1E vs Forked Thread: Is 4E doing it for you?

[JeffB]

I still have a set of AD&D hardbacks, as well as most of the B/X materials from my youth. There is a charm about those systems- The enthusiasm. Gary's writing style. The adventure locations/story vs. laboring over mechanics. when people reminisce about those old versions they are not talking about system shock rolls, or percentile strength, or rolling 1d6 to find a secret door. It always revolves around the stories-the adventures- the modules-the locations. Exploration and discovery. The Villains. With the advent of heavier and heavier rules in D&D over the years , much of the spirit of the game has been neglected, IMO. Is ee/hear far more banter about optimization and builds, and other crunchy stuff than I do about the adventure- a different mindset these days I guess.

That said, I don't think I could run AD&D again- Playing it would depend on having a really good DM. B/X is tons of fun and I'd be OK running or playing it, but would likely miss alot of the flexibility of the newer systems. I keep these books for massive inspiration- they remind of the kinds of D&D adventures I like to run/play.

4E does have some different fundamentals than previous versions, but it does remind me alot of the old B/X game- there is an emphasis (when considering the whole-not just the mechanics) on the adventure/story element and as a bonus some nice flavor built into the mechanics (that is easily changed as well). It strikes me as a nice middle ground between the adventure/story emphasis/lack of flexibility (mechanics-wise) of B/X and the game within the game/crunch emphasis of 3.x.

C&C is also a great middle ground and is extremely cool because you can pull from those old games with very little work, or from 3E with just a bit more effort.


YMMV, etc.

 

[Filcher]

I find this line of critique frustrating. Back in the day we really enjoyed ourselves making to hit rolls against THACO for hours on end. Mechanically, that was it. It doesn't follow, in my mind, how 4E mechanics (which offer more variety than 1E) can be demonized as boring.

Chalk me up with the group that says games are as boring or exciting as the players allow them to be, regardless of mechanics.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Um. . . 1E/2E= Plays?

Musicals.

If you're a thief, you're a thief all the way, from your first lock pick, 'til your last hit point drained away.

 

[Simon Atavax]

when people reminisce about those old versions they are not talking about system shock rolls, or percentile strength, or rolling 1d6 to find a secret door. It always revolves around the stories-the adventures- the modules-the locations. Exploration and discovery. The Villains. With the advent of heavier and heavier rules in D&D over the years , much of the spirit of the game has been neglected, IMO.

This statement illustrates a profound truth (IMHO) about the older systems. In AD&D 1e/2e (and also B/X, etc.) our goal was to complete the adventure. In 3e and 4e the goal is to build a powerful character.

Different strokes, and all that, but that's the big difference that I've observed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This statement illustrates a profound truth (IMHO) about the older systems. In AD&D 1e/2e (and also B/X, etc.) our goal was to complete the adventure. In 3e and 4e the goal is to build a powerful character.

Different strokes, and all that, but that's the big difference that I've observed.

Yeah. I can't see where 4E has lost any complexity, its just shifted to different areas. Push, pull, slide, mark, remember to give X a +2 bonus to Y before the next turn. Now roll separate attack rolls for every balloon monster in that blast..................
...................
...................
.................. ok done.
Why oh why is all this fiddly stuff required to bash down a door and kill some orcs?
I enjoy combat encounters as much as anyone else but this stuff combined with far too many hit points keeps them grinding on for too much game time for my tastes.

 

[Greg K]

This statement illustrates a profound truth (IMHO) about the older systems. In AD&D 1e/2e (and also B/X, etc.) our goal was to complete the adventure. In 3e and 4e the goal is to build a powerful character..

Speak for yourself. I don't consider the goal to build a powerful characters and run the game much the same as I did in previous editions. I also discourage/disallow trying to build characters several levels in advance. I play/run 3e, because
- I prefer the streamlined core mechanics, unified abiity score progression etc.
- The mechanics, imo, allow for better mechanical representation of characters in play than did previous editions.


Of course, this doesn't mean that I don't miss some things from previous editions.

 

[catsclaw227]

This statement illustrates a profound truth (IMHO) about the older systems. In AD&D 1e/2e (and also B/X, etc.) our goal was to complete the adventure. In 3e and 4e the goal is to build a powerful character.

This is a great observation and one of the things I grew tired of in 3.x. I am starting to see, from my experience, that 4e is getting back to the stories even though there is still a strong tactical skirmish subsystem.

Maybe I am a storyteller and not a tactician or powergamer, but I always valued the adventure and the cool stories over the "how can I make my guy more powerful within the rules".

I've had quite a few pre 3.x campaigns where the most "powerful" character was the one with the least combat capabilities.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Heh, that does it. My ideal D&D movie (briefly mused upon in some thread one time) has now been. . . upgraded (?) to a musical. It would still be totally chock full of 1e-era archaic oddities, unrelenting old-school weirdness, the whole gig. . . now bursting into disturbing song at any given moment!

Regarding 'profound truths' about 3e and 4e vs. earlier editions. . . *snort*, whatever. Neither term applies, IME. Power gaming is all about players, and nothing about system whatsoever. Simple as that.

 

[JeffB]

Yeah. I can't see where 4E has lost any complexity, its just shifted to different areas. Push, pull, slide, mark, remember to give X a +2 bonus to Y before the next turn. Now roll separate attack rolls for every balloon monster in that blast..................
...................
...................
.................. ok done.
Why oh why is all this fiddly stuff required to bash down a door and kill some orcs?
I enjoy combat encounters as much as anyone else but this stuff combined with far too many hit points keeps them grinding on for too much game time for my tastes.

I don't know If I would agree about 4E having the same complexity as 3.x and is just shifted elsewhere, but I do agree the combat system could be lighter (for my tastes) I don't like the near necessity for a grid and markers, (though to be honest, for the first time in my life I'm trying to embrace them and give it a fair shake)

However, the crux of the problem is the old "I hit...I miss...I hit...for 7 points.." combat of previous editions gets really lame. Certainly I've gamed with some folks who had a great talent for narrative and made it pretty fun, however those people are rare exceptions IME. I also feel that being consistently narrative (and consistently GOOD at it) during combat is something that is really hard to learn for many people- and is also really hard to get other people around the table to do. 4E kinda provides some narrative for you in the way the system mechanics work ("I use Divine Challenge to mark the kobold and say- You best face me and me alone you filthy yapping dog or your death will be more painful than need be" ). It encourages narrative in this way- at least it does so for me.

That said, I would not be sad if some of the more fiddly tactical elements went to the wayside.

 

[Greg K]

Maybe I am a storyteller and not a tactician or powergamer, but I always valued the adventure and the cool stories over the "how can I make my guy more powerful within the rules".

I've had quite a few pre 3.x campaigns where the most "powerful" character was the one with the least combat capabilities.

If you are DMing, you can control that:

a) Broken Core rules/Combinations: House rule the core rules and/or say no to broken combos. If CODzilla is a problem, you place limits. Maybe, specific cleric spells are only avaialble to specific domains. If Natural Spell is a problem, alter it or don't use it. If the druid's companion is a problem, limit the types of creatures that are available.

b) Controlling broken builds or the preplanned build mentality:

Control the options that you allow. If you don't want templated or monster PCs disallow them.

Liimit certain classes, feats and/or spells to specific cultures

If the issue involves multiclassing, PrCs, or players focusing on preplanned builds use the optional training rules and trainer requirement from the DMG. WIthout a trainer and time, characters cannot multiclass. This means that characters need to learnof/find, secure, and have time to spend with a trainer to multiclass or take a PrC. Suddenly, the guy with the preplanned build is out of luck if he or she is in the wrong area of the world when he levels.

c) Broken or inappropraite supplemental material: Control what supplemental material is used. There is nothing wrong with disallowing a book or allowing only select items that you feel are appropriate.