What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?

[The Highway Man]

Oh, a thread that I can contribute to.

Yes indeed, in an in-your-face, does not contribute to the thread beyond the obvious provocations kind of way, you made your mark in here. Be proud... I guess.

Let's not call out other posters, please. ~ Piratecat

 

[Jack99]

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.

Not wanting to derail the thread, but the current Skill Challenge system runs open-ended challenges just fine.

 

[Katemare]

Yes indeed, in an in-your-face, does not contribute to the thread beyond the obvious provocations kind of way, you made your mark in here. Be proud... I guess.

Err, English is not my native language :\ Did my reply sound offensive? Sorry, if so -_- I didn't mean to.

 

[Gothmog]

For the most part, I got what I wanted out with 4e. I'm happy with 90% of the game, and think its a brilliant design and a great game. The system has a huge amount of potential, and I'm anxiously awaiting future products and ideas.

There are a few things I was disappointed in, such as roles only being combat roles, the lack of long-term injuries, non-combat powers (possibly tied to skills), and a need for more rituals. We've fixed these problems with just a few pages of houserules. However, most of 4e is pure win for me and my group- combat powers, rituals, the new take on classes (especially the warlord), consolidated skills, skill challenges, new monster design, and the core system is a thing of extreme beauty. Playing 4e for us is awesome, and running it is a dream come true for a DM.

I see 4e as very much a successor in theme and feel to BD&D, 1e, and 2e. Granted, mechanically, its quite different from any of those games, but then again, so was 3e. In contrast to 3e though, my group and I find 4e's mechanics less disruptive, player and DM friendly, and very much in keeping with what constitutes the D&D game experience.

I know I'll get some disagreement with this, but I see 3e as the abberation in the D&D family geneology. With previous versions of the game (BD&D, 1e, 2e), a player could make a character quickly, jump in, and play the game. The focus of those games was on what happened in the game, adventure, exploration, a sword & sorcery feel, and mastering play in the game. 3e had a lot of innovations for D&D, and like most folks, I gobbled it up when it came out.

But the 3e play experience always seemed hollow and inadequate to me and the groups I gamed with- there was something wrong that we couldn't quite put our collective fingers on. We had some fun with 3.x, but never as much as with 1e or 2e. Only after 3.5 came out did I realize that 3e took many of the things that made earlier editions great and overcomplicated them by codifying too many rules. I know to me and my groups, when we saw 3e's Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive skills we thought "WTF? Why do we need skills and dicerolls to roleplay???" 3e also emphasized system mastery over play mastery, and 3e was so rules-opaque and rules-interconnected, it felt like a chore to play or run the game rather than fostering a sense of excitement, mystery, and sense of adventure so prevalent in previous editions. The rules were always so prevalent in the foreground while we played that it completely destroyed our sense of immersion, or ability to identify with our characters. Many folks (myself included for a brief period) got caught up in the multiclass/PrC craze, and instead of letting a PC develop organically over time, people built their character from levels 1-20 before ever actually playing the character! While powergaming and the arms race of magic was present in previous editions, 3e brought it to new levels of escalation. Finally, 3e implicity stated that DM judgement calls and DM fiat was a bad thing, and wanted to list a rule to handle every situation, as well as fostering a sense of player entitlement. While 3e retained many of the D&D-isms of previous editions (Great Wheel cosmology, level 1-9 spells, uber-powerful casters, races, classes), it just all felt "off" in some way. I know there are quite a few folks who still love 3e, and more power to you, but the 3e play experience was deeply unsatisying for me and my groups for the reasons I gave above, and because it just wasn't D&D to us.

For me and my groups, 4e has remedied the situations in 3e that made it an unsatisfying play experience, and brought the game back closer to its roots, while at the same time revolutionizing the game and injecting some much-needed new life into it. Gone are the many of the tired old D&D-isms that didn't really add anything to the game, and some incredible new ideas have been introduced to really get my creativity going. D&D 4e brought back the sword & sorcery feel, the mystery, adventure, and sense of looming danger me and my groups enjoy so much. I for one am very happy 4e was not a continuation of 3e- IMO the 3e line has run just about as far as it can possibly go before eventually crushing itself into extinction under its own weight and system design.

 

[Korgoth]

Having played several sessions of 4E, I have already gone from a dynamic of interest/annoyance (with what I was hearing about the game) straight to loathing. To me, the game is anti-fun. All the foes (4th-5th level game) have about 60-80 hit points, and every battle is just a mindless, multi-hour slog of grinding down hit points. Plus, the whole "divorce of fluff and mechanics" has gone too far, much further than it ever was in old school play.

Literally, a pirate doofus running around on deck with a 20 AC. Where did he get that 20 AC? Well, those are his stats. There's really no attempt to justify any of the fluff... a mullet-wearing sea thug in a t-shirt has a level-appropriate AC and level-appropriate stats, and let's just forget about the fact that there's supposed to be a game world under here somewhere (like the kid digging the dung heap and looking for a pony). It's all arbitrary, dreary and a mindless grind. Nothing about it feels interesting or authentic.

My short answer is that I'd prefer 4E to be the opposite of whatever you would say that it currently is. But then, I don't like 3E either (though it's far more tolerable). What would I have made 4E? A rules light fantasy role playing game that used the D&D branding (IP critters, received races and classes, etc.) as a springboard for making fast and fun adventures. In spirit, a lot like Classic D&D (Moldvay or Mentzer). My own preference would still be for OD&D, which is both simpler (less rules) and more advanced (requires you to be a do-it-yourselfer).

Basically, imagine Moldvay/Cook D&D with rangers, paladins, half-orcs and Mind Flayers and you've got what I would have done with it. No splat books to constantly dribble out extra crunch, no witholding classic monsters just to get you to buy later monster books... just a simple, solid core game followed by a bunch of excellent adventures and a few settings and ancillary products.

I'm sorry... it's just my opinion and if 4E is fun for you then bully. But to me, 4E is World of Borecraft to the absolute maximum. It's the role playing game equivalent of visiting the dentist.

 

[Jack Colby]

I would love to have seen 4e be a much more simplified (yet complete) D&D game, upon which individual DMs and players could add on anything they wanted, and then an "Advanced D&D" book or series of books that were optional rules expansions and add-ons, completely compatible with the core game. The advanced game would have all the feat systems, battle mat combat rules, etc. that some people really dislike, divorced from the core game, but would be easy to add on for anyone who wants them. I think this could have been accomplished in only 2 main books (not counting a monster manual), and would give a solid base for everyone, and then a layer of additional rules for those who prefer a heavier game.

 

[Freakohollik]

I would have liked a couple of things for/instead of 4e. A 3.75 would have been good, or a B/X + 0.5. Both of those are very unlikely though, and I'm not dissapointed that decided to try something completely different. I just don't like the way it turned out.

 

[Tetsubo]

I've been playing D&D since 1978, so I guess that makes me a grognard. And proudly so. I see 3.5 as D&D done right. It needed a few tweaks but it got as close to 'perfect' as any rules system I have ever read. And I have read a lot of rules systems. I look forward to the final version of Pathfinder later this year. So it should come as no surprise that I saw 4E as an unwanted and unneeded edition. I fall into the group that thinks 4E is in fact not D&D at all.

I recently acquired a copy of the Everstone book. It is quite possibly the 'best' version of 3.5 that I have ever read. Pathfinder will have to really knock my socks off to do better. I highly recommend any 3.5 fans finding a copy.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

A lot of people say that Fourth Edition is only Dungeons and Dragons in name only and that Pathfinder is its true successor. My question for those of you who hold this view is this: What do you think a Fourth Edition that retained the original spirit of the game would be like?

Well, I don't hold the view that Pathfinder is the "true" successor, but I can tell you what I wanted 4E to be like.

My wish would have been to see something in between 3E and 2E - like a d20 version of 2E. Break the game down to its essential elements and then reconstruct it - only in my preferred vision it would not be so gamist-oriented. It would certainly once and for all abandon this absurd notion that everything has to be balanced from one player to the next just so. Balance is not a NON-consideration, but it is also very much not the ONLY consideration. It would rewrite spells and effects with CLEAR, consistent terminology describing game function - which even 3E failed to do in case after case. It would proceed on the assumption that while it's great for players to have choices it is ALWAYS the DM who creates and runs the game and thus players are not ENTITLED to every choice, every time.

Lots of other fiddley details of course but these are the grand-vision bits.

 

[Roman]

Err, English is not my native language : Did my reply sound offensive? Sorry, if so -_- I didn't mean to.

I don't think your reply was at all offensive and it doesn't show at all that English is not your native language.