The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Hussar]

My least favorite thing about 4E is definetly it's rabid fanbase.

But, there is a pretty understandable reason for it. Actually, there are several understandable reasons for it.

Right before the announcement of 4e, you had the reaction to the ending of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon. People went off the deep end for a bit, and then Gen Con hit and we learned of 4e. Even before we knew anything about 4e, people were massively over reacting. Heck, there's a few names that used to be common around here *cough Razz cough* that exploded into spontaneous nuclear flames right after the announcement.

So, it's not surprising that there might be a fairly equal and opposite reaction.

Also, there are more than a few criticisms that have been leveled at 4e that were basically rehashes of the criticisms we saw for EIGHT YEARS over 3e. Heck, you STILL see people claiming that 3e isn't really D&D. It's too [insert whatever term you like here] got chucked around pretty constantly.

So yeah, people got very, very defensive. And, people are still defensive about it. Because, you still see post after post of people claiming that 4e isn't "real" D&D. Heck, earlier in this thread people are claiming it's not even a fantasy role playing game. Add to that claims that it's an "inferior" product (also claimed in this thread) and do you honestly not see why people come out swinging constantly?

Think of how insulting it would be to a fan of any hobby to be told that the thing that he or she likes/enjoys isn't even really what he claims it to be. "Oh, yeah, it's not like a SS is a real muscle car, it's just a cheap knock off wannabe"

 

[ExploderWizard]

The idea that PCs in 4th are less interdependent than PCs in 3.x is even less based on facts. If you scan these boards you will find multiple reports of groups in 4th that only succeed because they work together. In my experience, most of the cooperation in 3.x is in the buffing before combat, while most of the cooperation in 4th is during the action. And outside of combat, the idea of skill challenges is exactly designed to increase cooperation between players.

The 4E encourages cooperation crap is getting old. Pc's have needed to cooperate to succeed since OD&D and before a lot of buffing was common. By tightening up the focus of the various roles all 4E has done to really "encourage" working together is make character building more combat performance based than ever before. When the focus of the game becomes centered around the combat grid certain optimal cookie cutter builds become standard and it greatly reduces the number of viable character options that are seen as acceptable.

Skill challenges? These mechanics are designed to exclude rather than include certain PC's. The skill challenge system encourages characters without the appropriate skills to sit down, shut up or all join hands and aid the one character who can make the check. Thats not really inclusive to me. I like the concept of a skill challenge but the current implementation doesn't reward actual participation.

 

[Shadeydm]

Skill challenges? These mechanics are designed to exclude rather than include certain PC's. The skill challenge system encourages characters without the appropriate skills to sit down, shut up or all join hands and aid the one character who can make the check. Thats not really inclusive to me. I like the concept of a skill challenge but the current implementation doesn't reward actual participation.

While I have observed similar outcomes in the skill challenges at our table to be fair how is this any worse than depending upon a skill monkey to make everything right?

 

[Altalazar]

I know how people can resist change. That's part of why probably my whole group gave 4E a real shot - we played it for several months as we went through the first module. We ultimately just decided we didn't like it and now we're back to 3.5E. (I wrote about this in detail on my blog and probably in a few other posts here, so I won't repeat it).

I think it isn't fair to really judge a system without playing it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

While I have observed similar outcomes in the skill challenges at our table to be fair how is this any worse than depending upon a skill monkey to make everything right?

It isn't. The skill monkey solution to non-combat challenges is even worse .I am all for the skill challenge concept, just not the implementation. For the system to be inclusive it needs to reward participation more than expertise. Everyone in the party getting involved in the challenge is whats important. The mechanics behind the concept need to reward this behavior if PC's are expected to actually become involved.

I think that skill challenges would be better if they became skill challenges for the player rather than the character. Individual skill check situations and combat offer plenty of opportunity for the abilities of the character to shine. Skill challenges are a great chance for players to get really involved in whats going on without worrying about bringing failure to the team because thier character isn't optimized for the task at hand. Its the player at the table who is getting involved in the action and having fun not the character. Why should the opportunity to participate in fast and furious non combat action be dictated by character build choices.

Skill choice has plenty of applicable situations already. I think skill challenges would be better if replaced with a resolution system called the action challenge. Perhaps the action challenge could be resolved by either skill use if the PC has an appropriate skill to apply or trying something stunt-like on the fly. The overall challenge would depend more on every party member trying something than the actual resolution rolls. Success on the outcome rolls can lead to a greater degree of accomplishment and the biggest actions leading to failure would be doing nothing. A system like this would encourage universal participation and get players who sit out because they don;t want to mess up the party a reason to dive in and DO something. Anyhoo, my two coppers.

 

[Harlekin]

It isn't. The skill monkey solution to non-combat challenges is even worse .I am all for the skill challenge concept, just not the implementation. For the system to be inclusive it needs to reward participation more than expertise. Everyone in the party getting involved in the challenge is whats important. The mechanics behind the concept need to reward this behavior if PC's are expected to actually become involved.

I think that skill challenges would be better if they became skill challenges for the player rather than the character. Individual skill check situations and combat offer plenty of opportunity for the abilities of the character to shine. Skill challenges are a great chance for players to get really involved in whats going on without worrying about bringing failure to the team because thier character isn't optimized for the task at hand. Its the player at the table who is getting involved in the action and having fun not the character. Why should the opportunity to participate in fast and furious non combat action be dictated by character build choices.

Skill choice has plenty of applicable situations already. I think skill challenges would be better if replaced with a resolution system called the action challenge. Perhaps the action challenge could be resolved by either skill use if the PC has an appropriate skill to apply or trying something stunt-like on the fly. The overall challenge would depend more on every party member trying something than the actual resolution rolls. Success on the outcome rolls can lead to a greater degree of accomplishment and the biggest actions leading to failure would be doing nothing. A system like this would encourage universal participation and get players who sit out because they don;t want to mess up the party a reason to dive in and DO something. Anyhoo, my two coppers.

Have you seen Mike Mearls article on skill challenges in the dragon. He advocates setting up challenges so that each PC has at least some of the skills necessary to contribute.

In general, I agree with you that skill challenges have a lot of room to be developed, and i hope that the DMG 2 will contain more meat on this idea.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Have you seen Mike Mearls article on skill challenges in the dragon. He advocates setting up challenges so that each PC has at least some of the skills necessary to contribute.

In general, I agree with you that skill challenges have a lot of room to be developed, and i hope that the DMG 2 will contain more meat on this idea.

Thats one possible way to go about it but it requires designing elements of an adventure to be artificially set up to be custom tailored to a specific group of PC's.This is hard to accomplished with published adventures. A specific skill might not fit some situations. If making things up as you go along and flying by the seat of your pants can work for Indiana Jones it can work for a PC. I like the idea of rewarding interest and involvement that comes from the player rather than anything on the character sheet at times.

Having a part of the game that rewards decisive action from the player without precalculated odds is a good thing. Some decisions are more enjoyable when made with a "just do it" attitude. As Lord Flashheart once said, " This isn't a reasonable use of my time or resources but I'm going to do it anyway!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Right, I'm sure you do. It just doesn't make sense that you do.

I still think that your real objection is non magical self healing, and you're just blaming healing surges either due to inaccurate terminology, or a tendency to lump things together. I mean, you basically just quoted a bunch of information confirming my suspicions.

It makes sense to me.

I quoted those sources for 2 reasons- 1) my 4Ed books are packed away due to a full-house renovations and 2) there is no 4Ed SRD.

In what way are they inaccurate?

Healing with a doctor and a full day's rest fixed 4 hit points per level per day. That's 48 hit points per day on a level 12 character.
<snip>

That's OK by me- HP are abstract.

I have no problem with healing that much over a period of days. I do have a problem with a huge influx of healing within a combat round without the use of magic.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I "warred" with anti-4e people because I kept getting directly insulted by them with their claims that only a 13-year-old with ADD would like 4e

Any possibility of you providing a link to the post where this was said?

 

[thedungeondelver]

D&D is a game of cameraderie and atmosphere. The way the game "feels" to you is just as important, if not more than, the actual rules themselves.

My systems of choice are (in order) AD&D1E, Moldvay D&D, Holmes D&D and BECMI. Pieces of later editions serve to clarify rules, offer new monsters or magic items, or to be mined for great ideas.

The idea that someone's commercial "system" can replace mine is laughable, in that sense. I started parting ways with the party line when Gygax was kicked out in 1985. The fact is, I make better DMing decisions when I am comfortable with the rules, milieu, characters and master framework, so my rules are always the right ones. My play is noticeably more clunky and inferior with 2E and beyond, even if I'm well-versed with the rules.

Then you add this in to the nostalgia factor - friends, music, movies, culture - of the time when you fell in love with D&D. I don't care if that's 1974, 1980, 2000 or 2009, it is an inherent and irreplacable factor in the game's atmosphere.

The best edition of D&D is the one that gave you your first "wow" moment, the one you fell in love with. I used to be mocked for that sentiment but curiously, now that the 3E and 3.5ers are feeling the pinch of 4E and the splintering of the player base, I find that players across the spectrum are more mindful and empathetic when it comes to what is important to you and why.

TLDR - D&D is the players' happiness. The players' happiness is the DM's skil in presenting the world. The DM's skill is the comfort with the rules. The comfort is the first edition you loved. This is why getting groups that are willing to share the same experience is such a crucial thing.

Edit: this was the most right post in the thread. There are a few other good ones.