D&D 4E Is 4E retro?

[Irda Ranger]

A consistent rules set adds directly to my fun. It isn't the end, but neither is getting to 20th level. But a consistent rules set is a lot more fun for me than monsters that vary according to arbitrary whims of DMs and game designers. The dissonance between real kobolds and paper kobolds actually does bother me, and makes the game less fun. So please, don't tell me what I should find fun or not.

Fun is always subjective, that's true. It was not my intent to suggest otherwise.

But fixating on Hit Points as something everyone should have, when it's purely an abstract concept that only exists to facilitate game play, seemed a little odd to me. They're just there to make your life easier, and when they make your life harder you should ignore them. It's the underlying monster, the Platonic ideal of Koboldness, that should be consistent and as real as you can make it. There are things in the world everyone should have - like hunger, love, hate and fear. Motives. A soul. A reason to get up in the morning and plot the takeover of the world.

As for things like AC, Str and HP? "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. Judge me by my HP, do you?"

 

[Ourph]

But still, it gives me this feeling.

Me too. I'm still not really interested in another version of D&D, but if someone took away my B/X/AD&D books, I'd definitely be choosing 4e over 3e to replace them.

 

[pemerton]

No, I don't see 4E as retro, at all. It might be simpler than 3E (which I think is an improvement), but it still has the hallmarks of modern/in-vogue RPG design (e.g. lots of mechanical options, comprehensive rules system that crunches numbers to resolve almost any in-game challenge/situation, et cetera).

QFT. Btw, Philotomy, while my tastes - unlike yours - are more modern than retro, I really like your OD&D commentary, and appreciate your sense of the relationship between mechanics and play experience.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

\

I really like your OD&D commentary, and appreciate your sense of the relationship between mechanics and play experience.

True that. I read the whole page - I've got a soft spot in this chest cavity for the old school so I really enjoyed it, especially the bit about the (lack of) skills mechanics. When I was a kid I remember thinking D&D was sooo cool because my character could do anything to accomplish his goal, it was so much better than any video game for that reason. Now that we have more rules, there really are limits. *sorry rogue, you can't disarm - but why? - you just can't! now shut up and use an at-will*

I need to clarify - Perhaps 4e isn't totally retro, if it were we would just be playing OD&D but I do think 4e is the most retro so far, every other incarnation of D&D expanded and changed it to something more different than the last. 4e, is roping in some of those changes made previously.

 

[Psion]

I think the fundamental structure of characters is very non-retro.

 

[hong]

These two statements have nothing to do with each other. A consistent rules set adds directly to my fun. It isn't the end, but neither is getting to 20th level. But a consistent rules set is a lot more fun for me than monsters that vary according to arbitrary whims of DMs and game designers.

The ruleset is perfectly consistent. If you meet an orc brute with 20 hp and AC 25 today, there is no reason not to believe that the orc brute you meet tomorrow will have 55 hp and AC 18. Of course, it may just happen that the (unobservable) process by which those 20 hp and AC 25 were derived may differ from the (similarly unobservable) process by which a PC's hp and AC are derived. But this is dealt with by the simple strategem of not thinking too hard about fantasy.

The dissonance between real kobolds and paper kobolds actually does bother me, and makes the game less fun. So please, don't tell me what I should find fun or not.

What on earth is a real kobold?

 

[DandD]

An evil little spirit. Only little children can see them. We adults are too dull to notice them. That's why we don't know how they look like, because children see them in many various ways, whereas we adults just can't imagine it really anymore.

 

[Oliviander]

Fluff of the DM

As a player since AD&D (never played BECMI) I find the discussion above very interesting,
but to my experience the factor DM is far more distinctive for any game fluff,
than the different editions.

If you have a DM who forbids everything that is not explicitly allowed by the rules,
3rd Edition gives you much much more options than 2nd.

And if you have one who allows everything that is not explicitly forbidden,
you might have had more options in the previous editions.

We as a group even weren't allowed 5 foot steps in 2e, so 3e was a great step for us.

Our DM still ignores some concepts of 3e, so at 17th level we still haven't options to
buy any (useful) magic items, but it doesn't matter because most of the time we are
lucky to have enough money to buy food.
Such circumstances IMHO have greater impact to the game than any edition differences.

 

[Ahglock]

Some people see options, I see limits [any ability that specifically says you can do something means that is one more thing that other people explicitly cannot do unless they have said ability]. This killed fun and took its stuff on several occasions in 3.5 ("I swing down and grab the princess from the pit, and swing her onto the ledge". "No he cannot do that-- he doesn't have spring attack-- since he is moving, then taking a standard, then moving again, here on page yada yada yada". 2nd ed, or Basic, or OSRIC, or C&C, etc this would just be done by the DM deciding for you to make a Dex check...

You might think, well 4E they will just say, make an acrobatics check-- but it would be a move to swing down, a standard to grab the girl, and another move to keep swinging. Even though 4E will have less rules, it still will be too rules heavy to me...

I especially hated the feats that gave more "options" to a skill. I was like wait I couldn't use my search skill to investigate a crime scene before.

 

[Ahglock]

As a player since AD&D (never played BECMI) I find the discussion above very interesting,
but to my experience the factor DM is far more distinctive for any game fluff,
than the different editions.

If you have a DM who forbids everything that is not explicitly allowed by the rules,
3rd Edition gives you much much more options than 2nd.

And if you have one who allows everything that is not explicitly forbidden,
you might have had more options in the previous editions.

I really like this, I suspect most DMs fall heavily into one of these camps. I know I heavily fall into camp 2 once I know the rules.(maybe more than I should in modern campaigns my players get away with a lot) While still learning the rules I am a bit more in camp one with some on the fly camp 2 things coming into play.