DDXP: When Anti's become Pro's

[Wisdom Penalty]

Seems to me (despite my poor Spot check) that there's a significant number of folks who entered this weekend anti-4E (or, at a minimum, very cautious about it)...and yet are coming out the other side as believers (or, at a minimum, encouraged with what they've seen).

I'd like to hear some perspectives from those folks who (a) didn't like 4E and - as a result of what they've seen or read about DDXP - (b) now do like 4E.

What changed your mind? What allayed your fears? What was better in practice than in theory? What have you learned that you didn't know before?

While I haven't read anything in the opposite vein, I'm fairly confident there are some folks that went the opposite way (liked 4E -> DDXP -> don't like 4E). Same questions for you, if you're out there.

Sure, sure - you'll have your holdouts and your folks that won't give up their 3E d20s (or 1E d20s, or C&C d20s, etc.) until you pry them out of their cold, dead hands. But I'm not interested in their opinions. To each their own.

I haven't spent as much time reviewing the "what" of DDXP as I have reviewing some of the mood changes from posters on this very site that, while I disagreed with their outlooks, always respected their opinions. Seeing those opinions change from negative to positive is very encouraging for a guy who's never seen/played 4E but would like to take his campaign in that direction when the times comes.

W.P.

 

[The Red Chord]

I was VERY skeptical abotu 4e, but after reading the reviews and the posts, and the charcters, I am looking forward to giving it a shot, with an adventure made by a fellow ENworlder.

The game will of course have flaws, but overall it appears to be much better than 3.x

 

[Lizard]

It looks like it will have more than enough crunch for me, though many things still irk me a lot -- monsters are second-class citizens, the skill list is truncated so much it's barely worth calling a skill list, uber-competence, and so on. But since a lot of my worst fears were addressed, in terms of cheap&easy healing and other issues, as well as the fact the game clearly isn't simplified to the point where it might as well be checkers, I can live with the rest. Houserules readily suggest themselves.

 

[Henry]

The funny thing is that I've seen quite a few (maybe just as many on here and RPG.net) go the OPPOSITE direction; they have been previously hopeful and liking the tidbits, but the info dump this weekend has turned them suddenly OFF.

What I do think is that many people will switch the fence several times over the next 6 months (in other words, even PAST the release date). There's so much to consider and process for each person's gaming group, that any series of things could either bring it to a screeching halt, or turn all systems "go" for various gaming groups.

 

[Psion]

I was skeptical about 4e, though most of what was really driving my disdain to this point are knowns (i.e., massive scrapping of fluff.) I was modestly skeptical of several mechanical aspects, and what I have heard from play reports seems to confirm most of my suspicions.

Namely, from both Rodrigo's playtest report and looking at the character sheets seems to confirm my suspicions about all classes being somehwat "3e mage" like when it comes to ability management that was born when we heard about how much Bo9S supposedly informed 4e's design. I like playing mages, but I know that some players just don't appreciate tracking that many spell-like special abilities. They want to pump up their main weapon, jot down the totals on their character sheet, and then just roll dice and do damage, not manage "per encounter" abilities, etc.

On the other hand, I'm also seeing recent revelations that are total surprises that really turn me off (diagonal movement rules under 4e strike me as intensely stupid) with little in the way of matching "cool" revelations.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

still pro, but i don´t like having no options if you are not trained:

my concerns:
1) reach weapons have no reach when it is not your turn so it can´t be use to hold an enemy at bay
2) no trip, no grapple, no disarm
3) no fighting defensively


my hopes:
1) something like a first level feat to use a reach weapon to hold an enemy at bay/punish him for approaching you
2) general guidelines for unusual maneuvers which make such rules redundant, 3.5 rules didn´t work out at all at higher levels
3) that there is such an option.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, obviously I can't say anything about specific mechanics if they weren't revealed at the con.

But as far as your concern/hope number 2, I can say that the baseline system--with everything being an attack based on one of the abilities vs. a specific defense--has so far, in my playtests proved flexible enough to allow almost any special maneuver you can come up with.

You've got be careful not to make said maneuvers too good, or else you step on the toes of the fighter or rogue who actually has a power to accomplish the same thing. But it's easily doable.

 

[JeffB]

The funny thing is that I've seen quite a few (maybe just as many on here and RPG.net) go the OPPOSITE direction; they have been previously hopeful and liking the tidbits, but the info dump this weekend has turned them suddenly OFF..

I'd be in that camp. 3E drove me away from the game and had alot of high hopes for 4E. All the info in the past week has totally turned me off, as you said. I cancelled my pre-order for the books, I WANT to like it , but this just sounds like a glorified minis/board game to me now. I'm really dissapointed in what I've seen/heard/read.

That said I will take a careful look at the books when they arrives locally to be fair.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thank you for the response.

I really hope those guidelinies are in the DMG or even the players handbook, so that players are encouraged to be creative...

 

[Dalvyn]

The new information half-changed my opinion about 4E. I used to be rather anti-4E because I hated what I saw as unfounded fluff changes and was not fond at all of the rules, that I considered (and actually still consider) to be too abstract/gamist/detached from what happens in the story.

Now, I still do not like 4E as a roleplaying game, but I like its rules and how combats are done.

That is, I feel interested to play a few 4E games (in a similar way that I might be interested to play Magic the Gathering now and then) because I think that it is a good, perhaps even great game. But, even now, I do not think that it's a role-playing game. I feel that I might like it as a "rule-playing game", but not as a replacement for 3.5.

I might change my opinion again if other publishers make an alternative rulebook changing the powers to something more simulationist, closer to the action ... but I do not put too much hope in it, because those alternative rules would still have to convince me, and it remains to be seen if the GSL will allow third party publishers to do that. But that would really be the best solution for me: a game system that would combine the "fun" of 4E combat with a new set of less gamist powers.

Interesting question. Thanks for starting this thread. I'm eager to read other people's opinions.