Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;279695The most damning thing I can say about the game is this: I enjoy having nothing to say about it.

Your sig says fatster. Should it be faster?

It can't be boring ...because you guys can't stop talking about it!  

Listen, people are just going to like what they like. I really do have some sympathy for people in Living Greyhawk, because their campaign was shut down, but...  how the fuck does it possibly even effect anyone else? people who hate D&D of any edition, can still play whatever edition. People who are horribly offended by the healing surges or the treasure parcels or the (HAW HAW) dungeon furnaces or whatnot can play and talk about whatever else..

Wait.. you guys are actually playing other games, right?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279731Wait.. you guys are actually playing other games, right?

Yes, but we don't talk about them with people who like boring games because we are afraid that if a boring gamer tries one, they'll get excited by the actual play and have a heart attack from all the excitement.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279731It can't be boring ...because you guys can't stop talking about it!

It's boring in the sense that the game's preceding designs provided more interesting possibilities despite being poorly considered. Therefore while you could have campaigns with parties aping predestined barbarian kings from the Hyborian Age, Middle Earth fellowships, and Eternal Champion team-ups, more often than not, you would more often end up with Adam Warlock (Magic-Users), the Silver Surfer (Clerics), Deadpool (Rogues), and Squirrel Girl (Fighters w/o Writer's Fiat). I mean, seriously, that's mechanically appalling but nonetheless endearing to some.

Not to say you can't make 4E do something similar. For starters, you could let rituals be used instantaneously and/or without spending wealth once per day.

Oddly, everyone I've played it with (again, including a guy who goes back nearly as far with TSR as Old Geezer) thought it was the most interesting version of D&D yet.  I guess we just prefer the well-done but more limited design than the wide-open but full of inconsistent chaos design.

But, to answer the OP, "4e freed Willy Horton!"

The fundamentals of the game haven't changed since day one.

It's still fantasy gaming... you're essentially a character who is good at one of three things:
1) Combat
2) Some of the stuff people do outside of combat
3) Using magic

That's it. The differences between all the editions before 4e were that they covered these ideas with varying amounts of detail (plus or minus a few conceptual changes that are quite small in the grand scheme).

Before you throw the "that's not true, I've seen characters that do x and y and" ok ok.  Yeah I know, that with all the multitude of supplements and crap out there in the D&D world, there are classes that make these job-desinctions (dare I call them "roles") different.  Yeah you can be some goofy prestige class that summons skeletons and pumps up weapons with magic and crap.  You're still a magic-user.  Bards have their toes in many pools, but only their toes... they're not terribly specialized.  When it comes to rules (and, in a way, character concept) you still simply take your specialized piece(s) of the pie and move on.

What AD&D/3e did was they just added levels of detail.  Where as in old-school D&D the classes were very simple (and non-combat, non-magic ideas were addressed in interesting, minimal ways), the newer editions gave you more fleshed out rules for everything.  The point is, whether you relied on your DM to make stuff up, or consult a Grappling rules page of a book, you're still doing the same things.  It's just that all the subsequent editions added complexity for those who wanted it, I guess.

So what does 4e do?  They decide to keep the idea of having complex rules to fiddle with, but throw away the essential piece that made the game a "role-playing game"... the rules actually reflected what was going on in the world!  Now instead of having rules to help a DM through a dilemma (like, handling a wrestling match on a greased tightrope), we have rules just for sake of having them.  Alright, so playing with the game's rules is fun I guess.  Um... yeah.

Wait, I can't even pretend anymore.  Having rules that don't represent anything in the game world is TOTALLY USELESS... because that's what the game rules are supposed to do in the first place... adjudicate elements of chance in the game world!  Cripes!  If I liked rules because they were interesting to tinker with, I'd play a game without a tremendous amount of overhead in time and money... like Monopoly or something.  I can just pretend that my top hat is actually Lord Brasker, and he's building a castle on the newly-conquered Boardwalk.  At least someone wouldn't have to sit down for 10 hours and write a story, or heaven forbid spend $30 to get one.

So, let's review.
Which game do you want to play:
1) A cooperative storytelling game where one player (the DM) adjudicates the random elements involving the players?
2) A cooperative storytelling game where one player (the DM) has a large array of rulings to help him resolve all elements of chance?
3) A competitive storytelling game where one player (the DM) has a large array of rulings that do absolutely nothing except needless abstract and complicate every decision?

Pick 3, I dare you.
If you like Dragonborn and Tieflings so much, house-rule them into a real role-playing game.

How's that for a grognardian nerd-raging rant?  I'll tell you what... it felt good.

The fundamentals of the game haven't changed since day one.

It's still fantasy gaming... you're essentially a character who is good at one of three things:
1) Combat
2) Some of the stuff people do outside of combat
3) Using magic

That's it. The differences between all the editions before 4e were that they covered these ideas with varying amounts of detail (plus or minus a few conceptual changes that are quite small in the grand scheme).

Before you throw the "that's not true, I've seen characters that do x and y and" ok ok.  Yeah I know, that with all the multitude of supplements and crap out there in the D&D world, there are classes that make these job-desinctions (dare I call them "roles") different.  Yeah you can be some goofy prestige class that summons skeletons and pumps up weapons with magic and crap.  You're still a magic-user.  Bards have their toes in many pools, but only their toes... they're not terribly specialized.  When it comes to roles (and, in a way, character concept) you still simply take your specialized piece(s) of the pie and move on.

(Let it be understood that when I mean "character role" in this respect, I mean the mechanical "role" within the party.  In a given party, these ideas may be represented to varying amounts... though a successful party might try to cover as many of these "roles" as possible.  Mechanical roles are completely separate from the idea of a character... which is a fictional person with a personality, a set of skills and a goal.  Too many times I see people confusing these two exclusive ideas.  Read: Rules Are Not Characters)

What AD&D/3e did was they just added levels of detail.  Where as in old-school D&D the classes were very simple (and non-combat, non-magic ideas were addressed in interesting, minimal ways), the newer editions gave you more fleshed out rules for everything.  The point is, whether you relied on your DM to make stuff up, or consult a Grappling rules page of a book, you're still doing the same things.  It's just that all the subsequent editions added complexity for those who wanted it, I guess.

So what does 4e do?  They decide to keep the idea of having complex rules to fiddle with, but throw away the essential piece that made the game a "role-playing game"... the rules actually reflected what was going on in the world!  Now instead of having rules to help a DM through a dilemma (like, handling a wrestling match on a greased tightrope), we have rules just for sake of having them.  Alright, so playing with the game's rules is fun I guess.  Um... yeah.

Wait, I can't even pretend anymore.  Having rules that don't represent anything in the game world is TOTALLY USELESS... because that's what the game rules are supposed to do in the first place... adjudicate elements of chance in the game world!  Cripes!  If I liked rules because they were interesting to tinker with, I'd play a game without a tremendous amount of overhead in time and money... like Monopoly or something.  I can just pretend that my top hat is actually Lord Brasker, and he's building a castle on the newly-conquered Boardwalk.  At least someone wouldn't have to sit down for 10 hours and write a story, or heaven forbid spend $30 to get one.

So, let's review.
Which game do you want to play:
1) A cooperative storytelling game where one player (the DM) adjudicates the random elements involving the players?
2) A cooperative storytelling game where one player (the DM) has a large array of rulings to help him resolve all elements of chance?
3) A competitive storytelling game where one player (the DM) has a large array of rulings that do absolutely nothing except needlessly abstract and complicate every decision?

Pick 3, I dare you... and dare I say it, if you can't tell the difference between 2 and 3 (or don't care), then you are not roleplaying.
If you like Dragonborn and Tieflings so much, house-rule them into a real role-playing game.

How's that for a grognardian nerd-raging rant?  I'll tell you what... it felt good.
(I try to restrain myself when it comes to the Edition Wars, an ultimately futile struggle.  Everyone has reasons for the things they like, even if they can't put it to words, I think.  But since the original poster asked so nicely, and I'm in a grouchy mood, I'm happy to oblige )

I don't have any vitriol, just an observation: 4E is a game that inherited the name Dungeons and Dragons...but it isn't...

As someone else who had grown up playing good old AD&D, I have much vitriol. I think D&D 4e has definitely lost something by cutting out the tension that comes from having nothing but 3HP and a sword and braving down into the darkness. I don't want to make a hero, I want to actually become a hero.

In the end, the ruleset lost me by becoming so focused on the miniatures combat, with so little focus on immersion and fantasy. The reasons I enjoy RPGs are not very well facilitated at all by the new edition.

Quote from: jswa;279694Calling it a minis combat game isn't exactly vitriol.

The rest of it is a screed against the players, and not actually about the game.

Just sayin'.

Well, in hobby gaming, OTHER PEOPLE are part of the game.  Because it requires other people.  The game itself is just overly detailed bland powergamer minis combat.  

But D&D's biggest problem in all editions has always been the players.  The PKers, the edition whores who just buy every new edition and immediately call it the best fucking game since "Give me a hummer and a burrito", the D&D only players who won't touch another friggin RPG with a 10 foot pole regardless of how good it might be, the retro whores who seem to think whichever D&D they played first is automatically the best on ALL levels and come up with retarded shoddy excuses when we all know its 95% nostalgia for a time and first game experience YOU WILL NEVER HAVE AGAIN anyhow, the powergaming twinks who care more about what stupid collection of broken stats and items they have that breaks the game, ect, ect ect.

Much like Soylent Green, D&D IS made of people.  It requires people to play after all.  (Solos and electronic versions really don't count here.  Though in some cases the mechanical GAMEPLAY in even D&D games that suck as tabletop (AD&D all editions, 3.5) become quite fun computerized and turned into a structured solo electronic game that really doesn't play like tabletop games do.)

Oh, but more game directed vitriol?  Its a cynical quick moneygrab a short period of time after the last cynical quick moneygrab.  If 3.0 was the greatest, and 3.5 was needed to make it greater-er, is 4.0 the ULTIMATE?  The massive pile of fixes, errata, and add in books that replace CORE things that were in the main books in previous editions shows that in 3-5 years it'll get replaced again.

And we will go through this shit again.  If its a point upgrade itll mostly just land as a wet fart with the 4th ed players mostly buying it, and the older system fanbase will just laugh at any 4th edders who have angst for having to rebuy a portion of the game.

And if its another totally incompatible with the previous edition like 4 was to 3.x?

D&D will get another division of gamers.  Most will blindly go to the new one, some will stick to 4th for various reasons (probably less players will have had their RPG cherry popped on 4 though so more will be economic or people who just like what 4 does for them), and older ed fans will have a new group to chuckle over the inevitable nerd rage.

And I can grab the 3 core books for cheap off ebay for my D&D edition collection that goes back to OD&D.  I'm sure as hell not paying more than 15 or so WITH shipping for em though!

Quote from: KrakaJak;279778As someone else who had grown up playing good old AD&D, I have much vitriol. I think D&D 4e has definitely lost something...

I still play good old D&D...that's why I have no vitriol.  I haven't lost anything, and I don't care what WotC calls its games...

4e fucked the hobby because its bringing in unworthy players.   These people never experienced the 80s and without a Mazes & Monsters Jack Chick high school horror story of gamer oppresion to tell, how dare they join our hobby! Fucking posers!  If you didn't play Atari, how could you learn to roleplay?  Everyone knows real gaming ended with 16 bits.  

Even worse, 4e is bringing AD&D players back to RPGs.   Those fucks weren't tough enough to hang in there and stick with it and now they fucking think they can just waltz back into the hobby and be accepted?   Fuck that!  Betrayers keep out!  

And fuck all these people who think D&D's just a game.   These bitches want to play RPGs to have fun?  WTF???  Fuck them for treating it like a game instead of a lifestyle choice.  What is that weak ass shit?  Can you fucking believe that Wizards made 1st level survivable for noobs?  Fucking corporations!  

Re skill challenges:

Quote from: RPGPundit;279615This is the singlemost significant criticism, the most essential thing you can say is wrong with 4e. It kills immersion and emulation of genre.  It does it because Mearls and friends have swallowed the Forger poison, so they believe that actually wanting to lose yourself in a fantasy world or feel like your character is real is somehow mentally wrong. Instead, you're supposed to, nay, OBLIGED to see your character as just a bunch of statistics and the point is to perfect yourself in the game system, a game system where the setting is nothing but window-dressing.  And yes, skill-challenges are the PERFECT example of this. It doesn't matter what your characters actually DO, or how they roleplay, it only matters that they get x number of successes before getting y number of failures on a bunch of skill rolls.

RPGPundit

That's not quite the problem. The problem is rather that the core ruleset wasn't very precise on how to run skill challenges, leading a number of people to roleplay them very bleakly ("Ok, so I go for a Diplomacy check ... (rolls)... yippee that's 1 success - 2 more go to!"). There's still a lot unclarity of how a DM ideally runs a skill challenge. Here's one of the more helpful posts.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17377266&postcount=8

Quote from: Spinachcat;279862And fuck all these people who think D&D's just a game.   These bitches want to play RPGs to have fun?  WTF???  Fuck them for treating it like a game instead of a lifestyle choice.  What is that weak ass shit?  Can you fucking believe that Wizards made 1st level survivable for noobs?  Fucking corporations!  

Win.

Quote from: Windjammer;279865That's not quite the problem. The problem is rather that the core ruleset wasn't very precise on how to run skill challenges...

Sounds very much like OD&D.