How much of the anti-4E sentiment is actually justified?

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Funny, I play it with a white board, minis and a few markers, paper and pencil.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

You're right, they don't happen all in an instant.

Nothing happens all in an instant, that's a stupid argument to make.

Back to the point, however, simply keeping track of a single character's hit points (in addition to everything else), requires considerable calculation, just during one turn.

Expressing it as one equation is an attempt to show it as happening all at once.

[LR]

So... Slow is one of the two things you can do? Defenders do something much more interesting than that. I like the sneaky bullshit "look I'm using an MMO term" you did there.

You're mixing the ideal scenario with reality. The Fighter is the best Defender not because he is better at forcing enemies to attack him, but because he deals enough damage to actually threaten people. Wearing heavy armor, being in range, and being scary is a much better model of Defending than 4e's.

I'm not trying to be sneaky. I really think that 4e would be a better game if it took cues from GW. GW has multiclassing, tactical positioning with mixed parties, combat healing, and a method of easily generating opponents without creating PC/NPC dissonance. All it needs is non-combat minigames.

Is there a gaming group that doesn't have a white board? Or have everyone keep track of the conditions they're imposing.

Yes, there is. You're going to have players who bring nothing but a character sheet and their short term memory, and your game needs to support them or else they're going to play Smash Brothers.

[Doom]

Expressing it as one equation is an attempt to show it as happening all at once.

Well, I'm sorry you choose to feel it means that to you...but back to the point, simply keeping track of a single player's hit points in a single turn of a single round requires a great deal of calculation, like I claimed, and example has now been provided.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

You're mixing the ideal scenario with reality. The Fighter is the best Defender not because he is better at forcing enemies to attack him, but because he deals enough damage to actually threaten people. Wearing heavy armor, being in range, and being scary is a much better model of Defending than 4e's.

I'm confused are you saying that the 4E fighter is threatening and also 4E defenders aren't good? You're using an example of being the best defender as an argument against 4E?

I can't speak to anything about GW.

Yes, there is. You're going to have players who bring nothing but a character sheet and their short term memory, and your game needs to support them or else they're going to play Smash Brothers.

Sure they show up that way, but I have a white board I bring with me even when not playing at my own house, because it's so useful.

Well, I'm sorry you choose to feel it means that to you...but back to the point, simply keeping track of a single player's hit points in a single turn of a single round requires a great deal of calculation, like I claimed, and example has now been provided.

Significantly less calculation than you implied. You put all the calculation on the cleric (half would be done by the DM) who has to be staggeringly stupid to get hit that many times in one turn for things he caused.

[shadzar]

3 out of 10, try again.

Alright, explain in what way 4E is a CRPG.

If is built for the purpose of combat and XP engine. 4th edition was designed such that you have the greatest focus on the "fun" stuff which is combat, and after every 10 encounters you gain a level.

The system is built around gaining XP, not the ability to become a part of a story like old.

CRPGs can have the loose story too, but the main emphasis is the combat, as that is where the visuals are.

Not to mention the direction of 4th edition to try to (re)capture the video game players/MMO players to the table top, specifically with the aspects of those games that they look for.

the "cinematic" gameplay is for the purpose of instant gratification such as images in a video game to give you the "visuals" in quick bursts.

it was built around the video gamer style of play, rather than the tabletop gamer style of play, and so clearly shows it.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

If is built for the purpose of combat and XP engine. 4th edition was designed such that you have the greatest focus on the "fun" stuff which is combat, and after every 10 encounters you gain a level.

You're ignoring noncombat XP rewards, and anyway 3rd had a similar function, to keep the progression smooth so that you don't get bored with using just the same thing forever.

The system is built around gaining XP, not the ability to become a part of a story like old.

Becoming stronger is part of the story.

CRPGs can have the loose story too, but the main emphasis is the combat, as that is where the visuals are.

Visuals in 4E are totally focused on combat.

Not to mention the direction of 4th edition to try to (re)capture the video game players/MMO players to the table top, specifically with the aspects of those games that they look for.

the "cinematic" gameplay is for the purpose of instant gratification such as images in a video game to give you the "visuals" in quick bursts.

it was built around the video gamer style of play, rather than the tabletop gamer style of play, and so clearly shows it.

No evidence or rationality to any of these claims.

[FatR]

The very idea than an RPG might require a motherfucking whiteboard to run it makes my blood pressure urge to destroy the world rise.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

D&D has always required a map to run properly. That we use the map for other things at the same time shouldn't be a strike against the system.

[LR]

I'm confused are you saying that the 4E fighter is threatening and also 4E defenders aren't good? You're using an example of being the best defender as an argument against 4E?

Fighters are very good. They are good because they deal a lot of damage and are hard to kill. That's different from the 4e Defender role where you're supposed to layer curses on people until they decide to attack you.

Sure they show up that way, but I have a white board I bring with me even when not playing at my own house, because it's so useful.

And some groups aren't going to have one. Some people aren't going to want to use one. Not supporting Trevor the Barbarian who just wants to get huge and smash things is as big a mistake as not supporting Fighters who want to play Lords and Levies during downtime.

Edit: Is there a name for players who want to play Logistics and Dragons? It's weird if we can talk about Trevor while his counterpart remains unnamed.

[Plebian]

it's almost like D&D 4e is based off of a series of games that were an elaboration of a tabletop wargame. how dare 4e have the same overall focus on combat as previous editions!

also implying that, somehow, the cleric scenario proves 4e is overly complex is idiotic. it's a round of combat specifically built to have the absolute most interactions possible. which could be done in any edition of D&D to 'prove' overcomplexity.

I mean if I listed something 'proving' 3e was too complicated and all it was was a Fighter charging past a dozen orcs who all got AoOs and then a Wizard throwing in a Celerity'd spell in the middle of the Fighter's turn to cast some split ray spell that did two handfuls of dice in damage and then the fighter getting his full-round attack at the end it would prove absolutely nothing about 3e being overly complex because I'd be making a stupid assumption that this represents an average round of combat for anyone.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I can't say much for other defenders except the Warden who kept me from getting hit in both of the combats we ran those characters in. He was also impossible to kill, which was neat.

I will say that if you want to play a game with absolutely nothing to track, D&D isn't for you. Any edition. I nominate "Captain Fatbeard of the SS Grognard" as the name for a player who knows how to make his own character, and has interest in the mechanics.

[TheFlatline]

Is there a gaming group that doesn't have a white board?

I'll make a blanket statement: Most of them. We might have battle mats, we might have figs, we will have scratch paper and pencils. I've even played with groups that use overhead markers and plastic sleeves to track shit on their character sheet. But I honest-to-god have never played with a group, nor heard of a group that uses white boards.

I've even played in school environments where we sat *right next to a white board* and declined to use it for being a pain in the ass.

[TheFlatline]

D&D has always required a map to run properly. That we use the map for other things at the same time shouldn't be a strike against the system.

Demonstrably false. I actually never used a map system until 3rd edition, and even in 3rd edition maybe only 50% of combat required being mapped out.

Hell, 3rd edition was the first time I saw battle mats used in any common frequency in D&D. For *really* complicated combat in 2nd edition, you might get a sketch on a piece of paper to give you an idea of where everything was. Maps were for pussies who couldn't visualize the combat.

[LR]

I can't say much for other defenders except the Warden who kept me from getting hit in both of the combats we ran those characters in. He was also impossible to kill, which was neat.

I can't really talk about Wardens because I have not read the PHB2. Most of my knowledge of 4e beyond core comes from builds and play reports here. I have reason to believe that the WotC devs have not learned anything and cannot learn anything, but if you want to convince me that there are some secret options hidden in some splatbook that make 4e an interesting game, you're free to try. I've stopped looking for myself because 4e books are painful to read, especially if I have no reason to expect a reward at the end.

I will say that if you want to play a game with absolutely nothing to track, D&D isn't for you. Any edition.

What are you talking about? The excuse for the Fighter's continued existence in D&D has always been that it gives Trevor something to play.

I nominate "Captain Fatbeard of the SS Grognard" as the name for a player who knows how to make his own character, and has interest in the mechanics.

I'm talking about the type of player who really gets into adventuring. He keeps track of his outfits, his equipment, his servants, and how much soap he has left. He owns the Arms and Equipment Guide and the Stronghold Builder's Guide and uses them both regularly. His character owns and uses a whetstone because he wants to explain why his swords aren't dull. Whenever the combat music isn't on, he's playing Logistics and Dragons.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Demonstrably false. I actually never used a map system until 3rd edition, and even in 3rd edition maybe only 50% of combat required being mapped out.

Hell, 3rd edition was the first time I saw battle mats used in any common frequency in D&D. For *really* complicated combat in 2nd edition, you might get a sketch on a piece of paper to give you an idea of where everything was. Maps were for pussies who couldn't visualize the combat.

Properly. It's based on a wargame; it's meant to be played with a map. Maps aren't for pussies, they are for people who don't want to play mother may I with the DM.

What are you talking about? The excuse for the Fighter's continued existence in D&D has always been that it gives Trevor something to play.

And 4E is the first time that it isn't the shittiest option.

I'm talking about the type of player who really gets into adventuring. He keeps track of his outfits, his equipment, his servants, and how much soap he has left. He owns the Arms and Equipment Guide and the Stronghold Builder's Guide and uses them both regularly. His character owns and uses a whetstone because he wants to explain why his swords aren't dull. Whenever the combat music isn't on, he's playing Logistics and Dragons.

"Britta" because that guy is the worst.

[quanta]

Wow, I can't believe this thread got even dumber.

[LR]

And 4E is the first time that it isn't the shittiest option.

So, Trevor shouldn't have anything to play? I'm all for giving Trevor a class with real abilities, but I don't want to kick him out of the party.

"Britta" because that guy is the worst.

Why? If the rest of the party can ignore him until the army he raised becomes relevant to the plot, what does it matter if he keeps track of his soap?

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I'm not saying he shouldn't have anything to play, I'm saying he should have something that's able to contribute, which a fighter in previous editions couldn't do meaningfully.

Never mind, it was a joke.

[Shazbot79]

Edit: Is there a name for players who want to play Logistics and Dragons? It's weird if we can talk about Trevor while his counterpart remains unnamed.

I humbly suggest:

"Aghammon, Civil Engineer of the Sable Tower"

[violence in the media]

Properly. It's based on a wargame; it's meant to be played with a map. Maps aren't for pussies, they are for people who don't want to play mother may I with the DM.

How on earth can you say this with a straight face in the context of a defense for 4E?

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

You really don't get what the difference between not modeling literally everything in the world with rules and not wanting to have to guess whether you're close enough to the tarrasque that it's going to eat you this round do you?

[Koumei]

Wow, I can't believe this thread got even dumber.

There is no actual limit to the stupidity of these people. Don't worry, it will get dumber still. If stupidity could create energy, you could jam a plug into Plebian's mouth and he'd power the US for all eternity.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Says the man who has no arguments and sad insults.

[CCarter]

Just to address a few misconceptions here...
Earlier version grew out of a wargame, but actual grognards (not me but there's a few real ones left) describe this as being about exploration rather than combat. Alot of effort went to avoiding monsters that are going to TPK the party or otherwise screw them over (the rust monster), with combat running a lot faster. There's a lot of space spent on traps (something 4E does particularly badly since at worst they'll just cost you a healing surge and you'll be fine in 5 minutes), searching, light sources, diseases and whatnot.

Also, fighters in 1st or 2nd weren't that bad. 3E is when spellcasting went nuts.

Requiring maps for combat is due to AoOs/opportunity attacks more than anything; you didn't need a map for a battle vs. the tarrasque in 2E since 'close enough for it to eat you' just meant less than 150ft away.

I've never used a whiteboard either, though I use minis for 3.5.