Forked Thread: Did 4e go far enough or to far?

[Mallus]

There are people who continually deride, bash and vilify D&D and the sort of game it was originally intended to be (exploration of sprawling underworlds, strategic management of resources and hirelings for perilous treks, etc.).

Korgoth, there are also people like me who like D&D, play it almost exclusively, but haven't played in the style you describe in almost 20 years.

They have many times pronounced such gaming dead, have celebrated those pronouncements and belittled those who enjoy such play.

Or they just play the game differently. Like me.

Then there are those who enjoy traditional D&D style play (as above, a game of exploration and strategy).

I've always been hesitant to describe D&D as a strategic game, since the "winning strategies" were dependent on the whoever was DM was. D&D is as only as strategic as the person refereeing (an exaggeration, but true enough).

These people's interests in fantasy were formed more by Tolkien and Howard and less by Naruto and FF7 (note: I thought FF7 was a fun game).

And there are gamers informed by both Tolkien and JRPG's/anime. And let's not forget that even the earliest D&D editions featured a promiscuous set of influences.

So I think you're looking at a deeply divided fanbase for several reasons.

I think the Internet grossly magnifies whatever divisions actually exist.

 

[Irda Ranger]

This post by WayneLigon got me wondering what everyone thinks about if 4e went far enough or not. What changes were to much? What changes should happen that didn't? How far could WOTC realistically have gone and still remain D&D?

My "problem" with 4E is clearly not WayneLion's problem, because I like D&D. I'd like to tweak it around the edges, but not reinvent it. Why bother calling it D&D at that point?

I think 4E went too far towards making it a skirmish boardgame. But I really dig rituals vs. spells and think the class/role/power source concepts were clearly thought out and well designed. I think they didn't go far enough with the Skill Challenge mechanics.

 

[Delta]

If the premise, as Wayne originally said, is "The biggest problem with D&D is that it's D&D," then I would say that they went *too far* in the direction of that premise, making D&D a different game than it used to be.

 

[Delta]

Instead of a long list of powers for every class, should have pushed the power design even more, into something akin to a power-building concept, with rules. In effect, do a Hero or GURPS lite version of powers, with examples. This would have been a very clever compromise between people who enjoy the class/level part of D&D but want more flexibility--keep the classes, levels, and stuff attached to them--but make a separate system for the powers.

I present this argument: The reason why some people enjoy the class/level part of D&D is because it marries distinct flavor/roles to distinctive playing mechanics. That is, different classes play differently (in mechanics) in a way supports the flavor. The wizard player is literally flipping through pages in a big book to find his spells, etc.

Genericizing powers ("re-skinning") would not be a compromise that made class-proponents happy, just the opposite. Different flavor should have different mechanics (IMO). YMMV.

 

[Greg K]

4e has some stuff that I really like- removing most non-biological elements and making them feats, more hit points, heroic tier multiclassing, removing the Great Wheel for the Feywild and Shadowfell. However, imo, the designers went way to far in most areas and not far enough in a few others

Where I think that they went to far
- parsing core materilal to later books
- overly focused on combat abilities
- ability check bonus based on level
- removal of skill ranks
- over consolidation of skills
- removal of skills like craft
- daily magic item rules
- healing/magical healing rules: Too many healing surges, imo. The tying of magic healing to healing surges. Over night healing
- TOB powers
- Per encounter martial exploits. Actually, the whole per encounter thing
- divine challenge and "Come and get it": Weren't we told by Mearls that the designers learned that a power like the Knight's Challenge was a bad thing? So, why how does making an opponent take damage if they ignore it or forcing creatures to come make the idea any better?
- Conditions that are not apparently what they say they are. I have seen people arguing that unconcious is not really unconcious.
- Rituals: Cool idea, but I think that they went too far as to what should be a ritual
- residuum
- Monster Magic Threshold: Not allowing opponents to utilize the full benefit of their bonus items is, imo, lame. YMMV
- The economy

Not far enough
- Class armor and weapon proficiency: I would rather the designers had not assigned specific armor and weapons proficiencies to the classes. Players should have been given x number of bonus feats/abilities to select from a list of armor feats, weapon proficiency feats and class specific feats to better reflect the character that they envision.
- Negative Hit Points: They should have discarded these rather than expanded them.
- TOB powers: If we are supposed to reskin powers by changing the fluff, than just give a generic power list and let the players choose the name and a a system to build new powers (although, I personally would have preferred a Book of Iron Might approach that gives a more freeform/on the fly approach to martial maneuvers)
- TOB powers: lack of rechaging in combat per encounter abilities
- Action points: Imo, I would have gone a more M&M hero point approach for action points by allowing re-rolls, and other effects including tying non-magiclal Healing Surges to spending Action Points and allowing a roll of 10 or less to add 10 (making the re-roll minimum 11) . I would have like to have seen the spending of an action point to reroll and keep the higher from the start rather than being paragon level.

 

[Wormwood]

4e didn't go far enough . . . because while it is *astronomically* more fun for me than 3e ever was, it's still not Spirit of the Century.

/HHOS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd have to disagree with your #2 from the designers standpoint. One of the major design goals of 4E was to make it more of a class-based system than 3E was. It was a design decision not to cater to the people who prefer a more class-free method of character creation.

From the replies thus far, I may not have been clear. What I am advocating would not be radically different, in play experience, from the 4E we have:

1. Classes, class abilities--all that stuff--keep it firmly in the traditional D&D camp of levels. Or make it even more firm than it is now.

2. Inside the powers design, acknowledge more fully that they are built on a mathematical model and reskinned, and take this to its obvious conclusion: The list of powers could be built from a component subsystem.

Couple that with an expanded ritual system, and you don't even need multiclassing. You either reskin your power to do what you want, or you step (partially) outside the class/power framework to get the skills, feats, or rituals that you need for the concept.

I say "partially", because with a stronger focus on the class part, it would be fine to make certain skills, feats, expanded rituals, and yes, powers, more promising for certain classes.

I understand Delta's argument, but note that he is making a different assertion than mine, rather than directly countering my point. He is saying, "D&D players want class-based design". Which I largely concede, but not to the same degree. What I am saying is, "When you do classes, do classes fully. When you get away from class-based design, do that fully as well."

I can't recall, off-hand, a game system that has pursued such a hybrid strategy: "In this limited box, you are free to mix and match components all you want."

Another way to summarize, in regards to the OP, is that the conceptual "silos" in 4E are clear cut and useful, but they didn't push those silos to their obvious conclusions.

 

[Imaro]

I present this argument: The reason why some people enjoy the class/level part of D&D is because it marries distinct flavor/roles to distinctive playing mechanics. That is, different classes play differently (in mechanics) in a way supports the flavor. The wizard player is literally flipping through pages in a big book to find his spells, etc.

Genericizing powers ("re-skinning") would not be a compromise that made class-proponents happy, just the opposite. Different flavor should have different mechanics (IMO). YMMV.

I just wanted to say, that I want to think about this some more before I comment...but it's a very good point, regardless of whether I agree or not.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

After playing 4E twice a week(sometimes more) since the middle of may(Keep on the Shadowfell), I can say that the various classes all play vastly different from each other. I have played every class except Cleric and Artificer, and have played a Druid from Ari's Advanced Player's Handbook. Through various games, I have seen every class repeatedly in action. When you get into actual gameplay, they are all vastly different.

 

[Imaro]

After playing 4E twice a week(sometimes more) since the middle of may(Keep on the Shadowfell), I can say that the various classes all play vastly different from each other. I have played every class except Cleric and Artificer, and have played a Druid from Ari's Advanced Player's Handbook. Through various games, I have seen every class repeatedly in action. When you get into actual gameplay, they are all vastly different.

Yes, but (perhaps with the exception of how the different marks work) aren't the mechanics for each class the same? I mean did you need to learn any different mechanics to play any of those classes?