Quote from: The Shaman;283558I've never seen either of these comments made about 4e. Who says this? Name names.

The post you are responding to is predicated on the false premise that olde school games revolved around combat, which is typically stated as 'olde school games were (more complex/glorified/barely different than) wargames' or 'olde school games have combat rules as central to the game'.  Both of which are demonstrably false.

In other words, when people are declaiming the inherent wargaminess or minis use in olde school games as support for the same in 4e, they are provably full of shit, and that particular point can be safely dismissed.

You're the one who brought up minis.

Quote from: The Shaman;283558I've never seen either of these comments made about 4e. Who says this? Name names.

I'd say anyone who says that 4e is nothing but a minis skirmish game or wargame in disguise is saying this... at least that's what I get from such a label being applied. Captain Rufus and Warthur are the 2 I found on the very first page of the thread.

Quote from: StormBringer;283565The post you are responding to is predicated on the false premise that olde school games revolved around combat, which is typically stated as 'olde school games were (more complex/glorified/barely different than) wargames' or 'olde school games have combat rules as central to the game'.  Both of which are demonstrably false.

In other words, when people are declaiming the inherent wargaminess or minis use in olde school games as support for the same in 4e, they are provably full of shit, and that particular point can be safely dismissed.

Like Narf said, you're the one bringing up minis. We always used them back then, but the rules didn't go out of their way to assume their use like 4e's do. Otherwise, I hate to say it but based on looking through my copies of DnD (Mentzer basic, very beat-up, and RC), they sure seem Heavily combat oriented to me, so you must be refering to other editions that are going to somehow demonstrate the falseness. I'm interested so by all means, demonstrate.

My problem with 4e has arisen after playing for awhile and is very close to the complaint  raeth described several posts ago, and very nicely summed up by you, Stormbringer, on the first page, 4e started boring me to tears.

I liked it at first, alot. I played a wizard, and I love how the magehand and prestidigitation spells being "at will" allow my wizard to be magical, all the time. Why pull a chair out to sit, when I can magehand it? Why get up to retrieve a book when i can make it come to me? It allowed my wizard to be mysteriously magical from the beginning. The problem is the shininess wore off very quickly, and hell, my wizard wasn't even the magical artillery anymore. the warlock was. I became just another guy with funky powers. DnD was always a fantasy based superhero game, but now it's much closer to the superhero than it is the fantasy, and M&M is IMO a much better superhero game, resulting in far less boring individual characters and actual play than 4e. For the first time in years I have become ambivalent about game night, not even being bummed if I have to miss it, and that saddens me.

WOTC might (and probably will try to) change this by putting out loads of supplements and new classes/powers/spells/rituals, but I have no desire to wade into that morass when I have M&M, and True20, and the great GDi/GD3 (LOVE the new edition) games already, not to mention my RC and the "retro-clones". Sorry to say it, but 4e has created yet another "grognard" I suppose.

Quote from: Sigmund;283593Like Narf said, you're the one bringing up minis. We always used them back then, but the rules didn't go out of their way to assume their use like 4e's do. Otherwise, I hate to say it but based on looking through my copies of DnD (Mentzer basic, very beat-up, and RC), they sure seem Heavily combat oriented to me, so you must be refering to other editions that are going to somehow demonstrate the falseness. I'm interested so by all means, demonstrate.

The usual counter is something along the lines of, "since there was a focus on combat and how dangerous it is, it is proof that you were suppose to avoid combat as much as possible."

Oh, good, that means you're supposed to avoid combat in 4e, too!

After all, a single Standard of the same level has a 50/50% chance of killing your PC.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283585You're the one who brought up minis.

Where, exactly, did I do this?

Quote from: Sigmund;283593WOTC might (and probably will try to) change this by putting out loads of supplements and new classes/powers/spells/rituals, but I have no desire to wade into that morass when I have M&M, and True20, and the great GDi/GD3 (LOVE the new edition) games already, not to mention my RC and the "retro-clones". Sorry to say it, but 4e has created yet another "grognard" I suppose.

Is this where I point you over to the Citadel and hand you a free copy of OSRIC at the door?  

Quote from: StormBringer;283565The post you are responding to is predicated on the false premise that olde school games revolved around combat, which is typically stated as 'olde school games were (more complex/glorified/barely different than) wargames' or 'olde school games have combat rules as central to the game'.  Both of which are demonstrably false.

In other words, when people are declaiming the inherent wargaminess or minis use in olde school games as support for the same in 4e, they are provably full of shit, and that particular point can be safely dismissed.

Quote from: StormBringer;283604Where, exactly, did I do this?

I have highlighted the statements people are objecting to, including the word 'Minis'.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283596Oh, good, that means you're supposed to avoid combat in 4e, too!

After all, a single Standard of the same level has a 50/50% chance of killing your PC.

But you have to map in the old school games, that makes all the difference!

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283524To explain, people who hate the rules are people who believe 4e enforces the rules as written and you can't do anything outside the rules.

You can, of course, do things outside the rules in 4E.

There is, in fact, a rule for it.

A rule that is essentially set up so that achieving something "outside the box" is almost always going to be a bit more difficult than just pointing-and-clicking with your powers. (If I remember right you have to pass a skill check to even make the attempt.) So it's almost always more sensible to just point and click.

Quote from: Warthur;283611A rule that is essentially set up so that achieving something "outside the box" is almost always going to be a bit more difficult than just pointing-and-clicking with your powers. (If I remember right you have to pass a skill check to even make the attempt.) So it's almost always more sensible to just point and click.

You dislike 4E because if you try to do something that as a relevant skill the rules say to roll using that relevant skill? :eek:

Quote from: CavScout;283613You dislike 4E because if you try to do something that as a relevant skill the rules say to roll using that relevant skill? :eek:

Out of combat, all's well and good.

In combat, if I remember right, you end up having to make the skill roll AND an attack roll AND a damage roll. At each stage of this chain things have a chance of getting screwed up.

Whereas if you just point and click, you just have to make the attack roll and damage roll. One less link in the chain, one less chance of failure. Many powers either don't require a roll or give you some kind of benefit even if you fail.

Quote from: Warthur;283614Out of combat, all's well and good.

In combat, if I remember right, you end up having to make the skill roll AND an attack roll AND a damage roll. At each stage of this chain things have a chance of getting screwed up.

Whereas if you just point and click, you just have to make the attack roll and damage roll. One less link in the chain, one less chance of failure. Many powers either don't require a roll or give you some kind of benefit even if you fail.

I know you're probably trying really hard, but this makes little sense. I suppose the "point and click" is suppose to be a reference that is bad for 4E, but tell me, why is "point and click" fine in older editions of D&D but not so in 4E?

But again, have to ask, why down on 4E for having rules to do these things when the older games omitted them all together?

Quote from: StormBringer;283606Is this where I point you over to the Citadel and hand you a free copy of OSRIC at the door?  

I guess so, but I already have OSRIC, and LL, and BFRP, and MF, and S&W, etc.... Good stuff, so maybe I should check out Citadel.