D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?

[catastrophic]

If you're going to selectively quote me out of context, and then attack a point I didn't make, then we have nothing useful to discuss.

I didn't quote you out of context you primadonna, I just snipped your post to save space. I cerrtainly didn't attack a point you didn't make, I was simply discussing broader the issue, starting with your post.

As for the grittiness, I'm not looking to murder PCs, but --recently-- there have been times when the current DM thought a fight would be difficult, and it wasn't at all. The group I play with has made some adjustments to get more of an experience that we want, but it's taken a lot of campaigns to start to get things worked out. I suppose this ties into what Abdul was saying earlier. It's easy to play 4th Edition; it's very easy to DM 4th Edition, but some groups might have a hard time getting it to perform the way they want.

I'm not trying to 're-sell' you on 4e or anything, but I will note for the sake of discussion that this is one of the key problems that they have been gradually fixing.

Early on monster design, particularly solo design, was simply too weak, and not effective against a solid deployment of afliction style effects in particular. IMC this led to dragons being a bit of a laughing stock, and when visiting a wizard's academy, I had to improv what was supposed to a 'deadly battle with an escape hydra' into 'overpower and subdue the hydra so the wizards can put it back in it's pen'.

Over time, WOTC have created better monsters, to the point where monster vault is really dramatically better in design than previous books, and you can see a clear progression from mm1, to 2, to 3, to the monster vault, with monsters getting better particularly in the area of survivability and damage, but also in other areas, like soldiers and lurkers getting better, more coherent mechanics.

I would tend to agree with your mention of Dark Sun though. I don't own the book, but I have access to it via friends who do. I get the impression that (in general) most of Dark Sun is intended to be slightly more powerful than status quo 4th Edition.

It's also clearly part of their design process, and an attempt to experiment with some higher dps monsters.

Where I'm at right now with 4th Edition, if I take a step back and look, can be described by saying I have something of a love/hate relationship with it. Some of the changes I absolutely love, and they were such an improvement over 3rd, that I would have a hard time going back. However, at the same time, the few things that bother me really really bother me to the extent that it's hard for me to ignore them.

Again, not to toot the 4e horn, but it is a more legible system, and in many cases, that can make bits that don't work, or bits that rub somebody the wrong way stick out like a sore thumb, if only to people who know the system.

That's part of why i'm not impressed by many of the criticisms made by the usual 4e-hating suspects- there's a clear gulf between the criticisms made by people who understand the system, or made a genuine effort to understand it, and people who do not. And yeah, there are some people who just got burnt out on it, or found it a bit 'meh', but when you look at the really strong criticism, the distinction is pretty clear.

I do still enjoy 4E though. In spite of the things which bother me, the fact is that I was lucky enough to find a regular group which I enjoy playing with -regardless of system. There are still times when I'd prefer to be playing something else, but, overall, I enjoy spending time with the group enough to be able to become at least 'ok' with the parts of 4th which bother me.

I dunno, if somebody said that about a 3e group, I guess I would accept that, or maybe i'd tell them to get a better game.

Either way, part of 4e is about getting the most out of a design. Sure, if that's what the group wants, and you really like playing, so be it. But if things are a bit more marginal than that, and the groups into it, it might be that youall collectivly 'fit' another system better. You mentioned playing another system, if that one doesn't suit the group, consider looking further afield.

 

[herrozerro]

It's not scot free, but there are still times when it leaves a lot to be desired.

It works the other way too. I've been in encounters where the monster had an attack which grabbed me. It was often better to stay grabbed and continue to beat on the monster than it was to waste the effort on attempting to get out; even against some of the monsters which have attacks which sync well with grab.

Grab isnt supposed to be a super attack, its supposed to go along with bull rush as a basic maneuver that allows you to do basic things.

On the note of a monster grabbing you and you just stay grabbed:

Then that monster wasted an action, if you grab someone and there is no incentive for them to try and escape they you are doing it wrong. now granted I dont understand why you wouldnt try to escape, its only a move action that you will probably not use.

Now grab does have it's place, when you want to hold a ranged monster for example or maybe pin a vampire in a spot of bright light. but using it as a constant tactic is dumb unless you are a brawler fighter or have something that keys off of graabbed creatures, i can think of a few monster you dont want to be grabbed by.

Now I had a brawler fighter in my group for a bit, and I will tell you it made my life hell, he would run up to the dragon and grab him, and just hold him at range of the party. I'd call that useful.

 

[Tymophil]

To be fair, there are some styles of play and some types of stories which don't mesh very well with the 4E mechanical structure. For me, that's actually one of the biggest reasons I sought out alternatives to D&D.

I heartly disagree with this statement. And this is one of the failure of Wizards of the Coast team in my opinion... It is perfectly possible to write any kind of scenario for D&D4. Unfortunately, it seems that people at Wizards of the Coast think that there are golden rules that lead to the awesomeness in adventure making... So all their adventures look and feel the same !
As there are no third party scenarios, thanks to the restrictive GSL, the mood for D&D4 is set by lame WotC modules alone. It's simply a pity to have a great game and so crappy adventures that everyone thinks that these are the only adventures one can produce with this system.

 

[The Little Raven]

As there are no third party scenarios, thanks to the restrictive GSL, the mood for D&D4 is set by lame WotC modules alone.

DriveThruRPG.com - Adventures/Plots | Abenteuer/Plots | Aventures/Scénars | Aventuras/Tramas | 4e/GSL | 4e/GSL | 4e/GSL | 4e/GSL - The Largest RPG Download Store!

There's not many, but they do exist. There are probably more that aren't available here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In total there are quite a few 3PP adventures, and they range from incredibly good (Read Court of the Shadow Fey and THEN tell me all the things you can't do with 4e, lol).

As for gritty... Mmmm, 4e isn't exceptionally adapted to the "limbs get hacked off left and right" sort of gritty where you are likely at every instance to die on the first toss of a die. That isn't the only aspect of grittiness though, nor is it a must. My experience is I can run a game where the players are constantly worried about their hides, constantly scrambling for resources, down on their luck, and many other notions that will work to make such a game. It is a game where seeking easy answers isn't an option, the players work to survive and succeed and there is a low fantasy feeling.

 

[Gaming Tonic]

Some people just like to hate and we need to keep that in mind when reading forums, message boards, tweets, and the like. Lots of players see it as a dumbing down of D & D and that is definitely got some truth to it. It is easier on the DM by far over any previous edition. With the formulaic process that WOTC has used for all powers they are somewhat boxed in on new material for current classes. This shows with the poor quality of all the DDI in the last sixteen months or so. The online tools from DDI also are way inferior to what was their before and people don't like to get less than they used to get. From this point on their will be releases of things that get characters more power because those are the books that sell. Themes and feats and more races are all that they have left really. I also have heard that magic doesn't feel magical in comparison to previous editions. That may be true but wizard ruled all classes after 4th level so why play anything else. Previous editions had huge flaws with this. I enjoy a variety of systems and 4th Edition is one of them. Hero System is fun for some grit and realism. GURPS was a lot of fun for fantasy as well but the new editions of their core books were shoddy and fell apart instantaneously leading to the term GURPS pamphlets. Mix it up and try lots of things. Sure 4th Edition has some support but the OGL makes it difficult for companies to print using their material in a way that doesn't require too much work for the DM ahead of time and the stuff they have printed or that has been out in Dungeon doesn't seem as spectacular as previous editions.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't see "gritty" as meaning "Character dies every ten minutes." That's not gritty, that's Player Deathtrap 2011.

I see it more as low magic, low fantasy, high everything-is-awful. I'd see Conan as being gritty (incidentally 4e can totally do Conan).

Conan is actually a really good example. I would agree that 4E can do Conan; as I said previously, I'd never suggest that it's impossible to do something with 4E. However, for me personally, I don't believe the mechanics would support the kind of feel I would want from something like Conan. I'd very strongly prefer a different mechanical system upon which to layer the feel and tone of R.E. Howard's work.

edit: There are many who suggest that mechanics and fluff aren't heavily connected. Personally, I disagree. However, I will propose this... imagine if the original Dragonlance books were written around 4th Edition's mechanics. Do you think there would be elements of the story which would feel different? Why or why not?

 

[delericho]

I didn't quote you out of context, I just snipped your post to save space. I cerrtainly didn't attack a point you didn't make, I was simply discussing broader the issue, starting with your post.

I see. That wasn't at all clear from your post.

you primadonna

I apologise that my post was unnecessarily short. Can I assume that your insult was likewise unintended?

 

[delericho]

Yeah, the whole idea that he 4e devs were really mean to 'the fans' in the lead-up is just another of the big 4e-bashing myths that don't stand up to close scrutiny.

It's siege mentality. It's ok for us "gamers" to make fun and hate these things, but if someone "outside" (and WotC is seen as outsiders) tries to comment or change them, tribalism kicks in.

I don't know if you were around then, but you're ignoring that WotC seemed to have spent a fair amount of effort to become regarded as outsiders - they had killed the print mags when they were at their highest point for decades, they had ended the Dragonlance license. They had declared that they were ending the d20 license - leading to big fears that they would somehow pull the OGL as well. Either way, it was very clear that they were taking the D&D toys back in-house.

Additionally, WotC had spent a year before the announcement of 4e telling people "we're not working on a Fourth Edition that requires miniatures". They were very careful about adding those last three words, but unfortunately the common reading had missed them. So, when 4e was announced, there were widespread accusations of lying from WotC. (It wasn't their fault people misread what they said. However, they were then in a damned-if-they-do/damned-if-they-don't position - clarify the situation meant confirming 4e early; failing to do so left them open to accusations of lying. They chose the latter, and fair enough. But their big mistake was trying to talk about 4e without talking about 4e.)

So, yeah, there was a huge amount of bad blood aimed at WotC at that time. And then they released these videos which could be read as an attack on old playstyles. When some people objected to the loss of their favourite PC race, they responded with the "The Teifling and the Gnome" video, which was clearly meant as a joke, but which was read by some as an attack.

It was a really bad time, and if you weren't there then you probably can't grasp just how deep the wounds go. (It also didn't help that there were some posters, on both sides of the debate, who really fired up the Edition Wars. A couple of really bad eggs did a huge amount of damage to relations on both sides.)

Did people over-react? Sure, and quite badly. But were WotC tactless, often really tactless? Sure.

According to your join dates, it doesn't look like you were around then. Of course, it's possible that you were, but using different accounts. But if you weren't around then, you probably don't understand just how toxic the environment on ENWorld was at the time. And dismissing people's reactions as "a myth", or throwing around statements like "seige mentality" or "tribalism" really doesn't help. Please stop throwing salt on old wounds that still haven't properly healed.

 

[catastrophic]

I was there. I was watching through the whole thing, on multiple forums. I wasn't active here, but I was certainly lurking.

And you're reading a great deal into every step of what happened, and it's not fair on WOTC, or the broader comunity to blame basically everyone for something that was mainly the fault of one element of the comunity- the people who got angry at 4e, and turned their anger into an endless vendetta.

The fact that a few people argued back is immaterial- it's easy to blame both sides in a conflict, it's a common false truism, it's much harder to be honest about what the actual causes of a conflict are. The root causes here? Nerd rage and a shameful lack of self restraint and perspective.

WOTC wasn't weren't 'really tactless', they were just explaining their decisions. There were big errors made by them in areas like the gsl, but frankly, 90% of the backlash was pure nerd rage, people looking for excuses to get angry. And people making up excuses to get angry, like the idea that unpullable ogl could be pulled, or the endless list of imaginary 4e flaws.

The time you speak of, the toxicity, it's easy to blame it on everyone- wotc, people on 'both sides', 'bad eggs', easy targets. It's harder to admit the truth- the edition wars were caused and perpetrated by people who didn't like 4e, acting extremly poorly, and being tolerated far too much.

Over time, this poor behaviour and the tolerance of it, have done real damage to the comunity and i'm under no obligation to accept the revisionist history of what occured. People hugely over-reacted, and acted very poorly- and the contribution of WOTC, or the people on the other side of the argument, was minor, at best.