What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?

Hexmage-EN · Feb 27, 2009

I want to start off by saying that I prefer Fourth Edition. I started playing and DMing in 2005 with 3.5 and found Fourth Edition to be a welcome change. I've never played anything prior to 3.5, but I have read many people's opinions and experiences with previous editions.

A lot of people say that Fourth Edition is only Dungeons and Dragons in name only and that Pathfinder is its true successor. My question for those of you who hold this view is this: What do you think a Fourth Edition that retained the original spirit of the game would be like?

In my opinion, Fourth Edition is more of a reinvention of Dungeons and Dragons than the next step in its evolution. The designers weren't as concerned with further altering the system as they were with taking the general concepts of Dungeons and Dragons and making their own game, one that is more focused on the core "kill monsters and take their stuff" concept than the "simulationist fantasy world" experience. The website Critical Hits made the comment that Fourth Edition is similar to Marvel Comics' Ultimate series (a line that takes classic characters and reinvents them for modern audiences), and I agree with that. Fourth Edition's canon discards much of the traditional DnD lore (such as the origin of the Abyss and Demons), but also adapts other aspects of it. That also inclines me to believe that Fourth Edition should be viewed as an offshoot of DnD rather than its next step.

Pathfinder seems to be the most well-developed state of DnD's original form. Third Edition stayed relatively true to its roots, and Pathfinder has worked to fix some of the system's most egregious problems. The few new features it introduces continues the tradition of diverse subsystems for different classes (Combat Feats, Channeling for Clerics, Rage Points for Barbarians, Ki Pool for Monks, etc). Pathfinder's designers tout the system's reverse-compatibility with Third Edition material. Even if they hadn't held themselves to reverse-compatibility I wouldn't be surprised if their game had still come out relatively unchanged from 3.5.

It's difficult for me to imagine what a Fourth Edition that was not a rules-reset would be like. I'm not sure how the designers would be able to make enough beneficial changes to warrant a new edition without making any drastic changes to the age-old system. I'm a newcomer to the hobby, though, and I'd love to read any ideas for how Fourth Edition could have existed without being a rules-reset.

Keefe the Thief · Feb 27, 2009

Hexmage-EN said:
Third Edition stayed relatively true to its roots...

Sir, there are a couple of Grognards here that want to have a word with you. Carrying pitchforks and scythes.

Hexmage-EN · Feb 27, 2009

That's why I said "relatively". I'm well aware that there are old-school DnD fans who don't like Third Edition. In any case it's a lot closer to the old-school than Fourth Edition.

Raven Crowking · Feb 27, 2009

As a quick reply, there are probably as many things that I like about 4e as there are things that I dislike, but the things that I dislike loom large enough to greatly damage my enjoyment of the game. I find myself in the same position with Pathfinder.

Prior to all of the 4e discussions, my goals for designing a "fouth edition" were very different, and my house rules reflected that. Essentially, I (like Pathfinder) took 3e even farther in the direction that it was going. Lots and lots of options, a certain degree of power creep, and fixing a few thorny issues (Turn Undead, for example).

It was only in discussing the changes that WotC was previewing that I began to see that this direction is not a good one for me. I began to see better why earlier editions were written as they were, how the "wonky" parts sometimes prevented bigger problems from arising, and how a degree of randomness, and a degree of imbalance -- allowing the players to strive for/strive to break balance, either through a simulationist or a gamist approach -- creates more "fun" than perfect balance.

RCFG (see sig) will be something along the lines of the 4e I would have liked to see.

The direction WotC took would be significantly improved, IMHO, if the metric for character success had been "the adventuring day" rather than "the single combat". As an example of this, the fey in 3e are well designed to represent fey, and therefore challenges other than combat challenges. This was a vast improvement over TSR-D&D IMHO, where monsters were all more combat-oriented simply because of the way the rules defaulted. We are now back to that default. Combat IMHO should be fast, interesting, inventive, and not require a grid. If anything, 4e accentuates the worst of 3e's combat design (IMHO). I find the tactical grid simulator boring in comparison to TSR-D&D. In 3e, the compensation was that the grid was only a small part of a much larger game. In 4e, not so much so as I'd like.

YMMV, of course.

I also find that "devise crunch, and add flavour afterwards" has created numerous problems for my ability to willingly suspend disbelief in the game world. Again, YMMV. I would have liked the crunch to model the fluff, rather than the other way around.

RC

maddman75 · Feb 27, 2009

Hexmage-EN said:
That's why I said "relatively". I'm well aware that there are old-school DnD fans who don't like Third Edition. In any case it's a lot closer to the old-school than Fourth Edition.

I disagree. 4e feels more old school to me. I think its the monsters. They feel more like 'and this guy can do this cool thing! Just because!' where 3e had everything under a more rigid structure.

If you go back and look at edition wars you can just swap 3e/4e for AD&D/3e, and see that this newfangled 3e game was not really D&D, it was just for powergamers, it was nothing but combat, and it was too much like a videogame. I'm looking forward to 4e fans accusing 5e of the same thing.

As for the question at hand, I didn't really want anything from 4e. I didn't expect to like it, having long since grown bored of D&D in both 3e and AD&D varieties. 4e sucked me back in though

. They got rid of a lot of the sacred cows that are holding it back. I only hope 5e ditches alignment completely, as well as 3-18 ability scores, classes, and levels.

billd91 · Feb 27, 2009

Keefe the Thief said:
Sir, there are a couple of Grognards here that want to have a word with you. Carrying pitchforks and scythes.

And there are grognards who agree with his assessment that 3e did stay relatively true to its roots, particularly in comparison to 4e.

Charwoman Gene · Feb 27, 2009

totally love dis riting

billd91 · Feb 27, 2009

Hexmage-EN said:
In my opinion, Fourth Edition is more of a reinvention of Dungeons and Dragons than the next step in its evolution.

And that's pretty much what I did not want. I didn't want a reinvention and certainly not of lore and meta-setting. I can say that 3e stayed pretty true to previous editions because the old adventures and settings work with little more than mechanical changes. I can't say that with 4e.

Hexmage-EN said:
That also inclines me to believe that Fourth Edition should be viewed as an offshoot of DnD rather than its next step.

I agree. A worthy game for a company to produce, but not the old standard I played for over 20 years.

The Highway Man · Feb 27, 2009

I agree with RC. If anything, I think 4e is too focused, too narrow in its definition of the game and the kind of entertainment it wants to bring.

Too much emphasis on game balance, too much emphasis on making every level the "sweet spot", too much emphasis on making all characters based on the same mechanics, too much emphasis on tactical, mat side-effects of powers etc. These are all strengths of the system in that it makes the game easier to manage, provides ways for everyone to always have something to do, and so on, so forth. Others talked about it at length. But these very strengths are also the worst flaws of 4e in that they kill variety in game play.

I think 4e tries too hard to frame the game and teach what "fun" should be as opposed to opening up the doors of possibilities and imagination the way other editions did.

There is also the sacred cows slaughtered in the process of creating 4e. For some, that's a liberation. For others, that's a break from the D&D they liked to play. Point in case: Vancian casting, for instance. It's part of the D&D I want to play. It's not in 4e. Ergo, 4e is not the D&D I want to play.

Hexmage-EN · Feb 27, 2009

maddman75 said:
I disagree. 4e feels more old school to me.

This isn't the first time I've heard this view, but it's interesting to me every time.

BTW, Raven Crowking, I took a look at your RCFG project. As I said before, I've never played anything earlier than 3.5, but I've read about earlier editions and I find it interesting that your system incorporates things like name levels and class features that summon followers. I wish you luck with your project!

But...do dwarven women really have to have beards, though?