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

[shadzar]

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.

1. No they were an after thought tot he system so that socially inept people could play D&D with a combat system for social encounters. As for 3rd edition, you are trolling the wrong person, because I don't really know or like it that much.

2. becoming stronger is not a part of the story, but a tool. Character growth is a part of a story. action movies show a muscle bound neanderthal working out for girls to ogle at, nothing more. character growth is things such as lessons learned, and they are what moves a story, otherwise every story told would just have everyone taking mass steroid and other enhancing drugs.

level grinding by riding a chocobo around on an infinite plain to kill marlboros and what not, does not tell a story. it is a part of video games so that they can claim X hours of gameplay in the game. it is because the story is such a railroad that it is NOT anything more than a graphic novel in video games that makes the level grinding a requirement so that you can be at the right level for the next scene. tabletop games do not require you to follow path Y to get to the exact next scene to proceed, as you can abandon a quest and move on to something else. you are not bound by the limits of the computer such as the super-railroads that are video games.

3. yes i said the visuals in 4th are about combat, jsut like video games...

4. Bill Slavisek, Scoot Rouse, Mike Mearls, James Wyatt, etc all stated when 4th edition was released that 4th edition was built around video games to attract those players.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/6 ... d-special/

they specifically went on a fucking MMO interview to discus it to get people form the video game community to see 4th edition and its fucking similarities to WoW.

[shadzar]

Properly. It's based on a wargame; it's meant to be played with a map.

No dumbass, that was Chainmail and the very original D&D in the wood grain set.

Since then it moved away form that, even though there wa mention of inches and such for measurement, because they didnt fully develop the idea until 2nd that you should mention things first and foremost in terms that would be used within the context of the game.

spells and ranges were measured in feet, not inches, or 4th editions "squares".

which is the funniest things since 2nd edition had the most maps made for it. Earlier editions didnt have maps to play on for the most part. Earlier editions also included a general note that X inches = Y feet/yards. Since all there wa was wargames at that point they needed to speak in terms that were relevant to gamers. Like the crap 4th trying to speak to MMO players.

It didnt make the game better, or even played that way. For the most part people didnt break character to measure things on a map, they still thought within the game, rather than playing a board game counting squares.

Maps were given to DMs to show where things are, but the players had to use their own minds to figure things out, and if they wanted to map out a dungeon, then they could do so.

it has the ABILITY to be played with a map, but this does not make a map a requirement. likewise miniatures and such were NEVER a requirement. but they damn sure always wanted you to buy them.

[Juton]

I will just interject that my favourite way to play is without maps and without any props like whiteboards. If I'm with an experienced group I find it speeds encounters up dramatically. That's just my anecdata.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Shadzar, number 3 was sarcasm. While the names they gave the rolls were informed by MMOs, the roles themselves were not. Beyond that, I really don't have time to bother with someone who can say that maturing powers aren't part of a story. Have you seen Star Wars 4-6?

[Psychic Robot]

I'm still stuck on "monster abilities aren't real; they're just narrative representations of how dangerous that monster is."

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

No one said that, you know.

[Psychic Robot]

Really?

while their stat blocks may not interact well with the world their stat blocks are merely combat representations of the monsters; when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act. just like any monster, only with less room for players to metagame and say "that contradicts the entry in the MM!"

no, combat abilities don't exist outside of combat. what's so hard to understand about this? outside of combat there are no needs for combat abilities. combat abilities do not exist outside of combat.

no, because no combat is happening within the system. while from a narrative perspective it is using abilities that are relevant in combat, from a system perspective it doesn't exist because it would be a pointless time sink to actually run a combat encounter that didn't involve the party.

[shadzar]

Shadzar, number 3 was sarcasm. While the names they gave the rolls were informed by MMOs, the roles themselves were not. Beyond that, I really don't have time to bother with someone who can say that maturing powers aren't part of a story. Have you seen Star Wars 4-6?

oh goody, please do tell.

especially not where any amount of power or jedi training did anything for the final result.

Luke overcame Vader/Anakin with the same set of skill he had when he working on the moisture vaporators.

Anakin needed no jedi/sith powers or training in order to throw palpatine into the reactor to his death either.

Vaders story had ZERO to do with levels, but all revolved aroudn the character growth. the jedi and sith powers were actually small to the story, only prophesizing anakin would bring balance to the force. The real thing that did it choices.

oddly enough, not the use of a power or some other mechanic, but in terms of D&D, the choice made during play, not creating the character.

for the record, I saw the movies the night they came out in drive-in theaters for those that came out at them.

Star Wars story is basically the same as The Last Samurai, as they were both taken from the same source. it wasn't about the power or strength of the capabilities and skills the characters had, but their honor that was the story. Like Harry Potter even, it was a story about pride and love.

the tools can help you amke a house, but they wont make the house for you. it is your effort and choices that do that, such as all stories, the choices, not the tools are what drives them.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Really?

while their stat blocks may not interact well with the world their stat blocks are merely combat representations of the monsters; when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act. just like any monster, only with less room for players to metagame and say "that contradicts the entry in the MM!"

no, combat abilities don't exist outside of combat. what's so hard to understand about this? outside of combat there are no needs for combat abilities. combat abilities do not exist outside of combat.

no, because no combat is happening within the system. while from a narrative perspective it is using abilities that are relevant in combat, from a system perspective it doesn't exist because it would be a pointless time sink to actually run a combat encounter that didn't involve the party.

None of those say what you claim they do.

Shadzar, if you think Luke didn't learn anything... wow.

[MGuy]

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?

Especially when 9/10s of any argument for 4E is "The DM should/Can/HAS to be the one to fix it".

[MGuy]

Really?

while their stat blocks may not interact well with the world their stat blocks are merely combat representations of the monsters; when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act. just like any monster, only with less room for players to metagame and say "that contradicts the entry in the MM!"

no, combat abilities don't exist outside of combat. what's so hard to understand about this? outside of combat there are no needs for combat abilities. combat abilities do not exist outside of combat.

no, because no combat is happening within the system. while from a narrative perspective it is using abilities that are relevant in combat, from a system perspective it doesn't exist because it would be a pointless time sink to actually run a combat encounter that didn't involve the party.

He's right. These are actually saying "combat abilities don't EXIST outside of combat because they aren't needed there."

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Not as combat abilities, no. He's saying that you don't need to know exactly the damage that a dragon's fire breath does to a thatch house. It burns it down.

[Josh_Kablack]

I know Josh has me on ignore, but "best... post... ever".

As much as I really should have everyone in this entire thread on ignore (including myself), you're not.

But thanks.

[TheFlatline]

Not as combat abilities, no. He's saying that you don't need to know exactly the damage that a dragon's fire breath does to a thatch house. It burns it down.

Ah but to melt down a stone or metal door, you *do* need that information, because those materials have stats to them.

Or at least, they did in 3rd edition. Does a metal door still have hardness and hit points in 4th?

[Josh_Kablack]

I am baffled both by

1. people who insist that everyone has / must have a whiteboard - what the hell, are none of you old enough to have your own living room yet?
   and also
2. People who insist that prior editions didn't need maps. Jebus, you musta grown up on Storyteller or Rifts or IRC or something that couldn't handle advanced concepts like movement. That still doesn't excuse you from learning at least the basic history of the D&D game and how it evolved from Kreigspiel -> Little Wars -> Chainmail -> Arenson's HP concept ->Gygax litigation. D&D is at it's root a tactical miniatures wargame.

[Josh_Kablack]

Or at least, they did in 3rd edition. Does a metal door still have hardness and hit points in 4th?

Dunno if they fixed it in essentials, but as to the 4e ruleset: Objects only have HP - no hardness. Of course objects may or may not count as "creatures" for purposes of being valid targets to use powers on. That bit is made explicit.

If you want to hate on 4e, which this thread should make you want to, then you can point out that "basic attack" is statted out as a power, and therefore you can only use it against doors when the DM deems in dramatically appropriate/

[Josh_Kablack]

He's right. These are actually saying "combat abilities don't EXIST outside of combat because they aren't needed there."

Well technically, the game universe is entirely imaginary, so nothing exists.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I think that the "powers might not hit objects" rule is so that I can't insult a door down with my bard. Of course, now I want to do exactly that.

[TheFlatline]

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.

Aside from the fact that the entire non-combat side of 4th ed is one big "mother may I?" with the DM, you're fucking wrong.

How is "you're standing 20 feet away from the goblin" "Great, with a battle cry I charge him and attack" "Okay you're in melee combat now" playing "mother may I" with the DM? Hell how is it different than drawing out the map, putting a fig down, and moving it X squares to engage the goblin fig? Oh that's right. You have to remember what the hell is going on, which means paying attention to the game.

If you're too fucking dim to remember where your character is without a tactical map, that's not my fault. I didn't burn my memory and imagination out growing up like you apparently did. By the same coin, if your DM is such a fucking cheat that you need a battle mat so he doesn't warp bad guys all over the battle field, that's not a flaw in the system, that's either a shit DM, or players who piss the DM off so much he doesn't give a shit any more. Both of which are events that can happen even in 4th ed.

[TheFlatline]

Or at least, they did in 3rd edition. Does a metal door still have hardness and hit points in 4th?

Dunno if they fixed it in essentials, but as to the 4e ruleset: Objects only have HP - no hardness. Of course objects may or may not count as "creatures" for purposes of being valid targets to use powers on. That bit is made explicit.

If you want to hate on 4e, which this thread should make you want to, then you can point out that "basic attack" is statted out as a power, and therefore you can only use it against doors when the DM deems in dramatically appropriate/

Hardness I don't particularly care about, but if a door has HP, and the dragon isn't in combat, you need the damage of his breath weapon if he's going to melt down the 2 foot thick steel doors that guard Dwarf Land. Unless you decide as the DM that destroying inanimate objects is "combat", which makes my head hurt.

Does that mean a blacksmith is engaged in combat when he forges a sword? Or when a cook burns a roast he's engaged in combat? If a mom shoos a child back into the house, is that combat?

Fuck 4th edition makes my head hurt.

[Josh_Kablack]

I'm too dim to remember where everyone else and all the monsters are without a tactical map.

Especially by the third beer.

And if you're playing the game without beer, there is something seriously wrong with you. The kind of wrong that posts in edition wars threads. Kreigspiel is at it's root a German game.

[TheFlatline]

I am baffled both by

1. people who insist that everyone has / must have a whiteboard - what the hell, are none of you old enough to have your own living room yet?
   and also
2. People who insist that prior editions didn't need maps. Jebus, you musta grown up on Storyteller or Rifts or IRC or something that couldn't handle advanced concepts like movement. That still doesn't excuse you from learning at least the basic history of the D&D game and how it evolved from Kreigspiel -> Little Wars -> Chainmail -> Arenson's HP concept ->Gygax litigation. D&D is at it's root a tactical miniatures wargame.

I played through plenty of AD&D combats where we didn't touch a map. I've even played entire 3rd edition campaigns without tactical maps. Is it really so hard to say "you're 60 feet away, you move 30 feet a round, you'll get there in two rounds"? If the terrain is uninteresting and you're only dealing with 12 or less participants, fuck mapping it. It's not necessary. I stand by that for most game systems. In fact, the only one that still humps the shit out of tactical maps is D&D, and maybe GURPS. Which should say something.

If you have interesting/difficult terrain, large encounters, or especially vital encounters where the party needs every advantage it can get, then I have no problem breaking out the map. But mapping every single combat out slows the game down.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Aside from the fact that the entire non-combat side of 4th ed is one big "mother may I?" with the DM, you're fucking wrong.

Look who doesn't know the system.

I had a retort for the rest, but really, there's no reason I should have to try to keep the positions of 5 party members and 8 monsters in my head along with any terrain, special effects, etcetera instead of having all that information easily available by looking at the table we're sitting around.

Josh, we use whiskey. I feel it is an acceptable alternative.

[TheFlatline]

I'm too dim to remember where everyone else and all the monsters are without a tactical map.

Especially by the third beer.

And if you're playing the game without beer, there is something seriously wrong with you. The kind of wrong that posts in edition wars threads. Kreigspiel is at it's root a German game.

I think most serious wargamers would rip your spine out for putting D&D on the same level as Kreigspiel and wargames in general. I know that D&D was based on a wargame 40 years ago, but that's about as relevant as discounting penicillin because it was bread mold once upon a time.

D&D doesn't actually *model* war... or even basic combat, all that well. It's gone off on it's own tangent.

[Josh_Kablack]

Hardness I don't particularly care about, but if a door has HP, and the dragon isn't in combat, you need the damage of his breath weapon if he's going to melt down the 2 foot thick steel doors that guard Dwarf Land.

That's just more math fail, this thread must be making you stupid.

Without hardness, the answer is ANY repeatable damage ALWAYS BREAKS ANY DOOR. So not only can the dragon get through those two feet thick steel doors with repeated firebreath - so can a mosquito with its bite.

And while you can make an argument that nothing lasts forever (not even impermanence) the combat damage values are so high and combat rounds are so short that if you wanted to properly simulate stuff like months long prison breaks or Ayesha's feet wearing the stone steps away, objects would need HP in at least the trillions.