The D&D Edition Thread (That I Should Have Made Sooner)

[Forar]

Man... *sigh* here we go.

4e is the first version to require that you play that role.

It "requires" nothing. There's no agent of WotC sent to your house to put a wand to your head if you don't have all 4 roles filled. While there are some roles that might require certain specific hybrid builds to work fairly well (the aforementioned Paladin/Cleric was a passable defender/leader, but a Fighter/Cleric might've struggled more with the latter side of it), but even beyond player choices it is always possible for the DM to simply adjust encounters to better account for the group's size and composition.

No controller? Just use minions sparingly. BAM, problem solved. Somewhere I've just blown someone's mind.

Funny thing, on another forum a group of guys did a D&D Next playtest of one of their level 12'ish modules. They went in without a caster. They died on like the 4th room. Tangential to the ongoing discussion, but I just thought I'd mention that if you had hopes about 5E catering better to your dream of 2 rogues, you might have some trouble. 2 wizards might be fine though, as casters are the Chosen, as noted above. ;-)

I maintain it breaks down when in groups of 2, which is what I usually play(1 DM, 2 players).

*shrug* We played a group of 3 and it worked fine with a Defender/Leader hybrid, a Striker and a Controller. Maybe it broke down for your group, but that could be tied to any number of variables. There's no reason for the math to suddenly stop working.

and is far too focused on combat.

So it's D&D? Because D&D has always had a heavy emphasis on combat. If you want a system with heavy emphasis on Roleplay I would recommend, well, pretty much anything but any version of D&D.

Roles may have existed before, but It was never an issue, because any character could easily fill multiple roles. You didn't need someone to mark enemies and make them attack him. Now you do.

... so giving Defenders an actual reason for enemies to not ignore them is a bad thing? Previously they did because... reasons? Any reason your group had for enemies to hit defenders that worked in 2E/3E is perfectly applicable in 4E, unless your DM decided "hey, fighter has to do their job now or I can just run roughshod over the casters, tee hee!"...

]Your play experiences may have varied, but just because you played that way doesn't mean that everyone did. I've played in far more games where there were two wizards, or 2 rogues than in which all "roles" were filled, and it just worked better in earlier editions.

Your opening statement paired with your closing statement in this section are simply glorious. Apparently my anecdotal experience isn't indicative of anything, but yours, woah man, stand back, we're speaking in definitives here.

Mechanising it not only brings it out in the open, but enforces that style of play. The designers of 4e have gone on record as saying they built the game around it, with 5 players filling all roles, and it is evident. Can it be played without that? yes, but it's harder, and the CR budget breaks down.

[Citation Needed]

Bottom line, 4e is a miniatures game with RP tacked on. That's what some people don't like.

Now this I can agree on (at least partially). And if people don't like 4E, that's cool. They're not signing my paycheques or anything.

But there's a difference between "I dislike these mechanics" and stating as though with authority that "the CR system breaks at X players" or "it's, like, a table top MMO" (edit: not that you said this, but it's come up a few times, just pointing out some of the issues presented over these pages). If an earlier edition worked better for you for your group and playstyle, that's fine, but that doesn't mean "the earlier editions did it better". It means "the earlier editions did it better for us".

A small distinction, but an important one. And if that's what you intended to say, fair enough, but if you'r'e going to state subjective things objectively, I'm afraid we're just never going to see eye to eye on this point.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Forar

[Dracomax]

Sigh. I should probably have prefaced the post with "in my experience." Because that's what it is. in my experience, with a couple of years both playing and DMing, you have to work much harder to make a game work without the roles. you can't not play the roles your class is assigned. this was not true(for me) in other versions. 3.x was a lot more focused on RP, and much of what it did well in that respect was taken out.(IMHO)

The distinction should be implied, given that I am not, and never have claimed to be, an omnicient god of all knowing never wrongness. You didn't find the problems I did. good for you. go enjoy your game and stop getting uptight when people mention the problems they had.

edit: Also, you'll note that I never said I hate 4e. it was okay. I played it for 3-4 years, as DM and player. I wouldn't have done that if I hated it. More of my problems came form the corporate side than the gameplay side. But to claim that others problems are without merit just because you never saw them is just as poor form as claiming that those problems make it "the worst game ever." In addition, this argument ends up sounding like a childish argument of "nuh uh" "uh-huh" ad absurdum.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Dracomax

[Forar]

Sigh. I should probably have prefaced the post with "in my experience." Because that's what it is. in my experience, with a couple of years both playing and DMing, you have to work much harder to make a game work without the roles. you can't not play the roles your class is assigned. this was not true(for me) in other versions. 3.x was a lot more focused on RP, and much of what it did well in that respect was taken out.(IMHO)

I guess our DM's just had differing experiences. My biggest problem was when we ended up low on raw hitting power and some of the fights felt like a slog; the foes couldn't take us down, we couldn't burn them all to the ground in what felt like a reasonable time, but luckily the DM generally didn't make us take out every last single ogre or whatever, offsetting the issue to a degree.

But I have no idea how you can say 3.x was "more focused on RP". Other than having Perform and Craft skills (which you can just include in your character back story), I really don't remember any more pages dedicated to RP in the 3E DMG/PHB than in the 4E DMG/PHB. D&D has always (in my opinion/experience) been a system for violent conflict resolution. I don't need rules (above and beyond a few attribute/skill checks) to flirt with the bartender or intimidate a warlord or simper before a cranky dragon. I need swathes of rules in place for when the above fail and butts need kicking.

The distinction should be implied, given that I am not, and never have claimed to be, an omnicient god of all knowing never wrongness. You didn't find the problems I did. good for you. go enjoy your game and stop getting uptight when people mention the problems they had.

Perhaps I was being a bit anal and misconstruing your posts after glossing over some of the others who have participated in this back and forth. That said, I simply disagree about the absolute need for balanced party roles and the CR system breaking down below 5 pcs. Sorry to hear your crew found issues with it, personally I found balancing creatures/encounters far more frustrating with 3E, especially when you got to higher levels and it became more common to start stacking templates and/or character levels onto things. That could get ugly quickly. Personally I found that the party roles worked best when running modules that were designed with the 'standard' group in place, but with a DM willing to make changes, or who is weaving their campaign from whole cloth, it's generally straightforward enough to simply know what the strengths/weaknesses of the party are going to be, and adjusting encounters accordingly.

edit: Also, you'll note that I never said I hate 4e. it was okay. I played it for 3-4 years, as DM and player. I wouldn't have done that if I hated it. More of my problems came form the corporate side than the gameplay side. But to claim that others problems are without merit just because you never saw them is just as poor form as claiming that those problems make it "the worst game ever." In addition, this argument ends up sounding like a childish argument of "nuh uh" "uh-huh" ad absurdum.

I've never said that there is no merit to having issues with 4E. I've even mentioned ones that I had or saw. Mainly the lack of Epic tier support (my groups generally enjoyed Heroic and Paragon tiers more anyway, so I'm not saying it wasn't an issue, I recognize that it was, I was just lucky in that it didn't affect me much), the poor quality of some releases, the terrible online tools (the offline character builder was pretty good, the online one was a steaming pile, the virtual table top wasn't even in beta until very near the end of the edition's lifespan, etc). Essentials was marketed oddly, and while it introduced some of the 'streamlining' that some people were clamouring for, it almost felt like WotC was cannibalizing their own consumer base for a while.

But when I hear "earlier editions did it better", I find people are often referring to casters and how powerful they became a few levels in. You can break the 3E magic system wiiiiide open within a few levels in that edition. Doubly so when you get into metamagic feats.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Forar

[i_was_like_you]

D&D has always (in my opinion/experience) been a system for violent conflict resolution. I don't need rules (above and beyond a few attribute/skill checks) to flirt with the bartender or intimidate a warlord or simper before a cranky dragon. I need swathes of rules in place for when the above fail and butts need kicking.

This is D&D at its core. It has always been a video game, with the best or worst graphics (based on the imagination of those involved). Kill things, gain powerups and XP. If the group wanted to roleplay between battles, and managed to stay at least vaguely in character, so much the better.

Why is it so much like a videogame?

Bottom line, 4e is a miniatures game with RP tacked on. That's what some people don't like.

This is exactly the case for every edition because D&D grew out of tabletop games. The rules were cobbled together from tabletop rules. The Miniatures game, Chainmail, and any other attempts at getting miniatures of their making back on the table, was D&D trying to get back to its roots.

Instead, Reaper, GW, and scores of other companies have managed to break that part of the market wide open, sometimes providing miniature explicitly meant for D&D, and other times having their own worlds and storylines.

In this, I think Malifaux performs admirably, in that it is a character-driven skirmish game. Other games, as we have mentioned in the other threads, tend to relegate their masses to being nothing more than wound markers.

When D&D's miniatures for 3.x came out (along with the Star Wars miniatures), I was kinda on board with the idea of random boosters, as if a DM gets a pile of goblins or kobolds (or Storm Troopers), they'll still be happy because they'll need a pile of them.

[Forar]

Why is it so much like a videogame?

Perhaps more pertinently; why are (some) videogames so much like D&D?

This obviously doesn't apply across the board, but concepts like experience, levelling up, upgrading gear, can often be traced right back to D&D of the 70's and beyond. Would Final Fantasy or World of Warcraft or Mass Effect or Bioshock or Diablo or Borderlands or any number of games even remotely resemble what they do now without those influences? Some are subtle, some are in your face, many are presented simply to enhance depth of game mechanics, adjust player agency and lengthen gameplay/enhance replay value, but they are present all the same.

Hell, I've even seen complaints about what some players see as a scourge of "RPG elements" infesting other genres, with RPG being added to untold genres as a prefix or suffix (yes I could've just called them affixes).

Now, I'm not saying every last little instance of being able to improve ones character can be tied back to D&D, or that D&D or RPGs are purely defined by any of the above, but I think for many (if not most), those elements are often interchangeable. If I joined a D&D group and they told me it was RP heavy, I'd give it a shot. If they told me not to even bother choosing feats or abilities and that I'd be banned for uttering the words "dungeon crawl", I'd be outta there like my butt was on fire. I enjoy a good RP session as much as the next gamer, but man, sometimes I just want to go butcher undead and take all their loot across an evening too.

It doesn't have to be a strictly either/or dichotomy, which is something that frustrates me about many such conversations. There exists a spectrum upon which players will find themselves, and has the potential for enjoying a hard hitting, fast paced bit of banter (or at least as hard hitting and fast paced as the players themselves are capable of) that leads to zero weapons drawn but remarkable gains in information, treaties, and hopefully the mailing address of the cute *insert gender here*. And then the next week we go hunting for a dragon's horde and wind up four hours later wondering who the hell builds a mountain fortress and then traps it like it was designed by the Umbrella Corporation while slaughtering an equally fitting number of post-living creatures.

[i_was_like_you]

Considering nearly any game can be seen of as role-playing...

Take on the role of an Italian American plumber who trips out on hallucinogenic mushrooms to battle mushrooms, turtles, and other assorted monsters, all to save a princess from their leader...

Become a lightning fast hedgehog, with an obsession with golden rings, who must thwart the evil mastermind...

--------------------------

But, like you said, we don't need rules for the acting portion. We need the rules for when ish hits the fan. Players will act, or not, as much as they want, and as much as they are able.

[Barbagianni]

Bottom line, 4e is a miniatures game with RP tacked on. That's what some people don't like.

I'm still with dracomax. And no, no amount of arguing is ever going to make me change idea. But I'm not trying to make anyone change idea either.

[Forar]

Being closed minded isn't something that one should aspire to or take pride in. You're totally entitled to your opinion, but if there's utterly no room for adjusting one's opinion, then it's not a discussion. It's yelling opinions at each other. And I was rather enjoying what I felt was a solid discussion.

And as noted, D&D descended from Chain Mail. A miniatures game. Which means that if the above is true, then 4E is the most pure return to D&D's roots of all the systems to date.

I believe that's checkmate. ;-)

[Dracomax]

not really, as D&D had evolved beyond being strictly a miniatures game(ad&D and 3.0 did not require, and in some senses worked better without miniatures and maps), before evolving back towards being a miniatures game.

not checkmate, merely check.

[micahwc]

I've played 2nd, 3rd, and now 4th on and off for about 20 years now, almost exclusively without miniatures. I will admit that fourth edition makes it harder to not use them, as most of the powers and abilities give ranges in squares, not actual distances. Converting distances from squares is annoying when you can't find the approximate area of 1 square anywhere in the book.

[CRC]

But, like you said, we don't need rules for the acting portion. We need the rules for when ish hits the fan. Players will act, or not, as much as they want, and as much as they are able.

This is a common sentiment among people who've only played games like D&D. There are lots of games that give vast amounts of useful support for non-combat task resolution.

In D&D, you have 2 ways to succeed:

1. kill it with sticks.

2. convince the DM you don't need to bother with step 1.

In other games there are more options.

I'm still with dracomax. And no, no amount of arguing is ever going to make me change idea. But I'm not trying to make anyone change idea either.

I take it you're a member of the Forge then?

Because from the point of view of 4th and 5th generation RPGs, all D&D is just a miniatures game with tacked on roleplaying.

Go play Lord Kagematsu, Primetime Adventures, or Metalocracy, then come back and tell me that 3.5 is anything other than a miniatures game.

Converting distances from squares is annoying when you can't find the approximate area of 1 square anywhere in the book.

5 feet, just like 3rd.

[Forar]

Considering nearly any game can be seen of as role-playing...

Take on the role of an Italian American plumber who trips out on hallucinogenic mushrooms to battle mushrooms, turtles, and other assorted monsters, all to save a princess from their leader...

Become a lightning fast hedgehog, with an obsession with golden rings, who must thwart the evil mastermind...

I've seen this point made before, but I think we can all agree there is generally more to "role playing in a video game" than hitting the power button.

But your point isn't untrue either, where does that line end? Making choices for developing your character in story and capabilities helps, but I doubt many people consider Contra an RPG just because they can choose between the laser and the (infinitely superior) spread gun (seriously that thing is baaaahroken).

I doubt many people heavily role play in Call of Duty, and yet the Prestige/perks/whatever (I don't play it) system that allows a measure of customization certainly begins to look like character advancement/customization, at least from what I've heard of it.

Basically, the way I see it, there are extremes on both ends; minimal/negligible choices of character or story (puzzle games, many (if not most) side scrolling platformers, etc, etc), ones with untold options and choices (appearance, class, gear, party members, etc, your Mass Effect, Final Fantasy (? I haven't played on since 7, I'm assuming this at least somewhat holds true), etc), and in between all the grey areas, games and outright genres adopting some effort to let the players personalize their character(s), be it to pander for more money through microtransactions or to expand the depth and breadth of the story that is being told in an almost symbiotic relationship between developer and player. Or possibly both.

And honestly, I think the line is only going to continue to blur as the years go by.

[i_was_like_you]

There should be more to roleplaying than hitting the power button. There should also be much more to it than rolling dice. We've all also heard the sentiment of roleplaying vs roll playing.

There are indeed spectrums involved. Several axis on where any one person perceives the play experience.

There's a spectrum of how immersive and engaging the game is for the individuals involved in playing it, whether it be a video game, a tabletop / couch rpg, or even live action roleplay (Larping).

There's also a spectrum of how in depth characters can be customized, whether through the character's physical, mental, and possibly social traits improving; its skillset improving; its otherworldly powers, if any, progressing; or just getting bigger better weapons, armor, and other items.

Then, possibly most importantly, there's the spectrum of just how well the game, and any additional players in it, facilitate the enjoyment of the play experience. NPX, or Negative Play Experience, isn't just limited to playing against Pandora, alp bombs, or pre-errata Hamelin. There are many factors that can make or break a game for someone. The more players involved at a given time, the more chances for someone to reach their breaking point, thus rage quitting.

That being said, sometimes, with the right group of people, more can be better, as it allows for more sources of good input. My Storytelling style for Vampire Dark Ages varies significantly from if I'm running a game of D&D (any edition).

In VDA, I prefer to let the game be very player driven. This is fine, if the players actively have their characters go out and do things. But it's also very frustrating if they just kind of idle around. Having a sandbox world doesn't do much if the characters are sitting in the corner, picking their noses, figuratively or otherwise.

In D&D, while still presenting plenty of choices to the players, I tend to run pre-made adventures, stitched together by filler adventures meant to garner more cash and prizes (and, of course, more XP), so that they can grow and progress on their way through a seemingly logical narrative.

Should the players actually make attempts to chat up NPCs, or even have their characters woo one, even better. During the last game of D&D I ran, the half elf was forming a mostly off camera relationship with a minor noblewoman he had saved during an encounter. It was a nice touch, and it added another possible source of future adventures. Unfortunately, a recalcitrant player, whose character was a wizard of the stupid evil alignment, wrecked things for the rest of the players. He became the NPX for them. [It could be said that they were the NPX to him, but considering the group consensus was that they didn't want to play as evil, with devil may care attitudes, he was the odd one out.]

So the half elf went off to pursue his relationship with the gal, while the player of said half elf replaced his character with a calculating evil wizard, who had hired a couple of body guards, in an attempt to show the other player a better way to play as evil. [As soon as combat would start, he'd go invisible and let the bodyguards earn their pay.] Another player also switched characters from a beguiler to a bard, also because the NPX wizard made it so that playing her beguiler was no longer viable. [In actuality, she just shapeshifted over to another race and used only the bard spells off of her beguiler spell list, all to further her aim of gaining both prestige classes that a changeling was aptly suited for.]

That same player of the stupid evil wizard, had previously been an NPX during one of my games of Vampire Dark Ages, thus why I chose to switch to pre-fab adventures with that group. Let him run amok in someone else's intellectual property. He's not ruining mine. [Ours, really, as the game can be as much the players' as it is the Storyteller's.

[ooshawn]

I started my own threat with this exact same topic in mind. I'm glad there are people out there that recognize gaming company lingo when they are about to murder a game.

[necroon]

Ah my favorite discussion topic.

I've played alot of 3.0 and 3.5 and it is still the staple for my RPGing nights, however I am personally a big fan of 4th edition as I am many other RPG systes (WoD, Savagelands, ect. ect.). The reason being as that 4th edition, imo, takes a different approach to a fantasy RPG. It is, in that regard, entitled to it's ups and downs and just like every other game you have to find what works well for you and your friends. Perhaps your group enjoys the teamwork simplification that comes with 4th edition or the story-telling emphasis of WoD. None of this is bad it's all just opinionated. WOTC did something rather bold with 4th but lets remember it was their beta testers and customer's feedback that led them to "the most important thing on the planet is a better balance between martial and magic classes and I don't care how you get there". If your worried about the direction Malifaux is going instead of talking about it being a "lost cause" participate in the Public Beta, provide honest feedback, and continue to be opinionated.