When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Psion]

Could you cite for me the parts of the game that make "dungeon exploration" more difficult than in previous editions?

It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of focus. The central hallmark of what I thinking of here is how the class abilities have become principally about, and balanced around, combat.

EDIT: Simon Atavix and Andor also reflect perceptions I share.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of focus. The central hallmark of what I thinking of here is how the class abilities have become principally about, and balanced around, combat.

EDIT: Simon Atavix and Andor also reflect perceptions I share.

But do you think it will hinder the exploration approach? Or do you fear it will lead to people no longer being reminded of the exploration approach, and changing the "typical" play style for D&D? (Assuming there is one?)


What kind of rules support or focus more on exploration?
Are it "utility spells" that help exploration (divinations, flight, trap detection/removal, invisibility?) (And that 4E Utility Powers and Rituals fail to power? If so, how do they not cover it?)

Or is it just no rules at all, and instead more a lack of rules, so there is no "I just roll Perception to see if their are any secret doors", but "I knock on all walls - anything sounding hollow?"

Or are it "strategic" resources - hit points or spells that you have to manage over more then just a single encounter? (And how do Daily Powers and Healing Surges not cover this?)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Someone stated upthread that they feel "attacked" by "rabid 4E fanboys."

It's terms like "rabid" and "fanboy" that stir the pot. It's claims that 4E is nothing but a boardgame or combat skirmish game that to me seem like thinly-veiled claims of badwrongfun. This is when 4E fans feel attacked and come to the defense of the game. Adding "IMHO" to a condescending implied "you're not really playing D&D" doesn't cut it.

I see people discussing the specifics of what they like or don't like about 4E and everything goes fine. Its when people come in with the 4E hate buzzwords (too WoW, combat skirmish game, boardgame, pushing plastic) that imply that those who enjoy the new edition are playing the game wrong that the edition wars erupt again.

I enjoy 4E and I don't see it as a boardgame. We do roleplay just as much as we did in all previous editions. I see more than "pushing plastic" around the battlemat. I can envision the why around the how. I don't mind discussing pieces of 4E that people don't enjoy, just like we did about aspects of 3.x. What I am tired of is the implied claims that we aren't playing a true RPG or D&D or whatever, whether it is your humble opinion that we are or not.

 

[teach]

It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of focus. The central hallmark of what I thinking of here is how the class abilities have become principally about, and balanced around, combat.

EDIT: Simon Atavix and Andor also reflect perceptions I share.

Psion and Simon and Andor, I think you're absolutely right on the money with the idea that class abilities used to be balanced for the dungeon exploration, rather than with 4e, the encounter. Look at classes like the thief (oh look can't sneak attack this undead, but there's a trapped treasure chest that we'll need to open after the combat that you shoudl look at) or the bard (you'll be our face for role-playing encounters in return you'll spend your time buffing us in combat)

Now, personally, I like the shift. I hated playing a thief in the AofW campaign because there was so much undead, but we needed one because of the traps. I also feel like it opens up the "dungeon exploration" aspect to more of the players around the table, because skills (pretty much the only non-combat abilities most characters have) seem to be well balanced between the classes. I could see though how people who played earlier editions with games that focused more on the exploration part than the combat part would be frustrated with exploration crunch and fluff. I think it's there (mostly in the skills section), just not in the places (class writeups) that it used to be.

But I'm glad you said this psion and others, because it does help to explain to me what I like about 4e and the classes, and why some people who play the older versions don't like 4e.

 

[teach]

Someone stated upthread that they feel "attacked" by "rabid 4E fanboys."

It's terms like "rabid" and "fanboy" that stir the pot. It's claims that 4E is nothing but a boardgame or combat skirmish game that to me seem like thinly-veiled claims of badwrongfun. This is when 4E fans feel attacked and come to the defense of the game. Adding "IMHO" to a condescending implied "you're not really playing D&D" doesn't cut it.

I see people discussing the specifics of what they like or don't like about 4E and everything goes fine. Its when people come in with the 4E hate buzzwords (too WoW, combat skirmish game, boardgame, pushing plastic) that imply that those who enjoy the new edition are playing the game wrong that the edition wars erupt again.

I enjoy 4E and I don't see it as a boardgame. We do roleplay just as much as we did in all previous editions. I see more than "pushing plastic" around the battlemat. I can envision the why around the how. I don't mind discussing pieces of 4E that people don't enjoy, just like we did about aspects of 3.x. What I am tired of is the implied claims that we aren't playing a true RPG or D&D or whatever, whether it is your humble opinion that we are or not.

I think Vyvyan is correct here. The buzzwords that are used by some in their attacks seem to sidetrack any serious discussion about the differences between the editions, which I think is a shame because it's a really interesting and enlightening discussion. I would hope that other people who want to have a serious discussion about this topic would seek to avoid to use the terms that Vyvyan has stated. I'm sure that there are terms or phrases that 4e fan use that can cause the same reaction in fans of the older editions. However, as I am a fan of 4e myself (getting stuff together to go DM the WEekend in the Realms as I type this post) I'm not really in a great position to state them. I could imagine one would be the way that much of the early 4e promotion seemed to highlight things that were broken in 3e and thus imply that 3e wasn't a good game and needed to be scrapped. My hope is that someone who is a fan of the older editions could let those of us 4e fans know what we say that can be taken negatively because of the words we use.

 

[Psion]

But do you think it will hinder the exploration approach? Or do you fear it will lead to people no longer being reminded of the exploration approach, and changing the "typical" play style for D&D? (Assuming there is one?)

Let's just say, I see that in the absence of particular leaning of the group, 4e will produce a different style than 1e-3e*.

I don't remember if it was this thread or another one, but I recall someone recently posting to the effect that when creating a rogue for 4e, they almost felt like a different sort of character than they had when they created rogues in prior editions. The "reason" you need a rogue in 1e was principally because you needed someone canny in lock and traps. The reason you need one in 4e is because you need a striker.

I'm a fan of class based systems, but the reason I am so is that classes inform what the game is about. A change in the focus of the classes is tantamount to a change in the focus of the games AFAIAC.

* - I will admit here that this transition was already underway under 3e.

 

[Thasmodious]

This distinction between "dungeon exploration" and "combat skirmish" really nails it for me. D&D 4e definitely feels more like a boardgame than any previous edition, by far. It feels like most of the time in combat the goal is to choose the correct "power card" to enable you to move an opponent "one square" or whatnot. A long way away from how it used to be.

IMHO, of course.

But that's all on you. Not the game. D&D hasn't ever made players play above the mechanics, only encouraged it. 4e goes a long way to encouraging it with the flavor text for powers and abilities, to help players visualize what they are doing.

Did you play 3e like this:

Fighter: Uh, my turn? Okay, I move zig zagged like this so I don't provoke 1-2-1 and attack. 26 that hit? 16 damage. Done.

Then 4e will likely play for you just like 3e did. On the other hand, if your group puts narration ahead of the dice, the game is no more mechanical than any other. Choosing to use magic missile in 4e is no different than in 3e, its a matter of description. "I cast magic missile, hit 20, 8 damage" is the same in either edition and its a player position not a system one. Same thing with "My fighter pushes him 1 square" as opposed to "My onslaught drives him back towards the edge of the cliff".

For me, 4e plays no differently than any other edition.

Each time the holder of the D&D brand releases a new edition or version, some people in their "target audience" choose to get off the train. It's happened at every edition of the game and will happen with 5e. The last two editions have had the pervasiveness of the internet to give voice to the small group that gets off the train and many of them choose to rage, and rage, and rage until they've dealt with the anger stage of grief for a decision they made. To each their own. That decision is not based on some objective fault with the new version, but on the highly subjective snap judgments of the person.

 

[Psion]

It's terms like "rabid" and "fanboy" that stir the pot.

Absolutely.

It's claims that 4E is nothing but a boardgame or combat skirmish game that to me seem like thinly-veiled claims of badwrongfun.

That's where we begin to part ways. If that's how they said it... I might be able to see what you mean.

But to say that saying "4e feels/seems like a boardgame to me" is a perception. If you start attacking someone, attempt to prove them "wrong", based on their perception is an instance of accusing them of badwrongfun, because they fail to share your perception of what is goodrightfun.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In terms of pro-4E or anti-4E people being jerks, I think you have to look at the anger.

For anti-4E, posting angry generally means that the game has changed in an unsatisfactory manner, you are angry, and you post angry.

For pro-4E, posting angry has nothing to do with the game. 4E has been released, is fully supported by WotC, and is the center of attention. All is right with the world. For pro-4E, posting angry involves responding to anti-4E people who post angry.

 

[Jack99]

In terms of pro-4E or anti-4E people being jerks, I think you have to look at the anger.

For anti-4E, posting angry generally means that the game has changed in an unsatisfactory manner, you are angry, and you post angry.

For pro-4E, posting angry has nothing to do with the game. 4E has been released, is fully supported by WotC, and is the center of attention. All is right with the world. For pro-4E, posting angry involves responding to anti-4E people who post angry.

The counter argument to that would be that some 4e fans are nervous because 4e is not a huge success, and thus afraid that more negative "press" on boards like these will create problems for 4e in the long run. That Pathfinder will be bigger than D&D etc.