• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

[Anti-4e] 4e sucks!

Captain Deadpool

I'm an assassi... Horse Trainer
Validated User
It was breaking existing classes down into what their core role in combat is supposed to be in 3ed (and you didn't have to define non-combat roles in the rules, because that is what role playing and character creation is all about), and realizing many were bad at their supposed role. Rogues and skill monkey characters, with their back stabs, were supposed to be quick strike combatants - hitting for lots of damage on one hit. They weren't stand and slog sword swingers, they were hit and run combatants. Fighters have always supposed to have been "protect the squishy mages and other characters" types, but have never been given abilities to handle that role. Mages have always been about battlefield control with a plethora of area effects and battle-changing spells. Clerics have always been healers and buff masters - good at combat, not as good as others, but able to change a course of a battle with a well times buff, de-buff, or heal spell.

Once you break the classes down into these core combat roles, calling them things like Striker, Defender, Leader, and Controller makes sense. It so happens that terminology is common with other types of games. That doesn't mean the game is built with a "how can we make this more like WoW", since WoW is based off (in no small part) of D&D.
That's true for 3E, in earlier editions the roles would be something like Combatant, Dungeoneer, Artillery, and Support.
 

hackmastergeneral

Pope of Chili Town
Validated User
That's true for 3E, in earlier editions the roles would be something like Combatant, Dungeoneer, Artillery, and Support.
Well, one of the core functions of Fighter has always been "to keep enemies off the squishy mage", even in AD&D. It's just he didn't have any actual abilities that allowed him to actually do that.

But yeah, you could break older D&D editions down into combat roles as well. Just not exactly like the 4ed ones.
 

Jade Bells Ringing

have dice, will travel
RPGnet Member
Validated User
pfft, get with the times, man...

5e is going be....

D&D of Duty: Tactical Grid Warfare
(Kinect enabled and in stereoscopic 3D)
well, basically, do you mean 5e will be cloud-based & maptools enabled out of the box? Or solely cloud based, without any printed product?
 

Arevashti

Aspiring World-Builder
Validated User
Because it didn't take its cues from WoW or any other video game.
Really? Because quite a few of the mechanical and thematic changes indicate rather strongly that it was probably trying to pull in the electronic gamers. Hell, I'm fairly sure someone even admitted, early on, that some of the changes were inspired by electronic games (although I'd need to do some digging to find the exact quote).

But if you've got some proof otherwise, feel free to give it.

It was breaking existing classes down into what their core role in combat is supposed to be in 3ed (and you didn't have to define non-combat roles in the rules, because that is what role playing and character creation is all about), and realizing many were bad at their supposed role. Rogues and skill monkey characters, with their back stabs, were supposed to be quick strike combatants - hitting for lots of damage on one hit. They weren't stand and slog sword swingers, they were hit and run combatants. Fighters have always supposed to have been "protect the squishy mages and other characters" types, but have never been given abilities to handle that role. Mages have always been about battlefield control with a plethora of area effects and battle-changing spells. Clerics have always been healers and buff masters - good at combat, not as good as others, but able to change a course of a battle with a well times buff, de-buff, or heal spell.

Once you break the classes down into these core combat roles, calling them things like Striker, Defender, Leader, and Controller makes sense. It so happens that terminology is common with other types of games. That doesn't mean the game is built with a "how can we make this more like WoW", since WoW is based off (in no small part) of D&D.
So the laconic version is that 4e can't possibly be taking cues from electronic games (note that I made it clear that I didn't necessarily mean WoW in particular; WoW is not all that original in its own right)...because those games are based off of earlier editions of D&D?

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Previous editions inspiring those games does not rule out the newest edition having, in turn, taken cues from said games.

And this is exactly what I mean by it being a flashpoint: Point it out in a completely neutral manner, and someone will feel the need to hotly contest it.
 
Last edited:

hackmastergeneral

Pope of Chili Town
Validated User
Really? Because quite a few of the mechanical and thematic changes indicate rather strongly that it was probably trying to pull in the electronic gamers. Hell, I'm fairly sure someone even admitted, early on, that some of the changes were inspired by electronic games (although I'd need to do some digging to find the exact quote).

But if you've got some proof otherwise, feel free to give it.
Ditto. Since, you know, you haven't. At worst, I think I remember some WOTC fellow saying they'd be silly not to want to attract more video gamers back to P&P gaming, but they weren't making any design choices specifically to bring them back, and that any commonality is simply the cross-pollination that always exists between VG and P&P rpgs.

So the laconic version is that 4e can't possibly be taking cues from electronic games (note that I made it clear that I didn't necessarily mean WoW in particular; WoW is not all that original in its own right)...because those games are based off of earlier editions of D&D?
The laconic version is that 4ed took it's cues from 3ed, and specifically how to fix and tighten up what they had developed (through later 3.5 supplements) as the direction they wanted to take the game in. That some of those elements superficially share some commonality with common video game tropes is, while not neccessarily coincidence, not neccessarily completely deliberate either. Video and pen and paper fantasy RPGs share some common design elements. Also, the water is wet, and the sky is blue. Film at 11.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. And this is exactly what I mean by it being a flashpoint: Point it out in a completely neutral manner, and someone will feel the need to hotly contest it.
"Hotly contested"? So "presenting a counter argument in a non-aggressive and non-angry manner" is now the definition for "hotly contested"? Go back and re-read my post. I dare you to find anything in there that could be considered "hotly contesting". I am NOW hotly contesting your assertion my previous post was "hotly contesting", as basically "disagreeing with you at all" would fall under those guidelines for "hotly contesting".
 
Last edited:

hackmastergeneral

Pope of Chili Town
Validated User
And yet I never found any trouble fulfilling this ability.

Hmm
The only ability you had was killing the enemy before they get near the mage.

They didn't have any ability to defend a given area. A 3ed fighter with spiked chain/trip builds can do it, but in earlier editions there were no rules for simply stopping an enemy from walking around you, or preventing them from moving into a given area.
 

Arevashti

Aspiring World-Builder
Validated User
And yet I never found any trouble fulfilling this ability.
Same here.

Ditto. Since, you know, you haven't.
That would make two of us.

At worst, I think I remember some WOTC fellow saying they'd be silly not to want to attract more video gamers back to P&P gaming, but they weren't making any design choices specifically to bring them back, and that any commonality is simply the cross-pollination that always exists between VG and P&P rpgs.
Let's first look at your terminology here: "at worst." This suggests that electronic-game inspiration is innately a bad thing. While I'm not impressed with 4e, video-game inspiration is not necessarily negative.

Secondly, if that's how it went? That's essentially a long-winded "no comment."

The laconic version is that 4ed took it's cues from 3ed, and specifically how to fix and tighten up what they had developed (through later 3.5 supplements) as the direction they wanted to take the game in. That some of those elements superficially share some commonality with common video game tropes is, while not neccessarily coincidence, not neccessarily completely deliberate either. Video and pen and paper fantasy RPGs share some common design elements. Also, the water is wet, and the sky is blue. Film at 11.
You didn't say "not necessarily completely deliberate." You denied that there was any such inspiration at all.

"Hotly contested"? So "presenting a counter argument in a non-aggressive and non-angry manner" is now the definition for "hotly contested"? Go back and re-read my post. I dare you to find anything in there that could be considered "hotly contesting". I am NOW hotly contesting your assertion my previous post was "hotly contesting", as basically "disagreeing with you at all" would fall under those guidelines for "hotly contesting".
I retract "hotly contested," then. (Although the first post to which I was replying did indicate that the comparison was a joke, and not even a funny one.)

Even so, the very fact that you felt that it needed to be countered says something. Again: unless the use of "QQ MOAR, N00B"—apparently without irony—is becoming common at your gaming table, what is so horrible about the idea that it did take inspiration from video games?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom