4e / GSL 1E and 4E are similar? Really? (Forked from: 1E Resurgence?)

[FireLance]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

*Good god, he used the word 'fun'! Three times!

At least he didn't use the word "cool".

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Here are some words that might help explain why some people feel there is a similarity. Emphasis added for...well, emphasis.

<snip>

These words were written by Gary Gygax about 1E. You can find them on page 9 of your 1E DMG.


*Good god, he used the word 'fun'! Three times!

Of course, if you read the remainder of your 1e DMG, you will see that Gary had a profoundly different understanding of what "fun" meant than is offered by 4e. Also a very different understanding of what "little attempt to simulate anything" means.....IOW, Gygax may have felt that 1e made the minimal attempt at simulation needed for a "fun" game, but 4e nonetheless falls far short of this mark.


RC

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

Of course, if you read the remainder of your 1e DMG, you will see that Gary had a profoundly different understanding of what "fun" meant than is offered by 4e. Also a very different understanding of what "little attempt to simulate anything" means.....IOW, Gygax may have felt that 1e made the minimal attempt at simulation needed for a "fun" game, but 4e nonetheless falls far short of this mark.

That's your opinion about the details of the game. But these passages, reflecting designer intent, could just as easily be written about 4E as 1E.

[Henry]

I usually dislike doing the "breaking down quotes" thing too far past the original quote, because it starts getting incomprehensible, but I'll give it a go.

Originally Posted by Nikosandros

I actually disagree about many of those points.

In AD&D multiclass characters have all the powers from their classes. That's very different from 4e system.

I don't see what this has to do with the stress of single-classing over multi. They're not identical, sure - but single-classing was the dominant form in 1E, IF (stress IF) you used the rules as they were in the PHB, and you capped demi-humans at those abysmally low levels anywhere from 3rd to 9th.

XP from monsters is a small contribution in AD&D. XP from treasure is actually scaled down when the challenge was easy.

True, but monster XP was written with minor adjustments for amount of hp. In 2nd edition D&D and Basic D&D, monster XP was an absolute static amount. It still is more reminiscent of 4E to me than the sliding scale of 3E, which I don't like very much when it comes to figuring out XP in larger parties, or parties where there is a level difference.

Saving throws are very different in 4e, however. The chance of success is flat and does not depend on class, level and ability score. They mostly represent durations excepts in few cases.

I agree, though race does affect it, and it is and can be used for more, especially when you run into things that class or level just should not matter for. I do think about experimenting with altering it for ability scores in some fashion, though -- but not by ability modifier, since the range is kind of narrow.

Magic items are listed in the PHB. Players are encouraged to come up with wish list... quite different with how things work in AD&D.

One difference to that was the lack of customization of characters mechanically in the original 1E books, or in the Basic D&D books -- meaning that a Wizard who liked daggers but found a better magic staff was all too happy to switch, because likely he wasn't any better with daggers than staves (unless he didn't have the weapon proficiency or something). A fighter with a glaive dropped it in favor of the Bastard Sword -- but on the other hand, DMs in my experience frequently customized their treasure in dungeons, or they dropped hints about what could be found in certain adventure locations so that the players could make up their own minds.

In 3E, in the default case, whatever the DM put in a session didn't matter because they usually sold it so they could buy whatever they wanted. Magic items found on location were more like commodities or art objects than actual rewards. I have heard of examples on these forums of DMs who clamped down tightly on buying and selling of magic, but the majority of DMs apparently did differently. 4E discourages it so fervently that it's a jarring experience for players used to getting good value out of selling magic in 3E, and they accuse the DM of shafting them out of treasure, until you point it out in the books.

Well, combats in my 4e games are exceedingly long... once again very different from my experience with AD&D.

Here's one where I have to differ just on results at the table. I will say this: 1E combats are still shorter than 4E combats; I can't get around that, because of the fewer options available for non-spellcasters, and the simplicity of 1E spell wordings that leave so much open for DM adjudication. my 4E combats though are somewhere between 3E's lengths and 1E's lengths, assuming the players have written down their powers on their character sheet beforehand, or are using power cards, and aren't doing a lot of page-flipping. Players do take more turns in a combat, just like they did in 1E, and they do move around a lot more at lower levels, moreso than 1E or 3E combined, and maybe slightly less than my 2E games i used to play in 10 years ago. But I've never had an experience where an equivalent combat in 4E took longer than it would have in 3E. In fact, in 3E, we'd take for a 6th level combat involving maybe 10 to 15 combatants total, about two hours. The same would take us an hour to an hour-and-a-half in 4E.

[ExploderWizard]

Originally Posted by Henry

Here's one where I have to differ just on results at the table. I will say this: 1E combats are still shorter than 4E combats; I can't get around that, because of the fewer options available for non-spellcasters, and the simplicity of 1E spell wordings that leave so much open for DM adjudication. my 4E combats though are somewhere between 3E's lengths and 1E's lengths, assuming the players have written down their powers on their character sheet beforehand, or are using power cards, and aren't doing a lot of page-flipping. Players do take more turns in a combat, just like they did in 1E, and they do move around a lot more at lower levels, moreso than 1E or 3E combined, and maybe slightly less than my 2E games i used to play in 10 years ago. But I've never had an experience where an equivalent combat in 4E took longer than it would have in 3E. In fact, in 3E, we'd take for a 6th level combat involving maybe 10 to 15 combatants total, about two hours. The same would take us an hour to an hour-and-a-half in 4E.

I cannot comment on high level combat in 4E. I do know that low level 4E combat is longer than either 3E or earlier editions. One thing that we discovered in our low level 4E game was that party composition seems to play a much larger role in how long combats take. After we wiped on Irontooth and started with a new party the fights got a little shorter because we went with a more "recommended" balance of classes: Paladin,Cleric, Wizard, Warlock, and Warlord. Of course I think that if we had a melee DPS class like ranger or rogue instead of one of the leaders it might be faster still.

The point is that exact party composition has never before been such a large factor is how long a combat takes. For overall success, sure, you needed abilities of various classes. In 4E if you don't have enough spike damage potential from striker classes and AOE damage to mop up minions then you are in for a much longer grinding fight. The whole things gives me such a : "LF2M need DPS" vibe.

[Shroomy]

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard

I cannot comment on high level combat in 4E. I do know that low level 4E combat is longer than either 3E or earlier editions. One thing that we discovered in our low level 4E game was that party composition seems to play a much larger role in how long combats take. After we wiped on Irontooth and started with a new party the fights got a little shorter because we went with a more "recommended" balance of classes: Paladin,Cleric, Wizard, Warlock, and Warlord. Of course I think that if we had a melee DPS class like ranger or rogue instead of one of the leaders it might be faster still.

The point is that exact party composition has never before been such a large factor is how long a combat takes. For overall success, sure, you needed abilities of various classes. In 4E if you don't have enough spike damage potential from striker classes and AOE damage to mop up minions then you are in for a much longer grinding fight. The whole things gives me such a : "LF2M need DPS" vibe.

We added two more players to our group and our fights have also started going faster (we added a wizard and a cleric, though I would have preferred another striker since I was already playing the leader). Party composition is definitely a factor (the DMG makes reference to what will happen if your player's party doesn't have all of the roles, specifically stating that a lack of controller and striker will result in longer fights), but so is the sheer number of players adding to tactical play. For example, it was hard to get flanking with only three players, which definitely cut down on my ability to use sneak attack, and it made hitting harder since we couldn't take advantage of the bonuses provided by combat advantage.

[Betote]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

That's your opinion about the details of the game. But these passages, reflecting designer intent, could just as easily be written about 4E as 1E.

In fact, they could have been written about almost any game, because "fun" is, whatever some marketing guys might say, a relative concept. To me, Call of Cthulhu, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Bunnies & Burrows, D&D4e, Pathfinder and the oWoD are fun, although they're very different "funs", and they achieve them in very different ways.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

That's your opinion about the details of the game. But these passages, reflecting designer intent, could just as easily be written about 4E as 1E.

Sure, it's my opinion -- an opinion based on more than two paragraphs taken in isolation.

"....[A]nd how much rationalization can actually go into a fantasy game? There is some, as you will see, for if the game is fantasy, there is a basis for much of what is contained herein, even though it be firmily grounded on worlds of make-believe." - 1e DMG, p. 9

I started to go through the DMG for more, but it was clear that I would literally be quoting pages and pages of material intended to have the game make sense within that fantasy world grounding. Not to mention the repeated idea that doing so makes the game fun for the players.

That, taken with everything Gary has said about the same, here and elsewhere, in relation to 3e and other games, makes me fairly confident in my opinion.


RC

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Betote

In fact, they could have been written about almost any game, because "fun" is, whatever some marketing guys might say, a relative concept. To me, Call of Cthulhu, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Bunnies & Burrows, D&D4e, Pathfinder and the oWoD are fun, although they're very different "funs", and they achieve them in very different ways.

Sure, if you're looking only at the "fun" part. But "fun" was not the only thing discussed.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

That, taken with everything Gary has said about the same, here and elsewhere, in relation to 3e and other games, makes me fairly confident in my opinion.

That's fine, I'm not talking about the specific "type" of fun to be had. Tastes change over time, for one thing, and though Mr. Gygax's idea of fun might have appealed to the majority of players at the time (heck, maybe it didn't, I don't know), perhaps it does not now.

[cromsriddle]

[quote=JeffB;4528693]Agreed.

err...I mean....

THIS

Thanks for the John Cleese and Michael Palin bit.