Why do I complain about 4E?

[Jeff Wilder]

Some people have asked (with genuine curiosity, I think), why those of us who aren't moving from 3.5 to 4E continue to read about the new edition and complain about it. I suspect in answering this question I'm speaking for a fair number of people, but I don't know that for sure. So until somebody explicitly endorses my viewpoint on the subject, I'm speaking solely for myself.

Simply put, I continue to learn about and post about the problems of 4E in the hopes that more people will examine -- or re-examine -- the game and the motives behind the game ... and then decide to stick with 3.5 or Pathfinder.

While this motive is selfish -- I want a strong and healthy 3.5/Pathfinder community for years and years to come -- it is not vindictive. I don't want 4E to fail, and I wouldn't want that even if I thought it were a real possibility. Any RPG hobbyist who wants the biggest RPG publisher to fail in its biggest release in eight years is not thinking very clearly.

But I do hope to convince people to examine 4E closely, and to think critically about the changes made in the game, in terms of game mechanics and implied setting, and to think critically about the motive for those changes.

With regard to that last item, I'll expand a little bit.

3.5 is an exceptional RPG. It is not a perfect RPG. The truth of both of those statements can be seen in the adaptability of and adaptations to the base rules.

So 3.5 has problems. There are two approaches to those problems, specifically with regard to issuing a new edition of D&D. First, the exceptional RPG can be used as a building block, maintaining the foundation of the system and sub-systems, while fixing what needs to be fixed. Second, the system can be completely rebuilt, until for all intents and purposes it is a different system. (Note that I am making no value judgments in this statement, or below, about the quality of the new system.)

And with the first option (overhauling 3.5), note that I'm not necessarily talking about minor changes such as between 3E and 3.5. It would be entirely possible to keep a new edition looking and feeling like 3.5, but better. Fixed. Consider what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder, and then consider how many more improvements could be made if -- because it's a genuinely new edition -- troublesome math, troublesome spells, troublesome classes, and so on, could be rewritten from the ground up, with no worry about backward compatibility, and with an eye toward future splatbook expansion.

If D&D is a Pontiac GTO, 3E to 3.5 was a comprehensive tuneup. 3.5 to 4E could have been the installation of a blueprinted engine. Instead, they junked the Goat and we got a 2008 Mustang. (Again, no value judgments. I like the Mustang. All I'm saying it that it's not a classic muscle car.)

The question then becomes, given 3.5's exceptional foundation (not to mention fanbase), why choose the second option over the first option?

I can personally only see one reason: closing the OGL.

Now some people are perfectly fine with WotC's desire to close the OGL. Other people are enraged by it. Me, I'm somewhere in the middle, because I fully believe WotC has the right to do so and I fully understand why they want to do so, but at the same time it makes me sad, because the OGL represents, to me, the second Golden Age of D&D, and it says something to me about exactly how WotC has changed that they're now rejecting the OGL.

Some folks are doubtless thinking, "Well, duh. Of course they've changed." And they're right to observe the obviousness of it. But knowing it, and knowing why, doesn't keep me from being sad that the white knight that rode in, saved D&D, and brought me back to the RPG I loved as a teenager, has in a few short years become a corporate buccaneer.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'll continue to learn about 4E -- I intend to play 4E a couple of times at GenCon, as up to now my first-hand knowledge of the game comes from DDM -- and I'll continue to point out its problems and to gently encourage people to remain with 3.5/Pathfinder. And now you know why.

 

[jdrakeh]

In fairness, I 'get' why many 3.5 players are complaining about 4e here (i.e., at ENWorld). It is totally expected and understandable (though thank you for taking the time to lay it all out). What I want to know is why people who haven't touched any edition of D&D past AD&D 1e are complaining about D&D 4e here (or why they complained about D&D 3x here, as well). I mean, did they create accounts here solely to complain about new games?

 

[Rechan]

Oh, I've evaluated 4e. I've looked at it. Hell, I see some choices which were done solely for marketing choices.

And you know what? I don't care. Because among other things, D&D must stay relevant or it will disappear except for a few pockets of older gamers.

Even if I disliked choices that were made out of "Corporate buccaneering", you could not pay me to play 3.5. The rules feels like needles in my skin.

If you want a strong Pathfinder/3.5 continuation, then spend your dollars on Pathfinder and 3.5 materials. But as time marches on, more and more will play 4e, and convert, and things will go on. Money will be the biggest deciding factor here, because those 3.5 companies need to pay their employees, and their products become "Corporate Buccaneers".

 

[MerricB]

Speaking for myself, I don't think that 3.5e had an exceptional foundation. I think it had a lot of good things about it, but the mathematical underpinnings of the entire structure were extremely shaky. This was best demonstrated where for one level, Ogres would kill you in one hit, in a level or two later they were a good challenge, and a level or two later they weren't a threat at all. The gain in power from levels was way too steep.

Thus, 4e, where the monster balance is such that a 7th level monster could (by the suggested encounter balancing rules in the DMG) be a credible opponent for 2nd to 11th level characters!

This isn't something you can fix with a coat of paint to 3e. This is the fundamental mathematics of the system that has been changed.

Once you get that mathematical basis right, you can start examining the other elements of the system. I believe that you could, in fact, use the mathematical basis of 4e to create a system that was more reminiscient of previous editions of D&D, particularly with Vancian casting and fighters that use manuevers that anyone can use. However, the designers have obviously decided that such a system with its inherited flaws was not the one they wanted and so we have the 4e system with its very basic set of attacks with powers giving variety - and all divided into "at will", "encounter" or "daily".

If I find my players are not enjoying how characters are constructed and work in 4e, I will then seriously consider making up my own PHB with abilities reminiscient of earlier editions but that fit into the mathematical scheme of 4e. Otherwise, we'll just have fun.

Cheers!

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'll say one thing about critiquing from a distance, 4E plays different to how it reads.

Much of the new rules fix former play stoppages, be they mechanical or in the game flow. Whatever you lose, you more than gain.

I've got a family & career now, and only barely 4 precious hours to spare on a Sunday afternoon. I have no time for 3.x time-draining.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'll say one thing about critiquing from a distance, 4E plays different to how it reads.

Much of the new rules fix former play stoppages, be they mechanical or in the game flow. Whatever you lose, you more than gain.

First, this.

Second, to the OP... Don't you realize how offensive and condescending your reasoning sounds? Many of us who have switched over have carefully examined the differences between editions. To assume that we haven't is just as inappropriate as if I assumed that you weren't switching because you failed to understand what you'd read. Frankly, you're going to wind up pissing off a lot more people than you wind up "converting."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Second, to the OP... Don't you realize how offensive and condescending your reasoning sounds? Many of us who have switched over have carefully examined the differences between editions. To assume that we haven't is just as inappropriate as if I assumed that you weren't switching because you failed to understand what you'd read. Frankly, you're going to wind up pissing off a lot more people than you wind up "converting."

Why do you assume that you're my audience?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Why do you assume that you're my audience?

Who, exactly, is your audience then, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Why do you assume that you're my audience?

Because when you post something on a forum like this, your audience is everyone.

Because you're looking for people who

A) made the edition jump without bothering even to think about it, and

B) are willing to admit that fact

..and I just don't think there are very many people like that. Certainly not on a messageboard populated by people who obviously spend a lot of time thinking about RPGs.

You remember Nightfall? How he'd never stop talking about Scarred Lands? I know of a lot of people who actually refused to even look at the setting, because his constant harping on it drove them away, even though he had the best of intentions.

Think about it. Your argument begins with the assumption that your audience (whoever they may be) failed to think about a choice they made involving what's obviously a beloved hobby. How many flies do you think you're going to catch with that particular vinegar?

 

[Rechan]

I know of a lot of people who actually refused to even look at the setting, because his constant harping on it drove them away, even though he had the best of intentions.

Yeeah pretty much a cause's worst enemy can be its supporters.

How many flies do you think you're going to catch with that particular vinegar?

One gets the most flies with blood, not honey, but splitting hairs here.