D&D 4E The Usage of the Non-Sequitur "4e is a Tactical Skirmish Game"

[Lwaxy]

Oh I get not wanting the noise. And I don't think you were unreasonable posting the poll.
If I wanted to know why people keep saying "4e is X/isn't X" I'd not direct it at the 4e crowd, either. I was just missing an answer to the effect of "people don't think" lol

 

[Obryn]

I've seen statements to the effect that "3e isn't balanced, therefore it can't be played as a game"; thus trying to exclude it from the "game" club. Believe me, there's no salient differences in the level of civility people show one edition vs the other.

You see, I have yet to see that. Generally this sort of RPG snootiness gets tossed around at 4e (see: Mr. Alexander and how dissociated mechanics are not RPGs).

Regardless, anyone claiming "it can't be played as a game" is spouting nonsense and edition warring. That doesn't make "4e is just a skirmish game" okay.

-O

 

[Jacob Marley]

It's the "just a..." part that causes problems, stated or unstated. Because then it's not an RPG - or at best it's players are pretending it is. I think the analogy is, "well, you can roleplay with Monopoly too, but that doesn't make it an RPG."

This is why I think that context is important. In certain cases, I can write-off the "just a" as careless use of language. Whereas in others, it can clearly be seen as edition warring. In my opinion, most posters don't write with a high level of clarity - myself included! What they are trying to convey may not actually be what they are conveying. I think it is important to offer the benefit of doubt, or to ask for clarification.

 

[mneme]

What you are doing is an odd Reductio ad Absurdem but in the opposite direction (including all possible disparaging remarks such that a focused, specific, lofty charge is lost in the noise and rendered equivalent to things trite and mundane...therefore inconsequential).

That's not even wrong. Just saying; you can't replace one logical fallacy with another one like that.

But no, I wasn't. I was simply hitting another (and much more measurable) axis than you did with this poll. How I take -any- criticism of 4e is going to be very contextual -- and the "it's not a RPG" criticism is probably the most common one, with some merit (despite being incorrect).

The fact is, 4e has a lot of mechanics and a high contact with same. Enough that a -lot- of people have ended up getting turned off by mechanical, not-very-roleplaying 4e sessions.

This is fact. The fact that you -can- run a traditional rpg with 4e doesn't displace it (althought it renders "it's just a tactical wargame" moot).

But by making a general claim disguised as a poll here, devoid of context, you end up just making a muddled mess. Despite the inflammatory nature of the claim, it isn't one that comes out of nowhere, but out of a not-inconsiderable set of people's experiences with the game. Thus it is entirely possible, depending on how it is said or when/where, that any of your suggestions is true.

Regarding the "4e advocate vs not" quesiton...if the poll system allows it, you could have controlled for it via that question (and thus generated more interesting data) rather than potentially turning people off by asking for them to stay out. That is, if the question were interesting as stated, which it isn't.

 

[Derulbaskul]

How does "4E is a tactical skirmish game" meet the definition of a non-sequitur?

Do you really mean non-sequitur or something else?

 

[GreyICE]

I think there can be context, but 95% of the time there isn't. There's two complaints tied up into one there.


4E has a strong tactical focus, which makes it unsuited for the campaigns I want to run

This is a legitimate and valid complaint - but nearly no one voicing it wants to run D&D of ANY EDITION AT ALL. Or Pathfinder.

Maybe they want to focus on social aspects and related and still have a strong deterministic system - World of Darkness systems, etc.

Maybe they want to play a game where the rules aren't getting in the way of their story - FATE, Fudge, Savage Worlds, etc.

Maybe they want to just focus on having a good time and doing cool things - 7th Sea, etc.

For the most part, 3E and 2E aren't doing what they want it to either.


I don't like 4E so I'll complain it's not really an RPG

This is the typical complaint. It's terrible.

 

[Lwaxy]

This is a legitimate and valid complaint - but nearly no one voicing it wants to run D&D of ANY EDITION AT ALL. Or Pathfinder.

Where do you get that idea from? About everyone who says this that I know of plays 3.x/PF

 

[GreyICE]

Where do you get that idea from? About everyone who says this that I know of plays 3.x/PF

Yeah, and they're all falling into category 2.

Both 3E and Pathfinder have a strong tactical focus. For pete's sake, look at the Pathfinder skill list. They have 4 skills for actually interacting with other human beings (and one stat). Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Perform. 4E, on a much smaller skill list, loses perform.

Meanwhile, in a system I'm running, they have: Contacts, Deceit, Empathy, Intimidation, Performance, Presence, and Rapport. On a smaller skill list. World of Darkness has Empathy, Expression, Intimidation, Persuasion, Socialize, and Subterfuge (Plus contacts, retainer, herd, cult, fame, etc. available as backgrounds).

Ah, but Pathfinder and 3E have rulebooks many times as thick as WoD or Fate. And what are those rulebooks devoted to? Not fluff, not at all (Any WoD core book has 10x the fluff of Pathfinder or any WotC core product). Nope. They're devoted to tactical combat. Page after page of combat gear, spells that are mostly used in combat, rules for combat, etc.

That's the thing - 4E is no more a tactical miniatures game than 3E or Pathfinder. If you compare them to FATE you could call all three "Tactical miniatures games."

It's just dumb chest beating from edition warring dinks.

 

[Lwaxy]

And that's just not true. With 3 exceptions in my groups, everyone dislikes 4e for being too miniature focused/too tactical and we mostly play PF/3.x, the occasional SW or SF system not counted. 2 of the 3 exceptions play 4e in another group, and the last is Big Ol' grumpy Edition Warrior.

You can play all older editions with less focus on tactics, but this seems impossible with 4e. At least I haven't yet seen a game report where 4e was played in such a style.

 

[GreyICE]

And that's just not true. With 3 exceptions in my groups, everyone dislikes 4e for being too miniature focused/too tactical and we mostly play PF/3.x, the occasional SW or SF system not counted. 2 of the 3 exceptions play 4e in another group, and the last is Big Ol' grumpy Edition Warrior.

You can play all older editions with less focus on tactics, but this seems impossible with 4e. At least I haven't yet seen a game report where 4e was played in such a style.

You do it in 4th edition the same way you do it in other editions - roleplay your characters, speed through combat, roleplay your characters more. Neither is particularly suited to being a social/roleplay heavy system with minimal combat.

I think the biggest source of this complaint is that the tactical focus of 4E is different than 3E. These are the elements of combat in 3E:

1) Action Denial - Improved Trip, Bear Grapples, Save or Suck spells, pinning monsters down with summons, etc., Action Denial is a huge part of the tactical game in 3E.

2) Preparation - Many of the monsters in 3E had huge lethality reductions if you could prep. It could be as easy as cold resist against a cryohydra, or as hard as finding specific potions to deal with blindness/darkness, but 3E combat often was won or lost based on how well the party prepared for a challenge.

3) Save minimization/maximization - basically, the more saving throws you rolled, the worse for you. Conditions were usually long-lasting, extremely hard to remove, and frequently devastating. Making sure you didn't suffer those conditions was a large part of the tactics in combat.

4) Threat identification/nuking - Some threats need to be taken out. IMMEDIATELY. If there's a beholder in the room, it must die. MUST MUST MUST. You do not have the option of leaving it alive for 3-4 rounds, because you will be steaming piles of dead stuff. Either it has to be neutralized (see: Action Denial) or killed.\

5) Long-term resource management: 3E focuses HEAVILY on managing long-term resources. Hit Points are difficult to regain (until wands of CLW/LV become cheap), running out of spells is a huge issue, and many characters have limited resources that recharge on daily basis (rage, etc.). Resting is frequently dangerous, meaning you want to careful conserve your resources. Even minor combats run the risk of incurring long-term resource drain that can cost you, not now, but three, four, five encounters on. Status conditions that are difficult to remove are often inflicted, and even when removal becomes easier (at higher levels) the variety of them ensures you almost certainly need an extended rest to get the specific cure spell you need to remove them. In short, the focus is often less on winning, and more on winning "with style."


In contrast, 4E focuses a lot more heavily on positioning, temporary bonuses, setting up a nova round, and proper power use/role use. Long-term resource management exists, but in a much less draining form than 4E, and even when you add in long-term conditions, they never reach the conditions that occurred in 3E (long-term poisions, negative levels, stoning, etc.).

You could legitimately complain "I preferred trying to shut down dangerous monsters before they could do anything and researching and prepping for combat more than I enjoy focusing on positioning and incremental advantages in a longer combat with more swing." But that's just preferring one style of tactical gameplay to another.