Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Korgoth]

When I tried 4e (several sessions of a campaign, not just one session... and the DM was very nice and I liked my character, etc.) I found out that the problems I thought I would have with the game were not the problems I actually did have with it, or at least they didn't bother me as much as the problems that cropped up and surprised me.

First was that combat was (to me, of course... who else would I be talking about?), well, tedious in the extreme. You hit half the time, and do something like 1/4 to 1/6 of the target's total with an average attack. So each. lousy. dreary. boring. thug. takes. forever. to. drop. Oh, and there are a dozen of them.

So here you have these long, uninteresting combats that take basically the whole session... we'd have like 10 minutes of role playing and then when "bullet time" starts that's pretty much it... there goes the rest of the session.

The second problem was something like what someone might call "simulationist", though I hate that term... it was the fact that the semantic content or "skin" of the opponent was totally arbitrary. For example, shirtless boxers who hit for the same damage as armed foes and have AC of an armored man. A pirate in a shirt and pants who had an AC of 21... even though my elf with the 20 Dex and the magic armor only managed a 20.

Why did the unarmored pirate have an AC of 21? So an appropriate-level striker would have to roll a 10 or better to hit him, obviously. So it's basically Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or something where the whole world scales with the party.

To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination.

Now that being said, clearly some people enjoy 4E. I don't know what they could possibly get out of it, but I don't know that about a lot of things people do so that's no big deal.

I don't think, unlike what the OP may think, that people who dislike 4E and say these things about it merely lack imagination. My imagination is pretty great. I just think that it is a game with a relatively narrow appeal... it delivers one very focused type of play experience, and that's either what you dig or what you don't dig. Kind of like Diplomacy (a game I find aggravating but a lot of people think it's one of the best games evar) or Avalon Hill's original Civilization (a game a lot of people find boring but I think it's one of the best games evar).

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Wow. That's pretty much the exact reason 4th ed's ideas are not great for me.

Swimming sucks because whenever you jump in water, you drown.

There's just a bit of a chance that if this is why you think simulation sucks, you may be doing it wrong.

Well, that certainly would explain why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is raking it in at the box office while getting panned by the critics.

But I'll be happily giving that a pass too.

See, there's a funny thing. (I take it your meaning is more conventional than Forge-speak, something like "realism" or "process modeling".)

The funny thing is that this has nothing to do with how much time is spent on mechanics. The amount of work it takes to play 4E adds little to simulation simply because it's not concerned with simulation. It's time-consuming and abstract.

Those are two independent variables.

What's it matter, if "simulationism sucks"? Make up your mind!

I want to play D&D with friends, not a wargame where there's rules for everything including chaffing from carrying "x" amount of gear giving "y" penalty to hit!

Most folk I have ever played with, want fun. Now, to some, fun is of course, uber detailed simulationism, as said if that's what ye like then fair dinkum, but it is not the reason most folk play D&D.
They like humour, they like over the top high adventure, they want to sit arpund with pals, whooping it up when they crit or blow 10 enemies to cinders, and enjoy being immersed in a fantasty which they are actively shaping, not being mere mooks to the DM and the rules.

Ever seen "The Crimson Pirate"? old movie, rollicking good fun, and the antecedent of "Pirates of the Carribean".. How many folk would rather play that, than "100 Years War"?
How many folk would rather play "Conan" than "Kreigspiele"?
We're roleplayers, not rollplayers.

3rd ed started adding in some more believable tactics (bullrush, trip, disarm), but it was still largely "whack-a-rat": standing there seeing who could whittle the other down first...without much tactics. And when grapple came up...ugh!!

You also couldn't put in loads of critters in 3rd ed, due to complexity and the very tricky balancing issues, which ruined a whole facet of combat.
Please do not say that is wrong, because it's patently obvious fact (or there wouldn't have had to be so much house ruling etc)

I started putting numbers on minis so you could keep track of their hit points spells etc....OMG as a DM it was extremely unpleasant having to be a book keeper, rather than a story teller.

In 1st and 2nd ed, I knew monster's stats by heart and could come up with them at whim, not so in 3rd ed, when you were forced to use a E-Tools to have any realistic chance of a "quick" build.
And Challenge Ratings, Effective Character Level and Level adjustment was just plain broken at times, as well as a pain in the posterior.

So a large number of folk got fed up DMing! Go on ask them, I am far form being the only one.
Thus, 3.5 ed was indeed THE SUCK for D&D because it was poisoning the game itself. No DM, no game.
If you do not want to face that fact *shrug*

I dare anyone to take a new player to D&D, give them 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th ed, with E-Tools and the Character Builder, and see which is the most confusing and unpleasant for them to make a character.
it will nearly always be 3.5 ed.

it's not that 3rd ed is "bad" or "simulationism is wrong", but as said, over complexity should be left to a CPU, and D&D isn't, cannot and shouldn't be "realistic" with a bazillion rules...it should be plausible though, within the setting, which is a fantasy game.

So the player base has fractured, some going back to 1st and 2nd ed, others going to Pathfinder.
3rd ed was a great idea, added much needed things, like the skills, but the over simulationism, like skill points, made it too unwieldy...all to the detriment of D&D in the long run.

Imagine the "Crypt" battle in Conan the Destoryer, now THAT folks, is pure D&D, like it or not It's awesome fun.
Imagine playing that with each edition.

1st and 2nd ed you may need to tweak existing critters or NPCs to fit, but it's not too much problem, unless you have to make a lot of saving throws (against umpteen potential resist types, which was a pest). Tying creatures directly to Hit Dice was a flaw in those editions, preventing easy advancement/challenge

3.5 ed..um...say Conan is a 1st lvl barbarian, 7th lvl fighter, 2nd levle thief, then...30 enemies of appropriate level, then work out skill points track hit points...for the DM, that is a HELL of a lot of work and frankly, DMs have a life you know.

4th ed hey, 30 minions and a handful of leaders, easy as pie! take any critter you want, change it's name, maybe change a few iconic powers if needed, and voila'!

I've always spun a story on how a fight goes as the PCs and NPCs hits misses and damage are rolled, but if you just sit there and roll dice and deal only with the mechanics...meh, what fun is that, that ain't roleplaying?!

At the end of a game, everyone, including the DM, should feel like they've had a great time, playing a rip-snorting adventure, rather than spendig 3+ hours doing statistics or wargaming (which is another hobby entirely).


on another point:
If folk wish simulationism, there must always be the sense of real danger, hence EVERY opponent should potentially deadly (hey, adventurers travel in bands, 5 against 1 is just being smart! hehe)

For "High adventure", not every encounter has ot have the threat of death, but instead, have the risk of things going wrong.
For example, it could be skill check going wrong, or a weak enemy may shout and alert more weak enemies, LOTS Of weak enemies who together are a threat, etc.



The Transformers refference was a bit of a cheap shot and shows a disconnect
I can't stand how much the media, of all types, has got so damned cheap and dumbed down in plotting and tension. Great works are still made though (See "Rome" for example).
The fault though is not about "heroics" or fun etc.
Go have a look at "The French Connection", that absolutely rules. Partially because it's so damn rough looking, look at the car chase cinematography.
I HATE how everythhing now is so smooth,even when they are trying to be "rough" it often looks fake.
The attention to detail for "rough realism" actually takes a lot of work.

I may love "Kagemusha" but I do not want to play that, it's too much angst-ridden and tragedy, there's more than enough of that in real life, I play D&D to get away from real life's garbage, to have FUN!
Pirates of the Caribbean or Hawk the Slayer are a hell of a lot more "fun" than Kagemusha, even though the latter is an awesome film.

Sure, some folk like simulationism, but they are in the minority of players.
Most folk out there want to have fun, the rules are just the framework, not the reason d'etre!
Yes folk have the right to thei opinion that simulationism and 3.5 is superb, but many folk do not (or think there are serious flaws)
D&D is interactive story telling and grown ups playing "soldiers".
4th ed, for me, does a good job of that. Still can be improved, but what doesn't need improvement?

Some folk love a certian edition, ok I get that I just love D&D itself, long as it's fun to play I don't give a hoot what edition, when I'm 60 I guess I'll be playing 8th or 10th edition, so what?

 

[TheNovaLord]

back to the OP

I played 4e , for about 6 months i think, hoping it would be 'quicker/easier' than 3.5 which got a bit bogged down above level 7 or so.

Unfortunately it is really quite complictaed to have a combat in, and given the fights take 6 rounds+, does bcome dry and dull, as its sometimes hard to add in the 'fun/description' of your attacks if they fail quite a lot, and really dont seem overly effective

on the other hand im not going back to 3.5 either and as i dont think i could cope again with 4 attacks per round, miss chances for blur etc.

If they lightened 4e a bit i think it would get even more 'consoley/cartoony' so im not sure what the answer is.

it does seem pretty popular and i know quite a few poeple who are sticking with it, so it obviously has its appeal....

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination...

I tried to give you XP for this but was kindly told by EN World's computer that I must stop being so frugal with handing out XP to other people first.

I concur with this wonderfully expressed paragraph and could not agree more so.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hairfoot]

I tried to give you XP for this but was kindly told by EN World's computer that I must stop being so frugal with handing out XP to other people first.

I concur with this wonderfully expressed paragraph and could not agree more so.

I, however, was permitted. A great post.

 

[Samuel Leming]

People keep using terms like 'simulationism' and 'narrativism' and clearly you're not all talking about the same thing. It makes for a garbled discussion and is my second biggest reason for not liking the terms.

They like humour, they like over the top high adventure, they want to sit arpund with pals, whooping it up when they crit or blow 10 enemies to cinders, and enjoy being immersed in a fantasty which they are actively shaping, not being mere mooks to the DM and the rules.

Ever seen "The Crimson Pirate"? old movie, rollicking good fun, and the antecedent of "Pirates of the Carribean".. How many folk would rather play that, than "100 Years War"?
How many folk would rather play "Conan" than "Kreigspiele"?
We're roleplayers, not rollplayers.

...

For "High adventure", not every encounter has ot have the threat of death, but instead, have the risk of things going wrong.
For example, it could be skill check going wrong, or a weak enemy may shout and alert more weak enemies, LOTS Of weak enemies who together are a threat, etc.

....

The Transformers refference was a bit of a cheap shot and shows a disconnect
I can't stand how much the media, of all types, has got so damned cheap and dumbed down in plotting and tension. Great works are still made though (See "Rome" for example).
The fault though is not about "heroics" or fun etc.
Go have a look at "The French Connection", that absolutely rules. Partially because it's so damn rough looking, look at the car chase cinematography.
I HATE how everythhing now is so smooth,even when they are trying to be "rough" it often looks fake.
The attention to detail for "rough realism" actually takes a lot of work.

When Ron Edwards used the term 'simulationist' you're exactly the kind of guy he was talking about. Kind of ironic. For a quick but incomplete explanation see this page.

I think EN World would be better served by dumping these poisoned terms and adopting better terminology.

 

[Kzach]

To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination..

You summed up the problem rather well.

You see only the math.

 

[cangrejoide]

SO doesn't that mean it's even more comedic when a supposed "joke monster" wails our so called hero to a pulp? And thus you agree with what I am saying?

And for this you use minions not normal monsters.


also, goblins/kobolds never been joke monsters at level 1-3, you never had a TPK from kobolds or goblins in earlier editions before?

 

[Samuel Leming]

BTW, Kzach, I really don't agree with your premise. I didn't find 4e to be dry or boring. Most of my criticisms of 4e center on its lack of support for my prefered play style.

 

[cangrejoide]

But they're only like this in 4e. My point was after playing previous editions, in my player's opinion, it in no way felt heroic to struggle in a battle with kobolds or goblins.

Seem to me a lot of the major claims against 4E are people asking it to play like 3E. Can't you realize this is a new edition that plays differently?

If you want a game that plays like 3E, stay playing 3E. If you want a different take on D&D then play 4E or anyother fantasy game that is not 3E.