When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Psion]

I'm curious. What sort of mechanical support are you missing? I can understand feeling that the game focuses mostly on combat, even if I disagree.

If you understand that, you understand my point to the extent that I have stated it in this thread.

In the post you were responding to, I was responding to thecasualoblivion's mistatements of other posters, not restating any position of my own.

 

[Thasmodious]

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!".

There is no one claiming Graz'zt can't teleport to another plane or thousands of miles away. But that is not a combat ability. The monster stat blocks present combat abilities. Battlefield teleportation is a combat ability. Where some of the disconnect is, is that 4e tells DMs to service the story. If the PCs are having their first confrontation with Graz'zt he's supposed to get away if he doesn't take them out. So he does. The DM doesn't need to be able to show the players a line in the MM that says he can do that. Some do not like this approach, some do, but not understanding it at all is what leads people to think that 4e is a skirmish game. To do so, you are ignoring a good deal of the DMG, wherein running campaigns, building stories, and the like are focused on.

D&D was never simulationist, but it had simulationist nods. It's always been gamist. 4e has dumped the simulationism for narrativism, and some don't like that. But claiming that 4e is telling you that an epic level demon lord can't teleport represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what has been presented to you.

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.

1. 4e does leave this explicitly to the DM
2. There is no statement that Graz'zt can't instant escape a battle and no need to rationalize such a story element.

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.

It could. The DM is freed from the constraints of 3e, where everything had to be explained by something in a book. If the DM wants a magic fountain that drinking from it gives the PCs a level, he can. I don't mean he can in the sense of Rule 0, but in the sense that such things are actively encouraged by the game, explicitly stated as encouraged, and made easy to accomplish because you do not need a page reference to rationalize having a magic fountain, or an item grant a wish, or something like that. Having things grant wishes is a staple of fantasy, having PCs cast wish daily is a bit much. A wish in 3e was horribly nerfed to the point where it wasn't really a wish at all, out of necessity since it was an ability attainable by PCs.

DMing the edition for RPGA events, D&D does become a skirmish game, and it always has. The RPGA experimented with adding heavier RP elements to their games, and it didn't really work. But, since it's inception, RPGA games focus on combat/adventure. That's the nature of that beast. 4e plays well in that regard. But if you only see it in that regard, you are ignoring the potential of the system. A potential, again, explicitly stated in the DMG.

 

[Thasmodious]

You don't? There are dozens of us on this board.

You can't say 'us', andor. You hated 4e months before release and were arguing all over the 4e forums about every snippet of information that came out, while sometimes ending a post with a nod towards "seeing when it comes out". You were one of the people I had in mind when I said that.

 

[Andor]

There is no one claiming Graz'zt can't teleport to another plane or thousands of miles away.

Uh... Windjammer claimed exatly that. You quoted him in your post. Perhaps you should avoid denying the existence of sentences you quote yourself... You might question the reasonableness of his claim, but is it unreasonable to claim that creatures can only do what they are presented as being able to do?

But that is not a combat ability. The monster stat blocks present combat abilities. Battlefield teleportation is a combat ability. Where some of the disconnect is, is that 4e tells DMs to service the story. If the PCs are having their first confrontation with Graz'zt he's supposed to get away if he doesn't take them out. So he does. The DM doesn't need to be able to show the players a line in the MM that says he can do that. Some do not like this approach, some do, but not understanding it at all is what leads people to think that 4e is a skirmish game. To do so, you are ignoring a good deal of the DMG, wherein running campaigns, building stories, and the like are focused on.

Could you cite for me please where in the DMG it instructs GMs to give new powers to BBGs if it suits the plot? Because a long distance teleport would certainly be a new power.

The DM does not need to point to a listing to give a monster a new power, it is true, but neither should he do so too liberally, if I decide that kobolds in my world have a 1 in 3 chance of exploding like a 10 megaton bomb on death I would anticipate player protests.

D&D was never simulationist, but it had simulationist nods. It's always been gamist. 4e has dumped the simulationism for narrativism, and some don't like that. But claiming that 4e is telling you that an epic level demon lord can't teleport represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what has been presented to you.

1. 4e does leave this explicitly to the DM
2. There is no statement that Graz'zt can't instant escape a battle and no need to rationalize such a story element.

It could. The DM is freed from the constraints of 3e, where everything had to be explained by something in a book. If the DM wants a magic fountain that drinking from it gives the PCs a level, he can. I don't mean he can in the sense of Rule 0, but in the sense that such things are actively encouraged by the game, explicitly stated as encouraged, and made easy to accomplish because you do not need a page reference to rationalize having a magic fountain, or an item grant a wish, or something like that. Having things grant wishes is a staple of fantasy, having PCs cast wish daily is a bit much. A wish in 3e was horribly nerfed to the point where it wasn't really a wish at all, out of necessity since it was an ability attainable by PCs.

The irony of course is that rule 0 is from 3e. And that very rule 0 means all those 'constraints' in 3e exist nowere but in your head. Conversely I see no such 'check with your GM' rule 0 in 4e. Nor do I see any advice about crafting house rules in the DMG. Perhaps you could cite some page references for me?

 

[Andor]

You can't say 'us', andor. You hated 4e months before release and were arguing all over the 4e forums about every snippet of information that came out, while sometimes ending a post with a nod towards "seeing when it comes out". You were one of the people I had in mind when I said that.

... I don't appreciate being called a liar. I did not hate 4e, I feared it would disappoint. Nor did I come to a final conclusion until after I had seen and played the game. Do not presume the right to contradict me about my internal feelings!

 

[Gothmog]

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.

Maybe you never said or thought negative things about 3e, but some folks did. The frothing nerdrage when 3e came out was just as silly and misinformed as the frothing nerdrage with 4e, its just coming from different folks. I know for me and my group, 3e/3.5 was seriously broken, and we quit playing in 2005. You have to realize there is no one real gold standard or right way to play, and each person has their own preferences. Just play what you like, and don't worry what other people do.

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

You know, using langues like "rabies" and "cult member" doesn't do anything but stoke the ire of those you label with such terms, and in fact it demonstrates you can't get your message across without labeling and demeaning others, which weakens your arguement and makes others completely discount your opinions. You realize when you respond in the same ways you accuse others of acting, other people will see you in the same light? ProfessorCirno, I've seen you post enough to know you're a smart guy, so why go on with the needless antagonism?

Have some 4e fans overreacted and lashed out? Sure. But in every context I've seen, its been when someone else attacked their likes or playstyle as "badwrongfun" (or with the implication its badwrongfun). I'll admit to getting irked by some of the asinine things I've seen, but if I respond, I try to do so in a calm manner and explain myself.

As for why the edition wars continue, I think its for the following reasons:

1. Some people don't like 4e from a mechanical/tradition standpoint, and thats a valid criticism. 4e is quite a bit different in that it uses new mechanics for some things, and did break with some of the long-standing traditions of D&D. I personally like what they have done, but I understand others might not. Everybody has their own tastes, and 4e isn't a perfect system (and I know few who would say it is). But for many of us, its more fun than 3.x, and we're having fun playing and running it.

2. Some folks feel like they've already spent too much time/money on 3.x, and don't want to invest in a new system. Again, a perfectly valid reason to stay with something you know and already enjoy.

3. Some players thought 3.x was fine the way it was, and feel "betrayed" by WotC, and lash out at 4e as its successor. Not based on the merits or faults of the system, but out of some personal angst. This is where a lot of the frothing nerdrage posts come from IMO, because to be honest, a mentally stable person wouldn't get THAT upset about a game (and yes, I do understand this is the internet, and people overstate their opinions to the extreme). Find something you like and play it, but don't demean others who don't share your views and deride them as having "badwrongfun".

Now, I do think some 4e fans tend to have a hair-trigger response when 4e is criticized because of the extreme name-calling and antagonism of the pro-3.x crowd instigated back when 4e was announced last fall, and that continues to this day by about half a dozen posters on this site. After a while, its easy to get on the defensive, and see malice where none was intended. Terms like "tabletop skirmsh/wargame", "WoW-like", or "boardgame" (to name a few), are not negative in and of themselves, but they are usually intended to demean 4e and its players as having "badwrongfun". A lot of the "rabies" behavior you're seeing is coming from people who are sick and tired of having to defend their likes against constant attack, and being told they are playing "t-ball" D&D. Most pro-4e posters aren't angry at all about the new edition, and in fact would post happily all day about how much fun we're having- there is no need for angst or angry flare-ups from the pro-4e crowd. Its the constant claims of "badwrongfun" and infantile gaming that get the 4e supporters riled up.

If I have personally lashed out at you or anybody else during this time, I apologize, but I don't see why we can't treat everybody's opinions and likes with respect and discuss things rationally, rather than devolving into name calling and deriding others likes as infantile.

 

[Psion]

Maybe you never said or thought negative things about 3e, but some folks did. The frothing nerdrage when 3e came out was just as silly and misinformed as the frothing nerdrage with 4e, its just coming from different folks.
(...)
You know, using langues like "rabies" and "cult member" doesn't do anything but stoke the ire of those you label with such terms, and in fact it demonstrates you can't get your message across without labeling and demeaning others, which weakens your arguement and makes others completely discount your opinions.

Sort of like the term "nerdrage"?

 

[Thasmodious]

Do not presume the right to contradict me about my internal feelings!

I did no such thing. You made posts on a public forum. I'm responding to those. You do realize other people saw those, don't you?

 

[Maggan]

Can't we all just get along?

I think a lot of grief can be avoided if people just ignore the push button posts and posters, and refrain from trying to present the same with "facts" to "defend" any edition of the game.

The push button posters aren't interested in facts. They are interested in pushing buttons. And as long as people let that happen, voila ... edition wars.

So forget about getting along. I think lots of people should just stop being a button that people feel the urge to push nilly-willy.

/M

 

[Gothmog]

Sort of like the term "nerdrage"?

There's been some nerdrage on all sides, but its the term most appropriate for the situation at hand. I personally couldn't care less what others are playing or what they believe, but the extreme opinions some people on both sides have shot out there can't be characterized as anything but irrational.

Maybe "desperate cries for attention" would be a more appropriate way to state it.