What is 4E about?

[ProfessorCirno]

The most telling part about this thread is the treatment which certain participants afford 4th Edition. I find it very interesting that the people who enjoy (and have experience) playing 4e think it's about more than just combat, while the people who dislike 4e keep trying to push the idea that it's all about combat. Very interesting.

Or perhaps that's just how you're seeing things?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a perceived hate against an edition or desire to spark an edition war isn't.

Some people who have had experience with 4e and enjoy it still see the focus as being on combat and balance. Is that so hard for you to believe?

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Actually, there was an additional point I intended to include in my original post, but I forgot it until just now:

In D&D, there has been, IME, an underlying assumption that a particular party structure was necessary to be successful, esp. in a lot of the standard modules for D&D. This assumption more or less was the "classic 4" group of a fighter, cleric, mage, and thief (or some variation thereof). Provided just the right mix of abilities for success in a module (if well played & dice rolls were kind, that is...).

However, it's been a rather unspoken underlying assumption. There really wasn't a flat-out statement of "for best results, be sure to include A, B, C, & D in your group of PCs." IME, I've played in several games where this wasn't followed, and the PCs/players suffered for it, esp. in standard modules for D&D (severely in some cases).

4E doesn't leave it unspoken anymore. It pretty much states that the 4 roles (now broadened into Leader, Controller, Defender, and Striker) should be covered in a group of PCs. Each classes role (and secondary role, in some cases) has been stated in the class descriptions, so all participants are aware of each PCs part in the party as a whole.

I appreciate that as a player and a DM, because it really drives home the point that . Granted, a party without a certain role covered or only characters of 1-2 roles can succeed (in any edition), but sincerely, I'd argue it takes DM awareness & effort to allow that to happen. It's not going to happen often (or at all) if the DM just runs a pre-made/published module that works with the core assumption of the "classic 4" PC group going through it.

(Then again, I'd argue in previous editions, esp. 1E & 2E, there was an assumption that an elf or half-elf and a dwarf or gnome would be in the party, mainly for their abilities to detect secret doors/unusual stonework & traps, infravision, languages, etc., as well as their abilities to multiclass & thus cover more than 1 of the classic roles for the group. But I digress...)

Now, I'd say the reasons why you need each character role covered in 4E are different from why they needed to be covered in previous editions, due to the mechanics if each edition. But the need remains there, and IMO, at least 4E clearly states that it's there now.

This ties in to my original post & the comment there about 4e: unity. In this case, party unity: addressing the fact to the players that it's a "team game," where individual success is nice, but group success is vital.

I think that element had a tendency to get lost in some games, esp. due to players who wanted to/felt like they "needed" to have the "one character to trump them all" in that edition: whether it was a demihuman or a spellcaster in early-early editions; a psychic, monster PC, or Spellfire wielder in 2E; etc. The idea that a good character that could really bring something to the table for the party as a whole got lost in the process of creating a good character that works for itself (while it's ability to contribute to the group is questionable, at least).

 

[Dragonhelm]

1E was about the adventures
2E was about the settings
3E was about the rules
4E is about (enabling) the DM.

That's my take. What do you think?

I think you're pretty spot on for the most part. I was hoping 4e would be where it all came together.

I would, however, say that 4e is about action and innovation. This is a whole new rules set, and very Hollywood in its feel.

4e is about balance between the character classes.

I'm going to disagree with this point. Yeah, balance is there, but the term "balance" really came into the forefront during 3e. It had become an overused buzzword, IMO, which in turn became synonymous with "fun" (which I believe to be a fallacy). Balance contributes to fun, but does not equate fun.


As I mentioned above, I was hoping that 4e wouldn't be about any one thing so much as being about drawing the best of the past and putting it together into one package. I wanted fantastic adventure locales in some of the coolest campaign settings out there with cohesive rules and tons of options.

But you know, a lot of this really is setting-independent. Yes, D&D gave us all these amazing things over the years. We should look back upon prior editions as inspiration for our own games. Want to play a 1e module in a 2e setting using balanced rules and cool powers? By all means! It's possible. You can also capture the feel in your own individual creations.

 

[Rechan]

1e was about the Exploration.

 

[Dannager]

Or perhaps that's just how you're seeing things?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a perceived hate against an edition or desire to spark an edition war isn't.

Some people who have had experience with 4e and enjoy it still see the focus as being on combat and balance. Is that so hard for you to believe?

And yet, of the respondents in this thread, those who play 4e are much more likely to see its nature in broad terms. Those who dislike it are much more likely to describe its focus in narrow terms. This is, I believe, not coincidental.

 

[karlindel]

There are a lot of different ways to describe what each edition is about, given that each one is about a lot of different things. I think some of the suggestions so far are very interesting.

I think, however, that a lot of it is dependent on the personal definitions people have for the terms they are using. For example, the idea that 1e is more about exploration than other editions is true only of very specific definitions of exploration (i.e. the player's don't know how the game works, so they have to figure that out). 4e has a strong exploratory element, as characters grow and see how their powers interact with others. Almost every combat is an exploration, as you learn what a given monster's powers are and try to adapt to how they shape the battle. And, of course, exploration in the normal sense is no different from one game system to another, as all of them allow you to explore the world and learn what it is like.

To me, 4e is about:
A solid and consistent set of baseline rules for how the gameworld works, reducing the number of rules player's need to know and allowing them to focus on the few exceptions that apply to their character/group
All characters being able to consistently and meaningfully contribute to every encounter (combat or non-combat)
Dynamic and tactical combat that can include large numbers of opponents easily, and integrates the environment
Mistakes that can be learned from and repaired (i.e. changing powers, feats, or skills via retraining)
Easy rules for creating a good character, so that new players do not need system mastery to contribute meaningfully to the group
Heavy support for the GM, allowing easy creation of interesting and balanced encounters

There are, of course, many things I have left out, but I think those capture the main things that I think of when I think of 4e. I don't have enough experience with all of the previous editions to go into what each of them is about, and what 4e is about and what previous editions are about are not necessarily related questions.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

And yet, of the respondents in this thread, those who play 4e are much more likely to see its nature in broad terms. Those who dislike it are much more likely to describe its focus in narrow terms. This is, I believe, not coincidental.

You're assuming you know exactly who plays 4e and who doesn't. You also assume you know exactly what and how other people think. Oh, and you're assuming you know the reasons people have for answering the question. And we all know what happens when you assume~

You also sound a wee bit like a conspiracy theorist, especially that last bit. "Notice how the flag looks in these pictures of the moon landing...! This is not coincidental!"

 

[Aus_Snow]

OD&D was about discovery and promise
AD&D 1e was about expansion and decline
AD&D 2e was about endings
3e was about hope and idealism
3.5 was about treachery
4e is about loss

 

[Hussar]

The most telling part about this thread is the treatment which certain participants afford 4th Edition. I find it very interesting that the people who enjoy (and have experience) playing 4e think it's about more than just combat, while the people who dislike 4e keep trying to push the idea that it's all about combat. Very interesting.

Noticed that too didja? Actually, I think the MOST telling is the fact that so far I have not seen ONE SINGLE dig against earlier editions, yet, the usual suspects have chucked in repeated snarkiness against 4e. Take, for example, Aus Snow's comment right above mine.

Funny isn't it? How everyone is perfectly capable of being civil about games they probably don't currently play, yet, there is almost a pathological inability on the part of some to post without taking cheap shots.

Oh, but, hey, don't let things like the actual posts in this thread get in the way. We're just tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.

 

[Campbell]

I am highly suspicious of the notion that 4e split the player base. That a split exists is fairly obvious, but I don't believe we're being honest brokers when we attribute the play style gulf that exists to 4e's presence. To do so implies that liking 4e is akin to some kind of affliction and not the result of very real preferences that predate its existance. Do those who attribute the split to 4e really believe that without it everything would be hunky dory in the D&D community ? Do they honestly believe that those who prefer 4e to 3e would have all remained content with the game as it existed for very much longer? Should WotC have refrained from creating The Book of 9 Swords which also created a significant split in the community even before we found out about its connection to 4e? Isn't it better that 4e fans have found a more satisfying game experience while 3e fans are still being catered to by companies like Paizo?