D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

SenseiMike, it appears to me as if you should have been 3 months ago or so. All the points you have made have already been made, all the critic you level has already been leveled. At least twice. I am not sure I am in to go over it again, though I suppose there will be others happy to do so.

 

[SenseiMike]

Hmm. I don't agree with that. I seem to remember Gygax writing about Monty Haul and Killer DMs in the AD&D DMG.

Certainly, the idea of "the DM must make sure the party is balanced" is one thing that in earlier editions that was placed squarely on the shoulders of the players; I think it's even in the advice for players in the AD&D PHB. However, conversely, DMs were enjoined not to make the game too hard or too easy lest their players desert them.

One thing I remember specifically about the previous editions of D&D was that you let the Players make the characters they want, regardless of party balance. Gygax wrote that too. I'm not at all suggesting to make a game blatantly too hard or even too easy, but to use good sense as opposed to what James Wyatt wants you to do.

Why would a villain NPC tailor and deploy his monsters just on the basis of what the PCs had in the party? If the PCs make too much racket why not swarm them with a huge mob and kill them all? Why not put the a trap out there to guard a very precious treasure or magic item that, if tripped by a PC's fumbling finger kills him instantly, or, at least, turns him into stone? At least if he's stone he can be restored (if he's not too damaged).

But, whatever. This has been interesting, but I don't really care. My players and I sold our 4E books on eBay and we're not going back. My own players had some condescending remarks about 4E, but I don't think they're appropriate here.

 

[MerricB]

One thing I remember specifically about the previous editions of D&D was that you let the Players make the characters they want, regardless of party balance. Gygax wrote that too.

Can you provide a reference for that? I'm just curious to look it up.

Interestingly, Gygax provided suggested party compositions for the Giant/Drow series, and there's similar in White Plume Mountain.

Cheers!

 

[SenseiMike]

SenseiMike, it appears to me as if you should have been 3 months ago or so. All the points you have made have already been made, all the critic you level has already been leveled. At least twice. I am not sure I am in to go over it again, though I suppose there will be others happy to do so.

Frankly, it's never enough. This thread is about if 4E does it for me, and I outlined why it doesn't, helping to defend the OP against the horde of irrational 4E fans who seem to want to pass over our points as though they're trivial, and resort to hyperbole and sarcasm as though that ends the debate. I have to deal with this sort of thing every time I visit with my local GM Club and some of them want me to run a 4E game again, which I won't. I've heard every argument for 4E and the premise of it, but they don't wash.

If you think 4E is great, fine. I disagree completely, and I won't play it or run it or support it anymore with material to Dungeon, nor will my colleagues. Maybe, in five or ten years when they come out with 5E, they'll fix it to where it's a role-playing game again. But until then...

 

[SenseiMike]

Can you provide a reference for that? I'm just curious to look it up.

Interestingly, Gygax provided suggested party compositions for the Giant/Drow series, and there's similar in White Plume Mountain.

Cheers!

Show me in previous edition books where it specifically said you need to have a balanced party. You won't find it anywhere. It might recommend the Cleric in a party, but I remember a passage that stated that you shouldn't try to shoehorn a player into playing something he doesn't want to play. Yes, I do remember Gygax and others saying in published adventures that they want a balanced mix of characters running through this. My guys and I ran through White Plume Mountain without a Thief, and we finished it. Yes, the traps were hell, but we finished it.

One aspect of the First and Second Editions of the game that I rather liked was the way the game said to roll up characters that offered another challenge; playing with what you got. Note that these games never told you there had to be competent characters meted out for their specific roles, or otherwise they would've dispensed with the rolling method altogether as the 4E PHB has done. This implied that, if you simply played with the stats the dice gave you, you were bound to potentially be lacking in a role; which is where the books of those editions had basically made the case that party balance was not so pressing. Maybe none of the players had rolled a high enough Dexterity to be a Thief. The challenge, then, was how do we overcome this inability?

I realize few people even in those days played the game like this, but I sure did, and I loved that sort of challenge. And it's when you can overcome such things like that that exercises your mind, enabling you to go through very challenging adventures like White Plume without a Thief. In fact, we went through Castle Ravenloft the first time without a Mage; it was very hard, but we did it.

 

[Obryn]

Show me in previous edition books where it specifically said you need to have a balanced party. You won't find it anywhere. It might recommend the Cleric in a party, but I remember a passage that stated that you shouldn't try to shoehorn a player into playing something he doesn't want to play. Yes, I do remember Gygax and others saying in published adventures that they want a balanced mix of characters running through this. My guys and I ran through White Plume Mountain without a Thief, and we finished it. Yes, the traps were hell, but we finished it.

I um... don't see this anywhere. You don't have to have a balanced party. There's a big section on what to expect if the party isn't balanced in the DMG.

....otherwise they would've dispensed with the rolling method altogether as the 4E PHB has done.

Rolling scores is on page 18 of the 4e PHB.

-O

 

[jensun]

One thing I remember specifically about the previous editions of D&D was that you let the Players make the characters they want, regardless of party balance.

Yeah, randomly rolled stats combined with pretty stringent stat pre requisities for a number of classes certainly lets the players make the characters they want to play...

*rolleyes*

 

[That One Guy]

Show me in previous edition books where it specifically said you need to have a balanced party. You won't find it anywhere. It might recommend the Cleric in a party, but I remember a passage that stated that you shouldn't try to shoehorn a player into playing something he doesn't want to play. Yes, I do remember Gygax and others saying in published adventures that they want a balanced mix of characters running through this. My guys and I ran through White Plume Mountain without a Thief, and we finished it. Yes, the traps were hell, but we finished it.

One aspect of the First and Second Editions of the game that I rather liked was the way the game said to roll up characters that offered another challenge; playing with what you got. Note that these games never told you there had to be competent characters meted out for their specific roles, or otherwise they would've dispensed with the rolling method altogether as the 4E PHB has done. This implied that, if you simply played with the stats the dice gave you, you were bound to potentially be lacking in a role; which is where the books of those editions had basically made the case that party balance was not so pressing. Maybe none of the players had rolled a high enough Dexterity to be a Thief. The challenge, then, was how do we overcome this inability?

I realize few people even in those days played the game like this, but I sure did, and I loved that sort of challenge. And it's when you can overcome such things like that that exercises your mind, enabling you to go through very challenging adventures like White Plume without a Thief. In fact, we went through Castle Ravenloft the first time without a Mage; it was very hard, but we did it.

Wouldn't rolling a totally random character prevent a person from playing what they want to play? I know that what I just said may sound like snark, but I am genuinely curious.

Butuhh... I'm sorry your experience w/ 4e was a bad one.

[Relative Anecdote] I wanted to play a Tempest Fighter in 4e. TWF Fighter whose bare bones rules are online. When I told a DM (and a friend later) about the idea, they were like, "Why don't you just play a ranger and call it a fighter?" This was so incredibly frustrating because mechanically, that was nothing like what I wanted to play.[/Relative Anecdote]

Thing is to me, flavour and descriptions are much easier to alter than mechanics (not that I can't houserule the heck outta' things, but...). I think for 4e, it has a modularity that one can make something to cover their idea(s) until WotC releases official mechanics for it. It just involves houserules, same as any edition.

Good luck w/ the dice rolling!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Re: taking whatever you roll, no choice of class, and all that stuff. . .

The premise of the game is that each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics. Each ability score is determined by random number generation. The referee has several methods of how this random number generation should be accomplished suggested to him or her in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE. The Dungeon Master will inform you as to which method you may use to determine your character's abilities.

. . .

As ADBD is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:

Method I: All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.

Method II: All scores are recorded and arranged as in Method I. 3d6 are rolled 12 times and the highest 6 scores are retained.

Method III: Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order, STRENGTH, INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, DEXTERITY, CONSTITUTION, CHARISMA. 3d6 are rolled 6 times for each ability, and the highest score in each category is retoined for that category.

Method IV: 3d6 are rolled sufficient times to generate the 6 ability scores, in order, for 12 characters, The player then selects the single set of scores which he or she finds most desirable and these scores are noted on the character record sheet.

Just to clear some things up a bit. . .

I don't have 2e core books on hand, but I suspect they'd be similar in this regard.

 

[rounser]

It's love. It's just tough love.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not "tough love", and that's what's been done here...if you really want to pursue a parenting analogy.