Home › Discussions › General Discussion › Why we chose not to go to 4e D&D - General Discussion Discussions on Obsidian Portal Community Forums
Why we chose not to go to 4e D&D
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
We chose not to go to the fourth edition of D&D in our last campaign and have stuck with that decision. I cannot foresee myself ever switching to this edition. Ninety percent of the player's handbook revolves around combat and your options for engaging in it. Even the magic system revolves around how magic may be employed in combat. The options of the various classes are many, true, but each is only a different way of being useful in combat. The spirit of the game we began nearly 30 years ago is not there. It has the feel of an MMOG or a video game rather than a shared fantasy adventure of the mind.
Is the new combat system fun? For combat-lovers it must be. Players start with more power than in any previous edition. Is each class balanced against the others? It definitely appears so. I disagree with the direction of both. The level of power with which players begin is relative. Your level one party can take on an army? The challenge will match them. Your level one party has trouble with rats and kobolds? The challenge will match them, too, but when and if they rise in strength to challenge greater foes, it can be more rewarding considering where they came from. I've always enjoyed the difficulties of the lower levels. The greater starting power of 4e has (like every MMOG out there) followed the trend of inflation of power. But the classes are more balanced in power. Magic users can contribute at level one instead of becoming more powerful than the rest at later levels. This was not an improvement to the game. They sacrifice a wide variety of cool spells for powers that focus on combat and damage. Character classes diminish in strengths to a homogenous blend more often found in video games. What's wrong with a thief standing no chance against fighters in toe to toe combat? Why must everyone be a killing machine?
4e seems to me a video-game-ized version of D&D, easily adapted to a computer sim. I'd rather stay simple, avoid over-focusing on combat, and allow my players to do the one thing they can't do in an MMOG: What they want. You can't rise above the common masses to earn a Barony, build a keep, and quest to support your dominion in World of Warcraft. You cannot sacrifice all to the devotion of your arcane lore and delve into lost secrets of a world with a 5,000 year known history, build a remote tower, and work magicks never before seen in EverQuest. You cannot become so infamous and profitable amongst the shadier faces in the city that you bring them all under your thumb and spread the tendrils of your web throughout the centers of power and intrigue in Diablo. What you can do in all those games is fight seamlessly and grandiosely in a perfectly balanced setting without having to wait on DMs and players and turns or conflicting schedules. 4e is trying to compete with these without offering much of anything different. I don't need the extra combat options and rules. I don't need the powers and the balance. I prefer a developing storyline of Campaigning. We will not be going to 4e.
I am almost positive that the major overhaul in gameplay mechanics is to attempt to prevent game-breaking players from doing what they do best. In a recent 3.5 session I played in, a level 3 rogue handled animal so well that the party was riding around on dire panthers for half the game until they were killed by a kraken for being ridiculous. While a fun turn of events, it almost completely ruined combat encounters for us. Why fight the chain demons ourselves, when panthers can do it for us?
So yes, the leash on it is a little tighter, and if that is going to be a hinderance to your style of play, or ruin your fun, by all means don't play it. Stick with what you know and love. But if you want to dip your toes in the water and see if you can make a challenge into an adventure I definately recommend at least trying out one of the one off dungeon crawls. Combat isn't for everyone, but not everyone wants to haggle the price of a bag of holding down to half so they can give it to the elven king, just so they can mingle at the diplomat's ball.
Good Gaming,
AutumnsChild(dan)
Tsuba: The example you described of a third level thief using animal handling to completely control dire panthers is not an example of how 3.5 had abusible mechanics but of an out of control DM.
4e characters are video-game caricatures of roleplaying archetypes. They’re balanced, they’re combat-powerful, and they’re homogenized so no matter how you style yourself, you’re still a beast in combat. That’s fantastic if you’re crazy about hack’n slash, but it adds nothing to the game. All it does is make everyone as powerful at first level as they would be at 5th level in 3.5… which makes the monsters have to have more hp and powers to be a challenge… which is a vicious cycle of upgrades and expansion packs just like any one-hit wonder MMOG.
I don't see anything in it that adds to my campaigns. I think the idea of feats added in 3 was cool and made fighters (and others) more versatile and powerful without completely changing the entire balance structure, but the massive increases in firepower across the board in 4e completely changed the game too far in the wrong direction (for me at least).
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/year-one
We finally last session really understood the nuts and bolts of combat, we have been dabbling in it and really been working on character building and interractions to take the place of serious combat. Last session the group was itching for some stabbing and after studying up on things we had a really combat heavy session.
It takes some getting used to but we are slowly molding it to be better. Taking out things we dont like and keeping others. Although I feel we will end up going to a "3.9" version soon. Simply using 3.5 and giving ever character a free "power feat" at each level so they can pick a power from the daily/encounter powers. making dailys only come when they can do the normal stat bump so they are more powerful.
We decided that Clerics in 4th edition are just really good motivational speakers when it came to healing. They are great and have a role but dont feel like other clerics.
So in short I agree that the feel is a bit left of center.
I wrote an RPG years ago and one thing we did in testing was deal with the feeling of "balance" that players wanted. We eventually said that sorry, if we make it all balanced it will taste like chicken.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/conan-ae/wikis/acheronian-edition-rules
Of course, D&D has several issues with magic, both items and spells, which the Sword & Sorcery Hyborian Age doesn't need due to the different magic system and (almost complete) absence of magic items.
That's all I've got to say on that.
When I finally get my world finished in my head (tee hee!), I'll be running in 4E 'cause after simply having read the DMG, I feel more comfortable in it than I have felt in any other system in which I've played. If I'm not worried about who can do what how to whom and which dice to roll all the time, I might actually be able to tell a story in there somewhere. =)
A friend of mine is used to GMing in the HERO/Champions system and was lamenting how limited 4th ed felt as far as abilities went. I just smiled and said he should think of it like crate training. Just like a puppy feels overwhelmed if left in a large room by himself overnight, a new gamer is likely to go glassy-eyed if you tell him he can build whatever sort of power he wants as long as he doesn't spend more than X points.
Basically play the systems you want, take what you like, and leave the rest (Homebrew FTW!). If you can't find it, create it! So much energy has been put into complaining about 4e it amazes me, you do realize Wizards of the Coast is a _business_ right? Businesses need to make money to stay in business, & they can't cater to everyone. My good friend Skip Williams (yea that guy) put it best;
"If they put a new cover on an old book you already own, would you buy it?"
I'm old school, I mean really old school, back to the days of Chainmail & OD&D, I've liked & disliked things about every system! 4e is beautiful in the way it can be easily picked up and understood by todays newer gamers. _It takes some serious commitment to learn THAC0!_
As for 4e being "limited", if you truly feel that way, I think your stubborn (or maybe not that crafty!)! That being said, I prefer a homebrewed OSRIC game, its what I am currently running with my gang. But I also run a bi-weekly 4e campaign for my kids & their friends, participate in an RPGA 4e LFR game nearly every Saturday, and I'm about to fire up a new campaign (haven't decided on the system yet), & I have fun *PLAYING* ('cause thats what its all about!) them all, but hey thats how I roll!!!
Nice Skip Williams quote, Dra8er, but how about old school D&D you're so fond of: "This game does not strive to create rules to cover any instance or combat maneuver. That is for the DM to adjudicate as he sees fit. It is about having fun first and foremost." So if you like homogenized, video-game caricatures of fantasy heroes with "balanced" power and tons of cool moves to use in combat over and over (aka grinding), you would probably be happier here: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/
4e is not "limited". It limits itself by devoting 90% of the player's handbook to combat rules. If you get out what you put in (which I hear so many 4e defenders saying), what comes out of a 9/10ths combat mix rulebook? If your answer is the DM can run any style of campaign he wants including non-combat, what is the purpose of 318 pages of combat rules and powers? Why is this an improvement over 3.x? Personally, I don't see it, and I haven't heard a reason that makes me want to give it a chance even after reading all the source books a second time.
4th edition is essentially first edition, where "birthdays, resupplying and roleplay are assumed to happen outside of the dungeon."
and hey it made wizards a bunch of cash because people who like MMOs are latching onto it, good for them, the people not Wizards, they're making a tainted profit of our hobby. they continue the stigma that you need to buy their mechanics and powers books because only they can judge what is balanced while continuing to pump out power creep after power creeping book.
Sure any one can use their imagination no matter the material but if you want to play with legos why pay 50$ for each stone brick when you can go online and get a box full of legos for free?
Also, 4e now has templates, can create undead, creating buildings was never that hard to begin with but I do think there are rules out for it in 4e. Has plenty of uses outside of combat, just accepts the fact that the primary focus of D&D is on combat, and the roleplay that ultimately leads into combat. the only real argument you have here is the lack of third party support for the product (although I never found most third party books to be even remotely usable for mechanics in a game, and usually lacked flavor too).
The big difference around making characters in 3 vs 4th is that once you choose your path in 4th, you are more or less dedicated to it, and cannot make drastic changes in your character's design (completely abandoning advancement in fighter to go to another class) although that was not particularly viable in 3 unless you were trying to qualify yourself for some crazy prestige class build. 4e is also fantastically easier to design encounters for, allowing me to spend more time thinking up awesome traps and fun encounters without having to worry about monster spell lists and other such things. Also leaves me more time to plan more roleplaying encounters as well.
To be perfectly honest, ROLEPLAYING shouldn't HAVE mechanical features in it's purest form. You shouldn't need numbers to tell you how you talk, you should TALK. 3.5 doesn't have any more rules for roleplaying (rolling a diplomacy check and forcing the person to like you? Not roleplay) than 4th does. using open ended spells to force people's hands, not roleplaying, 4e, same amount of roleplaying. that amount being however much you want to have in your game.
I didn’t say 3rd was better or didn’t have a power creep, you either misinterpreted or are intentionally ignoring this. WIZARDS as a company has stated they are not interested in making a balanced game, just producing books with more powers to increase sales.
SECOND
Who do you think you are to tell Other people that they aren’t allowed to have characte options? what about people who like playing mind controlling wizards? or any other myriad of character that use those spells?
THIRD
Are these templates in the three core books? if not then NO they do not count. if you are not allowed to have access to those abilities in the core rules then it doesn’t matter how many new prestige classes and fan drool supplements they create obviously its only being produced to sell more books and isn’t balanced within its core rules. I’ve gone through the core 4th book, you can’t be a wizard who can teleport at a thought, create undead legions, be a lich, build automatons, shape shift into inhuman forms or even summon monsters to your bidding, you get magic missile, a bunch of times. You can in the 3rd core, out the gate open ended character creation limitless options. But I’ve also been around the internet a few times and where 4th and 3rd fail, being unbalanced and costing an inordinate amount, free systems succeed.
FOURTH
NO, the primary focus of D&D is not combat, no one has to accept your narrow view on what D&D is. Just because poorly written system is combat based does not mean the D&D experience is combat. D&D is high fantasy adventure, it’s a horror game, its noble politics, its whatever the players want it to be.
FIFTH
Being unable to diversify or make a unique characters beyond the weapon paths is a BAD thing. that means everyone is playing essentially the same mechanics and at the end of the day entails that everyone should just roll a d20 and whoever rolls higher wins, maybe throw in some rock paper and scissors for good measure.
SIXTH
Role-playing does need mechanics; those mechanics are called the game system. it’s the rules et the players and gm agree to abide by when they sit down to play. in 3.X if you were a shy person but wanted to play a diplomat then you could ask to roll diplomacy when it got too hot under the collar. if the DM thinks that just talking your way out of situation is too easy if your particularly good at speaking then he may want you to invest as much into your character being likable as the swordsman did into being a swordsman.
I started with 3rd, and was continuously disappointed by the trends i saw when the 3.X nonsense started, iv moved on and away from WOTC and the cancer they have become to the gaming hobby. But I’ll say this, form my experiences with 4th and 3rd, 3rd was better. 3rd on its own is atrocious but when you compare it to the inky black void where a role-playing game should be, it’s going to shine.
Keep playing everyone and may Hieroneous guid your blades.
First things First: I'm not trying to convince anyone (let alone onsilius) to use one game system over another. What game you like is a personal thing, and if you like D&D3.5 over D&D 4 then that's great, I hope you have a lot of fun playing. I recently started playing in a Champions game where the guys there swear by the HERO system as the best character generation system ever made (I remain unconvinced as of this posting).
To the Meat of the Matter: I re-started playing D&D when 3.0 came out. I started my RPG career when my cousin introduced me to D&D 1st edition when I was 13. Over the years I've played many different games, but when D&D 3.0 came out I was very excited to "return to my roots".
When 4E was first announced I wasn't very excited about it, I had dozens of 3.0/3.5 books and wasn't really interested in buying new books, also I was unconvinced that the changes Wizards was talking about were needed or useful. However I took a look at the books, read the rules, and liked what I saw.
It is true (as both onsilius and Invictus have pointed out) that 90% of the PHB focuses around combat. I don't think this is actually a large change from 3.0/3.5, but due to the introduction of Powers (which are mostly attack powers, although there are skill-challenge related powers) I can see how the perception of 4E being a combat game developed. I don't think that's a bad thing and the reason is simple. Combat is usually the most complicated thing in a RPG.
Most "non-combat" encounters revolve around skills and role-playing. Skills work simply, you have a bonus, you role a die and the GM decides what happens. This is true in 99.99% of all RPGs. Nobody is asking someone who is playing a Rogue to actually pick a lock (and I for one, wouldn't have the first idea how). Roleplaying is a bit trickier as it relies on a subtle combination of acting and gaming between the GM and the Player.
Combat encounters are trying to balance the idea of a "real" world and how the player moves and acts in it. Every game chooses a level of "realism" that they are looking for. Some games (GURPS) have a very detailed combat system that tends to take a while to resolve and is (usually) extremely lethal (unless you're playing super-heroic character), other games (D&D) tend to have a more swashbuckling approach to combat and look to have a more "action hero" sort of feel. Really we're talking the difference between "Finding Private Ryan" and "Inglorius Bastards".
Overall I like the direction that 4E has gone where all the character classes get their piece of cool. Are spellcasters less powerful? - yes. Do I think this is a bad thing? - no.
In the end, people will play the game that they _like_ to play. However I think that dismissing 4E has a "video game on the tabletop" isn't giving the game its fair shakes.
They do not distinguish Conflict from Combat.
Take a moment to notice the, admittedly, subtle differences between the two words.
This is something that took years for me to notice and is the root of why 4th fails and should be passed up.
A conflict is when multiple entities oppose one another.
A combat is when multiple entities are, in most cases, physically assaulting one another.
The problem is D&D and those aforementioned other systems will put too many rules into combat and none into any other types of conflict, be they social or more abstract ones like spiritual or purely acadamian. This means that the combat character, by the letter of the system, will always be superior.
A conflict occurs when one entity tries to act against another. This means that the acting entity must attempt to defeat the other with the other being able to defend against this and react. “attack” and “Defense” are not just battle terms.
In system balanced for conflict, not combat, everybody wins and all characters are equally valuable.
If a man climbs mountain then yes it’s a simple skill check.
If a man is racing another up a mountain then this is a conflict if the two try to interfere with one another. If one of the climbers tries to start an avalanche on the other than an attack has been made with a defense applying. This is not a fight; the two climbers don’t have “avalanche proficiency” and “Avalanche defense” this conflict would be based on their climbing skill.
If a man is trying to study a spell book then this is a skill check.
If two scholars are competing to finish a book and write a thesis on it first then this is conflict, if the two try to interfere with another. If one scholar starts humming loudly to try and throw off the other or begins to mutter what he’s writing to distract the others train of thought then one is making an “attack” and the other is trying to “defend” and press onwards. Neither have “muttering Focus” or “muttering parry” but they do have mental and studying scores of some sort depending on the system and would use those.
If a man is trying to use his flute to woo a crowd then this is a skill check.
Of someone from the crowd is actively telling him he’s bad at it then we have conflict as the pipe player wants the crowd’s affection but the heckler wants the crowd to boo him. The heckler probably doesn’t have “Heckle specialization” but he probably has a social stat of some kind and uses that. The two would “fight” until one beats the other and then the crowd would be swayed to the victor.
Do you see what i mean by conflict not combat?
There are many rules for combat because they're necessary. That's the part of the game that needs to be adjudicated the most. Any system that put in rules for how, why and when I should RP is not one I want to pick up.
I GM a 4e game with a group of six who all have vastly different resumes as far as any rollplaying goes - as such, they all have very different tastes and expectations.
Invictus, I'm pretty certain you're describing skill challenges - non-combat encounters that are explained in detail in the DMG2. My own group had a very lengthy one last session, in which they were trying to track another party through a forest. There was no combat at all involved in the tracking, but there was plenty of your definition of conflict. No one had 'fleeing specialization' or 'enhanced follow', but there were dice involved, skills utilized and, most important, RP drives and consequences.
To say 4e is too much like a video game is, in my opinion, an understandable misconception. If you enter combat and say, 'Boy, I can roll 3d6 and I'm level one!?', that's not the game focussing on the wrong thing, that's you. 4e is, so much in my experience, scaled well. The damage rolls are based on what you need to overcome encounters. If you're a 4e DM and you're afraid that encounters are going to be too easy for your OP'd PCs, then scale up encounters or work out some other house rule. My only feeling of 'OPness' came with the flavour text that accompanies most of the powers, but that's something that's easily changed.
All of this has no baring on roleplaying, however. What you roll in combat and what goes on outside of combat are completely different things. Dice are abstractions, and exist only to maintain chance in games. If the combat system is sound (which I believe is in 4e) then that gives the players and the GM the freedom to build whatever story they like around that. Whatever the system, don't let the mechanics weigh you down; use them when necessary to fuel an engaging story.
Absolutely. One of the best things that was developed in 4E was the Skill Challenge, which is what you're describing. Anyone who has run a game (in any system) has done what you described and usually it was done with a string of skill rolls and the imagination of the GM and their players. So there is nothing new there.
The new thing that 4E did was codify the *XP Value* and difficulties for this process and wrap it all into something called a "Skill Challenge". It is actually possible for a group of characters to level and not ever draw a weapon.
The way that Skill Challenges are described in the core books (DM Guide) tends to put it as more a static idea. X amount of successes before Y amount of failures, which done against a set of default static numbers that represent the difficulty of the challenge. However if you wanted something a bit juicier you could have it be a Skill vs. Skill challenge where the GM is rolling for the opponent and the PC is rolling for themselves.
A friend of mine is running a game where there was a Skill Challenge within the party. One of the members was being influenced by an evil artifact (The Hand of Vecna) so instead of the DCs being set by the DM, the DCs were based off the player's skills and defenses. So when a member of the party tried to use Bluff it was vs. the affected player's Insight. When another player tried to use Diplomacy it was vs. the players' Will defense.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that every RP encounter should be a Skill Challenge. Just the ones where there is a conflict that moves the story along, just as a fight in a dungeon would.
A GM could even get clever and plan for something to be either a Skill Challenge or a Combat. Example: Players are trying to sneak into a noble's stronghold and they come upon a group of guards. They could bluff their way through it, Sneak around it, or just fight the guards. Then the choice is up to the players, and either way the players are getting XP for defeating the guards.
*The new thing that 4E did was codify the XP Value and difficulties for this process and wrap it all into something called a “Skill Challenge”. It is actually possible for a group of characters to level and not ever draw a weapon.*
Excellent Point!
This is *NOT* necessary. That is incorrect, where did you get this notion? is it because you have only seen systems that heavily adjudicate combat? if so these systems are garbage. Combat should be on a Level playing field with any other type of skill. A character who wants to play a mountaineer with no combat ability should be worth the same as a man who trains with a sword. If he is not then the game system is Unbalanced and Unfair and should be Left Behind for a better system.
It doesn't matter if 4th edition has non combat rules your missing the point, all of you. 4th is combat skewed to the high heavens and therefore invalidates characters who are not combat focused. to prove my point try this: try to design a burglar with zero ability to do harm. build a man who breaks into homes and robs them. Out of the three core books at 5th level. Oh and make sure he's a Player Character. I bet you cannot create a man in 4th who is anything but a murderer. and this is my point, the game makes it easy to build butchers and thugs but impossible to make someone who does anything else and have him be worth the same as an axe crazy brute. Can you create a character who possesses only the ability to create? I bet you cannot. Can you create an artist and a diplomat without him even knowing how to use armor and weapons? Would he be worth the same as the fighter? of course not. it is impossible in 4th.
Your stories of what you and your party or your friends do are WORTHLESS. because you are the people using the material and can do whatever you want. my point is that out of the book, the as printed system of 4th edition boils down to and heavily skews to players: be a murderer, kill mobs for loot and XP, make a dice roll to outrun someone, rest, rinse, repeat.
"skill challenges" are not the answer to conflict.
Balanced conflict resolution is the answer to conflict.
4th edition does not have balanced conflict resolution. It says "be a fighter...here we have 10 different flavors of fighter"
*P.S.*
the very fact that you says its an excellent point that pcs can level without ever drawing a weapon proves my point. in 4th Its an oddity to advance without combat, a neat side trick, not the norm.
4th edition dungeons and dragons does not have CHOICE. You can only play a combat character and every other option is unfeasible. Someone on here even said it was a good thing for "mind control" magic to be out of 4th because it wasn't role play. cant you see how stupid that is? "mind control" is a character option for people who want to play that character and it IS role play, your role playing a a scenario where someone dominates anthers mind.
Without choice of character creation then your just playing pre-defined routes and guess what? that's what a video game is! your playing a tabletop Video Game! pick your feats, skills and weapon powers. go. cant you see that? its like im taking crazy pills?
4th edition does not allow you to create whatever you want it only allows you to create a koolaid fighter, with a different flavor crystal depending on how you want to fighter that day.
P.S.
"Any system that put in rules for how, why and when I should RP is not one I want to pick up."
Fighting is an aspect of role play, you and your buddies don't physically act out your combat so you role play it. by your own definition you dont like 4th edition. it tells you when, how and why you fight.
This whole edition argument is seriously childish and dumb. To me it's like arguing over which pizza topping is "better". There is no better here, just which game you prefer.
Also saying things like 4th edition is a mmorpg and therefore you can't do awesome things like gain a reputation etc is sooooo untrue. A lot of the things you listed would depend on the DM.
Yes there's still a DM in 4th edition and if the DM wants to create a awesome story arc then he/she can.
Sure 4th edition may have a mmorpg influence to it, but at the end of the day a DM drives the game and not a program. So really the quality of the game and the amount of combat is up to the DM, even if the rule book is now very combat orientated.
You are not allowed to discredit an argument between people just because you are too lazy to look at either side of the issue and try and see through each side’s perspective. Else you invalidate your opinion as there is nothing substantial to back it up. You need to get off your high horse.
Your right there is no “better” system but there is an atrocious one. People should not settle on garbage.
Most of what I’ve said is not DM related its game related. You don’t understand the words being printed on the screen or you refuse to read them. A system that skews itself towards combat is a BAD system because it depreciates the value of any other character type which, too dumb it down, means that it creates an imbalance before Players or Dungeon Masters are applied. If a game is poorly written before a group of people pick it up then it doesn’t matter who runs it because they’ve been swindled into purchasing a defective and bland product.
Also your wrong, the DM does not drive the game, the players do, the DM is just another player who has been elected to handle a certain section of the game.
So really the quality of the game and the amount of combat is indeed up to the players but i am not talking about that. I’m pointing out that 4th edition is a defective and useless waste of money that is a physical representation of WOTC business strategy of pumping out power creep after power creep product to the masses who haven’t realized that they’re rules and mechanics are just as valuable as Wizards and further more free.
WOTC does not produce anything better then what you could and your rules and mechanics are just as valid as theirs. People have this conception that if it has an official logo it is superior to their own work. This is wrong.
Look at 4th. Its a terrible system written by terrible people but players have taken it and used it for better and more interesting campaigns.
Go fail somewhere else Troll.
*I didn't say everyones opinion was stupid and childish. The argument its self is childish*, there is clearly two strong view points to the argument. One for older editions and one for the newest edition, no one is suddenly going to jump sides by the postings of "a far superior pre 4th edition player". Any "debate" such as this is merely a soapbox for fans of the older editions to show their displeasure for the new system and all its failing while criticizing WOTC for trying something new and claiming to be a "money grab". For this reason I find the "debate" pointless as the against group views are set in stone, cold hard stone much like "WOTC's cold hard cash flow" (note the sarcasm).
I'm sorry that my opinion into the matter was offensive to you. According to you I came off like a internet troll. I think that is because I summed up my opinion with fewer paragraphs.
Back on track, I am simply asking what is the point of the debate? There will be no happy outcome for either side. In situations like this it is simply best to "agree to disagree" as the saying goes. Because "debates" such as these are akin to bashing ones head into a brick wall and the wall my friend is now rather bloody.
Also a reminder to fans of the older editions. No one is forcing you to play 4th edition, so if you prefer an older edition of the game then stick to it. You're entitled to your opinion on the matter also but I'm also entitled to disagree with it and disagreeing with the validity of arguing such an issue. If you truly dislike what I say then I suggest you make a wordpress account and post with the comments turned off.
Good day.
By you saying the argument is childish you are indeed calling the opinions encapsulated inside of them childish, which guess what? Is a troll move. Its discrediting the ideas and opinions of everyone involved and at the same time trying to take some sort of moral high ground. Ridiculous.
To take my example a step further.
“i believe the earth is flat!”
“and i believe its round i have proof!”
“This debate is childish and pointless you two are bashing ones head into a brick wall and the wall my now rather bloody. Beside the earth is of course flat. You round earth idea people just can’t stop attacking us and our favourite idea.”
“you added nothing to this and your opinion discredits both of us”
“I’m entitled to disagree you shouldn’t listen to people who come into a debate your having and calling both of you childish...Good Day”
“well that was pointless”
“indeed”
I love the idea that your “entitled” to your opinion of disagreeing but no one is allowed to call you on your opinion for justification. It’s a very...enlightened trend for people to claim that their opinion is impervious to scrutiny and doesn’t need backing up. Why bother debating at all. Well with folk like that anyway.
Also you missed the point entirely, i am now aware you didn’t even read the debate and just showed up at the end to comment for the sake of it but my argument wasn’t for older editions, they all suck as do most game systems.
One of the things i was articulating, i won’t sum it all up well not for you anyway you’re going to get bored and find a newer and shinier debate to call stupid soon anyway, was that 4the edition and games like it are an insult to gamers. They are all combat heavy, have arbitrary balance that is kept in a shroud so that more books can be produced and exist by the company’s acknowledgment only to be sold as a product and not actually contribute to the game.
Firstly *ideas* are Worthless. Soak it in, *Ideas* are not worth money. By this extension system mechanics are worthless. Anyone can come up with them and they can be balanced by any person.
When WOTC prints out book after book that contains only mechanics that increase in power over time they are not selling a good product, they are selling you ideas that hundreds of people have come up with before, simply look at the variety of Systems out there.
By doing this they continue a stigma that only books produced by WOTC are “real” and everything else is “homebrew” and therefore not worth as much and should be disregarded. This is why they did not continue with the Open Source format of 3rd, it lost them too much control over the books they sold. What this stigma perpetuates is that only an elite few at WOTC can produce *Ideas* worth listening too and you must pay a premium for them.
Since WOTC can produce anything they wish and it is considered gospel truth by the consumer they do not need to put effort into their work. For reference look at at 2nd edition monster manual or even better any 2nd edition Ravenloft material. These books are creatively constructed and written where story and quality fiction take the precedent too mechanics. Even the sword and sorcery 3rd edition Ravenloft stuff was of quality, you could sit down and read these books for the fiction inside and get into the mood and feel for the world you were to run in. And this feel transcended the system the game was played in.
That is what’s worth 40$ a pop, a good looking book with well crafted creativity inside. At that point your paying for a good book that happens to have mechanical information here and there.
Now people who play 4th *always* talk about how the house rule or change certain aspects of the game because they admit it is heavy combat, but then why buy it all? The 4th edition cores have no flavour beyond describing how cool powers or intimidating monsters look and act when they’re fighting. Third had the same problem down to the art, every monster was essentially in a battle pose. Why pay 120$ for a collection of books on MATH.
There are better, cheaper and free systems out there that are balanced and easy to learn. Why bother using 4th edition if all your going to do is alter it, you could have done that without paying for it and supporting the WOTC and White Wolf, propaganda that you the consumer cannot create and must pay tribute to the elite who are allowed to make “real” material.
You can make systems or find free ones, because your ideas are as valuable as the people at WOTC. Why physically pay WOTC for essentially nothing? What purpose does that serve? This isn’t about systems or editions or old and new! This is about generations of gamers not realizing that its their hobby and they have control of its direction. Paying for something that has no Value is wrong. WOTC should be made aware of that after all we can survive without them and always will, the same cannot be said for them...well for their D&D department anyway, they make their real cash off of Magic. But if people start demanding flavour and quality fiction in their books then WOTC will start supplying that demand.
Do you see what im saying?