# Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?



## catsclaw227 (Oct 12, 2009)

I was reading the thread on Third Party support and I came across this post.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> AllisterH said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some part of me snapped and I wanted to scream, as I felt the response was not only a poor analogy but was simultaneously condescending and insulting of 4e DMs.

But then I realized that I should step out of my self and re-evaluate my reaction.  I am not so personally offended anymore (whatever, dude), but it did make me look at the parts of 4e that are both easy and/or simple and the parts of 4e that are hard and/or complex.

I believe that 4e has provided tools to new DMs (DMG and DMG2, DDI) that make it easier to "get in the game", to get their feet wet and get behind the screen.  There's a fair amount of support online and its easy to get DMing advice (like most other mainstream RPGs)

But I see a fair amount of complexity in 4e, some wonderful role-playing opportunities, and balance between complex relationships (with rules) and simplicity in the design.

But to call it teeball for D&D players?  That's absurd.

What parts of 4e D&D do you find complex or deep, and what parts of 4e do you find to be good for new players and DMs?  Or do you agree with ByronD, that 4e D&D is a child's game (newbie teeball)?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 12, 2009)

Despite the fact that I don't like 4Ed as a substitute for 3.X, it is in no way "D&D teeball Ed"


----------



## BryonD (Oct 12, 2009)

You have left critically important parts of the conversation out.


----------



## Votan (Oct 12, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> But I see a fair amount of complexity in 4e, some wonderful role-playing opportunities, and balance between complex relationships (with rules) and simplicity in the design.
> 
> But to call it teeball for D&D players?  That's absurd.
> 
> What parts of 4e D&D do you find complex or deep, and what parts of 4e do you find to be good for new players and DMs?  Or do you agree with ByronD, that 4e D&D is a child's game (newbie teeball)?




I think it depends on what your metric is.  Late 3.5E had a lot of issues of complexity (number of books, interactions between feats, classes, races) and system mastery really mattered.  They also appeared to have "traps" for beginners (like toughness, as a feat, compared to the alternatives). 

I much prefer lower levels of complexity and I think system mastery scares of newcomers.  Remember, friendly to new players does not mean that the system isn't good.  

But that could just be me.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You have left critically important parts of the conversation out.




Care to fill us in then?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 12, 2009)

I am Irish and I have no idea what Teeball is, though I do get the impression that it is a simplified game.
I do not regard 4e as particularly simplified and the help in the DMG and elsewhere is good because the help is extensive with lots of examples.

The xp for an encounter makes it easier to create a balanced encounter than 3.x but that is only a small part of the equation. 
3.x's problem was in two parts, one the CR was a bit hit and miss and the other problem is that at high levels a monster could have a page or special effects that all referenced other material and in the heat of the fray the DM would forget half of the powers.

The other problem 3.x had was there was a lot of rules in the DMG and so less room on exposition as to how to run a game.

4e still has the issue of the tactical ability of the DM vs that of the party though that can be mitigated somewhat by throwing more monsters at the party, since that tactic is not as lethal as it might be in 3.x

Where 4e scores is that it has a whole book on how to run a session and a campaign and a lot of advice on encounter design and such and fairly clear exposition on how the numbers work.


----------



## Tallifer (Oct 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You have left critically important parts of the conversation out.




The context of the phrase "newbie tee-ball" is amply provided by your condescending signature which implies that 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons lacks intelligent conversation. Or at least that players and dungeon masters who prefer 4th edition cannot conduct such.


----------



## rogueattorney (Oct 12, 2009)

Frankly, I'm to the point where I think that any rpg that can't get its core rules stated in about 120 pages isn't trying hard enough.  If 4e is tee-ball, I'm just playing catch in the back yard with B/X D&D, Labyrinth Lord, Tunnels & Trolls, and Encounter Critical.  I've promised myself to never be bothered with a 600+ page, multi-volume rpg ever again.

So, to answer the OP's question...  I don't consider it Tee-ball.  I consider it Australian Rules Football.  Yes, it's football, and it obviously descended from the same Rugby-ish game every other type of football descended from...  But, it's certainly not the football I grew up playing, and I find much of it quite odd.  I'm sure its fans like it very much, and I hope they have a great time with it.


----------



## RefinedBean (Oct 12, 2009)

ardoughter said:


> I am Irish and I have no idea what Teeball is, though I do get the impression that it is a simplified game.




It's like baseball, only without a pitcher.  Batters basically walk up to a little "tee" that's holding the ball, and swing at it.

Imagine if you couldn't tackle someone in rugby, and every scrum was decided with Rock-Paper-Scissors.  

Anyway, any RPG system is hard to learn and complex, in relation to simpler games.  There's a reason that RPGs aren't mainstream, and never will be.  People would rather have all that math done instantly by a computer.


----------



## Votan (Oct 12, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> Frankly, I'm to the point where I think that any rpg that can't get its core rules stated in about 120 pages isn't trying hard enough.




Hear, hear.  Dense and insightful text is undervalued in the modern world but is a major advantage in a rules system.  Rather like how computer operating systems need to be streamlined to make running other software (the analogy would be the adventures) easier.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2009)

If it's teeball, then that means that many 3.5 DMs, and DMs of previous editions, pined away for teeball. And that GMs that run rules-light systems are playing catch? 

Sure it's accessable to new DMs. But that's because it's _easier to DM period_. Which was the point. Reduce the amount of preparation and book keeping, which makes it easier for New and Old to handle. 

A lot of the advice in DMG2 is useful for new AND old - Robin Laws' chapter was basically "The lessons from Indie RPGs to use in your game are..." That's as much a benefit to old crusty DMs as it is for whippersnappers.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Oct 12, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> <SNIP>
> So, to answer the OP's question...  I don't consider it Tee-ball.  I consider it Australian Rules Football.  Yes, it's football, and it obviously descended from the same Rugby-ish game every other type of football descended from...  But, it's certainly not the football I grew up playing, and I find much of it quite odd.  I'm sure its fans like it very much, and I hope they have a great time with it.




BRAVO!!! AUTHOR!!! AUTHOR!!!!
This is perhaps the most succinct and profound analogy of 4e I have ever read!!!!   I finally have a way to answer my critics of playing the "wrong" version.  BRAVO dear rogueattorney, BRAVO!!!!


----------



## Ktulu (Oct 12, 2009)

Nope; don't consider it a game for newbies anymore than I consider it a game for experienced players only.  It's a game system that covers a lot of ground.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You have left critically important parts of the conversation out.



You are right, I did leave out the parts about the future of EnWorld and whether it will require 3.x/OGL/4e fans to step-up to the EW support drive financially.

I also left out the stuff in this post, but it still doesn't change the context of your statement.

On a note related to the linked thread above, I don't like calling any DM a "sucker", but I don't think AllisterH was meaning the definition of a man duped.  I think he was talking about the inexperienced fellow that was picked from the group of players to DM the next session.

But complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Why should a game require months or years of system mastery to enjoy?  Or to even play, for that matter, since the game requires a DM?

My main point is that 4e D&D is far from a child's entry game.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Oct 12, 2009)

Hello Everyone,

I have a feeling that the poster that the OP is referring to has been taken slightly out of context but in the end, the phrase is the same and more than likely a silly one that is just going to get a whole load of people's backs up.

However, I think it would be easier to introduce new players and new DMs to 4E than it would to 3.x so maybe in that context, the tee-ball example is not quite as damning. For me, 4E oversimplified the "gamespace" with numerous jarring examples of where the mechanics do not mesh with the flavour (a by-product of taking much of the simulation out of the ruleset). It is no more perfect than what 3.x was essentially. I still enjoy it, but it appeals to a different side of my gamer personality (as I entered in that poll thread, I am currently playing and enjoying both versions).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 12, 2009)

Thunderfoot said:


> BRAVO!!! AUTHOR!!! AUTHOR!!!!
> This is perhaps the most succinct and profound analogy of 4e I have ever read!!!!   I finally have a way to answer my critics of playing the "wrong" version.  BRAVO dear rogueattorney, BRAVO!!!!




Bah...you know you're playing the wrong system, T-Foot!


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2009)

4e significantly amped up tactical complexity.  I view that as pretty much objectively true, but then again I view "find the right spell to solve a problem" or "hope I roll a high number" to be examples of fake difficulty.  So I never looked at earlier editions as being very tactically engaged.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Oct 12, 2009)

Thunderfoot said:


> BRAVO!!! AUTHOR!!! AUTHOR!!!!
> This is perhaps the most succinct and profound analogy of 4e I have ever read!!!!   I finally have a way to answer my critics of playing the "wrong" version.  BRAVO dear rogueattorney, BRAVO!!!!



As an Australian who's not in Victoria (and thus used to Australian Rules Football being ridiculed/referred to as "aerial ping pong", "fairy football", "kick and giggle" and the only sport where you "get a point for missing"), the analogy is perhaps more apt than you realise (in terms of the Melbourne/Sydney split in relation to AFL/Rugby League and thus the analogy mirroring the split between 3E/4E).

Again referring to that poll, I was surprised that I was only with 5% of responders who play/enjoy both 4E/3.x (although funnily enough I can't stand AFL but love Rugby League). Is the split between 3E/4E still that large?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 12, 2009)

Based on what I saw in the previews (since I haven't actually played or DMed 4E), I do not think 4E is a beginners/training game at all.  

In fact, I doubt you could ever call 800+ pages of core rules (PHB1/DMG1/MM1) a "training" game.

OD&D however - that's for babies!


----------



## Vorput (Oct 12, 2009)

I agree 4e seems easier to grasp than previous editions, especially for beginners.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You have left critically important parts of the conversation out.




BryonD, look at your sig for a moment.  Specifically:



			
				BryonD's sig said:
			
		

> "I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
> "I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me




Given that you have chosen to say that _every time you post_, I think you'll have to do a bit more than claim lack of context to get folks to believe that it isn't a fair representation of your position.

I am not a big 4e fan.  It has its strengths and weaknesses, like all systems.  But I don't see it as teeball, nor lacking in intelligent conversation.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 12, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Based on what I saw in the previews (since I haven't actually played or DMed 4E), I do not think 4E is a beginners/training game at all.
> 
> In fact, I doubt you could ever call 800+ pages of core rules (PHB1/DMG1/MM1) a "training" game.




Nope. There is a certain simplicity and elegance to the play, and obviously it winds up streamlining some things, but it's not really as though "making it easier to run" and "aiming it at new roleplayers" are the same thing. Games that are easier to run also have a target audience in veteran roleplayers who just can't or won't sink as much time into gaming as they used to back in college or whenever. 

That isn't to say that everyone who doesn't have as much time as they used to will prefer a simpler and more streamlined ruleset, of course. But it's a selling point, and I've seen many examples of how it's gotten that purchase among people who don't have a lot of time and don't notably prefer a more elaborate ruleset.


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 12, 2009)

I do not play D&D 4e (nor do I care to), but I do not consider it the "tee ball" of D&D. I _do_ think that it is easier to comprehend than many other editions of the game, though I think that comes from being better organized and more clearly written than those other editions, not from some kind of dumbing down as the quoted poster seems to suggest. In fact, D&D 4e is complex enough that I would _not_ recommend D&D 4e to a complete hobby newcomer as their first RPG.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 12, 2009)

A D&D campaign is only as intelligent or complex as the people playing it, regardless of the rule set used.

Which is why my 4e campaign is a heartbreaking work of staggering genius . 

(T-ball, really? That was inane last year when it first got trotted it. Age hasn't improved it)


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2009)

> A D&D campaign is only as intelligent or complex as the people playing it, regardless of the rule set used.



Yeah, I don't make insinuations about the intelligence of a person based on their system of choice.

Maybe about their level of masochism, but not intelligence.

It's like making perseonality judgments based on sports team preference.


----------



## RefinedBean (Oct 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Yeah, I don't make insinuations about the intelligence of a person based on their system of choice.




Not even if the system is FATAL?


----------



## Wik (Oct 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> It's like making perseonality judgments based on sports team preference.




Wait, that's..... wrong?

Leave it to a Rangers fan to say something as silly as that.


----------



## Rel (Oct 13, 2009)

I'll go with a different analogy (it may suck -- I thought of it just now).

I feel like 4e is a pocket knife, compared to 3.x's Swiss Army Knife.

No, it doesn't have tweezers, a corkscrew and a magnifying glass.  But I don't really need those tools most of the time anyway.  I find 4e more streamlined and better at being a _knife _than 3.x.

If others value versatility more then I'm glad they have a better tool.  But for me, right now, I just need a good knife.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2009)

I think a lot more people should go back to the originally linked thread to really get what BryonD was saying.

I wouldn't refer to it as T-ball, but I think there is a difference between 4e and a game like Hero, GURPS, or even 3e that make it a safer ride but at a cost to certain kinds of performance.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 13, 2009)

My complaint was that I always found the RULES adequateto wonderful in previous DMGs but the 4e DMG1 (and now the added support in DMG2 and DDI) went beyond THE RULES.

It actually talked about the nitty gritty details in actually RUNNING the game. All the things that it seemed like you were supposed to get by osmosis.

For an experienced DM, you want more crunchy heavy rules on how to kitbash the mechanics, but I actually think this is the LEAST important part of being a DM.

The most important part IMO of course, is being able to make the RPG fun for both you and the players so that they will come back. Something that gets ignored for example is the "types of players" and what they are looking for and how to deal with them...even if it's just simple sitting arrangement.

ALL of this, is what I think D&D truly needs to grow. It needs DMs not players so much (even during the dark days of  latter 2e when it seemed like TSR would fold, FINDING a player was never a problem for me. Finding a guy (or gal) who wanted to DM?

That's where I've aways thought D&D has done poorly.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 13, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> What parts of 4e D&D do you find complex or deep, and what parts of 4e do you find to be good for new players and DMs?  Or do you agree with ByronD, that 4e D&D is a child's game (newbie teeball)?




Given that BryonD's comment is absolutely absurd and deserves scorn: no, it's not a child's game. It's not teeball, whatever that is.

4E is an odd beast that you have to evaluate in two parts: what it means for players, and what it means for DMs. (In truth, you should do this for every RPG, because the game the players are playing is not the game the DM is playing).

*For DMs:*
D&D 4E is a game that tries to get out of the way of the DM as much as possible whilst still maintaining a mechanical framework for challenges that is (mostly) balanced.

For new DMs, the game maintains the ease of creating balanced encounters that 3e pioneered (for D&D), but takes the massive load of references out of the equation that 3e suffered from. 

*For Players:*
D&D 4E is a game that gives a lot more "hard-coded" options for the players to use.

This is part of the disconnect with 4e for me: it's getting out of the way of the DM to allow the DM to do his job easier, but the power system codifies the options for players a lot more than previous editions did (well, in respect to fighter-types, that is).

A 4E fighter is far more challenging to play than a 3e Fighter at 1st level, IMO (if not least because you have to first grok the Fighter's marking power and how it works). The 4E Ranger is a better beginning class. You need to worry about teamwork more. Groups that master the teamwork of 4e - which isn't really that hard - will do very well indeed.

Cheers!


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 13, 2009)

Rel said:


> I'll go with a different analogy (it may suck -- I thought of it just now).
> 
> I feel like 4e is a pocket knife, compared to 3.x's Swiss Army Knife.
> 
> ...




That's a nice analogy. Or you could say D&D is a pair of scissors... 3.5 has a bare metal handle but it can cut just about anything, 4e is ergonomic and sharp but right-handed and shouldn't be used on plastic twist-ties. I like anologies. 

In any case... 4e is a reasonably complex game. In fact, since one of the things I like least about 3e is tracking temporary modifiers, 4e is actually too complex for my tastes in the area of at-will and encounter powers.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 13, 2009)

Umbran said:


> ...I am not a big 4e fan. It has its strengths and weaknesses, like all systems. But I don't see it as teeball, nor lacking in intelligent conversation.




Exactly!

4E's system _as a whole_, does not interest me - but there are parts of it that are absolutely top notch, and IMO even revolutionary (or _evolutionary_).

However, 4E is definitely not a _tee-ball_ or _training wheels_ version of D&D.

I think it provides more support and assistance for newer or less experienced DM's than past editions - but that doesn't mean it doesn't contain all the meat and complexity more experienced DM's want. Again, _as a whole_, it's mechanically not my thing - but it supports games from very simple to as complex as you want. Saying otherwise is like saying an Aston Martin with a manual transmission is driving with training wheels. It may not be your preferred feel in a sportscar, but even with a manual transmission, it definitely isn't meant for kids. 

For examples of just how interesting, varied, and complex, 4E can be, just read the running commentary on Rel's and Piratecat's games. Those guys haven't needed training wheels for a very long time.

I highly doubt they'd use a game that would require them to put the training wheels back on the bike.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 13, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> So, to answer the OP's question...  I don't consider it Tee-ball.  I consider it Australian Rules Football.  Yes, it's football, and it obviously descended from the same Rugby-ish game every other type of football descended from...  But, it's certainly not the football I grew up playing, and I find much of it quite odd.  I'm sure its fans like it very much, and I hope they have a great time with it.




Well said, sir, well said.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 13, 2009)

For those who don't know:

Tee-Ball


YouTube - Tee Ball 5-12-07


----------



## Gog (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't play 4E, tried it didn't like it though I would be willing to try again when Dark Sun is out and I wouldn't say that. I do think the "getting started hump" is a little lower than previous versions but that isn't really a bad thing. 3rd edition especially it was easy to really mess your character up if you didn't get started well.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You have left critically important parts of the conversation out.



I don't know if more context would add anything.  This is not a new analogy for you.

-O


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 13, 2009)

As MerricB just mentioned, 4e is great for making a DM's job easy. Where I have problems are 

a) that the fiddliness of tracking short-duration bonuses has been replaced by the fiddliness of tracking short-duration conditions,

b) that character design for PCs is as open and free-form as 3e, and

c) that skill challenges as initially presented in the books didn't live up to my expectations.

Of those, B is my biggest peeve, but it's a minor one since when I run my own games, I can house rule to fix that sort of stuff. The basic spine of the game is good.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 13, 2009)

Well, you can't spell "analogy" without the...


----------



## Rel (Oct 13, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> Well, you can't spell "analogy" without the...




...log?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 13, 2009)

rel said:


> > jaerdaph
> > Well, you can't spell "analogy" without the...
> 
> 
> ...




...y?


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 13, 2009)

There is no such things as a newbie teeball RPG. It doesn't matter if your rules are 2 pages or 800, the complexity comes when a player says, "I don't trust this Gandalf guy. I stab him as soon as he turns around."


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 13, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> b) that character design for PCs is as open and free-form as 3e




How has PC design in _any_ edition of D&D ever been "free-form" ?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 13, 2009)

No. That is not what I consider 4e to be.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 13, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> How has PC design in _any_ edition of D&D ever been "free-form" ?




Eh, yeah, sorta.

4e is branching. You pick a class, and it has 2 or 4 builds. You pick a build, and there are a few feats for that build, and you can't take feats for the other build. Often there are feats that you can't take, even if they might fit your build, because of your race. And sure, you can take any of the powers from your class, but usually there are few that are just better because they give you a benefit from your build. 

You can multiclass to get powers from other classes, but you can only do so much of it, and even if you do, usually your class abilities are designed so narrowly that they won't synergize with the multiclassing. Ever tried to be a barbarian-rogue in 4e? You want two-handed weapons, or light blades, and you can't combine powers, just switch between them.

4e character building, in my opinion, makes creativity feel like a sacrifice. 


3e is interwoven. You can pick multiple classes as you level up. You can take feats that work for any race class combo. You don't have to be a half-orc barbarian to take Shock Trooper; you just need to have taken a few feats in the chain. Your shock trooper can be a barbarian, a fighter, or even an eldritch knight. 

Sure, spellcaster multiclassing at high level was weak, but it was kind of fun to be a barbarian 8/druid 2 with an array of little magic tricks, or to be a sorcerer/monk who can deflect arrows and have really _awesome_ shocking grasps.



Whenever something new came out for 3e, you could find ways to integrate it with older material. Whenever something new comes out for 4e, there's usually only a handful of ways to use it. Sure, it's more balanced that way, but I think there had to be other ways to keep the game balanced without having to codify your options so strictly.


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 13, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> Eh, yeah, sorta.
> 
> 4e is branching. You pick a class, and it has 2 or 4 builds. You pick a build, and there are a few feats for that build, and you can't take feats for the other build. Often there are feats that you can't take, even if they might fit your build, because of your race. And sure, you can take any of the powers from your class, but usually there are few that are just better because they give you a benefit from your build.
> 
> ...




Ah. I see. In that light, I think it's fair to say that 3x was less confining than 4e, but "free-form" denotes a _complete_ lack of structure with regard to character creation (see The Window, Formless Collaborative Roleplaying, SLUG and other such games for examples). D&D has _never_ had that.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 13, 2009)

Free form poetry still has to use language and not suck. Free form just denotes open boundaries, not an infinitude of possibilities. Mind you, I usually think of "free form" char gen as writing a paragraph, then circling some "traits" or somesuch, but 3e is clearly at some midpoint between hardcore free form gaming and programmatic, 4e style gaming.


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2009)

I wouldn't say 4E is any more a "training wheels" game than OD&D was. In fact, I keep returning to analogies between the two quite frequently, much to people balking at such.  Both get out of my way as a DM; both clearly define the archetypes of game play; both (to me at least) even play similarly (in terms of the math involved) throughout the levels they were meant to be played at; and finally, both leave me enough room to make new elements on the fly if I so choose for either the players or myself.

Finally, both make falling damage something to be starkly feared. 

But in the end, I'm playing whatever version nets me players, a good story, and a fun day playing. I'm in the planning stages of a Pathfinder game now, run by another gamer, and I expect I'll have a lot of fun, even if my character is sacrificed on a devil-worshipper's altar while trying to stop some dramatic event...


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2009)

Some time ago I started a rather lengthy thread about having to sacrifice things in order to get other things in game design.  4e has sacrificed player options in order to gain streamlined play and ease on the DM as compared to 3e.  

3e sacrificed elements of 2e in order to gain things as well.  2e did the same to 1e.  It's just a natural evolution of different games.  You have a limited amount of time to spend gaming, either at the table or designing adventures between sessions.  

Look at GURPS for a second.  In GURPS, you have hugely detailed combat rules - very simulationist.  However, this comes at a cost, glacially slow combat.  Even simple combat that can easily take a very long time at the table to resolve.  It's all about what you, the player want in a game.

3e, for example, sacrificed 1 and 2e's very simplistic combat for minis based, tactical combat.  It easily extended the time it takes to resolve combat significantly.  On the flip side, you need far less combats in order to gain levels.  It all comes down to what you want.

Comparing those choices to children's games, OTOH, is just button pushing and flame baiting.  It's insulting and condescending.  To me, criticisms couched in such language say much more about the critic than the game.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 13, 2009)

Henry said:


> Finally, both make falling damage something to be starkly feared.




Indeed. Where would we be if an editor's mistake had not made AD&D falling damage to be "d6 per 10'"...

Cheers!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 13, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> Eh, yeah, sorta.




It is sort of free form, but it also is sort of not.  If you really want free form D&D you have to use Buy the numbers to totally get rid of the class and levels.  But even then there are still feats and classes that have restrictive requirements of race or ability scores preventing a character from taking it.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 13, 2009)

I dunno, I think the interweb would be a much better place if (outside of certain exceedingly rare exceptions) people wouldn't assume that the games people prefer are indicative of any personality or intellectual flaws on their part. 

-O


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 13, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Indeed. Where would we be if an editor's mistake had not made AD&D falling damage to be "d6 per 10'"...



Wait...  That was an editor's mistake?

Hilarious.  What was it supposed to be?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 13, 2009)

Teeball?  Hardly. I think it is more needlessly complex than it needs to be rather than too simple. Mechanics aside, the rulebooks _speak _to the reader as if he/she had just learned to read and try hard to convice those readers that the game is as simple as teeball. I don't see the "dumbing down" aspect of actual gameplay but I do notice it in the writing.

This doesn't stop the actual game from being as simple or complex as the participants want to make it.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 13, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> Well, you can't spell "analogy" without the...




Actually it's "Ana", the chick we should be out meeting and asking out if we weren't up all night arguing editions. 



Once again, I win the thread and the Internet.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 13, 2009)

If I set "free form" and "programmatic" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most programmatic, 4e would be a 9.  3e would be an 8.5.

Seriously, what else can you say about a system that assigns a vast number of abilities to specific levels of specific classes or prestige classes, requiring you to jump through numerous hoops to combine them as you please?  You must have six levels of this in order to get that class ability, you must have these prerequisites to dip two levels of that to get this other class ability, you need these other five prerequisites to get that feat you wanted so you'll need some levels of fighter to qualify before the end of your career...


----------



## Tistur (Oct 13, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wait...  That was an editor's mistake?
> 
> Hilarious.  What was it supposed to be?




As I understand it, cumlative d6 per 10. (10 feet would be d6, 20 feet would be 3d6 (1d6 for the first 10 feet, 2d6 for the next 10 feet)). This would make falling 60 feet 21d6 (I think...It's very late here). In 1E, I'm pretty sure that would normally mean roll up a new character.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 13, 2009)

However, a sharply up-curving scale of damage is not accurate to real world physics. My physics may be rusty, but I believe the amount of force you hit with after 1 second (~30 ft. fall) is half that you hit with after 2 seconds (~90 ft. fall).

Of course, both a 30 ft. fall and a 90 ft. fall are probably going to kill or at least cripple you.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 13, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> However, a sharply up-curving scale of damage is not accurate to real world physics. My physics may be rusty, but I believe the amount of force you hit with after 1 second (~30 ft. fall) is half that you hit with after 2 seconds (~90 ft. fall).
> 
> Of course, both a 30 ft. fall and a 90 ft. fall are probably going to kill or at least cripple you.




Yeah, I always got a chuckle over the years when people tried to argue real world physics and apply them to AD&D falling damage in a game that uses hit points.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 13, 2009)

Tistur said:


> As I understand it, cumlative d6 per 10. (10 feet would be d6, 20 feet would be 3d6 (1d6 for the first 10 feet, 2d6 for the next 10 feet)). This would make falling 60 feet 21d6 (I think...It's very late here). In 1E, I'm pretty sure that would normally mean roll up a new character.




That's correct - although it capped at 20d6, IIRC.

Gary Gygax assumed that the rule had appeared correctly in the books, which caused a lot of scratching of heads when Unearthed Arcana where he used the system he intended to use in the description of the Thief-Acrobat and the editing changes were discovered.

Of course, then you got d6 per 10' in 3e, where it made falling one of the safest things that could happen to a high-level character! 

Cheers!


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Oct 13, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> If I set "free form" and "programmatic" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most programmatic, 4e would be a 9.  3e would be an 8.5.



I disagree. I think 3e would be less than this.



Cadfan said:


> Seriously, what else can you say about a system that assigns a vast number of abilities to specific levels of specific classes or prestige classes, requiring you to jump through numerous hoops to combine them as you please?  You must have six levels of this in order to get that class ability, you must have these prerequisites to dip two levels of that to get this other class ability, you need these other five prerequisites to get that feat you wanted so you'll need some levels of fighter to qualify before the end of your career...



I think you're missing the key point of RangerWickett's insightful post. The level of restriction is not as damning as you make it out to sound. Because of how easy multiclassing was in 3E (and in some thematic ways, way too easy in my own opinion), the interlinking of paths was more vivid/profuse than in 4E's rather rigidly set class options. In 4E, the most suitable options for a particular "build" are more obvious or defined if you will. For example if I make a warlord with the tactical build, then most of my "options" are pretty clear cut otherwise I'm not taking advantage of what my character is supposed to do well. 3E greyed the lines somewhat but I think most would agree that this makes for a more organic character creation process (although with this flexibility comes the ease of abuse and irrelevance).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Holy Bovine (Oct 13, 2009)

MerricB said:


> That's correct - although it capped at 20d6, IIRC.
> 
> Gary Gygax assumed that the rule had appeared correctly in the books, which caused a lot of scratching of heads when Unearthed Arcana where he used the system he intended to use in the description of the Thief-Acrobat and the editing changes were discovered.
> 
> ...




Safe?  Hell it was the preferred mode of transport to get from the high tower of the castle (300') to the ground floor for my players!

I always used the system from Unearthed Arcana even before it came out as I misunderstood the rule as written in AD&D!  It's like I was reading Gary's mind!


----------



## Nebten (Oct 13, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Based on what I saw in the previews (since I haven't actually played or DMed 4E), I do not think 4E is a beginners/training game at all.
> 
> In fact, I doubt you could ever call 800+ pages of core rules (PHB1/DMG1/MM1) a "training" game.
> 
> OD&D however - that's for babies!



 Its not like you have to read all of those pages to understand the game. Players only need to read the PHB (and really only the parts on their class and race). DMs just need to know the core mechanics to run monsters out of the MM (I ran Keep on the Shadowfell before the books came out). The DMG is mostly fluff anyways and could be bypassed by anybody who's run any kind of RPG in the past. 

But like anything else, the more somebody want to get into a hobby, there is more information out there for them to digest. 

Honestly, 4th ed at its core fits around that 120 page mark, if not less.


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Of course, then you got d6 per 10' in 3e, where it made falling one of the safest things that could happen to a high-level character!
> 
> Cheers!




I had forgotten about that! I was actually referring to the fact that in OD&D, all characters used d6's for hit dice -- even the fighting men, and con bonuses weren't something you saw much of. So, if you fell a good 100 feet, chances were you were just as dead whether you were a wizard, holy man, or tough guy. The cumulative thing that was revisited later just made it all the sweeter. They have suggestions on capping heights to certain amounts based on the level your characters are, but screw that, I want the first level guys looking over that 50 foot ledge and quaking in their boots.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Oct 13, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> However, a sharply up-curving scale of damage is not accurate to real world physics. My physics may be rusty, but I believe the amount of force you hit with after 1 second (~30 ft. fall) is half that you hit with after 2 seconds (~90 ft. fall).
> 
> Of course, both a 30 ft. fall and a 90 ft. fall are probably going to kill or at least cripple you.



Actually I attended an interesting physics lecture back in 1995 by Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki at Sydney Uni where the hypothesis was that a cat falling from the top of a 6 story building was far more likely to die than one falling from the top of a 30 story building.

The explanation went that as the 6-story cat was still accelerating downward, the cat was tensed up and so the landing force would break just about everything there was to break. The 30 story building cat however, reaches terminal velocity, stops accelerating downwards, relaxes (somewhat) and thus the vitals are not as directly damaged as the force is more evenly dispersed. Go figure hey.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Numerous cats died in ratifying this hypothesis but none of them were pushed... like deliberately... by the scientists at least. And correct, there was no practical component to the lecture.

PSS: I also have not used this "fact" in game, although I have been tempted.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 13, 2009)

If we're going to play the analogy game, I say that D&D 4e is Go and D&D 3.x is Chess.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2009)

I'm going to agree with Merric here essentially 100%.

By breaking the game into player and GM 'labors', the GM can focus on bringing the fun and the players can focus on their characters.




MerricB said:


> Given that BryonD's comment is absolutely absurd and deserves scorn: no, it's not a child's game. It's not teeball, whatever that is.
> 
> 4E is an odd beast that you have to evaluate in two parts: what it means for players, and what it means for DMs. (In truth, you should do this for every RPG, because the game the players are playing is not the game the DM is playing).
> 
> ...


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> On a note related to the linked thread above, I don't like calling any DM a "sucker", but I don't think AllisterH was meaning the definition of a man duped.  I think he was talking about the inexperienced fellow that was picked from the group of players to DM the next session.



I've never heard "sucker" be used to mean an inexperienced fellow.  That seems a rather radically forgiving contortion of the term.

Do you dispute that simple to DM was one of the design goals, and one of the advertised features of 4E?  Because all I said at first was "Welcome to simple to DM D&D".

Not only did AllisterH refer to DMs as "poor suckers".  He stated that they were thrown "into the deep end".  From my point of view, Allister was the one insulting 4E DMs.  I am certain he did not mean it that way.  But he said it.

And that is very consistent.  I've seen numerous prior posts where people have been critical of 3E by saying things like their "eyes still bleed", or their "heads ache" or they "wake up screaming" when they just think about DMing 3E.  (I've actually seen all of these statements, amongst others).  It boggles me.  These people are insulting themselves.  They don't seem to realize it.  

If someone walked up to you and said that just thinking about algebra made them wake up screaming, I think you would assume this person sucks at math.  They may be competent at basic arithmetic.  But they are not going to be the person you want teaching your kid even the parts of math they do get.  

AllisterH (and others) are essentially saying that 4E is good because it is basic arithmetic for the guy whose eyes bleed over algebra.  I find that insulting.  Now, I'm fully certain that this isn't the beginning and the end of what AllisterH would say is good about 4E.  It was simply the topic of the moment.

If your eyes bleed over algebra, you won't be a good arithmetic teacher.
If you are in over your head in other games, then you won't be a great 4E DM.

But here is the shocker...
I think throwing people in IS a better choice because I believe that a lot more people CAN be great DMs if they want to.



> My main point is that 4e D&D is far from a child's entry game.



A good DM can do vastly more than 4E than have it be a child's entry game.  I never disputed that.  The point of the conversation was those "poor suckers" DMs.

However, if parts of 4E are designed with a key goal of making it easier for a newbie to run than other games, then that is strikingly similar to the idea of putting a ball on a tee to make it easier for a newbie baseball player.

But my problem is that, honestly, it is worse than tee-ball.  
Teeball is intended for young children who are assumed to move on to actual baseball once they develop.
4E has elements designed with those inexperienced "poor suckers" in mind, but you are not supposed to go beyond it.  There is no baseball to graduate into.

Even those good DMs who are taking the game beyond teeball, are still working with rules that assume that DM is an inexperienced "poor sucker".


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But my problem is that, honestly, it is worse than tee-ball.  Teeball is intended for young children who are assumed to move on to actual baseball once they develop.
> 4E has elements designed with those inexperienced "poor suckers" in mind, but you are not supposed to go beyond it.  There is no baseball to graduate into.
> 
> Even those good DMs who are taking the game beyond teeball, are still working with rules that assume that DM is an inexperienced "poor sucker".




Doesn't history show us otherwise? That DMs stopped running games when using 3.5 or this 'deep end'?

Or is D&D a 'manly' game where only the best of the best can play? Because if so, it's big brother Hero System is waiting for some converts.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Given that BryonD's comment is absolutely absurd and deserves scorn: no, it's not a child's game. It's not teeball, whatever that is.



cool.  Scorn based on someone else's out of context interpretation of what I said. 

I'm getting so much attention!!!!!!


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Doesn't history show us otherwise? That DMs stopped running games when using 3.5 or this 'deep end'?



No.



> Or is D&D a 'manly' game where only the best of the best can play? Because if so, it's big brother Hero System is waiting for some converts.






			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> But here is the shocker...
> I think throwing people in IS a better choice because I believe that a lot more people CAN be great DMs if they want to.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 13, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I think you're missing the key point of RangerWickett's insightful post. The level of restriction is not as damning as you make it out to sound. Because of how easy multiclassing was in 3E (and in some thematic ways, way too easy in my own opinion), the interlinking of paths was more vivid/profuse than in 4E's rather rigidly set class options.



I'm not talking about how easy it is to mix classes.  That's irrelevant unless you're only worried about mixing themes.

It may be easy to mix and match levels in 3e, but its insanely difficult to mix and match _class abilities_.  This is because they're stuck to classes and have ENORMOUS prerequisites.  Let me put it this way- if you want to obtain the level 7 ability from the Duelist PRC, you not only have the prerequisite of dodge, mobility, weapon finesse, five ranks in tumble, three ranks in perform, and a +6 base attack bonus, you also have the prerequisite of _six entire levels of the duelist prc, all of which contain class abilities you may or may not want!_  That's HUGE!  And that's not even addressing issues of whether more carefully mixing and matching class levels can let you meet that enormous prerequisite earlier in your career (instead of going straight rogue to level 8, you could go fighter to level 7, or else you could go fighter 4, rogue 3, swashbuckler 6... etc).  And if you wanted to obtain that level 7 duelist ability and combine it with a particular ability from another class, heaven help you unless that other class ability is available at a very low level.

I do not consider this free form.  This is intricately mechanical and hardcoded.  The whole system is filled with IF you want this, THEN you must do that.  That's not free form at all.

I had FUN with it, don't get me wrong, but I knew darn well that I wasn't doing free form character creation.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But my problem is that, honestly, it is worse than tee-ball.
> Teeball is intended for young children who are assumed to move on to actual baseball once they develop.
> 4E has elements designed with those inexperienced "poor suckers" in mind, but you are not supposed to go beyond it.  There is no baseball to graduate into.
> 
> Even those good DMs who are taking the game beyond teeball, are still working with rules that assume that DM is an inexperienced "poor sucker".




Perhaps some of these "poor suckers" will graduate on to something else like Palladium Fantasy, 3.5E D&D/Pathfinder, Rolemaster, etc ...


----------



## Mallus (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> However, if parts of 4E are designed with a key goal of making it easier for a newbie to run than other games, then that is strikingly similar to the idea of putting a ball on a tee to make it easier for a newbie baseball player.



You're operating under the assumption that the game should be challenging to _run_. This strikes some people as odd. It's like suggesting the more difficult a tool is to use, the better a tool it is. Some remarkable things are made with simple tools. 



> Even those good DMs who are taking the game beyond teeball, are still working with rules that assume that DM is an inexperienced "poor sucker".



A complex game can be run with simple rules. Conversely, complex rules do not ensure a complex game. Kinda like a koan, ain't it?


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Mallus said:


> You're operating under the assumption that the game should be challenging to _run_.



Wrong


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> No.




No based on what? Based on 4e going the route of making the game easier for new DMs to run?

Uh... that would be Yes.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Perhaps some of these "poor suckers" will graduate on to something else like Palladium Fantasy, 3.5E D&D/Pathfinder, Rolemaster, etc ...



Sure, but that is not the intent.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2009)

I''m a little curious as to what BryonD thinks that 4e holds Game Masters back from. A lot of the little bits I've been thorwing into my gaming blog are essentially system free but I'm  always thinking of how I'd use them in 4e.

Is he worried about new game masters getting a lot of solid advice and system neutral material in the Dungeon Master's Guides that have come out this far or just by making the game easier to run with the split between player and GM duties that it weakens game system mastery?


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> No based on what? Based on 4e going the route of making the game easier for new DMs to run?




That shows: 







			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> That DMs stopped running games when using 3.5 or this 'deep end'?



???


I'll stick with "no".


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Is he worried...




I'm not worried about anything.  I just called it like I see it and got my own celebrity thread.


----------



## teach (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I've seen numerous prior posts where people have been critical of 3E by saying things like their "eyes still bleed", or their "heads ache" or they "wake up screaming" when they just think about DMing 3E.  (I've actually seen all of these statements, amongst others).  It boggles me.  These people are insulting themselves.  They don't seem to realize it.
> 
> If someone walked up to you and said that just thinking about algebra made them wake up screaming, I think you would assume this person sucks at math.  They may be competent at basic arithmetic.  But they are not going to be the person you want teaching your kid even the parts of math they do get.
> 
> AllisterH (and others) are essentially saying that 4E is good because it is basic arithmetic for the guy whose eyes bleed over algebra.  I find that insulting.  Now, I'm fully certain that this isn't the beginning and the end of what AllisterH would say is good about 4E.  It was simply the topic of the moment.




 I would think that person doesn't want to spend their free time doing complex mathematics, just like I don't want to spend my free time trying to figure out what every feat does on a monster that is in a module I'm trying to run.  I just want to roll some dice and have some fun, which for me includes not having to learn a complex system that I don't see much value in.  I am not insulting myself.  Instead I am rewarding myself for finding a game that I get to have fun in.  

Also, as much fun as analogies are, I really wish people would avoid them.  I have yet to see one that actually convinces anyone, instead it just seems to entrench the two sides of any argument even more with their implied value judgments.


----------



## Thasmodious (Oct 13, 2009)

I've never bought this idea that 3e character creation is so free and wonderful.  I always found it confining, and confounding.  I HATED making characters in 3e.  It's as Cadfan describes it, a ridiculous level of jumping through hoops to meet prereqs and twisting and contorting mechanics into some representation of what your concept actually was.  I have some friends who were big 3e optimizers and half the time I just dumped the crunch off on them, they enjoyed that kind of thing.  "Here is my concept, here is what I want him to be able to DO."  And I'd await the ridiculous 3 base class, 4 prestige class, feats from 8 supplements solution.

Since we're on analogies, I'd say 3e character creation is like a restaurant menu that's 37 pages long.  Sure, it seems like they have almost anything, free-form eating, but it's really a long, convoluted list of items.  The menu is enormously complex, often referencing other parts of the menu - _Tortellini - as ravioli but with pork sausage and a ragu with basil instead of oregano_.  While other choices cut you off from ordering other things - _Raspberry Cheesecake - must not have ordered the Duck, must have had at least one pasta or bread item and wine_.  And a number of the choices on the menu sound delicious but are intentionally made terrible tasting.  Why?  Because the Chef thinks its funny when new customers order the bad food and likes to reward his regular customers for having learned that those are choices to avoid.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Wrong



Then why do you keep trying to paint making D&D easier to run as a bad thing? Why do you keep pushing your dreaded T-ball analogy?

3e isn't a game system for experienced DM's. It's a game for people who like 3e's particular kind of play experience. The 4 DM's in my group (3 of whom have been running D&D for over 20 years) went from 3e to 4e. Hint: it's not because we were suddenly all struck with amnesia and became beginners again...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> And that is very consistent.  I've seen numerous prior posts where people have been critical of 3E by saying things like their "eyes still bleed", or their "heads ache" or they "wake up screaming" when they just think about DMing 3E.  (I've actually seen all of these statements, amongst others).  It boggles me.  These people are insulting themselves.  They don't seem to realize it.




You are misrepresenting people here. The issue isn't that 3.5E prevents people from being great DMs. The issue is that 3.5E is so much damn hassle that it isn't worth the effort. As a DM I have to spend three times the time and effort to run a quality game of 3.5E compared to running a quality game of 2E or 4E. If I can get the same quality experience with 1/3 of the effort, 3.5E's complexity isn't worth the hassle.

If you find 3.5E's style to be exactly to your liking as a DM it might be worth the extra work. But if it isn't...



BryonD said:


> If your eyes bleed over algebra, you won't be a good arithmetic teacher.
> If you are in over your head in other games, then you won't be a great 4E DM.




Again, the issue isn't that you can't, its the amount you have to put into it to get a constant result. If I have to spend 6 hours to DM the same game in 3E while it would take 2hrs in AD&D/4E, thats triple the effort for the same result, aka not worth the hassle.



BryonD said:


> But here is the shocker...
> I think throwing people in IS a better choice because I believe that a lot more people CAN be great DMs if they want to.
> 
> A good DM can do vastly more than 4E than have it be a child's entry game.  I never disputed that.  The point of the conversation was those "poor suckers" DMs.
> ...




Which is it? You say you can do more with 4E than be a child's entry game, but then you say that 4E is a child's entry game. You're talking in circles. You're also making accusations that 4E is designed to encourage you not to go beyond a child's entry game, which is frankly insulting.

It isn't about making it easier for a newbie to run. Its about making it easier for *ANYBODY* to run. A good DM can get the same result with less of his precious time and effort, which is a *good* thing. This, incidentally, makes it easier for a newbie to run, which is also a *good* thing.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 13, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> I've never bought this idea that 3e character creation is so free and wonderful.



That's because it's not. 3e can't hold a candle of invocation to games like M&M when it comes to the flexibility of character creation.


----------



## nightwyrm (Oct 13, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Actually I attended an interesting physics lecture back in 1995 by Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki at Sydney Uni where the hypothesis was that a cat falling from the top of a 6 story building was far more likely to die than one falling from the top of a 30 story building.
> 
> The explanation went that as the 6-story cat was still accelerating downward, the cat was tensed up and so the landing force would break just about everything there was to break. The 30 story building cat however, reaches terminal velocity, stops accelerating downwards, relaxes (somewhat) and thus the vitals are not as directly damaged as the force is more evenly dispersed. Go figure hey.
> 
> ...





I've heard that story too but it was in my stats class where it was used as an example of a wrong conclusion that was reached due to a flawed methodology. The scientists didn't throw cats off a building (coz that would be inhumane and illegal). They looked at survival data from fallen cats that were brought into vet clinics by their owners. 

The data was biased because it was filtered through whether owners brought in their fallen cat. The reasoning was that if the cat fell just 6 stories, the owners would very likely bring in their cat and just hope their cat survived even though the cat may not show signs of being alive. But if the cat fell 30 stories, the owner would only bring the cat in if it showed some signs of life. Thus the data showed the survival rate for a 30 story drop was higher than the that for a 6 story drop.

Moral of the story: GIGO.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> I've heard that story too but in was in my stats class where it was used as an example of a wrong conclusion that was reached due to flawed methodology.  The scientists didn't throw cats off a building (coz that would be inhumane and illegal).  They looked at survival data from fallen cats that were brought into vet clinics by their owners.
> 
> The data was biased because it was filtered through whether owners brought in their fallen cat.  The reasoning was that if the cat fell just 6 stories, the owners would very likely bring in their cat and just hope their cat survived even though the cat may not show signs of being alive.  But if the cat fell 30 stories, the owner would only bring the cat in if it showed some signs of life.  Thus the data showed the survival rate for a 30 story drop was higher than the that for a 6 story drop.
> 
> Moral of the story: GIGO.



Cool.  I'd heard the same story.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> You are misrepresenting people here.



Uh, No, I most certainly am not.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> However, if parts of 4E are designed with a key goal of making it easier for a newbie to run than other games, then that is strikingly similar to the idea of putting a ball on a tee to make it easier for a newbie baseball player.




How much credence do you give to the idea that increasing ease of running a game also makes a game attractive to veteran roleplayers who find themselves having less time than before, and prefer to assign a higher percentage of their leisure time to actual play than prep time? 

There's a certain value to the game master of having stat blocks that get plenty of use, for instance. A complicated stat block is worth the investment if you get plenty of re-use out of it: a villain from a superhero game that is low in lethality, for instance. Simple stat blocks that can be tweaked or reskinned are also good for games in which the enemies are expected to be disposable. Reskinning isn't the most novice-friendly of concepts, but it's terrific for the veteran game master without the time he or she once had. Given 4e's emphasis on reskinning, it seems reasonably obvious to me that newcomers aren't even close to the primary market.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Uh, No, I most certainly am not.




Address the point then. 4E isn't necessarily about making DMing easier, its about making DMing less work. While it was a good game I enjoyed at the time, 3.5E did not justify the extra work it took to run it well. Not compared to other editions of D&D, which include 1E and 2E AD&D. In 3.5E, DMing was more work, more number crunching, and more mastering the system, and without an improvement in game results in equal measure to the extra effort. Parts of the extra effort in 3.5E, particularly in the greater demand for system mastery, made things more difficult for less experienced DMs. It certainly reduced the amount of people willing to run it.

4E has reduced the load on DMs. This is a good thing in and of itself. DMs should be allowed to have a life. Reducing the load on DMs makes it easier for inexperienced DMs *in addition* to its inherent benefits.

It is worth noting that similar benefits can be obtained by switching from 3.5E to earlier editions.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 13, 2009)

To simplify DM'ing even more, one could adapt the 4E DM'ing methodology to the 1E AD&D ruleset.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 13, 2009)

Is 4e a newbie-teeball game overall?  No.

But, could 4e be used as a newbie-teeball game?  I'd say yes, more so than probably any edition since OD+D; one can use the basic framework of 4e to learn the game, and it then becomes a jumping-off point into full-on 4e, or 3e, or 1e, or Pathfinder, or...  And all in all I think that's a Good Thing, as is anything that could draw more people into the hobby.

Lanefan


----------



## Thunderfoot (Oct 13, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> <SNIP>
> Again referring to that poll, I was surprised that I was only with 5% of responders who play/enjoy both 4E/3.x (although funnily enough I can't stand AFL but love Rugby League). Is the split between 3E/4E still that large?
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




Well you know how opinionated we Americans are.   
Unfortunately, yeah, I think that's pretty much the way of things.  With every edition the gap from the last is larger than before.  I can't tell if it's marketing or just plain taste change.  I will say that I use a stripped down version of 3.x and am thinking of reverting back to a 1e/2e ADD campaign with 3.x combat.   I like story, 4e doesn't do it for me, combat is a RARE thing and magic is nearly non-existent so for me, 4e doesn't work - 3.x is also a little combat heavy, but workable.   

So, if I'm an indication, and I think I am, yeah, when it comes to campaigning, there is a separation - although for one offs, I'm fine with 4e, its simple and quick and if you don't add a lot of extra rules can be pulled off without a hitch.  I get the appeal, but long term (my last two campaigns have been three plus years for both) it just doesn't fly, at least for me.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Uh, No, I most certainly am not.




While you might be quoting what people have said, I think you certainly are misunderstanding their intent behind saying those things.  

Let's face it, as life progresses and responsibilities increase, most of us don't have the same amount of time to spend prepping and running a game.  While 3.x might have worked fine for a high school or college student who has lots of free time, for someone holding down a full-time job, and maybe with family responsibilities, preparing a system-intense/heavy game might not be feasible.  A lot of people apparently thought this way, and gave feedback to WotC that they wanted a game that was easier to prepare and run, while still offering pretty much the same in-game experience.  WotC listened, and we got 4e.  While 4e is easier to prep and more intuitive to run, it certainly isn't a dumbed-down or t-ball version of D&D.  As a happy side-effect, it is also more friendly to new DMs, and thats a wonderful thing!  4e also allows experienced DMs to do ANYTHING they could in previous editions, with much less hassle.  Its a win/win situation for all DMs.

And speaking from a personal standpoint, when you make the claim that 4e is "dumbed-down" and "t-ball" D&D, it is insulting, only serving to further the edition war.  While I'm sure you're a fine man, it makes you look like an elitist jerk online (and being elitist over a game is about the silliest thing I can imagine).  I realize some of what you are stating might be hyperbole, but seeing the same thing over and over is annoying.  

I ran a 3.x campaign up to 18th level, and played 3.x from 2000 until around 2004.  During that time I was in grad school for my PhD in Neuroscience, and my MD in Neurology.  And let me tell you, preparing a 3.x game while juggling research in lab, studying for classes, my teaching duties, and residency was a royal pain in the ass.  So much so that we quit 3.x in 2004 (we also quit due to player frustration with the system), and went to Savage Worlds as our go-to system until WHFRP2 and 4e came out.  

When you insinuate I cannot handle prepping a 3.x game while I am able to do computational neuronal network modeling, neuroelectrophysiology, neurobiochemistry, and neurology is laughable and absurd.  3.x, while a fine system for some folks, is not the be-all and end-all system, and doesn't provide everyone with what they want.  For me, the effort that went into prepping 3.x simply wasn't worth the work, especially with my other life responsibilities.  4e is much more in line with what I want when I prepare a game, gives me more bang for my buck (in a time invested manner), and while it isn't perfect, 4e allows me to run more freeform type games that I enjoy more as a DM.  I run 4e games in EXACTLY the same way I ran 1e/2e games- with lots of plot, character development, and roleplaying, with S&S/horror/suspence/investigation based slant.  At this point, there is no way I'd ever go back to prepping or running a 3.x game, and very likely wouldn't play one anymore- not because I am incapable of doing it, but because the time investment is too great for the small payoff, and I just don't find the system a good fit for my gaming style.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Oct 13, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> ...
> I do not consider this free form.  This is intricately mechanical and hardcoded.  The whole system is filled with IF you want this, THEN you must do that.  That's not free form at all.



I never said and the post I was referring to never said that 3.x was free-form. I was just responding that I thought it was closer to the freeform end of the axis than your 3.x *8.5*, 4E *9.0* indicated. (I would have had it more 6.0 and 8.0 if you like).

As well, in 3.x, if you wanted to be able to do A, B and C, there was usually a way of doing it. Using your terminology, if you wanted this, this and this, then you needed to take that, that and that. This is more permissive than what I have found 4E to be where some character themes are quite restricted to the point of being impossible (although as more classes come out, the more holes are being filled). For myself, I think I would enjoy 4E significantly more as a player if all the wonderful ideas, powers and concepts could be mix and matched more permissively than current. Something where I could more easily match my 



Cadfan said:


> ...
> I had FUN with it, don't get me wrong, but I knew darn well that I wasn't doing free form character creation.



I don't think anyone here was saying that you were. 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 13, 2009)

Wasnt one of the 4e design goals to make "race matters"?

Outside of levels 1-3, class abilities tended to dominate your char sheet so 4e offers the racial package

(for example, it is quite possible to build an race neutral class in 4e - basically one that ANY race could play but also, thanks to racial feats/PPs/Destinies, you can end up with wildly different builds)

Not sure if there's a way to resolve that and yet make character creation freeform.

re: Poor sucker
I used the poor sucker comment because of how much effort you put into the game yet how much return you got.

It's like you have to prove something to be a DM...I disagree with this...I think a DM shouldn't have to prove anything other than the fact he can make the game interesting for his players.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 13, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> If I set "free form" and "programmatic" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most programmatic, 4e would be a 9.  3e would be an 8.5.
> 
> Seriously, what else can you say about a system that assigns a vast number of abilities to specific levels of specific classes or prestige classes, requiring you to jump through numerous hoops to combine them as you please?  You must have six levels of this in order to get that class ability, you must have these prerequisites to dip two levels of that to get this other class ability, you need these other five prerequisites to get that feat you wanted so you'll need some levels of fighter to qualify before the end of your career...




You don't "need" most of that stuff, and if you're not getting until 11th level and your concept depends on it, your concept is not going to work as a beginning character.


----------



## Doom (Oct 13, 2009)

No, DnD4.0 is no 'tee-ball' game. I've been running a campaign for over a year now, and I've a few players that still struggle wtih what happens when a critical is rolled...and even with aleatools, we get overwhelmed with the 20+ effects blinking on and off every round in a combat.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I'm not worried about anything.  I just called it like I see it and got my own celebrity thread.




Its not a celebrity thread until it breaks 100+ pages and people have compared you to Hitler and Satan! (True story)

Regarding the whole tee-ball, it's only true if teeball implies better, smoother and slicker.


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 13, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> You don't "need" most of that stuff, and if you're not getting until 11th level and your concept depends on it, your concept is not going to work as a beginning character.




This is a good indicator that the character creation is anything but "free-form." Free-form character creation _isn't_ picking finite options from lists and altering your concept to fit predefined restrictions. In fact, that's pretty much the antithesis of free-form character creation.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> That shows: ???
> 
> 
> I'll stick with "no".




And you'll stick on "no" based on what? Your gut feeling? It's certainly not the reality of the situation where the latest edition.


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 13, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> While you might be quoting what people have said, I think you certainly are misunderstanding their intent behind saying those things.
> 
> Let's face it, as life progresses and responsibilities increase, most of us don't have the same amount of time to spend prepping and running a game.  While 3.x might have worked fine for a high school or college student who has lots of free time, for someone holding down a full-time job, and maybe with family responsibilities, preparing a system-intense/heavy game might not be feasible.  A lot of people apparently thought this way, and gave feedback to WotC that they wanted a game that was easier to prepare and run, while still offering pretty much the same in-game experience.  WotC listened, and we got 4e.  While 4e is easier to prep and more intuitive to run, it certainly isn't a dumbed-down or t-ball version of D&D.  As a happy side-effect, it is also more friendly to new DMs, and thats a wonderful thing!  4e also allows experienced DMs to do ANYTHING they could in previous editions, with much less hassle.  Its a win/win situation for all DMs.
> 
> ...




Nice post and says, pretty much, everything I wanted to say. 

3e was a great game, and still is for many, but not as much for me anymore.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 13, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Address the point then. *4E isn't necessarily about making DMing easier, its about making DMing less work. *While it was a good game I enjoyed at the time, 3.5E did not justify the extra work it took to run it well. Not compared to other editions of D&D, which include 1E and 2E AD&D. In 3.5E, DMing was more work, more number crunching, and more mastering the system, *and without an improvement in game results in equal measure to the extra effort.* Parts of the extra effort in 3.5E, particularly in the greater demand for system mastery, made things more difficult for less experienced DMs. It certainly reduced the amount of people willing to run it.



[emphasis mine]

This sums up my feelings on the subject perfectly, and without the profanity I would have used.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> While you might be quoting what people have said, I think you certainly are misunderstanding their intent behind saying those things.



And again, No, I am not.   I only picked the most blatant examples.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

> and without an improvement in game results in equal measure to the extra effort



And speaking for those people who find the "extra effort" to be trivial and the "improvements in game results" to be very significant, there are overwhelming reasons to have my point of view.

But, all the extrapolations and distortions aside, if pro-4E people continue to state (as they have) that 4E has things designed specifically for a newbie DM built in then the actual point I made remains and is only further demonstrated.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

> When you insinuate I cannot handle prepping a 3.x game while I am able to do computational neuronal network modeling,



See, I never insinuated any such thing.  On at least two occasions I said the opposite.

My point is that *despite* the fact that I'm certain you can do it, AllisterH called 3E DMs (such as yourself) "poor suckers" and praised 4E for having features that assume people can't handle it.

Anyone's preference for 4E is ultimately beside the point.
My preference against 4E is beside the point.

Teeball is baseball modified on the assumption that the players are new.
As many fans have proclaimed, 4E is D&D modified on the assumption that the players are new.

A great DM capable of easily running a more complex game may prefer 4E.  I never disputed that.  It doesn't change the fact the 4E assumes you are new.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> And you'll stick on "no" based on what? Your gut feeling? It's certainly not the reality of the situation where the latest edition.




I said "no" to this:



JoeGKushner said:


> Doesn't history show us otherwise? That DMs stopped running games when using 3.5 or this 'deep end'?



I don't see how a new edition after nearly a decade run shows that you are right.  If anything it disputes you.


----------



## avin (Oct 13, 2009)

Training game? For a player point of view 2E to 4E had an easier learning curve than 3E to 4E. 

There's a lot of ways to critisyzing (?) 4E. Saying it's a game for n00bs it's just not true.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But, all the extrapolations and distortions aside, if pro-4E people continue to state (as they have) that 4E has things designed specifically for a newbie DM built in then the actual point I made remains and is only further demonstrated.




Logic/analogy failure, Bryon.  

Teeball is sort of self-limiting.  If one always uses the support of the tee, one will never become a great ball player, because "great ball player" is largely defined by being able to hit an actual pitch.  Hitting a 100 mph pitch with a bat is kind of the _raison d'être_ of the game, and if you never stop playing teeball, you'll never be able to do that.

The main point of RPGs is not so simple - it is the entire gameplay experience, which has many facets.  RPGs are not in general "about" proficiency with complex, deep, flexible (some might even say baroque) rules.  Thus, 4e does not prevent one from becoming good at what RPGs are about.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> . It doesn't change the fact the 4E assumes you are new.




You base this "fact" on that some people have said that is the case?

Saying something is a fact, doesn't make it so.

The game _does_ make it easier for _all_ DMs. This also makes it easier for a new person to DM.

Also, everyone that starts playing 4e is _new_ ... to 4e. Similarly, everyone that started DM'ing was also new to DM'ing ... 4e. So, it assumes you are new to DM'ing the system.

The DMG includes information that assumes someone has never DM'ed before. Every DM has to have their 'first time', and for some people it will be 4e. Just because information is included for new DMs, and the system is less work intensive (which benefits ALL DMs, including new ones) does not mean the entire system was designed with the sole intent of being for new DMs to the detriment of everything else.

You've taken some people's defense/support of the system and decide it is true, and therefore made it a "fact" that you can use to point out a perceived flaw in the system, and completely dismiss anyone elses defense/support of the system.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But, all the extrapolations and distortions aside, if pro-4E people continue to state (as they have) that 4E has things designed specifically for a newbie DM built in then the actual point I made remains and is only further demonstrated.




I find it difficult to see a way in which this statement could not be applied honestly to any RPG that ever explained what a roleplaying game is in its introduction. 

(And roleplaying games that don't provide some sort of explanation for newcomers are probably much easier to count, if somewhat harder to find, than those that do.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> See, I never insinuated any such thing.  On at least two occasions I said the opposite.
> 
> My point is that *despite* the fact that I'm certain you can do it, AllisterH called 3E DMs (such as yourself) "poor suckers" and praised 4E for having features that assume people can't handle it.



[Analogy Game]
Your goal is to build a house. You really want that house. 
So you do all the usual stuff, digging out the foundation, schlepping stones around, making cement, installing the windows.
It's awesome. At the end, you have a house and you can live there the next 53 years and 6 months when you die from an heart-attack you get while laughing about a rerun of Monty Python.

Your grand-son wants to build a house. He really wants that house.
So he contacts an agent of a prefab company. He sits on the computer and designs his house from ready-made walls, selects the colors and windows. 
It's awesome. At the end, he has a house and he lifes there the next 53 years and 6 months when he dies from heart-attack he gets while watching a rerun of Monty Python. 

If you really liked the stuff of digging out the foundation, schlepping the stones around,  making cement or whatever else, yeah, you really would prefer the first method. But if you just wanted a house to live in there for the next decades, the second method is brilliant.
[/Analogy Game]

The distinction is not really about "smartness" or "experience", but what you are actually interested in. Do you really like the entire mechanical process of "world-building", "campaign-planning" and "monster-building" like in 3E? If you are, 4E will not satisfy you. If what you want are the results, the campaign the players run in, the encounters the players deal with and so on, 4E will get you to that result a lot easier.

A newbie will most likely have the impression that the game is what happens at the table, not what he does at home to prepare for it. A system that provides quick mechanical ways to get you material for the game at the table is preferable. It makes getting into the game and thus understanding how it plays easier.


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 13, 2009)

4e is a big ball of "stuff that works awesome" and "stuff that doesn't work as good."  As a whole, i find it a genuinely very fun game that has a totally unique spin on roleplaying games.  For better or worse, WotC has created a totally NEW game that is different than anything else out there. 

But i think that running a good 4e game really depends on past experience from running ANY rpg (but especially D&D). A lot of the game is art, not just number crunching, that derives solely from experience and understanding the ebb and flow of the gaming table. 

I think that there is way too much focus on player powers, to the point that if it is not on a little card in front of the players that it ceases to be an option in the game world. I have introduced several powerful magic items to the party, including a Wand of Wonder, A Bag of Tricks, and a Deck of Many Things, but BECAUSE they are not on cards that they see, they've never been used. They're scribbled down in inventory, but for whatever reason that relegates them to something as useful as a tallow candle or extra socks. 

A big strength of 4e is encounter balance, and the multitude of tricks that monsters can spring on a party, but the party has a deep bag of tricks too that can constantly surprise a DM. 

Magic in 4e, i hate to say, has been largely nerfed and is dull.  The payoff is that martial classes are far better than they have ever been before. 

Despite my qualms with 4e i cannot deny how much fun i've had with it, and the online tools are hands down the best i have ever seen.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I said "no" to this:
> 
> I don't see how a new edition after nearly a decade run shows that you are right.  If anything it disputes you.




So anything new is worse than what came before it? How exactly does that work?


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 13, 2009)

I think I've set my finger on what was bugging me about the "tee-ball" description applied to any roleplaying game. 

The implication is that a "tee-ball" RPG will not teach you to run a "big boy" game, obviously. However, RPGs don't work like that. When you talk about throwing someone into the deep end or forcing them to come to grips with a big robust system, that doesn't make them a big boy, either. The real skills of game mastering come when you aren't particularly happy with stuff right out of the book and start tinkering to find something that suits you better.

System mastery isn't the sign of a good GM. It's the sign of a system master. Someone who's mastered a simple system is not innately any less proficient at running a game as someone who's mastered a complex system. There are too many other elements to running a game, such as knowing when to leave the dice alone, how to build an interesting plot, and how to read your fellow players. If you can make a complex system jump through hoops and produce the result you want, great, that'll help you out. But so will the ability to make a simple system jump through hoops and produce the result you want.

One of the key elements to becoming a "big boy" gamer is, interestingly enough, dissatisfaction. People push themselves to do more with a system when they can't just pull what they want out of a book. People devise new monsters, antagonists, and player character powers when the ones provided aren't enough. You don't develop critical thought without having something to critique.

The only way 4e could produce new gamers who don't ever "graduate" to picking up those skills would be if it were so perfect for them that they played it without modification, cradle to grave. I like the system, and I don't think it's that perfect. People who don't like the system obviously don't think it's that perfect. So what's the worry?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> cool.  Scorn based on someone else's out of context interpretation of what I said.



I still say it wasn't quoting out of context. I quoted your post, and then in my second post, mentioned the context and quoted the second post you are referring too (that I am apparently out of context about).

Your sig confirms my point as well.

Teeball is primarily intended for very young kinds to get used to swinging the ball and hitting without a pitcher.

I have often claimed that 4e D&D made entry for DMs easier.  It has tools to help even the most experienced DM prepare. But, 4e doesn't require a graduate game to take it into complexity.  It does it just fine by itself.


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> And speaking for those people who find the "extra effort" to be trivial and the "improvements in game results" to be very significant, there are overwhelming reasons to have my point of view.




To clarify your statement in my mind, do you believe, for example, that preparing a 10th level Druid NPC, for example, or a Pit Fiend as a larger example, by the rules in 3E for use against a party is trivial, compared to the work in preparing a similar threat against a group of PCs in 4E?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It doesn't change the fact the 4E assumes you are new.






WalterKovacs said:


> You base this "fact" on that some people have said that is the case? Saying something is a fact, doesn't make it so.




Hmm. What if the people saying it are on the design, development, and marketing teams for 4e?


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So anything new is worse than what came before it? How exactly does that work?



So we are going to start putting words in each other's mouths now that have nothing to do with the other's actual point?


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2009)

Is anyone OTHER than Byron making this claim, or is this thread just "Everyone arguing with one guy's view"?

Because all the posters in the world aren't going to change a person's opinion if they're that opinionated.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> You base this "fact" on that some people have said that is the case?
> 
> Saying something is a fact, doesn't make it so.



Considering who some of those people are, I'll stay with it.
But, if you disagree then as far as you are concerned my critical comments are aimed only at the praise these certain people are providing and have no bearing on the game itself.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

Henry said:


> To clarify your statement in my mind, do you believe, for example, that preparing a 10th level Druid NPC, for example, or a Pit Fiend as a larger example, *by the rules* in 3E for use against a party is trivial, compared to the work in preparing a similar threat against a group of PCs in 4E?




For varying degrees of "*by the rules*," yes: it's trivial.

Knowing the druid's statblock down to the last skill point is slavish devotion to "by the rules," but you will not see a return on that investment in effort. 

Switching to 4e is certainly one solution. It's not the most obvious solution, nor is it the most satisfactory solution if there are indispensable elements of 3e that you are not willing to sacrifice for the savings in effort that 4e provides.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Is anyone OTHER than Byron making this claim, or is this thread just "Everyone arguing with one guy's view"?
> 
> Because all the posters in the world aren't going to change a person's opinion if they're that opinionated.



That's pretty much it.

I'm in it for the comedy.  Sometimes the rules of ENWorld make for some hilarious dancing around the edge of a topic.  You can almost see the thought process, "Well, I really want to say _this,_ but I might get modded, so instead I'll say... well, _this_, but it doesn't make much sense and it's kinda vague.  Gosh, I hope nobody asks me to explain my point more clearly and make me cross the line!"

-O


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Henry said:


> To clarify your statement in my mind, do you believe, for example, that preparing a 10th level Druid NPC, for example, or a Pit Fiend as a larger example, by the rules in 3E for use against a party is trivial, compared to the work in preparing a similar threat against a group of PCs in 4E?



I've run very fun games at L10+ that went in unexpected directions and were run "on the fly".

Since the total effort is trivial, whatever portion is "extra" is also trivial.

Now, if I WANT to sit down and really build a detailed 10th level druid I know that I could spend a lot of time on it.  IF I WANTED TO.  And in that case I would enjoy it.  But that effort is completely optional.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Is anyone OTHER than Byron making this claim, or is this thread just "Everyone arguing with one guy's view"?
> 
> Because all the posters in the world aren't going to change a person's opinion if they're that opinionated.



Hush you!!!  I've got at least 6 minutes left.

And it isn't really a claim, just a description.

And it's Bryon.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Is anyone OTHER than Byron making this claim, or is this thread just "Everyone arguing with one guy's view"?






Obryn said:


> That's pretty much it.




Well, I'm not sure I am following Bryon's premise to the same conclusion, but I certainly understand his point and feel no need to misrepresent it.



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> I'm in it for the comedy. Sometimes the rules of ENWorld make for some hilarious dancing around the edge of a topic. You can almost see the thought process, "Well, I really want to say this, but I might get modded, so instead I'll say...




I would like to make a tangential comment about people who have the intelligence to model complex global climate patterns but don't have the sense to come in out of the friggin rain.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> but I certainly understand his point and feel no need to misrepresent it.
> I don't think it's misrepresented when the guy is very forward and clear about his point.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I've run very fun games at L10+ that went in unexpected directions and were run "on the fly".
> 
> Since the total effort is trivial, whatever portion is "extra" is also trivial.
> 
> Now, if I WANT to sit down and really build a detailed 10th level druid I know that I could spend a lot of time on it.  IF I WANTED TO.  And in that case I would enjoy it.  But that effort is completely optional.




A question.

How long did it take you to arrive at the point where you knew which parts you could leave off of that prep and which parts you needed?

I agree, you can whip out a high level caster pretty quick if you only worry about four or five spells, maybe a companion and nothing else.

But, ignoring a significant portion of the rules and then claiming that it's a strength of the system seems a bit contrary.  If the system was aiding you, why do you have to eject a significant portion of it in order to cut your workload?


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, ignoring a significant portion of the rules and then claiming that it's a strength of the system seems a bit contrary.  If the system was aiding you, why do you have to eject a significant portion of it in order to cut your workload?




It's not contrary at all. It's there when I want it or feel I need it for a particular application.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> How long did it take you to arrive at the point where you knew which parts you could leave off of that prep and which parts you needed?




Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that 4e doesn't require the same level of system mastery as 3e?



> Ignoring a significant portion of the rules and then claiming that it's a strength of the system seems a bit contrary.




You can paint an entire army of miniatures with a standard #1 brush (and I have) but I certainly appreciate having that #00 in there for painting my army commanders. I might even get crazy and paint on the pupils with a #0000.

The fact that I don't often use the #0000 does not make it redundant nor unnecessary. The existence of the #0000 in my paint kit is a strength. 

This is not a contrary position. 

Of course, the basic starter miniatures painting kit will often not include high quality, fine detail brushes, and someone who limits himself to the starter kit is unlikely to develop into a world-class miniatures painter.


----------



## Dannager (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that 4e doesn't require the same level of system mastery as 3e?



I certainly would.


----------



## malraux (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that 4e doesn't require the same level of system mastery as 3e?




Certainly not to DM.  For the question under discussion, changing the level of mid level opponent for the PCs to fight, it clearly does not require system mastery to do it under 4e.  To do it under 3e, it clearly does.  You either have to learn enough about the class it is taking levels in, plus which feats are worthwhile, which spells work best, etc to go by the book, or you have to know how to shortcut around that, which the rulebooks never hint at how to do.  Both of those require mastery of a huge amount rules, both in the book and in actual play.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 13, 2009)

I thought of more analogies:

3.x is Windows 95, 4e is Windows XP (2e is Windows for Workgroups, everything earlier is DOS)
3.x is vi, 4e is Emacs
3.x is Perl, 4e is Python


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, ignoring a significant portion of the rules and then claiming that it's a strength of the system seems a bit contrary.  If the system was aiding you, why do you have to eject a significant portion of it in order to cut your workload?





I would argue that, in any ruleset, the ability to ignore a significant portion of the rules, when it makes sense to do so, is a strength.  Indeed, it is probably the most fundamental strength of any ruleset, to the degree to which it is possible.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2009)

billd91 said:


> It's not contrary at all. It's there when I want it or feel I need it for a particular application.




There's a difference between optional rules and rules being ignored though.  There is nothing in the 3e ruleset that denotes which elements can be safely ignored and which ones can't.  The only way to arrive at this point is through trial and error.  

BryonD is claiming that it is a strength of 3e that you can ignore large sections of the rules and get a satisfactory result.

My point is that the only way you achieve that strength is through a significant period of experimentation which results in a lot of wasted time and bad games before you reach that level.

Again, how is that a strength of the rule set?



Wulf Ratbane said:


> Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that 4e doesn't require the same level of system mastery as 3e?




I'm not suggesting a comparison at all.

What I am suggesting is that being able to ignore large sections of the rules means that large sections of the rules are superfluous and can be safely excised.



> You can paint an entire army of miniatures with a standard #1 brush (and I have) but I certainly appreciate having that #00 in there for painting my army commanders. I might even get crazy and paint on the pupils with a #0000.
> 
> The fact that I don't often use the #0000 does not make it redundant nor unnecessary. The existence of the #0000 in my paint kit is a strength.
> 
> ...




That's the danger of analogies though.  You're trying to claim that these rules are there if they are needed.  However, this is where your analogy falls down.  You KNOW when you need a different paint brush without a great deal of experimentation.  If something is too small for your brush, then it just is.

However, how did you arrive at the point where you can safely ignore six levels of spell memorization and only worry about the seventh and eigth level spells?  How did you arrive at the point where you can safely ignore skill point allocation?  How did you arrive at the point where you can easily ignore feats or simply choose feats which never change from round to round?

All of these things required some degree of experimentation.  It is not a strength of the toolset to know when you can ignore the rules.  That's a weakness of a toolset.  If it was a strength, you wouldn't have to ignore it in the first place.

See, the idea that you need extra-complicated rules to develop into a world class GM is ridiculous.  It's actually pretty insulting too.  You're pretty much saying that only 3e GM's (in the D&D category anyway) can become world class GM's because 3e is more complicated than any other version of D&D.

That's utter and complete tosh.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> There is nothing in the 3e ruleset that denotes which elements can be safely ignored and which ones can't.  The only way to arrive at this point is through trial and error.
> 
> BryonD is claiming that it is a strength of 3e that you can ignore large sections of the rules and get a satisfactory result.
> 
> My point is that the only way you achieve that strength is through a significant period of experimentation which results in a lot of wasted time and bad games before you reach that level.




I would agree with you about trial & error being required, although I would disagree with you that this time is therefore wasted or that the games will perforce be "bad".

Moreover, it seems to me that you are effectively making the T-Ball argument here.  If 3e is more complex to understand/run/play, then wouldn't that make 4e _*less*_ complex to understand/run/play?  And isn't that ByronD's T-Ball argument?

Or am I missing something?

EDIT:  And RCFG is definitely T-Ball compared to 3e by that analogy!


RC


----------



## malraux (Oct 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would agree with you about trial & error being required, although I would disagree with you that this time is therefore wasted or that the games will perforce be "bad".
> 
> Moreover, it seems to me that you are effectively making the T-Ball argument here.  If 3e is more complex to understand/run/play, then wouldn't that make 4e _*less*_ complex to understand/run/play?  And isn't that ByronD's T-Ball argument?
> 
> ...



The teeball analogy implies that 4e never reaches a higher level of complexity or difficulty.  Its also subtly patronizing.  If I were analogizing, I'd say 4e is more akin to softball.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 13, 2009)

This thread is interesting. Every once and a while we have threads on ENWorld where everyone is working very hard to stay within the rules of the forum so that no one ends up saying what they really intend. Let's see if I can step around that, shall we?

As one of the people who have said that running a high level 3X game made my ears bleed, I'm one of those people who Bryon is talking about. Now I find it interesting that as someone who has run games ranging from Spirit of the Century to Hero, Rolemaster and even Phoenix Command that somehow I don't have the sense to run a 3X game. Honestly, when running a high level Rolemaster game is less daunting, both in prep and during the equivalent game in 3X, I believe something is amiss with 3X.

Now what could that be? In broad terms, when I'm running a game I'm doing two kinds of things: bookwork and bringing the awesome. For about the last year or two of 3X both of those things were increasingly difficult to do, to the point where I made the comment about poking my own eyes out.

Why? Well, I run a game that includes all of the core products that WotC produces. I have tended to avoid third party stuff for the most part, largely because my players haven't asked for it. I have a great group of players: they are some of the best roleplayers you'll ever encounter. They bring the awesome every single session. The problem is that they also pick up all of the splats WotC makes, and have optimization skills that would make folks on the Char Ops board blush.

In 3X there can be a difference in character power that goes way beyond two  standard deviations, and my group was on the extreme high end of it. Everything was legal, everything was done correctly, and the characters were all interesting and fun to play. The problem is they were able to consistently crush everything I put against them that wasn't custom designed with the same rules.

The last game I ran was Shackled City, and towards the end of it I was having to rebuild all of their opponents so that they'd have any sort of challenge, and really, so that they'd have any fun. If you've played through that adventure, it's NOT easy: frankly none of the Paizo stuff is.

So I'd end up going over the different splat books putting together combinations of feats, spells and magic items that would make the opposition reasonably difficult but not overwhelming. This was not fun. Not even a little bit after a while. If you think that you can spend five minutes putting together a high level spellcaster opponent and have it not be a joke, I'm calling shenanigans on you.

Now when I came to the game itself, my goal was the aforementioned "bring the awesome." At the same time, with all of the rules, feats and abilities I found it increasingly difficult to just run the game in a fast paced manner that was exciting and dramatic. Analysis paralysis set in. I couldn't just let character X do some stunt because there was already a skill trick mechanic in place that told me how he could have spent SP to accomplish the same thing. Well I could have, but my players were all too quick to point out that this cheapened the purchase by the one person in the group who thought to learn it. Sigh. The game slowed down. Options became far less. The awesome was brought far less often.

And then 4E came around. Could you do everything in it that you can in 3X? Not really at the start, but now, for the most part, yes. Things were streamlined and balanced much better, and the game itself was optimized for a faster play, which was exactly what I was looking for. The game was giving me what I wanted out of it, and my players were having more fun.

I run games with a lot of roleplay, investigation, character development and fast paced action. Let's let that setting in for just a minute, because it's supposed to be impossible to run that kind of game, yet I find it trivial to do so. I run them in 4E with much less work on the bookwork side and find the awesome much easier to bring in actual play.

So with all of that said, 4E is the game I want to play now, and it's Dungeons and Dragons. That second part doesn't sit too well with a lot of people, and I can respect that, but it's true. I carry around a lot of dislike for 3X, but I don't trot it out on display because it doesn't accomplish anything. A lot of people I respect like 3X and who am I to tell them they're wrong?

And that's what I ask in reverse: if you don't like 4E, great, but don't feel the need to tell me I'm playing some dumbed down superhero game full of mutants that is nothing but a MMORPG for the brain dead. How is that concept hard to grasp or understand?

--Steve


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2009)

I have no real issue with saying that 4e is easier to run that 3e.  That seems to be pretty true.

I do have an issue with the implications of the terms though.  Claiming that 4e is tee-ball is essentially saying that it's a training game, and not a "real" role playing game.  After all, you are intended to graduate from tee ball after a year or so of play.

That's my issue in a nutshell.

Saying that 4e is simpler than 3e is pretty much straight up true AFAIK.  

But, simpler =/= dumbed down (an Americanism I loathe).  That was the criticism of 3e by earlier edition players.  They had made the game for stupid people to play and real gamers play 1e or 2e.  The implication here is that real gamers don't play 4e.

That's the trouble with using analogies and trying to force comparisons.  It just causes confusion and winds up starting arguements.  It would help an awful lot if people would simply state directly what they mean instead of trying to rely on comparisons all the time.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If 3e is more complex to understand/run/play, then wouldn't that make 4e _*less*_ complex to understand/run/play?  And isn't that ByronD's T-Ball argument?



The problem is that "Tee-ball" has a number of other connotations which make the analogy unpalatable.  Including, "This is what you play in second grade when everyone sucks too bad to do anything else.  Come play this other game when you grow up."  I don't think there'd be an argument about a less-condescending and snide analogy.

I'd certainly argue that 4e is simpler than 3e in ways which I value and which I feel don't detract from my group's gameplay experiences.  That doesn't make the analogy apt, because the analogy has other baggage with it.

-O

EDIT: Wow, ninja'd like 3 times!


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If 3e is more complex to understand/run/play, then wouldn't that make 4e _*less*_ complex to understand/run/play?  And isn't that ByronD's T-Ball argument?
> 
> Or am I missing something?




BryonD's T-Ball argument, however, seems to go further as to say that the elements that lessen 4E's system mastery requirement also makes the game suffer - which is something I really haven't seen in my experience. 

Side Digression - Honestly, with all the digression people have over how player choice is more limited, If they could make a system that looked like 3E on the player's side of the screen, but like 4E on the DM's side of the screen, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. Maybe it's the whole "at-will/encounter/daily powers" interface, I don't know, but so many people seem to have good things to say about the defense scores, and simplifying the middle and high-end math, and about simplifying conditions in combat, etc. - but when it gets to those green, red, and black bars, and the pushes, pulls, and slides, it's like the Bridge Too Far. I shouldn't be surprised - heck, it was for me for the longest time.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, it seems to me that you are effectively making the T-Ball argument here. If 3e is more complex to understand/run/play, then wouldn't that make 4e _*less*_ complex to understand/run/play? And isn't that ByronD's T-Ball argument?
> 
> Or am I missing something?



Well, yes.  Of course you're missing something.  I'm surprised you missed it, actually.

He made an argument that can be defended on strict _denotative_ grounds (there are aspects of 4e that are simpler than 3e), but he phrased it in an indefensibly insulting _connotative_ manner that he refuses to affirm or deny.

If you read ByronD's comment in a strict denotative sense- "4e is less complex to run or play than 3e," then its mostly true and there's not much to argue.  We could talk about some of the places complexity increased, or we could discuss specific issues like whether 3e style monster design is really necessary or whether every experienced DM had already figured out to apply 4e style benchmark related monster design practices.  But mostly we'd just be fiddling around the edges of his argument while ultimately agreeing with it.

But if you read it in a connotative sense, he's saying that 4e is stupid and childish in comparison to *real* or *grown-up* D&D.  And hence this thread, in which page after page is expended either trying to get him to admit that he's insulting people, or trying to use evidence from other threads or his signature or his past behavior to convict him of wanting to insult people, or arguing that simpler rules for things like monster design or character creation do not necessarily mean less worthwhile or mature gameplay.

So, yeah.  I'm surprised you missed that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would argue that, in any ruleset, the ability to ignore a significant portion of the rules, when it makes sense to do so, is a strength.  Indeed, it is probably the most fundamental strength of any ruleset, to the degree to which it is possible.
> 
> 
> RC



Do you mean the ability of a ruleset to "survive" or keep working to remove rules? That I would consider a strength.

But the ability to replace or ignore existing rules and improvise something is a strength of the person doing the improvisation. He gained enough system mastery to know how to do it without breaking stuff.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> There's a difference between optional rules and rules being ignored though.  There is nothing in the 3e ruleset that denotes which elements can be safely ignored and which ones can't.  The only way to arrive at this point is through trial and error.




But, this being a refereed RPG, what rules _aren't_ ultimately optional? 

Shortcuts, whether widely known or idiosyncratic, have been used by DMs since the earliest editions in building NPCs, detailing monsters, pretty much everything. In 3e, there happens to be tools to develop more detail should you choose to use them.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 13, 2009)

What if I even suck at playing Teeball? Does that mean I'll struggle with 4e? Am I doomed?

And if we're comparing 4e to Teeball, what does it mean if I like to use a whiffle bat & a whiffle ball in my Teeball game? Which D&D system should I be using then? Is there anything easier than 4e....maybe WoW? I don't need to know the rules to play WoW do I? Are there whiffle bats in WoW?

I really don't understand why everyone keeps saying it takes longer to create characters in 3e, so therefore 4e is easier to DM. Hello.....do what I do and buy premade 3.5 characters on Ebay. That's what you do in MMOs if you need a high level character and don't feel like doing all the work making it.

On a serious note, I've only been a player in 4e and have never DMed it. But my assumption based off of my experience seeing my options as a player would be that a big reason creating an NPC in 4e is easier is because there are *way* less options for a 4e character than there are in 3e. Is there any truth in that? Is that what people are talking about when they say 4e is easier to manage? Or is character creation easier for another reason?


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> On a serious note, I've only been a player in 4e and have never DMed it. But my assumption based off of my experience seeing my options as a player would be that a big reason creating an NPC in 4e is easier is because there are *way* less options for a 4e character than there are in 3e. Is there any truth in that? Is that what people are talking about when they say 4e is easier to manage? Or is character creation easier for another reason?




It's a design philosophy thing. Smaller stat blocks, don't build an NPC to the same level of detail you'd build a PC, stats are focused on roles rather than in-character taxonomy ("brute" and "artillery" rather than "giant" and "dragon"), that sort of approach.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

Henry said:


> If they could make a system that looked like 3E on the player's side of the screen, but like 4E on the DM's side of the screen, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.




:staredown:


----------



## tyrlaan (Oct 13, 2009)

This.


malraux said:


> The teeball analogy implies that 4e never reaches a higher level of complexity or difficulty.  Its also subtly patronizing.




And this.


SteveC said:


> So with all of that said, 4E is the game I want to play now, and it's Dungeons and Dragons. That second part doesn't sit too well with a lot of people, and I can respect that, but it's true. I carry around a lot of dislike for 3X, but I don't trot it out on display because it doesn't accomplish anything. A lot of people I respect like 3X and who am I to tell them they're wrong?
> 
> And that's what I ask in reverse: if you don't like 4E, great, but don't feel the need to tell me I'm playing some dumbed down superhero game full of mutants that is nothing but a MMORPG for the brain dead. How is that concept hard to grasp or understand?




Seriously, how long has 4e been on the shelves now and those of us not interested in the edition war nonsense must still endure it? Who else is getting sick and tired of the "subtle" digs, the snark, the condescension, and so on? Steve says it right and it saddens me that more people can't seem to wrap their heads around the mentality he expresses here.  

The fact is both 4e and 3e have strengths AND weaknesses. Play what you want to play (and let other people play what they want to play) and just let it rest already.


----------



## rjdafoe (Oct 13, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> For myself, I think I would enjoy 4E significantly more as a player if all the wonderful ideas, powers and concepts could be mix and matched more permissively than current.




I think they can.  Having the Character Builder makes is way easier as well.  I think that after 1 year, woth the additions in the game, that the above statement is false at this time.

Now, say what you will about the requirement of the DDI, but your above problems have pretty much been rectified with the Character Builder.  The only cost would be a $10 one month sub to get it, cheaper than a book that gives options.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 13, 2009)

I want to know what everyone has against T-Ball. Baseball snobs!


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 13, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Smaller stat blocks, don't build an NPC to the same level of detail you'd build a PC,



Isn't that what DMs do in 3e also? What type of info does a 4e NPC _not_ need that we needed in a 3e NPC? Are NPCs in 4e built with the lower level of detail in the books or is this something a 4e DM chooses to do on his own?



> stats are focused on roles rather than in-character taxonomy ("brute" and "artillery" rather than "giant" and "dragon"), that sort of approach.



I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate this and show me what the differences are? I'm familiar with what "roles" are in 4e (if you're referring to the same thing that 4e PCs have). I'm just curious how the roles help a DM prep faster.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> :staredown:




Hehe. Trailblazer didn't _quite_ do that for me, but it was a nice start. I prefer to start from 4e and keep the monsters, DM stuff, defenses, skills, and general combat rules, but rip out the character creation and put in my own version.

Working on it now in the 4e house rules forum.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> The fact is both 4e and 3e have strengths AND weaknesses. Play what you want to play (and let other people play what they want to play) and just let it rest already.




Yup.


----------



## rjdafoe (Oct 13, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> He made an argument that can be defended on strict _denotative_ grounds (there are aspects of 4e that are simpler than 3e), but he phrased it in an indefensibly insulting _connotative_ manner that he refuses to affirm or deny.




Couple that with his signature, and I don't think that anyone is off base about how his views on the subject.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> Seriously, how long has 4e been on the shelves now and those of us not interested in the edition war nonsense must still endure it? Who else is getting sick and tired of the "subtle" digs, the snark, the condescension, and so on? Steve says it right and it saddens me that more people can't seem to wrap their heads around the mentality he expresses here.
> 
> The fact is both 4e and 3e have strengths AND weaknesses. Play what you want to play (and let other people play what they want to play) and just let it rest already.




How long will you need to endure it? Probably about as long as people will make criticisms of it, talk about it dismissively, because they honestly don't like it and have everything they say interpreted as "edition warring".

The fact is both 4e and 3e are not immune to criticism or dislike from people. And people should be free to express that, even comparing the two editions, without being jumped on for edition warring.

Honestly, for every post that seems to be edition-trolling, there seems to be tons of posts complaining about edition warring where it isn't necessary. The t-ball comparision came up in another thread, generated an eruption in this thread, and pretty much been completely moved past in the original thread.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> On a serious note, I've only been a player in 4e and have never DMed it. But my assumption based off of my experience seeing my options as a player would be that a big reason creating an NPC in 4e is easier is because there are *way* less options for a 4e character than there are in 3e. Is there any truth in that? Is that what people are talking about when they say 4e is easier to manage? Or is character creation easier for another reason?



Yes and no.

3e wants you to be able to algorythmically create balanced monsters and NPCs.  That is, you should be able to take X amount of Fighter, Y amount of Sorcerer, and Z amount of Minotaur and come up with a balanced minotaur fighter/sorcerer.  They even go so far as to assign a challenge rating to that monster, which would be equal to, and I'm not kidding, X + Z + Y/2 + K, where K is a constant the designers inserted into the system to aid in the creation of NPC minotaurs.

The theory was that this algorythm would help you create monsters and NPCs with the appropriate stats to make them fair challenges for their level.

4e just tells you the stats that would make a monster appropriate for a particular level, and gives you advice on how to adjust the monster based on what you want it to be good or bad at.

So yeah, the 4e version is less complex.  Instead of trying to procedurally generate numbers that match a particular benchmark, it informs you of the benchmark and lets you adjust around it as you want.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> Isn't that what DMs do in 3e also? What type of info does a 4e NPC _not_ need that we needed in a 3e NPC? Are NPCs in 4e built with the lower level of detail in the books or is this something a 4e DM chooses to do on his own?




It's a mix. For instance, there are no long lists of spell-like abilities; very little page-flipping is a design goal. No demons that have 17 different spell-like abilities. Definitely a problem for some and a benefit for others. Similarly, you're encouraged to pick only one or two skills of relevance. The best way to see is probably just to compare some stat blocks; at low levels they're roughly equal, but at higher levels Demogorgon fits on half a page in 4e and more of a full page in 3e, and in 3e he has spell-like abilities whose effects aren't listed in his stat block.



> I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate this and show me what the differences are? I'm familiar with what "roles" are in 4e (if you're referring to the same thing that 4e PCs have). I'm just curious how the roles help a DM prep faster.




Sure. One example: Figuring armor class. The 3e approach is to take all the basic factors that contribute to AC, as they would for PCs, and add them together. Figure all the attribute bonuses, any enhancement or deflection bonuses, equipment if any, and so on. Then tweak to taste with natural AC bonuses or add in new items/change attributes if it isn't where you want it. 

The 4e approach is look up what the average AC is for a [role] of [Xth] level. (Usually Level+12, or +14 for skirmishers and lurkers, +16 for soldiers.) Tweak it a point or two if desired. You then pretty much just assume that some of it comes from armor, some from attributes, some from how much of a hardened battle veteran it is. 

Now absolutely you can take the latter approach for 3e; just pick an appropriate AC, and not worry about if the NPC or monster's stats and equipment don't add up perfectly to that AC. The main difference is, though, that 4e assumes this technique by default.


----------



## tyrlaan (Oct 13, 2009)

billd91 said:


> How long will you need to endure it? Probably about as long as people will make criticisms of it, talk about it dismissively, because they honestly don't like it and have everything they say interpreted as "edition warring".
> 
> The fact is both 4e and 3e are not immune to criticism or dislike from people. And people should be free to express that, even comparing the two editions, without being jumped on for edition warring.
> 
> Honestly, for every post that seems to be edition-trolling, there seems to be tons of posts complaining about edition warring where it isn't necessary. The t-ball comparision came up in another thread, generated an eruption in this thread, and pretty much been completely moved past in the original thread.



Criticism and the snark etc that I reference are two very different ballparks (to stay "on topic" with our phraseology hehe). Of course people should feel free to express dislike and criticism. But people don't have to be jerks about it. And yes you're right, a lot of complaints against edition warring are really just edition warring attempts in disguise. It seems this edition war is being fought mostly with subtext that isn't all that subtle.


----------



## Thasmodious (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> On a serious note, I've only been a player in 4e and have never DMed it. But my assumption based off of my experience seeing my options as a player would be that a big reason creating an NPC in 4e is easier is because there are *way* less options for a 4e character than there are in 3e. Is there any truth in that? Is that what people are talking about when they say 4e is easier to manage? Or is character creation easier for another reason?




The big reason creating NPCs in 4e is easier is because NPCs and monsters are not built with the same mechanics as PCs.  It was an experiment of 3e to build all monsters and NPCs with the same rules of creation and advancement as PCs.  It was not a part of the game before 3e, and was not continued after 3e.  In 4e, monsters and NPCs again have their own creation rules which stress their different roles within the game.  A player wants options and expects to spend some time creating a character.  Making the DM apply that same breadth of options and time expenditure to create every monster and NPC in the game is going to slow him down.  He has a much bigger cast to worry about.  

What's interesting is that 3e is the aberrant edition here, not 4e. It's options took characters well away from the core D&D principle of archetypal classes (or races).  Many people like this and I am not attacking 3e as bad for it, just as different than all other versions of D&D, including 4e.

In all other versions you pick a class (or a multiclass combo, or a race) and that's what you are, even if you multiclass.  The answer to the question "what are you playing?" is "fighter" or "elf" or "fighter/thief".   It's  a recognizable archetype of D&D in a way that barbarian1/scout2/fighter2/assassin3/shadowdancer2/ninja4 absolutely isn't.  The mix and match character design of 3e suggests that a classless version of D&D was almost presented, but the designers didn't want to sacrifice that particular sacred cow.  Now, many players of 3e did not like examples like the above and houseruled limitations, demanded players pick a class and not level dip just for class abilities and so on.  That's a houserule, though.  The system was designed just for that sort of thing.  If your goal, starting out a character, was to play a Wizard, the archetype and the class, then you didn't have an amazing set of options, you had some feats and a prestige class to pick that enhanced your wizardliness.  The abundance of choice only really came into play when you approached creation as in the example above, well outside the idea of classic class-based archetypes.

Again, if you like that sort of thing, that's fine.  But within the context of specifically D&D, 3e was the only time this style of character creating (and NPC/monster creating) was attempted.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate this and show me what the differences are? I'm familiar with what "roles" are in 4e (if you're referring to the same thing that 4e PCs have). I'm just curious how the roles help a DM prep faster.



Basically, this is the difference:

Lets say I'm creating a dragon that wears armor for a 3e game, and then again for a 4e game.

In the 3e game, I start with the dragon stat block.  Then I add armor to it.  I check the dragon's original AC, and look at what makes it up.  Then I apply the AC changes due to the armor, which grants an "armor" bonus to armor class, but which caps the "dexterity" bonus to armor class.  I come up with a final AC, and then penalize the dragon's skills based on the armor's "armor check penalty."

In the 4e game, I ask myself _why_ I want to put the dragon in armor.  I decide that my reason is that I want this to be a heavily armored foe that fights in melee reach, but which is difficult to injure with weapons.  That's a "soldier" type of monster.  So I create a soldier monster of the appropriate level and complexity (standard, elite, solo), and give it some of the powers of the dragon type I like the most.  Maybe I also throw in some armor related power that emphasizes his armored status.  Or else I could maybe take an existing dragon and adjust it to match the established benchmarks, or maybe I take a dragon that's already a soldier and swap out some of its abilities so that it matches the abilities of the dragon type I want to use.

Each approach has its benefits and disadvantages.  The latter is probably a bit easier for DMs who primarily care about results at the game table.


----------



## Thasmodious (Oct 13, 2009)

billd91 said:


> How long will you need to endure it? Probably about as long as people will make criticisms of it, talk about it dismissively, because they honestly don't like it and have everything they say interpreted as "edition warring".
> 
> The fact is both 4e and 3e are not immune to criticism or dislike from people. And people should be free to express that, even comparing the two editions, without being jumped on for edition warring.
> 
> Honestly, for every post that seems to be edition-trolling, there seems to be tons of posts complaining about edition warring where it isn't necessary. The t-ball comparision came up in another thread, generated an eruption in this thread, and pretty much been completely moved past in the original thread.




How else would you interpret BryonDs comment?  It is indefensible as innocent, honest criticism.  And that's before you consider that every post of his is an attack against 4e players with his signature or his own posting history.

"I don't like the power structure of 4e, feels too gamey to me" is a criticism.   "3e's character design was too far removed from the classic class-centric design of other editions" is a criticism.

-4e is like t-ball, a game developed for 5 year olds who don't have the strength to pitch, or the coordination to hit a pitch- is not criticism, it is edition warring, an obvious and overt insult to 4e gamers.  Why it wasn't modded away in the first place, I don't get.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 13, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Teeball is primarily intended for very young kinds to get used to swinging the ball and hitting without a pitcher.
> 
> I have often claimed that 4e D&D made entry for DMs easier.  It has tools to help even the most experienced DM prepare. But, 4e doesn't require a graduate game to take it into complexity.  It does it just fine by itself.




You know I would find the whole teeball thing much more workable if the original statement had said something like

"The new version of D&D comes equipped with an optional tee for your baseball".  

I wouldn't dispute that in the least.  There are many simplifications, especially compared to other editions, but some areas are more complex.  If you are new and just starting into RPGs, feel free to use all the great tools, explanations and advice provided.  If you are an old hand at this sort of things, that isn't needed, you can just dive right in and run things as complex as you like.  It's all right there in the books.

The new edition's goals were (in part) to improve the game, reduce prep time and make things less daunting for people to start playing/running.  IMO they achieved those goals.  

This whole arguement feels like something I see often in WoW.  Blizzard makes the later instances all drop a higher level of emblem for buying gear, so you can get better gear from running the same content than you used to.  Typically it's the hardcore raiders complaining, saying Blizzard is making the game too easy and it's a slap in their face that they ran these instances after those for gear and now people can get the same gear for easier stuff blah blah.  

Leveling things out a bit in no way reduces your own achievements and benefits you if you have a less geared 2nd character, b/c now you can run something less hard and get equivalent gear, so you can see all teh new stuff Blizzard just put in the game.  They want people to see it all, not have only 3% of the game see something.  WotC wants more people to feel they can step up and run a game.  More DMs means more gaming groups.  More gaming groups means more people playing D&D, which also means more people buying books.  Bigger hobby, more money for WotC, etc.  Wins all around.


----------



## nightwyrm (Oct 13, 2009)

Monster creation in 3e is process oriented (much like building a PC).  You start at your starting point and follow a set of directions (you derive your monster stats by adding hit dice, classes, feats etc.).  You may arrive at your intended destination (your intended monster difficulty) or you may arrive someplace else.  Monster creation in 4e is goal oriented.  You skip immediately to your destination (monster stats) without caring about how you got there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2009)

First off, thank you for the clarifications, everyone.

I would agree that, if you expected baseball, but ended up playing T-Ball, that there would be something missing, but I am not sure that makes baseball a better game.  And I do think that it is a fair criticism to say (of any edition or game) that your expectations include things that are (or seem to be) missing.  Likewise, if you are expecting T-Ball, having to hit a moving target might seem needlessly complex!

On that scale of things, I prefer core rules T-Ball with Baseball options!



RC


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Now absolutely you can take the latter approach for 3e; just pick an appropriate AC, and not worry about if the NPC or monster's stats and equipment don't add up perfectly to that AC. The main difference is, though, that 4e assumes this technique by default.




Hmm.



nightwyrm said:


> Monster creation in 3e is process oriented (much like building a PC).  You start at your starting point and follow a set of directions (you derive your monster stats by adding hit dice, classes, feats etc.).  You may arrive at your intended destination (your intended monster difficulty) or you may arrive someplace else.  Monster creation in 4e is goal oriented.  You skip immediately to your destination (monster stats) without caring about how you got there.




Indeed. The proudest moment of my life was when I finally got back my official 4e permission slip so that I could change my assumptions and start creating monsters according to my needs and goals, rather than slavishly following the process and being *forced *to care how I got there. 4e changed everything.

It was dark days before that. That was no kind of way for a DM to live, especially someone like me who can't perform computational neuronal network modeling.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 13, 2009)

Thanks for the explanations comparing 3e and 4e. I think I would have to just make a 4e NPC myself to really see the difference. Because it sounds exactly the same to me as far as the time spent customizing an NPC in both editions. The difference is the time you _want_ to spend in 3e to customize an NPC in a very specific way...and that to me seems like a choice, not a requirement. What I get from these explanations is that a 3e player has more tools to use if he wants to use them. A 4e player doesn't have as many tools to use, so it keeps things simple. So then you pick which system that best fits your tolerance...do you *want* to spend time with options to make something very specific, or do you want to settle on a concept that will be a bit general, but time saving. Is that pretty much what people are doing when choosing one over the other? I can see the appeal for either preference.

I think it's funny though. The options and customization is what people loved when 3e came out. Everyone talked about how great it was to play something specific and how they couldn't do that in older editions. Now people are saying the exact opposite and using that as a reason for going to 4e. I guess they found out that having more isn't always better


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Indeed. The proudest moment of my life was when I finally got back my official 4e permission slip so that I could change my assumptions and start creating monsters according to my needs and goals, rather than slavishly following the process and being *forced *to care how I got there. 4e changed everything.
> 
> It was dark days before that. That was no kind of way for a DM to live, especially someone like me who can't perform computational neuronal network modeling.




Uh, I don't think that anybody was implying that nobody chose to take a goal-based approach to designing monsters before the creation of 4e. It's just that said approach wasn't the as-described-in-the-books default process, and in 4e it is. 

That's all. No chest-pounding insistence that people were shackled to an inferior system, no evangelizing about a sea change in player ideals that didn't happen. Just noting that the two systems describe different base assumptions in their core rulesets, because someone asked.


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Indeed. The proudest moment of my life was when I finally got back my official 4e permission slip so that I could change my assumptions and start creating monsters according to my needs and goals, rather than slavishly following the process and being *forced *to care how I got there. 4e changed everything.




Yeah, I know - I feel the same way. 

Of course, I was already doing what 4E was giving me license to, almost as if they saw what I was doing and responded to my play style of the time. Kinda like what they did with 3E way back when...


----------



## Voadam (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate this and show me what the differences are? I'm familiar with what "roles" are in 4e (if you're referring to the same thing that 4e PCs have). I'm just curious how the roles help a DM prep faster.




Monster roles are different from player roles.

Players are defenders, strikers, controllers, and leaders. They are based around their combat role as part of the PC party team.

Monster roles are based on what type of challenge they present.

A brute is a high damage low accuracy, low AC high hp, low mobility foe. Easy to wail on but dangerous when he connects.

A soldier is a medium or low damage, decent accuracy, high AC, decent hp, low mobility foe. He stands there and takes punishment but does not immediately wipe you out with attacks.

A skirmisher is a medium damage, decent accuracy, low ac, low hp, high mobility foe. He runs around doing stuff but can be crumpled.

A lurker is a high damage, decent accuracy, low AC, low hp, high mobility, high stealth foe. He is a dangerous ambusher who can easily crumple if you can catch him. 

etc.

This way when you look at an ogre in the MM and see he is a brute you know right away what style of encounter the stat numbers will make him appropriate for and how pc roles will generally react to him. A party of all rogues will rip into him with their high damage output and low likelihood of missing. The paladin who always hits but doesn't do much damage won't be as spectacular. An archer ranger who uses his mobility to stay out of clubbing range will do well. If the ogre traps the high mobility striker archer the PC is at serious risk of being crumped.

The roles tell you quicker how the combat will feel in execution and how your specific players will do.

In 3e you could apply the role labels to monsters and gain the same benefits, but 4e ones have an advantage of being designed to fill these combat roles and the combat stats are predone to fit these combat niches. In 3e you have to eyeball a monster to see how it will go and they are not designed with these monster combat role distinctions consciously in mind.

Also 4e monsters are designed to have just a handful of thematic powers that fit in a sentence or so each and no more. No feats, no list of spells or spell like abilities. Everything on the same page, easy to track, easy to keep in mind. Even for monster casters. 3e monsters done in the same style would be just as easy to prep and use.

Another thing 4e did was to simplify the monster advancement rules to provide a basic up or down easy math adjustment to increase a monsters level (CR) up or down by 5 levels and still fit within the number ranges for their role. This is much simpler and fewer calcualtions with secondary considerations than advancing by Hit Dice in 3e. This makes adjusting adventures quicker to do in prep time in 4e than in 3e.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 13, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> I thought of more analogies:
> 
> 3.x is Windows 95, 4e is Windows XP (2e is Windows for Workgroups, everything earlier is DOS)
> 3.x is vi, 4e is Emacs
> 3.x is Perl, 4e is Python




3.x is "less filling".  4E is "tastes great" 
(debate among yourselves if it should be reversed)

3.x is key lime pie.  4E is pumpkin pie 
I like pumpkin, don't like key lime.  It analogizes me and my situation at least


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Indeed. The proudest moment of my life was when I finally got back my official 4e permission slip so that I could change my assumptions and start creating monsters according to my needs and goals, rather than slavishly following the process and being *forced *to care how I got there. 4e changed everything.
> 
> It was dark days before that. That was no kind of way for a DM to live, especially someone like me who can't perform computational neuronal network modeling.



You KNOW that people aren't saying that. 

You KNOW this and yet you chose to write otherwise anyways.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> Thanks for the explanations comparing 3e and 4e. I think I would have to just make a 4e NPC myself to really see the difference. Because it sounds exactly the same to me as far as the time spent customizing an NPC in both editions. The difference is the time you _want_ to spend in 3e to customize an NPC in a very specific way...and that to me seems like a choice, not a requirement. What I get from these explanations is that a 3e player has more tools to use if he wants to use them. A 4e player doesn't have as many tools to use, so it keeps things simple. So then you pick which system that best fits your tolerance...do you *want* to spend time with options to make something very specific, or do you want to settle on a concept that will be a bit general, but time saving. Is that pretty much what people are doing when choosing one over the other? I can see the appeal for either preference.




Absolutely. I have a friend who builds characters as a hobby. He's always looking for a new system that will allow him to build whatever's closest to the image in his head, or that suggests new and exciting character possibilities. He prefers 3e to 4e (and I believe Mutants & Masterminds to both). 

On the other hand, my wife sees character creation as a necessary evil to what she really likes in gaming, which is the at-the-table interaction. She wouldn't use 3e-level complexity to its fullest, so that complexity wasn't as high a value for her, and she likes the combat system of 4e so much that it adds to her perceived value of at-the-table interaction. It suits what she wants out of a game better. 

So it just depends. I work at a company with a lot of gamers, and they do everything -- running Wilderlands campaigns with indie systems from the Forge, trying old-school Erol Otus red-box D&D for exploration games, wonky 4e reskins, WoD fantasy hacks, 350-point Champions-style fantasy superheroes, and that's just for the fantasy genre alone. I'm lucky enough to be from a place where fewer people "pick sides."



Henry said:


> Of course, I was already doing what 4E was giving me license to, almost as if they saw what I was doing and responded to my play style of the time. Kinda like what they did with 3E way back when...




I had fiend-blooded people and anthropomorpic dragonmen as player races back in my 2e days, pre-Planescape. I feel like I'm owed royalties or something.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Hmm.
> Indeed. The proudest moment of my life was when I finally got back my official 4e permission slip so that I could change my assumptions and start creating monsters according to my needs and goals, rather than slavishly following the process and being *forced *to care how I got there. 4e changed everything.
> 
> It was dark days before that. That was no kind of way for a DM to live, especially someone like me who can't perform computational neuronal network modeling.




...and here's a classic example of what I mentioned where we talk around what we really mean in order to not break the rules of the forum. Wulf, you've been around here long enough to know better than this passive aggressive stuff!

But seriously, we get it: you can just write down whatever stats you want for your monster or NPC. However, 3X expressly isn't designed that way: it's designed so that everything is created and statted out with the same rules. That's a *feature *that normally gets touted for it.

So you decide to stat out your monster by what "feels right". What guidance or assistance do you have that your creature will be an appropriate challenge for your group? None at all. And what do you say when a player asks you how the shaman ogre they just fought had an AC of 23? "Uh, that seemed like an appropriate challenge..." Sure you can say that, but if you do, you can expect the same comments that people give when you do it in 4E.

So yes, you can design monsters in 3X like you do in 4E, 4E just actually gives you guidelines to do so. You could have said all of that without the snark.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> Thanks for the explanations comparing 3e and 4e. I think I would have to just make a 4e NPC myself to really see the difference. Because it sounds exactly the same to me as far as the time spent customizing an NPC in both editions. The difference is the time you _want_ to spend in 3e to customize an NPC in a very specific way...and that to me seems like a choice, not a requirement. What I get from these explanations is that a 3e player has more tools to use if he wants to use them. A 4e player doesn't have as many tools to use, so it keeps things simple. So then you pick which system that best fits your tolerance...do you *want* to spend time with options to make something very specific, or do you want to settle on a concept that will be a bit general, but time saving. Is that pretty much what people are doing when choosing one over the other? I can see the appeal for either preference.




In 3e the default NPC is one made just like a PC but with less gp worth of items. It also provides some sample base ones in the DMG to use off the rack.

Its been a while since I read the 4e DMG but I believe their default NPC creation guidelines are that NPCs are monsters but as an option you can make them as a simplified PC style class. The NPC gets a few class powers and are then done but also notes that if you want to make them as a full character you can. The default option though is to treat NPCs wholly as monsters, using the handful of thematic monster powers, optionally reskinning existing inappropriate ones to look how you want them to look, and then you are done. So a human guild wizard could be a mindflayer psychic crusher or whatever, be described as human, and be ready to go.

In 3e in general you do a lot with full classes as a default. In 4e it is with the simplified monster stat blocks.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> It was dark days before that. That was no kind of way for a DM to live, especially someone like me who can't perform computational neuronal network modeling.




We could do without the snark. 

"You can always do something other than what the rules say," is true (I tend to do this when I run 3e), but let us be honest - it wears thin as a defense.  After you have to say that enough times, you do have to question why you aren't using a system that does what you want in the first place.


----------



## Phaezen (Oct 13, 2009)

Henry said:


> Side Digression - Honestly, with all the digression people have over how player choice is more limited, If they could make a system that looked like 3E on the player's side of the screen, but like 4E on the DM's side of the screen, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.




I am trying something like this for my upcoming Iron Heroes game, details here


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 13, 2009)

billd91 said:


> The fact is both 4e and 3e are not immune to criticism or dislike from people. And people should be free to express that, even comparing the two editions, without being jumped on for edition warring.




Really all the edition warring is silly.  WotC won the edition war.  They get our money for both editions.  This also means 4E won b/c they decided it was what they would rather market.  *shrug*  

Calling a system teeball so you can imply its players aren't playing a "real" game is lame.  Feel free to let WotC know what you think worked well and poorly about 3.x.  Let them know the same about 4E.  You know they will eventually release 5E



> The t-ball comparision came up in another thread, generated an eruption in this thread, and pretty much been completely moved past in the original thread.




they probably didn't want to derail the thread and then this opened so they could come here and discuss it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 13, 2009)

I really don't comprehend all the things that one supposedly can't do with a given edition/system. 

You CAN'T roleplay with 4E
You CAN'T make up monsters simply with 3E
You CAN'T create interesting characters with 1E

Since I have been able to do all of the above, where is all the CAN'T coming from? 

The size of a rulebook never precludes independent creative thought or at least it shouldn't. I think the majority of gamers have simply forgotten the true meaning of the word CAN'T. It does not mean "unless reference to such a practice can be found on page X". 

RAW is a prison that we make for ourselves.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> You KNOW that people aren't saying that.
> 
> You KNOW this and yet you chose to write otherwise anyways.




It hints at a certain recalcitrance.



SteveC said:


> ...and here's a classic example of what I mentioned where we talk around what we really mean in order to not break the rules of the forum. Wulf, you've been around here long enough to know better than this passive aggressive stuff!




Really? Snark is against the forum rules?



> And what do you say when a player asks you how the shaman ogre they just fought had an AC of 23?




I know. I used to dread the last hour of every session where I was required to hand over my DM notes to the players so that they could double-check my work for accuracy.

Not to mention the fines subsequently levied.

I've probably saved the purchase price of 4e several times over in fines alone.



> So yes, you can design monsters in 3X like you do in 4E, 4E just actually gives you guidelines to do so.




And I have praised 4e for it. Frequently.



Umbran said:


> We could do without the snark.




Your unofficial "No Snark" request is noted and filed "off thread."


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> You KNOW that people aren't saying that.
> 
> You KNOW this and yet you chose to write otherwise anyways.






I hate it when that happens....


----------



## Herschel (Oct 13, 2009)

I'd say 4E doesn't make it easier to be a DM, but it makes it easier to become a _good _DM. It provides tools to let one spend more of the time one does spend on the story and how one wants to tell it. 

IOW, Being a good DM doesn't rely on system mastery. Heck, I play in a game now that the DM asks a lot of mechanical questions and the game is still a lot of fun.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> How else would you interpret BryonDs comment?  It is indefensible as innocent, honest criticism.



Funny, thats not how I interpret it.



> And that's before you consider that every post of his is an attack against 4e players with his signature or his own posting history.



Insert evil laughter here

If *"all"* you need is "D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal" then that speaks for itself in my opinion.   Is that an accurate description of you personally? 



> -4e is like t-ball, a game developed for 5 year olds who don't have the strength to pitch, or the coordination to hit a pitch- is not criticism, it is edition warring, an obvious and overt insult to 4e gamers.



When a 4E fan describes 4E as a game made to help the people who don't have the DMing equivalents of strength and coordination, then saying one is like the other is pretty reasonable.




> Why it wasn't modded away in the first place, I don't get.



Maybe because what I said and what you are turning it in to are not the same thing.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Just a point of information that may add a touch of perspective.

If I had to vote, I think I'd name Piratecat as the best DM I've ever read material by or played with.  I've never actually played in a game with him, but thats how I vote.  

I understand that PC runs 4E.  That has been my understanding for a while.

I stand by everything I've said.
And every bit of it is compatible with the best DM I know of running 4E.  

If your reaction to my position is not compatible with that, then your reaction may be a little too much on the knee-jerk side and not enough on the looking at the context and considering the actual statement side.  

just maybe


----------



## Malacoda (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If *"all"* you need is "D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal" then that speaks for itself in my opinion.




The quote pretty much tells you what that person wants from D&D the system, not what they want from their fellow gamers or at their gaming table. D&D, any edition, doesn't bring intelligent conversation, gamers do. Your response in your quote strikes me as a non-sequitur.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 13, 2009)

It's threads like this that make me feel like I'm really getting my $3 per month's worth!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 13, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> billd91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep.  I decided to fork it and not derail the other conversation.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 13, 2009)

SteveC said:


> And what do you say when a player asks you how the shaman ogre they just fought had an AC of 23? "Uh, that seemed like an appropriate challenge..."




I have never had a player ask me about the math behind an AC. I think my instinctive reaction if it was a demand would be "Excuse me?"

That said I think I might answer "Its a _shaman_ ogre." if I didn't just say "Yep, quite the mystery. Perhaps its something you'd want to investigate in game in case you meet any more."

Although "He had a guardian spirit ally from his pacting shaman template." has a nice feel to it. 

Have your players in 3e really asked in the middle of a game how the monsters got their AC numbers?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 13, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> Thanks for the explanations comparing 3e and 4e. I think I would have to just make a 4e NPC myself to really see the difference. Because it sounds exactly the same to me as far as the time spent customizing an NPC in both editions.



It's not.  Of course, I come from the point of view of writing "official" adventures for Living Greyhawk and Living Forgotten Realms.

In 3e, you take a base creature, then you add say 10 class levels of Wizard.  10 levels of wizard gives you a bonus to 2 stats, 4 feats, +5 BAB, 10d4 plus con mod hitpoints, a lot of skill points, around 20 spells(and over 30 in the spellbook), and some class features.  Also, it gives you a bunch of gold pieces to buy magic items with.  The 4 feats need to be taken from every feat in the game.  Which meant scouring 10 books for the best feats to go with the creature.  You had to pick the spell list from multiple books as well.  Then your magic items needed to be picked from multiple books.

Then you needed to add together armor bonuses, deflection bonuses, natural armor bonuses, and so on.  Making sure to follow proper stacking rules.  You need to modify the skills, attack, damage, AC, Saves based on the new stat points you spent(and any magic items).

Then, when you actually ran the enemy, you'd have to recalculate all those things again when you used individual spells that enhanced those abilities.

Lastly, you'd need to worry about the resulting creature's balance.  You may have followed the rules to the letter, but a CR 20 creature with +5 to hit, isn't going to hit any of the players.  A CR 5 creature with an AC of 30 is going to be nearly impossible to defeat.  If you created a broken creature somehow, you needed to either run the creature as is and tell your players to suck it up or you needed to start the process again.

In 4e, if you want to raise a caster type monster by 5 levels, you add 5 to all attacks and defenses, 2 to damage, and a number of hitpoints based on its type.  If you want to give it a magic item, you can...it generally doesn't add anything except a power.

If you want to make a caster type monster who is level 10, you simply look at the table in the DMG, write down the defenses, attack, damage, and hitpoints of a creature of that level.  Then choose some interesting powers from other creatures.

Or, you can apply a class template to a monster and follow the instructions in the template to modify the creature by adding powers from the class.  This is the most complicated method of modifying creatures but gives the most detailed result.



Oryan77 said:


> I think it's funny though. The options and customization is what people loved when 3e came out. Everyone talked about how great it was to play something specific and how they couldn't do that in older editions. Now people are saying the exact opposite and using that as a reason for going to 4e. I guess they found out that having more isn't always better



Customization creates balance issues.  Being able to create a weakling who can't fight at all in a 20th level group is fine and dandy.  Being able to creature a character capable of taking on the whole planet at the same time is fine and dandy.  Put them both in the same group and it is impossible to challenge one character without completely destroying or trivializing the other one.

There was enough customization in 3e that you could create a creature with 700 hitpoints and +40 to hit who was a CR 20.  But you could also create a creature with 50 hipoints with +5 to hit who was CR 20.

You could create a character who had +40 to hit at 20th level.  You could also create a character with +5 to hit at 20th level.  One could have 500 hitpoints while another has 40.

Given that amount of customization, it was impossible to accurately predict the power level of a character.  So, when you are writing adventures that are to be sold or distributed to thousands of people like our Living Greyhawk ones were, you had to just guess randomly and hope for the best.  Most authors planned for the worst and made the most powerful monsters they could make just in case.  Then, if anyone complained, they could just say, "Hey, I followed the rules,  It's a CR 8 creature, your 8th level party should be able to beat it easily."

For me, I found that this, combined with the fact that it took me a good 2 or 3 hours to make that creature optimized enough to survive against powergamers, only to have it survive 2 rounds of combat made it not worth it to follow the rules.  I don't like breaking the rules.  I figure the rules are there for a reason.  So I follow them.  I just gave up DMing in 3.5e.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 13, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Have your players in 3e really asked in the middle of a game how the monsters got their AC numbers?




Yes.  Sometimes 3 or 4 times a round.  As soon as one of the extremely powergamed characters says "I hit AC 35" and I say "Miss", they immediately say "WHAT?  I hit 35.  There's no way that missed.  How did it get that?"

And then I have to say "Well, it is a creature who started with a +12 natural armor.  Then it got a template that adds a +2 deflection bonus.  It is wearing +3 Fullplate designed for its size.  Then it gets +1 from Dex."

Then they say "Wow...I can't believe you cheesed up the monster by adding a template and giving it custom +3 armor.  Most of the monsters we fighter have around AC 25.  It's a full 11 points higher than usual."

Because, if I'm off by one point, they'll notice.  They'll call me on it.  After all, the only way the game is fun for them and for me is if we play "fair".  If the rules let you make something, it's fair.  If it's just made up, then they might as well not play.  After all, it's easy to beat them if you can arbitrarily make a monster AC 36.  It's hard if they have to follow a set of rules to get to AC 36.  At least, that's how they look at it.  Or how they did look at it in 3.5e.

Now, in 4e, I simply say "It's a level 10 monster, it has appropriate defenses for it's level.  There's no rules for what AC it can have.  This one is higher than normal."


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Maybe because what I said and what you are turning it in to are not the same thing.




Then I have a simple request: Say it again, as clearly as possible, and shed some light on all of this. Instead of just saying "thats not what I said" 137 times when everybody else disagrees with you.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yes.  Sometimes 3 or 4 times a round.  As soon as one of the extremely powergamed characters says "I hit AC 35" and I say "Miss", they immediately say "WHAT?  I hit 35.  There's no way that missed.  How did it get that?"




My own experiences aren't that bad but I've had GMing running monsters with AC's in the mid 30's because the group was so well built and they have no magic items, no armor, etc... He just made them that AC to provide us a challenge. Beated giving them all bracers and rings and other defensive items but as everything is supposed to be built around the same venue, I know I and other players were pissed that we had these long running fights with ninjas whose ACs were 30 "just because".


----------



## SteveC (Oct 13, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yes.  Sometimes 3 or 4 times a round.  As soon as one of the extremely powergamed characters says "I hit AC 35" and I say "Miss", they immediately say "WHAT?  I hit 35.  There's no way that missed.  How did it get that?"
> 
> And then I have to say "Well, it is a creature who started with a +12 natural armor.  Then it got a template that adds a +2 deflection bonus.  It is wearing +3 Fullplate designed for its size.  Then it gets +1 from Dex."
> 
> ...



Pretty much this. I won't say that my players are this critical, but they all really understand the rules and have an encyclopedic knowledge of monster stats. As a result, if things do go outside the lines, they'll know about it.

Beyond that, what happens when your group sends a dispel magic over at your "made up on the fly" creature? How does that affect its stats. My group also had a spell from (I believe...it's been a while) the Spell Compendium that did damage to you for each spell that was currently affecting you. So I had to keep track of the number and kind of buff spells that I gave my creatures pretty much all the time.

In 4E, I can design much more to taste. 

I know a lot of people must read a post like this and say "what the heck?" but if you say that you're likely not playing with a lot of "system mastery" type players. They do exist, and in my group's case are some of the best friends and roleplayers you'd ever want to meet.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> So we are going to start putting words in each other's mouths now that have nothing to do with the other's actual point?




_I don't see how a new edition after nearly a decade run shows that you are right. If anything it disputes you._

How am I putting words in your mouth? This seems to indicate that no new edition can compare to a game that's been out a decade whereas I see it as WoTC listening to what players have been saying for, well, a decade and customizing the game to their taste.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 13, 2009)

RE: Edition Wars

The Edition Wars go beyond simple dislike. If people were just stating preferences or the lack thereof, it wouldn't escalate into an Edition War. Things escalate when the concept of "The One True D&D" gets added into the mix, upon either side. This can come from snark, passive aggression, implication, or whatever else and is rarely stated openly. It can also come from misunderstandings, as for example when someone says that 4E does something better and another person takes this as insulting 3E, hence inserting the concept of "One True D&D" by the person reading the post, as opposed to the poster.


----------



## Theroc (Oct 13, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Have your players in 3e really asked in the middle of a game how the monsters got their AC numbers?




I sorta did this once in a PbP.  My level 5 Warlock(/Cleric/Binder gestalt) missed a touch attack on a final roll of 25(Modifiers included).  I had no idea touch AC could get that high on a character at this level, and was concerned that if I couldn't with hit that (which took at least a 17 or so roll) as a touch attack, how we'd hit at all with regular attacks.

I hadn't precisely said, "Show me your numbers, I think you're cheating"  I was just surprised at the high AC, and wondered if the DM had forgotten the 'Touch' portion of the attack.  Granted, Play by Post is slower paced and comments/questions like this can be tossed in without killing the pace/mood as much.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 13, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> For me, I found that this, combined with the fact that it took me a good 2 or 3 hours to make that creature optimized enough to survive against powergamers, only to have it survive 2 rounds of combat made it not worth it to follow the rules.  I don't like breaking the rules.  I figure the rules are there for a reason.  So I follow them.  I just gave up DMing in 3.5e.




So do "powergamers" not exist in 4e? You don't need to worry about making sure a 4e adventure is challenging to every PC of the same level?

Wouldn't the way to go about making an adventure be for the writer to assume the PCs are "normal" PCs built with the "average" builds provided from the core books? Then leave it up to the DMs to adjust things depending how many optional books & rules he has allowed in the game? I can't imagine creating adventures with the goal in mind to make it balanced for every type of PC...that would be a nightmare. It's the DMs choice to use more options. If he chooses to go down that route, then it should be his responsibility to make adjustments.

Now if this isn't even an issue in 4e, that's good. But is it not an issue because there aren't as many options _yet_? Could a writer like yourself be in the same boat as you were during 3e several years from now when there are more character options for 4e? Or are the rules setup where this just can't happen and players are unable to powergame now?

I only used the 4e PHB to make my PC. I'm no powergamer, but it was obvious that I could in no way powergame a PC by using only the PHB. But I have never read any of the new 4e sourcebooks.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> After all, the only way the game is fun for them and for me is if we play "fair".  If the rules let you make something, it's fair.  If it's just made up, then they might as well not play.  After all, it's easy to beat them if you can arbitrarily make a monster AC 36.




I don't play D&D as a competition between myself and the players, so that definitely skews my perception a little bit.

In my game, the intent is for everyone to have fun, DM and players. It's a cooperative play style.



> Now, in 4e, I simply say "It's a level 10 monster, it has appropriate defenses for it's level."




And in 3e, you absolutely positively cannot say, "It has appropriate defenses to challenge you guys." 

Of course this demonstrates the true genius of 4e "design:" the explicit permission to ignore the rules. Which you can only get from 4e. But definitely not 3e.

Ignoring the rules when they exist <> strength of the system.

Ignoring the rules when they don't exist = strength of the system.



> I know a lot of people must read a post like this and say "what the heck?"




Nooooo.....



> but if you say that you're likely not playing with a lot of "system mastery" type players.




Ergo, the only possible solution is to move to a system that is explicit about the fact that there is no system to object to.

Let me put this in a way that is free of edition bias:

When your players say to you, "How did that ogre get a 23 AC?" the correct response (regardless of system) is, "I gave it an AC appropriate to challenge you all."

And when the players ask, "But how did you specifically arrive at 23 AC?" your answer (again, regardless of edition) should either be,

1) "Based on my experience with the system, 23 AC seemed right."

or 

2) "I looked it up on a table."

#2 is not truly non-edition specific, as the complaint is that 3e contains no such table.

This oversight, of course, was rectified in 4e: If you lack the experience, now you have a table.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 13, 2009)

For me anyway, it's not even the crunch in the DMG that impressed me about 4e.

It's the fact that 4e actually teaches a player HOW to be a DM and is the best DMG ever for doing this. I don't know why this gets ignored but this to me is 4e's true accomplishment.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Really? Snark is against the forum rules?




Since you asked...

Not like you didn't know, but "snark" is a combination of "snide" and "remark".  Snide, as in "maliciously derogatory".  If you're getting malicious and derogatory, you may well be in violation of the board rules.  Like most things, it is all a matter of degree.

It is also quite clearly counterproductive.  Snark is not about exchanging information - we all know that snarkiness never convinces the other guy.  It is about looking clever, superior, and gaining psychological advantage.  When snark enters, real exchange of opinions and ideas stops, and arguments start.  Snark is thus actively counter to the core purpose of EN World. 

So really, against the rules or not, we need it kind of like we need extra holes in our heads.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> _I don't see how a new edition after nearly a decade run shows that you are right. If anything it disputes you._
> 
> How am I putting words in your mouth? This seems to indicate that no new edition can compare to a game that's been out a decade whereas I see it as WoTC listening to what players have been saying for, well, a decade and customizing the game to their taste.



How in the world do you get that
it says that?  
All it says is that the game lived and was enjoyed for a full life.  Which disputes your prior claim.  It in no way whatsoever says that no game can compare to it and trying to force that bizarre spin onto it is putting words in to my mouth.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> For me anyway, it's not even the crunch in the DMG that impressed me about 4e.
> 
> It's the fact that 4e actually teaches a player HOW to be a DM and is the best DMG ever for doing this. I don't know why this gets ignored but this to me is 4e's true accomplishment.



Oddly enough, I don't find myself disagreeing.

It's probably worth noting that DMing is what teaches a person how to be a DM. It's a bit like swimming, in that regard. _However_, some good GMing advice is worth including in RPG books, generally speaking, and yes, the 4e DMG does have some. Sadly, this is rather unusual, in the RPG world as a whole.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Then I have a simple request: Say it again, as clearly as possible, and shed some light on all of this. Instead of just saying "thats not what I said" 137 times when everybody else disagrees with you.



Well, being as I have clearly explained far more times than I have said "that's not what I said", I really doubt one more will help you.

And frankly, feel free to ignore me because there are plenty of 4E fans I think I can have a straight conversation with, but you are not one of them.  Some people consider me a 4e hater vitriol thrower.  My advice is to not care what I say if that is how you see it.

But you've tossed plenty of 3E hating vitriol of your own.  And I don't see me and you getting anywhere.  And you ignoring the repeated clear statements that I have made and instead calling out me for correcting one of a handful of times I been directly mis-stated as "137" times and claiming I "just" do that is pretty rock solid evidence that this exchange isn't even intended to be founded on honest discussion.

So no.  I won't engage you.

Best of gaming to you.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> For me anyway, it's not even the crunch in the DMG that impressed me about 4e.
> 
> It's the fact that 4e actually teaches a player HOW to be a DM and is the best DMG ever for doing this. I don't know why this gets ignored but this to me is 4e's true accomplishment.



Do you realize I have not disputed this?


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I don't play D&D as a competition between myself and the players, so that definitely skews my perception a little bit.
> 
> In my game, the intent is for everyone to have fun, DM and players. It's a cooperative play style.



But a *loooooooooot* of players don't look at D&D like this. I've had to boot a dozen players out of our group because they couldn't get past the DM vs Player attitude. That attitude really makes a DM look like a jerk when he isn't trying to be one. When a player sees it as a competition, it makes it hard for the DM to roleplay well because the player will hold a grudge thinking that the NPC only did something because the DM is mean or wants revenge. And I'm sure there are a lot of DMs that actually do do things out of revenge because they also see D&D as a DM vs Player game even though they don't realize they do. But this way of thinking really ruins a game whether it's intentional or not.

The line you quoted proves this. I had to become a rules lawyer just because the players I didn't boot would call shenanigans if I was ruling off the fly (ya know, like we did in earlier editions to speed up play). Players nowadays just have to make sure the DM is doing everything legit or else they say, "well why play if yer just gonna make rules up". That line of thought is a 'player vs DM' way of thinking. Why? Because rather than trust the DM that he's ruling for the better of the game, they want to make sure he's ruling "correctly" so he definitely isn't being unnecessarily hard on the PC. I remember the days when I used to make a half-assed ruling just so the game keeps going....not because I'm out to get the PCs. My 3e players have to stop the game and look up a rule every single time they think my ruling is wrong. And after being right _most_ of the time, they still have to question me  At least they seem to trust me overall, but questioning my rulings like this still makes it seem like I may be out to get them.

The newer editions have definitely spawned more Player vs DM attitudes.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 14, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> The newer editions have definitely spawned more Player vs DM attitudes.




Hrmm... I'd say this attitude has been with the game for a LONG time.

As for the topic at hand- my answer is no.

I don't really feel that 4e is an update to 3e so much as both 3e and 4e are updates to 1e/2e. 

In my opinion 4e achieves the update in a more streamlined and smooth fashion. It gives me the updates and options I felt were missing in 1e/2e version, without all the hoops I felt 3e added. (And I didn't even realize they were there really until I started playing 4e and felt how much more fun the game was without them.  Don't get me wrong, 3e was a ton of fun, because it added those options, but I feel 4e is more fun because it removes the extra fiddly bits...)

For me it's like two versions of baseball. One has something called foulwhacks. If your at bat, and you hit a foul ball, it counts as a foulwhack. If you get 2 foulwhacks and a strike, you're out.

The other version just counts them as strikes to begin with.

Either way you get to the same place, but in my opinion, I'd rather not have to also track foulwhacks if there's not really a reason to do so.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> Players nowadays just have to make sure the DM is doing everything legit or else they say, "well why play if yer just gonna make rules up". That line of thought is a 'player vs DM' way of thinking. Why? Because rather than trust the DM that he's ruling for the better of the game, they want to make sure he's ruling "correctly."




And because 4e doesn't have any rules for how AC is derived that they can correct you on, it's smooth sailing?

4e actively changes the hearts and minds of your players? 

They really should have played that up more in the marketing.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 14, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> So do "powergamers" not exist in 4e? You don't need to worry about making sure a 4e adventure is challenging to every PC of the same level?



Powergamers exist.  But the "average" PC is a lot easier to define due to a lack of extreme customization.  At level 11, I know that the bonuses to hit are going to range (vs AC) between +13 and +18(lower than 13 is possible if you completely ignore the PHB's advice on how to make a character, +19 or +20 might be possible with some extreme powergaming).  I can safely put the enemy's AC at 26 and know that PCs will have between a 40% and 65%(between 30% and 75% if we extend it to the absolute limits) chance to hit.  Which means a reasonable chance for anyone.  Plus, the way the game scales is that the difference between lowest and highest should stay close to the same for all 30 levels(it grows by 15%).

The difference between best and worst is small enough that I don't have to PLAN for the powergamers, they just have a slightly easier time of it.  The lower end of the scale can purposefully flank or have leaders to give them bonuses to overcome the small disadvantage they have as well.

Contrast that to 3.5e where the minimum at 11th level is the 6 strength wizard who decides to use his non-magical staff to attack(+3) vs the 26 Strength Half-Orc Barbarian who is raging, has Reckless Rage, Weapon Focus, and a +3 weapon, (+27) means that an AC 27 creature can be hit between 5% and 95% of the time.  The highest misses only on a 1, the lowest hits only on a 20.  The difference between weakest and strongest gets further and further apart the higher level you get in 3.5e.  At 20th level it is possible to have one character have 4 attacks with a 95% chance to hit while the lowest hits only 5% of the time with ALL his attacks.



Oryan77 said:


> Wouldn't the way to go about making an adventure be for the writer to assume the PCs are "normal" PCs built with the "average" builds provided from the core books? Then leave it up to the DMs to adjust things depending how many optional books & rules he has allowed in the game? I can't imagine creating adventures with the goal in mind to make it balanced for every type of PC...that would be a nightmare. It's the DMs choice to use more options. If he chooses to go down that route, then it should be his responsibility to make adjustments.



We were writing for Living Greyhawk.  The worldwide campaign where the DMs didn't have a choice about what kind of characters to allow.  Nearly everything was allowed(with a small list of 30 or so banned items due to them being very overpowered).  28 point buy.  DMs are not allowed to modify the stats of the creatures, the adventure must be run as written to avoid favoritism or "unfair" games(i.e. getting a bunch of XP for defeating hard monsters when your DM lowered the difficulty on them or having your party wiped out because the DM didn't like you).

The thing is, I'm not even sure what to assume average IS in 3.5e.  If you consider the 16 strength 11th level Rogue with a +1 weapon and no feats to add to his attack bonus.  That's +12.  It hits on a 16 what the above Barbarian hits on a 2.  If the Rogue is "average" and you create an adventure for that(AC 26 enemies to make a 55% hit chance) then the powergamers can walk through the adventure without any challenge whatsoever(the barbarian hits with his SECOND attack 85% of the time).



Oryan77 said:


> Now if this isn't even an issue in 4e, that's good. But is it not an issue because there aren't as many options _yet_? Could a writer like yourself be in the same boat as you were during 3e several years from now when there are more character options for 4e? Or are the rules setup where this just can't happen and players are unable to powergame now?



The stacking rules have been set up in such a way that almost nothing stacks with each other.  That helps.  The authors of 4e have realized this exact math problem(they've posted about it a couple of times) and have purposefully avoiding putting in any more feats or items that give you any more bonuses to hit.

In 3e, they never knew about this...so they didn't avoid breaking the game.  I currently have my fingers crossed that they stick to their guns and avoid publishing anything else that stacks.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> And because 4e doesn't have any rules for how AC is derived that they can correct you on, it's smooth sailing?
> 
> 4e actively changes the hearts and minds of your players?




Dude, Oryan77 was asking about 4e because he didn't have much experience with it. Your sarcasm long nines are aimed at the wrong target.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Dude, Oryan77 was asking about 4e because he didn't have much experience with it. Your sarcasm long nines are aimed at the wrong target.




I'm aghast that you would suggest that I am "aiming" at "targets."

It is against the forum posting rules to ascribe motives to other posters.

All of my posts are meant to be read verbatim without any inflection that is not present in the written word. Any such sarcastic or snarky inflection is wholly in the mind of the reader.

I apologize to Oryan for using "you" and "your" in a post that was an observation on 4e and "aimed" at no one in particular.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 14, 2009)

I think it a good idea to assume that new DMs will be among the readers; the opposite assumption could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy! The 1st ed. AD&D books, by Gygax's own later estimation, took prior D&D experience  too much for granted (for all that they were labeled "Advanced" works). The original set, by the same token, had assumed too much familiarity with customs of the miniature-wargames hobby.

I am not sure that 4e actually suits beginners much more than 3e. What I have mostly seen is evidence that it better suits some _experienced_ DMs who may be almost a decade older than when they first embraced 3e. It may be drawing in newbies, but it's that already-in "bulge in the python" demographic that really stands out (and indeed makes the usual arguments for the whole "edition" strategy sensible in the first place) .

By the same token, streamlined rules sets are part of what makes old TSR-D&D (or even the likes of RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip) more attractive than either WotC game to some _very_ experienced D&Ders.

Complicated mechanical systems are not fundamentally what D&D is about, to the extent that they might be what (say) RoleMaster or HackMaster is about. Other kinds of complexity won for it the enthusiasm that made not only the name of the game but the popularity of the RPG hobby.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> And because 4e doesn't have any rules for how AC is derived that they can correct you on, it's smooth sailing?
> 
> 4e actively changes the hearts and minds of your players?
> 
> They really should have played that up more in the marketing.




Before you are quick to be "snarky" as the mods are saying....you should be careful who you're being snarky with and what you are being snarky about. 

I've never said 4e has eliminated rules arguments. I've never even hinted at 4e being better. I in fact am not "pro" 4e. I am merely "tolerant" about 4e because it's not my preferred edition, but I understand why people like it. I do have a 4e PC that I play when I get the chance and I do enjoy playing him. I don't DM 4e and will never DM 4e. I love my 3.5 and that will be my go to edition.

Calm down, breath, and go reread my post. I was agreeing with your comments about player vs DM attitude. That text you quoted was saying that I find it annoying that newer edition players nit pick the rules more than before (from my experience). My complaint about Player vs DM is towards both 3e (oh no, that's my edition!) and 4e (oh no, I hope nobody hates me).


Oryan77 said:


> The newer editions have definitely spawned more Player vs DM attitudes.



You do a mighty fine job turning a topic into an edition war 

I find it silly that I even have to mention this, but in case the mods care, no I am not arguing with Wulf or trying to start an argument. There is no need to "parent" us and lock the thread based off of my comments. I think it's funny that he turned my post against me when I was actually agreeing with him. I hope he knows I am also not trying to argue with him. I only mention this because I'd hate to see the thread locked as if we're children that can't discuss a topic like intelligent adults. It happens way too often here so I am letting it be known that I am not & will not be going down the road that leads to a thread getting locked due to flaming or insulting comments. All I want to do is point out to Wulf that he's barking up the wrong tree. Please do not lock this thread based off of this post as if I'm being an antagonist....that is not my intention.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I don't play D&D as a competition between myself and the players, so that definitely skews my perception a little bit.



It's not so much a competition as it is an understanding that something doesn't pose a challenge if the DM is unfair.

Either they are purposefully lowering the stats of the monster to make it easier on you, in which case you get the impression that it doesn't matter what you roll, you were going to win anyways.  Or the DM has purposefully raised the stats of a monster in which case, it doesn't matter what you roll because you were going to die anyways.

If the DM used a book with a distinct formula on how to make up monsters that the designers swear is balanced, then we can say "CR 8 monsters are a challenge to Level 8 characters.  If we beat them as level 6 characters, we accomplished something special.  We are better than expected."  If the monster has the AC of a CR 6 creature but the hitpoints of a CR 8...how do we know if we accomplished anything special?

People like to build characters.  When my friends made up a character that started with a 20 strength and got a Belt of Giant Strength +4 and took Weapon Focus, they expected battles to go easier for them.  They expected to distinguish themselves above their companions.  The only comparison they had was the monsters in the book.  How fast can you beat a Green Dragon?  How about a Mind Flayer?  And so on.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> In my game, the intent is for everyone to have fun, DM and players. It's a cooperative play style.



It is about being cooperative.  We cooperate in order to defeat the monsters, because we are more powerful working together.  The DM makes an adventure that is interesting and challenging without putting in anything overwhelming in order to keep it fun.  Everyone knows the odds are often stacked in the PCs favor.  But there is a real chance that they could all die every combat.  Otherwise it's no fun.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> And in 3e, you absolutely positively cannot say, "It has appropriate defenses to challenge you guys."



No.  The rules say you build a monster by figuring out all of its defenses and attacks by using the formula in the book.  If we fight a creature with 20 hitdice and it only has +3 to hit...well, that's just not right.  It has too small attack bonus for its hitdice.  That's not very fun.  It would have beat us if it was built the proper way.  How can you feel accomplishment knowing you were fighting against enemies who weren't legal?  Same thing in reverse...if they are artificially too powerful, then it is no fun.  They were an attempt by the DM to kill everyone.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> Ignoring the rules when they exist <> strength of the system.
> 
> Ignoring the rules when they don't exist = strength of the system.



They rules DO exist though.  They are just slightly more vague.  In 4e the rule actually IS "Use these numbers in this chart.  Adjust a couple of points in either direction to taste".  Therefore, fighting a monster who has an AC 1 point lower than usual is within the parameters set up by the game.  It is fair, because the game and the designers intended that to be part of the game.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> When your players say to you, "How did that ogre get a 23 AC?" the correct response (regardless of system) is, "I gave it an AC appropriate to challenge you all."



It has to do with a difference in philosophy.  In 3e, the game system reported to be a "physics emulation".  It made this opinion clear in a number of ways.  So when that Ogre is wearing leather armor that is suddenly as strong as +5 Full Plate....well the laws of physics seem screwed up.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I think it a good idea to assume that new DMs will be among the readers; the opposite assumption could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy! The 1st ed. AD&D books, by Gygax's own later estimation, took prior D&D experience  too much for granted (for all that they were labeled "Advanced" works). The original set, by the same token, had assumed too much familiarity with customs of the miniature-wargames hobby.
> 
> I.




The 2e DMG. 

Seriously, was there ANY advice on how to actually run a game to make it enjoyable for people in that DMG?


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I'm aghast that you would suggest that I am "aiming" at "targets."



Looked like it to me 



> I apologize to Oryan for using "you" and "your" in a post that was an observation on 4e and "aimed" at no one in particular.




That's cool, but I'm still confused about your reply to what you quoted from me. I was agreeing with you. the quote you took from me was agreeing with you. I was basically criticizing both 3e & 4e, yet your reply made it sound like I was saying that 4e was the golden child. I'm not sure where that came from.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 14, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Have your players in 3e really asked in the middle of a game how the monsters got their AC numbers?



Yes. I actually had to institute a house rule: don't reverse engineer the monsters.

This didn't protect me from my players now reverse engineering the encounters. If one encounter was especially tough, they'd get on my case it's EL level. I stopped figuring out EL and just eyeballed the encounters so I could claim plausible deniability. (This was only possible after I moved to level independent xp from Unearthed Arcana.)

I loved my old group. They were good friends and great guys. But geez could they whine! They'd survive an encounter and then whine about hard it was! It's enough to make a DM roll to see what random demon prince decides to invade the prime material on the very spot the PCs are standing.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 14, 2009)

Woah.  This thread practically exploded with comments.  Just a few hours ago, it was only a couple of pages.  Now there's like, a billion of them.

No, I do not consider 4e D&D to be "newbie teeball."  But nobody is ever going to quote me in a reply if I leave it at that, so I'll elaborate.

-----

During the development of 4E, one of the largest gripes about the previous edition was the lack of simplicity.  Combat took too long, character creation was too complicated, there were too many of one kind of option and not enough of another, creating an adventure was too much work, etc.  So the designers listened to us, made some changes, and tried to give us a product that we would like.  We could still play the older edition, we just wanted something new and different.

Teeball was created for a very different reason.  Small kids wanted to play baseball, but they couldn't...or at least they couldn't very well, using MLB rules.  Being able to hit an airborne object with a stick requires a certain degree of cognative ability that most small children do not physically have.  Therefore, certain elements of the game were removed (namely, the airborne object) so that everyone could play.

4e cannot be compared to teeball very effectively, because they came about for very different reasons.  The implication is that people who play 4E do so only because they lack the cognative ability to play older editions.  And that's not only wrong, it's insulting.



Cadfan said:


> You KNOW that people aren't saying that.
> 
> You KNOW this and yet you chose to write otherwise anyways.



Aw come on, Cadfan...that was funny.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 14, 2009)

And... time to update something.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

CleverNickName said:


> 4e cannot be compared to teeball very effectively, because they came about for very different reasons.  The implication is that people who play 4E do so only because they lack the cognative ability to play older editions.  And that's not only wrong, it's insulting.



On multiple occasions people have complemented that one of the great things about 4E is that it lets people who "CAN'T" DM other editions, be the DM.

That is not MY claim.  I dispute that claim.  But that exact claim has been made.  

At this point I don't recall Allister precise words (beyond "poor sucker" and "newbie"), but the implication was certainly there. 

And note the HUGE distinction that the oft praised statement that 4E is modified for people who are not up to DMing other systems is NOT AT ALL the same as "people who play 4E do so only because they lack the cognative ability to play older editions".  Again, I have repeatedly said exactly the opposite of this.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 14, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Yes. I actually had to institute a house rule: don't reverse engineer the monsters.



I've also seen players question the DM about their abilities. I think it's only happened to me once...and that person no longer plays with us (guess why). I've even seen DMs on Enworld complain that their players questioned their NPCs stats.

On a funny note, I've even had 1 player question me about why a monster _wasn't_ using a power that she thought it should have had. This person did this often and seemed to *want* me to screw over the group. What her metagaming knowledge didn't realize was that the creature I was using was not the version of the creature she thought it was. 



> They'd survive an encounter and then whine about hard it was!



My players do this exact same thing to me. It really makes me confused on if I'm running encounters that really are too difficult, or if they are just being crybabies.  They keep surviving, so I must be doing things ok.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Well, being as I have clearly explained far more times than I have said "that's not what I said", I really doubt one more will help you.
> 
> And frankly, feel free to ignore me because there are plenty of 4E fans I think I can have a straight conversation with, but you are not one of them.  Some people consider me a 4e hater vitriol thrower.  My advice is to not care what I say if that is how you see it.
> 
> ...




If you don't want to engage me, fine. Engage somebody. All you seem to be saying is that we have you wrong. That rings a little hollow. If we have you wrong, set us right. If you don't want to talk to me, talk to this thread as a whole.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> If you don't want to engage me, fine. Engage somebody. All you seem to be saying is that we have you wrong. That rings a little hollow. If we have you wrong, set us right. If you don't want to talk to me, talk to this thread as a whole.



Best of gaming to you


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2009)

Ok, now this blows major amounts of ass:



			
				vBulletin Message said:
			
		

> Sorry Wulf Ratbane is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.




Funny that.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, now this blows...




Wow. Unexpected and unintended, I'm sure.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> In 3e, you take a base creature, then ...




Even in the context of writing "official" adventures, that's a fundamental change from how Gygax, et al (maybe even Cook, Tweet and Williams) viewed the game. This whole notion of the DM playing some sort of solitaire puzzle-game, thereby adding hours to preparation for the _real_ game -- and making the books such severe constraints on creativity -- is a basic problem that remains central to 4e.

 Having such helps available as an option is one thing. If anything is a "newbie crutch", it's the belief that such a thing is necessary to (or even capable of) delivering a good D&D game.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> How in the world do you get that
> it says that?
> All it says is that the game lived and was enjoyed for a full life.  Which disputes your prior claim.  It in no way whatsoever says that no game can compare to it and trying to force that bizarre spin onto it is putting words in to my mouth.




_Doesn't history show us otherwise? That DMs stopped running games when using 3.5 or this 'deep end'?_

I didn't say that the game was abandoned. I said that DMs stopped running games when using 3.5. Too much prep time. Several 'fixes' for it, several of them spun out as their own game including True 20, Trailblazer and Pathfinder among others.  No where do I say that no game can compare to it. I did say that 4e was designed listening to the people's issues with the previous edition.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yes.  Sometimes 3 or 4 times a round.  As soon as one of the extremely powergamed characters says "I hit AC 35" and I say "Miss", they immediately say "WHAT?  I hit 35.  There's no way that missed.  How did it get that?"
> 
> And then I have to say "Well, it is a creature who started with a +12 natural armor.  Then it got a template that adds a +2 deflection bonus.  It is wearing +3 Fullplate designed for its size.  Then it gets +1 from Dex."
> 
> ...



Wow.

1. 4e has rules for what AC a monster can have, there are guidelines in the DMG for ranges of AC based on monster role and level.

2 3e does not. It has rules on what things add to AC and in what ways, but no rules on how much AC to give a monster. There are no limits on how much natural armor a monster can have for example, only examples of what some exemplar monsters do have in the MM.

3 Majoru, your example is not that you did not play by the rules and therefore did not play fair, your players are complaining that you played by the 3e rules legally and they don't like it. They want you to stick to core MM stat blocks apparently. You played "fair" by your example of what you say your players required in 3e. 3e rules allow a ton of arbitrary flexibility while still playing by the rules.

NEw monster at AC 36. 10 base, +8 full plate, +2 shield, +16 natural. Done. Legal according to the rules of 3e. And they will only get non magical full plate and a shield as loot.




SteveC said:


> Pretty much this. I won't say that my players are this critical, but they all really understand the rules and have an encyclopedic knowledge of monster stats. As a result, if things do go outside the lines, they'll know about it.
> 
> Beyond that, what happens when your group sends a dispel magic over at your "made up on the fly" creature? How does that affect its stats. My group also had a spell from (I believe...it's been a while) the Spell Compendium that did damage to you for each spell that was currently affecting you. So I had to keep track of the number and kind of buff spells that I gave my creatures pretty much all the time.
> 
> ...




What the heck? 

Your players memorize monster stats but apparently ignore the parts about adding levels, advancing by HD, adding templates, and the ability of the DM to create their own monsters.

In 3e you can't say "oh its just an orc" with confidence. You don't know if it is the sample level 1 warrior from the MM, a level 20 barbarian, some type of 4HD monstrous humanoid mega orc variant race from a weird monster or race book or some black orc super unholy templated monstrosity from the Book of Templates Deluxe Edition 3.5.

My high system mastery face to face players know this very well. 

I assumed most players with system mastery and an understanding of the 3e rules would realize it too.

Or that a DM who understood the rules could communicate that.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 14, 2009)

SteveC said:


> Beyond that, what happens when your group sends a dispel magic over at your "made up on the fly" creature? How does that affect its stats. My group also had a spell from (I believe...it's been a while) the Spell Compendium that did damage to you for each spell that was currently affecting you. So I had to keep track of the number and kind of buff spells that I gave my creatures pretty much all the time.
> 
> In 4E, I can design much more to taste.




In that case you have to make a spot decision, are there any spells affecting this monster, how many, and what caster level. My AC 36 Ankylosaurus? No. My AC 36 wizard, yeah more than a few and it should be adjudicated.

Dispel magic is a definite speed bump nit picky problem spell. I like the pathfinder variant much better where it only knocks out one spell.

4e only solves the problem by yanking out the 3e style dispel magic.


----------



## Vartan (Oct 14, 2009)

I know I'm late for the party in this thread: after reading through it I saw a lot of posts to which I wanted to respond, but I can answer the OP's question more succinctly:

I was talking to someone who has been out of D&D for four or five years, but with whom I've played since 1990, and he asked me what I thought of 4th Edition. I told him that the whole system was more "crunchy" and that I didn't like some of the choices made with regards to the core setting and race/class options for 4E. I told him that 4E moved closer to video game territory than I would have liked and that some of the convention games I had played reminded me more of M:tG or a board game than I would have liked.

My friend thought for a moment and asked, "But we'll still play _our game _right?' And I said "Oh yeah, definitely!" By "our game" he meant that, assuming he came back to the table, I would still run a deeply-layered, story-oriented campaign with lots of opportunites for roleplaying, character growth and setting development.

"Yeah," he said, "we'll always play our game."

I told him about how balanced game mechanics have become. I told him that the crystallization--call it simplification, if you like--of the rules took some of the pressure off of me in terms of judgment calls and made it easier for me to focus on being a good DM. I told him how much I liked the skill challenge system because it provides a commonly understood, reward-centric structure to non-combat encounters.

I could easily run a 3.5 game, of even a 2E game, tomorrow and have plenty of fun...but the 4E system has its advantages. There's nothing about it that keeps me or my players from playing _our game_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 14, 2009)

Vartan said:


> I told him about how balanced game mechanics have become. I told him that the crystallization--call it simplification, if you *kike*--




I know its a typo- oddly, one missed by the board's censors- but you might want to edit that one before someone takes offense!

_*shakes fist*_

Too late!  GRRRR!


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2009)

Vartan said:


> By "our game" he meant that, assuming he came back to the table, I would still run a deeply-layered, story-oriented campaign with lots of opportunites for roleplaying, character growth and setting development.



See, now this is what separates 'advanced' D&D from 'T-ball D&D'. Rules ain't got nothing to do with it...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 14, 2009)

Mallus said:


> See, now this is what separates 'advanced' D&D from 'T-ball D&D'. Rules ain't got nothing to do with it...




But intelligent conversation doesn't exist in 4E, and 4E sets limits on how 'advanced' or 'sophisticated' D&D is allowed to be.


----------



## Theroc (Oct 14, 2009)

Mallus said:


> See, now this is what separates 'advanced' D&D from 'T-ball D&D'. Rules ain't got nothing to do with it...




Hm... not trying to nitpick or do some other negative flaming thing, but does this mean that a combat heavy adventure/campaign is 'T-Ball D&D'?  Or is this just saying that differentiating "_Our Game_" from the ruleset is a mark of advanced D&D?

Just wondering, as I happen to greatly enjoy combat, and haven't seen much of late, as it seems to make people think I'm a 'powergamer' and I always get a negative vibe when I hear it.


----------



## nightwyrm (Oct 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> The 2e DMG.
> 
> Seriously, was there ANY advice on how to actually run a game to make it enjoyable for people in that DMG?




During the 2e era, I learned DMing from a splat book called "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide". My favourite 2e book by far.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Oct 14, 2009)

Theroc said:


> Hm... not trying to nitpick or do some other negative flaming thing, but does this mean that a combat heavy adventure/campaign is 'T-Ball D&D'?  Or is this just saying that differentiating "_Our Game_" from the ruleset is a mark of advanced D&D?
> 
> Just wondering, as I happen to greatly enjoy combat, and haven't seen much of late, as it seems to make people think I'm a 'powergamer' and I always get a negative vibe when I hear it.



Playing D&D with _only_ combat, is like using a hammer to pound nails into boards that you throw away, rather than building a house with them. Hammering things is fun enough, but it doesn't contribute to the creation of something beyond the sum of its parts.

That said, you said combat _heavy_, not combat only, so you focus more on the nail hammering, but a house is still being built, even if slowly. Play on! In a more direct way, combat with nothing else is essentially an exercise in dice rolling, and might as well be left to a computer simulation.


----------



## Theroc (Oct 14, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> Playing D&D with _only_ combat, is like using a hammer to pound nails into boards that you throw away, rather than building a house with them. Hammering things is fun enough, but it doesn't contribute to the creation of something beyond the sum of its parts.
> 
> That said, you said combat _heavy_, not combat only, so you focus more on the nail hammering, but a house is still being built, even if slowly. Play on! In a more direct way, combat with nothing else is essentially an exercise in dice rolling, and might as well be left to a computer simulation.




I find much character development can arise from a character's reactions to events, both favorable and non, during combat.  It also can often get me more excited to roleplay my character once I feel I am accomplishing these feats and overcoming such obstacles.

I enjoy roleplaying, but I love smashing the baddies a great deal too.  I tend to find one enhances the other for me, in many cases.  COmbat helps me solidify the character in my mind, which makes it easier to get in their head, and vice versa.

Granted, you're assuming once combat erupts that there is no roleplaying, which isn't always the case.

Anyways, just wanted to toss that in there.  Apologies for the somewhat offtopic question.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Oct 14, 2009)

kudos tothe last 3-4 posters ofr getting this back on track.

I jsut do nto see 4E as teeball. SOme parts are easier, and the simplicty of choos\ing monsters for an encounter can be nice, and less variable mechanics can make starting off easier, but there is still a lot of depth inthe game for people to explore. 

With T-ball, what you see ifs what you get, it never gets mroe complicated. 

I think 4E is easier to start up, especially for an experienced player with a group of newbies, hand out sheets, give them a few choices and let them go. A handful of power cards would help also. But 4E is nto a simple game, far from it.


----------



## Thasmodious (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I don't play D&D as a competition between myself and the players, so that definitely skews my perception a little bit.
> 
> In my game, the intent is for everyone to have fun, DM and players. It's a cooperative play style.




Absolutely.  And if the players feel that the DM is cheating and setting arbitrary numbers designed to thwart their strengths, they may well get offended by that.  If a player cleverly and carefully designs his PC to have a to-hit number 4 higher than normal for his level, but then you arbitrarily adjust the ACs of your monsters so that he has the same percentage chance to hit as if he did not make those clever choices, he may well feel slighted that you cheated him out of his choices.  Choices he paid for at the expense of other options.  

If you set your ACs arbitrarily high and can't justify why they are that high (by knowing the numbers that make up that AC), then the PC wizard who focused on debuffing monsters gets short-changed.  The PC who focused on increasing his damage output above the norm is slighted when you jack up HP because they are killing monsters quicker than you like.  

Point is, with such a micro-managed system as 3e, a lot of player choice has specific, defined, expected advantages within gameplay that is thwarted if you "cheat" on your monster/NPC creation and just do whatever makes it as hard as you think it should be for the PCs.  You are short-changing the choices they made, and the knowledge they've gained and put to use about how the game is expected to work.  

It's no different than watching while a player spends three hours creating an awesome Loremaster when you know your DM-style is not to utilize knowledge skills hardly at all, and you never call for PCs to make knowledge rolls.  

If the strength of a system is meaningful choices, you undermine that when you make those choices meaningless.

In 4e, what they did is change the balancing trigger from being building everything on the PC framework, to building a set framework for monsters/NPCs, but one that is nonetheless affected by meaningful PC choices.  A PC focusing on applying effects to monsters can know and have a reasonable expectation of how that will work, what basic numbers to expect in defenses, etc.  If you arbitrarily change the numbers, you undermine their choices.  The difference in the editions is that 4e makes it much easier, and much, much less time consuming to stick to the math that is built into the system.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 14, 2009)

Most everyone in this thread seems to think that the 4E as "newbie teeball" analogy doesn't hold up. Only a few odd people and ByronD seem to be arguing in favor of teeball.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 14, 2009)

I am sorry.  I wish I never forked this.  I don't like edition wars.  

(EDIT: Sorry, ByronD)
(EDIT, EDIT: Sorry, BryonD)

We all love D&D in it's many incarnations, so instead let's lean upon the magic it has given our lives.

Neither verbal riposte, nor snappy resonse are productive to describing and defending all our own ideaologies.  What D&D will give us the most satisfying, deepest experience we can have?   We each find and play those editions that satisfy that goal and then call it our own and we hold the fort and love our game. 

Great!

Moving on now....


----------



## MerricB (Oct 14, 2009)

And it isn't ByronD.

It's Bryon. Sort of like Brian, except spelt with a Y and a O.

Cheers!


----------



## wedgeski (Oct 14, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> I loved my old group. They were good friends and great guys. But geez could they whine! They'd survive an encounter and then whine about hard it was! It's enough to make a DM roll to see what random demon prince decides to invade the prime material on the very spot the PCs are standing.



You've just perfectly stated the relationship with my own longest-running group.  4E seems to have mellowed them out a bit, to be fair.


----------



## Phaezen (Oct 14, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I think it a good idea to assume that new DMs will be among the readers; the opposite assumption could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy! The 1st ed. AD&D books, by Gygax's own later estimation, took prior D&D experience  too much for granted (for all that they were labeled "Advanced" works). The original set, by the same token, had assumed too much familiarity with customs of the miniature-wargames hobby.
> 
> I am not sure that 4e actually suits beginners much more than 3e. What I have mostly seen is evidence that it better suits some _experienced_ DMs who may be almost a decade older than when they first embraced 3e. It may be drawing in newbies, but it's that already-in "bulge in the python" demographic that really stands out (and indeed makes the usual arguments for the whole "edition" strategy sensible in the first place) .
> 
> ...




What I wanted to say, but more readable.  Now please get out of my brain.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Oct 14, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> During the 2e era, I learned DMing from a splat book called "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide". My favourite 2e book by far.



This. Also, "Creative Campaigning" had pretty good advice (pacing, campaign styles etc.). You'd think TSR left those parts out of the 2e DMG on purpose...


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Just a point of information that may add a touch of perspective.
> 
> If I had to vote, I think I'd name Piratecat as the best DM I've ever read material by or played with.  I've never actually played in a game with him, but thats how I vote.
> 
> ...



I know this is a few pages back, but Christ you guys post a lot while I sleep - Anyway, I think I get you. You are saying that 4e is easier to run (than 3.x) for a bad DM? If so, we completely agree. You think it's the simple design, I think its the superior design - I guess that's where we disagree 

Cheers


MerricB said:


> And it isn't ByronD.
> 
> It's Bryon. Sort of like Brian, except spelt with a Y and a O.
> 
> Cheers!



Fun fact of the week. 

In my country, the name Brian became associate with losers. And when I say associated, I mean synonymous with being a loser. So it went from being a very common name (in fact, it was like our John or Michael) in the 70'ies and 80'ies to being a loser-name. In 97, only 2 people were named Brian in all of Denmark. That's a fraction of just 10 years ago. A very small fraction.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> I think I've set my finger on what was bugging me about the "tee-ball" description applied to any roleplaying game.
> 
> The implication is that a "tee-ball" RPG will not teach you to run a "big boy" game, obviously. However, RPGs don't work like that. When you talk about throwing someone into the deep end or forcing them to come to grips with a big robust system, that doesn't make them a big boy, either. The real skills of game mastering come when you aren't particularly happy with stuff right out of the book and start tinkering to find something that suits you better.
> 
> ...




I'm a big boy gamer!  I am!  

Actually, thanks Skemp!  You're posts are always interesting to read and seem to cut through the crap while remaining civil and furthering the discussion.  I, for one, appreciate it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 14, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Fun fact of the week.
> 
> In my country, the name Brian became associate with losers. And when I say associated, I mean synonymous with being a loser. So it went from being a very common name (in fact, it was like our John or Michael) in the 70'ies and 80'ies to being a loser-name. In 97, only 2 people were named Brian in all of Denmark. That's a fraction of just 10 years ago. A very small fraction.




Well, I don't think that's a fun fact!  That kinda sucks!

BryonD, I don't agree with your position, but you have an AWESOME name, even if you spell it wrong . . . .


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 14, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> During the 2e era, I learned DMing from a splat book called "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide". My favourite 2e book by far.




The blue line (DMR) had many a solid book in the lineup.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> The blue line (DMR) had many a solid book in the lineup.




Indeed.

I actually found the Complete Book of Villains to be the best "how to DM" resource produced by TSR during the 2e era.

The 2e DMG though? Really, other than the magic item tables, I don't think I ever used that book.....


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 14, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> In my country, the name Brian became associate with losers. And when I say associated, I mean synonymous with being a loser. So it went from being a very common name (in fact, it was like our John or Michael) in the 70'ies and 80'ies to being a loser-name. In 97, only 2 people were named Brian in all of Denmark. That's a fraction of just 10 years ago. A very small fraction.




But then again Denmark is a strange country  So many funny little customs.

I mean that in the best possibly way.



Spoiler



My sister in law is a Dane and my best friend is married to her Childhood friend.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> And if the players feel that the DM is cheating and setting arbitrary numbers designed to thwart their strengths, they may well get offended by that.




The DM cannot "cheat." 

He can run a good game or a poor game. Sometimes running a good game means thwarting the players. Sometimes running a good game means letting the players succeed. For some players, exactly the converse is true; and for some players, they don't want the DM to make those judgment calls at all, but to simply let things fall as they may.



> Point is, with such a micro-managed system as 3e, a lot of player choice has specific, defined, expected advantages within gameplay that is thwarted if you "cheat" on your monster/NPC creation and just do whatever makes it as hard as you think it should be for the PCs.  You are short-changing the choices they made, and the knowledge they've gained and put to use about how the game is expected to work.
> 
> If the strength of a system is meaningful choices, you undermine that when you make those choices meaningless.




That's a fair point, but it *is *predicated on the assumption that "The Game" is a _competition of mechanics_, and the story is only a framework designed to showcase those mechanics; as opposed to The Game being a cooperative story, and the mechanics merely facilitate the unfolding plot twists so that the outcome is unknown by any of the participants.

Certainly there's a sliding scale. Some players define "meaningful choices" as "I will take this feat in order to eke out a +4 advantage to hit," as opposed to, "It might be distasteful, but we'll have to ally ourselves with the lich in order to take out the hobgoblin army."

In the grand scheme of things I am less dissatisfied when a monster proves too difficult to hit based on the _mechanical _choices that I made, as opposed to the dissatisfaction I feel when the _story _choices that I make are thwarted (ie, railroading). 

I have found that the most satisfying games balance the mechanical choices to just the right ratio of success to failure to keep the story outcomes in doubt.

This is not an edition-specific observation. All sorts of D&D games have been run up and down that scale through all editions.

Now, as an edition specific observation, 4e has rather famously balanced the success/failure ratio to an optimal point; and in order to discourage "unwanted behavior" on the part of players, they have stripped away many of the "meaningful choices" that "mechanics" players exploit: Such undesired behavior is disincentivized by explicit codification into the rules.

Some players need that because they simply won't behave otherwise. If you want to run a game that focuses on the story, but you are constantly thwarted by players who define "win" in mechanical terms, you have a problem (a problem that 4e solves in a particular way).


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2009)

This is going to sound really self-serving in a "well, yeah, you work for them" kind of way, but I actually learned part of my GMing skills from Vampire: The Masquerade. Not in the sense of specific techniques like preludes, but in the sense that you could actually go for certain themes and moods. Once I realized that advice wasn't game-specific, there was my revelation. D&D with a little attention to consistency of theme and mood was delicious for me.

I think it also helped that I really started paying attention in 2e's era of "good settings," too. Hey, FR gives you the inspiration to pay attention to detail. Greyhawk has a great feel. Planescape and Dark Sun are examples to go further. Al-Qadim is freaking inspirational in all sorts of ways. Oh yeah, and remember that World Builder's Guidebook? 

(I will admit I didn't care as much for the Villain's Handbook, but that was in a purely personal way: they frequently were describing antagonists with the word "villain," and that didn't ring true for me. Plus also some alignment issues I had with the approach there. However, the Complete Necromancer's Handbook made up for that and then some... but I just like necromancers, particularly with Clark Ashton Smith inspiration.)

Good times to learn your trade, really. Good times.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 14, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> But intelligent conversation doesn't exist in 4E, and 4E sets limits on how 'advanced' or 'sophisticated' D&D is allowed to be.




 What? Intelligent conversation can take place wherever there are intelligent people conversing, no matter what system is being used. 
D&D is "allowed" to be whatever the participants want it to be. 
How can a book set such limits on play?


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Anyway, I think I get you. You are saying that 4e is easier to run (than 3.x) for a bad DM? If so, we completely agree.



Well, yes, I do think that.  But I also add that "easier to run" doesn't take away the "bad DM" part.  Now practice with an easier system can certainly be a good step to moving from bad to good.  But if you do, rather than move on, you still have a game that assumes you are bad.



> You think it's the simple design, I think its the superior design - I guess that's where we disagree



Well, obviously I don't think it is "superior" design for generating the kind of game *I* want.  And, just as obviously, I think it is superior design for generating the kind of game *you* want.

I believe if you consider for a moment you will as well agree that 3E is very much the superior game, despite your clear personal dislike for it, when it comes to generating the kind of game that the guy with the misspelled loser name prefers.

That doesn't in any way contradict you finding 4E vastly superior for the game *you* want.

And I also don't think it is "simple design".  

Allister (and others before) praised 4E for being easy to DM for newbies who don't have the skills for other systems.
4E is D&D modified to be easier than other versions.
Teeball is baseball modified to be easier than other versions.[/QUOTE]


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> What? Intelligent conversation can take place wherever there are intelligent people conversing, no matter what system is being used.
> D&D is "allowed" to be whatever the participants want it to be.
> How can a book set such limits on play?



No system can possibly eliminate intelligent conversation. 
4E certainly doesn't.  I've certainly never claimed it does.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That's a fair point, but it *is *predicated on the assumption that "The Game" is a _competition of mechanics_, and the story is only a framework designed to showcase those mechanics; as opposed to The Game being a cooperative story, and the mechanics merely facilitate the unfolding plot twists so that the outcome is unknown by any of the participants.



I think it is part of "The Roleplaying Game" that there are mechanical elements you want to win at. The unique thing in RPGs for me is that they mix the mechanics and story to facilitate each other. The story basically creates reasons to use the mechanics. 

Part of the fun in playing roleplaying games is that you get to beat up bad guys and take their stuff. The beating up stuff is motivated by the story and changes the story, the mechanical part allows you to win.

If the mechanical parts fail, the story doesn't the way you wanted, and often in ways you don't like either.

If the monsters are too weak, the "Game" part of the RPG feels disappointing. It's like constantly getting the best games in a poker game. It might be fun at first, but in the end, you miss the challenge. At least in RPGs the story might make up for it.

If the monsters are too strong, the "Game" part of the RPG also feels disappointing. You're way out of your league, as if trying to play against Kasparov and you don't even know how to castle or constantly getting bad cards in a card game. 

In either case, this can either be compensated by an awesome story so you don't mind if it's a little harder or easier  - or it makes it worse. A total party kill in a situation that's not particularly interesting from a story point and before the big climax where you deal with your characters nemesis will be disappointing. A walkover might mean that the players beat the enemies way too quickly to create an interesting storyline with twists and turns, the party can work independent of allies and doesn't have to make any questionable deals because they just can beat any threat themselves.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> "well, yeah, you work for them"



Do you know what became of Rob Hatch?


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> No system can possibly eliminate intelligent conversation.
> 4E certainly doesn't.  I've certainly never claimed it does.




As others pointed out early on, your signature says differently.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The unique thing in RPGs for me is that they mix the mechanics and story to facilitate each other. The story basically creates reasons to use the mechanics.
> 
> If the mechanical parts fail, the story doesn't the way you wanted, and often in ways you don't like either.




Absolutely.

Where there seems to be a difference of opinion is in the proper response to a mechanical failure.

If the engine just doesn't run, period, under any circumstances, then you need a new engine.

If the engine fails because the operator keeps redlining it, then you have two options:

a) You explain to the operator that redlining the engine is going to be detrimental to its performance over time, but you nevertheless leave the engine alone so that the operator can have that extra performance if he wants or needs it;

b) You assume that all operators are going to continue redlining the engine, and so you put a governor on the engine to prevent it from going above the ideal speed.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think it is part of "The Roleplaying Game" that there are mechanical elements you want to win at.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just pointing out differences.  But this instantly reminded me of our recent debate regarding CMDs in Pathfinder.

To me an RPG feels disappointing when the monster doesn't feel like the monster it is supposed to be.  I would never make the two statements you made.  To me it is a very different approach to gaming, with, apparently, a different goal for how it is enjoyed.  There must be many many points of commonality.  But, clearly, there are differences.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 14, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> As others pointed out early on, your signature says differently.




Honestly, the only thing in his sig that mentions 4E is a lable indicating that a particular quote came from a 4E fan. Everything in his sig is actually pretty edition neutral. 

Perhaps its disingenuous to list the quote in that way, but I won't presume to attribute any motives. 

I think we're all projecting our own prejudices on what are fairly neutral statements.


----------



## teach (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> No system can possibly eliminate intelligent conversation.
> 4E certainly doesn't.  I've certainly never claimed it does.




Then please explain your signature, because right now I can't possibly see another way to read it.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> As others pointed out early on, your signature says differently.



No it doesn't.

"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." 
That sentence clearly states that if D&D brings those three things, two of which are pointedly visceral, then everything needed is present.

For that person, intelligent conversation is clearly quite optional.  That doesn't even say that intelligent conversation is absent.  But it is most certainly optional.  

To me it is not optional.  I require it as part of the fun.

That is all my sig says.


Do I think this is a decent soundbite for the subgroup of 3E haters who are now 4E fans?  Yeah.  Does it represent every individual?  Hell no.  

But it is a snapshot of how I perceive the center of mass of the appeal of 4E vs 3E.  If added simplicity and rawr rawr are the start and the end of the improvements for the "new" fans, then that is a shame.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I believe if you consider for a moment you will as well agree that 3E is very much the superior game, despite your clear personal dislike for it, when it comes to generating the kind of game that the guy with the misspelled loser name prefers.
> 
> _*cut a few things*
> _
> That doesn't in any way contradict you finding 4E vastly superior for the game *you* want.




First of all, I hope you didn't feel targeted by my fun fact moment. I certainly did not mean to imply _anything_ by it. I just sorta typed what went through my head.

Anyway, it seems that we agree. 3.x does the D&D you prefer better, 4e does the D&D I prefer better.  

Nuts, I just agreed with Bryon.. 

Cheers


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Oct 14, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> So do "powergamers" not exist in 4e? You don't need to worry about making sure a 4e adventure is challenging to every PC of the same level?
> 
> Wouldn't the way to go about making an adventure be for the writer to assume the PCs are "normal" PCs built with the "average" builds provided from the core books? Then leave it up to the DMs to adjust things depending how many optional books & rules he has allowed in the game?




My problem near the end of 3.5E was that the curve between the "system master" player characters and the non-system master player characters was too wide of a gap. Both types of player would try to make the best character they could, but the difference in power level made it difficult to design challenges that mattered to the system masters while not destroying the non-system masters on a regular basis.

I have not had the same experience with 4E. The system masters still make better characters, but the non-system masters are still able to make effective characters. One would have to intentionally try to make a bad character to make the gap too wide. And even then I don't think the gap would be as wide as the one in 3.5E.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Well, yes, I do think that.  But I also add that "easier to run" doesn't take away the "bad DM" part.  Now practice with an easier system can certainly be a good step to moving from bad to good.  But if you do, rather than move on, you still have a game that assumes you are bad.




Could we maybe bury this whole "newcomers are bad gamers" correlation forever? And a day on top of that? I've been in this industry long enough to see brand-new, inexperienced gamers who brought more joy to the table in half an hour than some veteran gamers managed to do in 100 man-hours. I have gotten more joy from an enthusiastic newbie with a poorly optimized character who _loved the game she was playing_ than from a number of "skilled players" who were interested only in "beating the adventure." 

We need more people like her in the hobby. And the habit of calling people like her "bad" because they don't have all of a veteran's skills yet is something I would be delighted to see purged from the vocabulary of gamers everywhere. It's not just insulting to the newcomers: it paints veteran gamers in a pretty bad light as well. 



> Do you know what became of Rob Hatch?




I haven't seen him personally for a while, but I understand he's still in the area and has crossed paths with some of my coworkers now and again. He's not much of a self-promoter, though, and he seemed disinterested in continuing with the RPG industry, so I'm not sure what he's been working on or anything.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 14, 2009)

teach said:


> Then please explain your signature, because right now I can't possibly see another way to read it.




His sig is a baiting action against anyone who identifies themselves as a 4e fan... it is part of his edition war paraphernalia. He flies the flag very high and must be dating all the moderators sisters.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Could we maybe bury this whole "newcomers are bad gamers" correlation forever?




I didn't read that correlation at all. I interpreted him to mean, "4e is good if you are *new *and have no skills, and it is _also _good if you are *bad *and have no skills. In either case it is going to limit the development of your skills."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> No system can possibly eliminate intelligent conversation.
> 4E certainly doesn't. I've certainly never claimed it does.




Never said you did. I was responding to a comment made by someone else.


----------



## tyrlaan (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> For that person, intelligent conversation is clearly quite optional.  That doesn't even say that intelligent conversation is absent.  But it is most certainly optional.
> 
> To me it is not optional.  I require it as part of the fun.
> 
> That is all my sig says.



Or the quoted 4e fan didn't mention intelligent conversation because he/she (a) didn't think it needed to be said or (b) was making a specific point where he/she felt including it would dilute his/her argument.

Your follow-up line reads in such a way that implies you're assuming that the omission of intelligent conversation in the 4e fan's quote means that it's considered completely optional to that person. This is especially true since the two lines are now 100% out of their original context. And while that _might_ be true, there are plenty of other ways to interpret that omission (I gave you 2 above).

Think of it this way:
Fred: "Hey Bob, I'm grilling up some burgers and dogs. What do you want?"
Bob: "Give me a burger with some cheese and I'm good to go."
Fred: "Oh, so no bun then?"


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I didn't read that correlation at all. I interpreted him to mean, "4e is good if you are *new *and have no skills, and it is _also _good if you are *bad *and have no skills. In either case it is going to limit the development of your skills."




I'm not really sure how else I'm supposed to read "you still have a game that assumes you are bad." On what evidence is this based? The entirety of this whole tortured teeball metaphor comes from the statement that WotC designed 4e to be a good game for newcomers to the hobby to run and play. If the statement was "you still have a game that assumes you may not have all the skills it would be good to develop", there's no way I could see that as insulting to newcomers. That wasn't the statement I read there, though.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Never said you did. I was responding to a comment made by someone else.



Right but he recognized its as a (sarcastic) paraphrasing of his obnoxious sig but lacking his diversionary... "I didn't say that" ----> "I implied that" element.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Oct 14, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My problem near the end of 3.5E was that the curve between the "system master" player characters and the non-system master player characters was too wide of a gap. Both types of player would try to make the best character they could, but the difference in power level made it difficult to design challenges that mattered to the system masters while not destroying the non-system masters on a regular basis.
> 
> I have not had the same experience with 4E. The system masters still make better characters, but the non-system masters are still able to make effective characters. One would have to intentionally try to make a bad character to make the gap too wide. And even then I don't think the gap would be as wide as the one in 3.5E.




Thats interesting, because my experience is the opposite.  I play a sixth level Cleric/ MC Fighter in a weekly 4e game, and have been slogging through hundreds of feats and powers and Paragon Paths in the Compendium to try to figure out which combinations will synergize best through Paragon Tier.  The combinations are endless, and although any combination will work, I hate feeling like I'm missing some better feat/power interplay that would make the character--not optimal--but truly useful to the group.

And thinking of what thats going to be like when we're up to the 5th PHB, with hundreds of new feats and powers in the magazines, and other books....ack.

I'm telling you, after staring at powers for hours, I kind of miss being able to level up by just bumping my hp and saves, choosing a couple more spells and maybe adding a new class power or two.

Then again, I get that in my weekly Pathfinder game.  And although 4e isn't my first choice of systems, the group is great, and the DM is one of the best I've ever met, so there you go.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> I'm not really sure how else I'm supposed to read "you still have a game that assumes you are bad."




Here's the conversation you're objecting to:



			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> Anyway, I think I get you. You are saying that 4e is easier to run (than 3.x) for a bad DM? If so, we completely agree.






			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Well, yes, I do think that. But I also add that "easier to run" doesn't take away the "bad DM" part. Now practice with an easier system can certainly be a good step to moving from bad to good. But if you do, rather than move on, you still have a game that assumes you are bad.




I'm missing the part where he conflates New and Bad.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 14, 2009)

nightwyrm said:
			
		

> During the 2e era, I learned DMing from a splat book called "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide". My favourite 2e book by far.



I learned to DM from the D&D Basic and Expert boxed sets.  I've got a lot of nostalgia and warm fuzzy feelings wrapped up in those two products.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 14, 2009)

Voadam said:


> 1. 4e has rules for what AC a monster can have, there are guidelines in the DMG for ranges of AC based on monster role and level.



I agree.  Luckily the guidelines are ones that create monsters that are "fair" fights.  They purposefully "prevent" DMs from coming up with the arbitrary 50 AC monster because they either decided to make it up or found a template that "legally" gave it to a creature.



Voadam said:


> 2 3e does not. It has rules on what things add to AC and in what ways, but no rules on how much AC to give a monster. There are no limits on how much natural armor a monster can have for example, only examples of what some exemplar monsters do have in the MM.



See above.  Precisely right.



Voadam said:


> 3 Majoru, your example is not that you did not play by the rules and therefore did not play fair, your players are complaining that you played by the 3e rules legally and they don't like it. They want you to stick to core MM stat blocks apparently. You played "fair" by your example of what you say your players required in 3e. 3e rules allow a ton of arbitrary flexibility while still playing by the rules.



Players don't like being hosed over.  *I* don't like being hosed over, so I'm with them.  The game is no fun when you need 19s to hit an enemy.  The battle drags out impossibly long and it likely ends up in you dying.  Losing sucks.  Losing because you had a bunch of bad die rolls or you made a really bad tactical decision at least feels like a fair loss.  It was a loss that was preventable with some better luck at some slightly more intelligent play.  Maybe it was because you only a 14 into your strength and the next character you make up with have 18 because you learned.

But if you come across some custom monster that manages to have 10 more AC than every other monster anywhere near its CR...well, it feels like it isn't fair anymore.  Of course you're going to lose....even if it IS legal.  I spent the better part of the last year of Living Greyhawk(since I was a Triad member, helping to run the campaign) reading mailing lists filled with people complaining about how authors had used what players considered "cheap" but legal techniques to build monsters.  A lot of authors retaliated, saying that if there weren't a bunch of players out there using cheap powergaming tactics for their characters, they wouldn't have to write so many nasty encounters...and so on.



Voadam said:


> NEw monster at AC 36. 10 base, +8 full plate, +2 shield, +16 natural. Done. Legal according to the rules of 3e. And they will only get non magical full plate and a shield as loot.



Yeah, I know this is legal.  I know that it was fairly easy to add 10 points to someone's AC simply by adding full plate and a shield.  It was a favorite tactic of nasty authors everywhere.  After all, nothing in the rules said to raise the CR of an enemy simply because it was wearing armor....even if the point of CR was to evaluate how difficult it was to defeat something and armor made the creature significantly harder to defeat.

It's a risk/reward thing.  CR determines XP for defeating a monster.  It also, according to the rules determined how many of a creature you could use against a party.  A number of players felt that if a monster was suddenly twice as hard to defeat, they should get twice as much XP for it.  But the system didn't tell you to increase CR.  So, you didn't get any more.



Voadam said:


> Your players memorize monster stats but apparently ignore the parts about adding levels, advancing by HD, adding templates, and the ability of the DM to create their own monsters.



They know about all that stuff.  Custom monsters were considered by everyone in our home group to be super cheap and not a tactic that should be allowed.  Mostly by equal agreement of DM and players.  Way too easy to unbalance the game that way.

As for the rest of it.  Most of my players had memorized the effects of increasing hit dice, adding class levels, adding templates and so on.  If you ran into an Orc, there should be some visual clue that it wasn't a normal Orc.  If it has metal skin, it might be half-iron golem.  Scales?  Half-Dragon...and so on.  The only thing that didn't have a visual clue tended to be Class Levels.  Which is why one of the dirty tricks of LG Authors was to add one level of Warrior to enemies.  Since it was an NPC class, it didn't add anything to CR.  But it could give a bonus feat and some extra hitpoints to any monster in the game, legally.

My players knew what the general range that an AC could be given the options in the book.  Given our "no custom monster" rule, there was virtually no way to increase natural armor of a creature.  You were forced to scour books for creatures with the best starting natural armor and then modify them with hitdice, levels, and templates to make them better.  If a DM came up with an awesome combination of legal stuff from the rules....players would accept it.  But probably still get annoyed if you went "overboard".


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Oct 14, 2009)

MrGrenadine said:


> Thats interesting, because my experience is the opposite.  I play a sixth level Cleric/ MC Fighter in a weekly 4e game, and have been slogging through hundreds of feats and powers and Paragon Paths in the Compendium to try to figure out which combinations will synergize best through Paragon Tier.  The combinations are endless, and although any combination will work, I hate feeling like I'm missing some better feat/power interplay that would make the character--not optimal--but truly useful to the group.
> 
> And thinking of what thats going to be like when we're up to the 5th PHB, with hundreds of new feats and powers in the magazines, and other books....ack.
> 
> ...




My point wasn't that players don't "slog" through hundreds of feats and powers. The same players who did that when I ran 3E do the same now. The players who did not do that in 3E, still don't. The difference is that with the balances put in place, the two types of players produce characters that can be challenged equally. I was finding it increasingly difficult to challenge every character properly in 3E and that made the game no fun to run anymore. This isn't just an observation from a 4E fan. I was ready to quit playing D&D altogether after 20+ years because 3E had become such a drag. This was after I had taken a break from the DM side of the screen to see if it was just burnout. I was trying to decide what I wanted to do for a couple of months when 4E was announced and what I heard appealed to me.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 14, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> My players do this exact same thing to me. It really makes me confused on if I'm running encounters that really are too difficult, or if they are just being crybabies.  They keep surviving, so I must be doing things ok.




I think there's a fine line.  I think part of it is the whole "wish fulfillment" portion of D&D.  When a lot of people sit down to play D&D, they do so because they want to feel awesome.  You get to play that awesome swordsman that you'll never be in real life.  That awesome swordsman is supposed to be able to show off how good he is by chopping through his enemies, despite the fact that they are nasty powerful.  It only proves that he's better.

That's why you have to create a proper balance between easy and hard.  If an encounter is too hard, even if the PCs win, they still won't have that much fun beating it.  If it's too easy, they won't consider it worth their time to have fought it.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Oct 14, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The difference is that with the balances put in place, the two types of players produce characters that can be challenged equally.




I understand.  Its just that in my experience, the difference between the effectiveness of optimized and non-optimized characters in 4e is just as wide as in 3.5--its just that in 4e, a smaller difference, say of +/-3, can be huge.  Smaller scale, maybe, but the impact is just as significant.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I'm missing the part where he conflates New and Bad.



But you're still left with his assertion that 'harder to use' = 'better', which is the part I find a little nutty. 

He almost treats the rules as one of the monsters or puzzles that D&D players --well, DM's-- have to prove themselves against.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> "I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal."
> That sentence clearly states that if D&D brings those three things, two of which are pointedly visceral, then everything needed is present.
> ...




So, to sum up:

1. Your sig isn't inflammatory
2. It makes an insulting presumption on the part of the anonymous quote
3. You disagree with the anonymous quote that conversation is optional
4. You call a group of people haters, in addition to presuming their opinions
5. You end with another insulting presumption of 4E fans in general, and add that if their opinion is genuine, then that is a shame.


Regardless of what you say, intentional or not, your sig is taking a shot at 4E fans, and since it is your sig you take a shot at 4E fans every time you post. Mods in this thread have pointed this out. Now, whether you mean to take a shot at 4E fans or not, your sig has had that effect. People have said so, and you have indicated that you listened. This tells us that either you intended to take this shot, we are misunderstanding you and you are perfectly comfortable with our misunderstanding, or that you didn't intend the sig as taking a shot at 4E fans and are perfectly comfortable with the sig having that effect despite your intentions. 

It is also worth noting that people quote that sig along with the meat of your non-sig posting as to your motives and intentions. The fact that you continue with it says that you are comfortable with people making those assumptions.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I didn't read that correlation at all. I interpreted him to mean, "4e is good if you are *new *and have no skills, and it is _also _good if you are *bad *and have no skills. *In either case it is going to limit the development of your skills."*




And this is supposed to be less inflammatory/insulting?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Here's the conversation you're objecting to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




He is implying that the fact that 4e allegedly assumes that you are bad makes it a lesser game. That implication is pretty clear, especially in other statements made in this thread.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Mallus said:


> But you're still left with his assertion that 'harder to use' = 'better', which is the part I find a little nutty.




Out of context, that *is *a little nutty.

But BryonD specifically _doesn't_ find the rules harder to use, and so rather he finds that "more complex" = "better," despite the fact that "more complex" = "harder to use" for a lot of other players.

His assertion is that 4e is a "simpler" game (for various definitions of "simpler") and folks are bent out of shape about the impolitic ways he expresses that.

That impolitic expression leads to the following amusing reaction to his posts:

"4e is not a simpler game! You take that back!" 

Two minutes later,

"I just prefer 4e because it is simpler for me to run."


----------



## Rel (Oct 14, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> His sig is a baiting action against anyone who identifies themselves as a 4e fan... it is part of his edition war paraphernalia. He flies the flag very high and must be dating all the moderators sisters.




There are lots of things that people do at ENWorld that I don't feel cross the line into actual "breaking the rules" that make me think less of them.  Just because I think less of them doesn't mean that they need moderating.  Like when somebody implies that I'm showing favoritism based on who my sister is dating?  I don't need to moderate that.


P.S.  If BryonD is actually my brother in law, Ken, then I'm a bit offended that he's never mentioned gaming to me since he's been in the family for 8 years or so!  But maybe that's because he knows I run a 4e game...


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 14, 2009)

Rel said:


> ... But maybe that's because he knows I run a 4e game...




Oh!  You're from _*that*_ side of the family.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 14, 2009)

Rel said:


> Like when somebody implies that I'm showing favoritism based on who my sister is dating?  I don't need to moderate that.



My sense of humor isnt always pretty I admit...  did I need a smiley. I will say that the line is wishy washy to an extreme ... and highly subjective. And that I think this entire thread is screetchingly close to worthless edition war material. 
If somebody started a thread with the premise that 3e is designed for elitist nerds to feel better about their pitiful anti-team play selves by making it intentionally complex when it need not be.  I would expect that to be ... canned as insulting... where as a thread implying 4e is designed to retard dm development.... runs on like a train.

I am going to grant that it has to hard as hell to moderate this stuff....


----------



## Rel (Oct 14, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> My sense of humor isnt always pretty I admit...  did I need a smiley. I will say that the line is wishy washy to an extreme ... and highly subjective. And that I think this entire thread is screetchingly close to worthless edition war material.
> If somebody started a thread with the premise that 3e is designed for elitist nerds to feel better about their pitiful anti-team play selves by making it intentionally complex when it need not be.  I would expect that to be ... canned as insulting... where as a thread implying 4e is designed to retard dm development.... runs on like a train.




Well so far this thread has mostly been a discussion, not a heated argument.  That's what we do here at ENWorld.  Sure, it's had plenty of comments that caused me to roll my eyes and scratch my head.  Allowing a discussion to continue is not an endorsement of all the posts in it.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Out of context, that *is *a little nutty.
> 
> But BryonD specifically _doesn't_ find the rules harder to use, and so rather he finds that "more complex" = "better," despite the fact that "more complex" = "harder to use" for a lot of other players.
> 
> ...



Sure, it looks all kinds of contradictory if you conflate the various definitions of "simpler."  At the very least, it's one of those terms which can be used for either praise or dismissal, depending on context, so I can't see how objecting to the term in one context negates its utility in other contexts.

The implication I see from quotes like ....



			
				Wulf said:
			
		

> I didn't read that correlation at all. I interpreted him to mean, "4e is good if you are new and have no skills, and it is also good if you are bad and have no skills. In either case it is going to limit the development of your skills."



and


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Now practice with an easier system can certainly be a good step to moving from bad to good. But if you do, rather than move on, you still have a game that assumes you are bad.



...is that a complex game enables a richer play experience or a higher form of DMing by virtue of its complexity.  Say, that with 3e you could get a richness of play which varies from 1 to 10, but with 4e your play experience might vary from 2 to maybe 7 or so - so, by extension, the richest 3e games are always richer than the richest 4e games.  I don't find that matches my experience whatsoever, no matter what analogies you might want to use - from tee-ball to training wheels to chutes-and-ladders.

Now, there are all kinds of personalized statements which shouldn't cause controversy, IMO.  "For the settings I enjoy and the games I like to run, the 3e toolset works better," is an awesome statement, and while you can certainly discuss it, anyone who gets mad about it is nuts.  "DMs who run 4e are basically practicing for a game which doesn't assume they suck," isn't.  It's the movement from personal to universal that causes the angst.

-O


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Obryn said:


> A complex game enables a richer play experience or a higher form of DMing by virtue of its complexity.




*No*, the _specifics _of its complexity may or may not enable a richer play experience, just as the _specifics _of 4e's simplifications may or may not enable a richer play experience. 

I have co-opted a great many of 4e's simplifications into a richer, better play experience for me. And likewise retained a great many of 3e's complexities.

The fact that we have not discussed those specifics (in this thread) does not mean that anyone is suggesting that complexity is its own virtue.

Come on.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Out of context, that *is *a little nutty.
> 
> But BryonD specifically _doesn't_ find the rules harder to use, and so rather he finds that "more complex" = "better," despite the fact that "more complex" = "harder to use" for a lot of other players.
> 
> His assertion is that 4e is a "simpler" game (for various definitions of "simpler") and folks are bent out of shape about the impolitic ways he expresses that.




I really don't see 4E as being less complex than 3E. Due to the flood of OGL products 3E could become much more complex but WOTC core to WOTC core measured in identical time frames from initial release, 4E is just as complex as 3E. More of the complexity has shifted from build/ prep to actual gameplay but its still there. 

What 4E did do more than any previous edition was to dictate playstyle through rules presentation down to telling the reader what was fun about a zillion times. This does not make the actual rules any simpler or "easymode" in any way. 

The veteran DM or player who already knows what aspects of the game are most fun for them might see this heavy handed presentation as a simplification and jump to the T-ball conclusion. 

The Basic D&D I played as a child was ( to stick with the analogy) a baseball game design kit. The framework of the rules was presented and the players could use them to play everything from pee wee T-ball to the World Series. The level of complexity was simple as a default and as expandable as the imagination of the players. Put another way, Basic D&D action was a well pitched Nolan Ryan game. 3 up, 3 down ,the game moves on.

The added complexities of WOTC D&D (both 3E and 4E) actually make playing t-ball much harder to do if the players wanted it. In fact both games are Major League affairs as written with the action playing out like a Mike Hargrove at-bat.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> The fact that we have not discussed those specifics (in this thread) does not mean that anyone is suggesting that complexity is its own virtue.
> 
> Come on.



No, and I didn't say that anyone is suggesting that.  Complexity is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.  The argument is whether or not a specific degree or kind of complexity is necessary for an _ob_jectively better - rather than _sub_jectively better - play experience.  And, for that matter, where those lines are.

I have zero issue with subjective statements.  I might want to discuss them, but that's it - after all, this is a message board, and presumably it's all about the discussions.  It's the *broad *objective statements - such as tee-ball analogies - which I'll debate.  (OTOH, *specific* objective statements are great for discussion.)

-O


----------



## rjdafoe (Oct 14, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Have your players in 3e really asked in the middle of a game how the monsters got their AC numbers?




Yes, as well as the following:

There must be something wrong, they are hitting us way too much - explanation of class/creature abilies
That creature/class doesn't exist
That is way tougher than the rules say
That is not what that ability does - it does this
You have to play by the rules that we play
That creature/character cannot do that
Ohhh! you just made it up?!


----------



## Voadam (Oct 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yes.  Sometimes 3 or 4 times a round.  As soon as one of the extremely powergamed characters says "I hit AC 35" and I say "Miss", they immediately say "WHAT?  I hit 35.  There's no way that missed.  How did it get that?"
> 
> And then I have to say "Well, it is a creature who started with a +12 natural armor.  Then it got a template that adds a +2 deflection bonus.  It is wearing +3 Fullplate designed for its size.  Then it gets +1 from Dex."
> 
> ...




The above gave me pause the first time I read it.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I agree.  Luckily the guidelines are ones that create monsters that are "fair" fights.  They purposefully "prevent" DMs from coming up with the arbitrary 50 AC monster because they either decided to make it up or found a template that "legally" gave it to a creature.
> 
> 
> See above.  Precisely right.
> ...




Ah I think I see now and can agree with your follow up. But it does mean you were completely mistating things when you said before that 







> "After all, the only way the game is fun for them and for me is if we play "fair".  If the rules let you make something, it's fair.  If it's just made up, then they might as well not play. After all, it's easy to beat them if you can arbitrarily make a monster AC 36.  It's hard if they have to follow a set of rules to get to AC 36.  At least, that's how they look at it.  Or how they did look at it in 3.5e
> 
> Now, in 4e, I simply say "It's a level 10 monster, it has appropriate defenses for it's level.  There's no rules for what AC it can have.  This one is higher than normal."




Because it is trivially easy to follow the rules in 3e to get to such an end point and what is important in both 3e and 4e is the utility of the end point not the exact explanation of how you get there.

What you really meant by unfair was significantly tougher than baseline. It doesn't really matter how trivially easy in 3e it is to follow the 3e rules and get an AC of 36. It also presumably wouldn't fly in 4e to say "It's a level 10 monster, it has appropriate defenses for it's level.  There's no rules for what AC it can have.  This one is higher than normal." since "if you come across some custom monster that manages to have 10 more AC than every other monster anywhere near its [CRLevel]...well, it feels like it isn't fair anymore.  Of course you're going to lose....even if it IS legal."

If AC 36 is too high and feels like a cheap shot unbeatable monster to your players it does not matter whether it is in 4e or 3e, whether it was created on the fly, came out of a book, or followed a formula.

The thing 4e improves here is to give a core book guideline for what is a fair range instead of leaving it to be inferred from the MM or the old monster creating article in Dragon Magazine. 4e will presumably say in the DMG that AC 36 is above the recommended AC for creatures of x level.

I seem to recall it gave specific warning about using higher level soldiers even when legal in the xp budget because their nigh unhitable AC would make them much more of a challenge than indicated by the level numbers and xp budget design formula.

I think the role and number range guidelines are a fantastic development in 4e and I like how similar things appeared for 3e/OGL in various products (pathfinder beta has it in their monster section, Adamant's foe and minion generator books derived from spycraft and adapted to 3e and d20 Mdoern, Iron Heroes villain classes, etc.)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 14, 2009)

MrGrenadine said:


> I understand.  Its just that in my experience, the difference between the effectiveness of optimized and non-optimized characters in 4e is just as wide as in 3.5--its just that in 4e, a smaller difference, say of +/-3, can be huge.  Smaller scale, maybe, but the impact is just as significant.




It isn't as significant though.  Yeah, once you get used to the balance of 4e, you start to see the guy who ONLY has +9 to hit while you have +12 as a guy who has no idea what he's doing because his bonus is too low.  I'm a powergamer, I understand this.

But, the truth is that with that guy in our group we can still beat challenges, they just do a little more damage and take a bit longer.

But the impact of having someone with +5 to hit while you have a +25 to hit is MUCH bigger.  To the point where having them on your team is actually a detriment to winning.

As an example, I recently joined a group of people who had no idea how to optimize.  They had a +6 to hit with their implement attacks while I had +10.  He had one of the worst characters I've ever seen made.  He was a Wizard with Staff of Defense and didn't have a positive Con modifier.  He was 5th level and didn't have a magic implement.  And yet, he still contributed significantly to the outcome of the battle we had.  We would have done better with a better Wizard...but we made due.


----------



## Henry (Oct 14, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> Yes, as well as the following:
> 
> There must be something wrong, they are hitting us way too much - explanation of class/creature abilies
> That creature/class doesn't exist
> ...




Most of those have happened to me, before -- and worse, one of those lines was MY comment to another DM in my group a few years back. 

That was when I realized I was too much of a Rules Lawyer for my own good.


----------



## rjdafoe (Oct 14, 2009)

Henry said:


> Most of those have happened to me, before -- and worse, one of those lines was MY comment to another DM in my group a few years back.
> 
> That was when I realized I was too much of a Rules Lawyer for my own good.




This is the reason I like 4th edition so much. I DM about 1/2 the time. I like 3.x. I played it from when it came out until 4th edition. 

But in my group, the rules of 3.x changed the group to be rules lawyers by (IMO) encouraging the rule for everything mindset and the DM plays by the same rules as the characters mindset.

We never had that problem in 2E or earlier, and we don't have that problem with 4E either. 

That is one of the reasons that I do not agree with the tee-ball and intelligent conversation message that has been posted here. 

I think there is MORE room for a bad DM to find himself in a bind in 4E then 3E. In 3E everything is spelled out in the rules, in 4E there are guidelines and you are explicitely told to modify for your gaming group. This can get you in trouble fast, if your not careful.  (All IMO of course)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 14, 2009)

And it is a serious problem for products.  Many a time the publisher simply got the math wrong



rjdafoe said:


> Yes, as well as the following:
> 
> There must be something wrong, they are hitting us way too much - explanation of class/creature abilies
> That creature/class doesn't exist
> ...


----------



## Voadam (Oct 14, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> Yes, as well as the following:
> 
> There must be something wrong, they are hitting us way too much - explanation of class/creature abilies
> That creature/class doesn't exist
> ...




Heh, in mine the PCs in the same situations generally say stuff like

They are hitting us way too much, we need to kill them quick or run away.
I've never seen these before.
That is tough.
Wow, that seems different than the normal way those should work, this must be something else or a variant. (If a non PC ability)
Huh? My X does Y. Doesn't it? (If a PC ability).
-
That creature/character can do that?
Is that something you made up?

Maybe it comes from us starting in older editions like 1e where the DM's role as rules adjudicator and controller of everything nonPC in the world including physics was more explicit and most everything was its own unique thing.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> But in my group, the rules of 3.x changed the group to be rules lawyers by (IMO) encouraging the rule for everything mindset and the DM plays by the same rules as the characters mindset.




So true.


----------



## rjdafoe (Oct 14, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Heh, in mine the PCs in the same situations generally say stuff like
> 
> They are hitting us way too much, we need to kill them quick or run away.
> I've never seen these before.
> ...




Well, that is the thing.  Most of us started with AD&D (1st edition).  That is the way we used to play, and that is the way we got back to playing with 4E.

This whole Tee-ball stuff and intelligent conversation just isn't true.  Not being so focused on the rules, have made our games better IMO - "intelligent conversation" has actually been brought back into our games more the way I see it.  

We probably could have accomplished the same thing by going back to 1E or 2E as well, but we didn't.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> I haven't seen him personally for a while, but I understand he's still in the area and has crossed paths with some of my coworkers now and again. He's not much of a self-promoter, though, and he seemed disinterested in continuing with the RPG industry, so I'm not sure what he's been working on or anything.



Thanks

We were friends in high school, many many years ago.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 14, 2009)

I think I could cede that 4e is newbie tee-ball if folks also agree that 3.5 is janggi for doddering retirees.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 14, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> But in my group, the rules of 3.x changed the group to be rules lawyers by (IMO) encouraging the rule for everything mindset and the DM plays by the same rules as the characters mindset.
> 
> We never had that problem in 2E or earlier, and we don't have that problem with 4E either.




Heh, so our different groups are not based on prior edition experience and the random uniqueness of every other monster and magic in AD&D.

My brother and I got into a 20 minute angry argument once in the middle of a 1e/2e game about an ambiguity of how backstab worked. Angry enough to make all of our other friends real uncomfortable at the time. I finally said this is how I'm ruling as DM, we can talk about it more after the game if you want but that's how it is right now. Let's get back to the game.

I think that was the point when we consciously decided it was better to avoid stopping the game to argue rules issues. Since then if we think the DM is making a rules error we might point it out ("Uhh, wand use doesn't normally provoke AoOs") but accept "I'm ruling this way now and we can talk it over after the game" as ending the discussion and directing us back to playing the game.

I feel our games are the better for it.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 14, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Because it is trivially easy to follow the rules in 3e to get to such an end point and what is important in both 3e and 4e is the utility of the end point not the exact explanation of how you get there.



I think both matter.  I agree that what 4e has taught me is exactly that...the utility of the endpoint is what is important.

But everything in the 3e books kept telling me the opposite.  It wasn't important what the end AC of a monster was.  It mattered that they were built on the same rules at the PCs so as to keep things fair.  I bought into it completely.  OBVIOUSLY it was balanced.  Because everything the PCs could do or get, so could monsters.  If the PCs can scour books looking for that feat to give them just ONE more point of AC, so could the monsters.

It made sense for an Ogre to have an AC of 13 because they were big and slow and rarely wore armor.  This balanced out their large strength and hitpoints.  It also made perfect sense for that Ogre to get an AC of 21 by putting on Full Plate.  After all, if the PCs could do it, it was balanced for the Ogre.  The game told me that was perfectly fair...even if an 8 point difference in AC could be enough to cause a TPK.  It might be a little cheesy...but it was legal.



Voadam said:


> What you really meant by unfair was significantly tougher than baseline. It doesn't really matter how trivially easy in 3e it is to follow the 3e rules and get an AC of 36. It also presumably wouldn't fly in 4e to say "It's a level 10 monster, it has appropriate defenses for it's level.  There's no rules for what AC it can have.  This one is higher than normal." since "if you come across some custom monster that manages to have 10 more AC than every other monster anywhere near its [CRLevel]...well, it feels like it isn't fair anymore.  Of course you're going to lose....even if it IS legal."



I agree.  But the difference is that in 4e the rules say "Use this table, adjust it one or two points away from the baseline, but never more than that or you'll likely kill everyone."

So, I expect every monster I fight to be within 1 or 2 points of the baseline in 4e.  And yes, you are right, I would call a DM on a monster who was 10 points above normal.

In 3e, I didn't expect any particular AC.  I knew that it was perfectly legal and plausible that a monster had an AC of 30 as a CR 5 creature.  Sure, that meant that no one in the party could hit it except on natural 20s.  It was cheap...but fair.  As long as the rules allowed it, we were playing the game the way it was intended.  Can't complain about that.  Well, we could complain about that if the DM just made stuff up.  After all, it probably isn't immediately apparently how the monster got 30 AC.  But if the DM can say "He's got a shield spell up because he had an Ioun Stone borrowed to him that lets him cast a spell out of it.  Plus, his Full Plate was enchanted to +3 by his 14th level cleric ally who ran off before you got there." then you can say "Oh...we lost badly...but it was fair because he had the help of a powerful Cleric...of COURSE we lost.  And we could have done the same thing back to him if only we had a powerful Cleric ally."

It meant that some combats were extremely easy and others were way too hard for their CR.  I could get annoyed at my DM a little for trying to kill us and not giving us enough XP to make up for it.  But I couldn't complain that the DM was running the game wrong.  It's not entirely his fault if he's just following the rules, right?



Voadam said:


> If AC 36 is too high and feels like a cheap shot unbeatable monster to your players it does not matter whether it is in 4e or 3e, whether it was created on the fly, came out of a book, or followed a formula.



It does.  In the same way it matters whether you get 200 dollars for passing Go in Monopoly.  If you don't get the $200, the game can still be played.  It'll be a slightly different game, but the game doesn't suddenly break down because of a slight change in rules.

But you aren't playing the same game any longer.  You can no longer claim that you are the best at Monopoly when you do really well with your new rules.  You can't entirely be sure you'd be just as good with the real rules.  

For me, it's always in the back of my mind that I may be winning...but would I be winning if the DM was playing fair using the rules exactly as written.  If the DM decided 25 was a fair AC for a CR 10 creature and I look later and find quite a few examples of AC 28 CR 10 creatures....would we still have won if it had AC 28?

I suppose it's because I trust game designers more than I do DMs.  I know a DM will VERY likely make a mistake when "estimating".  I've seen it over and over again.  DMs giving powerful artifacts that would unbalance a level 20 group to 1st level characters while claiming that it will have no effect on their game at all.  Are these the people I was deciding randomly what the AC of the creature is?  At least if they are following the rules in the book, I know that someone who knew what they were doing sat down and thought about those rules for a LONG time and came up with the "best" answer they could come up with.  If a DM follows those rules, they should succeed no matter how smart they are.

It's just that I figure game designers had to have a job interview, qualifications, a team of people checking their work, playtests and so on.  The DM running my game could sniff glue in his spare time for all I know.  Most of the time, DMs get the job because no one else wants it.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 14, 2009)

Filcher said:


> 3.5 is janggi for doddering retirees.




I don't know what janggi or doddering is....but if it has to do with being extremely charming and good with the ladies, I agree with you 100%!

Doesn't everyone know that 3.5 players are the best looking D&D players out of every edition?


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 14, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> I don't know what janggi or doddering is...



Dang it how can you be insulted with an attitude like that ;-)
ummm I think comparing looks with other D&D players is shooting at low apples ;-)... one should be shooting at WOD players after all they got them goth girls and boys upping there style quotient, snicker.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 14, 2009)

Voadam said:


> My brother and I got into a 20 minute angry argument once in the middle of a 1e/2e game about an ambiguity of how backstab worked. Angry enough to make all of our other friends real uncomfortable at the time.



Yep, this was my group in 1e/2e.



Voadam said:


> I think that was the point when we consciously decided it was better to avoid stopping the game to argue rules issues.



I wish.  We never decided this.  Because we had enough people who were really passionate about their point of view.  If one player felt his character could backstab in the middle of combat, he was going to argue that point until the DM changed his mind.  The rest of our group felt it was best to argue until the point was resolved so we wouldn't have to go through the same argument next week.  Plus, each of them had an opinion about how it should work and wanted it known.

Most of our arguments were about "realism" though.  It was always "I can jump this far because I say so"/"No you can't, that's WAY too far to jump", "I think I should be able to grab someone and throw them over a cliff with a Str check"/"I think it takes more than just Str to throw someone over".

That's why we loved 3e so much.  It had rules for all the things we used to argue about because there were no rules for them.

Of course, it didn't take long before we realized that more rules meant more rules issues.  Did the free attack from Improved Trip happen before or after you get up?  Could you stand in another person's space while attacking using Dervish Dance?  If you knocked someone prone with an AOO while they were charging, what happened to their actions for the round?  How did that monster get the ability to attack 4 times in one round?

Our arguments became a lot shorter and less based on subjective opinion and instead were based on trying to find pages in the books with rules we could use to support our arguments.  But they were still there.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I suppose it's because I trust game designers more than I do DMs.  I know a DM will VERY likely make a mistake when "estimating".  I've seen it over and over again.  DMs giving powerful artifacts that would unbalance a level 20 group to 1st level characters while claiming that it will have no effect on their game at all.  Are these the people I was deciding randomly what the AC of the creature is?  At least if they are following the rules in the book, I know that someone who knew what they were doing sat down and thought about those rules for a LONG time and came up with the "best" answer they could come up with.  If a DM follows those rules, they should succeed no matter how smart they are.
> 
> It's just that I figure game designers had to have a job interview, qualifications, a team of people checking their work, playtests and so on.  The DM running my game could sniff glue in his spare time for all I know.  Most of the time, DMs get the job because no one else wants it.



Heh.

Here's how it worked for me and the little bits of freelance game writing I did.

1 No job interview, I simply saw publisher solicitations for things like items for GURPS Magic Items III, monsters for Creature Collection III or Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary, and spells for Relics and Rituals II.

2 Qualifications, I'm familiar with 3e D&D and GURPS, have ideas for relevant stuff, and can write.

3 People checking my work, usually one editor from the company, maybe more.

4 Playtests, most stuff no. A few monsters were used in my home games.

5 I never sniffed glue.


----------



## rjdafoe (Oct 14, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Heh, so our different groups are not based on prior edition experience and the random uniqueness of every other monster and magic in AD&D.
> 
> My brother and I got into a 20 minute angry argument once in the middle of a 1e/2e game about an ambiguity of how backstab worked. Angry enough to make all of our other friends real uncomfortable at the time. I finally said this is how I'm ruling as DM, we can talk about it more after the game if you want but that's how it is right now. Let's get back to the game.
> 
> ...




I am glad that you guys could do that in 3.x.  For some reason, my group could not.  I attribute it to 3.x actually.  

The more we played, the more that came out, the more rules people memorized, the worse it got.

I think alot of my group got into finding ways to use the rules to their advantage to an obsession.  It was more about rules than about real gaming.  For some reason, we could not get out of that slump.

It also made the DMs job REAL hard.  We were constantly looking up rules, becuase (as I said) we were more concerned with the rules, than the actual game.  It was a mini-game in a game.  Character optimization led to DM monster/NPC optimization just to be able to keep  up.

Of course, that is just my groups experience.  I think 4E was a breath of fresh air, and alot of us realized what exactly we really were doing during the 3.x era.  Yes, we could have recognized it and played 3.x differently, but like I said, we fell into (what I call) the mini-game within 3.x.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just pointing out differences.  But this instantly reminded me of our recent debate regarding CMDs in Pathfinder.
> 
> To me an RPG feels disappointing when the monster doesn't feel like the monster it is supposed to be.  I would never make the two statements you made.  To me it is a very different approach to gaming, with, apparently, a different goal for how it is enjoyed.  There must be many many points of commonality.  But, clearly, there are differences.



I kinda get that, but I think there are easier ways to make a monster feel just like I want it to feel.

*"The Birds" - Level 4 Skirmisher*
_A large flock of birds is sitting on trees and buildings nearby. As you approach, they suddenly all fly into air, building a large, dark mass - and fly towards you. 
_[sblock]Large natural beast (swarm) - 250 XP
Initiative +8, Senses: Perception +4, low-light vision
Claws and Beaks: Aura 1; any enemy that starts its turn within the aura takes 5 damage.
HP 53, Bloodied 21
AC 19, Fort 12, Ref 17, Will 17
Resist: Half damage from melee and ranged attacks
Vulnerable 5 against close and area attacks
Speed: 3, fly 8 (hover)
(Basic): _Swarm Attack_ (standard, at-will)
+7 vs Reflex, 14+2 damage and the target is blinded until the end of "The Birds" next turn.
_Scattering of Feathers_ (immediate reacton, when first bloodied, encounter)
"The Birds" break apart into its constitution birds and cannot be attacked until the end of its next turn, at which point it reforms in any space within 5 squares of the space it vacated.
_Mass of Feathers_
"The Birds" block line of sight. Creatures entirely in its space are blinded.
Alignment: Unaligned
Str 4 (-1), Dex18 (+6), Wis 13 (+4),
Con 9 (+1), Int 3 (-1), Cha 6(+0)
_Retrademarked by the Attorney General of London_._ (= stolen and modified from the latest Dungeon article)_ 
[/sblock]
This "monster" just feels right. It does everything I would want a large mass of birds that suddenly decided to take it out on the hapless characters should feel. I especially love the "Scattering of Feathers".
I don't need to play around with Hit Dice or skill points. I don't need feats. I don't need equipment. I really just need the concept of a swarm and some ideas how to model the idea of the swarm scattering and reforming itself.  I don't really want to think about "what can the AC realistically be?" I just give it a level and that throws out all the numbers I need. I can focus on the creative part. Or, well, maybe Robert J. Schwalb had to.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 14, 2009)

MrGrenadine said:


> Thats interesting, because my experience is the opposite. I play a sixth level Cleric/ MC Fighter in a weekly 4e game, and have been slogging through hundreds of feats and powers and Paragon Paths in the Compendium to try to figure out which combinations will synergize best through Paragon Tier. The combinations are endless, and although any combination will work, I hate feeling like I'm missing some better feat/power interplay that would make the character--not optimal--but truly useful to the group.




The retraining mechanic is a wonderful addition/reimagining in 4E. The options in 3E were seemingly far more, and flexibility when noticed was far less. Now one can explore different options to see how they work in actual play yet may still dump them when they don't perform as well in tier or in general.

Example: My first Assault Swordmage. Even the at-wills have numerous options, yes, but retraining was a Godsend. On paper, Lightning Lure really looked like junk, so I all but ignored it. Then in play I began to see where it would have been extremely useful. I retrained in to it and found it far better than I had ever imagined so long as I was thinking and using it creatively. Without that mechanic, I could easily have missed out on the best at-will in the game. Simply crunching a few numbers simply did not give me the initial data needed to make a truly informed decision on the usefulness of the power.

The stat boost mechanic also opens up a number of options. If one straight mins/maxs one's primary/secondary stats and essentially dump the rest, then one loses a little flexibility too but one can alleviate it somewhat with the boosts as one progresses.

That doesn't mean it takes less thought, it just alleviates the need for anal-retentive analysis at character creation.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Where there seems to be a difference of opinion is in the proper response to a mechanical failure.
> 
> ...



What's with 
c) You build a better engine that gives the performance the operator needs?


----------



## avin (Oct 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Do I think this is a decent soundbite for the subgroup of 3E haters who are now 4E fans?  Yeah.  Does it represent every individual?  Hell no.
> 
> But it is a snapshot of how I perceive the center of mass of the appeal of 4E vs 3E.  If added simplicity and rawr rawr are the start and the end of the improvements for the "new" fans, then that is a shame.




You know, I like most of your posts (even giving you XP!), I have my own restrictions to 4E fluff and metagaming... but, man, your signature ring like every 4E player or DM is a "POW POW POW MOAR DUNGOENZ"... which is not true...

It's a pretty belligerant sig and I think you know that...


----------



## nightwyrm (Oct 14, 2009)

Herschel said:


> The retraining mechanic is a wonderful addition/reimagining in 4E. The options in 3E were seemingly far more, and flexibility when noticed was far less. Now one can explore different options to see how they work in actual play yet may still dump them when they don't perform as well in tier or in general.




I totally agree. Retraining mechanic is one of the best thing to have been included as part of the levelling structure.  It alleviates the need to perfectly plan out your character lv 1 to 30 and gives a lot more room to experiment.  Very newbie friendly too.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What's with
> c) You build a better engine that gives the performance the operator needs?




That's what _I_ do.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That's what _I_ do.



And you've got a trademark on that?

Dang.


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 14, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Regardless of what you say, intentional or not, your sig is taking a shot at 4E fans, and since it is your sig you take a shot at 4E fans every time you post.




It's intentionally insulting. I refuse to believe otherwise as BryonD has made it quite clear on numerous occasions that he thinks 4e caters to the mentally deficient. He's simply incapable of talking about the game without insulting its players.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2009)

I think we are done here.


----------

