D&D 4E The 4e Paradigm: How well will we adapt?

[Cryptos]

I remember when new computer roleplaying games or MMOs would come out, and after reading about the developers saying "we're doing this different," perhaps as in "you won't need to have a certain class combination in your party to be successful," at launch you'd have the players come in, and stand around waiting for a healer, or a nuker, or a tank. And everything would be the same. And those attitudes would persist. Not necessarily because the developers failed to provide the players with something new, but because the players failed to embrace the potential. I worry sometimes that I'm seeing the same thing in various places discussing 4e. In places like the official boards, but also a bit here as well.

I'm wondering if the developer's efforts to solve perceived problems with bookkeeping, timekeeping, pacing, encounter design, disparity in class effectiveness, and so forth will be trumped by gamer's habits.

I've seen people argue against certain things by stating things like "the wizard stands in the back," for instance. While it's certainly true that the wizard doesn't want to throw himself on a pikeman's polearm, all descriptions of combat have characters running from room to room and moving from place to place almost continually. The back becomes the front, or the middle, and any wizard planning to plant himself will quickly get run over. But will combat really turn out to be as kinetic as they've designed it at most game tables, or will everyone be stuck in "stand in the back" mode with static combatants because of their mindset?

Other tropes I've seen referenced in discussions about 4e run the gamut, that's just an example. Everything from "so the cleric can heal you" to "the rogue has to do this" or "the fighter can't do this" or "dragons are like that." Well, in many cases, they can (or can't) under a different system.

I really don't remember wondering about a perception problem or an interpretation problem during the 3e conversion. But this is, in some ways, a bigger leap. In some ways, it's a paradigm shift.

I think this is one of the real challenges of 4e and will impact its success. They can obviously change the game. Can they change the gamers? Will Dungeons and Dragons players take advantage of what's been given them?

 

[cybernetic]

I remember when new computer roleplaying games or MMOs would come out, and after reading about the developers saying "we're doing this different," perhaps as in "you won't need to have a certain class combination in your party to be successful," at launch you'd have the players come in, and stand around waiting for a healer, or a nuker, or a tank. And everything would be the same. And those attitudes would persist. Not necessarily because the developers failed to provide the players with something new, but because the players failed to embrace the potential. I worry sometimes that I'm seeing the same thing in various places discussing 4e. In places like the official boards, but also a bit here as well.

I'm wondering if the developer's efforts to solve perceived problems with bookkeeping, timekeeping, pacing, encounter design, disparity in class effectiveness, and so forth will be trumped by gamer's habits.

I've seen people argue against certain things by stating things like "the wizard stands in the back," for instance. While it's certainly true that the wizard doesn't want to throw himself on a pikeman's polearm, all descriptions of combat have characters running from room to room and moving from place to place almost continually. The back becomes the front, or the middle, and any wizard planning to plant himself will quickly get run over. But will combat really turn out to be as kinetic as they've designed it at most game tables, or will everyone be stuck in "stand in the back" mode with static combatants because of their mindset?

Other tropes I've seen referenced in discussions about 4e run the gamut, that's just an example. Everything from "so the cleric can heal you" to "the rogue has to do this" or "the fighter can't do this" or "dragons are like that." Well, in many cases, they can (or can't) under a different system.

I really don't remember wondering about a perception problem or an interpretation problem during the 3e conversion. But this is, in some ways, a bigger leap. In some ways, it's a paradigm shift.

I think this is one of the real challenges of 4e and will impact its success. They can obviously change the game. Can they change the gamers? Will Dungeons and Dragons players take advantage of what's been given them?

I think its possible. My opinion is that it will need two things to actually happen. 1) The writers will need to explain the pieces well enough that we can understand the purposes of the new elements in order to use them properly (or as intented, at least). 2) Gamers will actually have to read this info and get a decent grasp on it before diving in.

From everything I've read and heard, as well as the release of the 4th Edition preview books (Races & Classes and Worlds & Monsters)..it does seem like the writers are trying their darnest to make the 1st one happen. It sounds like they are really focusing on things that will help us get the most out of the game. As long as they accomplish their part, I think that those of us who take it upon ourselves to see to the 2nd one will be able to get the best experience we can out of 4th Edition.

Personally, I had stopped playing d20 in general because I was simply tired of the system. 4th Edition seems like exactly what I need to revitalize my faith in D&D. I definatly plan on taking the time to learn the new edition thoroughly.

 

[Agamon]

Not sure I see the paradigm shift as being all that big. R&C actually bluntly says that wizards get by by standing in the back. Fighters still go toe-to-toe, rogues still sneak in for the big hurt, clerics still heal.

For what shift there is, WotC is doing a pretty good job explaining roles of both PCs and monsters, more so than has been done in past editions.

 

[Voss]

I don't really see it as a big deal. 4 editions later, several dozen other games, wargames, computer games, all those wacky changes in real life, I don't have much trouble adapting to anything.

If it were the same game, it wouldn't be a new edition. (unless its 1e->2e all over again).

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm thinking it'll actually be easier for people to figure out optimal tactics in 4e, actually. Overall, I think they're actually trying to preserve and refine most of the tactical assumptions of "classic" D&D, even if those assumptions haven't been fully realized before.

Take fighters as an example. In 3e, all they could really do was attack every round. If you think about it, it's really hard to "defend" anything when the class had almost zero "stickiness," at WOTC is now calling it. Your fighter charges into melee and attacks a monster, and if the monsters are non-retarded (or the DM is in a nasty mood) most of the monsters ignore him and chew on the wizard instead. Best-case scenario, the fighter gets a couple AoOs as they go by. But in 4e, the fighter will have specific powers that make it a Bad Idea for enemies to pass him by. So he can finally do what he's really been trying to do for 3 editions.

Meanwhile, other classes benefit by being restricted in some ways. After having a bunch of his enchantments/illusions/necromancy/summons taken away and lots of stuff shifted to out-of-combat "rituals," the wizard player is going to figure out damn quick that his job is to shape the battlefield, largely by selectively blowing it up.

I don't think increased mobility will take people long to adapt to, either. The reason characters stay put in 3e was that full-round attack were so much better than standard-action attacks. Now that this is no longer the case, I imagine people will adapt quickly. I mean, if my eladrin wizard has an ability that lets me teleport once an encounter, and I've got a troll barreling down on me... I think I just might figure out that using that ability would be a good idea.