Quote from: Fritzs;220091That's good idea:cool:... I think for campaning...

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=9890

Quote from: Trevelyan;220095Personally I find reading the threads where people twist and ignore the rules to prove that 4E can't do certain things or is nothing but a tactical minis-skirmish game* indicative of a disturbing brand of anti-WotC, minis-are-evil, bring back OD&D mentality that I generally have little time for.

I have a problem with people who refuse to recognize that there is no system that is good for all tastes or that can handle any genre.  This phenomenon happens with all games, but with D&D, simply because of its established market base, this behaviour has a pernicious effect on the hobby.  There are a lot of people in the D20 subforum who have never played anything but D&D.  It disturbs me to see them struggling to find ways to make things work in D&D when that isn't even what is what meant to do.  I like Savage Worlds, but I'll tell you right away that it is combat-oriented and tends to run better with a grid and minis.  I like GURPS, but I'll tell you it's not for you if you don't like fiddly mechanics.  I like SotC, but I recognize it uses a story-manipulating approach that isn't for everybody.

You'll hear that kind of talk from about maybe 1 in 20 posts over on the D20 sub-forums.  I imagine it's much less on ENWorld and Gleemax must be like the rapture.  So you get a dominance of the system, bolstered by the idea that there is "official" right and wrong.  This tends to push games across the world to be more and more similar.  I found this phenomenon with 3.x and I suspect it will be worse with the stronger, more balanced and coherent tactical combat system in 4e.  I like diversity.  I enjoyed 3.x for a while.  I would probably enjoy a game or two of 4e.    What I don't want is a hobby with a majority of groups that only play 4e for years and years and years.  The kind of thinking currently demonstrated in the threads I have been following suggests that we are moving in that direction.

My problem with 4e is not with the game itself.  It sounds kind of cool in many ways.  It's the notion that it is roleplaying in its entirety that I have a serious problem with.

And for the record, I kind of like minis (I don't actually buy them, but I use other cheap figures to represent position in most combats in my games) and I'm not a huge OD&D proponent (though I enjoyed the one-shot of Keep on the Borderlands I ran for Gygax Day).  I am, though, very suspicious of WotC, as I am of any corporation that dominates a marketplace.

walkerp: Inteligent animals seem not cool enought to me... maybe hyenas would be exception...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;220082I don't think power gaming is that bad, (character optimization was nearly an artform within a year of 3e's release) but I think it's actually nearly impossible with 4e. There's no real way to stack a feat on top of a class choice on top of a race on top of a spiked chain and end up with with some insane combo anymore.

Thats interesting AM. In the little I was reading last night, there, IIRC, was an example of how if you chose certain feats it increased your fire damage but wouldn't affect your lightning damage. (I think that was the example in the book).

Now, on the surface, I reacted in two ways. First, it set off little alarm bells (given all of the spiked-chain wielding half-orc barbarians I ran into in LG) about power gaming. Second, the little voice in my head (that is usually telling me to kill everyone and bath in their blood) said "eh - it's a small bonus; hardly power-game material."

I'm wondering, with your experience so far, which reaction is "right" - or if, as you say, too early to tell.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;220082I guess time will tell if supplements change that, but the entire philosophy of feats is different than it used to be.

Yeah, this is the part that concerns me (but I understand might be simple FUD and nothing I can deal with now anyway) - I saw the "there will be these other powers coming out in future versions," and the first voice said - "see - just wait."

Either way, I continue to read on...

NOTE: cross-forum posting this at d20 Haven so I don't have to type it all again

Quote from: Saphim;220051And here is me, clicking this thread thinking someone voiced an opinion based on actually playing the thing.

Yeah, I don't know why, I guess because he call it a "report", but that was what I was expecting too.

As far as people bending over backwards to be really excited about 4e and not listen to criticism, I'm sure there's some people doing that, but at that point you're back to arguing about whether other people's opinions and tastes are justified. It is possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem, that sometimes people shrug off criticisms of a game because they're not relevant to their experience.

Quote from: walkerp;220104I have a problem with people who refuse to recognize that there is no system that is good for all tastes or that can handle any genre.

Oh, I agree with that. I've commented recently in several threads that 4E is good for a fantasy action kind of game but that there are any number of better systems if you want something grittier or something with a better social vs. combat balance.

But I think it's important to draw a distinction between "4E doesn't do some things as well as other games" and "4E doesn't do certain things at all". It's also important to note the difference between "D&D has never really done something well" and "4E doesn't do somethng well, so it's a crap edition (with the implication that previous editions somehowdid it better)".

I see a lot of statements that tend towards the second example in each case when frequently the first claim is more accurate. Saying that 4E doesn't support a social game or that 4E can't be played without minis is inaccurate. The case is really that 4E doesn't do social as well as many other games (this has always been true of D&D), and that 4E rewards the use of minis to the extent that struggling without them seems counter productive.

You can do the things that people are saying you can do with 4E, the real question is why, if that's the sort of game they want to run, they would elect to run it using 4E.

QuoteMy problem with 4e is not with the game itself.  It sounds kind of cool in many ways.  It's the notion that it is roleplaying in its entirety that I have a serious problem with.

But obviously anyone who thinks D&D is the be-all, end-all of RPGs doesn't deserve to be corrected, he's already beyond saving!

OMG

I looked at that enworld thread, and for the first time in 5 years I see a post by Ruin Explorer, he of the olden Nutkinland days. W00t!

Then I look at his sig: He thinks the 4E DMG is great. Blechhh.

Quote from: Trevelyan;220160But I think it's important to draw a distinction between "4E doesn't do some things as well as other games" and "4E doesn't do certain things at all". It's also important to note the difference between "D&D has never really done something well" and "4E doesn't do somethng well, so it's a crap edition (with the implication that previous editions somehowdid it better)".

I agree with that.  I guess I'm in a bit of a minority among the minority of nay-sayers in that I also had a major problem with 3.x.  4e just seems to take the things I had problems with in 3e and make them worse.

Quote from: Trevelyan;220160I see a lot of statements that tend towards the second example in each case when frequently the first claim is more accurate. Saying that 4E doesn't support a social game or that 4E can't be played without minis is inaccurate. The case is really that 4E doesn't do social as well as many other games (this has always been true of D&D), and that 4E rewards the use of minis to the extent that struggling without them seems counter productive.

Would that everyone had your nuanced understanding!  But this is the internet, where the poor excluded middle huddles by it's own in the corner.

Quote from: Trevelyan;220160You can do the things that people are saying you can do with 4E, the real question is why, if that's the sort of game they want to run, they would elect to run it using 4E.

This is what I've never understood and though I've seen it many, many times, every time I bring it up, everyone attacks.  

Quote from: Trevelyan;220160But obviously anyone who thinks D&D is the be-all, end-all of RPGs doesn't deserve to be corrected, he's already beyond saving!

Yes, but they can be silenced!  

Quote from: MelanIt will of course not be impossible to run 4e in a less "gimme" style, but DMs who attempt it can be expected to face stronger opposition and disapproval; 4e's spirit is very much against playing a genuinely challenging campaign, since those are - of course - not fun in the canonical sense.

This is factually untrue. For example, I'm designing an adventure right now on the Design and Development Forum that breaks several of the encounter design rules, and I've been getting entirely positive feedback on it.

On D&D game day there were several TPK's. Every one of which had folks who said they had a great time, even as they lamented the death of their poor character.

Edit: I should say, at my FLGS.

Quote from: Melan;220040Finally, there is the matter of the fetishisation of "game design"; that is, how officially appointed game designers are touted - and gradually being accepted! - as the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun. I find this a very suspicious development in roleplaying. In a participatory hobby, where the roles of consumers and creators have been strongly blurred (and this blurriness was a core contributor to what made the games so addictive, so different from anything else - RPGs are a form of active mental/social entertainment which are otherwise very rare), we are seeing movement towards a stronger separation between the two. Officially designed and meticulously balanced fun is contrasted with the straw men of "bad DMing", supposedly so epidemic that very few people can "enjoy" games properly. It is suggested that only a qualified elite who "really" understand games can save us from the effects of horrible, horrible game design and our own supposed dysfunctions. Instead of fostering individual creativity, this philosophy casts suspicion and disapproval on it; "house rules", the elementary tools of customisation, are treated with derision and contempt. The message is clear: "you are incompetent, stupid and you need our help (that will be $39.9, please)". Gary Gygax tried this crap at his worst, and fortunately, people just pointed and laughed. Can the Wizards designers do what Gary could not? So far, it seems to me they are winning.

This phenomenon is nothing new, as you pointed out yourself. And it's been noticable between Gygax and 4th edition in many, many different games. It tends to be more noticable in popular games that we dislike, for reasons that have to do with human nature.

As for 4th edition not being challenging: I don't get it. I think it offers different challenges. You either like 'em or you don't.

It's pretty clear you've barely read the books, since much of what you say is untrue. For instance:

Quote from: Melan;220040"Fun" as "continuous positive reinforcement" and something that comes purely from combat encounters is emphasised over everything else. While positive reinforcement and combat are of course important sources of fun, 4e neglects to emphasise others.

The DMG says many things that disagree with that, like "no campaign is all combat" and "look, here's a bunch of rules and guidance for noncombat scenarios."

QuoteIt will of course not be impossible to run 4e in a less "gimme" style, but DMs who attempt it can be expected to face stronger opposition and disapproval; 4e's spirit is very much against playing a genuinely challenging campaign, since those are - of course - not fun in the canonical sense.

If 4e is opposed to challenge, why do so many play reports contain deaths and TPKs, including ones from Game Day events using modules created and endorsed by WotC. If WotC was against challenge, and 4e was meant to prevent it, surely they wouldn't have brought so many challenging scenarios to the demos?

QuoteFinally, there is the matter of the fetishisation of "game design"; that is, how officially appointed game designers are touted - and gradually being accepted! - as the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun. I find this a very suspicious development in roleplaying. In a participatory hobby, where the roles of consumers and creators have been strongly blurred (and this blurriness was a core contributor to what made the games so addictive, so different from anything else - RPGs are a form of active mental/social entertainment which are otherwise very rare), we are seeing movement towards a stronger separation between the two. Officially designed and meticulously balanced fun is contrasted with the straw men of "bad DMing", supposedly so epidemic that very few people can "enjoy" games properly. It is suggested that only a qualified elite who "really" understand games can save us from the effects of horrible, horrible game design and our own supposed dysfunctions. Instead of fostering individual creativity, this philosophy casts suspicion and disapproval on it; "house rules", the elementary tools of customisation, are treated with derision and contempt. The message is clear: "you are incompetent, stupid and you need our help (that will be $39.9, please)". Gary Gygax tried this crap at his worst, and fortunately, people just pointed and laughed. Can the Wizards designers do what Gary could not? So far, it seems to me they are winning.

Methinks you're taking proffered advice a bit too personally. There is nowhere in the books that says you must do X or you're engaging in badwrongfun. In fact, it says several times that if something isn't fun for you, change it.

I can only suggest that if you to be able to hold an informed opinion of the game, you might want to do more than browse the books and read threads from people that don't like the game. I'm not saying D&D (4e or any edition) is right for you. All I'm saying is that you've demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the game that's rooted in the circular reinforcement found by reading others with the same misgivings as yourself.

There are few opinions more illogical than spitting on something without any knowledge.   I have gamed for 30 years with every D&D edition.  4e rocks.  It achieves its design goals with tremendous success.   It set out to be a 3D tactical fantasy game with simple rules and it does that job.

DMG pages 172 to 189 show the DM how to customize and houserule his game.  It is great advice and a tremendous boon for new players.  Instead of Gary's admonishments in the 1e DMG, the new DMG shows how to create with wild abandon, but still stay within the rules framework.

How could 4e be any less challenging than any OD&D campaign?   The monsters are balanced for the super heroics of the players so combat is always a challenge.  The skill challenges can be made as difficult as the GM likes so the skills of the heroes are tested...as well as their roleplaying.   All the roleplaying that never had rules is still there to same extent that it ever was (aka, as much as the DM added)  Want to count arrows and iron rations?  Sure no problem, you can do that in 4e.   Want to do a low-magic or even no-magic campaign, 4e can do that too.

And if 4e does promote the Tyranny of Fun, then I shall be its raging Tyrant of Blood and Iron!!!

Quote from: Trevelyan;220047If I didn't know better, I'd guess you were working purely frm hearsay and hadn't actually read the 4E core books.

Of course you would. That's your pat answer for all 4e criticisms.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220275Of course you would. That's your pat answer for all 4e criticisms.

But is he wrong?