What is wrong with 4E?

[Intense_Interest]

I didn't pull out the wrong argument.

Dipping is a potential hazard of any class-based RPG system, and is the result of having a class' "best" abilities being front loaded. One potential design fix for this is having such abilities be introduced at low levels and increase in potency only as the PC gains levels within the class (or one closely related to it). Another is to eliminate benefit gaps in the leveling of a given class.

Five Levels of Suck, waiting for your Animal Form to be something better than a mouse? Come on now.

But you mean like Spell Casting, right? Except that the 3.5 Optimization Hole demanded that all Multiclassing must be Spells + New Abilities instead of actually treating the multi-class as an independent class, so you're never seeing level 20 Wizards or level 20 Fighters. So really it isn't about Multiclassing, it's Power creep.

And non-linear challenge scaling means that Mystic Theurge is a lame donkey. A 500XP encounter shouldn't be a 400XP encounter because one of the players doesn't have a high-level answer to the Monsters.

PrCs and other Multiclassing is a design sink. It is actually a better use of time and page-count to make Base Classes that do what you're asking it to do.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just about all of the adult gamers I know have jobs and families now, and don't have time for mastering game systems, even if they did enjoy some of those activities when we were younger (not me obviously, since I'm posting on a msg board after midnight). And their wives want to play but view the system mastery aspects as work. In my view, WotC did design the game for adults.

In my current main gaming group of 10 guys, only about 3 of us are unmarried. Of the marrieds, most have kids.

So far, no one in the group has liked much of what they've heard of 4Ed.

 

[Intense_Interest]

In my current main gaming group of 10 guys, only about 3 of us are unmarried. Of the marrieds, most have kids.

So far, no one in the group has liked much of what they've heard of 4Ed.

Let me play anecdote time

June 7th release day game:

5 players have been playing the game forever, Mastered the System and are very Supercool Hardcore.

25 "new" players actually enjoy D&D again, are starting up five new campaigns.

Which group is a better determinant of a well-designed game?

 

[pemerton]

Now 4e is doing it's own thing, and finding it's own people. It's definitely a change.
It's not necessarily bad.. but it would be hard to dispute the change itself.

It's a different game. But I don't see the difference in demographic.

There is a difference between saying that it's geared for a particular demographic that is less "table-top gamer", and saying that it's for casuals or juvenile.
It's also not necessarily a "wrong" way of playing the game.

<snip>

Someone that plays World of Warcraft might enjoy the multitude of combinations of powers and stackable effects, and like to min-max the particular aspects of the game.

<snip>

However, that's quite a bit different from the "table-top gamer". Sure you have the min-maxing side... but there's a heckuva lot more Roleplaying, imagination and creativity involved, and usually a lot less "cool powers" and "big numbers".

4e feels like a definite move more towards the "cool powers" side of things. To give the perfect example.. "Gabe" from Penny Arcade, the pokemon playing, WoW loving, dice hating person, has started playing with "Tycho", the consummate D&D player in 4e.
Sure, it started with the WoW card game as a doorway to harder "table-tops" (heh), but he's there playing it now and enjoying it.

The fact that "Tycho" is there playing it with him and enjoying it means 4e is highly likely not the doom-and-gloom that people say it is for the old fart D&D player.

However, it really really is a change in demographic from before.

I don't really follow the reference to Penny Arcade - I think you are mentioning a story in a webcomic, but how does that tell us anything about what's actually going on in the real world of real gamers?

As to WoW, I can't comment as I've never played it (or any other computer or online game). But 4e seems to me like it would be attractive to anyone who enjoys the mechanical aspect of RPGs (it is rules-heavy and (arguably) balanced), who enjoys the "overcoming challenges" approach to fantasy roleplaying, and who wants mechanics that will support as much roleplaying and narrative development as they care for in a non-grim-&-gritty fantasy RPG.

I think that would include a reasonable number of existing D&D players. I think a lot of RQ, RM and HARP players who are not overly wedded to the grim-&-gritty aspects of those games might also find it an interesting alternative - consistent rules (like those games, and unlike earlier versions of D&D) and smoother gameplay.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Five Levels of Suck,

results mostly from benefit gaps in leveling

waiting for your Animal Form to be something better than a mouse?

I have no problem with that. It models myth and fiction quite well.

But for those who have a problem with that, a feat analogous to Practiced Spellcaster or Empower Spell would be an easy fix, getting the shapeshifter better abilities in at least one form.

But you mean like Spell Casting, right? Except that the 3.5 Optimization Hole...

Doesn't matter to me at all. Its a non-issue. A straw man.

Multiclassing isn't about optimizing a PC for performance, its about flexibility and roleplay.

A 500XP encounter shouldn't be a 400XP encounter because one of the players doesn't have a high-level answer to the Monsters.

The encounter should either be commensurate with the party's abilities or designed to make them consider actions other than combat to the death. Encounters that depend upon the abilities of a single player are potential TPKs.

I speak from experience. Years ago, a DM in a shared campaign ran an adventure for a high-level party (1Ed/2Ed) that depended upon the party casting a particular spell.

Nobody in the party had that spell, and a harrowing retreat was the only option.

In fact, the only PC in the campaign world with that spell was the DM's own PC...and he was the kind of mage who didn't share spells with other mages- even his allies.

(BTW, the guy still doesn't do that.)

PrCs and other Multiclassing is a design sink.

To you, perhaps, but not to everyone.

Remember, I'm not saying I dislike the 4Ed multiclassing system. I actually like it as an option. Before 4Ed's release, I was working on something like it for my upcoming 3.5 campaign.

I'm saying that its not a substitute for real multiclassing.

Which group is a better determinant of a well-designed game?

Considering the more than 150 years of combined gaming experience in my group, and their willingness to teach others older editions of the game- especially their kids?

I'll go with my group, thank you very much, but in all honesty, though, the truth is "neither."

A game's mere simplicity is neither a flaw nor a feature. Longevity- coupled with measurable popularity- is the true test.

Chess, Go, Checkers- all have fairly simple rules, but have lasted centuries. Their simplicity is surface only, however, and require deep thought to master. In addition, their popularity waxes and wanes, but they never fade away.

Right now, neither of us has the proper frame of reference to determine which D&D edition is superior- we need the perspective of someone living 30+ years from now.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Let me play anecdote time

June 7th release day game:

5 players have been playing the game forever, Mastered the System and are very Supercool Hardcore.

25 "new" players actually enjoy D&D again, are starting up five new campaigns.

Which group is a better determinant of a well-designed game?

Yes, let's play the anecdote game.

We have someone who knows first had those first five people.

We also have twenty five people made up on the spot who do not, in fact, seem to exist.

Which group is more likely to happen?

 

[waysoftheearth]

Hi Darth Shoju,

Thanks for your detailed comments

I dunno; the system being functional is pretty much paramount to my enjoyment. After all, the rest of the interesting stuff happens my imagination.

I agree that it's great to have a beautifully working system (I think I said so in my original post). I questioned whether or not enough emphasis had been placed on the immersion. Sure, the game needs a great system, that's a given. But whether or not the system is paramount is a matter of personal taste. There are also many gamers out there who feel that the immersion is equally important.

Did I miss the paragraphs that explained the place of Power Attack in the default D&D world? I don't recall Magic Missile ever being described as more than "Magic lights shoot out and do X damage".

True, many of 3.5E's feats do have short descriptions much like many of 4E's powers. The main two differences I read into them are; 3.5E's power-equivalent features seem to be based on what a character might believably be able to do, while 4E's power features often seem to be based on what is a workable game mechanic -- regardless of whether or not it is believable in the game world. And also, the tone of 3.5E's descriptions just feel more factual, while 4E's descriptions feel sensationalist. It's a personal preference which you prefer -- I happen to prefer the former.

"Realistic" is not a word I would have used to describe D&D economies in any edition.

I agree with you there -- however I also think that the "economics" (such that they are) have become less believable with 4E rather than more so. Even just maintaining the status quo would have been preferable to me.

So the classes in previous editions were made more distinct from one another by having fewer class abilities?

I think that the classes of previous editions were made more distinct by the restrictions that came with them as much as the benfits. Choosing a class used to mean forgoing opportunities that were then only available to members of other classes. It seems to me that 4E classes come with fewer (almost no) restrictions. In my mind this makes the 4E classes less distinct.

I've had my fun with every edition of D&D, but I've always been in search of something that best meets my needs as a gamer. Since those needs have changed over time, I need my game system to do likewise. Luckily, 4e seems to be working for me.

Thanks for your post anyway. Have fun!

I'm very glad to hear it. I too have had fun with all the previous editions and I'm hoping that (as many people have said) this one will play well too.

Many thanks for sharing your thoughts, and also for your very civilised manner -- much appreciated

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

results mostly from benefit gaps in leveling


I have no problem with that. It models myth and fiction quite well.

But for those who have a problem with that, a feat analogous to Practiced Spellcaster or Empower Spell would be an easy fix, getting the shapeshifter better abilities in at least one form.


Doesn't matter to me at all. Its a non-issue. A straw man.

Multiclassing isn't about optimizing a PC for performance, its about flexibility and roleplay.

In that case, 4E multiclassing rules seem good enough. You are flexible, because you can take different powers. And you can sure role-playing this multi-classing fine. Getting Sneak Attack and training in Thievery should give enough opportunities to show off that you're more than a common Fighter or Wizard, and that you're getting "roguish"...

 

[Belen]

This has to do with humidity changes and temperature. It can happen no matter what the quality of the book. To prevent this, you should -- at the first signs of the cover warping -- put it against a plain surface with a heavy pile of similar size books on top of it. Keep it that way for 48 hours until all the humidity has left the covers. This will save the book. But I'm afraid it might be too late for yours now.

True; however, this is still a printer problem. It sounds like the were not stored properly after printing. They probably rushed them out.

 

[Wolv0rine]

The completely re-built from the ground up with a whole different concept in mind version of multiclassing that 4E offers is a bone in my craw that nothing the game designers could ever do (aside from kicking it to the curb wholesale) could alleviate for me. It's complete Epic Fail IMO. Every single complaint about the 3E multiclassing rules I ever remember hearing/reading where just a case of "But...but... that means my character isn't as good at his original class as if he hadn't multiclassed!" Well, friggin duh. That's how it SHOULD be.
And, regardless of whether or not I'm the only one, I mourn the loss the PrCs, which I think were the single best idea 3E brought to the table. I don't think I ever played or designed with a group in all my years before 3E that didn't hate the steamroller-like class-bloat brought about by "have a new idea for a more specialized class? Make a new base class!" BD&D, 1E, 2E... everyone I ever knew hated it, but it was "The Way It Was Done", so we hated it but lived with it. 3E comes along and hands us a way to avoid base-class bloat with the concept of PrCs (and yes, there was PrC bloat, but PrCs are by definition different from base classes). And what does 4E do? Throw it out.
Honestly, every read through the 3 core books strengthens my feeling that if I ever take part in a 4E game, I will have to take multiple, very hot, showers directly afterwards. Possibly with "The Crying Game" playing in the background.

I'm sure the statment can be shot full of holes here and there, but I'd swear I at least always got the impression that every Edition of D&D took the Ed. before it, twisted it a bit, changed it a bit, and build new wings on the old structure. This new edition seems to be more like they all gathered in a meeting room and said "Okay, Rule #1 about 4E design is: There has never been an edition of D&D before this edition. Okay, let's start." If people enjoy it, dandy, but I hope to the gods that 4E doesn't become SO popular that finding a non-4E group becomes effectively impossible. I swear I can't find anything I liked about 3E in 4E, or even hints of those parts.