in the rules that doesn't make sense, or is not fun.
The impact is the number of groups affected, combined with the amount of damage the incident caused to their game (i.e. did they shrug and keep playing, or did it turn into an argument?)
A problem, is the underlying fault in the rules that caused the incident.

There are problems in every system. This is a given fact which I hope we can all agree on. I'll be picking on 4E as the example here, simply because it is the current system. Here's how the ITIL model relates to the edition wars.

Issues that arise in gaming groups equate to incidents - one group trips a cube and complains that it makes no sense, that's an incident. A work around is provided by the community (use a different description instead of trip). That group continues on, they can keep working (playing), but the underlying problem has not been looked at.
Another group plays the game... and lo and behold, they trip a cube and find this unsatisfying. They report the issue...
And what happens? The community that supports 4E a little too vigorously claims that the group is naive or stupid for not using the work around that was provided to the first group.

How was the group to know? The argument is that a work around has been found, so the problem has been solved. But this is not the fact of the matter. The problem still exists, it has not been altered in any way. Only a work around was implemented. People will continue to take issue with this until the actual problem (underlying cause) is fixed.


In IT, if a problem is reported enough times we seek the solution to prevent it occurring. This is often rolled out in a patch so that no one is affected again. This can usually be done out of office hours so as to cause as little interruption to work as possible.

In DnD... we only have two ways to do this.
1) Errata and new print runs
2) New editions

I bring this whole comparison up specifically because in all edition camps, there are those who argue that X isn't a problem, when in fact it is. A work around (we call them house rules) is not a solution (official rule correction). The community would be well served to learn the distinction between problems and incidents.

What can we do about it?
Well, I doubt we can do much to make WotC update their errata more often, or release 5E sooner, so it's up the community to make their own errata.
If we (EN World) want to end edition wars once and for all, we need to host community errata, so that groups encountering such problems have somewhere to turn, without flooding the forum itself.

This is the closest I can think of to rolling out a patch.



Regarding new editions of any product, I believe the producer needs to have two simple goals.
1) Increase the number of features
2) Reduce the number of problems

This applies to all products, from computer software, to whitegoods, to RPGs.
Without increasing features, no one will see be happy about making the switch because they'll wonder where the benefits went.
If the number of problems increases too much, people won't be able to enjoy the new features because they'll be too busy hating the problems.

For me personally, 4E failed both goals. I have more problems with 4E than I had with 3E, and many of the features I loved have been cut out of the game entirely.

 

[AllisterH]

I STRONGLY disagree that feature creep is a good thing for ANY TTRPG.

I can see where increased features/options are a good thing for a computer program or a car because frankly, the computer and car themselves have become more powerful and are able to handle more and more things.

A TTRPG though, thats run by a human and there's a hard limit to how much a DM can handle. This is one of the reasons why I love 4E. It actually remembers that there's a human that supposed to be running the game.

re: Flavour
*HEH*, again, I would like to point out that there was MAJOR complaints about the use of flavour text intertwined in with functional text when the first previews of 4e came out.

You guys that argue that 4e is too dry should have made your beliefs more forceful given that I believe the somewhat dry reading of the 4e books can be pointed directly to how much people complained about the flavour text.

 

[Pbartender]

The level 14 bard doesn't get to perform at all because perform doesn't exist. Wow, that's a great fix.

The beguiler cannot trick anyone as there is no disguise. Another great fix. Perhaps we can fix all of DnD's problems at once by removing all the rules?

I cannot find track from flicking through the skills in 4E, so I suspect the ranger is out of luck too.

Hrm...

I'm going to use these tidbits as examples of a completely different problem that I've seen with many players, and it's a problem that I, at least, had never seen before 3E. It's a trap I've fallen into in the past (probably a large portion of my fixation with finding specific DCs, as I mention above). Mainly, I suspect it had to do with how feats, class abilities and skills were finally presented in 3E.

Many, many players and DMs have gotten into the habit of looking at the rulebooks as saying "If it doesn't say I can do it, it can't be done." Few people any more look at the rules and instead say, "I doesn't say I can't do it, let's figure out a way to do it."

For example, a "bard" in 4E (that is to say, anyone who mentions a musical or artistic history in their character background) can perform. In most situations, they simply succeed, because there is no reason for them not to. In situations where it is important, it becomes a skill challenge, and the players can help decide which skills and ability checks are most appropriate... An History check to sing of an epic battle or a legendary king, a Diplomacy check to flatter the audience, a Bluff check for dramatic acting, an Insight check to gauge the mood of the audience and adjust the performance, even a Thievery check (sleight of hand) to add an impressive flourish to your lute playing. The DM may even decide to grant a +5 "training" bonus to ability checks to represent the bard's musical talents.

As for the other two...

The Beguiler can still disguise himself in 4E because you can "make a Bluff check to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, gamble, pass off a disguise or fake documentation, and otherwise tell lies." (p 183, PHB)

4E Rangers can still explicitly track using Perception (p 187, PHB)... For that matter, in 4E anyone can find and follow tracks, not just Rangers or those with a feat.

 

[Imaro]

I STRONGLY disagree that feature creep is a good thing for ANY TTRPG.

I can see where increased features/options are a good thing for a computer program or a car because frankly, the computer and car themselves have become more powerful and are able to handle more and more things.

A TTRPG though, thats run by a human and there's a hard limit to how much a DM can handle. This is one of the reasons why I love 4E. It actually remembers that there's a human that supposed to be running the game.

You know what I don't understand... how one minute fans of 4e claim you can't compare the options available in 4e now with those created throughout the lifespan of 3.5, but then make statements like the one above where they are comparing the complexity, over the lifespan of 3.5 with the complexity of a game that hasn't been out half as long...I mean which one is it?

I also find it funny that people tend to overlook what I call the complexity shift in 4e, where you tend to deal with more changing numbers, conditions, saves, marks, recharges, etc. per round than 3.5... also I wonder for those who claim that running 4e monsters are easier than 3.5, I find the complexity to be about the same...especially since in 3.5 I could run less monsters for a challenge against the PC's and thus on a round per round basis actually had to keep track of less. In other words for me it's become one stat block with numerous powers or numerous stat blocks with fewer powers each but still a bunch total. Personally I don't think one approach is simpler than the other, what I believe is that different people process information in different ways and for some 4e's complexity is easier while for others 3e/3.5's is.

re: Flavour
*HEH*, again, I would like to point out that there was MAJOR complaints about the use of flavour text intertwined in with functional text when the first previews of 4e came out.

You guys that argue that 4e is too dry should have made your beliefs more forceful given that I believe the somewhat dry reading of the 4e books can be pointed directly to how much people complained about the flavour text.

You ever thought those people just wanted their traditional D&D flavor instead of Golden Wyvern Shine Adepts and Emerald Orb Oz Wizards? I really believe this is what people were saying... don't go creating stuff with no former precedent that I probably have to remove and change for my D&D world... keep it broad and confined to what has come before, maybe with some tweaks and I know what I do and don't have to change as well as how much work I have to put into it.

 

[Pbartender]

I wonder for those who claim that running 4e monsters are easier than 3.5, I find the complexity to be about the same...especially since in 3.5 I could run less monsters for a challenge against the PC's and thus on a round per round basis actually had to keep track of less. In other words for me it's become one stat block with numerous powers or numerous stat blocks with fewer powers each but still a bunch total. Personally I don't think one approach is simpler than the other, what I believe is that different people process information in different ways and for some 4e's complexity is easier while for others 3e/3.5's is.

Yep I'd agree with that... For me, the reason 4E creatures are easier to run is because all their abilities are contained in a single stat block. I don't have to go looking up the details of spells and feats and abilities in a another section of the same book, or another book altogether.

 

[LostSoul]

Issues that arise in gaming groups equate to incidents - one group trips a cube and complains that it makes no sense, that's an incident. A work around is provided by the community (use a different description instead of trip).

...

I bring this whole comparison up specifically because in all edition camps, there are those who argue that X isn't a problem, when in fact it is. A work around (we call them house rules) is not a solution (official rule correction). The community would be well served to learn the distinction between problems and incidents.

So how the DM chooses to describe something is now a house rule?

 

[Ifni]

You know what I don't understand... how one minute fans of 4e claim you can't compare the options available in 4e now with those created throughout the lifespan of 3.5, but then make statements like the one above where they are comparing the complexity, over the lifespan of 3.5 with the complexity of a game that hasn't been out half as long...I mean which one is it?

Something to keep in mind is just because some fans of (insert edition here) say A and some say B, it doesn't mean that any particular fan of (insert edition here) believes both A and B. Two different people can criticize the same thing for completely different (even opposite) reasons. It's a fallacy to accuse people of inconsistency because their arguments contradict those of other people who happen to like the same edition.

 

[Cadfan]

You know what I don't understand... how one minute fans of 4e claim you can't compare the options available in 4e now with those created throughout the lifespan of 3.5, but then make statements like the one above where they are comparing the complexity, over the lifespan of 3.5 with the complexity of a game that hasn't been out half as long...I mean which one is it?

You don't understand because... because 4e fans are a hive mind, right? Its the same reason I get to blame you for everything Derren's ever said on this forum, right?

A more serious response that probably isn't deserved- they're totally different things.

Feature creep deals with things like the finicky-ness of the rules. Like if one edition of a game has disarm and trip, and the next edition has disarm, trip, sunder, and new rules that specify exactly who can be tripped and how different modifiers should be applied based on the trippee's form of locomotion, whether it be bipedal, quadripedal, or serpentine.

Options-across-lifespan has to do with whether its fair to complain that 3e had Shadowcasters and 4e doesn't. And the answer to that is yes and no- if playing a Shadowcaster is what makes you happy, and making a fake Shadowcaster out of a 4e wizard isn't enough for you, then 4e obviously doesn't have what you want. But that doesn't necessarily mean that 4e or WOTC are blameworthy for not having a relatively late-era esoteric option available at initial release. Its possible to both want something (like I want a shadowcaster) and to acknowledge that its logical that you haven't been given it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've said it before and I'll say it again- some people are simply not psychologically prepared to understand game design.

I don't mean this as an insult!

If you didn't mean it as an insult you would have been better not saying it.

You quoted someone and essentially said that they are not psychologically prepared to understand game design?

Perhaps you are not psychologically suited to understand the rules of behaviour we want to see on ENworld, all the more in flammable threads?

You're banned for 3 days.