D&D 4E I'm here 4e and left wondering....

[Goken100]

I recently saw an analysis of D&D past editions, and the poster pointed out that the major alternatives to D&D 1st and 2nd edition were tailored for experienced gamers who wanted something that felt more "realistic". Thus GURPS, Rolemaster, and their ilk. Many of those folks came back to D&D with 3rd edition, because of the attempt to create that missing simulationist feel with skills and versatile multi-classing.

4E has instead created a game that concentrates on fun, balance, and modeling heroes as opposed to modeling everyone in the world with PC (and NPC) classes. Because this isn't to the taste of hardcore simulators, there is once again a market for alternatives, and Pathfinder (as the latest incarnation of d20) has filled that void.

To me 4E is a no-brainer because I want to play with non-hardcore folks like my wife, but some groups don't have that priority.

 

[renau1g]

I find 4e has a lot to offer hardcore players too. The character builder will let someone tweak and manage their character without grabbing two dozen or so hardcovers + a few years worth of dragon to find the perfect options.

The tactical-focused battles can be very, very challenging if both the players and DM find that interesting.

 

[someguyfromohio]

To me 4E is a no-brainer because I want to play with non-hardcore folks like my wife, but some groups don't have that priority.

This is an astute observation. The more I read the PH, the more it feels a bit like a video game designed for quick and easy play. Don’t take this as a criticism. I don’t want to start a flame war, I am just fielding all of the various outlooks that you have shared on this shiny new (to me)toy.

 

[jimmifett]

This is an astute observation. The more I read the PH, the more it feels a bit like a video game designed for quick and easy play. Don’t take this as a criticism. I don’t want to start a flame war, I am just fielding all of the various outlooks that you have shared on this shiny new (to me)toy.

Warning, long rant about video games and pen and paper:

Since several editions have been made into various video games, from Gold Box to NWN2, I don't see a problem with a "video game" feel. Or perhaps it's a case of video games maturing to a closer level of pnp-ness that we've blurred the lines of distinction. I can think of many dnd based/licensed video games over the years that, while quite fun, were very little like an actual pnp game.

We must also consider that video games are quite limited in what they can handle in representing human immaginiation by the rules set forth by the developer of the game. Video games need to have carefully crafted and defined rule systems in order to work, and a lot of thought and testing goes into those rules systems. Sure, they can also have their rules abused, but thats the framework setup as best as could be represented, and is sometimes patched.

As a programmer, I can tell you that 4e may have a video game feel on the surface, but it's damned hard to model. It does have a rather solid, imho, rule structure for combat that has gotten a few tweaks, is super easy to DM for, and really fun to play.

My groups and I like to do more than just powers and often roleplay out what is referred to as cinematic stunts. The DMG has a framework for those, with guidelines for damage if any. The DM (often myself) employs the "If you can make it sound awesome, you can do it" rule. DM gauges a difficulty, determines attribute or skill check (or includes into an existing power), tosses around some bonuses modified by roleplaying of the action, and let the dice fly. All perfectly fine by 4e combat.

-Jim

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is an astute observation. The more I read the PH, the more it feels a bit like a video game designed for quick and easy play. Don’t take this as a criticism. I don’t want to start a flame war, I am just fielding all of the various outlooks that you have shared on this shiny new (to me)toy.

Yeah, sort of. There is a bit of a gamy feel to the way its presented at times and they really tried hard to nail down effects of powers and such so they have specific defined effects. OTOH there is a much greater emphasis on narrative flexibility and creating a cinematic feel. One might say older editions were aiming at a modestly simulationist game that tried to give you rules for the way the fantasy world works. 4e is a toolbox for simulating action movies instead. It eschews all pretense that the world works in an internally consistent way and gives you a good game experience.

The authors explicitly expect the players to make up their own interpretation of how the mechanical actions are explained in terms of the game world. So for instance each power has a line of 'fluff' that you CAN use to describe it, but the fluff doesn't explain how the effect works or imply anything. Now and then the players may find themselves wondering how to describe a mechanical effect in a given situation, but given that its a magical world there's always SOME way to do it. For instance you can knock an ooze prone with a power. Obviously it can't fall on its back, but you can always describe it as being hit in a vital spot or something and so 'prone' in that context can mechanically represent "the ooze is hurting and has to get its act together". 95% of the time you can just take the default fluff and go with it though.

 

[Scribble]

I wonder if war gamers back in the day got upset about new wargames feeling "Too RPGish?"

Yeah, sort of. There is a bit of a gamy feel to the way its presented at times and they really tried hard to nail down effects of powers and such so they have specific defined effects. OTOH there is a much greater emphasis on narrative flexibility and creating a cinematic feel. One might say older editions were aiming at a modestly simulationist game that tried to give you rules for the way the fantasy world works. 4e is a toolbox for simulating action movies instead. It eschews all pretense that the world works in an internally consistent way and gives you a good game experience.

In my opinion this was a relatively new change as I think someone else pointed out. To me there was a definite change in how the rules were built in the later part of 2e and throughout 3e. The whole "simulationist" thing.

4e seems to be swinging the pendulum back (for some too far) in the other direction... Which is fine for me, as games that get obsessively simmulationist make me cringe.

 

[WhatGravitas]

You can snag the intro module - Keep on the Shadowfell - for free from WotC's D&D web site. Give it a shot!

Eh, I wish there was a better "intro" module for 4E. I like 4E a lot... but KotS can be very, very grindy and drags a bit. It's a good showcase for the pure mechanics, but for the general way 4E plays... not so much. For my group, KotS was like this:

1st half: Cool, it's fun!
2nd half: Hooooow many goblins?

It left us unimpressed - only with more interesting adventures, 4E clicked for us.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Journeymanmage]

Was not my intention to start an "editions war", but I would like to make a few comments.
In response to Iron Sky's comment and the OP: Yes, in many ways it is better.
a. It's more balanced, across classes, across roles. And keeps that balance from Heroic to Paragon. (No direct experience with Epic so no opinion).
b. A few bad rolls are significantly less likely to cause issues for the player/party. Low level casters don't die in 1 or 2 hits [1st level wizard (d4 hp) vs kobold spear (d6-1)]
c. There are a lot of good instructs/guiding info to what creatures to use, how to use them, how to make things more challenging without completely mauling players.
d. I think the game is more ... solid on may levels and more balanced, especially for newer players.
e. ** Healing ** now someone in the group, usually one of the last people to join, doesn't feel obligated to play the near obligatory Cleric who's job it is to spend every round casting a healing spell. Or the DM doesn't need to add a NPC healer.

To Samir and in part the OP:
I've read this forum for several years, been a member for over 2 years. I've haven't posted (or don't recall posting) my opinion about 4th ed. before now. I have a science/tech background, I want more than 1 set of data points before I give an opinion. Unlike many people, I decided NOT to do the "OMG WTF BBQ" type of posts people saw during the first 6 months. I've done the "wait and see how it plays out" and listened to other players experiences. I'm happy to see many people like the game.

To the OP:
- 4th Ed. seems to be a well thought out game.
- As above: It's balanced.
- A lot of grey areas have been cleaned up.
- A lot of difficult mechanics have been simplified or removed.
- Many things that break or circumnavigate plots/plans were also changed or removed. ("Scry and Fry" or "We fly/teleport over/past x,y,z" plot-lines/encounters) I've seen the 'crest-fallen' look on 2 GM/DM's faces when I pointed out that we could fly past x wall or forest ... and a party-member could just teleport us back to z location. (oops, by-passing major plot encounter(s)). Not that easy to do in 4th Ed..

Is 4th Ed. a good game, IMO, yes.

But to me, on several levels, it doesn't feel like previous editions, which I miss. (Note, our groups usually avoided "Rat + Bag Tricks". We never did the "Scry and Fry" and we never had the power creep of adding 3 prestige classes, sorry pick >1<, if you want to, and enjoy).

>tldr: Summary:
4th Ed. is better balanced and the rules are clearer. More forgiving for Players (GM/PCs). Less "swingy". And healing rules are kinder for the players. 4th Ed. Default PoL Low to Mid. Fantasy, Low to Mid. Level Magic. Grey + Gritty reality.

4th Ed. also feels, rules/play-wise more restricted.

Pre-4th Ed. comments:
Felt like: High Fantasy, High Magic (at low levels 6th-9th). Good/bad, your call.
/tldr

general comments:

I liked fly, teleport, cure poison/disease, etc. as 1 action, but I also I think the 4th Ed. Ritual system is good, in general.
I miss the "asking the Rogue" to find out which part of a failing city needs the most help, and then sneaking past guards and "bad guy guilds" to go heal / cure the commoners at NO Charge. Yes you can still do that, but sneaking in and burning out all your Cure spells and a wand or two in the name of the "Good Guys" with no expectation of reward feels better than sneaking in and doing 20 Healing rolls.

I like the PoL grey and gritty, I played in 2 different LARP campaigns for over 3 years each.

But I'm not sorry 50 charge 6d6 Fireball wands are gone ... that much fire-power (no pun intended) was insane.

 

[Garthanos]

Journeymanmage.... Afflictions aka real injuries and illness that the mundane populous have take real money and real risk to cure (8th level ritual). Healing rolls make em feel better. The hit points of heros well the general population doesnt even really have those (minions galore).

Basically the local cleric can use all the hit point morale and courage and luck boosting fatigue fixing magics and there illnesses and broken limbs wont go away (though they may indeed accelerate recovery - my rule of thumb is a house rule but if you are engaging in ongoing healing skill treatment or powers that accomplish similar ... reduce the recovery time to 1/2 or as much 1/3)

What I mean is the game does not nail down the nature of the mundane populous leaving it somewhat vague.

 

[Scribble]

But to me, on several levels, it doesn't feel like previous editions, which I miss.

It's comments like this that interest me... How different people can have a big difference in play experience.

In my case, the game hasn't felt this much like the game I grew up playing in a REALLY long time.