D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game

[Vocenoctum]

But how did you get from core D&D classes (over several editions) to Iconics?

I'm not even sure we're having the same conversation.

It was said that he didn't try to move characters forward, but instead just built 4e characters. I said I found it amusing that you can't even build a lot of the old iconic characters. I find this a sign that 4e offers less options. Otherwise, you're assigning parameters that I'm not aware of.

"Before, you could make these (iconics), now you can't."

Sure? Think about how much space the PHB "I" has devoted for each class. Devoting even more space would have increased either the price, or meant that other parts are restricted. I think the current way is to our benefit. We get the classes (hopefully) in high quality. If I buy the second PHB, I am guaranteed to get something useful, and probably even more then from most supplments so far (though the PHB II for 3E was really good and useful - way better then most 3.5 Completes or 3.0 Splatbooks).

I know some folks like it, but I generally found the PHB to have too large of a typeface, too much white space, huge artwork that frankly I find unappealing in most cases and, of course, a format to the powers that generally bulks them up in significant ways. Add on the thinning of the DMG by moving stuff to the PHB...

Besides, they added stuff. They didn't cut the gnome/halforc for space, they cut them to add tiefling/ dragonborn/ eladrin. The classes take up a lot more room now, so did we need the Warlord? I'd have prefered a shapechange system.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Really they chose when to release 4e and when to start development on it...and if, as a company, they chose a timeframe that doesn't allow them to make a better (or even comparable) product (not claiming one or the other is "better")than the last one you released, that's the companies fault...not the consumers for comparing them. This is just ridiculous in premise.

I believe there were external pressures to change. The "dread" of "4e is coming!" was replaced with "I wish 4e was here already". Folks like GR were getting good mileage out of the constant threat of a new edition.

The fact that 4e as released has some noticeable differences from 4e As Proposed early on bares their level of prep, I think.

 

[phloog]

I'm with a lot of the other posters above in terms of comparing versions.

WOTC put 4th edition forward as the replacement for 3.5...and in fact took actions that were openly hostile toward it and those who supported it (the GSL). They put it forward as the replacement and are saying it's an improvement.

You can't really compare it to anything but the full breadth of 3.5, not just the core. Can they come out with new material and make it even better? Absolutely...but don't come to me offering $100+ in new books that are completely incompatible with my old books, my old characters, and my own campaign, and then say "and it will be just as good or even better than your current rule set...once we've had enough time to put out a bunch more material".

If it ain't better RIGHT NOW, then why switch?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If it ain't better RIGHT NOW, then why switch?

Well, "better" is obviously a subjective thing here - because 4E is better for me. I don't need Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Monk or Sorcerer from the start. I need a game that's fast to play, and doesn't bog me down with complex mathematical interactions between spell effects and magical items or monster creation, manageable mechanics and a clear class balance and role distribution. That are my priorities, and 4E comes out better here on all accounts.

But other people have other priorities. For them, 4E might not be that good in its release state and might only get interesting if more options are added.

I'm not even sure we're having the same conversation.

I agree - I was talking about playing the standard D&D classes - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue/Thief, Wizard. I assumed "Iconic" meant the iconic characters from 3E (which obviously covered all 3E classes, and not all of them exist yet in 4E). Translating any character that falls into the 4 traditional core classes is possible, translating the 3E iconic characters is not.

I am not sure if this really relates about what you were talking, but I initially assumed so since you quoted me.

 

[Etheric]

I need a game that's fast to play, and doesn't bog me down with complex mathematical interactions between spell effects and magical items or monster creation, manageable mechanics and a clear class balance and role distribution.

I think the last point is key between the like and disklike of 4E. Clear class balance and role distribution is not something that was necessarily in 3E. I agree it is in 4E, and if that is what you really want then 4E is clearly for you.

There is a tradeoff between flexability and balance. The more flexable you make the system the harder it is to balance. It is clear that balance was one of the most important goals of 4E, this had some clear penalties in terms of flexability.

To go back to computer games in particular MMORPGs clear class balance and role distribution is a primary design goal for them too. In 3E there was a big emphasis on flexability. That gave some real balance problems. In 4E (and MMORPGs) there is a huge emphasis on balance, which gives some flexability problems. Given that one of the primary design goals has changed to be the same as MMORPGs it is not suprising it feels more like a computer game to some people.

Rigid balance between the classes is not that important to some people (you are on the same team after all), and the extra flexability of modelling things on a "real world" basis, even if it does not completely balance appeals to me in particular. In the powers section there are too many things that feel arbatry. The powers have benefits and restrictions based on balance rather than beleivable reality. Great if you can stretch your imagination far enough to suspend disbeleif, but you have to admit it is harder than for previous versions. It just comes across as more of a game rather than a set of rules for simulating a fantasy world.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the last point is key between the like and disklike of 4E. Clear class balance and role distribution is not something that was necessarily in 3E. I agree it is in 4E, and if that is what you really want then 4E is clearly for you.

There is a trade off between flexibility and balance. The more flexible you make the system the harder it is to balance. It is clear that balance was one of the most important goals of 4E, this had some clear penalties in terms of flexibility.

Exactly. It all depends on preferences and priorities.

To go back to computer games in particular MMORPGs clear class balance and role distribution is a primary design goal for them too. In 3E there was a big emphasis on flexibility. That gave some real balance problems. In 4E (and MMORPGs) there is a huge emphasis on balance, which gives some flexibility problems. Given that one of the primary design goals has changed to be the same as MMORPGs it is not surprising it feels more like a computer game to some people.

Rigid balance between the classes is not that important to some people (you are on the same team after all),

We're all in the same team, so it's not about who is bigger or more badass. But I want to feel as a valuable member of the team, not as a sidekick the team could go without. Nor do I want others to give the feeling they are nothing more. That's why I hate team sports. I am bad at sports, and I am in any team, I will at worst drag them down, and at best be useless.
A good RPG can avoid this problem.

and the extra flexibility of modeling things on a "real world" basis, even if it does not completely balance appeals to me in particular. In the powers section there are too many things that feel arbitrary. The powers have benefits and restrictions based on balance rather than believable reality. Great if you can stretch your imagination far enough to suspend disbelief, but you have to admit it is harder than for previous versions. It just comes across as more of a game rather than a set of rules for simulating a fantasy world.

The first time my disbelief suspenders got into trouble with D&D was when I was faced with the hit point system. Today, I appreciate the system (and I think the D&D model is an improvement in many regards) because it facilitates a certain, enjoyable gameplay. And the same works for (martial) powers with me. (non-martial powers are hardly a problem - magic can work any way it wants, see Vancian magic . One you have accepted magic, your suspension of disbelief can handle every magic system. Mana Points, Drain, Spell Slots, doesn't matter.)

 

[Ginnel]

I would like to add I am enjoying this thread immensely, now we've gotten past most of the sniping from both sides as it were, we're agreeing comparing and contrasting

It fills me with reasonable discussion joy.

 

[STARP_Social_Officer]

I think I've finally sussed out what was bothering me.
Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is NOT an update of Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.
It is a completely new game.
The rules, world, systems - everything, have been completely rebuilt from the ground-up. So much so, that what they have ended up with bears as much resemblance to what we used to call D&D as I do to Brad Pitt.

So any criticism of the game needs to be looked at in that light. Comparing it to 3rd Edition is fine, but it's like comparing apples and uranium.

I'm not so much a fan of the new game. I preferred the old one. I think it made for a better experience, though I am the first to admit I haven't played the new one much at all. As a game, on its own, I'm sure it's fine, but it's not Dungeons and Dragons.

Well, it is, because that's what its called. I think if they'd called it something else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Steely Dan]

4th Edition is NOT an update of Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.
It is a completely new game.

I'm sure it's fine, but it's not Dungeons and Dragons.

In your skewed opinion, maybe. I wish people would stop filling the boards with this kind of biased opinion; it's becoming an embarrassing, tired cliché.

You still roll a d20 to smack someone, and you choose a race, class, you have AC etc, so I wouldn't say it’s a completely different game.

It's just another stage in the evolution. I've always found past editions of D&D to be a bit staid, I like what's going on.

So yeah, just because you don't like the current edition, please stop lying to the boards and spreading this "it’s not D&D" rubbish – we're all sick of it.

Sorry, for having a bit of a spaz, people, but this is getting really old.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think I've finally sussed out what was bothering me.
Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is NOT an update of Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.
It is a completely new game.
The rules, world, systems - everything, have been completely rebuilt from the ground-up. So much so, that what they have ended up with bears as much resemblance to what we used to call D&D as I do to Brad Pitt.

I think that's ultimately why it works for me so well. I wouldn't have liked a mere "3.75". 3.5 was bad enough (even though it _did_ improve a lot of things). 4E is a new game, and getting into a new game just feels better to me then a mere revision. (Of course, I don't like all new games, but in this case, it works.)

So any criticism of the game needs to be looked at in that light. Comparing it to 3rd Edition is fine, but it's like comparing apples and uranium.

I'm not so much a fan of the new game. I preferred the old one. I think it made for a better experience, though I am the first to admit I haven't played the new one much at all. As a game, on its own, I'm sure it's fine, but it's not Dungeons and Dragons.

Well, that's always a subjective thing. From all I hear about the editions before 3rd, I don't feel like there is "One True D&D" (well, except maybe OD&D - but the predecessors are not "pale imitations" ), but there might very well be "My True D&D". I personally don't have a "True D&D", i just have systems I like and systems I don't like (and the continuum in between).

Well, it is, because that's what its called. I think if they'd called it something else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My fear is that we wouldn't, indeed. The game would be, while interesting and well-designed, be ignored by the majority since your game has to be called D&D to gain a general awareness.