I would have wanted for 4th edition to be a far more collaborative effort. I think WOTC missed an amazing chance to finally bring the fans/customers/users right into the design. Instead of ideas from a few designers and playtesters, we could have the creative input from thousands of DMs and players. Now, I realize that it could have turned into a hopeless mess, but it would have been extremely interesting and so much fun to try. In the end we could have had an edition that everyone had a little connection too. "yeah, i voted for that race to be in." "hey, theres the bad edit I found." "wow, there's my house rule really improved the turning mechanic." Even though all the rules would have been known, would anyone have not bought it?
What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?
- Thread starter Hexmage-EN
- Start date
For a different perspective, I wouldn't have bought 4e if it weren't a reinvention. I didn't buy 3.5, because it was a revision. Why should I drop $100 on a game that plays the same as one I've already got? I can get 2-3 other games for the price of D&D, so a new version needs to offer different play experience than the old. But then I switch games all the time, I'm not one of these guys that has a 20 year old campaign setting to convert, nor would my group be looking to convert existing characters. Plus to me the 'D&Dness' isn't in the rules of Vancian magic or alignments or ability scores or any of that, but in the themes of easy magic, exploration, lots of different monsters, and so on.
As for the old school feel, I think its everyone having more hit points, which mathematically works out to be about the same as everyone having less hit points and doing less damage. The battles take awhile and the players feel free to do crazy things, where 3e often gave off the vibe that if you don't have the feat you can't do it (or have such a high penalty you might as well not bother). They love Page 42 so far.
Personally I don't think its very useful to *want* something out of a new edition of D&D. It is what it is. If they make a version that you don't find fun, there's a ton of other games out there that do it differently. You don't *have* to play D&D.
As for the old school feel, I think its everyone having more hit points, which mathematically works out to be about the same as everyone having less hit points and doing less damage. The battles take awhile and the players feel free to do crazy things, where 3e often gave off the vibe that if you don't have the feat you can't do it (or have such a high penalty you might as well not bother). They love Page 42 so far.
Personally I don't think its very useful to *want* something out of a new edition of D&D. It is what it is. If they make a version that you don't find fun, there's a ton of other games out there that do it differently. You don't *have* to play D&D.
Wormwood
Adventurer
IIRC, the examples we saw hinted at much more player narrative contribution than what we see with the final result.
Stuff like "I roll a History check and remember that there is a hidden series of tunnels that I use to escape the city." The adventure has no provisions for such a convenient escape route, but if the player can imagine such a feature (and make his roll), then it is inserted into the story and the DM wings it from there. They allowed the player to edit the game world to reflect their successes.
The impression I got was that skill challenges were much more open-ended and based on the player's imaginations and much less on DM-generated lists of preferred, acceptable and unusable skills.
Then again, it's been a while since I thought about this.
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
I'm adding this to my list of things I wish 4e had been.
I'm putting it on a list of "potential houserules". *yoink*
Shemeska
Adventurer
I wanted 4e to go the route of more flavor, deeper fluff text, and a less gamist approach. I also wanted 4e to reverse some of 3e's retcons (like FR being abruptly retconned out of the Great Wheel).
What 4e ended up doing was not reversing some of 3e's faults in my mind, but it took them even further in that direction (stripping almost all flavor text from the MM to the point of absurdity, a wholeheartedly gamist approach to all things, and absolutely gutting FR to the point where it's effectively a different setting versus 1e/2e/3e).
What 4e ended up doing was not reversing some of 3e's faults in my mind, but it took them even further in that direction (stripping almost all flavor text from the MM to the point of absurdity, a wholeheartedly gamist approach to all things, and absolutely gutting FR to the point where it's effectively a different setting versus 1e/2e/3e).
ExploderWizard
Hero
Ok. I tried but I cant let this one go. The combination of impotence used in the same sentence as "driven so hard" makes this post somewhat less than grandma friendly.
Jasperak
Adventurer
3.5 and Splats made me sick. 4e was not the medicine.
I love BECMI and 1e. Though I have an appreciation for 2e and 3e, my roots are the afore mentioned editions. I don't actively hate 4e since I don't have to play it, but it does not evoke the same feelings I had with BECMI or 1e.
4e for me would have had to have more open-ended play like BECMI. Skill challenges are the very antithesis of that in my opinion. Skill challenges seem to reduce to rolling a certain attack versus a certain defense. Some may disagree, I am only giving my honest opinion.
There are other things of course, but it's Friday and I have "stuff" to do. Craig I'm gonna get you...
I love BECMI and 1e. Though I have an appreciation for 2e and 3e, my roots are the afore mentioned editions. I don't actively hate 4e since I don't have to play it, but it does not evoke the same feelings I had with BECMI or 1e.
4e for me would have had to have more open-ended play like BECMI. Skill challenges are the very antithesis of that in my opinion. Skill challenges seem to reduce to rolling a certain attack versus a certain defense. Some may disagree, I am only giving my honest opinion.
There are other things of course, but it's Friday and I have "stuff" to do. Craig I'm gonna get you...
When 3.5 came out I wasn't ready for it, and therefore didn't buy it. Eventually I got the PHB so that I could join a game run by someone else, but that's it as far as 3.5 went.
When 4E was announced I was ready to accept a new edition, I looked forward to it, but didn't actively seek all the available knowledge about it. I bought the books without much prior knowledge. Whoops. I regret that because I've got nothing out of the DMG or MM. I should have just bought the PHB, to use while I experienced the game.
What I was expecting, was the evolution of 3.5. The same core, with more options, some tweaks and alterations for the sake of balance. Most if not all sacred cows in place (possibly with new spots or with their horns removed).
I could understand a flattening out of high level spellcasters, but I didn't require it. Mainly I was expecting the existing rules to remain, but be streamlined and smoothed out so that they got in the way less often.
I find 4E does the opposite; it's not faster, and the rules get in my way quite frequently.
When 4E was announced I was ready to accept a new edition, I looked forward to it, but didn't actively seek all the available knowledge about it. I bought the books without much prior knowledge. Whoops. I regret that because I've got nothing out of the DMG or MM. I should have just bought the PHB, to use while I experienced the game.
What I was expecting, was the evolution of 3.5. The same core, with more options, some tweaks and alterations for the sake of balance. Most if not all sacred cows in place (possibly with new spots or with their horns removed).
I could understand a flattening out of high level spellcasters, but I didn't require it. Mainly I was expecting the existing rules to remain, but be streamlined and smoothed out so that they got in the way less often.
I find 4E does the opposite; it's not faster, and the rules get in my way quite frequently.
Katemare
First Post
Oh, a thread that I can contribute to.
I like 3.x much with its immense amount of official and third-party supplement, and its non-combat crunch. I never played AD&D, though, but now that I have read some of its supplement I value its wast flavor (for example, the MM description of sphinxes gave me such insight on their life! And many story ideas, too). And so, I was anticipating 4E.
From Wizards' press releases I was imagined it like that:
Some say that 4E is all that. But I was really stunned with the drop of flavor, classic fantasy cliches (such as polymorph) and non-combat crunch, and the fact that "role" equals "combat role". Class abilities also seemed vague (with no comprehensive list) and uninteresting ("flashy name - gameplay-unrelated flavor - system descriptors - you deal X, and Y until end of turn"). _For me_ (that indicates "IMHO"), 4E wasn't neither fantasy role-playing game nor inspiring wargame.
I hope that third-party publishers will change that. For example, "Big Bugs" monsters from Goodman Games really _are_ tangible, distinct and rules/role-transparent.
I like 3.x much with its immense amount of official and third-party supplement, and its non-combat crunch. I never played AD&D, though, but now that I have read some of its supplement I value its wast flavor (for example, the MM description of sphinxes gave me such insight on their life! And many story ideas, too). And so, I was anticipating 4E.
From Wizards' press releases I was imagined it like that:
- More distinct, tangible everything. Different races create different gameplay/feel at all levels, every DM entity (monsters, NPC, locations...) have a distinct interaction (role), that leaves vivid impression and so on.
- More variable classes via power selection. Something like non-exclusive talent pathes, and instead of prestiges supplement would add pathes (think Enecyclopeadia Arcane's magic traditions).
- Transparent and steamlines rules, easy to use, easy to houserule.
Some say that 4E is all that. But I was really stunned with the drop of flavor, classic fantasy cliches (such as polymorph) and non-combat crunch, and the fact that "role" equals "combat role". Class abilities also seemed vague (with no comprehensive list) and uninteresting ("flashy name - gameplay-unrelated flavor - system descriptors - you deal X, and Y until end of turn"). _For me_ (that indicates "IMHO"), 4E wasn't neither fantasy role-playing game nor inspiring wargame.
I hope that third-party publishers will change that. For example, "Big Bugs" monsters from Goodman Games really _are_ tangible, distinct and rules/role-transparent.
Similar Threads
