[4.0] Insults intelligence.

[FoE]

{Scrubbed} I refute your arguments and you refuse to acknowledge my evidence.

Good thing I know how the Ignore function works.

[Sliver]

I get the impression that shadzar's complaint is that the game doesn't force you to role-play by giving rules for skill-challanges where you can pass by making a couple of throws.
I still don't see it a valid point because no game should force you to do anything. You do what you want, no matter what the book say.

[MickJay]

I get the impression that shadzar's complaint is that the game doesn't force you to role-play by giving rules for skill-challanges where you can pass by making a couple of throws.
I still don't see it a valid point because no game should force you to do anything. You do what you want, no matter what the book say.

I think shadzar would disagree on the grounds that if the game is called "roleplaying" game, it should require "roleplaying". For the sake of the argument, I am willing to accept this premise. Still, none of the earlier editions forced roleplaying on the players, which means that each of them could have been played, like 4e, with omission of roleplaying altogether. Which leads to the simple conclusion that D&D, in its totality, never was a roleplaying game at all. :smalltongue:

[Sliver]

I think shadzar would disagree on the grounds that if the game is called "roleplaying" game, it should require "roleplaying". For the sake of the argument, I am willing to accept this premise. Still, none of the earlier editions forced roleplaying on the players, which means that each of them could have been played, like 4e, with omission of roleplaying altogether. Which leads to the simple conclusion that D&D, in its totality, never was a roleplaying game at all. :smalltongue:
And other "roleplaying" games could force roleplaying on the players? They could do it so it didn't matter what the DM did, and the players always had to roleplay? by that defenition, is there any true roleplaying game out there that no matter what, no matter the DMing style, you are forced to roleplay to move on?

[Winterwind]

And other "roleplaying" games could force roleplaying on the players? They could do it so it didn't matter what the DM did, and the players always had to roleplay? by that defenition, is there any true roleplaying game out there that no matter what, no matter the DMing style, you are forced to roleplay to move on?Freeform. But that definition would render the term just about meaningless.

[Sliver]

Freeform. But that definition would render the term just about meaningless.
Wait, Freeform forces the players to roleplay no matter the DM style?

[kc0bbq]

Freeform. But that definition would render the term just about meaningless.You could do freeform without roleplaying, it would just be wierd. You'd just have to talk in third person as if you were a narrator of your own actions.

[Winterwind]

Wait, Freeform forces the players to roleplay no matter the DM style?Considering there is nothing beside roleplaying to it, I don't see how it could be played without.
Note: By "freeform" I refer to playing without any dice, character sheets and rules, with the DM being the sole arbitrator of what succeeds and what doesn't (there are other methods of determining that, but this would be the typical one), not any particular game called Freeform, as your capitalization in that quote might indicate.


You could do freeform without roleplaying, it would just be wierd. You'd just have to talk in third person as if you were a narrator of your own actions.I'd still count this as roleplaying, as long as the result would be a character participating in a story, with a unique identity and personality.

We are starting to really stray from topic though. :smallwink:

[MickJay]

We are starting to really stray from topic though. :smallwink:

Well, that tends to happen in threads with over 3/4 of a thousand posts :smalltongue:

[kc0bbq]

I'd still count this as roleplaying, as long as the result would be a character participating in a story, with a unique identity and personality.It's not any different than doing everything third person in D&D. Sometimes it's more annoying when someone feels the need to jump into some Calculon style acting!!! reaction shots during a scene. And I would agree with you that it's roleplaying. Some people seem to think roleplaying can only be first person.

I don't remember even doing IC dialogue in Amber DRPG unless it matters. Not even in games with Wucjik as GM, keeping in mind his page long rant about not using dice in the system book.

One other point, not connected to this - skill challenges aren't just a series of die rolls. You actually roleplay the situation and roll your checks when you get to a point where you hit a trigger, whether it's one spelled out in the challenge list or one that comes through play. In a lot of circumstances, you can successfully get through skill challenges not even rolling once on the listed triggers. BY DESIGN. That is why some skill challenges can last through multiple sessions with many other encounters between rolls. They are an incredibly powerful roleplaying tool.

[Totally Guy]

Sometimes it's more annoying when someone feels the need to jump into some Calculon style acting!!! reaction shots during a scene.

As the DM I ruled that bad calculon acting is an NPC only activity.:smalltongue:

[FoE]

As the DM I ruled that bad calculon acting is an NPC only activity. :smalltongue:

No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NO-O-O-O!

[Fixer]

How the hell is this thread still active? What are you people still arguing about?

{Scrubbed}

[oxybe]

well, i do have a bag of holding full of cockatrice giblets... what else am i supposed to do with them?

[Blackfang108]

well, i do have a bag of holding full of cockatrice giblets... what else am i supposed to do with them?

I have an idea.

Build a house with them! :smallbiggrin:

[VanBuren]

Because I have made no claim about any other editions. The only claim that I made is about 4th edition, so what point is there to bring up others as if I was speaking of them, other than to try to put words into my mouth, or to derail the discussion itself?

That simply isn't true.

I mean, sure you claim that your line of questioning concerns 4E and 4E only, but...


That removing roleplaying from a roleplaying game is insulting to some when you try to sell that game a a roleplaying game in general. Also if people want to persist to drone on about other editions, then they should take it to other threads.


As others try to state that 4th doesn't promote roleplaying in any fashion, and that is exactly what I am saying. Therefore they have removed it as a part of the game, and in some places explicitly state don't do it (ignore the two gate guards), and others have flat out removed any need for it at all in the places where it would be most fitting to roleplay (skill challenges).

Do you know what both of those quotes have in common? They're both statements of yours that WotC has removed roleplaying as a requirement from the current edition of DnD. This was already said, but I need to reiterate it: you cannot remove something that wasn't already there.

In other words, your line of questioning carries the presupposition that earlier editions of DnD did require roleplaying, a presupposition that many consider flawed. You're claiming that this presupposition is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but you're wrong. If you're argument flows from a faulty premise, then your conclusion isn't sound.

To summarize: the discussion of whether or not roleplaying is required in earlier editions of DnD is most certainly pertinent, because you made it so.

[shadzar]

you cannot remove something that was already there.

So you can only remove things that are never there? :smallconfused:

You cannot remove something UNLESS it is already there.

HEY! There isn't chocolate in my peanut butter, I better take the chocolate out of my peanut butter.

:smallconfused:

[VanBuren]

So you can only remove things that are never there? :smallconfused:

You cannot remove something UNLESS it is already there.

HEY! There isn't chocolate in my peanut butter, I better take the chocolate out of my peanut butter.

:smallconfused:

Yes, that was a typo. Now can you stop being evasive and actually address my point?

[shadzar]

Yes, that was a typo. Now can you stop being evasive and actually address my point?

:smallsigh: Said it before and I will say it again. IF anyone wants to discuss this about earlier editions, then create a thread for such. So far no one has, so they really don't wish to. If you wish to discuss 4th edition, then direct your questions about 4th edition, and I will reply. ANY inclusion of other editions or games in what is being directed at me will be ignored as off-topic to this thread and discussion.

If people cannot discus the edition itself without the need for comparison or competition (edition warring) with another edition or game, then 4th cannot stand or fall on its own merits and is not even worth a footnote in the history of D&D.

Why do so many want to try to start an edition war rather than discus something? :smallconfused:

[Nightson]

Shadzar, by using the word remove you are implicitly involving other editions and/or games, is this really that hard to comprehend? Your argument rests on implied premises with regards to other editions, the argument can't be addressed without talking about those editions.

[shadzar]

Shadzar, by using the word remove you are implicitly involving other editions and/or games, is this really that hard to comprehend? Your argument rests on implied premises with regards to other editions, the argument can't be addressed without talking about those editions.

No everyone else is implying other editions, while I am just looking at the components of the games on namesake and its objectives.

Roleplaying Game

Roleplaying is something

A game is something.

The object of this type of game is to include both.

If you are not trying to include both, then do not claim your product is a "roleplaying game".

Remove one or the other and you no longer have a "roleplaying game" but are left with just the one you did not remove.

[huttj509]

So why single out 4.0 as the prime culprit then?

[Superglucose]

26 pages on how a game system is an insult to people's intelligence.

I guess I better make a contribution to this thread: You're all wasting time arguing this point. If you like 3.x, play 3.x, if you like 4.0, play 4.0. There's no law or rule saying you have to convert. If you're so big on rule supplements and you're worried there won't be any more for 3.5, write your own. If you're worried about RPGA things, find a group to play with the old RPGA guidelines.

All I see are 26 pages of "we can't live and let live, because you guys are that bad!" This is how wars are started.

[shadzar]

So why single out 4.0 as the prime culprit then?

:smallconfused: There is no other way to say this but...Have you read THIS thread's title/subject?


[4.0] Insults intelligence.

:smallconfused:

[VanBuren]

:smallsigh: Said it before and I will say it again. IF anyone wants to discuss this about earlier editions, then create a thread for such. So far no one has, so they really don't wish to. If you wish to discuss 4th edition, then direct your questions about 4th edition, and I will reply. ANY inclusion of other editions or games in what is being directed at me will be ignored as off-topic to this thread and discussion.

This is incredible. It really is. We're not the ones trying to bring earlier editions into this. You. Are.

The fact that you're able to ignore this fact, and then try and blame us for it is simply awe-inspiring.


If people cannot discus the edition itself without the need for comparison or competition (edition warring) with another edition or game, then 4th cannot stand or fall on its own merits and is not even worth a footnote in the history of D&D.

So then stop bringing the other editions into this.


Why do so many want to try to start an edition war rather than discus something? :smallconfused:

Good question. I think you be the one to answer it.

[Colmarr]

This may help:


Main Entry: re·move
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·moved; re·mov·ing
transitive verb
1 a: to change the location, position, station, or residence of <remove soldiers to the front> b: to transfer (a legal proceeding) from one court to another
2: to move by lifting, pushing aside, or taking away or off <remove your hat>
3: to dismiss from office
4: to get rid of : eliminate <remove a tumor surgically>

My bolding.


Main Entry: omit
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): omit·ted; omit·ting
1: to leave out or leave unmentioned <omits one important detail>
2: to leave undone : fail
3obsolete : disregard
4obsolete : give up

My bolding.

It appears clear that Shadzar now (regardless of what he might have meant at the time this whole remove kerfuffle arose) maintains that he is referring only to 4e. Since it's impossible to "remove" something from a single edition of D&D, it is clear that he means "omit".

Semantic argument resolved.

Perhaps it would be more fruitful (doubtful) to discuss whether 4e omits roleplaying.

[shadzar]

This is incredible. It really is. We're not the ones trying to bring earlier editions into this. You. Are.

Where? More false claims from people, twisting words, or putting words into something I said that were never there to begin with, and then others just go along with it rather than read themselves?

Where did I compare or include other editions in asking "where is roleplaying a required part of the so-called roleplaying game 4th edition".

I didn't other people have assumed and implied that and added it with each passing, trying to make claims that I said it, when in fact I did not.

I am constantly trying to squash this to get the real question answered from the people trying to be evasive and present some smoke and mirrors to divert from the question being asked, and start an edition war with it.

So state where in asking about roleplaying being not required in 4th did I bring up other editions?

WHERE? :smallconfused:

[Colmarr]

WHERE? :smallconfused:

See post 766, where you have been quoted.

Then see my last post, which contains a definition of "remove" (a word you are quoted as using repeatedly).

To spell it out clearly:


You said 4e removed roleplaying.
Remove means "take away"
4e has not been updated or changed yet (ie. there's no 4.5e).
Therefore, if 4e has "removed" roleplaying, it must have removed it from a prior edition.
Therefore you invoked previous editions.


It really can't be made any clearer. If you didn't mean to invoke previous editions, the obvious step now is to say: "Oops. Sorry for any miscommunication. I meant to say that 4e omits roleplaying. Can we discuss that assertion instead?

Edit: Given the time on your last post, I accept that you had already started typing it when my last post went live.

[shadzar]

{Scrubbed}

[Colmarr]

{Scrubbed}

I refer you (for the second time (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6176361&postcount=458)) to the rules of posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1), particularly the section on flaming.

[ImmortalAer]

...who's Roland? :smallconfused:

::CONTINGENCY PLAN::

If this Roland fellow turns out to be a moderator (the name is familiar...), then assume this quip comes after the thread-locking post. (If one occurs. If it's just a scrub, ignore this entirely.)

Ah, so that's Roland.

[The New Bruceski]

Here's a note: "Insults intelligence" is a colloquial term used to refer to talking down to someone; assuming they're stupider than they are.

Does not telling you how to roleplay insult your intelligence? I would take it as the opposite. Eliminating needless rules assumes the players are smart enough to see past the need for them. If the game put limitations on how one could roleplay, *that* would insult the players' intelligence.

Then again, there are some folks whose intelligence could never be underestimated...

[Jayabalard]

Where? More false claims from people, twisting words, or putting words into something I said that were never there to begin with, and then others just go along with it rather than read themselves?Your implication (when you're not busy spewing personal attacks) is that 4e removes something that is present in earlier editions; if you're not imply that then you're not making a meaningful argument when you talk about 4e having removed roleplaying.


Here's a note: "Insults intelligence" is a colloquial term used to refer to talking down to someone; assuming they're stupider than they are.Correct. In general, this complaint is leveled at the fact that the game is vastly oversimplified compared to previous editions.

The only place that I personally see that where sort of complaint comes into play with 4e and roleplaying is the fact that 4e moved the game to a less RP centric game to a more battlegrid focused game; it's catering heavily to the "kick down the door, kill everything and take their stuff" sort of playstyle. Some people find wotc's assumption of the way that D&D players are going to be playing the game to be rather demeaning.

[Winterwind]

No everyone else is implying other editions, while I am just looking at the components of the games on namesake and its objectives.

Roleplaying Game

Roleplaying is something

A game is something.

The object of this type of game is to include both.

If you are not trying to include both, then do not claim your product is a "roleplaying game".

Remove one or the other and you no longer have a "roleplaying game" but are left with just the one you did not remove.Ah, here's where the problem lies. Language does not work this way.

As logical as it might sound, a roleplaying game is not necessarily one where roleplaying is strictly needed. Rather, a roleplaying game is a game of a type that people have come to call roleplaying games. No more, no less. In video games, you would earn nothing but ridicule if you tried to claim something like Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy and (in the eyes of some people) even Diablo were not roleplaying games, even though they hardly contain much, if anything, that could be considered roleplaying. Because that's simply how the term "roleplaying game" is defined in video gamer circles.

Now, here, in this forum, a roleplaying game is a game of the same type as the earlier editions of D&D, since they were the first roleplaying games (using the definition of the term befitting this context). They weren't called "roleplaying games" because roleplaying was necessary (as it wasn't, not any more than in the 4th edition), but because it was encouraged. A player could play the game without roleplaying, but s/he'd be missing the game's point. And so that type of game came to be called a roleplaying game. Whether it was a befitting name or not, considering they didn't necessitate roleplaying, is up to you (personally, I think it's perfectly fitting), but this is the name people have come to use for this type of games.

And in that sense, 4th edition is still very much a roleplaying game - it may not necessitate roleplaying, but it encourages it (see Face of Evil's examples for that), and its point is that it is meant to be played with roleplaying.

[Leeham]

Your implication (when you're not busy spewing personal attacks) is that 4e removes something that is present in earlier editions; if you're not imply that then you're not making a meaningful argument when you talk about 4e having removed roleplaying.

Correct. In general, this complaint is leveled at the fact that the game is vastly oversimplified compared to previous editions.

The only place that I personally see that where sort of complaint comes into play with 4e and roleplaying is the fact that 4e moved the game to a less RP centric game to a more battlegrid focused game; it's catering heavily to the "kick down the door, kill everything and take their stuff" sort of playstyle. Some people find wotc's assumption of the way that D&D players are going to be playing the game to be rather demeaning.

I actually think WotC were right to do this. Roleplaying isn't the hardest thing to do in the world, and the books actually do give some good advice about how to go around it. But the fact is most people do enjoy the combat side of things a bit more than the other bit. It's when the dice are rolling, where there's action. When was the last time you shouted "CRIT!" in a social encounter? I mean, who can honestly say they've ran a purely roleplaying campain? Even in 3.x? would you even need the books? i think not. The books seem combat heavy because you don't need a whole new book to tell you how to roleplay, or at least you shouldn't.

[huttj509]

I actually think WotC were right to do this. Roleplaying isn't the hardest thing to do in the world, and the books actually do give some good advice about how to go around it. But the fact is most people do enjoy the combat side of things a bit more than the other bit. It's when the dice are rolling, where there's action. When was the last time you shouted "CRIT!" in a social encounter? I mean, who can honestly say they've ran a purely roleplaying campain? Even in 3.x? would you even need the books? i think not. The books seem combat heavy because you don't need a whole new book to tell you how to roleplay, or at least you shouldn't.

Not quite. There are some things the game should have.

What does my character know about the world?

He might have intricate knowledge of dungeons, heraldry, geographical information, etc. that I do not. In 4E this is taken into account with things like Dungeoneering. I can ask to make a Dungeoneering roll to see if my character can determine, say, what sort of dungeon dwelling creatures would set a crude trap like this. My character might know, I might not.

Can my character convince this guy to do something?

This is a lot more variable in how deep the rules should go. On the one hand, the player should try to put words in their character's mouth. On the other hand, we do play characters who are more (or less) intelligent, quick-witted, or charismatic than we are. How I personally like to handle this in 3.5E is with the player's argument/bluff/pick-up line providing a modifier to the roll based on how good/bad it is, but it's the character's skills that play a major role (this varies much more than the normal +-2. If I think the NPC should be 100% totally convinced, I'll make it an automatic success, but I won't make it an automatic failure. The character might just be good enough to pull off the claim that the note he has to deliver is a "verbal note," so he can't show it to the guard, even if the player says it and then head-desks realizing what he just said.) To the best of my knowledge 4E approaches this with skill challenges. The player can attempt to, say, convince the local duke to side with them using some knowledge of the Duke's ancient family feud with the king (local history sort of thing, nobility, back to point one of what the character knows that the player doesn't), can try to back up their claims that they'll succeed by showing off with some acrobatics to show their skill, etc. I don't have much experience with 4E though.

Basically, the system needs SOME way to resolve the conversational equivalent of "you missed" "did not, I totally hit you" that plagues every childhood game of cops and robbers, but much less detail is needed than for combat, in general.

[Kris Strife]

When was the last time you shouted "CRIT!" in a social encounter?

Hm... Last Thursday.

[oxinabox]

hmm.
You could say it insults intelligence as INT does't determine number of lanugatges known or number of skill points, or the base bonus for any more that CON does.
A big change.
ALso Now int adds to AC.

4e doesn't force RP?
Most 4e games have less RP than 3.5 games?
News to me (actually i've heard it many times but never noticed it in practice)
The only thing 4e did IMO that harmed RP, was remove Preform, Profession and Craft skills.
I've house ruled that they can choose to have one of those skills if they spend a feat, or take it as a Background skill (instead of getting a +2 benifit to a class skill).
Once of my players took Preform: Torture.

In the following (4e) example i can't see there being anymore or any less RP, in 4e than there would have been in 3.5

In one of my games 2 of my characters who where thieves (a sorcerer Doppelganger and a Eladrin warlock) decided to rob a vault belonging to a master jeweler.
They spend a ingame week (or a real time 2 hours) talking to NPC's. Making bluff checks.
One of them took on of the jewelers journey men (senior apprentice) out on a date to learn more about the guarding measures in place. damn good bluff/diplomacy checks there. and damn fine roleplaying.

So on the night of the robbery, the doppelganger suck in disquised as the journey man. got past some of the guards by saying he had a project due from the master the next day that he'ld forgotten to do.
Now there were 2 more guards outside the vault (he was a very wealthy jeweler, greatest in this huge city).
Now he rped the guards with a story that he was too drunk to enter the combination to disable the traps in the passage to the vault.
Now i wouldn't let him have that cos the guard had orders not to let anyone who wasn't sober enough to enter the combination.
Then players managed to trickthe 2 guards who he's told that to into chasing the druid (who was a Panther, who had just found the secret door in).
But i didn't want them to get in with out a fight, i wanted to see some combat.
But the players had decided that combat was a bad idea. the'ld never make it out of the city alive with blood on there hands.
So before the guards chased the Druid, they called a reinforcemnet down from the front door.

Now the dopplegager could get across the traps sincethe guard had disarmed them. but he couldn't open the door. it was the eladrin job to do the thievery skill stuff.
so the eladrin telported in and got a bonus to concealment, and then passed her stealth check.
However hen she walked up to the door she failed it.
but the used the Eyebite power which has the fuff effect of blinding them for a second. to allow reroll. which she suceeded
The doppelganger managed to convince the guard he must have stood up to fast, "No, there was no eleadrin here. you think i'ld lie to you after all these years?".
He then stood by the door making as if he was unlocking it with the key.
While the eladrin did some lockpicking.
The door also had an magical fire trap that unlessed dissarmed would burn anyone who touched it.
But they didn't want to risk a lould painful disarm failure, so the doppleganger gave the eleadrin his dagger and using 2 daggers at a streath penatly managed to turn the vault door.
The eladrin snuck inside, and the doppleganger just walking in as he said he'ld needed to pick up some raw materials.
Inside they looted. and the eleadrin teleported outside with most of the loot.
THe doppleganger took a display peice back up to the forge and made banging noises for halfan hour.
before returning the piece to the vault.
And Leaving through the front door after being searched by the guard.

[Sliver]

Once of my players took Preform: Torture.


So... The character tortured people on the street and citizens passed and gave him money?

[VanBuren]

So... The character tortured people on the street and citizens passed and gave him money?

Do not trifle with the artist, philistine.

[kc0bbq]

So... The character tortured people on the street and citizens passed and gave him money?Sounds like a RPG version of Sacha Cohen, really. He makes Borat, et al, people give him money.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Okay, I've read several complaints about 4ed 'insulting their intelligence'.

Please explain. I've not read any inflammatory language in the books, so I really don't understand where this is coming from.

So, I'd like to hear from folks who feel they've been insulted by the books as to why. Not looking to argue, I just want to understand your point of view. I may not agree with you, but I am interested in understanding.

Also, not looking to turn this into edition war, so let's keep discussion to the specific question.As I'm sure you have come to realize, asking that the discussion not devolve into "edition war" is easier than achieving that goal.

For what it's worth, I'll throw my 2 cents in. I'll note that I read about the first 10 pages of the thread, and probably the last 5 of those not terribly closely. So if I fail to address the main portion of the posts people have made to date, sorry.

I do not in any way consider that 4e insults the intelligence of the players. I play in a group of 9 people, the youngest in their late 30s, and several of whom are in highly scientific or technical fields. No one has commented that 4e is too simplistic, and this is a group which has been playing simultaneous AD&D and 3.5 campaigns for about 4 years, and which can count their total years of role playing experience at well over 100 years.

Looking at the thread, however, I have seen a lot of emotion based assaults on 4e which on closer inspection either apply equally well to any other edition of D&D, or which are simply willful misinterpretations of cherry picked sentences from 4e. Without naming names or quoting, I'll give an example of each:
Stated issue which applies to every version of D&D:
The poster who railed against the 4e system of powers, especially for the martial classes, and ended up saying something like "Where's my ability to just run up to an opponent and impale them with my sword? Huh, why can't I do that?"
To who I'd reply "And where was that ability in any prior edition of D&D? I've played them all, and I don't recall that being in any of them, so why is it a failing of 4e that this isn't an included melee option?"
Stated issue which relies on a willful misrepresentation of 4e author intent:
(I believe that there has been more than one poster who falls into this category) 4e removed the role play. See here, this quote proves it.
To who I'd reply "Odd, but having played all versions of D&D published to date including 4e, I am seeing exactly zero difference in the amount of role play. And I certainly didn't take the meaning of the sentence you've quoted the same way you have."

And so I have to conclude that many people simply dislike 4e for any number of reasons. These reasons, being opinions, are of course correct. Correct for those individuals, and perhaps no other person. But it's in the expression of these reasons where a curious thing occurs. A label, such as "insults intelligence", will be used. But these labels are indefensible to people who hold a differing opinion. If person A feels that their intellect is being insulted, and person B does not, there is little likelihood that person A will ever be able to convince person B that this perception is an accurate and justified one. Person B may concede that person A feels this way, but person B having been exposed to the same situation and having not drawn the same conclusion from that experience there is little chance that person B will even agree that person A is correct to feel this way. And vice versa.

And when either tries to convince the other, the war begins. And it can not be concluded amicably, for there is a simple lack of empathy for each others side.

For me, I applaud the class balance of and overall cohesive rule set of 4e. They have defined mechanics well, and I've run into very few fringe cases where those definitions failed. There is little need in 4e to house rule many things in order to attempt to adjust for an underlying lack of balance, and I like that in a game. That has not been my experience with any prior version. The authors are taking advantage of the faster feedback loops facilitated by the Internet, and this is a good thing. Where there were errors found (and there have been and always will be errors found), errata were quickly issued. The combat system is much more deep than that in prior editions. Easy to pick up on, and hard to master. My players are still struggling to realize that they need to work better together to make combats more quickly resolved and with fewer resources expended.

I also prefer a lower fantasy level than that supported by prior editions, but especially 3.x. OE or 4e are preferable in this way: Fewer spells, and both are a far cry from the "there's a spell for every situation imaginable" scenarios seen in any 3.x setting which strays far at all from a core only restriction or some severe house rules about magic use.

[Doom314]

As a fan of 4E, that doesn't necessarily make me immune to some of the quirks.

I mean, having Intelligence affect AC I can take, kind of...but knowing that an unconscious character STILL can use his Intelligence to increase his armor class? I sort of see the point of those that might find that a bit, well, insulting.

Similarly, a "Sleep" spell that is fundamentally incapable of putting anything to sleep? I like the game, but, yeah, this is sort of on the same level as urinating in someone's ear and saying "It's raining".

Acid attacks that can knock unconscious is another oddity, but enough.

Those are just off the top of my head, mind you. I understand how DnD4.0, the latest Dungeons and Dragons licensed product from WoTC, could possibly in a way be interpreted as insulting to intelligence.

Years ago, I used to write a column for a gaming magazine, sort of like "Murphy's Law" in the old Space Gamer. Anyway, I'd just list ten or so ridiculous rules quirks in games (eg, a suit of plate mail in Diablo takes up as much inventory space as half a dozen diamond chips)...each column I'd draw from ten different games. If I had that column now, I could probably do several just with DnD4.0.

All games have quirks, mind you, so it's no big deal.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

As I'm sure you have come to realize, asking that the discussion not devolve into "edition war" is easier than achieving that goal.

For what it's worth, I'll throw my 2 cents in. I'll note that I read about the first 10 pages of the thread, and probably the last 5 of those not terribly closely. So if I fail to address the main portion of the posts people have made to date, sorry.

I do not in any way consider that 4e insults the intelligence of the players. I play in a group of 9 people, the youngest in their late 30s, and several of whom are in highly scientific or technical fields. No one has commented that 4e is too simplistic, and this is a group which has been playing simultaneous AD&D and 3.5 campaigns for about 4 years, and which can count their total years of role playing experience at well over 100 years.

Looking at the thread, however, I have seen a lot of emotion based assaults on 4e which on closer inspection either apply equally well to any other edition of D&D, or which are simply willful misinterpretations of cherry picked sentences from 4e. Without naming names or quoting, I'll give an example of each:
Stated issue which applies to every version of D&D:
The poster who railed against the 4e system of powers, especially for the martial classes, and ended up saying something like "Where's my ability to just run up to an opponent and impale them with my sword? Huh, why can't I do that?"
To who I'd reply "And where was that ability in any prior edition of D&D? I've played them all, and I don't recall that being in any of them, so why is it a failing of 4e that this isn't an included melee option?"
Stated issue which relies on a willful misrepresentation of 4e author intent:
(I believe that there has been more than one poster who falls into this category) 4e removed the role play. See here, this quote proves it.
To who I'd reply "Odd, but having played all versions of D&D published to date including 4e, I am seeing exactly zero difference in the amount of role play. And I certainly didn't take the meaning of the sentence you've quoted the same way you have."

And so I have to conclude that many people simply dislike 4e for any number of reasons. These reasons, being opinions, are of course correct. Correct for those individuals, and perhaps no other person. But it's in the expression of these reasons where a curious thing occurs. A label, such as "insults intelligence", will be used. But these labels are indefensible to people who hold a differing opinion. If person A feels that their intellect is being insulted, and person B does not, there is little likelihood that person A will ever be able to convince person B that this perception is an accurate and justified one. Person B may concede that person A feels this way, but person B having been exposed to the same situation and having not drawn the same conclusion from that experience there is little chance that person B will even agree that person A is correct to feel this way. And vice versa.

And when either tries to convince the other, the war begins. And it can not be concluded amicably, for there is a simple lack of empathy for each others side.

For me, I applaud the class balance of and overall cohesive rule set of 4e. They have defined mechanics well, and I've run into very few fringe cases where those definitions failed. There is little need in 4e to house rule many things in order to attempt to adjust for an underlying lack of balance, and I like that in a game. That has not been my experience with any prior version. The authors are taking advantage of the faster feedback loops facilitated by the Internet, and this is a good thing. Where there were errors found (and there have been and always will be errors found), errata were quickly issued. The combat system is much more deep than that in prior editions. Easy to pick up on, and hard to master. My players are still struggling to realize that they need to work better together to make combats more quickly resolved and with fewer resources expended.

I also prefer a lower fantasy level than that supported by prior editions, but especially 3.x. OE or 4e are preferable in this way: Fewer spells, and both are a far cry from the "there's a spell for every situation imaginable" scenarios seen in any 3.x setting which strays far at all from a core only restriction or some severe house rules about magic use.

That's a pretty good summary.

As someone who doesn't like 4e, I will say that I do not think 4e "insults ones intelligence". Some things in it are pretty good actually.

One thing I didn't like about it as a product was that it had some missing classes at the beginning but this is being fixed.

The main thing I don't like about it as a game is that it is a "lower fantasy level" but also "flashy" fantasy. It sorta feels more like a superhero game more than a fantasy game...not sure if I'm making myself clear.

[Mando Knight]

Similarly, a "Sleep" spell that is fundamentally incapable of putting anything to sleep? I like the game, but, yeah, this is sort of on the same level as urinating in someone's ear and saying "It's raining".

Sleep knocks an opponent unconscious (presumably by putting it to sleep) if it fails its first saving throw. And it affects high-level creatures, something that 3.5's Sleep can't do. With an Orb Wizard and some cheese, this becomes a ridiculously powerful spell (turns Sleep's saves into auto-fails for even Solos on a hit).

@Hamster: I see what you're getting at. It's my kind of fantasy, but apparently not yours. To each his own, I guess.

[Asheram]

The main thing I don't like about it as a game is that it is a "lower fantasy level" but also "flashy" fantasy. It sorta feels more like a superhero game more than a fantasy game...not sure if I'm making myself clear.

I'm not sure if it's the point you were trying to make, but what turns me off is the insane difference in power between an ordinary commoner and a Level 1 character.
Warrl expressed these thoughts much better than I'm able to over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6254746&postcount=74)

[Jayabalard]

Basically, the system needs SOME way to resolve the conversational equivalent of "you missed" "did not, I totally hit you" that plagues every childhood game of cops and robbers.Personally, I've always found that a competent GM is more than sufficient

[oxinabox]

So... The character tortured people on the street and citizens passed and gave him money?

Not quiet. I haven't seen it in practice. but his character is a teifling from the Old school.
in my world secret underground tiefling cities exists. and live the tradition tielfling life as in the height of their empire.
So we're talking pit fiends on every corner.
So Preform is a charisma based skill. but his character isn't a nice enough person to find information though diplamacy. he isn't even nice enough to use intermediate.
His Performance is for a small audience. usually of 1 - the victim.
and they don't pay him with gold they pay with information, (...and their lives)

[Mando Knight]

Personally, I've always found that a competent GM is more than sufficient

And how many such GMs exist outside of an organized system? A few hundred to a couple thousand, maybe?

[Juggernaut1981]

Here is my core beef with 4E: Characters are only "comparatively better" to another rather than "comparatively better and comparatively weaker".

My secondary beef with 4E: I don't want to play an RPG minis game. 4E really does feel like D&D minis with the odd roleplay rule...

The easiest example is the 3.xE wizard. Yes the powercurve is a touch on "massively busted emperor of the universe" by the time you hit level 15. *Ding* points for stating something we already knew. However, while the wizard is comparatively better at things such at utility, effectiveness in and out of combat, potentialy to blast multiple enemies, etc... if you actually get half-a-decent whack on a wizard they die. They are horridly susceptible to anything that can physically injure them. Wizards need to spend their entire lives paranoid of poison and being attacked by a housecat before level 3. Any poison will almost guaranteed flat-kill a Wizard who doesn't immediately get an antidote or a cleric.

My understanding of the Wizard-style classes in 4E... they are basically fighters who get better at zapping things, rather than getting better at whacking things with point/sharp stuff.

For a graphical example of what I mean... do the following. Draw a big L-shape (like a graph) and put "4E" above it. Draw a bunch of columns above the graph. Every character, from what I have seen, has this sort of comparison. Do another, but make it a side-ways T-shape. Put "3.xE" above it and columns above and below the line. Characters from 3.xE and prior, seem to have this sort of a scope.

Now, where this ends up from my perspective: the heroic elements of classic literature are gone. There are no "weaknesses to overcome". Classic hero stories have trials, weaknesses and reasonably frequent brushes with death (personally or those around the hero of the story). Without that element of heroic saga, I don't think 4E is as good a system.

So, I won't be interested in buying D&D 4E. I don't plan to. I'm not really interested in playing it and I'm unlikely to ever be interested in DMing it.

[The New Bruceski]

Um, A>B necessitates that B<A. "Comparitively stronger" and "comparitively weaker" are two sides of the same coin, and you can't have one without the other.

They just moved the zero point so that all numbers were positive. if you compare 2 and -2, one's bigger than the other, and you can say how much. If you compare 5 and 1, one's bigger than the other, and by the exact same amount. It's the same thing.

[Panda-s1]

Here is my core beef with 4E: Characters are only "comparatively better" to another rather than "comparatively better and comparatively weaker".

My secondary beef with 4E: I don't want to play an RPG minis game. 4E really does feel like D&D minis with the odd roleplay rule...

The easiest example is the 3.xE wizard. Yes the powercurve is a touch on "massively busted emperor of the universe" by the time you hit level 15. *Ding* points for stating something we already knew. However, while the wizard is comparatively better at things such at utility, effectiveness in and out of combat, potentialy to blast multiple enemies, etc... if you actually get half-a-decent whack on a wizard they die. They are horridly susceptible to anything that can physically injure them. Wizards need to spend their entire lives paranoid of poison and being attacked by a housecat before level 3. Any poison will almost guaranteed flat-kill a Wizard who doesn't immediately get an antidote or a cleric.

My understanding of the Wizard-style classes in 4E... they are basically fighters who get better at zapping things, rather than getting better at whacking things with point/sharp stuff.

For a graphical example of what I mean... do the following. Draw a big L-shape (like a graph) and put "4E" above it. Draw a bunch of columns above the graph. Every character, from what I have seen, has this sort of comparison. Do another, but make it a side-ways T-shape. Put "3.xE" above it and columns above and below the line. Characters from 3.xE and prior, seem to have this sort of a scope.

Now, where this ends up from my perspective: the heroic elements of classic literature are gone. There are no "weaknesses to overcome". Classic hero stories have trials, weaknesses and reasonably frequent brushes with death (personally or those around the hero of the story). Without that element of heroic saga, I don't think 4E is as good a system.

So, I won't be interested in buying D&D 4E. I don't plan to. I'm not really interested in playing it and I'm unlikely to ever be interested in DMing it.

Wait, I'm not following... So like because characters aren't varied in weakness, you don't like 4e? Or there's no weaknesses? In my experience, there's hella weaknesses involved. And frequent brushes with death. And wizards are nothing like fighters. And... Look, have you actually played 4e yet?

[Jayabalard]

And how many such GMs exist outside of an organized system? A few hundred to a couple thousand, maybe?I don't really follow... are you claiming there are only a few hundred to a couple thousand competent GMs in the world? What are you basing such a claim on?

[Kaiyanwang]

I don't really follow... are you claiming there are only a few hundred to a couple thousand competent GMs in the world? What are you basing such a claim on?

Yes, we are very rare.

*passes his hand trough his hair, eyes closed, assuming a pompous expression*

[Roderick_BR]

Here's a note: "Insults intelligence" is a colloquial term used to refer to talking down to someone; assuming they're stupider than they are.

Does not telling you how to roleplay insult your intelligence? I would take it as the opposite. Eliminating needless rules assumes the players are smart enough to see past the need for them. If the game put limitations on how one could roleplay, *that* would insult the players' intelligence.

Then again, there are some folks whose intelligence could never be underestimated...
Word! Could I point out again, games heavily into roleplaying, that have game rules on how to roleplay as an example? Vampire: The Masquerade, had over a page and half with rules and a script to meet, talk, seduce, and take to bed, people your character could meet, in the Player's Handbook. Seriously :smallannoyed:

[Winterwind]

And how many such GMs exist outside of an organized system? A few hundred to a couple thousand, maybe?I know about 4-5 competent GMs regularly playing freeform myself, so I suspect the actual number is bigger by orders of magnitude.

[Kurald Galain]

I know about 4-5 competent GMs regularly playing freeform myself, so I suspect the actual number is bigger by orders of magnitude.

I concur.

Also, I find that certain overly rules-heavy systems may actually be constricting to a competent GM, so the number of competent GMs outside "an organized system" may actually be larger than the number inside it.

[Blackfang108]

Some people find wotc's assumption of the way that D&D players are going to be playing the game to be rather demeaning.

and it's their fault that they're taking it that way.

[Blackfang108]

Yes, we are very rare.

*passes his hand trough his hair, eyes closed, assuming a pompous expression*

Wait for it...

NOW!

*A barrage of waterballoons hit Kaiyanwang*

Oh, I filled those with a quick-drying Plaster. I need a new Statue. I'm thinking next to the Birdbath. :smallbiggrin:

[Burley]

For your consideration, I posit that 4th Edition D&D is more of a 'roleplaying game' than previous iterations. Classes in 4th edition have clear and define roles: Leader, Controller, Defender, and Striker.
The point of a roleplaying game is not to add your own dialogue and ideas to a story, it is to do things you couldn't normally do and enjoy the story.
If the point of a roleplaying game (RPG) is to add your own dialogue and ideas to a story, why do things like Final Fantasy or Phantasy Star exist in the RPG genre? The only thing you really control is combat and, occasionally, small deviations in the general plot, which only determine whether you get some secret character or a shortcut through the mountain pass.

[Kurald Galain]

For your consideration, I posit that 4th Edition D&D is more of a 'roleplaying game' than previous iterations. Classes in 4th edition have clear and define roles: Leader, Controller, Defender, and Striker.
Interestingly enough, they don't. Nearly every class is a hybrid between two (or three) of these so-called clear roles, and aside from leader the dividing line between these so-called define roles is blurry at best.


The only thing you really control is combat and, occasionally, small deviations in the general plot, which only determine whether you get some secret character or a shortcut through the mountain pass.
That sounds like a good description of at least half of the printed 4E modules so far (including LFR) :smallbiggrin:

[ImmortalAer]

For your consideration, I posit that 4th Edition D&D is more of a 'roleplaying game' than previous iterations. Classes in 4th edition have clear and define roles: Leader, Controller, Defender, and Striker.
The point of a roleplaying game is not to add your own dialogue and ideas to a story, it is to do things you couldn't normally do and enjoy the story.
If the point of a roleplaying game (RPG) is to add your own dialogue and ideas to a story, why do things like Final Fantasy or Phantasy Star exist in the RPG genre? The only thing you really control is combat and, occasionally, small deviations in the general plot, which only determine whether you get some secret character or a shortcut through the mountain pass.

Because there's fangirl/boys with no taste?

*flees!*

[Winterwind]

For your consideration, I posit that 4th Edition D&D is more of a 'roleplaying game' than previous iterations. Classes in 4th edition have clear and define roles: Leader, Controller, Defender, and Striker.
The point of a roleplaying game is not to add your own dialogue and ideas to a story, it is to do things you couldn't normally do and enjoy the story.
If the point of a roleplaying game (RPG) is to add your own dialogue and ideas to a story, why do things like Final Fantasy or Phantasy Star exist in the RPG genre? The only thing you really control is combat and, occasionally, small deviations in the general plot, which only determine whether you get some secret character or a shortcut through the mountain pass.Discussions what constitutes roleplaying can easily surpass the size of this entire thread, as every person has a different point of view on that, so I'd be careful with statements such as "the point of a roleplaying game is...".
As for things like Final Fantasy, they do not exist in the RPG genre - at least, not in what passes for tabletop RPGs. They are video game RPGs, of course, but that's a completely different thing that just coincidentally uses the same name while not having anything to do with the type of RPGs this forum is talking about.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

For your consideration, I posit that 4th Edition D&D is more of a 'roleplaying game' than previous iterations. Classes in 4th edition have clear and define roles: Leader, Controller, Defender, and Striker.
Yet somehow they all feel the same. In combat they all do some damage and hamper the opponent or help their friends in some way (slide him, mark her, buff him, debuff her, take his action away for the round).

Out of combat they all feel the same. Need to get the X out of the Y? Well lesse, we need the Leader to do A, the Controller to do B, the Defender to do C, and the Striker to do D.

Do you want to play Circe or Merlin? Well you can't. You can play Storm from the X-men. Do you want to play Gromph Baenrae or Harry Potter? Sorry no. But you can play Starfire from the Teen Titans.

[Kaiyanwang]

Interestingly enough, they don't. Nearly every class is a hybrid between two (or three) of these so-called clear roles, and aside from leader the dividing line between these so-called define roles is blurry at best.


Well if you are right, this makes me 4th more palatable for my tastes :smallbiggrin:

[Artanis]

Well if you are right, this makes me 4th more palatable for my tastes :smallbiggrin:

He is. Out of 18 classes, only the Ranger really resembles a "pure" class (striker). Some examples of how secondary roles work:

*The Paladin is a defender. He's a fairly stereotypical defender, in fact: he's ridiculously hard to kill, and makes it a bad idea to attack somebody else. However, he's also a secondary leader. A Paladin is a pretty decent healer, and part of what makes him good at his job is summed up in the words, "kill the healer FIRST." A Paladin who really really tries, in fact, can rival even a "real" leader when it comes to healing.

*Meanwhile, the Warlock is a striker. The Scout from TF2 said it best when describing what a striker is all about: "Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brotha - I hurt people". Somebody that pisses off a Warlock is going to go down fast. But with a Warlock, death will be a mercy because the Warlock is a secondary controller, and en route to killing you he'll first cripple you, then blind you, then set you on fire, then steal your girlfriend.

[BillyJimBoBob]

That's a pretty good summary.

As someone who doesn't like 4e, I will say that I do not think 4e "insults ones intelligence". Some things in it are pretty good actually.

One thing I didn't like about it as a product was that it had some missing classes at the beginning but this is being fixed.

The main thing I don't like about it as a game is that it is a "lower fantasy level" but also "flashy" fantasy. It sorta feels more like a superhero game more than a fantasy game...not sure if I'm making myself clear.Your last point (that 4e feels like a low powered Champions campaign) is echoed by one of the players in the 4e game I'm running. I don't see it the same way, but he feels that the existence of mechanically defined powers for Fighters makes the game play feel this way. I see his point, but I also see very little difference between the Cleave feat in 3.5 and the Cleave at-will Fighter power in 4e. Some mechanical difference, and in ways that I like: No second roll needed, which speeds play. But no functional difference, and certainly not one that reads more like a Champions power than any D&D ability from any edition.


Yet somehow they [4e classes] all feel the same. In combat they all do some damage and hamper the opponent or help their friends in some way (slide him, mark her, buff him, debuff her, take his action away for the round).Here I disagree strongly. The Fighters Mark is quite different than the Paladin's Mark, and this becomes clear in every single combat. The Rogue operates vastly differently from the Warlock, even though both are Strikers. I'll readily agree that there has been a homogenization of a sort, with a single mechanical system being used to define the abilities of every class. But I disagree that this homogenization of mechanics also homogenizes play style or character class "feel".


Out of combat they all feel the same. Need to get the X out of the Y? Well lesse, we need the Leader to do A, the Controller to do B, the Defender to do C, and the Striker to do D.I agree that out of combat the classes all operate similarly, with the main differences being marked by different skill choices. To me this is a strength of 4e. Where in 3.5 a caster could overcome many challenges using spells to equal or vastly exceed the skills of the non-caster classes, in 4e people operate out of combat as they would in life: Each contributing according to their skills.


Do you want to play Circe or Merlin? Well you can't. You can play Storm from the X-men. Do you want to play Gromph Baenrae or Harry Potter? Sorry no. But you can play Starfire from the Teen Titans.I am confused by this. I'd say that you can't play any of those characters, and I recognize that this is a valid objection against 4e: You can not play the same range of character types as you could in 3.5. But while recognizing it as a valid objection I also see it as a necessity: The more free form character building mechanics allowed in 3.5 led to the ability to front load class abilities and cherry pick classes, prestige classes, feats, and spells to make truly unreasonable characters. Limiting choices often means eliminating abuse.

Things I personally dislike about 4e, several of which may be simply due to the style of play of my group:

Up and down: In combat my players are often knocked to negatives, only to be healed up again by another player. It's a good thing that death isn't frequent, I'm not looking for a gritty setting. I would simply prefer that healing occurred before a knock down. It's a trivial thing I guess, but the verisimilitude of healing wounds before the character is knocked to the point of rolling their death saves feels better to me.

Tieflings and Dragonborn: Look, if my spell checker doesn't recognize the race, it doesn't belong in my traditional fantasy setting. That issue does not exist for Elf, Dwarf, etc. Half-elf and half-orc get a pass. :smallamused:

Objections others have against 4e which I find have no merit:

It's WoW (or a MMORPG).
No, it is not. It's not even close. I don't even know where this came from, but it's patently false, and no explanation I've seen for why someone feels this way has been anything other than an emotional rant with no logical backing. I play WoW, and that game plays very differently than any version of D&D I've ever played, including 4e.

I can't play my (description of their 3.5 character follows).
The more free form a character building process is, the more vulnerable it is to abuse. I've seen this to be true in every points build game I've played, such as GURPS or Champions, and it is certainly true in 3.5. Yes, limiting choices can eliminate perfectly reasonable characters, and yes, this limitation can be frustrating. I can only suggest this: Create your characters starting with their personality and their roles. Then build a character with that personality and who can fill that role. I think you'll find that the specific powers you might have enjoyed in other game systems don't matter as much as you might think after you do this.

Referring to the roles of Striker, Defender, etc: I hate that they tell me what my character should do!
This is no different from 3.5, so get over it. In 3.5 your Fighter could pile on heavy armor and a shield, or use a 2-hander, and this is no different from 4e. And if you read the 3.5 character class descriptions you'll find that those roles are spelled out there for the most part. 4e only formalized an already existing niche for each character class. Formalizing systems and mechanics will never be objected to by me, I've designed too many games to not appreciate this kind of writing over an undefined jumble of paragraphs with ambiguous meaning. And for the new player using a concise label is easier to understand than a half page of text that boils down to the same meaning.

There's probably more, but this post is long enough for now.

[Kaiyanwang]

*Meanwhile, the Warlock is a striker. The Scout from TF2 said it best when describing what a striker is all about: "Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brotha - I hurt people". Somebody that pisses off a Warlock is going to go down fast. But with a Warlock, death will be a mercy because the Warlock is a secondary controller, and en route to killing you he'll first cripple you, then blind you, then set you on fire, then steal your girlfriend.

A warlock that kills things slowly? Reminds me something.. is Constitution worthy for 4th edition warlocks? seeing some powers, seems so..

[Blackfang108]

Somebody that pisses off a Warlock is going to go down fast. But with a Warlock, death will be a mercy because the Warlock is a secondary controller, and en route to killing you he'll first cripple you, then blind you, then set you on fire, then steal your girlfriend.

That's the best description of the Warlock I've ever heard.

This is going into my Sig.

Also, A Warlock Stole my Girlfriend (Now I Have More Time to Game) would make an awesome country song.

[Artanis]

A warlock that kills things slowly? Reminds me something.. is Constitution worthy for 4th edition warlocks? seeing some powers, seems so..

Not so much "slowly" and "torturously and painfully".

And yes, Constitution is a primary stat for some - but not all - Warlock builds.




That's the best description of the Warlock I've ever heard.

This is going into my Sig.

Also, A Warlock Stole my Girlfriend (Now I Have More Time to Game) would make an awesome country song.

Glad you liked it :smallbiggrin:

[Eurantien]

I play a Warlock in a 4e campaign (I also DM for 4e), but I helped 2 of my friends with their character designs and getting to grips with 4e, and DnD, for the first time. The 4e core mechanic remains the same - roll, add a number, compare to another number, but character building is simplified, as are many many rules. My friends could get to grips with the abilities of their characters (paladins and clerics respectively), fast, and this got them enjoying the game faster. Personally, I STILL find 3e rules a little hard-going on the eyes, and brain, and I'm not exactly stupid. 4e is, in many ways, nicer to play. On the other hand, because of that, it is a little more bland. Ultimately, everybody has powers that'll deal regular damage, with maybe a useful side effect. Well, except the cleric/warlord, who'll have to be reminded to use an at-will power instead of a basic attack, and who'll still have unused daily powers left after 3 encounters. This is because powers that cause an opponent to run don't seem very useful when a paladin can do 4 d12 weapon damage with a greataxe by 5th level. So in fact, where 3e's versatile magic has survived, it gets overlooked in favour of damage-dealing. I myself play an eladrin Infernal Warlock (constitution-based), with a wizard multiclass and expanded spellbook feat (extra daily power). I'm a straight damage dealer and I like it. It fits the striker description personally, much as a rogue does (use the defender as cover and you can Sneak Attack all day). So, while 4e takes away some of the flexibility, it does allow character builds that can do just what it says on the cover, or multitask (like the paladin).

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I'd say that you can't play any of those characters
Well I didn't mean exactly Storm or Starshine but rather a blasty character with some control spells and some mobility. I should rather think either could be modeled well as a high level spell caster in 4e. It's the world changing powers of Dr. Xavier and Magneto that can't be modeled...yet.


and I recognize that this is a valid objection against 4e: You can not play the same range of character types as you could in 3.5. But while recognizing it as a valid objection I also see it as a necessity: The more free form character building mechanics allowed in 3.5 led to the ability to front load class abilities and cherry pick classes, prestige classes, feats, and spells to make truly unreasonable characters. Limiting choices often means eliminating abuse.

Exactly. While for 3.0/3.5 strive for "versatility" cost it the ability to be "balanced". 4e has "balanced" the game which is good at the cost of limiting the game to what can be "balanced"...so far. I say that because I can't help thinking they will include some "high powered" stuff later on. Maybe one lesson (to learn yet again) is that there is no perfect game system.



Yes, limiting choices can eliminate perfectly reasonable characters, and yes, this limitation can be frustrating. I can only suggest this: Create your characters starting with their personality and their roles. Then build a character with that personality and who can fill that role. I think you'll find that the specific powers you might have enjoyed in other game systems don't matter as much as you might think after you do this.

But that goes to the very question of style of play. Maybe what I want to create is a world-shattering wizard. 4e does not do that...yet. However, if what you want is a more low-powered but ubiquitous magic world, like Eberron, then 4e may be better.


So, while 4e takes away some of the flexibility, it does allow character builds that can do just what it says on the cover, or multitask (like the paladin).And if you want to think outside the "box", you use...rituals :)

[Reverent-One]

Exactly. While for 3.0/3.5 strive for "versatility" cost it the ability to be "balanced". 4e has "balanced" the game which is good at the cost of limiting the game to what can be "balanced"...so far. I say that because I can't help thinking they will include some "high powered" stuff later on.

You mean besides the high-powered stuff they have now? Like characters coming back from the dead repeatedly on their own or virtually becoming gods?

[Mando Knight]

You mean besides the high-powered stuff they have now? Like characters coming back from the dead repeatedly on their own or virtually becoming gods?

He means "one guy comes back from the dead and decides to annihilate the family of the guy who killed him in revenge, while his buddy just whacks things a little harder with his stick."

[HamsterOfTheGod]

You mean besides the high-powered stuff they have now? Like characters coming back from the dead repeatedly on their own

Why do devas want to keep coming back to play 4e invokers?


or virtually becoming gods?

Virtual gods? Really? You mean I could do something like whenever I spend a healing surge, I recover an encounter power. And if I have no encounter powers available, I can spend a healing surge as a free action to recover an encounter power, even though I would regain no hit points when doing so.

[Jayabalard]

Also, I find that certain overly rules-heavy systems may actually be constricting to a competent GM, so the number of competent GMs outside "an organized system" may actually be larger than the number inside it.Agreed.


and it's their fault that they're taking it that way.I'm not clear on what you're trying to say; too many unqualified they's.


For your consideration, I posit that 4th Edition D&D is more of a 'roleplaying game' than previous iterations. Classes in 4th edition have clear and define roles: Leader, Controller, Defender, and Striker.What does that have to do with roleplaying?

[Frogwarrior]

Man, the more I see of edition wars, the more I think that I actually wanna try 4e sometime. :smalltongue:

[Kurald Galain]

You mean besides the high-powered stuff they have now? Like characters coming back from the dead repeatedly on their own or virtually becoming gods?

You mean the high-powered stuff like being completely unable to affect anything more than thirty yards away from your position? Or like how they've forgotten half of the special moves they've learned over their career, and still cannot do those tricks they learned at level 5 more than once per day? Oh yeah, that high-powered stuff...

Exalted, Amber DRP, Aberrant, In Nomine, Ars Magica, Nobilis, Scion, and M&M all start at a higher level than 4E ends. Heck, a 3E 14th level caster (and some non-casters too) is far more powerful than a so-called "virtual god" from 4E. Sticking a label with "epic inside" on a can of corn doesn't make it epic corn, it's just corny.

[MickJay]

Mind you, a lot of people stop enjoying 3.x around level 14-15 due to inherent brokenness of casters that becomes obvious in-game at more or less that point.

[Kurald Galain]

Mind you, a lot of people stop enjoying 3.x around level 14-15 due to inherent brokenness of casters that becomes obvious in-game at more or less that point.

And yet on the other hand, a lot of people enjoy playing at level 20, or even 40, in 3E. We get frequent requests in these forums for extreme high level builds. There's nothing at those levels that a good DM can't handle. Of course it breaks if your players are jerks, but why would you want ot play with jerks to begin with?

[Kaiyanwang]

And yet on the other hand, a lot of people enjoy playing at level 20, or even 40, in 3E. We get frequent requests in these forums for extreme high level builds. There's nothing at those levels that a good DM can't handle. Of course it breaks if your players are jerks, but why would you want ot play with jerks to begin with?

This is actually the point! If you enjoy low level game only, stop the campaign early. Say that the most powerful PC in the world is say, level 10. You can. You have the option. Maybe you lessen the Xp acquiring rate of 30% (no houserule, is DMG).

On the other hand, I really enjoyed an epic campign 1-40, I had the mechanics (sometimes to fix) to do that.

In 4th, the designer said: "the game has a sweet spot, we extended it, if you enjoy epic or low level oneshot it's badwrongfun".

This mindset of "I choose for you" is really irritating.

[ImmortalAer]

All of this 4E comparison (discussion/preferred word for it here) reminds me of...


Better version. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PWI-JUpjp4)

[Oslecamo]

Of course it breaks if your players are jerks, but why would you want ot play with jerks to begin with?

This. No matter how good the system, it will breack if the players want to be jerks.

[Jayabalard]

All of this 4E bashing (discussion/preferred word for it here) reminds me of...There's not really a lot of 4e bashing going on in this thread (at least recently). People are, for the most part, calmly pointing out the problems of 4e with well thought out reasons; labeling that bashing is a bit of an exaggeration.

[Fan]

I can't play my (description of their 3.5 character follows).
The more free form a character building process is, the more vulnerable it is to abuse. I've seen this to be true in every points build game I've played, such as GURPS or Champions, and it is certainly true in 3.5. Yes, limiting choices can eliminate perfectly reasonable characters, and yes, this limitation can be frustrating. I can only suggest this: Create your characters starting with their personality and their roles. Then build a character with that personality and who can fill that role. I think you'll find that the specific powers you might have enjoyed in other game systems don't matter as much as you might think after you do this.

.

I'm sorry, but as I don't comment on the 3.5 ed V.S. 4.0 war that seems to be going on, this is a rare exception in which I will step in and tell you something.
The more free form a system is over structured does NOT make it worse, in fact Free form is 90% of the time BETTER for a Role playing game, if you don't mind being limited by your descriptive abilities as to the AWESOME you can preform rather then being limited to what the book says is law. The fact that alot of 4.0ers hail this balance as some sort of godly chalice of rightousness irritates me to no end, as does the touting of samness from the 3.5ers in the forum. BALANCE is not everything, it barely matters in my opinion so long as everyone is describing their characters the way the want to, if they aren't having fun then it simply comes down to them having to make a new character rather then screaming up and down that Everyone feels the same despite Ted over there sleeping during half the sessions, and Jill putting in a insane amount of detail, and skill into her character. If you have more talent, and put more effort into things then YES you SHOULD be better, simply because of Equivalent exchange, the guy who doodled his char up in 5 mins as opposed to the person who spent all night on their sheet, and wrote a novella length back story SHOULD be awarded for their effort.
To be honest, I don't see why anyone would care about balance in combat anyways, its out of combat that should matter the most.:smallconfused:

[Dagren]

Man, the more I see of edition wars, the more I think that I actually wanna try 4e sometime. :smalltongue:Heh, funny. The more I read, the less I'm inclined to try it. I'll give it a shot one day I'm sure, but so far I haven't heard anything I like the sound of about it, and the more I hear about it and retain this impression... well you get the picture. I guess it's just not the thing for me, not my style.

[Satyr]

Since this whole "insulting intellegince" snippet is pretty much a catch phrase of me i use quite frequently, I rook some time and wondered how i could put the problems with the from my perspective intellectual underperformance of the 4th edition in a convincing, argumentation without becoming too condescending or offending; like alnost always I failed in this regard, but I ry to structure my critique nonetheless.

To understand what are actually the problems of 4th edition, I think it is necessary to regard it from three different point of views - at first, the system on its own, without the 30 years or so of tradition and the whole bagage and holy cows it transports; secondly as a part of this tradition and as an evolutionary development of the prior editions, and thirdly, from a perspective of other roleplaying games, to create an overall comparison. I will not do this, because I am actually too lazy for this, I am pretty much limiting myself on listing some complaints and refering to Umberto Eco.

This third part is actually the easiest one, becuase you can pretty much sum it up as: 4th edition is not meant to be an innovative game, it i not meant to be a game for any form of roleplaying avantgarde; it is, in many ways, a blue collar game for a lot younger audience that most other contemporary games, and it pretty much does simple, or even mediocre thngs when compared to systems which actually tries to be innovative - stuff like Burning Wheel, Shadows of Yesterday or the like. That's understandable. The paradox of this is actually that the game is on the one hand targeted at an audience as broad as possible, and on the other hand is hyperspecialised in its internal scope; it is a martial action RPG, which puts almost the complete emphasis on confrontations between the players and their environment, up to a degree where elements of a potential game that does not deal with this kind of conflict do only exist in rudiments anymore.

In this regard, D&D 4th edition is a coala bear roleplaying game. It does only one thing with only one kind of players and pretty much one kind of solution, and outside of this scope, it doesn't have much to offer. As long as you stay in this predetermined framework, it works well, very well indeed. It is actually a good action RPG. But if you want to leave this predetermined path, it, well fails. And it fails miserably. There are no characters who does anything but find interesting ways to participate in a combat. Verisimilitude or even simple cause and effect chains are pretty much non-existant, and if you try to tell a plot where combats just not fit in. most of the character data is obsolete and doesn't help you one bit with the game.

Okay, you could say that this is a result of playing the game wrongly, that you are not supposed to try to play non-combatant characters, or play plots that don't deal with beating things up and that any remarks about the game's verisimilitude just means that your suspension of disbelief is too weak; and yes these are valid arguments if you belief in one highly debatable premise: That there is a right and a wrong way to play a game, and that the intention of the creator is more important than the game's implementation by the gamemaster. This is some kind belief in authority, I have a general problem with, but in this case, it is just... wrong. I mean, seriously why should anybody say how you are supposed to have fun?

Like films, theater plays or books, roleplaying games are pretty much a medium to tell a tale. Roleplaying games are literature (not necessarily good literature, but that's another debate). The scope is a bit different, and as a medium it has the unique characteristic, that the participants and the audience are usually identical, but apart from that, it is a medium to tell a story. Now, if you would say anyone, that you can't make a comic about serious topics, or a film about complete surreal elements and effects, because the traditions of these mediums does not include these things in broader measure, would still be conscidered laughable by the sheer existance of counter examples; the existance of Maus and Kumbaquaatsi alone prooves that the statements above are utterly and completely wrong.
The same works for roleplaying books; only a moron with a limited perspective or imagination would proclaim that there are stories which cannot be told via an RPG; and only a moron would believe it. Yes, there are better and worse mediums for different forms of tales, and there are always tales which work well in one medium and completely suck in another (movies based on books are ofen a good example for this).

Now, when roleplaying games are pretty much a medium which allows to tell pretty much any story one can imagine, than the idea of high specialisation is both necessary and limiting. It is necessary to establish limits to become creative, and it is also necessary to establish a framework of references in which the story - or the game, which would be the more exact subcategory - takes place (see Eco's Comments to the bane of the Rose on this. I could try to quote it, but i have only the German version of this booklet, and I fear that my translation wouldn't be that good). The thing is, there is a sliding scale between necessary framework and restrictive shoehorning, and as roleplaying games go, D&D 4th edition is pretty far on the shoehorning side.

A propos establishing a framework: to tell a good story, you need a baseline of references, an inner logic to it (I am paraphrasing Eco again), even when telling a completely unrealistic story (or running a completely unrealistic game, which is basically the same thing). Realism in literature is only a subcategory of this superordained inner logic, which applies for cases and works where the internal logic happens to correlate with the real life situations and concepts. It doesn't matter what the paramters of the internal logic are, it only matters that they are used consequently and carefully, because if there is one clear sign of a failure of any piece of literature, than it is a breech of the internal logic. There are only very few similarly clear indicators that the author (director... gamemaster...) fails in establishing basics he can work with as when he obviously is not able to tell his tale while upholding the inner logic.

Now, fantasy, as a genre is pretty forgiving in the regard of the inner logic. Stuff like magic, which pretty much works in every way the author can imagine, allows to establish a very forgiving framework with high tolerance for the inclusion of pretty much anything you want. It becomes problematic when this freefrom approach is directly transferred to areas which are not arbitrary, fictional concepts. Like beating someone with a sword. There is a clear and very obvious framework of how stabbing someone with a sword works; we, as the audience, have a more or less clear idea how it works, and in some regards, also how it is supposed to work. And in this regard, D&D in general has massive problems, but they are exacerbated by a magnitude or two by 4th edition.

Yes, you could say that this is a game and therfore abstracted, and I wouldn't disagree to this. The problem is not the degree of abstraction, it is the combination of very concrete actions- most exploits are very concrete in thir description and the completely idiotic form they take, even before they are abstracted. My personal favorite in this regard is the feat which allows you to relaod a crossbow with one hand. A crossbow. With one hand. It feels like facepalm even by paraphrasing it.
Yes, you can just ignore these quirks and claim that it is not the system's fault that I - or any one else- thinks too much about this, but seriously, this is nothing but the paraphrase of "it insults intelligence", just with a changed agent. When the system shows massive problems as soon as you put more than the utmost superficial though in it, and pretty much requires a very strong reluctance to use you intelectual capacities to run smoothly, it shows a great deal of disrepsect for said capacities.

[potatocubed]

Stuff

That's... exceptionally persuasive, actually. Bravo.

So long as you take 'insulting intelligence' to mean 'presuming you to be less intelligent than you are'. Which is a reasonable interpretation.

In defence of 4e, I would argue that a willingness to handwave away certain oddities in the name of a good time does not equate to idiocy. Equally, a presumption that you are willing to handwave does not equate to a presumption of idiocy.

I'll admit, 4e often requires a level of handwaving that makes one resemble a windmill, though. If you wanted to take the position that the sheer amount of handwaving required constitutes an insult to intelligence, I might be inclined to agree.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

If you wanted to take the position that the sheer amount of handwaving required constitutes an insult to intelligence, I might be inclined to agree.

That's generally the stance that's taken, I believe; every edition of D&D has required some handwaving to an extent (particularly since they never quite explain that you're supposed to be unrealistically superhuman past level 5 or so, thus some designers take it into account and some don't). It's the fact that 4e has such blatant "we're not even going to bother to fix it" handwaving and such numerous examples that sets it apart.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I rook some time and wondered how i could put the problems with the from my perspective intellectual underperformance of the 4th edition
To paraphrase Chappell, I am someone who over-analyzes a lot of geeky things all the time, but that's a lot of over-analyzing of a geeky thing. I mean 4e is a game and sure it engages the intellect but it's first and foremost purpose is entertainment, that is, is it fun and/or engaging. Even if the main interest of the game for you is in "world-building" or "game-design" or "role-play", this as not "intellectual" activies though they do involve the intellect, the imagination and various neurotic capabilities.

This is not to deny there is some "intellectual" component to 4e but if it, somehow, fails there, it can hardly be a major problem and can hardly be called an "insult to intelligence".


I am pretty much limiting myself on listing some complaints and refering to Umberto Eco.
Umberto Eco plays D&D? Cool!


4th edition is not meant to be an innovative game, it i not meant to be a game for any form of roleplaying avantgarde; it is, in many ways, a blue collar game for a lot younger audience that most other contemporary games, and it pretty much does simple, or even mediocre thngs when compared to systems which actually tries to be innovative - stuff like Burning Wheel, Shadows of Yesterday or the like.

No. They wanted it to sell. That is, if by innovative you mean "avant-garde" game design then almost by definition, it's not meant to sell. If by innovative you mean, design to market a large, targetable audience with a faster, easier, more straightforward game that fixes some large gaffs in the existing product and doing so by adopting some innovations from other game systems then yes it is innovative.



The paradox of this is actually that the game is on the one hand targeted at an audience as broad as possible, and on the other hand is hyperspecialised in its internal scope; it is a martial action RPG, which puts almost the complete emphasis on confrontations between the players and their environment, up to a degree where elements of a potential game that does not deal with this kind of conflict do only exist in rudiments anymore.

It's not a paradox. It's simple marketing. They marketed a certain section of the gaming market. They may have thought that it was a larger share. They may have thought that they could "convert" more gamers to this system. But it was certainly designed and marketed successfully to a certain audience.



In this regard, D&D 4th edition is a coala bear roleplaying game. It does only one thing with only one kind of players and pretty much one kind of solution, and outside of this scope, it doesn't have much to offer. As long as you stay in this predetermined framework, it works well, very well indeed. It is actually a good action RPG. But if you want to leave this predetermined path, it, well fails. And it fails miserably. There are no characters who does anything but find interesting ways to participate in a combat. Verisimilitude or even simple cause and effect chains are pretty much non-existant, and if you try to tell a plot where combats just not fit in. most of the character data is obsolete and doesn't help you one bit with the game.

Okay, you could say that this is a result of playing the game wrongly, that you are not supposed to try to play non-combatant characters, or play plots that don't deal with beating things up and that any remarks about the game's verisimilitude just means that your suspension of disbelief is too weak; and yes these are valid arguments if you belief in one highly debatable premise: That there is a right and a wrong way to play a game, and that the intention of the creator is more important than the game's implementation by the gamemaster. This is some kind belief in authority, I have a general problem with, but in this case, it is just... wrong. I mean, seriously why should anybody say how you are supposed to have fun?

This more a problem with the marketing campaign then with the game per se. When the game went from OD&D -> AD&D -> AD&D2 -> 3e at each point the games rules expanded and codified albeit each one in different ways.

When the game went from 3.5 to 4e they limited options.

This is not my interpretation. This is what the game designers did and said they did. They said, you can't play X, for ex a wizard who cast save-or-die spells. You can't cast X, for Finger of Death or Time Stop. You can do Y, insert list various powers here.

The marketing campaign said, "It's the same game, only better!"

When they meant, "It's a similar game, only nerfed for the better."

I don't blame the marketers. That's their job.

The annoying part, for me, is the gamers, who should know better and who have plenty-o-choices for how to indulge in their pastime, seek to have "edition wars" over this basic and easily understandable difference. 3e is high-powered and versatile but unbalanced and wonky. 4e is low-powered and less versatile but balanced and mostly free of gaffs.



Like films, theater plays or books, roleplaying games are pretty much a medium to tell a tale.

Partly. RPGs have a major game component which seperates them from the others.



Roleplaying games are literature (not necessarily good literature, but that's another debate).

There is a subtle but important difference. An RPG session tells a story but that does not make the game a "story". The musician and the instrument are not music though they make music.



Now, if you would say anyone, that you can't make a comic about serious topics, or a film about complete surreal elements and effects, because the traditions of these mediums does not include these things in broader measure, would still be conscidered laughable by the sheer existance of counter examples; the existance of Maus and Kumbaquaatsi alone prooves that the statements above are utterly and completely wrong.

This was the problem with the marketing campaign. Caveat emptor.



The same works for roleplaying books; only a moron with a limited perspective or imagination would proclaim that there are stories which cannot be told via an RPG;

Er no, there are many, for ex Waiting for Godot or Proust or The Office.

DM: *sigh* What are you doing now Proust?
Proust: I am still staring at the butterfly in the window.

RPG's offer a limited set of stories, namely heroic stories.



It is necessary to establish limits to become creative, and it is also necessary to establish a framework of references in which the story - or the game, which would be the more exact subcategory - takes place (see Eco's Comments to the bane of the Rose on this.

These ideas are far older than Eco so don't even bother.



The thing is, there is a sliding scale between necessary framework and restrictive shoehorning, and as roleplaying games go, D&D 4th edition is pretty far on the shoehorning side.

Now that is your over-simplification...but let's move on.



because if there is one clear sign of a failure of any piece of literature, than it is a breech of the internal logic.

That again is your over-generalization...but let's move on.



There is a clear and very obvious framework of how stabbing someone with a sword works; we, as the audience, have a more or less clear idea how it works, and in some regards, also how it is supposed to work. And in this regard, D&D in general has massive problems, but they are exacerbated by a magnitude or two by 4th edition.

Two words: weapon speed. Introduced in 2nd ed. Realistic? Yes and No. Problematic? Yes and No. Worth keeping? No. The problem with any game model of the real world is that it is only a model and even if based on realistic assumptions, it is bound to break down at some point. The sliding scale is between realism and ease of play, not between what we think the fantasy world is supposed to work like and how it plays in the game. Here, the problem you are alluding to is only a problem of how you think the fantasy world works in 4e.



Yes, you could say that this is a game and therfore abstracted, and I wouldn't disagree to this. The problem is not the degree of abstraction, it is the combination of very concrete actions- most exploits are very concrete in thir description and the completely idiotic form they take, even before they are abstracted. My personal favorite in this regard is the feat which allows you to relaod a crossbow with one hand. A crossbow. With one hand. It feels like facepalm even by paraphrasing it.

And now you say you don't want a game that limits the imagination?

Game action: reload and fire crossbow with one free hand

In-game action: hang on wall by one hand, loop crossbow handle over foot, pull back to tension with free hand, load with free hand, pickup crossbow with free hand, aim and fire

Realistic? In-game, in a high fantasy game? Sure. Why not? Does it cost you "realism"? It may. But it's not the "realism" that let you believe a charater fired said crossbow point blank at another character and that target does not die or in any way act hampered. This gets back to the breach of internal-logic that you were talking about earlier.

What we see is that the "internal logic" of a story has as much to do with the "internal logic" of the audience as with anything else and many Sci-Fi/fantasy writers have observed this point.

One thing is to say that you don't like the style of game/story that 4e lends itself to portraying, ie "a low powered Champions" style game. (That's my take BTW).

Another things is to say thet 4e "insults the intelligence" because you don't like the way it games.

[Satyr]

I mean 4e is a game and sure it engages the intellect but it's first and foremost purpose is entertainment, that is, is it fun and/or engaging.

Please. Any medium can be reduced for entertainment purposes only. That's the standard excuses of the uwe Bolls, Michael Bays and other producers of light, shallow and absolutely mediocre goods. "It's only entertainment" is othing but a euphemism for "it's not good enough for an intellectual audience, sio we didn't even try".


Umberto Eco plays D&D? Cool!

While I can certainly see him do so, he's probably more of an Unknown Armies or TROS gamer and runs campagins about the traps of hyperrreality...


No. They wanted it to sell.

Exactly. D&D 4 is not targeted on a sophisticated audience, but on a broad one. And this is exactly the reason why it is not a very innovative game - too much Lowest Common Denominator for that. Yes, this form of "dumbing down" the system probably helps its commercial success and overall increases its popularity, but for the exactly same reasons it diminishes the game's quality.


Partly. RPGs have a major game component which seperates them from the others.

A part which is mostly optional and can just as easy be ignored, without changing the medium significantly. A freeform roleplaying game is stil a roleplaying game. In many ways, it is much truer to the form of the narrative.


RPG's offer a limited set of stories, namely heroic stories.

Sorry, but this is plain wrong. See games like Nobilis, Toons or Little Fears. They may not be the most popular games around, but they do exist.
When I was back in school, we had a more or less regular freeform roleplaying campaigns, which often very abstruse plotsa, including a "Groundhog Day" Scenario, player characters who were in truth the different multiple personalities of an chronically insane man, an adventure where the PC 's were sentient wolves and another were the characters were ancient ghosts living in equally ancient masks and take posession of the mask's wearers to reinstall a cult which was long forgotten. I also have run a lot of historical RPG's with the emphasis on accuracy and correctness and in the school class I was an assisstant teacher, I ran a huge game based on the Treaty of Versailles, where small groups of students played the representatives of diffferent nations and tried themselves on negotiations, intrigues and diplomacy. And that's just me, who isn't that much of a fan of the more innovative game designs.

Reducing roleplaying games on the most common form they take is exactly as reducing movies on great hollywood productions.


Now that is your over-simplification...but let's move on.

I don't think that it is overtly simplifying to state that there are games or genres with varying dgrees of freedom for the narrator or the Gamemaster. Just compare Gurps (very few limitations, only a rudimentary setting prescritive) with Little Fears (very narrow setting, focus and options for characters). It is a very general statement, and therefore only partially helpful, but in all its abstraction, it is still very correct.

[Eurantien]

Man, the more I see of edition wars, the more I think that I actually wanna try 4e sometime. :smalltongue:

Good plan. You should, if only to see what you think. Personally, I like it.

[Eurantien]

Heh, funny. The more I read, the less I'm inclined to try it. I'll give it a shot one day I'm sure, but so far I haven't heard anything I like the sound of about it, and the more I hear about it and retain this impression... well you get the picture. I guess it's just not the thing for me, not my style.

The problem with edition war is you'll get a lot of the bad stuff for both, and not see much of the good.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Exactly. D&D 4 is not targeted on a sophisticated audience, but on a broad one. And this is exactly the reason why it is not a very innovative game - too much Lowest Common Denominator for that. Yes, this form of "dumbing down" the system probably helps its commercial success and overall increases its popularity, but for the exactly same reasons it diminishes the game's quality.

Yes, I tend to agree that it's targeted for gamers who want a simpler, more tactical game. But that does not mean its players are unintelligent. The objection I have to saying that 4e "insults the intelligence" is that that phrase is more of an insult than a description.



Sorry, but this is plain wrong. See games like Nobilis, Toons or Little Fears. They may not be the most popular games around, but they do exist.
When I was back in school, we had a more or less regular freeform roleplaying campaigns, which often very abstruse plotsa, including a "Groundhog Day" Scenario, player characters who were in truth the different multiple personalities of an chronically insane man, an adventure where the PC 's were sentient wolves and another were the characters were ancient ghosts living in equally ancient masks and take posession of the mask's wearers to reinstall a cult which was long forgotten. I also have run a lot of historical RPG's with the emphasis on accuracy and correctness and in the school class I was an assisstant teacher, I ran a huge game based on the Treaty of Versailles, where small groups of students played the representatives of diffferent nations and tried themselves on negotiations, intrigues and diplomacy. And that's just me, who isn't that much of a fan of the more innovative game designs.

All those would fall under the term "heroic" story, or at least the way I am using it since they involve "heroic" characters. Yes, even Toons is heroic. For ex, I hate Vampire Masquerade and it's "political" machinations but it's a "heroic" gaming/storytelling. On the other hand, I could tell you a story about the company's marketing department involving individuals and "good" and "evil" but how many people role play marketers or accountants or dentists? Am I nitpicking? A little, but the point is that RPG's are geared specifically to the kind of game play not the story. If you played a vampire in Masquerade, you are playing a completely different game than if played a vampire in 3e even if the plot points are similar. I imagine you can...or rather will be able to...play a vampire in 4e. But what your vamp character can do under the game system will be different and this will effect the feel more so than the story IMHO.



I don't think that it is overtly simplifying to state that there are games or genres with varying dgrees of freedom for the narrator or the Gamemaster. Just compare Gurps (very few limitations, only a rudimentary setting prescritive) with Little Fears (very narrow setting, focus and options for characters). It is a very general statement, and therefore only partially helpful, but in all its abstraction, it is still very correct.
Exactly. 3.5 is more like Gurps (never thought I would say that) and 4e is more like Little Fears...as of now at least.

[Jayabalard]

All those would fall under the term "heroic" story, or at least the way I am using it since they involve "heroic" characters. Perhaps you should use it in a way that matches the meaning of the word a bit better; as it is you're just arguing semantics.


Yes, even Toons is heroic. For ex, I hate Vampire Masquerade and it's "political" machinations but it's a "heroic" gaming/storytelling. On the other hand, I could tell you a story about the company's marketing department involving individuals and "good" and "evil" but how many people role play marketers or accountants or dentists?I've often done it; both in modern and in historical type campaigns. I know plenty of people who play in non-heroic games.

You should really stick to talking about yourself, because when you start projecting your personal play style as the true way that RPG's are played (ie: RPG's offer a limited set of stories, namely heroic stories) you're going to come across as a bit of an ass.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Perhaps you should use it in a way that matches the meaning of the word a bit better; as it is you're just arguing semantics.

If there was a word for it. I was making a distinction between stories played in RPGs and stories not played in RPGs. Waiting for Godot is a story. So is any episode of Seinfeld. So is a story involving the confrontation between Jim and Bob at the weekly status meeting over the new cover sheets for the TPS reports. Now, I could be wrong, but those kinds of stories are not role-played. YMMV. Yet these stories too have hero's and bad guy's. Let's call those story-heros.

I was responding to someone who claimed that a game of Toon or other "non-standard" RPG was playing a "non-heroic" character. He meant non-heroic as in not mythic, D&D hero hero. Let's call that hero-hero.

However the RPG itself is about playing a character and so it has a story-hero. In this "non-standard" RPGs these story-heros are not hero-heros in the sense of D&D heros. But neither are they plain story-heros like the characters in Waiting for Godot or Seinfeld. So let's call these escapism-heros. The escapism-hero is the kind of hero played in RPG if that is not too circular in reasoning. Do you approve?

If so then my point stands, "RPG's offer a limited set of stories, namely stories involving escapism-heros, that is a story-hero that allows a payer to enjoy an RPG."

This is in contrast to Satyr said "The same works for roleplaying books; only a moron with a limited perspective or imagination would proclaim that there are stories which cannot be told via an RPG;"

I have admitted it is a nitpick but it does highlight the overall distinction which I think is was missing in Satyr's post. Different RPGs can be used to tell the same story though each lends a different feel to the story. Not every RPG can tell every story. In particular 4e cannot tell certain stories or does not lend itself well to some stories. (The same can be said of 3e but for different stories.)

That 4e is geared towards certain stories is not an "insult to intelligence". That it may be marketed as a completely equivalent replacement for what came before may be an "insult to the consumers".



You should really stick to talking about yourself, because when you start projecting your personal play style as the true way that RPG's are played (ie: RPG's offer a limited set of stories, namely heroic stories) you're going to come across as a bit of an ass.
Irregardless of your opinion of me, I was not trying to limit anybodies options as to how they want to play.

I was making a VERY general observation of role-playing, namely, that certain stories are not role-played.

Now, again, it may be your experience that someone wanted to role-play Swan's Way but I highly doubt that any one would want to role-play the detailed minutaue that Proust wrote about in his story.

Having said that, RPG'ers certainly role-play quite varied roles and far be it from me to criticize anyone if they wanted to role-play being a character an erotic version of Star-Trek where all the character are furries, like Kirk is an ocelot or something, and they are the fox with purple eyes who is in love with ocelot Kirk.

That was not my point. My point was, if I may repeat myself


One thing is to say that you don't like the style of game/story that 4e lends itself to portraying, ie "a low powered Champions" style game. (That's my take BTW).

Another things is to say thet 4e "insults the intelligence" because you don't like the way it games.


and this was in response to Satyr who wrote


The thing is, there is a sliding scale between necessary framework and restrictive shoehorning, and as roleplaying games go, D&D 4th edition is pretty far on the shoehorning side.


My point was that although 4e has a more restrictive range of heroic characters-types and story types that it lends itself too than 3e (which also has a set of stories and characters it does does best), that does not mean it is an "insult to intelligence".

And what was your point?

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, I tend to agree that it's targeted for gamers who want a simpler, more tactical game.
This is probably a topic for a different thread, but I don't see tactics playing a big role in a 4E game, considering how random every attack is. There is some minor stuff like "focus fire" and "bonuses are good" and "try to flank when you can" but overall the tactical depth is rather limited.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

This is probably a topic for a different thread, but I don't see tactics playing a big role in a 4E game, considering how random every attack is. There is some minor stuff like "focus fire" and "bonuses are good" and "try to flank when you can" but overall the tactical depth is rather limited.

Well maybe we have a semantic difference again or maybe just one of usage.

The 'minor stuff like "focus fire" and "bonuses are good" and "try to flank when you can"' is the "tactical" game that I was referring to in 4e which is rather limited, I agree. 4e offers you guidelines and powers which let you do these things rather easily I think.

Maybe I should have said 4e is targeted for gamers who want a set of simple and easy to use tactics during combat.

That's not a criticism of 4e. I mean I think that's what it intended to do and it does it well.

[Kurald Galain]

That's not a criticism of 4e. I mean I think that's what it intended to do and it does it well.
I agree to that. It is important to note that many or most of the things that people object to in 4E are design features and deliberate choices made by WOTC. This is in sharp contrast to 3E, where many or most of the issues people have with the system are oversights, unintended consequences, and results of people playing in a different manner than the developers thought of.

[Charity]

I agree to that. It is important to note that many or most of the things that people object to in 4E are design features and deliberate choices made by WOTC. This is in sharp contrast to 3E, where many or most of the issues people have with the system are oversights, unintended consequences, and results of people playing in a different manner than the developers thought of.

Remember this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809
) Kur? I do.


First, big friggin' duh. Hello? Anyone who hadn't figured this out, like, ten years ago? And yes, I'm aware that 3E wasn't out yet ten years ago.


Public service announcement- folks please resist the urge to post in that old thread, I know it'll tempt some of you, but it is Threadromancy and is frowned upon in these parts.

[Satyr]

Yes, I tend to agree that it's targeted for gamers who want a simpler, more tactical game. But that does not mean its players are unintelligent.

There is a difference between stating that the target group is les intellegint or that the game is written under the assumption that they are. I didn't found that the 4th edition were so much simpler than the predecessor rules, just a bit more streamlined and a lot more predetermined and formulated from a strong prescriptive, authoritative position - which is pretty much the opposite of the participative style that actually supports player creativity.


All those would fall under the term "heroic" story, or at least the way I am using it since they involve "heroic" characters.

So... you are saying that diplomatic chorps are heroes? As well as anthropomorphic incarnations of the color red? If you declare pretty much every protagonist to be a 'hero', than yes, you are right. If you use a less over-generalized definition of the terminology, your argumentation falls apart quickly.


Not every RPG can tell every story. In particular 4e cannot tell certain stories or does not lend itself well to some stories. (The same can be said of 3e but for different stories.)

Well yes, but that is pretty much obvious. Even though I wonder what kind of plot would work in D&D 4th edition, but not in 3rd?


That's not a criticism of 4e. I mean I think that's what it intended to do and it does it well.

So... intentions are beyond criticism? I fully agree that 4th edition pretty much was intended as an Action RPG, and that it may even work very well in this framework. I just don't think that the idea behind it was a particular good one.

[FoE]

Well yes, but that is pretty much obvious. Even though I wonder what kind of plot would work in D&D 4th edition, but not in 3rd?

The Tale Of Rognard: The Tale of An Optimized Fighter Who Was Just As Valuable To His Party In Battle As The Optimized Wizard or Druid.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

There is a difference between stating that the target group is les intellegint or that the game is written under the assumption that they are.

Well that is certainly less insulting than saying "4e insults the intelligence". But I think it's even wrong to say that the designers assumed the players were less intelligent. (I hope someone doesn't already have a quote from the designers to that effect. :smallsmile:)



I didn't found that the 4th edition were so much simpler than the predecessor rules, just a bit more streamlined and a lot more predetermined and formulated from a strong prescriptive, authoritative position - which is pretty much the opposite of the participative style that actually supports player creativity.

It think it is correct to say the game is meant for people who was simple and easy to use tactical combat options in their game.

It may be the case that makes for worse role-play or less imaginative role-play. But it is possible for good players to have good games in that system (or any good game system).

I certainly agree with you in prefering a more open-ended, less restrictive system.



So... you are saying that diplomatic chorps are heroes? As well as anthropomorphic incarnations of the color red? If you declare pretty much every protagonist to be a 'hero', than yes, you are right. If you use a less over-generalized definition of the terminology, your argumentation falls apart quickly.

There's a famous Disney cartoon that involves a line who pines for a circle who is in turn infatuated with with a squiggle. (The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dot_and_the_Line) has a youtube link.)

OK so we have story protagonists and heros of myth and D&D and we have the characters portrayed in your "non-standard" RPGs. My contention was merely that the "non-standard" RPGs protagonists were more like the heros of D&D than the generic story protagonist. And my point in stating that was simply to say the RPG stories are only a subset of literature stories. RPG stories, regardless of whether they are "traditional" mythic heros are told by role-players and so have this escapist, first person, active perspective in common. And the point of saying that was to ground RPG stories not in literature but in the game setting in which they are told.

Perhaps this is where the case could be made that 4e encourages a certain kind of story not so much limiting plot points but by restricing in game resolution. That is it does not restrict plot points (overcome the bad guy in a fight, save the damsel in distress) but how to play these out (how to overcome the bad guy in the fight, how to save the damsel in distress).

But the difficulty is that to some degree, each version of D&D is guilty of the same (since each codifies the rules of resolution) and good role players can use any of the versions to come up with a good story.



Well yes, but that is pretty much obvious. Even though I wonder what kind of plot would work in D&D 4th edition, but not in 3rd?

That's a good question. :smallsmile:



I fully agree that 4th edition pretty much was intended as an Action RPG, and that it may even work very well in this framework. I just don't think that the idea behind it was a particular good one.
On that I do agree.

[Jayabalard]

If there was a word for it. I was making a distinction between stories played in RPGs and stories not played in RPGs.You're saying that RPGs can only be used to play the stories that can be played in RPGs, and trying to use that as support that not all stories can be played in RPGs. That's a pretty meaningless statement, and it's circular logic.

Personally, I find that there are no limits to the stories that can be played in an RPG.


However the RPG itself is about playing a character and so it has a story-hero.That's not true at all; you're projecting how you play RPGs out onto other people. You can play a role without being a protagonist, though you can't necessarily do this in all RPG systems.


There's a famous Disney cartoon that involves a line who pines for a circle who is in turn infatuated with with a squiggle. (The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dot_and_the_Line) has a youtube link.)Actually, the line falls in love with the DOT. The squiggle is his beatnik competition.

[blackseven]

Personally, I find that there are no limits to the stories that can be played in an RPG.

Taken literally, this statement is true. However, I would argue there are many stories that would suffer being told as an RPG.

I have trouble seeing stories likeTo Kill A Mockingbird or The Taming of the Shrew put into RPG form (at least any commonly known commercial RPG). With a significant amount of prep between the players and the GM, it could work, but at what point does it become more accurate to simply drop the idea that it is a role playing *game* and call it something more like an exercise in pretentious masturbatory sophistry verbal semi-spontaneous method acting? Admitted, it IS a sliding scale, but surely there's a (vaguely defined) line somewhere on the scale.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

You're saying that RPGs can only be used to play the stories that can be played in RPGs, and trying to use that as support that not all stories can be played in RPGs. That's a pretty meaningless statement, and it's circular logic.

Circularity is not necessarily a bad thing not when it involves definitions. I am trying to make a distinction here that I think you are missing and we are using only the existing limited set of english words.

Satyr equated all stories and stories that can be told with rpgs. I assume you feel the same? If so, I am trying to tell you that not all stories lend themselves to be told by rpgs. This is an observation. I have given various examples of stories that do not lend themselves to rpgs, for example Waiting for Godot, or even staged acting, for example Swan's Way.

I then pointed out that one common factor that rpg stories have and that my counterexamples don't have is that in the rpg stories, the players play protagonists whose actions can be played out in game. This is circular and obvious but is a logical necessity. It is by definition if you will.

But we can also further observe that the players of rpg games are making an emotional investment in the players that they play in a game (circularity again). In the counterexamples stories that I gave, for example Waiting for Godot, it would be hard for a game player in an rpg to have an emotional investment (as opposed to acting with emotion) in one of the characters although an actor in a stage play could impart emotion in the character (or even as an actor have an emotional investment in playing the part). That is, although you can act with emotion and have emotional investment in acting the character in Waiting for Godot, it is not a story that lends itself to game resolution. A set of actors could improvise a story something like Waiting for Godot given a set of premises but that would be an exercise in pure improvisational acting (there is that circularity again). In such an improvisational exercise, the "game" element is lost. It may be that you don't want to make any distinction between playing in an rpg and acting in general. I, however, make that distiction.

All the examples of non-standard rpgs Satyr gave actually were similar in that the players could make an investment to a character whose actions could be resolved in game. For ex, an rpg involving a diplomatic corps allows for resolution in game, even if that resolution is determined in character between the players. This nitpick is meant to move the discussion of rpgs from a discussion of games as literature stories to a discussion of rpgs as games because I think that is more productive. But I think that overall this is a minor point and I am willing to drop it. The above was only meant to show my previous intentions.



That's not true at all; you're projecting how you play RPGs out onto other people. You can play a role without being a protagonist, though you can't necessarily do this in all RPG systems.
I will clarify my point further. First, I was observing a state of affairs not projecting. There is a difference. I am observing what rpgs have in common, even rpgs that I have never or will ever played. There are many such commonalities, for example the escapist element and the "game" element.

Second, we have used so far different words to describe the same thing, protagonist, hero, pc. By definition a pc is a protagonist and a hero (in the sense of story-hero I used above). This may seem circular again but it is necessary by definition. And again although it is obvious it let's make further assumptions about the role that an rpg pc has, for example that it is one in which the player can make some investment. For ex, the following (nonsensical) example is meant to try to illustrate this point

PLAYER: My character is going to ...

GM: Stop! You are playing the bus boy. Look, all you have to do is stay on the side. When the characters at the table run out of water or coffee just refill it, you know like you were a real bus boy.

PLAYER: Yeah but what if I want to interject something into the conversation?

GM: Sure. You can say, "More coffee, sir?" That's good. Really get into character.

PLAYER: Can't I even flirt with one of them or something?

GM: Look we are playing a diplomatic game. All the characters are high level diplomats at a high level conference in a tea room. No one is going to flirt. But we really need someone to be the bus boy to get that being in the tea room feel.

PLAYER: Then why can't we just do this in a real tea room and have a real bus boy wait on us while we play the game?

GM: Because then the bus boy wouldn't be a character in the game.

PLAYER: ...


But again, I think this is all to far afield. I am sorry that I started it and it went this far.

I will end simply by saying that I think it's more productive to study an rpg ruleset as a game rather than to attempt a literary analysis of its storytelling foundations if such a thing is possible. If you feel differently then I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this side point.

So...back to the edition war.

@blackseven: Thank your for making my point more succinctly.

[Eurantien]

Ok, now I see why everyone complains when edition war starts. Two days ago reading it was fun and interesting - now I can't even finish reading a single long post. Doesn't help that I'm now shattered, but hey. All I'll say is that 4e does what WotC wanted it to, ultimately. In many ways, more than bog-standard 3.0 did. It's THEIR marketing scheme, after all.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Ok, now I see why everyone complains when edition war starts.
You ain't seen nothing. Try googling for some of the old 3e/1e threads in rec. games.frp.dnd.

[Eurantien]

Maybe when I'm more conscious. Right now I need something slightly less malicious-feeling :smallbiggrin:

[Jayabalard]

Circularity is not necessarily a bad thing not when it involves definitions.Yes it is. Circular reasoning means that your premise and conclusion are the same. You're making the claim that PC = Hero and then using that statement to draw the conclusion that PC = hero. That's not a valid argument.


Satyr equated all stories and stories that can be told with rpgs. I assume you feel the same?I wouldn't say equate. There are RPGs that aren't stories.


I then pointed out that one common factor that rpg stories have and that my counterexamples don't have is that in the rpg stories, the players play protagonists whose actions can be played out in game. You're using this assumption (that players play protagonists) in a way that.


But we can also further observe that the players of rpg games are making an emotional investment in the players that they play in a game this is true in some cases, not universally. There are people who Roleplay characters with no emotional investment.



Second, we have used so far different words to describe the same thing, protagonist, hero, pc.No, they're not the same thing. A protagonist is the main character of a story. A hero is a very specific type of protagonist. A PC can be either of these things but it doesn't have to be; nor is it necessary to have a specific, constant PC to roleplay. They may be the same thing in the games that you play... but that isn't really all that important to anyone who isn't you.

Your example is just an example of a Bad GM, someone who forces someone to roleplay a specific way.


verbal semi-spontaneous method acting? Admitted, it IS a sliding scale, but surely there's a (vaguely defined) line somewhere on the scale.Ah, but where that line falls differs for people based on their own experiences. I'd personally label verbal semi spontaneous method acting as roleplaying.

[Kaiyanwang]

No, they're not the same thing. A protagonist is the main character of a story. A hero is a very specific type of protagonist. A PC can be either of these things but it doesn't have to be; nor is it necessary to have a specific, constant PC to roleplay. They may be the same thing in the games that you play... but that isn't really all that important to anyone who isn't you.


Definitevely this.

And... @Satyr: you raised the level of the thread exponentially. No sarcasm, I mean more of mine "ZOMG LOL less options suxx", I mean. Keep going, pls.

[Chrono22]

RPG's offer a limited set of stories, namely heroic stories.
Just needed to say: the above statement is completely false. Speaking from personal experience, and the many rpgs I've participated in, RPGs are not limited to being heroic. The most compelling character I've ever played was evil. And many RPGs don't make the good/evil distinction in the first place.

[Jayabalard]

Just needed to say: the above statement is completely false. Speaking from personal experience, and the many rpgs I've participated in, RPGs are not limited to being heroic. The most compelling character I've ever played was evil. And many RPGs don't make the good/evil distinction in the first place.Please don't quote me as saying that...I'm not the one making that claim; I am, in fact, arguing the exact opposite. You're thinking of the Hamster guy.

[Chrono22]

Well, I did say it was completely false:smallbiggrin::smallredface:
I'll edit it.

[shadzar]

I think people are drifting well off-topic as to what part of the story the PCs plays is not limited to just 4th edition, or even D&D, but is a classic argument of RPGs in general over playstyles.

The PCs are only ever as much a part of the story as you want the to be the entire story. When dead, they are no longer a part of the story, and a new set of PCs can come along and take their place, meaning they cannot really be the main protagonists of the story if they are easily replaced.

[ontopic]
4th edition claiming your PCs must be the protagonists of the story, and can be nothing else and the story MUST have defined protagonists would be the part that insults intelligence in telling people "you are playing it wrong, this is the one true way to play it so says the designers of this edition."

[oxybe]

4th edition claiming your PCs must be the protagonists of the story, and can be nothing else and the story MUST have defined protagonists would be the part that insults intelligence in telling people "you are playing it wrong, this is the one true way to play it so says the designers of this edition."

i have to disagree

A protagonist is the main character (the central or main figure) of a story. while the protagonist is not always the narrator, the protagonist's story can be told from someone else's point of view, the story focuses on his (the protagonist) exploits & troubles.

in an RPG, the player characters are the protagonists as the story focuses on them. they might not be major players in grand scheme of things, but it is seen through their point of view and it is their exploits & emotions that the player will associate with. the players might feel for other NPCs, but what the players experience is what their character does.

an NPC might have a larger role in the story. the PCs might be lowly foot soldiers while their captain ascends to greater ranks and titles of nobility, eventually becoming a possible heir through marriage and eventually becoming a king who unifies the country... but the NPC is not the protagonist. the PCs are. the game focuses them fighting in the front lines, delivering messages, holding down a strategic position. this NPC might be originally seen as the protagonist, since he seems to be pulling the strings and gaining the gist of the accolades, but he's ultimately a false protagonist. no matter how important he becomes or how much of the plot revolves around him, the story will still start and end with the PCs.

to use an example, the manga Beserk which i'm very partial too. a large part of the start focuses not on the protagonist, Guts, but on the ambitions (and eventual fall & rebirth) of Griffith usually seen through the eyes of Guts. Guts himself is just a badass normal with a big sword and considers himself another soldier helping his friend's goal (everyone else sees him as the big scary guy & left hand man though).

Guts is still the protagonist though. we go into his mind & emotions and learn more about him, even though the gist of the plot isn't focusing on him, the story however, does.

[huttj509]

I think people are drifting well off-topic as to what part of the story the PCs plays is not limited to just 4th edition, or even D&D, but is a classic argument of RPGs in general over playstyles.

The PCs are only ever as much a part of the story as you want the to be the entire story. When dead, they are no longer a part of the story, and a new set of PCs can come along and take their place, meaning they cannot really be the main protagonists of the story if they are easily replaced.

[ontopic]
4th edition claiming your PCs must be the protagonists of the story, and can be nothing else and the story MUST have defined protagonists would be the part that insults intelligence in telling people "you are playing it wrong, this is the one true way to play it so says the designers of this edition."

But that's not insulting your intelligence to say "you're doing it wrong". It might be insulting your playstyle, but not your intelligence.

And anyway, why is it a bad thing to say "this is what the system is designed around, and the sort of things it's designed to handle"? The system is not designed to handle a group of regular peasants going about their farm life. If you are trying to use DnD 4E to play that scenario, you will need to do a LOT of work to make it work at all.

If the PCs are the mundane support to a heroic NPC protagonist, 4E will not work well to represent them. If the PCs are not the main characters, the eyes through which the world and all events are viewed, what are they?

From merriam-webster:


Protagonist

1 a: the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story) b: a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event

Dungeons and Dragons 4E straight out of the box is not designed to necessarily work with any power level, any genre, any setting possibly imaginable. What's wrong with stating what 4E is, so that if you're trying to make it something it isn't you're aware you'll need to alter quite a bit?

Heck, if anything, that's the part that would "insult someone's intelligence", assuming that you need to be TOLD what sort of setting, etc. Dungeons and Dragons is. I mean, come on, I'm smart enough to know that, and know that I might need to alter rules to fit what I want to do with it, right?

Except this is the Player's Handbook and DMG, the basic first books of the edition. Plenty of people will be reading it who might not already know that. It's not targeted at only the folks who grew up playing DnD with their family 20 years ago (yes, my girlfriend grew up playing DnD with her dad and 2 siblings, there do exist folks whose parents were even the ones who introduced them to the hobby).

I do, however, agree that the part about talking your way past the gate guards is unfortunately worded. I can see the point that was trying to be made, but it would have been better phrased similar to "you don't have to play out the player characters talking their way past the gate guards. You can just skip ahead if that's more fun."

[shadzar]

But that's not insulting your intelligence to say "you're doing it wrong". It might be insulting your playstyle, but not your intelligence.

To tell someone there way is wrong because it is different from your, is an insult.

PERIOD.

This is why politics and religion is often banned topics for discussion on many forums.

The game trying to dictate how you must play by how certain things are hard-coded into the rules is the insult.

"You are having badwrongfun by not playing this way."

It is why many felt Gary insulted them by making the statement in Draogn magazine which was misread to go about the whole game rather than how he intended it to mean in regards to RPGA.

Hold replies a little while and I will dig out that issue and provide the comment from it here in this post.

EDIT:


The AD&D game system does not allow the injection of extraneous material. That is clearly stated in the rule books. It is thus a simple matter: Either one plays the AD&D game, or one plays something else

Ok so its on what is and isn't official and copyrights it seems after reading through the article, but it sparked a whole lot of arguements in later Dragon's IIRC, and the ideas about the game and who has the right to tell you how to play.

It was mostly who has the right to make things and such and I thought it was about the way to play in the RPGA, which I got confused with another article....

So the point being that trying to tell anyone how to play something one specific way is insulting.

[huttj509]

Does Vampire: The Masquerade insult you by saying that it is a game about vampires?

The game is trying to dictate how you must play THAT GAME. It's not trying to make rules that support any possible setting or playstyle. It's not claiming to be anything like GURPS. It is not a universal role-playing system.

And yes, saying "your playstyle is wrong" IS insulting your playstyle. I even said that in what you quoted. It's still not insulting your intelligence.

[shadzar]

Does Vampire: The Masquerade insult you by saying that it is a game about vampires?

The game is trying to dictate how you must play THAT GAME. It's not trying to make rules that support any possible setting or playstyle. It's not claiming to be anything like GURPS. It is not a universal role-playing system.

And yes, saying "your playstyle is wrong" IS insulting your playstyle. I even said that in what you quoted. It's still not insulting your intelligence.

You should just stop playing games and associating with other people if you think you have the right to tell them how to play something when you don't know jack or chit about them or what they like or think.

It has nothing to do with playstyle, but the people.

VtM has nothing to do with this debate.

The fact is that 4th took something that the company itself opened up in 3rd, and then tried to close it again, and it just doesn't work that way.

So it is not about a playstyle, but about the game in general trying to say what it is, and if you aren't playing it this way (assuming you find the game to be something other than the designers), then you are flat out wrong.

It isn't about playstyles as in whether you want lots or little RP.

It is about the severe shift from open-ended play to closed play that insults people by telling them they are wrong for wanting to play more opened-ended and not have the PCs be some main protagonists in the latest B rated action flik. Got it now, or should you go back to Liliputia and argue about the ends of your E.G.G. :smalltongue:

You don't get any say in how other people perceive the game, not just its playstyle, buts its the matter they are telling other people their opinion is wrong, and that is insulting because NOBODIES opinion is ever wrong, it only is different from your own.

You, nor the designers, have no right to tell others what to think.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Yes it is. Circular reasoning means that your premise and conclusion are the same.

*sigh* Yes circular reasoning is that. However in definitions circualrity is unavoidable. For example, a bachelor's is a man who is not married.



You're making the claim that PC = Hero and then using that statement to draw the conclusion that PC = hero. That's not a valid argument.

*sigh* You obviously have a problem with the word 'hero' in that it denotes one and only one thing to you. I have said repeatedly that I am not using the word hero in the sense you mean although I think my sense is in common usage. For example, in Scarface the movies hero is not a hero per se but an anti-hero. Fine, let's drop the use of the word hero. I am not here to argue the semantics of the word.

I am not claiming that a PC = hero in your sense of the word hero. I am claiming that PCs are protagonists. Is that more acceptable to you? Further I am not claiming that PCs = protagonists but that PCs are a subset of protagonists because RPGs are used to tell stories which are a subset of all stories. I hope that makes clear to you what I am/was saying.



I wouldn't say equate. There are RPGs that aren't stories.

And would you agree that there some stories which are not RPGs? If so, then why are you arguing with me when I was trying to say that RPGs should not be equated to stories and RPGs are better analyzed as games than as literature stories?



You're using this assumption (that players play protagonists) in a way that.

Assumption? It's a role.playing.game. You play role. In the little story told in your game, you are playing a main role. I gave a non-sensical example of what it would be like to play in a role-playing game but not play one of the main roles. But I am guessing that you mean something else here and again you are needless arguing a minor point. Explain or give an example of how and when you can play an RPG without playing a protagonist in the story it tells.



this is true in some cases, not universally. There are people who Roleplay characters with no emotional investment.

And yet again you invest too much emotionally into each word and miss the point altogether. When I used the term emotional investment I meant (and I think it would have been clear to an reasonable reader) a VERY GENERAL statement. So yes there are players who play without expressing or role playing the characters emotions which is what you took 'emotional investment' to mean. But if the player is HAVING FUN or ENJOING THE PLAY or IS ENTERTAINED BY THE EXPERIENCE even if he is not expressing the emotions of his character or even cares about the emotins of his character then he can be said to have an emotional investment in the character and the RPG which is what I meant.



No, they're not the same thing. A protagonist is the main character of a story. A hero is a very specific type of protagonist.

To repeat myself, we have hero, pc and protagonist. A pc is the character of a roleplayer. A protagonist is the main character in a story. I will accept your strict usage and say a hero is the protagonist of a heroic story.

Clearly the some pc's are also heros (in your strict sense). Clearly some are not. The question becomes then is there something in common to the protagonists that pcs portray. (You are also claiming that pcs can portray characters that are not protagonists but you will have to explain what you mean by this). I claim there is. In fact, I claim that pcs do not portray all types of protagonists because there are stories and protagonists who do not lend themselves well to be played out in a role playing game.



A PC can be either of these things but it doesn't have to be; nor is it necessary to have a specific, constant PC to roleplay. They may be the same thing in the games that you play... but that isn't really all that important to anyone who isn't you.

Huh?



Your example is just an example of a Bad GM, someone who forces someone to roleplay a specific way.

Project much?



Ah, but where that line falls differs for people based on their own experiences. I'd personally label verbal semi spontaneous method acting as roleplaying.
Make use of your own personal definitions much?


Just needed to say: the above statement is completely false. Speaking from personal experience, and the many rpgs I've participated in, RPGs are not limited to being heroic. The most compelling character I've ever played was evil. And many RPGs don't make the good/evil distinction in the first place.

Geez again don't get hung up on the word hero. First you can use the word hero to denote the protagonist of the story even if he is not heroic. Hamlet is the hero if the play even though he spends three quarters of the play whining and carrying on in a way that would put any emo to shame. An evil character can also said to be the hero. So for ex Al Pacino plays a villian in Scarface but it can be said to be the hero of the movie. There is even a word for those kinds of heros. They are called anti-heros.

Second, don't get hung up in the semantic discussion like Jayabalard. The point which I was trying make in response to Satyr is that not all stories can be told by RPGs. I was not trying to say that RPGs are limited to heroic stories in the sense in which you are you using the word. I was not even saying that RPGs are limied to stories in which "The most compelling character I've ever played was evil. And many RPGs don't make the good/evil distinction in the first place." I have said this repeatedly in my posts.

Many people play many different types of RPGs with many different types of characters, that is true. However, as broad as RPG stories are, they do not cover all stories nor all of literature. I have given examples of stories that I do not lend themselves well to an RPG like Waiting for Godot or Swan's Way. I was making this point to Satyr to say that I think it is better to analyze an RPG ruleset as game ruleset rather than attempt a literary analysis of the RPG ruleset's underpinnings or the stories the RPG ruleset lends itself too.

And this I did to try to explain why I felt that, even though I don't like 4e, I don't think it's fair to say that the 4e ruleset "insults intelligence".

[Artanis]

You should just stop playing games and associating with other people if you think you have the right to tell them how to play something when you don't know jack or chit about them or what they like or think.

It has nothing to do with playstyle, but the people.

VtM has nothing to do with this debate.

The fact is that 4th took something that the company itself opened up in 3rd, and then tried to close it again, and it just doesn't work that way.

So it is not about a playstyle, but about the game in general trying to say what it is, and if you aren't playing it this way (assuming you find the game to be something other than the designers), then you are flat out wrong.

It isn't about playstyles as in whether you want lots or little RP.

It is about the severe shift from open-ended play to closed play that insults people by telling them they are wrong for wanting to play more opened-ended and not have the PCs be some main protagonists in the latest B rated action flik. Got it now, or should you go back to Liliputia and argue about the ends of your E.G.G. :smalltongue:

You don't get any say in how other people perceive the game, not just its playstyle, buts its the matter they are telling other people their opinion is wrong, and that is insulting because NOBODIES opinion is ever wrong, it only is different from your own.

You, nor the designers, have no right to tell others what to think.

And how does this insult intelligence?

[huttj509]

Please give me an example of a campaign or adventure where the PCs are not the protagonists...I do not think that word means what you seem to think it means...

[Kurald Galain]

Please give me an example of a campaign or adventure where the PCs are not the protagonists...I do not think that word means what you seem to think it means...

Just to give an example - any adventure that has two parties (both of PCs) that oppose one another. One of the parties would logically be antagonists, then.

[Winterwind]

Wouldn't the PCs not being the protagonists of the story being told mean that the focus would entirely lie on the actions of some NPC, cutting away from the players perpetually and having them at best be the witnesses to said NPC's actions? :smallconfused:

The only alternative I see how the players wouldn't be playing protagonists would be if the players were constantly switching which character they played, thus playing at some point the protagonist(s), at some point the antagonist(s) and at some times people with lesser relevance to the story.

The former appearing immensely undesirable for just about anyone, it would seem to me, the latter a highly interesting concept, but hardly the norm either (and, while indeed not promoted by 4e rules, not promoted by those of most other RPGs either).

EDIT: Oh yeah, or what Kurald Galain proposed, that works, too.


Though I suspect shadzar actually means 'heroes', not 'protagonists', and is complaining about 4e promoting a style where the PCs are vastly superior, shining figures, and is not talking about the focus of the game at all.

[shadzar]

And how does this insult intelligence?

My own post, or what is mentioned within it?

@the other person

Yeah, any RPG where the PCs are not the whole story.

Better yet, how about the RPG where there are only PCs and there would then be no antagonist, so therefore cannot be protagonists, just people in it.

VtM where I ST'ed a 300 person LARP, would you consider every "PC" a protagonist, or just the ones making the big things happen?

If only the big player were the protagonists, then what were the other 290 player, just chumps or extras?

Where you are not trying to retell a novel, then the PCs aren't always the protagonists. They aren't always "the principal character in a work of fiction".

Forgotten Realms, would not have PCs as protagonists, but merely bit players to Elminster, the Harpers, Red Wizards, Zhentarim, etc.

One of the gripes about FR was that players were only bit players, but so what?

The question resides in what you are looking for out of the game. Final Fantasy isn't D&D, and the first-person games have the character as the protagonist, but it isn't always the case.

Who is the protagonist of the entire Discworld series?

Rincewind?
Two-flower?
the Wyrd Sisters? Just Granny Weacerwax?
the Hogfather?
Cohen the barbarian?
The Great Autuin(sp)?
Death?
Death of Rats?
Susan?
Mustrum Ridcully?


Does it boil down to the character you want to see more of, or the one you see the most of?

I would say the protagonist of the Discworld, is in fact the Discworld itself, even though some of the stories focus in on some of the major bit players.

@Winterwind

Missed your post somehow....

No I am actually not talking about super-hero PCs in 4th, but the view that the PCs are the protagonist in general...How did we get here?

As with Discwolrd, I always think of the world (when DM and player alike) to be the protagonist, as it will exist without any of the PCs.

Again what happens when a near TPK occurs, and most of the party (read protagonists) are killed of and replaced?

Does that mean they are ret-conned to have never been protagonists, and the only protagonists were the new characters?

Was the only surviving member of the near-TPK the only real protagonist?

The character mean nothing, and if you WANT to go that route, then you should state the PLAYERS are the protagonists of the story, and not their PCs, but still even then players can change and swap out.

Just like a bad TV show switching in and out characters.

[Artanis]

What you mentioned.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh yeah, speaking of protagonism, there are some (bad) campaigns where the DM's character is the protagonist, and the PCs are merely onlookers on a railroad.



Forgotten Realms, would not have PCs as protagonists, but merely bit players to Elminster, the Harpers, Red Wizards, Zhentarim, etc.
In only few of the books is Elminster a protagonist. To my knowledge the Zhents never are.


Who is the protagonist of the entire Discworld series?
Yeah, nobody, of course. It is generally obvious who the protagonist of a particular book is, though.


I would say the protagonist of the Discworld, is in fact the Discworld itself, even though some of the stories focus in on some of the major bit players.
That's really not what the word means.


Again what happens when a near TPK occurs, and most of the party (read protagonists) are killed of and replaced?
Then we have protagonists who die, and we get more protagonists afterwards. I fail to see what's so hard about this.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Just to give an example - any adventure that has two parties (both of PCs) that oppose one another. One of the parties would logically be antagonists, then.

So Group A is Group B's antagonist. And Group B is Group A's protagonist?

No that makes no sense. The protagonists are the main players of their own story. The antagonists are those opposed to the protagonists.

You could say either that Group A and Group B are the protagonits of one story.

Or you could say Group A is Group B's antagonist and Group B is Group A's antagonist in two parallel stories told from different points of view. Group A is the protagonist in the Group A story. Group B is the protagonist in the Group B story.

[valadil]

VtM where I ST'ed a 300 person LARP, would you consider every "PC" a protagonist, or just the ones making the big things happen?


Every good LARP I've played and even most of the bad ones have had many, many stories being told simulatenously. Each character is a protagonist or antagonist in at least one of the stories and a bit player or even non entity in the others.

Would you all agree that PCs play the protagonists is the premise from which RPGs are derived? Maybe it shouldn't be given that the PCs always protagonize, but I don't think it's a bad assumption that the PCs will more than likely be protagonists in an RPG story.


Again what happens when a near TPK occurs, and most of the party (read protagonists) are killed of and replaced?

A TPK is something that happens in an RPG but not in a story (at least not often). It's something that is more likely to happen with a GM who favors Gamism or Simulationism over Narrativism, if you go with GNS theory. The Narrativist GM will fudge dice around the TPK in order to keep his protagonists intact.

[Winterwind]

@shadzar: I think we have a different definition of the term 'protagonist'.

To me, a protagonist is simply a character upon whom the focus of the story lies, from whose perspective it is told. Antagonists would be characters who oppose her or him, but it is in no way necessary that there are any antagonists for 'protagonist' to have meaning. So, yes, the PCs in a story with no antagonists would still be protagonists.

Just as it is not necessary for the protagonist to have any sort of supreme power. It might well be that the campaign is about a major war between forces of good and darkness and the ascension of a long lost king back to his throne and him rescuing the kingdom, while the players are just some ratcatchers in the slums of a small distant town just touched by these events and concerned with surviving from day to day. In this case, however, their struggle for survival would be the actual story and all the rest just background - they would still be the protagonists, not the king. Same for the Forgotten Realms example you mentioned - if Elminster sent the PCs on some mission and the game would consist of that mission, it wouldn't matter that it was Elminster who came up with the plan, Elminster who was pulling strings in the background, and Elminster whose plans were furthered - because the events prior and after that mission would again be just background, and the characters were the protagonists of the story dealing with that mission.

I don't quite understand your point about Discworld. As Kurald Galain said, the series has no protagonist, the individual books, however, do.

If PCs die, old protagonists exit and new ones enter. So what?

The only point in your post where I would concede that some of these PCs are not protagonists would be the 300 player LARP, and that's only because a big LARP is completely differently structured than a small tabletop round.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I think people are drifting well off-topic as to what part of the story the PCs plays is not limited to just 4th edition, or even D&D, but is a classic argument of RPGs in general over playstyles.

It's more a hijacking than a drifting away at this point.



4th edition claiming your PCs must be the protagonists of the story, and can be nothing else and the story MUST have defined protagonists would be the part that insults intelligence in telling people "you are playing it wrong, this is the one true way to play it so says the designers of this edition."
Sorry but as others have said, you must be playing the protagonist of your RPG story, by definition.

That is, in the story you are telling at the role-playing session, your character is one of the main actors along with the other players and the DM.

It does not matter that in the imagined world, other imagined characters are doing much more "important" and world shaking things than the PCs.

And how is 4e different in this respect from 3e, 1e or any standard fantasy/sci-fi RPG?

[shadzar]

What you mentioned.

Well just pretty much telling someone that there way of playing is wrong and yours is right, when no two people on the entire planet think the exact same way.


Oh yeah, speaking of protagonism, there are some (bad) campaigns where the DM's character is the protagonist, and the PCs are merely onlookers on a railroad.

That is a problem of bad DMs, and I am not talking about novels, but the RPG books.

I don't play through novels save for the DLCs, in which you knew what was going on anyway, and just wanted to play through it.

Elminster never made an appearance in any game I ran even ones where people were in Shadowdale.

But as to the railroading bit, it shows where the focus of the "story" was in trying to retell the story of the novels when people got railroaded, or the players thinking they were being in a retelling of those novels, rather than saying here is they world as is and from this point on whatever happens changes with your actions.

Still makes Toril itself the main focus of the story.

The most important thing about all this is what is in the above reply about what is insulting about the presentation of the material from the designers perspective.

The designers don't get to choose or say how any game is played outside of their own, like Gary didn't get any say either.

TSR, then WotC, only gets to say what they call D&D, and who can use the name. Outside of that, they have no rights to anything that happens within anyone else's game. Not even in RPGA, as each DM will read thing differently and no DCI MtG floor rules will change it when each and every possible instance cannot be documented and thought of in advance.

So the designers trying to decide how everyone else plays or they must be playing it wrong is the insult, be it 4th edition or 1st.

[valadil]

So the designers trying to decide how everyone else plays or they must be playing it wrong is the insult, be it 4th edition or 1st.

If the designers' attitude is what is offensive then what's the point of this thread specifically targetting 4.0? I found the attitude of "here's what we created but that's just guidelines and you can do what you want" to be consistent between 3rd and 4th edition. Did I miss something in the DMG?

I should point out that I haven't read this thread in its entirety and don't plan to. It hurts my head and insults my intelligence way more than any 4e book :-P

[ashmanonar]

Actually, I was hoping that the simplification and balancing of skills in 4th ed would make more room for roleplaying, since the fighting got more streamlined, you would have more time for roleplaying.
Well, I haven't seen it so far... :smalleek:

How is it the game's fault that your group isn't roleplaying more?

[HamsterOfTheGod]

It is why many felt Gary insulted them by making the statement in Dragon magazine which was misread to go about the whole game rather than how he intended it to mean in regards to RPGA...So the point being that trying to tell anyone how to play something one specific way is insulting.
[/quote]
Yeah I remember that quote and though not insulted, it made me have a bad feeling about GG at the time. However, several years later after reading more of what he had to say in intervies and in articles in Dragon on DM'ing and so forth, I came to realize that that quote was said in a context but more importantly that it was irrelevant. One quote does not define the man. The quote does not reflect the playing style GG had as a DM or he's actual feelings about D&D and RPG and the knowledge that he shared his others. I would have loved to have played with GG as DM if only once and if only to learn from a master first hand.

So I think the point is also to be not so quick to take insults especially over a pastime like D&D.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

The only alternative I see how the players wouldn't be playing protagonists would be if the players were constantly switching which character they played, thus playing at some point the protagonist(s), at some point the antagonist(s) and at some times people with lesser relevance to the story.

Yet at each point they play the protagonist of the story being told at the moment.

I don't get why this concept is hard to undestand.

If in session #1, you play character #1, then character #1 is a protagonist for session #1 and the story of session #1 is told in part from the point fo view of character #1.

If in session #2, you play character #2, then character #2 is a protagonist for session #2 and the story of session #2 is told in part from the point fo view of character #2.

It does not matter if the character #1 is in the same party as character #2 or if they are in opposing parties, the player by playing the pc makes the character a protagonist to a story-line.

[Chrono22]

Geez again don't get hung up on the word hero. First you can use the word hero to denote the protagonist of the story even if he is not heroic. Hamlet is the hero if the play even though he spends three quarters of the play whining and carrying on is a way that would be any emo to shame. An evil character can also said to be the hero. So for ex Al Pacino plays a villian in Scarface but it can be said to be the hero of the movie. There is even a word for those kinds of heros. They are called anti-heros.
None of those possibilities you mentioned prevent someone from playing a villain. Being the protagonist of a story doesn't mean you are the hero of the story, or even an antihero. Many RPGs have nothing to do with heroics, antiheroics, or anything close to the idea. Examples: Diplomacy, paranoia, promethean, call of cthulu.
It's spelled heroes, btw.


Second, don't get hung up in the semantic discussion like Jayabalard. The point which I was trying make in response to Satyr is that not all stories can be told by RPGs. I was not trying to say that RPGs are limited to heroic stories in the sense in which you are you using the word. I was not even saying that RPGs are limied to stories in which "The most compelling character I've ever played was evil. And many RPGs don't make the good/evil distinction in the first place." I have said this repeatedly in my posts.
If you don't want to get caught up in semantics, use the correct definition of the word hero. You can't blame people for misunderstanding your meaning, if you aren't expressing yourself clearly.
And I think you are wrong in that RPGs are used to tell stories in the first place. RPGs are about shared experience, not monologues. You're comparing apples with oranges, by trying to apply literary concepts to what amounts to an imagination game + dice.


Many people play many different types of RPGs with many different types of characters, that is true. However, as broad as RPG stories are, they do not cover all stories nor all of literature. I have given examples of stories that I do not lend themselves well to an RPG like Waiting for Godot or Swan's Way. I was making this point to Satyr to say that I think it is better to analyze an RPG ruleset as game ruleset rather than attempt a literary analysis of the RPG ruleset's underpinnings or the stories the RPG ruleset lends itself too.
Um, it's a foregone conclusion that an rpg will have a limited scope (barring freeform... I could see someone doing a drama using freeform, it just takes a special kind of creativity). But clearly the rules of a game must support one style over another- in fact this was a clear design goal of 4e. The principles behind the method of design are just as important as the rules themselves. You can't just view a ruleset in a vacuum. Since the rules are simply an engine for play, a tool for character interaction, they aren't the game itself. Just a useful part of it. How and why they are made and implemented has a big impact on the "fluffy" side of the game.

And your assertion that the stories of RPGs must follow DnD lockstep, as (byronic, anti) heroic fantasy, is flat wrong. I've played demented spirits escaping from hell to gain a foothold in the realm of man. Ever tried to possess a building? That campaign made me question the concept of identity. I've played an intelligent magic item in the possession of a player character. I've even played monsters for other GMs. None of those things can be considered "protagonists".
I just have to believe, you haven't played other RPGs if you think they all have to be heroic (even using your bizarre misuse of the word heroic).

[FoE]

None of those possibilities you mentioned prevent someone from playing a villain. Being the protagonist of a story doesn't mean you are the hero of the story, or even an antihero.

Right. But a villain who is the main character of the story is still a Villain PROTAGONIST.


I've played demented spirits escaping from hell to gain a foothold in the realm of man. Ever tried to possess a building? That campaign made me question the concept of identity. I've played an intelligent magic item in the possession of a player character. I've even played monsters for other GMs. None of those things can be considered "protagonists".

But were these things the main characters of the story? Did the story proceed from their perspective? If so, then they were PROTAGONISTS.

If they weren't the main characters of the story and were in fact opposing the main cast, then they were ANTAGONISTS.

And all RPGs — regardless of whether it's 1E, 3.5E, 4E, Call of Cthulhu, Iron Kingdoms or Rifts — utilize PROTAGONISTS, which can be defined as the player characters, regardless of whether they are heroes, anti-heroes, villains or even monsters.

[Blackfang108]

Just to be sure:

Everyone does know that "Protaganist" does NOT mean "Good Guy," Right?

Example: Payback. Parker/Porter (Name change via Medium), is the protaganist. No-One will argue that he is a "good guy" or a "Hero."

Or the book "I, Strad." He's not a good guy.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Protagonist: the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work


Antagonist: the adversary of the hero or protagonist of a drama or other literary work

*Textual Ninja Vanish*

[FoE]

Just to be sure:

Everyone does know that "Protaganist" does NOT mean "Good Guy," Right?

Example: Payback. Parker/Porter (Name change via Medium), is the protaganist. No-One will argue that he is a "good guy" or a "Hero."

Or the book "I, Strahd." He's not a good guy.

Or Alucard from Hellsing.

Or Dr. Horrible.

Or Light Yagami.

Or Johnny the Homicidal Maniac.

Or Alex from A Clockwork Orange.

[Blackfang108]

Or Alucard from Hellsing.

Or Dr. Horrible.

Or Light Yagami.

Or Johnny the Homicidal Maniac.

Or Alex from A Clockwork Orange.

Or Lestat. The Jack@$$ protagonist of entirely too many books.

[FoE]

Or the Light Warriors from 8-Bit Theater, which as we discovered recently are the Villain PROTAGONISTS of the story.

Or Killface from Frisky Dingo.

[Winterwind]

Yet at each point they play the protagonist of the story being told at the moment.

I don't get why this concept is hard to undestand.

If in session #1, you play character #1, then character #1 is a protagonist for session #1 and the story of session #1 is told in part from the point fo view of character #1.

If in session #2, you play character #2, then character #2 is a protagonist for session #2 and the story of session #2 is told in part from the point fo view of character #2.

It does not matter if the character #1 is in the same party as character #2 or if they are in opposing parties, the player by playing the pc makes the character a protagonist to a story-line.I don't want to discuss this too much here, as it is only marginally relevant to the topic at hand, but I disagree - if I was DMing a many months long campaign telling the story of a group of heroes opposing a mighty evil overlord, and in one session, when player A's character would address a barmaid in a tavern, and I would say to player B (whose character would happen to be elsewhere at the moment) "Hey, would you play this barmaid in this scene?", then the barmaid, appearing as unimportant bit-player for five minutes in a scene of minor importance, wouldn't become a protagonist of the long overlord-fighting campaign.
You could perhaps argue that she would be a protagonist of this five minute scene, but then you would approach the point where the term "protagonist" would be rendered meaningless, as every single character appearing ever anywhere, PC or NPC, would have to be titled a protagonist of whichever scene s/he was appearing in, and you would have only protagonists left.

[huttj509]

An example of a non-obvious protagonist (I asked a friend for a good example, she's actually taking writing classes):

The Sherlock Holmes stories. The protagonist is WATSON. What we experience is through his eyes. If we hear about events he is not present for, it's because he was told about them. Our view of the events are inevitably colored by Watson's feelings, outlook, and views, even though the story is him telling us about Holmes. The story is about Holmes, but Watson is the protagonist (I guess in more detail the story is about Watson's written account about Holmes).

The protagonist is a feature in the TELLING of a story. For the Vampire LARP example, are you being told from the point of view of a narrator who follows a particular character or group of characters? If you're wondering about as it happens, each participant is the protagonist for their own story. Each of their stories has a unique point of view. The only ones who are not a protagonist of some sort would be the storytellers who are planning events, adjudicating rules, and keeping things running smoothly for the benefit of the players. They aren't viewing the story themselves, they're helping the players view/shape it. The protagonist depends heavily on point of view.

Saying that the players are the protagonists is just saying that, most of the time, what you're dealing with is what those characters are doing. Yes, there can be plots going on elsewhere. There can be stories within stories, but you're unlikely to have a session long cutscene where you describe the intricate negotiations between two kingdoms brokering peace, while the players sit there wondering what this has to do with their characters who are off in an inn 300 miles away (this would be different if you actually gave the players different sides, and had them doing the negotiations, for example, you'd then have a temporary shift of focus. Still not easy to pull off well, but more reasonable). It's generally more enjoyable to the players if you just let them know of the negotiation result when it affects them (either directly, or when they ask someone, what have you).

One can pull off the cutscene, say a brief description (or mini-adventure, with pre-generated character sheets for the duration) of some events that the player characters are not involved in, and have no in character knowledge of, but it's tricky to do well, and the focus then turns back to (surprise) the PCs.

Emphasizing that the players are the protagonists also helps remind the DM that the game (as opposed to the story) is supposed to be about interacting with the players' characters.

[shadzar]

If the designers' attitude is what is offensive then what's the point of this thread specifically targetting 4.0?

Because the TC chose to start a thread about 4th edition. You and anyone else, AFAIK, is welcome to stat another thread based on other editions of D&D in this forum.

That is while a while back I tried to maintain focus on the topic rather than trying to derail the thread, but then still other people refused to follow suit, and also refused to start a thread for the off-topic discussion.



Yeah I remember that quote and though not insulted, it made me have a bad feeling about GG at the time. However, several years later after reading more of what he had to say in intervies and in articles in Dragon on DM'ing and so forth, I came to realize that that quote was said in a context but more importantly that it was irrelevant. One quote does not define the man. The quote does not reflect the playing style GG had as a DM or he's actual feelings about D&D and RPG and the knowledge that he shared his others. I would have loved to have played with GG as DM if only once and if only to learn from a master first hand.

So I think the point is also to be not so quick to take insults especially over a pastime like D&D.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but also people should learn from the past and Bill S who is the R&D head of D&D now should remember those times as he was there as well and witnessed much of this going on while he and Rich Baker were working on Alternity which was a flop yet lead many choices in the new RPGs they have created since, as well the attitudes presented in them.

So older people may just be a bit on edge as it is from the past, and tired of it from designers that keep repeating the same mistakes. How can they not make sure to prevent making a gaming mistake if they cannot prevent from making the same other mistakes as the past?

I would prefer learned designers myself. Ones that think before they speak, and think before they print rules as well. That way you know you are getting a quality product from them especially since they are the sheperds of the product with the :smallyuk: largest brand recognition....or one that many of us like because it was a good game in the past.

[The New Bruceski]

The fact is that 4th took something that the company itself opened up in 3rd, and then tried to close it again, and it just doesn't work that way.



If people cannot discus the edition itself without the need for comparison or competition (edition warring) with another edition or game, then 4th cannot stand or fall on its own merits and is not even worth a footnote in the history of D&D.


Is this the part where you vanish in a puff of logic? By your argument the flaw you purport doesn't exist, because you needed to compare it to a previous edition.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

None of those possibilities you mentioned prevent someone from playing a villain. Being the protagonist of a story doesn't mean you are the hero of the story, or even an antihero. Many RPGs have nothing to do with heroics, antiheroics, or anything close to the idea. Examples: Diplomacy, paranoia, promethean, call of cthulu.
It's spelled heroes, btw.

And what in the walls of text that I have written would ever lead you to believe that I am somehow against Diplomacy, paranoia, promethean, call of cthulu, 3 of which I have played by the way.

If you don't want to call the pcs in those games, the protagonists in those game, "heros" or "anti-heros", that is fine by me. I have already agreed to your usage more than once.

But you seem to want to keep getting stuck on the usage of the word hero.


If you don't want to get caught up in semantics, use the correct definition of the word hero. You can't blame people for misunderstanding your meaning, if you aren't expressing yourself clearly.

I have already said in previous posts that to defer to your usage I am stopping my usage (fair though I think it is) of the word hero in this debate.


And I think you are wrong in that RPGs are used to tell stories in the first place. RPGs are about shared experience, not monologues. You're comparing apples with oranges, by trying to apply literary concepts to what amounts to an imagination game + dice.

Wrong again. Re-read my posts if you have to but I have been arguing, ad neaseum, that RPGs are primarily games not stories. Satyr posted a while back something to the effect that RPGs are equivalent to literature stories. I have been arguing for some time, but for the life of me I can't understand why, that though RPGs tell stories they do so in a game format. That is, that when analyzing an RPG ruleset like 4e, I think it is more productive to analyze it as a game then to perform some kind of literary analysis on it. Since I think you may have come late to this discussion I will quote myself for your convenience


A little, but the point is that RPG's are geared specifically to the kind of game play not the story. If you played a vampire in Masquerade, you are playing a completely different game than if played a vampire in 3e even if the plot points are similar. I imagine you can...or rather will be able to...play a vampire in 4e. But what your vamp character can do under the game system will be different and this will effect the feel more so than the story IMHO.




Different RPGs can be used to tell the same story though each lends a different feel to the story. Not every RPG can tell every story. In particular 4e cannot tell certain stories or does not lend itself well to some stories. (The same can be said of 3e but for different stories.)

That 4e is geared towards certain stories is not an "insult to intelligence". That it may be marketed as a completely equivalent replacement for what came before may be an "insult to the consumers".



Um, it's a foregone conclusion that an rpg will have a limited scope (barring freeform... I could see someone doing a drama using freeform, it just takes a special kind of creativity). But clearly the rules of a game must support one style over another- in fact this was a clear design goal of 4e. The principles behind the method of design are just as important as the rules themselves. You can't just view a ruleset in a vacuum. Since the rules are simply an engine for play, a tool for character interaction, they aren't the game itself. Just a useful part of it. How and why they are made and implemented has a big impact on the "fluffy" side of the game.

I agree.


And your assertion that the stories of RPGs must follow DnD lockstep, as (byronic, anti) heroic fantasy, is flat wrong.

Wrong. I have siad repeatedly that that is not the case. I have explained as best I can but obviously not well enouh.



I've played demented spirits escaping from hell to gain a foothold in the realm of man. Ever tried to possess a building? That campaign made me question the concept of identity. I've played an intelligent magic item in the possession of a player character. I've even played monsters for other GMs. None of those things can be considered "protagonists".

Yes they can. I'll even look up the definition for you

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protagonist



Main Entry: pro·tag·o·nist
Pronunciation: \prō-ˈta-gə-nist\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek prōtagōnistēs, from prōt- prot- + agōnistēs competitor at games, actor, from agōnizesthai to compete, from agōn contest, competition at games — more at agony
Date: 1671
1 a: the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story) b: a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event




I just have to believe, you haven't played other RPGs if you think they all have to be heroic (even using your bizarre misuse of the word heroic).

You would be wrong but that's because you are stuck on the usage of the word hero. I will defer to your usage to avoid debating the usage of the word. But I will look up that definition for you too so you can see my usage is not uncommon. Pay attention to entry number 2a.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hero



he·ro
Pronunciation: \ˈhir-(ˌ)ō\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hērōs
Date: 14th century
1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage
2 a: the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b: the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3plural usually heros : submarine 2
4: an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol


@Winderwind: Sorry for the misunderstanding.


I don't want to discuss this too much here, as it is only marginally relevant to the topic at hand, but I disagree - if I was DMing a many months long campaign telling the story of a group of heroes opposing a mighty evil overlord, and in one session, when player A's character would address a barmaid in a tavern, and I would say to player B (whose character would happen to be elsewhere at the moment) "Hey, would you play this barmaid in this scene?", then the barmaid, appearing as unimportant bit-player for five minutes in a scene of minor importance, wouldn't become a protagonist of the long overlord-fighting campaign.
You could perhaps argue that she would be a protagonist of this five minute scene, but then you would approach the point where the term "protagonist" would be rendered meaningless, as every single character appearing ever anywhere, PC or NPC, would have to be titled a protagonist of whichever scene s/he was appearing in, and you would have only protagonists left.

Ok fine. You win. There is an exception to everything and you found it. Your player played a barmaid for 5 minutes in your RPG and so we can conclusively say that RPG PCs are not story protagonists. Now who is over-generalizing?

How about the other people she was playing the barmaid for? Are they NOT protagonists? How about the countless no-name NPCs you act out for your players as DM? They different from the barmaid character how exactly?

I mean really we are getting stuck on a meaningless point.

The definitions of the word protagonist and hero are posted above. If you want to argue about what they mean go argue with Noah Webster


As for the argument about whether something is an "insult to intelligence", I will be the first to admit that this thread through my own posting has gotten there. So I will. Stop.

@Oracle_Hunter: Thanks for making my point more succiinctly. I have to learn the ways of the ninja.

[Winterwind]

Ok fine. You win. There is an exception to everything and you found it. Your player played a barmaid for 5 minutes in your RPG and so we can conclusively say that RPG PCs are not story protagonists. Now who is over-generalizing?

[...]

I mean really we are getting stuck on a meaningless point.

The definitions of the word protagonist and hero are posted above. If you want to argue about what they mean go argue with Noah WebsterI think you are confusing me with someone else. I had been arguing all the time that RPG PCs are, in fact, generally protagonists, and given examples for how unusual and untypical situations in which they wouldn't be protagonists would be. Then you called me out on one of these examples, in a rather rude and condescending fashion, I might add, so I gave some clarifications to that. Now you come again, with a sarcastic tone, and put the opposite of what I've been arguing for all the time in my mouth.

Seriously, what the hell is your problem? :smallannoyed:


How about the other people she was playing the barmaid for? Are they NOT protagonists? How about the countless no-name NPCs you act out for your players as DM? They different from the barmaid character how exactly? In order: Definitely, these other people are protagonists. No, the no-name NPCs are not protagonists. And the no-name NPCs are not different in any meaningful fashion than the barmaid at all.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I had been arguing all the time that RPG PCs are, in fact, generally protagonists, and given examples for how unusual and untypical situations in which they wouldn't be protagonists would be. Then you called me out on one of these examples, in a rather rude and condescending fashion, I might add, so I gave some clarifications to that. Now you come again, with a sarcastic tone, and put the opposite of what I've been arguing for all the time in my mouth.

Seriously, what the hell is your problem? :smallannoyed:

I apologize if I misunderstood and mischaracterized your post. The argument has gotten to a silly point and I mistook what you were saying for somthing else and for that I am sorry.

I will redact the entry from my previous post.

[Winterwind]

It's alright, it happens to all of us sometimes. Now, let's move on. :smallsmile:

[warrl]

PCs are protagonists AT LEAST during their turns.

Usually more than that. Consider the alternative:

"Okay, you enter into battle outside the north gate of the city. Meanwhile at the south gate, Sir Whatsisname gallantly leads a charge into the attacking army <insert two-hour monologue of battle description here> and Sir Whatsisname, with his dying breath, THROWS his sword, impaling and killing the enemy king. Meanwhile, most of the troops you were battling were called away in unsuccessful attempts to stop Sir Whatsisname and so you just have a slow slog until word gets around to your side of the city and all the enemy troops flee. You all have minor injuries, you and you are badly injured, you've all used up all your spells. It's over. What do you do?" "Head back into the city." "Okay, you wander exhausted back into the city and find Sister Holyskirt finishing the resurrection spell on Sir Whatsisname. And we're out of time, see you next week!"

Um, no. That isn't a role-playing game. That's sitting in chairs listening while someone tells you a story.

But does "protagonist" mean that *the world* revolves around you?

Read "Nerilka's Story" by Anne McCaffrey.

Nerilka is the narrator and central character. But even in her own story, the world doesn't revolve around her. She is important to her world only because she keeps on trying to get through the current problem and move on to the next thing, just like hundreds of thousands of other people in that world. Sure, her particular series of current problems and next things is a bit different from everyone else's, but not that much different, and virtually every single thing she does is also done by many others.

In the course of that story there is a character named Moreta that flies through a few times.

Now read "Moreta" by Anne McCaffrey.

Moreta is the central character (not narrator). She shakes, and shapes, her world on a very large scale. She's important to her world because she is in a position that is inherently restricted to only a few people, and does things that few if any of even those in comparable positions could do, that affect a continent-full of people.

And in a couple of scenes there's a character named Nerilka more or less standing in the background.

Which is the protagonist? Depends on which book you're reading. "Nerilka's Story" is absolutely, indisputably, NOT about Moreta. "Moreta" is absolutely, indisputably, NOT about Nerilka.

[BillyJimBoBob]

This is probably a topic for a different thread, but I don't see tactics playing a big role in a 4E game, considering how random every attack is. There is some minor stuff like "focus fire" and "bonuses are good" and "try to flank when you can" but overall the tactical depth is rather limited.We play 4e very differently then. I find 4e to have a vastly more granular tactical depth than any prior version of D&D.

"Focus fire" has been a smart tactic in every version of D&D, as has "bonuses are good". But no prior version had the tactical versatility of 4e to represent the Fighter Marking the mob which will be next to the Wizard when he steps forward so that the Wizard won't be cut to pieces when he casts Thunderwave, pushing the 3 Kobolds back so that instead of all 3 attacking the Fighter and all 3 getting a +2 to hit for their wolf pack ability the first to move back and attack gains no bonus, the second only +1 and only the third gets the full +3. And frankly, I love it. Neither 3.5 or any prior version had anything like this.

[Jayabalard]

I am claiming that PCs are protagonists. Is that more acceptable to you? Further I am not claiming that PCs = protagonists but that PCs are a subset of protagonists because RPGs are used to tell stories which are a subset of all stories.Not particularly; you could say "most PC's are protagonists" or "all the PC's that I personally play are protagonists" and I wouldn't disagree.

I understood that from the start; I disagree with the "subset of all stories" bit.


And would you agree that there some stories which are not RPGs? If so, then why are you arguing with me when I was trying to say that RPGs should not be equated to stories and RPGs are better analyzed as games than as literature stories?Because that's not what you said when I disagreed with you; your claim was: "RPG's offer a limited set of stories, namely heroic stories." The context was that you were disagreeing with someone who claimed that "there are [no] stories which cannot be told via an RPG." I agree with the latter statement.


Assumption? It's a role.playing.game. You play role. In the little story told in your game, you are playing a main role. I gave a non-sensical example of what it would be like to play in a role-playing game but not play one of the main roles.No, that's not necessarily the case. There doesn't have to be a story in an RPG; no story = no protagonist. Alternatively you can play a strictly supporting role that's not important to any story that might be present in the game.

You gave an example where the GM forced the player in a particular set of behavior (which is a particular example of classic bad GMing), but that really doesn't have anything to do with a game where the player can choose his own path but is, at best, a secondary character.

It's not all that uncommon for people to play in a campaign where they are, at best, an informed bystander. The overbearing DMPC is a classic example of such a case. You can argue that you, personally, don't find such play enjoyable (and I'd agree, most people don't), but that's not very useful in refuting the "all stories can be told via RPG" argument... it can be done, you just chose not to.


But if the player is HAVING FUN or ENJOING THE PLAY or IS ENTERTAINED BY THE EXPERIENCE even if he is not expressing the emotions of his character or even cares about the emotins of his character then he can be said to have an emotional investment in the character and the RPG which is what I meant.Not so; they can just be enjoying the moment or situation and not have any emotional investment the specific character at whatsoever. They can have an emotional investment in the game without having an investment in a specific character. If the player can shrug off the character and switch to a new one with no regrets they have no emotional investment in that characrter.


PCs are protagonists AT LEAST during their turns.I don't really see what "during thier turns" has to do with it. Protagonist doesn't really have anything to do with that.


Everyone does know that "Protaganist" does NOT mean "Good Guy," Right?Looks like everyone knows that to me.

[Kurald Galain]

We play 4e very differently then. I find 4e to have a vastly more granular tactical depth than any prior version of D&D.
But I wasn't comparing it to other editions of D&D; I was comparing it to actual tactical games.


pushing the 3 Kobolds back so that instead of all 3 attacking the Fighter and all 3 getting a +2 to hit for their wolf pack ability the first to move back and attack gains no bonus, the second only +1 and only the third gets the full +3.
While arbitrarily moving figures around may sound tactical, it doesn't actually have depth until it actually makes a big difference how you move them. Because whenever you give somebody a +1 bonus, it is 95% likely that he either would have hit even without your bonus, or that he misses even with your bonus. 4E is full of small modifiers that don't make a difference most of the time, because the luck factor is so much larger (gee, a 19-point spread!) Of course, having a large random factor is part of the appeal. But it's not tactics.

[BillyJimBoBob]

While arbitrarily moving figures around may sound tactical, it doesn't actually have depth until it actually makes a big difference how you move them.Perhaps this is why you don't see much depth to 4e tactics: If you're arbitrarily moving your character around, you've failed at tactics. When I move a figure around, it actually makes a big difference.

Because whenever you give somebody a +1 bonus, it is 95% likely that he either would have hit even without your bonus, or that he misses even with your bonus. 4E is full of small modifiers that don't make a difference most of the time, because the luck factor is so much larger (gee, a 19-point spread!) Of course, having a large random factor is part of the appeal. But it's not tactics.You are quite mistaken. My players have learned, both through experience and after a little prompting from me, that playing tactically will see them through encounters both quicker and with fewer resources expended. We've gone from encounters where a player used an encounter ability, spent an action point, and a daily, and missed entirely, to players asking others to use the "aid another" action on the round when they plan to expend their encounter or daily, and seeking combat advantage or coordinating with other players to impose effects on their intended targets. +2 to hit may be a "mere" 10% additional chance, but it does indeed count for a lot if used correctly.

The group who understands 4e tactical combat will school the group who does not understand it in arena or duplicate-style matches every time. I bet that this 7 year old (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=397944) would mop the table with you in an arena match using the Keep on the Shadowfell characters, because he gets it and you don't.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You are quite mistaken. My players have learned, both through experience and after a little prompting from me, that playing tactically will see them through encounters both quicker and with fewer resources expended. We've gone from encounters where a player used an encounter ability, spent an action point, and a daily, and missed entirely, to players asking others to use the "aid another" action on the round when they plan to expend their encounter or daily, and seeking combat advantage or coordinating with other players to impose effects on their intended targets. +2 to hit may be a "mere" 10% additional chance, but it does indeed count for a lot if used correctly.

And this differs from 3e tactics...how? Aid Another, attacks of opportunity, combat advantage/flanking, and such existed in 3e, so having players suddenly "get" the difference that +2 can make is nothing new. The only large-scale tactical difference is the ease of gaining forced-movement effects in 4e--forced movement existed already in the form of bull rushing, telekinesis, etc.; marking existing in the knight class, the Goad feat, etc.; and so forth.

Thunderwave + mark + opportunity attack isn't supremely tactically superior compared to bull rush + knight's challenge + attack of opportunity, it's the same tactic with minor variations. Sure, one of them can push more enemies away, but that's because 4e expects more enemies than 3e does and thus the powers affect more targets. The only reason 4e combat seems more complex that arbitrarily pushing figures around is that the expected numerical range in 4e is so tight that every +1 actually makes a difference; if you made 3e combat feats grant a +5 or +10 bonus instead of +1 and +2, you'd get the same effect. And it may be a good thing or bad thing that every +1 is important, depending on your perspective, but the point remains that tactically speaking 3e and 4e combat is as much pushing miniatures around as actual tactics.

[Kaiyanwang]

Three things always shocked me:

- the assertion that tactics (with or without minis, we play with a exercise book) started with 4th edition. So previously rogue didn't flank (the tank or a summoned creature), or a dungeoncrasher fighter didn't smashed someone on a conjured wall, and so on?

-the assertion that in 3rd you didn't built the party members around each other. I remember all the "before you had to built your PC, now you have to built your party. Supercool" thing.

My pc built the party around making the fighter//knight more likely to charge, making the rogue//psywar more likely to flank, SA and get AOOS, and so on. I can't understand all this big change.

-The assertion that melee in 4th are no longer stuck in charge/full attack. It seems to me that old attacks now have cool names, period. And IMHO, all the boring thing before was linked to boring "another 5x7 room" encounters*.

I mean, push an ogre on the ground, and jump from a cliff on a manticore to bring it down, and quickdraw a whip to smash on the ground an orc when both of you are climbing a wall.. are trip attempts. Same mechanics, need the same feat to get a +4. But they not seem samey, at least for me.



*Even if I recognize that things are facilitated mechanically, this is a good thing. There is less NO YOU CAN'T. YOU ARE NOT ENOUGH HERO.

[Kurald Galain]

And this differs from 3e tactics...how?
Precisely.


The only reason 4e combat seems more complex that arbitrarily pushing figures around is that the expected numerical range in 4e is so tight that every +1 actually makes a difference;
But it does not.

Suppose I use a cleric power that gives +1 to hit (the cleric's Divine Fortune power comes to mind). My to-hit bonus is +8, and the monster's AC is 16. Normally, I need to roll an 8 or more to hit, and with the cleric's DF, I need to roll a 7+.

{table]What I roll|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18| 19|20
Hit without DF|no|no|no|no|no|no|no|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes|ye s|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes
Hit with DF|no|no|no|no|no|no|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes|y es|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes|yes
Did DF make a difference|no|no|no|no|no|no|yes|no|no|no|no|no|no |no|no|no|no|no|no|no|
[/table]

Plain and simple, there's an exact five percent chance that Divine Fortune does anything, anything at all; in the other 95% you have just wasted your channel divinity (and a minor action) for nothing. And that's why it's such a bad power.

Likewise, tripping people (in 4E) is good because it essentially takes away their next move action. That it makes them slightly easier to hit is most of the time entirely irrelevant.



- the assertion that tactics (with or without minis, we play with a exercise book) started with 4th edition.
This is probably because 4E is the first edition that must be played on a game board. Actually, 3E has greater tactical depth (even without a game board) because it has a wider variety of effects.


-the assertion that in 3rd you didn't built the party members around each other.
Yeah, that's just silly. This is done in pretty much every RPG.



-The assertion that melee in 4th are no longer stuck in charge/full attack. It seems to me that old attacks now have cool names, period. And IMHO, all the boring thing before was linked to boring "another 5x7 room" encounters*.
I must agree. For instance, I find playing a ranger very boring, because nearly all of its powers are simply "point at some bad guy, he takes damage, next".

[lesser_minion]

KG is actually pretty close to the mark - with enough attacks flying around, you might get a few hits which are attributable solely to the bonus, but in reality a +1 is a lot less impressive than it sounds.

A re-roll tends to be a lot more impressive.

Note that relative increases aren't a particularly great measure of effectiveness - if you need a 20 to hit, you certainly aren't going to go for a +1.

At the same time, however, being able to stack bonuses such as Aid Another, Power Bonuses, Feat Bonuses, Racial Bonuses and Proficiency can get you quite far, and it's certainly worth doing when you want to blow a daily.

However, none of these are particularly new, nor is the stacking of bonuses. It's also not the same as KG's argument - a +2 can be meaningful, it means that one in ten attacks will produce a hit that is attributable to that bonus. But CA + Aid Another is a +4, which can mean a lot more.

Add CA and AA to your attack which started at 11 or better (50% chance of missing). Now you have a 30% chance of missing. If you're prepared to blow a re-roll (which you probably have as an encounter power), you can drop that down to 9%. A 91% chance to deal quite a bit of damage is always handy. And there is a 70% chance that the re-roll is still on hand.

Please don't accuse someone of 'not getting it' when they point out that a +1 is only useful when you have six or seven of them. You haven't produced any evidence to the contrary.

The bottom line is that a +1 isn't that much. It means you can secure one in 20 of your attacks. When you can secure one in five of your attacks for free, a tiny +1 is nigh irrelevant.

[Oslecamo]

Plain and simple, there's an exact five percent chance that Divine Fortune does anything, anything at all; in the other 95% you have just wasted your channel divinity (and a minor action) for nothing. And that's why it's such a bad power.


1-I had no choice in taking the power. It's auto included in cleric.
2-It costed me a free action to activate, aka nothing.
3-5% is still superior to 0%

So, hey, a completely free 5% bonus to hit it's much better than no bonus at all.

Also, by your logic, all bonuses would worthless. Pfft, why do I want that +5% from picking up a race with wisdom bonus? But when you start optimizing, +1 here and +1 there, adding them togheter you sudenly end up with +10 wich counts for a lot.

The little things also count. Enemies don't auto fall dead with a single action. You have to stack several effects to bring them down.

[lesser_minion]

1-I had no choice in taking the power. It's auto included in cleric.
2-It costed me a free action to activate, aka nothing.
3-5% is still superior to 0%

So, hey, a completely free 5% bonus to hit it's much better than no bonus at all.

Also, by your logic, all bonuses would worthless. Pfft, why do I want that +5% from picking up a race with wisdom bonus? But when you start optimizing, +1 here and +1 there, adding them togheter you sudenly end up with +10 wich counts for a lot.

The little things also count. Enemies don't auto fall dead with a single action. You have to stack several effects to bring them down.

Except it isn't free. It costs Channel Divinity. If you want a power with 'similar' effects and a smaller cost, try Elven Accuracy. Against many monsters it's better than a +5 bonus coming from an encounter power. It isn't horrible - as you pointed out, it has the saving grace that it is an alternative use for Turn Undead when Turn Undead is irrelevant, and it's a free action. But something that comes into play, on average, less than once every two character levels is nothing to write home about.

A +1 might be worth an at-will. It might, at a stretch, be worth a [W] as a side benefit to a direct attack power. Maybe even a d10. But it is rarely worth an encounter power all on its own. It only is as an alternative use for a power you weren't able to use, and because the bonus stacks with everything else.

Stacking bonuses can be worthwhile, as I've already pointed out and as KG hasn't actually disputed. His point was that a single +1 is just as worthless now as it always was. If you stack it, it isn't a +1 any more.

[Kurald Galain]

2-It costed me a free action to activate, aka nothing.
No, it costs you your once-per-encounter usage of Channel Divinity. Even aside of Turn Undead, there are plenty of feats around that give you something worthwhile for that CD use.


Also, by your logic, all bonuses would worthless. Pfft, why do I want that +5% from picking up a race with wisdom bonus?
Because it applies every single time.

Bonuses in 4E are useful when (1) they are pretty big, e.g. Righteous Brand, or (2) they apply to a multitude attacks, e.g. Villain's Menace, or (3) they apply retroactively, e.g. Shield. But a small bonus to a single attack that must be declared in advance? That's just pointless bookkeeping, 95% of the time.

[Blackfang108]

[QUOTE=Kurald Galain;6397661]No, it costs you your once-per-encounter usage of Channel Divinity. Even aside of Turn Undead, there are plenty of feats around that give you something worthwhile for that CD use.[QUOTE]

And if that doesn't come up? Hey, it costs him nothing.

Not every Divine character worships Tempus.

[Kurald Galain]

Not every Divine character worships Tempus.

You're missing the point. It's not about DF specifically, it's about all the (many) abilities that give a tiny bonus to a single next attack roll, all of which are completely useless the vast majority of the time. Since all of these have an (opportunity) cost, that means you're spending a resource to do nothing, and that is a waste.

Example? I'm sure there's some weapon out there with "(daily, minor): +1 to your next attack roll". That is a waste of (1) your weapon slot, (2) the item daily, and (3) a minor action. I'm sure it looks like a cool ability on paper, but in reality, it's not.

[Blackfang108]

You're missing the point.

No I'm not. I'm ignoring your so-called "point" to make one of my own.

Kind of like everyone else in this thread has been doing through the course of this topic that should have died about 10 pages ago, when the actual on-topic discussion wore off.

[Artanis]

No, it costs you your once-per-encounter usage of Channel Divinity. Even aside of Turn Undead, there are plenty of feats around that give you something worthwhile for that CD use.

Case in point: RRoT :smallcool:



Example? I'm sure there's some weapon out there with "(daily, minor): +1 to your next attack roll". That is a waste of (1) your weapon slot, (2) the item daily, and (3) a minor action. I'm sure it looks like a cool ability on paper, but in reality, it's not.

Flesh Seeker, AV 69, which can be put on a melee weapon:

"Power (Encounter): Free Action. Use when you hit an enemy with this weapon. You gain a +1 power bonus on your next attack against that target with this weapon."

:smallwink:

[BillyJimBoBob]

This is probably because 4E is the first edition that must be played on a game board.This myth again. I know it's been used to push the agenda that 4e was released only to somehow sell miniatures, but really, enough is enough. I have played this game for over 30 years, and in every single group and in every single edition we used miniatures and a hex map. The only thing different about 4e is that the map is squares, and it has that in common with 3.5, but we used a hex map for 3.5 anyway.

How did anyone ever measure a spell range in OE without a map? Is the monster within range of a spear throw in AD&D? Why do people who have been have been "winging" the distances up until now suddenly feel that they are forced rush out and buy a battle map just because they bought 4e? There is no difference between the editions as far as describing the distance you can move or the range of the thrown weapon or a spell, so why the insistence that 4e somehow changes the way you play if you never used a map before? It really just seems like a way for people who aren't going to play 4e anyway to try to disparage it: "Oh, you're playing 4e? Hope you liked spending all that money on a battle map, ha! Keeping WotC afloat by buying their minis, sucker!" Yeah, right. I own zero WotC minis and will probably never own a WotC mini. I have enough lead to last me another 30 years of play and 10 future editions of D&D.
Actually, 3E has greater tactical depth (even without a game board) because it has a wider variety of effects.Not really. The only reason 3.5 has a wider variety of effects is because of the pile of splat books. If you're comparing a Pouncing Leap Attack Frenzied Berserker Shock Trooper (or whatever flavor of cheese you prefer) to any 4e character, you're talking apples to oranges. Or if you're talking bat-wizard to anything in 4e, you're talking apples to oranges. Remove character optimization efforts only available in the broken 3.5 system and 4e very clearly has the greater tactical depth.

This [building the party to work together] is done in pretty much every RPG.And yet again, this can be done to various degrees. My group only worries about having a spread of character classes, and this doesn't change no matter the edition. And with this level of attention to "building the party" 4e wins hands down for tactical options.

For instance, I find playing a ranger very boring, because nearly all of its powers are simply "point at some bad guy, he takes damage, next".When stated tersely, any class in any edition can be reduced to a boring looking set of options. Fighter in AD&D? "Swing my sword" is about the only option they get. Cleric in OE? Cast a heal, swing a mace. Perhaps you only enjoyed the broken aspects of the last release, and this colors your opinions of the latest release.

[Indon]

This myth again. I know it's been used to push the agenda that 4e was released only to somehow sell miniatures, but really, enough is enough. I have played this game for over 30 years, and in every single group and in every single edition we used miniatures and a hex map. The only thing different about 4e is that the map is squares, and it has that in common with 3.5, but we used a hex map for 3.5 anyway.
I frequently played without a map in AD&D and 3'rd edition.

AD&D has two tricky system features that encourage a map - spell ranges (which were horribly inconsistent from spell to spell, so your DM needed a very good idea as to distances) and facing.

3'rd edition mechanical streamlining eases both those features - spell ranges are standardized (ranged weapon ranges were more complex at that point, in fact) and facing was abstracted into the very easy to narrate flanking mechanic. 3'rd edition introduced the bull rush and overrun maneuvers, but since few builds or monsters exploited those mechanics to great benefit, it rarely proved problematic.

4'th edition brings back only two of those problems: varying ability ranges, and push/pull abilities, an evolution of abilities such as the bull rush. However, both are aggrivated. For many classes, ability area of effects and ranges vary wildly from ability to ability (though playing classes with limited ranged ability reduces this problem). Furthermore, synergistic opportunities abound for push/pull mechanics which are very position and distance-reliant (of note, traps and static area effects), which strongly encourages a map.

[shadzar]

This myth again. I know it's been used to push the agenda that 4e was released only to somehow sell miniatures, but really, enough is enough.

Yes it is. Those people thinking 4th wasn't built in part to sell minis as much as books need to get down off their bandwagons and try looking at the facts.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/256716-d-d-4th-edition-design-based-around-suite-proposed-d-di-tools-edit-found-quote-2.html#post4828135


16th June 2009

Yes, I think it is pretty safe to say the 4e rules were designed with minis use in mind. With effort you can play with out but them but it does require a fair amount of DM hand waiving and/or behind the screen position tracking to make area effects work. This was a rules decision influenced by both a style of play that had come out of 3e and the business model that style of play created. WoTC didn't invent playing D&D with maps and minis but we certainly folded it more into the core that TSR had done.

__________________
Scott Rouse

SR. Brand Manager - Dungeons & Dragons
Wizards of the Coast

4th edition was design in part because a business model and playstyle created. So YES, 4th edition was designed around selling more minis.

:smallannoyed:

[BillyJimBoBob]

So YES, 4th edition was designed around selling more minis.You seem to have read words there which were not printed. "Designed with minis use in mind" does not equal "You have to buy our minis to play." That would be GW. :smallbiggrin:

Again: I and every gamer I know have enough minis to play D&D using minis, and have done so since OE. WotC isn't selling any accessories to us. If their business model is based around selling me and my gaming friends a miniature, they fail. And no matter how many articles where a WotC rep speaks honestly about how nice it might be to sell minis, you won't see me frothing at the mouth and insisting that 4e was published just to "boost miniature sales." 4e was inevitable. There was going to be another version published, just as it is inevitable that a 5e will be published in the future. These editions are published to flip book sales. That is all, the sky is not falling.

If having spell ranges and thrown weapon ranges makes an edition "made to sell miniatures" then ALL editions are equally guilty. D&D did evolve from miniature games, after all.

How about addressing my questions about miniature use and figuring distance? Not enough of a softball for you to turn into a poke at WotC somehow? Perhaps you own a couple minis yourself, or play using a map already?

[shadzar]

You seem to have read words there which were not printed.

You seem to have not read the words bolded. The part where the business model affected the design of the new edition in order to design it around minis use. Which in turn is with the purpose to sell more minis as they would be needed.

Senior Brand Manager of D&D for WotC is saying this. The game was designed for minis use, and it would be a pain in the ass for a DM to do without them.

It is right there in his own post. I quoted the relevant parts here from that thread on ENWorld since the rest is about designing the game around DDi and the software suite that has since been canceled for it.

You don't want to believe me, then don't want to believe a WotC exec either?

The game was designed around minis use and as part of the business model to sell more minis. Right there in print. Read it or not, your choice.

Sorry, what specific questions? Can you repost them so I know. I was only addressing the missing facts about mini use in 4th edition where you were blatantly wrong, and trying to provide those facts about the game design for all to see and judge for themselves based on the person saying them.

[kc0bbq]

The game was designed around minis use and as part of the business model to sell more minis. Right there in print. Read it or not, your choice.That's not quite what it says. You are ignoring a few words that are inconvenient to your rant.

[lesser_minion]

Not really. The only reason 3.5 has a wider variety of effects is because of the pile of splat books. If you're comparing a Pouncing Leap Attack Frenzied Berserker Shock Trooper (or whatever flavor of cheese you prefer) to any 4e character, you're talking apples to oranges. Or if you're talking bat-wizard to anything in 4e, you're talking apples to oranges. Remove character optimization efforts only available in the broken 3.5 system and 4e very clearly has the greater tactical depth.

Wrong. If you go through every non broken Core 3e option or effect and look for its 4e equivalent you will find many that do not have 4e equivalents. You will also find abilities removed because they weren't 'safe' despite clearly being not irredeemable.

I think you will find plenty of people playing shiny, non-broken games of 3e with few houserules who can vouch for this.

You will also find that 3e players are not masochists and do not enjoy broken rules. And the broken rules in 4e are actually harder to deal with than most of the same in 3e. Telling players not to use a particular class, spell, race or similar which they don't have to use is one thing. Telling them not to use doors is another.

[The New Bruceski]

I play 4e with minis, but I can see it being handled all right without them. Any game with combat but without miniatures is going to have hand-wavy use of abilities, and an occasional sketch to make sure everyone's on the same page if position becomes necessary.

"How many orcs can I hit with this attack?" "About three safely. You can reach all five but by pressing into them like that some will get a swing at you."

"Can Bob and I get to Carl to heal him?" "Only one of you; the ledge is too narrow."

"Is the burglar still within longbow range?" "For another two rounds assuming he keeps that pace."

If you're going to have detailed combat (and every edition of D&D has had detailed combat) you're going to need somebody to have an idea of what's going on. Without a board you do that through the DM's narrative, with a board it serves as a tool to keep track.

Complaining that changing a system's terminology to squares instead of feet requires one to use minis strikes me as complaining that a Physics textbook mentioning Mathematica would prevent one from using Mathcad, a calculator, or a pencil and paper if one so desired. Instructional items change to accommodate the tools of their time. You still use what's best for what you want to do.

[hamishspence]

Remember quite a lot of stuff was trimmed down- not because it was broken, but because it was (in their opinion) far too time consuming in play.

The player with a horde of undead, summoned monsters, animals, followers, for example- taking far too much of the turn.

[The New Bruceski]

Remember quite a lot of stuff was trimmed down- not because it was broken, but because it was (in their opinion) far too time consuming in play.

The player with a horde of undead, summoned monsters, animals, followers, for example- taking far too much of the turn.

Also consider that some of those things have been added in later books. They even SAID they were going to do this with some abilities; they just needed time to see how the basic stuff played out before they got into summons and the like.

[hamishspence]

true- ways of getting them to work without the aforesaid bog-down.

I am hoping Necromancy and the Shadow source will eventually come out- I'd like to see PC necromancers.

[Kurald Galain]

Remember quite a lot of stuff was trimmed down- not because it was broken, but because it was (in their opinion) far too time consuming in play.

It is ironic, then, that in practice 4E doesn't play any faster than 3E.

[Asheram]

It is ironic, then, that in practice 4E doesn't play any faster than 3E.

I'd belive it takes even longer for 4E now when everyone is a "caster" with loads of options.

[hamishspence]

Is that with or without the party that consists of a druid, a necromancer, a summon-heavy cleric, and a thrallherd?

and what about at the higher levels?

When 3rd ed options are carefully picked to avoid time-heavy PCs, of course it will play out at the same speed. But are you saying that, in practice, the guy with the army doesn't actually take up that much time?

[Kurald Galain]

Is that with or without the party that consists of a druid, a necromancer, a summon-heavy cleric, and a thrallherd?
That is not a valid comparison because in 4E it is not possible to build a necromancer, summon-heavy cleric, or thrallherd. Asking whether "X in 4E" is faster than "X in 3E" is not a meaningful question when "X in 4E" doesn't exist to begin with.

Looking at average situations, rather than extreme examples, 4E really does not play any faster than 3E; the only area where its speed has noticeably improved is DM preparation (although this depends on the DM). 4E also becomes markedly slower at higher levels because everyone has so many powers and items they could choose from each turn.

[Asheram]

Is that with or without the party that consists of a druid, a necromancer, a summon-heavy cleric, and a thrallherd?

and what about at the higher levels?

When 3rd ed options are carefully picked to avoid time-heavy PCs, of course it will play out at the same speed. But are you saying that, in practice, the guy with the army doesn't actually take up that much time?

Chill.. Just made a comment.

But yeah, when it specificly comes to a thrallherd army then it's something you "let loose" at people, not micro-manage for each round.
Of course, you can take about one hour a round to roll for each of those hundreds of minions, but seriously, you won't.

[hamishspence]

true- I was pointing out that, with certain builds in 3.5, the time to resolve a round shoots way up.

Whereas in 4th ed, because such builds don't exist, time tends not to be as long.

3.5 equivalent of 4th ed fighter characters is (roughly) Book of Nine Swords ones- lots of encounter powers that you can choose from.

[huttj509]

I started playing in ADnD. We generally did not use miniatures, as we were able to make do, well, until we got hooked on the convenience near when 3E came out. However, some combats (such as spreading out around a large room, trying to stay hidden yet be able to all strike quickly at 4 separate guards) were much aided by it, just to make sure we were on the same page as to whom was where when.

From my experiences, it was at least recommended for the DM to have a general sketch of the layout in order to remain consistent (avoid the ogre blinking across the room repeatedly through an oversight, for example). I don't think it was until the time of 3E that taking that "sketch" from one side of the DM screen to the other was really assumed as a standard procedure. The pictures in the PH for the combat chapter are all done assuming a battlegrid, rules for line of sight starting from a corner of the square you're in, and whether or not a line from that corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a wall or something. Heck, the 3.5E DMG comes with a fold-out battle grid included in the book (which I always saw the colored sample dungeon layout side, only just removed it from the book and saw the straight battle grid on the back). I don't have my ADnD book on me, but I do not distinctly remember any images for combat having that same assumption.

Now 4E does seem to further strengthen the assumption, in that AoE mechanics are separately burst/blast/close burst/yadda which all have different meanings. Easily defined as various types of shapes on the grid, but more difficult to determine the at times precise positioning needed with them without the battlemat/grid (though 3.5E is similar with the cone/sphere "these are the specific squares hit" thing). It did not, however, start in 4E that the built in core rulebooks had mechanics that assumed you were using miniatures and a battlemat. One thing that did change is the terminology from "5-foot squares" to just "squares". This means that all users need to convert to actual distance increments if they want to use feet, but it removes a step of conversion when using a battlemat for movement not in a straight line, and also means that users of the metric system don't need to convert feet->meters all the time (which is a complaint that I did see occasionally online with 3.5E).

[BillyJimBoBob]

The game was designed around minis use and as part of the business model to sell more minis. Right there in print. Read it or not, your choice.That's not quite what it says. You are ignoring a few words that are inconvenient to your rant.*

*Thanks, kc0bbq! :smallbiggrin:


Sorry, what specific questions? Can you repost them so I know. I was only addressing the missing facts about mini use in 4th edition where you were blatantly wrong, and trying to provide those facts about the game design for all to see and judge for themselves based on the person saying them.Not even close. You were only cherry picking a few words and trying to use them to make some kind of case against 4e, while ignoring the fact that any case also is made simultaneously against any prior edition.

Here it is again, two questions. I'll number them for your convenience, and I'll try to explain them as clearly as I am able.

1) Every version of D&D uses a system of measurement. There exists ranges for movement, ranges for thrown weapons, ranges for spells, etc. in every version of D&D

So if 4e is "designed to sell minis" because it also defines these distances, how does this make 4e any more or less able to help sell minis than any prior edition? When replying, do not point to a statement from some 3rd party as an appeal to authority. "Scott_Rouse said so, and I choose to believe him and so should you" is not an answer. Well, it is an answer, but not one with any value. You, tell me, in a way which makes logical sense. Where, exactly, is the difference in 4e?

2) For any group which decided in the past or while playing an earlier version of D&D to ignore the strict measurement of these distances on a battle mat of some kind using miniatures or pieces of paper or chess men, how does 4e force a change in their behavior? Recall that 4e like every prior version uses measurements. So if any hypothetical group of players is happily ignoring or "winging" these measurements in their 3.5 game, or in their AD&D game, or in a game in any other version, how exactly does 4e force them to change their ways? It would appear to me that any group happily winging their positions and distances can continue to do so just fine. But maybe you can explain why 4e makes this habit suddenly so much more difficult that gamers everywhere will be rolling out to their local game stores to buy WotC licensed battle mats and blister packs of WotC miniatures.

[BillyJimBoBob]

I'd belive it takes even longer for 4E now when everyone is a "caster" with loads of options.More ill conceived propaganda. Think about it a bit. Lets take two examples, a Fighter and a Wizard. Assume a fairly standard build using the core rules. I won't bother to write them up completely, just use your imagination.

At 1st level the 3.5 Fighter can swing his sword, or Power Attack 1, or use one of the special maneuvers such as Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Bull Rush, etc. If he's a spiked chain specialist he can Improved Trip or Improved Disarm, depending on which he chose, and also has access to Sunder, Bull Rush, etc. Basically about 4-5 options for attacks in any given round. And of those options, there is usually one or two which stand out as obvious favorites.

At 1st level the 4e Fighter has 2 At-will powers, an encounter, a daily, and a melee basic. Basically about 4-5 options for attacks in any given round. And of those options there is usually one or two which stand out as obvious favorites.

Bah, I'll stop there. The Wizard write up would end up looking about the same.

Really, this is amusing. "They took away all our options" was the first cry of the 4e haters, and now "I have too many options for melee to go fast" is going to be used against 4e also? When 4e is bashed for both having and not having the same thing it's hard to arrive at the conclusion that the edition is getting a fair review.
4E also becomes markedly slower at higher levels because everyone has so many powers and items they could choose from each turn.Please list the count of known spells at any given "higher level" of your choice between 3.5 and 4e. Items can't be counted here, both systems allow for items with triggered effects, but 4e limits the number of item uses in any given battle while 3.5 does not. But we'll call items a wash if you like.

[shadzar]

Here it is again, two questions. I'll number them for your convenience, and I'll try to explain them as clearly as I am able.

:thog: Me not understand funny man big words.

:smallannoyed:

[BillyJimBoBob]

:thog: Me not understand funny man big words.Perhaps 4e and you have more in common than you're aware?

[warrl]

Really, this is amusing. "They took away all our options" was the first cry of the 4e haters, and now "I have too many options for melee to go fast" is going to be used against 4e also? When 4e is bashed for both having and not having the same thing it's hard to arrive at the conclusion that the edition is getting a fair review.
I don't see the combat options in 4E as being excessively numerous - I wouldn't recommend newbie players starting with 10th-level characters, but then I wouldn't want to see that in 3.5 either.

(It was tough enough starting at 12th-level when I merely hadn't played D&D in about five years.)

But as for "they took away all our options", I'm sorry, but they DID take away most options for anything other than combat.

And character classes? 4E has three or four grades of classes for how much magic you have, and three different types of magic. That's 9-12 possible distinct classes. Not all the slots are filled with actual classes, several slots have multiple classes that look quite a bit alike. For example, a Swordmage is a wizard with a funny-looking wand which he occasionally waves in a really odd fashion that involves it flying back and forth across the room - but the wizard can have similar effects while keeping his plain stick of a wand in his hand.

(Roles? You're joking. With the different builds offered, any class can take - and be effective in - any role.)

[Indon]

Really, this is amusing. "They took away all our options" was the first cry of the 4e haters,
Character build options. Please do not equivocate.


and now "I have too many options for melee to go fast" is going to be used against 4e also?
Options - having everyone essentially be a caster - aren't the only pacing problem with 4e combat. Maybe if all campaigns took place at level 1 it wouldn't be so bad, but powers continue to expand in versatility, much like 3e spells, and 3e spells are notorious for consuming time.

But anyway, the other big problem with 4e combat pacing is that combat is designed to take many more rounds than 3e combat. 3e combat tends to end faster by round count.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for review.