D&D General Why is D&D 4E a "tactical" game?

[Thomas Shey]

I disagree strongly with the bolded part. 4e benefited from some curation for the benefit of casual roleplayers, but I found that skill challenges caused the casuals to get more into non combat situations, and that more roleplaying happened within combat.

But essentials definitely helped get back the folks who didn’t want to make choices during leveling.

It also often narrowed down the in-combat choices as you levelled, and for some people that was absolutely a virtue.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

It also often narrowed down the in-combat choices as you levelled, and for some people that was absolutely a virtue.

Yup, I introduced TTRPGs to quite a few people using 4e. The 4e generation of gamers is still having a significant influence on the Malaysian roleplaying scene today.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Different people have likes and dislikes. No game is going to appeal to everyone, you liked 4E but a lot of people did not.

Can we ever have a 4E discussion without edition wars with accusations of people making "sweeping accusations" that are just opinion?

Not when they make generalizations that when examined closely are simply not true.

D&D4e was not my game of choice, even among D&D versions (which is is not my game of choice as a class), and I've freely admitted the noncombat elements of the game feel slight to me, but I don't try to make claims that things are lacking that are actually there; my complaints are on grounds of look and feel, and thus, not subject to being wrong. But that's not the case with the complaints everyone makes about it.

 

[Oofta]

Not when they make generalizations that when examined closely are simply not true.

D&D4e was not my game of choice, even among D&D versions (which is is not my game of choice as a class), and I've freely admitted the noncombat elements of the game feel slight to me, but I don't try to make claims that things are lacking that are actually there; my complaints are on grounds of look and feel, and thus, not subject to being wrong. But that's not the case with the complaints everyone makes about it.

The only things I ever see pushback about IMHO are opinion, perspective and impressions. On the other hand I don't know how many times I've seen people blame the lack of 4E's popularity on a "conspiracy" or that people that say they disliked some aspect of it are "unfamiliar with the game" which is what I was responding to.

There are things I liked and disliked about 4E but I don't remember seeing anyone on this forum making claims that are completely nonsensical so I don't see the issue. If 4E felt like an MMO to someone then it did for them. If I say that to me fighter's powers felt like supernatural/magic to me then they felt like supernatural/magic to me and I don't care what label they slapped on the powers.

I think it's too bad that 4E was rushed. I suspect it might even still be reasonably well supported if it had been released under a different brand. I'm just glad that they seemed to learn a valuable lesson and did extensive playtesting for 5E, even if it isn't perfect. When the next version is released (whether we end up calling it 5.5E or 6E) I'll decide at that point if I'm going to move on, but what I won't do is complain that people "just didn't understand 5E" if they like the next version better.

 

[Teemu]

Compared to all other editions I’ve played, and to other similar games like Pathfinder, I’d say the one main thing that makes 4e the tactical edition is the amount of off-turn movement. Many abilities will move enemies and allies on the battlefield, much more so than in the other editions or games.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Were there a lot of 4e video games? Seems like it was designed for that and would have benefited from the format.

I'm actually not sure about turn-based tactical games using an entire party based on 4th Ed. You would expect that to be the most logical option for that particular edition.

However, the D&D action MMO Neverwinter was based a lot on 4th edition.

The only things I ever see pushback about IMHO are opinion, perspective and impressions. On the other hand I don't know how many times I've seen people blame the lack of 4E's popularity on a "conspiracy" or that people that say they disliked some aspect of it are "unfamiliar with the game" which is what I was responding to.

While I mostly agree, I think that what you're seeing most pushback about is opinions that have been phased as facts.

I don't think anyone is going to take umbrage with saying that you prefer TotM play, so you didn't get along with 4e. Stating your opinion as if it were a fact, whether than is about utility powers, lack of roleplaying, or that Fighters were supernatural, is going to get pushback however. Opinions are opinions. Opinions perceived as false claims kick off edition warring.

And if someone does appear to be making incorrect statements about something, suggesting that they may not have understood it is generally the more charitable of the options. Suggesting that they do understand, and have knowingly made a false claim would be way more serious, and very much frowned on.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The only things I ever see pushback about IMHO are opinion, perspective and impressions. On the other hand I don't know how many times I've seen people blame the lack of 4E's popularity on a "conspiracy" or that people that say they disliked some aspect of it are "unfamiliar with the game" which is what I was responding to.

There are things I liked and disliked about 4E but I don't remember seeing anyone on this forum making claims that are completely nonsensical so I don't see the issue. If 4E felt like an MMO to someone then it did for them. If I say that to me fighter's powers felt like supernatural/magic to me then they felt like supernatural/magic to me and I don't care what label they slapped on the powers.

I think it's too bad that 4E was rushed. I suspect it might even still be reasonably well supported if it had been released under a different brand. I'm just glad that they seemed to learn a valuable lesson and did extensive playtesting for 5E, even if it isn't perfect. When the next version is released (whether we end up calling it 5.5E or 6E) I'll decide at that point if I'm going to move on, but what I won't do is complain that people "just didn't understand 5E" if they like the next version better.

Once in a while you'll get some hyperbolic "4e isn't a roleplaying game" stuff, or people claiming 4e had no rules for out-of-combat play, or that certain rules didn't exist (ie there were no rules for resting) - but those aren't the most common criticisms.

The main annoying ones are "you're wrong, 4e feels like a video game because it has limited daily powers and if you don't think so then you're a stupid-head who didn't play the game." I've never seen that here, but it used to be pretty common on Rreddit.

 

[Hussar]

I've never played D&D 4E, I quit D&D when it was released, but I have noticed it is frequently referred to as a "tactical" game, more so than other versions of D&D. Why is that? 3.x was a very tactical game, combat was pretty much designed to take place on a battle map with minis. Is something else meant by 4e being tactical or were a battle map and minis even more of a requirement?

Mostly it was just a talking point for people who wanted to edition war since every single thing mentioned applies to other editions as well.

 

[Oofta]

Once in a while you'll get some hyperbolic "4e isn't a roleplaying game" stuff, or people claiming 4e had no rules for out-of-combat play, or that certain rules didn't exist (ie there were no rules for resting) - but those aren't the most common criticisms.

The main annoying ones are "you're wrong, 4e feels like a video game because it has limited daily powers and if you don't think so then you're a stupid-head who didn't play the game." I've never seen that here, but it used to be pretty common on Rreddit.

Which is why I was pretty specific about this forum. Also why I probably ignore reddit.

 

[Hussar]

I know I’m going to regret this. @Oofta, why do you say 5e is less tactical than 3e?