When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[I'm A Banana]

It's a colored perception by people who want to see it that way, no more true than when the 2e grogs used the same line of attack against 3e.

It's actually originating from a real source, and denying that by attributing it to grognardism and agendas won't get at the real reason for it.

This isn't an unreasoned attack on 4e by blind, ignorant barbarians who thunder and roar when exposed to fire like some sort of cartoonish Frankenstein's Monster. "NNNG! 4E BAAAAD!"

No, this is a problem noted by a lot of very clever and very astute individuals, repeated time and time again. This is something more than unreasoned hatred.

And for what it's worth, I can see how 2e trufans leveled that criticism against 3e, and how much more they can level that same criticism at 4e. This isn't a new problem, it's just a worse problem.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like the concepts of roles. I think it could - and maybe should be expanded to non-combat roles. In the 4e d20 modern idea thread this was once discussed. Roles could be guide, face, sage or tech. I hope these ideas will be explored in d&d 4 offshots or successors.

 

[firesnakearies]

I hate the concept of roles.

Fortunately, they're usually nonsense and can be ignored by smart, creative players who want to build their team in their own way.

 

[Fifth Element]

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 making things seem less likely to put you into the action yourself and more like watching the action as you would a movie.

1E listed character movement rates in inches. Not inches that the character moved in the fantasy world, but inches that they moved on the battlemap (real or imaginary).

 

[AllisterH]

1E listed character movement rates in inches. Not inches that the character moved in the fantasy world, but inches that they moved on the battlemap (real or imaginary).

Personally, I love that the movement is in squares as it is easy for me to translate that to MY frame of measurement.

I've been playing D&D for a long while now and I STILL can't think in Imperial. A mile/yard/inches measurement is ALWAYS a pain in the ass at my table...

EDIT: Combat

4E isn't more combat-focused than earlier IMO. What sets it apparent is that it doesn't separate the CLASSES into "better at combat/worse in non-combat" roles as before.

Everyone in 4E should be able to contribute in combat whereas before, this wasn't true YET in non-combat role, everyone is also expected to be able to contribute.

This is one of the reasons why I personally love 4E. No longer do I as a DM have to really worry "am I providing enough time for player A to shine". If I run a social non-combat investigative mission, even the fighter will be able to contribute more than in other editions.

This, I think, is what makes 4e truly different. It isn't the focus on combat, it's the acknowledgement that the classes shouldn't be divided on a combat/non-combat basis.

 

[Thasmodious]

It's actually originating from a real source, and denying that by attributing it to grognardism and agendas won't get at the real reason for it.

This isn't an unreasoned attack on 4e by blind, ignorant barbarians who thunder and roar when exposed to fire like some sort of cartoonish Frankenstein's Monster. "NNNG! 4E BAAAAD!"

No, this is a problem noted by a lot of very clever and very astute individuals, repeated time and time again. This is something more than unreasoned hatred.

And for what it's worth, I can see how 2e trufans leveled that criticism against 3e, and how much more they can level that same criticism at 4e. This isn't a new problem, it's just a worse problem.

The "real" source isn't what you think it is. It's the same source that happened at the release of each and every other edition. You could stat up the "haters" as a PC class, they would have maintained more consistency through the editions than the actual classes in the PHBs.

I never called anyone blind or ignorant. Some people just react badly to change, even clever and astute individuals. A relatively normal person, when faced with change, simply decides if that change works for them or not, makes their choice, and moves on. A more deranged individual (and I mean that with love) believes that the whole world must feel the depth of their rage about the change, especially those who have embraced the change.

It remains, though, that the D&D game has always been a game focused on combat. It's always been a game of killing things and taking their stuff. Fighting and treasure have always been the core values of the game. The other stuff is largely group dependent. Some groups RP very heavily, some not at all, most in between. Some spend hours on character background (despite never having a set of rules for backgrounds, gee, what a concept), some write "parents killed by orcs" and move on. Some groups love dungeon crawls, some love urban settings, some love the wide wilderness, some love plane hopping, but all those elements lead to the combats and the treasure. All those great classic modules from OD&D, 1e? Mostly combat. As ALWAYS the level of RP and backstory and other elements are DM and group dependent, not rules dependent. Extra subsystems create more rules clash, problems for groups that don't enjoy those prescribed play elements, as cutting them out can have some reprecussions in other areas. It's easier to add things than take them away.

 

[Fifth Element]

It remains, though, that the D&D game has always been a game focused on combat. It's always been a game of killing things and taking their stuff.

We see this quite a bit and some people get offended by it. What it means, I think, is that the game rules are mostly about killing things and taking their stuff. It doesn't mean you're only "supposed" to do that when you play. But the non-combat stuff generally is far less rules-heavy. In any edition.

 

[justanobody]

1E listed character movement rates in inches. Not inches that the character moved in the fantasy world, but inches that they moved on the battlemap (real or imaginary).

Yes a sad throwback from its wargaming roots, that people had thought and wished had been removed from the game, for the concept to rear its ugly head back in the terms of "squares" (1" no less) in 4th edition to devolve the game back to a state of near wargame, then add in the emphasis on minis, and all the combat oriented rules, and merging the newest miniatures line from being its own game, or even just an accessory to being something used to play D&D without needing any of the books to play with in some minis game delve format, has completed the circle in trying to revive for the third time the game Chainmail for 5th edition where D&D will cease to exist.



You don't like 4th. I think its ok, but too heavy combat focused in the books and some peoples minds. The facts about the combat orientation exist and have in the past. The sad part is HOW they are returning to try to turn back time when the game was selling better or some other reason.

I might as well play 1st edition rather than 4th to get the bits that 4th forgot to include from it as it grabbed bits from each other edition and put them into a blender and hoped something came out worth using.

Oddly it has those bits from many editions that give it quirks that are fun, and full of combat. They just need to add more to balance out the books focus on combat. Plain and simple.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes a sad throwback from its wargaming roots, that people had thought and wished had been removed from the game, for the concept to rear its ugly head back in the terms of "squares" (1" no less) in 4th edition to devolve the game back to a state of near wargame <snip>

That's quite a spiel. "Sad throwback", "devolve" and "ugly head" are not exactly productive-discussion-friendly words.

You don't like 4th.

Are you referring to me, specifically? I've never played 4E. I don't judge games until I've played them.

 

[AllisterH]

Let me state again, I DESPISE IMPERIAL.

I simply can't think Imperial and it drives me and my players up a wall thinking in Imperial.

Squares are SO much easier to work with IMO.