D&D 4E Thoughts on 4E from an "Outsider"...

[MoogleEmpMog]

Actually, I think you'd be much, much happier with an RPG that isn't D&D. For a non tactical RPG, I can't recommend Evil Hat Productions' Spirit of the Century strongly enough.

Its whole system is built around your declaring some cool thing you want to try - and then making it happen. It provides a much more fluid combat experience, creative more than calculating, and while I enjoy both types a great deal, if you don't enjoy the latter, SotC should definitely scratch your itch.

4e is highly unlikely to abandon the tactical element; certainly we've heard no indication of it so far. The D&D Minis game is MUCH faster than full-on 3e, but it's still based on minis and battlemaps. Look for 4e to improve and simplify in THAT direction, making it easier, faster and more fun to play a Tactics/RPG - not to eliminate one of the pillars of D&D.

 

[Turanil]

I'd suggest B/X, Castles & Crusades, or Basic Fantasy.

You beat me to it. This is also my suggestion. Especially as Basic Fantasy is free.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Grossout, I think you may be able to create a hybrid system that scratches your itch. Build characters using the 4E rules as normal, and just play as you did back in the day: with your DM keeping a rough idea of positioning. Don't worry too much about the exact rules for AoOs and whatnot--just go with the general *intent* of those rules, which is basically: if your opponent is standing right in front of you menacing you with his sword, he'll get a free whack at you if you drop your guard by casting, shooting, running away, etc.

That "etc." is the secret power of going off the grid: the rules cannot anticipate everything, so the flipside of 3E's greater granularity was that DMs (and some players) were filled with doubt whenever an unanticipated rule came up. In 2E you'd just wing it--you wouldn't even notice the speed bump. But in 3E I've noticed there's lots of looking through books, interpreting rules, and other nonsense. Like in my last game, some guys were on a tower taking cover behind a parapet. A player wanted to shoot the guys. We spent a bit of time talking about "drawing lines to all four corners of a target's square", and what that meant in three-D space. In a looser game off the grid, you just say "sure, he's got cover" and move on.

I suggest your DM use figures (or coins, or pawns, or dice, or whatever) to represent characters and monsters. Maybe even a whiteboard or blank battlemat so he can draw in terrain and other features. You can use these tools to visualize the battlefield, but don't worry at all about precisely counting individual squares.

My point: you get the aid of having everyone on the same page in terms of locations and terrain features, but don't have to worry about, say, having only 6 squares of movement when the door is 7 squares away. Just say "I move to the door", and if the DM thinks it's reasonable that your character can get there, go for it.

 

[pemerton]

My group doesn't use miniatures, but I (as GM) normally draw up a quick sketch-map of the situation, and the location of the PCs and their foes.

Where positioning (for a spell, archery, cover) etc matters and isn't clear from the sketch, I just assign a % chance and let the player make a luck roll - whether to have a foe in their AoE, or to be outside the AoE of a foe's attack.

 

[Michael_Wolf]

Aside from a few occasions I have never used miniatures in D&D. As a DM I give them an overview of their opponents and the enviroment and they tell me what they ant to do and how they want to do it. IMHO using miniatures turns D&D combat into a tactical game and not every player or DM is comfortable with that although the rules were created with minis in mind.
Btw, "narrated" combat is normally much faster and more vibrant than using miniature combat, which breaks the flow of the game IMO.

 

[Wormwood]

I think you'd be happier with a different system, rather than 3E (or 4E, from what I can tell so far). I'd suggest B/X, Castles & Crusades, or Basic Fantasy. Lastly, the AD&D combat rules are very well suited to play without minis, IMO. You might want to check out Dragonsfoot; lots of discussion on all of these systems, there.

<threadjack>

THANK YOU for introducing me to Basic Fantasy. This is *precisely* what I've been wanting for my 'family' game (my wife and two nephews, 11 & 14). We've been enjoying 3.5 for a couple of months, but we tend to spend more time dealing with rules than playing the game.

</threadjack>

 

[JeffB]

I think you'd be happier with a different system, rather than 3E (or 4E, from what I can tell so far). I'd suggest B/X, Castles & Crusades, or Basic Fantasy...

I was in the same boat as the original poster. 3.x precision just bogged down the game for me, and I stopped running it. No fun for me. Not a mini fan for all of the reasons Reynard discussed. In particular combat took way too long, and it was more like chess or a wargame. Not my thing.

I think 4E will be an improvement in many other areas where 3E was entirely too precise (yayyyyyyyyyyyy!) , but as long as WOTC sells minis you can be damn sure they will be tied into the game. Doubtful you'll see a "work around" in the DMG. Its just not smart business to downplay a product you sell.

I think PJ's comments that I quoted are spot on (went to C&C myself, though its not perfect), and I'd also reccommend Gary's Lejendary Adventures game.

 

[hopeless]

Much obliged

I think you'd be happier with a different system, rather than 3E (or 4E, from what I can tell so far). I'd suggest B/X, Castles & Crusades, or Basic Fantasy. Lastly, the AD&D combat rules are very well suited to play without minis, IMO. You might want to check out Dragonsfoot; lots of discussion on all of these systems, there.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Ive played with and without a board and squares. Playing with no squares is so easy, and combat doesnt take so long either.
After a two hour combat with zombies I never again will use a grid or squares.

 

[Wormwood]

Ive played with and without a board and squares. Playing with no squares is so easy, and combat doesnt take so long either.
After a two hour combat with zombies I never again will use a grid or squares.

I guess that's kinda my complaint as well.

My group has played dozens of different RPG systems over the years---most of them combat-intensive. The two games that *really* drag in combat are D&D 3e and Champions---both games where we use a battlemat and count out squares/hexes.

While I am smitten with the design philosophy that I'm seeing in 4e, I am increasingly dissatisfied with battlemat gaming.