When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Windjammer]

Add in one damnig thing such as distances measures in map grip squares that takes shift perspective from 1st person to 3rd person, so that things are looked at from the POV of the player

I've heard that many times before, and I agree with those who don't think this observation is ultimately telling. Mind you, we had this debate when 3.5 came out and the chapter on combat in the revised 3.5 precisely had this switch from feet to squares.

What bothers me is less the specification of in-game distance in terms of out-of-game distance than the quantities that go with those distances. They all are arbitrarily nerfed to fit a skirmish game and don't give a hoot about in-game plausibility. Take teleport. A seriously high-level "monster", like Graz'zt, can only teleport 6 squares . How ridiculous is that? Completely. Because, you know, it would really suck in a skirmish game if the DM who controls Graz'zt, upon facing defeat, simply teleports away. And many 4E fans would chime in here and say "exactly! we want to avoid that!".

And here I don't follow. 4E seems written as if the rules need to tell the DM that he shouldn't teleport Graz'zt away since that takes away from the fun of the (skirmish aspect of) the game when
1. this is precisely the sort of thing a self-respecting RPG should leave to a self-respecting DM, and
2. the reason for not teleporting Graz'zt away shouldn't be rationalized by recourse to a consideration that only concerns the skirmish game perspective.

But it's not just the DM who's now restricted in his mechanical choices by considerations that only pertain to skirmish games. It's the players too. I just watched "The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising", which has gone onto Youtube 5 days ago. At the end of the film, one of the players is granted an Unlimited Wish. The players go extactic because it's (quote) "the single most powerful element in the whole game". They also berate the player who was granted the Wish (her PC is level 8) for spending it on something (way) short of wishing herself to become an immortal.

And that's the very thing that couldn't even happen in 4E. I'm not saying how 4E is bad since it doesn't cater for players wishing to become deities at level 8. It's rather that 4E doesn't want the player to have such a choice at her disposal. The game openly distrusts players to have resources that would take the skirmish game out of control. And that's where the RPGA influence comes in. RPGA needs to restrict the options mechanically available to players lest each game deteriorates into absolute chaos. And that would be because the most important factor which otherwise avoids these deteriorations is missing in any RPGA setup: the respect players and DM have for one another at a social level, their desire to have a good enough time at the table for this group to meet again the week after. The RPGA is all about being a place where players do not have to deal with (and hence can legitimately forego) those social constraints and consideration. As I wrote elsewhere, the designers of 4E are very, very outspoken in their downplaying the fact that D&D at its core - this being the home table - is a primarily social game with social responsibilities where "the game" understood purely mechanically takes a back seat. (Contrast chess: I don't play chess with someone to enjoy his company, but to enjoy the challenge of the game.) This is really built into the mechanics, and no amount of assertion to the contrary in the DMG - the book which least impacts RPGA play - can argue that away. Because we're talking about things that need support in the mechanics, and not just be paid lip-service. In particular, a ruleset shouldn't be written with the aim to pre-empt the regulatory (and otherwise contributing) role of social considerations.

So yes, 4E very clearly limits the options on both sides of the screen, and it has its good reasons to do so. On some days, I share those reasons and play 4E; because, to be honest, it takes away of the whole aspect of continually having to play more cleverly as a DM than your players to outstrip their ways to break your game by recourse to elements the (3.5.) game allows. (The film I mentioned, The Gamers II, does a fantastic job at documenting this facet of 3rd edition play, as did its prequel.)
On other days I wince at the restrictions 4E places on my behalf, and happily go with playing 3E. WotC produced two very good games, and I treasure the fact that I'm not bound by time to play only one of them.

Hey, and now I'm off this board for the rest of the day because I'm heading over to the Weekend in the Realms event, where I DM 4E RPGA play 9 hours non-stop. Wish me luck!

 

[justanobody]

I don't know about them, but I wanted to be very negative about 2E back in the day. I was out of work and didn't have the money to buy new books. I invested alot of time learning 1E and didn't want to learn all the small changes made to the game. So I found every issue I could with the game because I wanted to be negative about the game so I could stick with 1E and "justify" my decision. Who was I trying to justify my decision to? I really don't know. I feel it was very odd to negatively slam the new edition just because I wanted to play the previous. Especially in hindsight knowing that I eventually bought the books.

I didn't like AD&D when it came out, but not because of the change of rules, but the books themselves. The covers were nice, but there were just a mess to read. The game play was great! But I still don't like the books.

Some people may just not like what they don't like as simple as that, and those people not liking certain things mean those things take the enjoyment out of an enjoyment product for them if they are included.

So maybe those people not liking something don't need to justify why they don't like it, but other people just need to accept that not everyone will like the same things?

Some don't like 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th, or various parts of them enough that the entire system turns them off of it. That is ok. They don't have to like it if they don't want, but others shouldn't treat them like some genital wart because they don't like it as much as they do.

@Windjammer: have fun running your Weekend in the Skirmish Realms!

 

[SlyFlourish]

Straw Men and Actions Taken

So I'm still reading from a lot of people who are disappointed in 4e for one reason or another. A lot of these post that they never either purchased the books or played a game of 4e. First, its hard to believe in people who say the system is totally flawed who haven't at least tried it out. They don't have to if they don't want to, but their judgement matters little. I can't judge how good or bad Mutants and Masterminds is without actually seeing how it runs at the table.

I also see a lot of straw-man arguments. It's too WoW like. It's just a tabletop mini game. It's a video game now. It's D&D Easy-Mode. These statements have no use at all for 4e is clearly none of these things. If it was too WoW like, I'd have to be playing it on my computer (Frankly, I wish I could).

Like any RPG, 4e is what you make of it. Want a story-focused or character-focused game? Steer it that way. Steer your players that way. Skip minis and tiles completely and do everything vocally. As long as your players and you can all accept that things will be played a little looser for cinematic reasons, I see no reason why this can't work.

I think its definitely safe to say that 4e has a lot more rigidity in combat with both movement and placement than previous versions have. There is no doubt that it was influenced by the minis game. It's also interesting to see that D&D formed from Chainmail, a tabletop strategy game and now seems to be moving back in that direction. However, there's a lot of roleplay in 4e as well. The system for skill challenges is one. I ran my first encounter in 4e in my living room with no figures and no table. It was just conversation and skill checks. It defined the whole rest of our adventure.

This isn't all to defend 4e or not, although I realize I'm steering that way. The point is, we can poke 4e in the eye all we want but it's here now. Wizards isn't about to switch back to 3.5 (or 2nd or 1st). They're going to be pumping out the books and the new minis lines. Other publishers will soon put out more 4e material. You don't have to buy it. There are dozens of systems out there to play. Sure, its hard to find a group for some of them, but all you need is a handful of people.

Whether you love or hate 4e, you need to decide what you're going to do about it. Just complaining for the sake of complaining serves little purpose.

Worse, it can hurt the hobby overall. When I read that someone wanted to run at 4e game at their FLGS but was ridiculed into leaving by old timers who decided they hated 4e and wanted no one around them playing it - that really hurts our hobby.

A lot of people find 4e to be a lot of fun. I know I do. I'm a lot happier with character growth and combat in 4e than I was with 3.5. I know there are a lot of people who feel the opposite. They like the system they had. There's no reason we all can't enjoy the games we enjoy without having to stretch out the other and stick it full of needles.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Tetsubo]

Heh. How many times did we see that exact same post (except a -1 to the numbers) when 3e came out, word for word, just replace WotC with TSR and add in a few references to the evil takeover that will end RPGs forever?

You didn't see it from *me*. I fully embraced 3E as I knew that 2E was seriously broken. 3.5 is not seriously broken and did not need to be completely scrapped and replaced with a tactical miniatures game. Try again.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, you think the ingredients are the exact same. Others do not.

My point is essentially this: the differences between 4E and 3E are miniscule compared to the differences between 4E and Monopoly (both are games, or foods in the analogy, but very different types). The difference is in the details, not the essential parts.

Anyways, it's sad to see this thread devolve into the typical RABIES from a small select few who cannot abide to see anyone dislike 4e or even think that 4e might at some point have some flaws.

Professor, I think we're all getting tired of this. You've posted this in many 4E discussion threads, and it insults a great many posters, and misrepresents most of them. It doesn't help any discussion in any way.

Particularly when you post it in response to me, since I have never played 4E and haven't judged it yet. I'm getting tired of typing that but I've had to many, many times. I've sigged it but it doesn't help.

 

[Fifth Element]

Good lord, this is the attitude of a cult member, not a hobbiest.

And we get this from the guy claiming 4E likers are always attacking 3E likers.

 

[Hussar]

Psion, you see the button next to your name in this post? That will take you to the post the quote is from. Problem on EnWorld is that everytime I quote you, I miss out all the bits that were quotes in your post. (Beat's me why that should be so, but there it is.) Here is the post I was quoting from. It shows that you agree to someone else calling the RPGA influence on 4E to be a conspiracy theory.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ds-coasts-target-audience-12.html#post4520332

People should be aware that the RPGA altered its principles since 4E was chartered, and in some respect made it more like non-tournament play. For instance, the DM is allowed to alter the CRs (hence monsters, traps, ...) of the encounters depending on how much the group is struggling with it. So (a) the influence of RPGA standards on 4E play at home isn't as ugly as it were if the RPGA would have kept their standards unaltered, and (b) everything I just said adds to the theory that RPGA play set a fundamental standard for how 4E was designed: WotC using 4E to bring tournament and home play (of D&D) into closer proximity of each other.

I responded to this already, and Psion hit it on the head. It wasn't a conspiracy theory in that I thought anything nefarious going on. It was a conspiracy theory because I didn't have any supporting evidence. I was going with my gut and stringing together a number of observations. But, nope, don't have anything concrete.

But, thanks for giving concrete evidence to me. It's nice when a hunch bears fruit.

/snip to get to the point I'd like to talk about:

Play sessions are combats chained together through dialogue. An encounter is either a combat or a skill-based combat (and the skill-based combat has mechanical problems pointed out elsewhere on the boards).

KM, do you run modules? Do you read modules with any frequency. If you did, you would see that pretty much every module ever produced for any edition (although there are exceptions of course) are nothing but combats chained together through dialogue. Adventure design has followed this paradigm for decades and is nothing new. The resolution mechanics might be new, but, the basic form is exactly the same.

Perhaps the strongest case, the one that sold me, was that the roles were once "dungeon exploration" roles (trap guy, swiss-army-knife guy, fighting guy, recovery guy), and now they're expressly "combat" roles (fast guy, healing guy, crowd-control guy, damage absorbing guy).

Sort of. What you have now is a lot more blurring between those "dungeon exploration" roles so that you aren't forcing players to play certain classes. "Oh, no thief/rogue, guess you're going to get screwed by this adventure. Who has to play the cleric this time around? Etc".

It can be (and has been) vastly overstated before, but I'm beginning to get why this impression is there. It is there because, yeah, combat is a bigger part of what the game is about in 4e. Even though it was always a huge part of what the game was about, it was never the ultimate end point, just an important part of getting to that end point. Now, it seems to be the endpoint. Everything is cleaned up and refined around that purpose.

For many critics, that is all well and good, but it leaves the parts of the game that the liked (exploration, for instance) by the wayside.

Really? Combat was never the ultimate point? There were no "boss monsters" in adventures? The end point was almost always combat. I'd say always, but some pedantic bastard would come and make an issue out of it.

Considering how easy it is to do conversions for modules, according to those who have been doing the converstions, and those conversions are now far closer to the earlier edition adventures, I'm going to say that the parts of the game you really liked, like exploration, are every bit as alive in 4e as they were earlier.

 

[Keith Robinson]

Two points struck me as I've been reading (some of) this thread:

1) Those buyers who help support an edition by buying the vast majority of it are always going to be the ones that get screwed. They buy all the kit and help the edition be successful, only to feel totally abandoned when a new edition comes along, invalidating huge swathes of their collection. It's hugely ironic that those that buy the least (and by proxy, do the least to help support the game) are always the ones that lose the least.

This isn't a criticism in any way - just a reflection. Many people who are right now stuffing their shelves with 4ed books will one day find themselves in exactly the same situation and are likely to feel just as abandoned.

I guess the answer is - keep your purchases to a minimum and buy only what you need and will use. That way, when the system changes, you'll be happy that you haven't lost too much and that you've got good use out of what you did buy.

2) What does it matter what edition we play? I love 3.5 and will continue to play it for as long as I have players who also want to play. I think in many ways age does have something to do with it. Each new iteration of the game is based on the pleasures of the present generation and maybe the system we like best simply reflects this. I am 40 years old and I don't like the direction of 4ed - but, it simply reflects the demands of the 21st century - bigger, faster, cooler, louder (none of that meant as a criticism). No one should begrudge that. The game WILL move on, and when 5ed comes along, no doubts there will be plenty of people who hate it, as it won't reflect their ideas of how the game should be played (ideas which are more than likely entrenched in their own generation).

So, keep things simple: don't buy what you won't use and be don't be offended when the new generation don't like your old school ways.

I've already moved forward in standing still, and I'm very comfortable with myself right now in this regard.

 

[Silver Moon]

Two points struck me as I've been reading (some of) this thread:

wow, a post with calm, cool and collected logic!

1) Those buyers who help support an edition by buying the vast majority of it are always going to be the ones that get screwed..... I guess the answer is - keep your purchases to a minimum and buy only what you need and will use. That way, when the system changes, you'll be happy that you haven't lost too much and that you've got good use out of what you did buy.

Or alternately, learn to adapt the material. I've had no trouble adapting material made for any edition to other editions. Yeah, it takes some time, but that's far better than letting all your prior investment go to waste. For example, the 3E module "Beast of Burden" from Dungeon #100 worked great with my 1st Edition group with minimal modification.

2) What does it matter what edition we play? I love 3.5 and will continue to play it for as long as I have players who also want to play.

Exactly. My 1st Edition group that began in 1982 still plays 1st Edition on a regular basis. I've also played in 3E groups and have ongoing Gameday modules using other systems, both D20 and non-D20. As long as you have players you can have a game, the books don't go bad.

 

[Jack99]

Two points struck me as I've been reading (some of) this thread:

1) Those buyers who help support an edition by buying the vast majority of it are always going to be the ones that get screwed. They buy all the kit and help the edition be successful, only to feel totally abandoned when a new edition comes along, invalidating huge swathes of their collection. It's hugely ironic that those that buy the least (and by proxy, do the least to help support the game) are always the ones that lose the least.

This isn't a criticism in any way - just a reflection. Many people who are right now stuffing their shelves with 4ed books will one day find themselves in exactly the same situation and are likely to feel just as abandoned.

I guess the answer is - keep your purchases to a minimum and buy only what you need and will use. That way, when the system changes, you'll be happy that you haven't lost too much and that you've got good use out of what you did buy.

While it applies for some people, it's nowhere true for all. I had at least 90% of all released 2e material, yet I was more than happy to switch to 3e. I had at least as much 3e material as well (Official that is) and yet, I had no issues with switching to 4e. In fact, I was more than happy to.

I guess it how you look at things. When I buy D&D books, I do not expect to be using only them for the rest of my life. Just as with my computers, my TVs, my kitchen utensils, my cars, I buy them fully accepting that at some point, within a foreseeable future, they will have to be updated, if I wish to have the newest stuff.