What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?

[Primal]

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!

You know, I noticed the same... as I found followers and name levels to be quite awkward mechanics back then, I wonder why RC implemented them into his system? More often than not, followers were used as cannon fod... er, hench-men, that you naturally stripped of any magic items...

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

Yes. Just consult the Discworld series (you gotta love that part about "involving embarrasing groping in the darkness").

 

[ferratus]

I didn't have any expectations of what 4e should be like, which is probably why I didn't dig in my heels with every new piece of news. I largely was content to take a gander and try it out without worrying about it too much.

It also helps that I was largely annoyed with the problems with 3e that I had long since figured out, and I couldn't really do anything about without chucking out large parts of the system. So when 4e came along and chucked large parts out of the system, I was simply intrigued rather than offended.

Several months in I'm starting to notice some problems with 4e that need fixing. For example, the biggest irritant is that I need to have 18-20 in my primary stat or I drop below viability in combat. It would be nice if 14-17 in the primary stat, with a feat to use a secondary stat to boost your primary stat's to-hit bonus was available. That way if I wanted to spread my points out more, I could still hit. Class builds help, but their secondary stat effects come after you hit with the primary stat.

However, I'm also continuing to be pleasantly surprised. I was skeptical about the subscription, but with the subscription fee, I don't need to buy another book again. This is great for both me and WotC, because I only bought 5 WotC books in the entire run of 3e. I never found it good value for money to buy the sourcebooks for one or two things I would use out of it. With the subscription, I get 1 or 2 things from every book whenever I need it, and Dungeon magazine (which I did buy) besides.

There is a disquieting idea in the back of my head that D&D 4e is too much like GURPS because of the powers system. However, then I read my old 2e stuff and I realize that class builds are kits (but better), all the old OD&D-2e adventures are easy to convert (whereas it would be much more prep time in both GURPS and 3e), and I can pretty much have all the same flavour in all the old classic dungeons. I do have to chuck out the dragonborn and the tieflings though. I don't mind the experiment in introducing new races, but those two should have never been made common races. They just aren't interesting anymore if they are your pot-bellied bourgeois neighbours.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But I also hoped that 4e would embrace more indie-RPG elements (like shared narrative control).

jep, those skill challenges presented at D&D experiences sounded great... Too bad, the designers listened to nerdrage... and invented a new system which is just the old complex skill system from unearthed arcana...

but: n.p.: my memory works fine, the erratad tables are reasonable and i know the DM´s best friends: (+2/-2) so np. shared narrative control usually results in more fun...

but maybe it is even more fun if it is a secret players don´t know much about...

 

[Negflar2099]

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 don't mean any offense but I have never understood this opinion. You're saying 4e places too much emphasis on making sure that every level of the game is fun for every class or race you may want to play and that's a bad thing? How does it "kill variety in game play" for a wizard just be just as optimal and fun a choice for class at 1st level as at 30th?

Under earlier editions if you picked wrong, that is chose the wrong class or race for the level you're playing at, then you would not have as much fun as someone who chose correctly. Aside from the feeling of superiority that one who knows the "correct" choices might get from playing alongside the ignorant, how does this situation add to the enjoyment or variety of the game in anyway?

You also decry the emphasis on tactics, specifically on tactics that require the use of a battlemat. I do understand this opinion a little better than the first. It can feel limiting to have to rely on battlemat and miniatures but I don't care, and you know why? Because for the first time in the entire time I've been playing D&D (which is quite a long time) my fellow players and I feel like a team. In earlier versions I never felt like a belonged to a team working with my friends to achieve goals. Instead I felt like an individual lone wolf who happened to be stuck with other lone wolves, each with our own competing agendas.

With 4e's emphasis on tactics and yes teamwork, I now feel like I am part of a real force that depends on each other to work together. If that requires a battlemat to achieve that feeling then so be it.

Plus miniatures are cool. There I said it.

No, for me 4e is way closer to what I always thought D&D should be. A tactical, teamwork based game of sword and sorcery action fantasy where every character can contribute. I don't know if that's closer to the D&D ideal (everyone has to decide that for themselves) but it's closer for me. To me that's the spirit of the game and 4e does that better than others (IMHO).

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I just want to pop-in for a second and remind everyone that this topic is chiefly for people dissatisfied with 4E to say what they would have preferred it to have been like.

 

[SabreCat]

I wanted 4e to simply be a cleaner edition of D&D. Easier to play, and more importantly: easier to run. DMing 3.5 was a nightmare, and I would do anything for a little relief.

Suffice it to say, my expectations on that point were wildly exceeded.

But I also hoped that 4e would embrace more indie-RPG elements (like shared narrative control).

I'm with this fine poster. I would have loved to see an even "indier" D&D, but what I got was a wholeheartedly fun boardgame/RPG hybrid that's easy to play and a friggin' snap to prep for. Building an encounter takes mere minutes, getting faster as Insider improves its tools, whereas in 3.5 even calculating how much XP the party got was a chore of non-trivial time and effort.

Unlike Wormwood, I do houserule in a few shared-narration things, but that's simple enough. ^.^

I'm sure there are a couple places D&D4 let me down. I would have liked better vigilance for power creep (no BRV or double weapons allowed in my game, tch), and... um... Planescape-style tieflings instead of generic-style tieflings. That's about all I can think of!

 

[The Highway Man]

Hi Negflar!

Making the sweet spot mathematically present at every level can be grossly represented by me playing a wizard. I will launch a magic missile at a zombie at low levels, or a meteor swarm at a multiverse entity at high levels, but basically, mechanically, I will still roll d20 to make a 10+ and roll some dice on damage that will represent the same proportion of HP on damage average of the creature. Mechanically, that is the same thing, the variety being expressed here in flavor only.

I wager that you do appreciate this variety, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Other players want to have variety in terms of probabilities and mechanics. They want more than 4e provides in that area. For them, 4e becomes tedious very quickly.

I think that more broadly this comes down to the notion of what "fun" is. If you agree with the definitions of "fun" 4e tries to provide you will be a very happy camper indeed. If however, say, you enjoy learning the intricacies of a game system and enjoy differentiating good from bad mechanical choices in terms of character building, you're out of luck as far as the comparison between 4e and earlier editions goes.

Some players will think of the Incredibles: "If everyone's special, then no one is."

You appreciate these aspects none the less because they fulfill something you were looking for in D&D. Now you've got it. Same thing about teamwork and tactical game play. I dare say, you are exactly the public Wizards was trying to appeal to when publishing 4e. And that's totally fine with me.

Now, I think you also can understand that many players out there are not you. That many players have different needs and wants as far as D&D is concerned. Sometimes, these needs and wants will converge with 4e's offerings, and sometimes they won't.

My point, in fact, is that 4e is extremely good at doing what it's set out to do, but not much else. On purpose. People who craved what 4e decides should be D&D's game play experience will be ecstatic about it, such as you seem to be - and it's totally okay, once again. Others won't, because that's not what they value in D&D's game play experience. That should come as no surprise, given the way 4e is such a focused game system.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think that more broadly this comes down to the notion of what "fun" is. If you agree with the definitions of "fun" 4e tries to provide you will be a very happy camper indeed. If however, say, you enjoy learning the intricacies of a game system and enjoy differentiating good from bad mechanical choices in terms of character building, you're out of luck as far as the comparison between 4e and earlier editions goes.

I agree with this principle. There are many ways to play and some groups find thier fun in places that others do not. System mastery and character building are not my idea of fun either, but are examples of a type of fun that 4E does not support.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know, I noticed the same... as I found followers and name levels to be quite awkward mechanics back then, I wonder why RC implemented them into his system? More often than not, followers were used as cannon fod... er, hench-men, that you naturally stripped of any magic items...

I would be happy to discuss this to whatever depth you desire in the RCFG thread. I'd hate to derail this thead by so doing.

You're saying 4e places too much emphasis on making sure that every level of the game is fun for every class or race you may want to play and that's a bad thing?

As others have said, if your idea of fun matches the narrow definition of WotC's idea of fun, then this isn't a bad thing. However everyone's idea of fun is somewhat narrow, and while there may be significant overlap, a better design (IMHO) acknowledges that the author and the player(s) might have different ideas of fun, and therefore attempt to achieve some form of depth of possibilities rather than being good only at one fairly specific focus.

I just want to pop-in for a second and remind everyone that this topic is chiefly for people dissatisfied with 4E to say what they would have preferred it to have been like.

Which is why, Primal (and others), if you want to discuss specifics of RCFG design (and design goals), please jump to the thread in my sig. Otherwise, in a general sense, (1) breadth of action, (2) world informs crunch, not vice versa, (3) flatter power curve, and (4) better combat resolution are all things I'd have liked to see in 4e, and did not (or, at least, did not to anything resembling the degree I'd have liked).

As always, YMMV.


RC

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Originally, I wanted something closer to Star Wars Saga Edition. However, once I started getting info on the 4e books, I was just fine with out it turned out.