Thoughts on 4.0 now that the fervor has died down a bit

[Lars Porsenna]

If you're playing a 3e Bard ans ALL you're doing is bardsong and the occasional CLW, then you weren't exercising the character to its fullest.

 

Damon.

[Gimp]

All of this is still simply player choices.

 

If someone was playing a bard simply, but enjoying it, they were doing it fine for them. The object of D&D is to play and have fun, and everyone will have a different definition of fun.

 

The changes to 4th are great for some people, based on what they have found and liked, however, that does not negate the opinions of people who preferred other options. It simply means the people are having fun with the same game in different ways.

 

It's no different than the people who have a blast with a hack and slash adventure, and others who want court intrigue and nearly diceless interactive roleplay.

 

Neither is the wrong way to play the game, though they are very, very different in approach. If you're having fun, you're doing it right.

 

Kristof65's opinion makes perfect sense for someone who liked the parts that are currently unavailable. It may not match the opinion of others, but it is still valid.

 

Some people love the online toolsets, and others are unimpressed. Both opinions are valid, beause they're only opinions, and will always vary between different groups.

 

Rather than decry and denigrating the opinions of others, try to promote your own sensibly, and try to understand the other's. The world works a lot better when people take the time to think about what others think, instead of treating other opinions as complete garbage. You don't have to agree, and may disagree strongly, but other opinions can be valid for those that hold them.

[neil]

No, it's possible to hold an opinion that is wrong. I don't have to respect eveyr opinion.

 

"It would be better to have nothing at all than Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eladrin" is not an opinion I have to respect - something is better than nothing.

 

 

As for the Bard - well the problem is, he wasn't having fun. Well he was for a while, but got bored after a time. Maybe there was something else for bards to do, but it sure as hell wasn't obvious.

[Gimp]

No, it's possible to hold an opinion that is wrong. I don't have to respect eveyr opinion.

 

"It would be better to have nothing at all than Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eladrin" is not an opinion I have to respect - something is better than nothing.

 

 

As for the Bard - well the problem is, he wasn't having fun. Well he was for a while, but got bored after a time. Maybe there was something else for bards to do, but it sure as hell wasn't obvious.

Even that opinion is not inherently wrong, it only differs significantly from your own. You don't have to respect the opinion, but you should respect the holder's desire to have one of their own. Your opinion does not have to be the same, because gaming is about aesthetics and what each individual player finds fun. There can never be only one right way to game.

 

We're not talking about world politics here, we're talking about what people think is fun in gaming.

Some people would rather play in a fantasy world that mirrors specific books or movies. Others only want original material.

Some people like campaigns where all the PC's are only human, or some other single race. Others want a varied party.

Some people like hack and slash adventures; an RPG version of an action movie. Others prefer major social adventures, where combat is a rarity.

Some people love low to mid-level adventures. Others prefer high level games.

 

None of those opinions are bad so long as the people playing are having fun. I've played in campaigns like all of those, as well as other opposed views, yet been able to have fun.

 

The only time they're a real problem is when people start insisting only specific opinions have validity, and are the only way to do things 'right.' The problem then is the person trying to force people to have fun in a way they don't like, and not the opinion.

 

D&D is not my favorite system. I don't like leveling systems. I prefer systems where a new player can create a character and join a party as simply a character that is less experienced, but still viable and fun.

 

That said, I've had a lot of fun through the years playing D&D, because even if I saw it as a flawed system, it works, and a good group can have a blast with it in a lot of ways. The players make the game fun, and so long as they're willing to be flexible and work with each other's opinions, a lot of different options can be explored and be fun.

[kristof65]

neil - my opinion on it has to do with fact that it is one of the core books - which are supposed to be the PHB, the MM and the DMG. Using this common definition of core - 2. the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything. , I feel WotC missed the mark when deciding on races, and to a lesser extent, classes for the 4e PHB.

 

As a core book for D&D, just about everything in the PHB should have the widest appeal possible. If you take a look at most fantasy - books, movies, online games, etc - these days, Humans and elves populate a majority of it, the other races like halflings, orcs, gnomes, etc make a much smaller - but still significant - percentage. Tieflings and Eladrin do not come anywhere near the popularity of the other fantasy races, and as such - IMO - do not fit the definition of core - IE, a Tiefling does not fit mine, nor many gamers definition of a central, inner most or most essential part of D&D.

 

Because D&D is the largest and most popular fantasy RPG, I feel it's core books should have the broadest appeal to to D&D players - regardless of their campaign, and that the majority of what is a core book should be usable by the broadest possible player base. Why? Because it makes it simple for a GM to define part of his campaign rules with a simple statement like only characters and races in the PHB and these races/classes from the following supplements.... Now a GM who doesn't want extraplanar beings like Tieflings in his campaign has to specifically exclude them.

 

I've faced this very same challenge with my personal campaign - I don't allow first time players to my Iskitaan campaign to play Wizards, Dwarves or Elves and I don't allow playing Gnomes or Halflings at all. I've had issues with new, potential players getting upset about this, and I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "but those are from the PHB - they should be allowed in ALL campaigns!" I understand their argument, I really do, but on the flipside it doesn't take long for players who give my campaign a chance to understand why my rules are in place, and most become quite happy with it.

 

From my experience, I'm rare in that I have such restrictions on what I allow players to play - most GMs I know allow at least anything in the PHB under 3.5. But I've encountered a number of GMs who don't allow Tieflings - now those GMs will have the same issues I'm having, which means that, IMO, the PHB has become less of a core book when applied to fantasy as a whole.

 

That's why I feel it would have been better for WotC to keep the PHB really core - Elves, 1/2 Elves, Dwarves and Humans, and then had the PHB2 ready to go 2-3 months later with the other races like Tieflings, Gnomes, etc, instead of this 9-10 months people are having to wait. My opinion is no more wrong than yours is. Sure, we know that currently, lots of people are enjoying 4e. But what we can't quantify is how many more people would have rather had it the other way. There was certainly enough furor over the issue that suggests I'm not the only one with that opinion.

 

At this point in the game, it's too late - what's done is done. Players who were really pissed of by the decision either won't come on board until the PHB2 is out, or possibly won't come on board at all. Players who were miffed by the decision, but bought into it anyway will most likely be over it by the time the PHB2 is out. Everyone else either liked the changes, or just didn't care about it.

 

EDIT: As I think about it a bit more, there is a fifth group - like me, those who aren't upset by the decision, but feel that the inclusion of Tieflings, et al in a core book have made 4e less desirable as a gaming option. I fall into the latter category - rather than convert my campaigns from 3.5 to 4e, one is staying with 3.5 and the other is moving to a different system all together. Are the inclusion of Tieflings my primary reason? No, not at all, but their inclusion in a core book tipped the balance more to the negative side while not including Gnomes, Half-Orcs and Bards didn't tip the balance at all.

 

 

RE: Bards. I've found that bards, while quite effective in combat, take a really creative person to take advantage of their abilities. Like a wizard who specializes in non-combat magic, for it to truly be fun to play a bard in combat, you need to be aware of how the bards abilities mechanics work, what's most effective under certain circumstances, but most of all, you need to be able to add a real creative flair to make that fun. FREX, the morale bonus the bard gives to other members persists for a number of rounds after they stop playing. How long depends on level and feat. So first, it's important that a bard select feats that support what they want the bard to be able to do - if it's giving that morale bonus in combat, then the right feats are important. Since the bonus persists, a bard can play for a round or two, then join the fight, then drop back and play again if necessary. I've seen a bard who made his speciality being the "clean up" guy - he'd play, the combat machines would do most of the damage, then the bard would dance in and finish off their opponents with his rapier while making smart arse remarks - much to the chagrin of the parties Barbarian. It made for some great role-playing, and fun combats. Bards aren't for everyone

[Lars Porsenna]

RE: Bards. I've found that bards, while quite effective in combat, take a really creative person to take advantage of their abilities. Like a wizard who specializes in non-combat magic, for it to truly be fun to play a bard in combat, you need to be aware of how the bards abilities mechanics work, what's most effective under certain circumstances, but most of all, you need to be able to add a real creative flair to make that fun. FREX, the morale bonus the bard gives to other members persists for a number of rounds after they stop playing. How long depends on level and feat. So first, it's important that a bard select feats that support what they want the bard to be able to do - if it's giving that morale bonus in combat, then the right feats are important. Since the bonus persists, a bard can play for a round or two, then join the fight, then drop back and play again if necessary. I've seen a bard who made his speciality being the "clean up" guy - he'd play, the combat machines would do most of the damage, then the bard would dance in and finish off their opponents with his rapier while making smart arse remarks - much to the chagrin of the parties Barbarian. It made for some great role-playing, and fun combats. Bards aren't for everyone

 

All true, and lets also not forget the spell selection either. Sonic Burst, applied at just the right time, can be quite effective. Not to mention the other spell choices you get. really though, that would be all there is if D&D is 100% combat. But outside of the dungeon, Bards can really shine in RPing situations, moreso than many other class choices IMHO.

 

Damon.

[kristof65]

Bard isn't the only class that "suffers" from this in 3.5e. I'm currently playing a Gnome Beguiler (lvl 13), and I have to work really hard to be effective in combat - particularly when fighting higher level opponents. Much more so than I ever had to with a bard. However, if you look outside combat, my Beguiler has done some pretty wonderous things - thanks to him and creative use of his magic, our party completely avoided an orc ambush, stopped a riot with minimum casualties, and have even snuck into the lair of one of the BBEG's during a "private" meeting where we learned of their plans to crush us "once and for all."

 

He is no less fun to play because he doesn't shine in combat, and in some ways, is more fun because he doesn't.

[Dragon Snack]

Speaking as someone who not only played a Teifling in 3.x, but also has a Teifling in their current group (that I DM) and is considering playing a Dragonborn-esque character in the next campaign (it will be Savage Worlds Sundered Skies) - I totally agree with kristof about not liking Teiflings and Dragonborn (not to mention Eladrin) in the "core books". When everybody is "different", nobody is...

 

As for my thoughts on 4.0 itself, it didn't disappoint. It looks like it turned out exactly like what I thought it would be. That's not a good thing for me or, it would seem, 40% of other D&D players (judging from other polls and ignoring people who said they would play other systems in this one). Tell me how splitting the base is a good thing?

 

I also think DDI is a huge advantage in providing players with options. I'm the only one in our two groups (total of 10 players) with DDI access, but for $60 a year it vastly increases options for 10 people (essentially a value of $6 per person per year).

This is where I think WotC made their real mistake though. IF D&D tanks, it will be because of the DDI (not the ruleset). Huge development costs, making it so you don't have to buy the books themselves, and only one or two players per group signing up - OUCH...

[Gimp]

Don't attach much value to polls. Internet polls especially are rarely anything close to a good sampling with any statistical validity. They just become entertainment.

 

The numbers are questionable, and can be spun many different ways.

 

Consider this poll, with it's current huge sampling of 60 people:

26 people acknowledge they have, at most, read the rules, but have never tried it. That's over 40% of the responses coming from people with minimal exposure to the product. They may well have researched it in other ways, but could also be reacting based on gut reaction, hearsay and misinformation.

12 people, a full 20% of the responders, acknowledged they have had no direct contact with the material.

Of the 34 who have played it at least once or twice, you find 27 who rate it as good to excellent, which gives over 79% positive for people who have actually tried the product. 9 people, or 15% of the responders, consider it good enough to get rid of their older games.

 

Polls like this are traditionally considered to be skewed to the negative. People are much more likely to complain than praise something, especially something that has changes from earlier versions.

 

Run some other considerations on the polls allowed responses:

20 people, or 33%, said they would stick with earlier versions, but there is no delineation to indicate why. If you have enough books from earlier versions, and enjoy the system, why buy into the new system? Multiple versions of the same basic material are an expensive redundancy for many people. They might have been quite happy with the game if they were getting into it now, but see no reason to reinvent the wheel when they have everything they need with an earlier version. That doesn't mean they don't like it. It can mean they don't need it. They wouldn't be buying a new copy of 3rd, either. Others could be staying away simply because they have no local DM that will run with 4th. That's a solid counterpoint to those who said they'd be playing because it would be easier to find new players with 4th. There's no reason to buy something you won't be using.

13 people, only 22%, indicated they would play a different game altogether. That number is little different than the number who indicated they had not even read the material (12), and not much higher than those who praised it as better than anything before.

 

So people can take these numbers and say 55% of the people hate 4th, or 79% of the people who've tried it like it, or 21% of the people who tried it were not hugely impressed, or 15% think it's the best game ever, or whatever other garbage they want to make from the numbers.

 

Without a good, solid level of research, a poll is nothing but largely meaningless numbers for people to spin however they want.

 

Look at the results, join the discussion if you want; but don't expect the numbers to mean anything except the polling function on the forums can do simple math.

[Dragon Snack]

Then don't give this poll credence (notice my number didn't match up with this poll). EVERY poll I've seen runs the same 60% approval rating for 4.0. It's easy to write off a poll if it doesn't show what you want it to, but when every poll shows the same thing...

 

BTW - What happened to 'no wrong way to game'? Why does everyone have to play 4.0?

[Gimp]

It isn't wise to give credence to any online poll. Unless there is a significant effort made to create a statistically significant polling group, the results will not have statistical significance. Online polls cannot be considered a statistically significant polling group except in people's imaginations.

 

Non-scientific polls will tend to be skewed to the negative, because of people's tendency to state negative opinions, while remaining more silent when they have no negatives to report.

 

Non-scientific polls will tend to have less viable answers available, and can lead to specific responses. That's been a marketing ploy that's led to increased sales since numbers were first used to confuse the populace. Spin matters more than fact to many consumers.

 

Non-scientific polls will tend to be created by people trying to prove a point, rather than find general information. Rarely will the answers allow an unbiased result to be obtained.

 

Leading answers to get specific results is extremely common in online polls, even when not intended. A quick example is here: what percentage of, 'I'll stick with a previous version of D&D,' is due to dislike of 4th, and what portion due to happiness with 3rd? If a group is happy with, or even simply has a DM that is happy with, 3rd, why should they change to 4th? They could consider 4th far superior to 3rd, but not have the desire to learn all of the new mechanics, or simply not desire to spend the money for replacement books. Both could lead to a decision to stay with 3rd, but not be based in negative feelings towards 4th. Both could lead to 4th not, 'Having room on my bookcase.' This poll allows no differentiation to explain the difference.

 

This poll is not designed to malign 4th, but still uses response options that will lead to false negatives. More online polls are created by people with negative starting views due to the same tendency mentioned earlier than by people who are happy with a product. A poll written by someone with a negative viewpoint will tend to have answers biased toward that negative viewpoint.

 

As for there being no wrong way to game; I don't think most people think 4th is what everyone has to play.

 

People have been discussing the options to play other games, or simply stay with 3rd. Some people have noted they would switch to 4th because it would be easier to find new players with the current system, but several people have noted alternatives for gaming, from staying with 3rd to switching to alternatives. Only hard core D&D fans are caught in a significant quandry: stay with OGL & Pathfinder, or switch to 4th. Other players have switched, or are considering switching, to other systems.

[Dragon Snack]

Apparently Reaperbryan is biased against 4.0 (note who made the poll). Oh wait, he plays in 2 games if it, I'm sure he hates it...

 

Ignore polls if you don't like what they show, tell me that 4.0 HASN'T split the player base. With a straight face.

[Reaperbryan]

erm, 4 games, now. Just sayin'. I have a Tuesday night game with my kids and their friends, where I DM. I have a Thursday night game where I play a Eladrin Warlock of the Bamf-y Fey Pact, and two alternating Saturday Night games where I am either a Dwarf Warlord or a Tiefling Wizard.

 

I should point out that there is not accurate way to correlate the respondents from Question 2 (What level of exposure to 4e do you have) with the responses from question 1 (to what degree will you be adopting the system). While it seems that the "I played it, = 80% I like it", there's no guarantees. For all we know, 100% of the I played it responses also voted not to ever play it again.

 

Well, 100% minus me.

 

In my opinion, the only statistically significant answer is the one with 0 votes - "my group plays it, but I am not a fan" This suggests to me that nearly everyone involved in a regular, ongoing 4e game likes it, OR hates it depserately enough to have voted a much more negative attitude. Honestly, I'd love to see the data with answers from the 26 "never played it yet" respondents removed - what difference to "liking the system" would you see if only those who have actually played it could respond, because, Admittedly, from here, it seems that the "i have played it" numbers *seem* to correspond with "I like it", which of course,is also meaningless. Even if that were 100% true, what it could be is those willing to at least try one game/character/session are more pre-disposed to enjoy the experience.

 

Essentially, there is no causal link between playing and enjoying. Those not inclined to try the game are probably going to hate it if they ever do try - and part of that may well be becuase they decided they would hate certain things in advance. Part of it is likely to be simply "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks". Your level of enjoyment is going to depend largely on what you desire and expect, and if 4e has few elements of either, I say you aren;t doing anybody wrong by not playing. I'm never gonna play Rollmaster either, because 10,000 charts is *not* my style.

[Erion]

There was a beautiful skill challenge in our X-Crawl game Wednesday night that represented all kinds of swinging platforms, a rolling spiky Giant Coca-Cola can of Doom, a drawbridge, and sliding plexiglass rooms full of various and sundry fire elementals. I shudder to think how the 3.5 skills system would have handled such a complex environment. In 4th, each obstacle amounted to a collection of simple pass/fail skill checks to get across the gauntlet.

 

I, of course, managed to fall off the swinging platforms and get trapped behind but not inside one of the plexiglass rooms of monsters, The DM was able to come up with a series of quick skill checks needed to get me out of there and back with the rest of the party on the fly without interrupting the fast-paced flow of the encounter. It was, for me, the clearest demonstration yet of why I like 4th edition so very much.

[kristof65]

Ignore polls if you don't like what they show, tell me that 4.0 HASN'T split the player base. With a straight face.

To be fair, 4.0 hasn't been out long enough. It's only been 7 months since it was released? I'm sure at the 7 month point of 3.0e, the player base was split between 2e and 3e, too.

 

It takes time for people to roll their campaigns over - I know of several groups that are currently using 3.5 that will be wrapping up their current campaigns in the coming months. Some of those groups will make a switch to 4.0, some will start another 3.5/Pathfinder campaign, and others will move onto a different system.

 

Every new edition of any RPG splits the player base for a time. It's how long of a time that matters. And the switch from 3.5 to 4.0 is a fairly special case, given it went from an "open" system supported by many companies to more restrictive licensing terms for those companies who want to support it. It looks to me that the split between 3.5 and 4e will remain for quite a long time, much to the chagrin of WotC.