|
I have been reading the treads and the various debates over 4e/3.xe. The 3.xe supporters say, "4e does not do x!" then the 4e supporters in turn say "yes, 4e does x!"
The problem as I see it, is that while using 4e you can do all the things you did in other editions, you can no longer do most of them in the same way you did in ALL previous editions (save perhaps the original Basic Set)...
What I mean for example, as an analogy is, say you have a math problem in which you know the answer is 4. In AD&D through 3.5e, you came to that answer by using 3+1=4 or even 4x1=4. But now, with 4e, you are told that 2+2=4. Sure you come up with 4 either way, but it's how one got there that is important to some...
The classes in 4e are essentially the same, in that a fighter can fight, a thief can pick a lock, a wizard can lob a spell, yadda yadda yadda...
But the classes in 4e have been "redefined" (I'm not here to say that is better or worse), but others hold that the old definition was what they liked (2+2 being too simplistic for them, they perhaps like adding 1+1+1+1=4 to continue my analogy)...
I've said in other posts that I am going to stick with Pathfinder/3.xe. For I find 4e to be "over the top" in more areas than not (kind of like that scene in LotR: The Two Towers, were Legolas "surfs" down those stairs at Helm's Deep, to use a quote from a previous post of mine. The reason I add that for those that probably have not have read that post, is that I was told by an employee at my FLGS that if one thought that said scene in the movie was cool, then 4e is for you. And I agree with him)...
Anyway, those are my thoughts and opinions on the matter (for what they're worth)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It's a good analogy, I think. I lot of argument probably does stem from the WAY things are done, and not really because of the result at the table. As a matter of fact, Mearls said not too long ago on ENWorld that he was amazed at how many people liked certain rules for no other reason than that was how that rule had been done before. I think it surprised a lot of the developers.
It's not a factor to me because I don't care what rules are used, just how it plays. My favorite games are MERP/Rolemaster, D20 Modern, AD&D, and 2E Skills and Powers. I don't mind anyone not liking 4E. I am sometimes annoyed when someone says something blatantly untrue about the game. Luckily, those who don't like 4E have Pathfinder. Leave me my 4th. ;)
To be fair, 4E lets you use Acrobatics to slide down stairs on a shield, but says nothing about shooting a bow (it is specifically mentioned in the skill).
I will say that I dont think its a matter that this or that Edition does something differently, such as resolving how hard a fireball hits you: the big problems for me crop up when someone declares that, "Oh! There are no GNOMES in 4E!", even though they are there. People complaining about the backstory get no sympathy from me, either: if its that important, use it, or whatever.
|
My feeling is the hyperbolic surfshield is a marketing gimmick along the lines of the "this isn't your father's Oldsmobile/Dungeons and Dragons"
sidebar slipped into Book of Nine Swords.
They've been tooting that horn since Eberron; the guy at the FLGS is trying to move product, maybe because they haven't sold an rpg book in 17 days (okay, the last half of the last sentence was a little facetious, but not much).
I've always found that gimmick corny, and the "kids" I know aren't going to buy it, but that's a different thread altogether.
Your "X-Treme!" needs a trademark sign next to it, and you forgot to include the term "C00lz".
|
|
It's a good analogy, I think. I lot of argument probably does stem from the WAY things are done, and not really because of the result at the table. As a matter of fact, Mearls said not too long ago on ENWorld that he was amazed at how many people liked certain rules for no other reason than that was how that rule had been done before. I think it surprised a lot of the developers.
And how many people will do 4E simply because that is how the rules are done now?
The whole "4E is Fun!" mantra is seriously beginning to remind me of "Muzak is Music!" from Little Heroes by Norman Spinrad.
|
|
The reality is that 4e and 3e play in a very similar manner...
I am sure they do (I say I'm sure, as my books are currently in the loving and tender care of the UPS right now, being somewhere in Oregon at the moment). But then, Star Wars and D&D played in a similar manner as well (but at least they were more compatible)...
Again, I am not trying to bash 4e, just saying the differences are too different for my taste (and that of the players at my table)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
I am sure they do (I say I'm sure, as my books are currently in the loving and tender care of the UPS right now, being somewhere in Oregon at the moment). But then, Star Wars and D&D played in a similar manner as well (but at least they were more compatible)...
All d20 games play in a similar manner - including 4e.
Now compare d20 Star Wars to West End d6 Star Wars. They play like truly different games.