The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[Shazbot79]

Fuchs got it in one. If it doesn't really matter how many hammer blows it takes to break down a door, you don't bother rolling. The rules are just there to tell you if you can do it eventually, and then you you skip a bit until you have done it. If you're cutting through a rope or something in the middle of an action scene, then you need to roll dice; but if you're cutting it in down time you just need to do a hardness comparison and check that cutting the rope is possible. We don't roll bullrush checks to push shopping carts, for that matter.

But this is exactly why 4e is so infuriating. Objects don't have hardness. If something is marked by the MC as destructible, you can destroy it with a tea spoon, given time. And adamantine barrier doesn't repel ax blows, it just has more hit points. There is no in-game reason available for why you wouldn't be able to cut down a door or a wall. Instead, the MC is simply encouraged to refuse to allow you to attack objects that he doesn't want destroyed.

In short, player agency is completely obviated. Completely. And that's terrible.

-Username17

You and Fuchs make a good point here, and I agree that arbitrary rolling with no dramatic benefit (drama as in tense and exciting gameplay, and not dramatic in the narrative sense) is stupid. I would like to think that most GM's are beyond this sort of thing, but I end up eavesdropping on some very unfortunate games at my local store.

From my own perspective, what I want out of a game system isn't a comprehensive set of rules accounting for every possible eventuality...what I want is a system that provides a good set of guidelines which allow me to adjudicate corner case scenarios fairly and consistently.

4E's skill challenge system attempts to provide a unified solution for these scenarios, using a single skill-based minigame. Unfortunately, this implementation ultimately fails, because social interaction, exploration, investigation, overland travel, realm management, large scale battles...these things are all their own separate mini-games and I don't believe that they can be unified into one system. At least not in anyway that makes sense. It would have worked better if the designers had identified and defined these mini-games and tailored each skill challenges accordingly. It would have worked even better if using skills entailed more than just a roll. It would have worked even better still if the math were balanced.

[Darwinism]

But the DM isn't fixing anything; he's simply doing his job. Houserules would be an example of 'fixing', but as previously mentioned it's not a houserule when the rules allow for a DM to control everything not explicitly stated in the rules. Then it's just a normal rule that the DM is following and not subject to Oberoni.

Our definitions differ then. Frank summed it up well enough.

Saying that a game is great and covers everything because MC pulls stuff out of his ass well doesn't mean the game is great, it means your MC is competent. From what I can tell of your argument base... that's really all you're going with. I agree that it's a huge issue if you're gaming, but then you shouldn't even be worried about the system you're using. It doesn't even matter if you're using 3E, 4E, AD&D, Shadowrun, or whatever. The point of playing is for fun and thus MC should not be a jackass.

That's not the point when discussing the balance merits of a system, though. You can have fun and enjoy a campaign in 4E (and I have), but that doesn't make the system good.

I certainly agree with most of this, but many people seem to be trying to say that 4E is a 'bad' or 'broken' system because of personal umbrage with it. I have no issue with people disliking any system, but I really dislike it when people try to state that something is objectively bad and then give you subjective reasons, or no reasons at all, for it being bad. And this is exceptionally common; the OP is full of statements like that.

What makes 4E good for me isn't that it's perfectly crafted by designers that can do no wrong, it's that 4E is actively striving for balance and a streamlined system, which I greatly appreciate. But these reasons don't make for evidence that it's a good system, so I won't present them as facts.

[Wallacism]

But the DM isn't fixing anything; he's simply doing his job. Houserules would be an example of 'fixing', but as previously mentioned it's not a houserule when the rules allow for a DM to control everything not explicitly stated in the rules. Then it's just a normal rule that the DM is following and not subject to Oberoni.

Our definitions differ then. Frank summed it up well enough.

Saying that a game is great and covers everything because MC pulls stuff out of his ass well doesn't mean the game is great, it means your MC is competent. From what I can tell of your argument base... that's really all you're going with. I agree that it's a huge issue if you're gaming, but then you shouldn't even be worried about the system you're using. It doesn't even matter if you're using 3E, 4E, AD&D, Shadowrun, or whatever. The point of playing is for fun and thus MC should not be a jackass.

That's not the point when discussing the balance merits of a system, though. You can have fun and enjoy a campaign in 4E (and I have), but that doesn't make the system good.

I certainly agree with most of this, but many people seem to be trying to say that 4E is a 'bad' or 'broken' system because of personal umbrage with it. I have no issue with people disliking any system, but I really dislike it when people try to state that something is objectively bad and then give your subjective reasons for it being bad. And this is exceptionally common; the OP is full of statements like that.

What makes 4E good for me isn't that it's perfectly crafted by designers that can do no wrong, it's that 4E is actively striving for balance and a streamlined system, which I greatly appreciate. But these reasons don't make for evidence that it's a good system, so I won't present them as facts.

Finally, someone gets it! Everyone knows that 4E is better than 3E; it's right there on the tin: it has more E's. let's see you rebut that, people who think you're so smart.

[Darwinism]

Our definitions differ then. Frank summed it up well enough.

Saying that a game is great and covers everything because MC pulls stuff out of his ass well doesn't mean the game is great, it means your MC is competent. From what I can tell of your argument base... that's really all you're going with. I agree that it's a huge issue if you're gaming, but then you shouldn't even be worried about the system you're using. It doesn't even matter if you're using 3E, 4E, AD&D, Shadowrun, or whatever. The point of playing is for fun and thus MC should not be a jackass.

That's not the point when discussing the balance merits of a system, though. You can have fun and enjoy a campaign in 4E (and I have), but that doesn't make the system good.

I certainly agree with most of this, but many people seem to be trying to say that 4E is a 'bad' or 'broken' system because of personal umbrage with it. I have no issue with people disliking any system, but I really dislike it when people try to state that something is objectively bad and then give your subjective reasons for it being bad. And this is exceptionally common; the OP is full of statements like that.

What makes 4E good for me isn't that it's perfectly crafted by designers that can do no wrong, it's that 4E is actively striving for balance and a streamlined system, which I greatly appreciate. But these reasons don't make for evidence that it's a good system, so I won't present them as facts.

Finally, someone gets it! Everyone knows that 4E is better than 3E; it's right there on the tin: it has more E's. let's see you rebut that, people who think you're so smart.

Well, that combined with the class balancing, the skill streamlining, and the much easier system where monsters don't pretend to be players. Those are good too.

But more Es has pretty much always been better in D&D so you do have a point!

[Josh_Kablack]

Finally, someone gets it! Everyone knows that 4E is better than 3E; it's right there on the tin: it has more E's. let's see you rebut that, people who think you're so smart.

You're forgetting that 3.5E rounds up, making the number of E's functionally identical for most gamers.

[Winnah]

An unrelated point, but Darwin vs. Wallace is a very interesting subject of discussion. Wallace was a proponent of systems theory was he not?

[Wallacism]

Finally, someone gets it! Everyone knows that 4E is better than 3E; it's right there on the tin: it has more E's. let's see you rebut that, people who think you're so smart.

You're forgetting that 3.5E rounds up, making the number of E's functionally identical for most gamers.

That's just your opinion! Try actually quoting some facts. Oh right, you don't have any.

[Wallacism]

An unrelated point, but Darwin vs. Wallace is a very interesting subject of discussion. Wallace was a proponent of systems theory was he not?

Geographic theories of biology, IIRC. Darwin's book is sort of dedicated to him, and sort of apologizing to him. Basically, Darwin published Origin of Species because Wallace sent him a manuscript to review which said all the things that he'd been thinking for years. I don't think they really disagreed on anything though.

[Wallacism]

Finally, someone gets it! Everyone knows that 4E is better than 3E; it's right there on the tin: it has more E's. let's see you rebut that, people who think you're so smart.

You're forgetting that 3.5E rounds up, making the number of E's functionally identical for most gamers.

Also it says right in the book that the DM can so whatever he wants. He can just keep adding E's until the players have enough!

[Doom]

Wouldn't rounding 3.5 up to 4e put it into a system where rounding is too hard, so that it would in fact be 3e?

I think we just invented time travel!

[Josh_Kablack]

Oh, Facts.

Well if you want to get technical: E=MC^2

So each additional E in the game means you can reduce the required number of MCs by the square root of the number that had been required. That means that by switching from 3e to 4e, groups can reduce from the default requirement of 1 MC to ( 1 - sqrt(1) ) MCs.

[Koumei]

Well, 1^2 == 1. So the square root of 1 is surely 1.

So (1-sqrt(1)) = (1-1) = 0.

You need zero MCs for 4E. Which is basically true: the game can run itself, so not only can the PLAYERS just write a script to automate their characters and then go off to do something more fun (anything), the MC can too!

[Shazbot79]

I certainly agree with most of this, but many people seem to be trying to say that 4E is a 'bad' or 'broken' system because of personal umbrage with it. I have no issue with people disliking any system, but I really dislike it when people try to state that something is objectively bad and then give you subjective reasons, or no reasons at all, for it being bad. And this is exceptionally common; the OP is full of statements like that.

What makes 4E good for me isn't that it's perfectly crafted by designers that can do no wrong, it's that 4E is actively striving for balance and a streamlined system, which I greatly appreciate. But these reasons don't make for evidence that it's a good system, so I won't present them as facts.

I don't really think this is fair.

A good number of the 4E criticisms on this site aren't actually subjective, but are based on the areas where the game system itself doesn't do what it was designed to do. If a system doesn't do what it was designed to do, then it is, by definition, bad design.

Take skill challenges, for instance. What these are supposed to do is provide a unified system for running noncombat challenges wherein all party members can participate. However, the actual numbers encourage the characters highly specialized in the specified area to make all of the skill rolls, making skill challenges largely an individual effort rather than a team exercise. This runs contrary to the stated intent of the designers.

4E was supposed to balance the math out, but instead the monsters accumulate bonuses faster than players, requiring feat taxes to bring PC numbers up to match level appropriate threats. If you have to spend some of your customization currency just to make sure your character functions at the level of efficacy the game expects them to function at? That's bad design. The funny part? If the designers had simply eliminated enhancement bonuses from the game math altogether, they could have given monsters a 1/2 level progression just like PC's and not only would the math work, but it would have actually diminished the christmas tree effect people were complaining about.

All-in-all, I enjoy 4th edition a lot more than I enjoy 3.x/Pathfinder...but the game does have quite a few glaring and objective flaws. Most of the harshest critics of 4E on this board have actually spent quite a bit of time with the game and are not just flinging poo because they have some personal grudge against it. These same people rip 3.x, Pathfinder and pre-WoTC D&D a new one just as often. I think it's fair to say that the only grudge people on the Den have is against bad design.

[Josh_Kablack]

the only grudge people on the Den have is against bad design.

And yer mum!

[Maxus]

I think it's fair to say that the only grudge people on the Den have is against bad design.

If you're going to do it, do it right.

If you can't do it right on the first try, don't get pissy and throw a fit when you're told it isn't right.

Don't try to redefine terms so you can try to say being wrong is right. ("That's not a bug, that's a feature!" and "Playtesting means you test it by playing it!" come to mind...)

[fectin]

Oh, Facts.

Well if you want to get technical: E=MC^2

So each additional E in the game means you can reduce the required number of MCs by the square root of the number that had been required. That means that by switching from 3e to 4e, groups can reduce from the default requirement of 1 MC to ( 1 - sqrt(1) ) MCs.

This place really is an echo chamber. "MC"? You think your so cool. "look at me! I can use jargon!"

If you had a real criticism, it would be based on facts, not preferences like E=MC^2.

[fectin]

the only grudge people on the Den have is against bad design.

And yer mum!

This is just more proof that the entire Gaming Den is nothing but name calling, with no real substance! It's like Darwin said:

Seriously, it's like you don't even read the posts you respond to.

Or it's like I respond to the more idiotic comments and leave the ones where he actually tries to make points alone. Hence responding to this one.

[Maxus]

There's a grudge against mums around here.

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50350

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=156871

Scratch that. Koumei has a grudge against mommas.

[Ravengm]

Well, that combined with the class balancing, the skill streamlining, and the much easier system where monsters don't pretend to be players. Those are good too.

Those are certainly things that they strived towards for 4E, and the one where they probably succeeded the most was in making monsters easier to pick up and run. Almost to a fault.

That said, there's plenty that's still wrong with the system, including class balance. Lago generally knows what he's talking about, and has talked about it more than once. It might behoove you to take a look at a couple threads he's made.

I certainly agree with most of this, but many people seem to be trying to say that 4E is a 'bad' or 'broken' system because of personal umbrage with it.

The problem with this is that most of the things people talk about here (especially with regard to this thread) have already been discussed at at least some length, if not extensively so. There's also a tendency to lean towards insulting people. I find it amusing. YMMV.

And on the other side of the coin, there are plenty of people who claim 4E is an "awesome" or the "best" system simply because they had fun while playing it. It's like comparing apples to oranges. The arguments presented here are almost always derived strictly from a RAW perspective without MC intervention. Which is to say, the system as printed. You're met with a lot of vitrol because adding in handwaving or MC fiat specifically isn't talking about that, so people think you're serving them a steaming bowl of Rice-O-Beroni.

It's the design, implementation, and rules of the game that The Den doesn't appreciate, not because someone got butthurt at a session one evening and decided to Jihad against 4E. At least from what I can tell.

[Username17]

You and Fuchs make a good point here, and I agree that arbitrary rolling with no dramatic benefit (drama as in tense and exciting gameplay, and not dramatic in the narrative sense) is stupid. I would like to think that most GM's are beyond this sort of thing, but I end up eavesdropping on some very unfortunate games at my local store.

Skipping over die rolls where the result doesn't make any difference isn't just common sense, it should be part of the game rules itself. In fact, in 3e it is. That's what the Take 10 and Take 20 rules are all about. The fact that an equivalent mechanic doesn't exist in 4e is a legitimately bad thing.

From my own perspective, what I want out of a game system isn't a comprehensive set of rules accounting for every possible eventuality...what I want is a system that provides a good set of guidelines which allow me to adjudicate corner case scenarios fairly and consistently.

I'm not sure those are different. Certainly in a sufficiently abstract system those can be the same thing, but I rather suspect that they always are. If you can fairly adjudicate the corner cases, you've exhaustively covered the game space pretty much by definition.

I think you're asking for a game with more unified systems (like how in Shadowrun you roll Skill + Attribute to accomplish "stuff") rather than a system with more unique subsystems. But really, while to an extent I agree, I don't really think either idea is wrong, so long as you still cover the entire game space with whatever mechanics you have.

4E's skill challenge system attempts to provide a unified solution for these scenarios, using a single skill-based minigame. Unfortunately, this implementation ultimately fails, because social interaction, exploration, investigation, overland travel, realm management, large scale battles...these things are all their own separate mini-games and I don't believe that they can be unified into one system. At least not in anyway that makes sense. It would have worked better if the designers had identified and defined these mini-games and tailored each skill challenges accordingly. It would have worked even better if using skills entailed more than just a roll. It would have worked even better still if the math were balanced.

Oh, Arkham Horror only uses one mechanic for doing "things" and it works fine. The problems with the skill challenge are numerous, but I wouldn't say it's impossible to have a system that simple cover your whole game - you just end up with a simple game if you do.

-Username17

[Darwinism]

Skipping over die rolls where the result doesn't make any difference isn't just common sense, it should be part of the game rules itself. In fact, in 3e it is. That's what the Take 10 and Take 20 rules are all about. The fact that an equivalent mechanic doesn't exist in 4e is a legitimately bad thing.

Hey guy, wanna hear a quote from the 4E DMG? "Unless the characters are under a time restraint, assume that they're going to roll a 20 eventually."

Now, this is somewhat hidden so it's not as bad as you stating that there are no rules for breaking doors but come on.

[K]

Nvm.

[Koumei]

Maxus: I get along well with my mother. It's just that I like the joke, it never gets old.

Unlike your mum.

If you had a real criticism, it would be based on facts, not preferences like E=MC^2.

Wait, so E=MC^2 is now just a preference, and not a scientific fact/proof? I'm pretty sure Einstein, were he alive, would disagree. We don't just prefer to use that formula for converting matter to energy, it's the way it works. On a scale of 10 to 11, just how retarded are you?

[Maxus]

it never gets old.

Unlike your mum.

Hey, my mum's Wii Fit age is now down to 36!

[fectin]

Maxus: I get along well with my mother. It's just that I like the joke, it never gets old.

Unlike your mum.

If you had a real criticism, it would be based on facts, not preferences like E=MC^2.

Wait, so E=MC^2 is now just a preference, and not a scientific fact/proof? I'm pretty sure Einstein, were he alive, would disagree. We don't just prefer to use that formula for converting matter to energy, it's the way it works. On a scale of 10 to 11, just how retarded are you?

Too retarded for effective parody, evidently. My bad.