D&D 4E 4E: The day the game ate the roleplayer?

[Aenghus]

Ten years ago I probably would have hated 4e. Today I know I will have some issues with parts of the game but generally it looks like an improvement for my needs. Thing is the reasons for the hate would have been the flip-side of the streamlining that has taken place.

I used to idealise the concept of a fully functioning and obsessively-detailed campaign world. But then I used to have a lot more free time, and have found out over the years that most of my players really don't care about this stuff, and time spent on it is often wasted.

But from what we have seen of 4e, it explicitly comes out and states it doesn't support world-building as a primary concept independent of the PC party's needs. Anyone who prioritises this will have an issue with 4e. (Not that previous editions actually supported this idea properly, but they gave the impression they could).

Another item, which was more an issue in 1e and 2e, was enforcing a "sense of wonder" by rigorous DM information control. 3e moved away from this by having rules for everything, and making magic even more mechanical.

The basic issue here is that like horror, "sense of wonder" cannot be enforced on the truly unwilling player. The reaction to this often involves the DM blaming the rules set for the problem, when the real issue is conflicting DM and PC goals.

It does remain to be seen if 4e supports a "sense of wonder" style. Points of light and easily adaptable monsters helps compared to 3e. On the other hand it is possible that some players will feel PCs to be very mechanical and overdesigned, from comments I have seen. This is all very subjective, with the perception of the rules and setting being as important as what they actually say in black and white. Time will tell.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ten years ago I probably would have hated 4e. Today I know I will have some issues with parts of the game but generally it looks like an improvement for my needs. Thing is the reasons for the hate would have been the flip-side of the streamlining that has taken place.

I used to idealise the concept of a fully functioning and obsessively-detailed campaign world. But then I used to have a lot more free time, and have found out over the years that most of my players really don't care about this stuff, and time spent on it is often wasted.

But from what we have seen of 4e, it explicitly comes out and states it doesn't support world-building as a primary concept independent of the PC party's needs. Anyone who prioritises this will have an issue with 4e. (Not that previous editions actually supported this idea properly, but they gave the impression they could).

Another item, which was more an issue in 1e and 2e, was enforcing a "sense of wonder" by rigorous DM information control. 3e moved away from this by having rules for everything, and making magic even more mechanical.

The basic issue here is that like horror, "sense of wonder" cannot be enforced on the truly unwilling player. The reaction to this often involves the DM blaming the rules set for the problem, when the real issue is conflicting DM and PC goals.

It does remain to be seen if 4e supports a "sense of wonder" style. Points of light and easily adaptable monsters helps compared to 3e. On the other hand it is possible that some players will feel PCs to be very mechanical and overdesigned, from comments I have seen. This is all very subjective, with the perception of the rules and setting being as important as what they actually say in black and white. Time will tell.

Sense of Wonder seems really a matter of attitude and experience.

I still remember some DSA (Das Schwarze Auge) adventures that were supposed to give you a sense of wonder - unfortunately, for a group of hardened RPG veterans that also play games like Shadowrun, Warhammer, Midgard or Torg, this seemed impossible to create.
Been there, done that just makes it hard to get a sense of wonder again.

That said, reading the descriptions in Races & Classes and World & Monsters created a certain "sense of wonder" in me, and I felt somehow inspired. Maybe there is still hope (both for me/my group and D&D 4)?

 

[Hussar]

Insuffcient data. Oh, yeah I forgot. 3E requires thinking.
(And you don't know how much the XP reward for defeating them is either, because you don't know the circumstance bonuses or penalties).

Wow, that's reaching so far it's beyond ridiculous. The xp for a CR 5 encounter is stated plainly in the chart. Anything you modify beyond that is fine, but, the base xp value is given.

You cannot even give me a base xp value for a simple non-combat encounter.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In 3e the rogue could fill a multitude of party roles and often did. They could be a face-man, a second tier combatant, a utility belt, a knowledge skill monkey, an so on.

A face-man who can do 28d6 damage a round. All 3e rogues had sneak attack, they were all strikers.

Predictability is the bane of exciting gaming. Class balance institutes predictability. And now you're thinking, "Did this jack-ass just say he prefers unbalanced classes?" It may have sounded like it but no. What I am saying is that cut and dried class balance formulated to fulfill roles will lead to less spontaneous and interesting characters. If you have 3 choices, A, B, and C and they all have the same potency of effect, whatever the effect may be, you're doing little more than choosing a color.

Equal but different is hard to do, but that's what we pay game designers for.

Heck, I can write an unequal but different (ie crazy unbalanced) rule system myself. It's easy, even Kevin Siembieda can do it.

 

[Cadfan]

If you have 3 choices, A, B, and C and they all have the same potency of effect, whatever the effect may be, you're doing little more than choosing a color.

Wow.

1) The differences in the nature of the effects makes the potency of the effects change situationally. We call this "good game design" roun' these parts.

2) Consider the following two parties.

Party A: Fighter, does 10 dps in melee as a 3e style tank. Rogue, does 10 dps by spring attacking. Cleric, heals 10 dps. Wizard, shoots 10 dps at range.

Party B: Fighter, does 10 dps in melee. Fighter, does 11 dps in melee. Fighter, does 12 dps in melee. Fighter, does 13 dps in melee.

You've actually managed to argue that the latter party is more diverse than the former. I applaud you, sir. I applaud.

 

[Will]

While I like 3.5e a lot, it really didn't adequately support a lot of forms of 'rewarded obstacles' beyond combat, traps, and I THINK environments.

Simple guidelines, like 'a CR 5 encounter involves X number of DC Y rolls, with Z consequences,' or, heck, even a discussion about what types of risk are 'worth' a challenge rating, would have gone a long way toward making the game support social, investigatory, and other modes of play.

Personally, I just threw up my hands and gave per-session flat XP and used CR simply to avoid TPKs.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

What isn't valid is this illusion of versatility. When characters are only capable of filling that one role there is no versatility. No newness. Just the same old tricks with a different package.

....

Again, relevant. Maybe not as coherent as intended but relevant. Predictability is the bane of exciting gaming. Class balance institutes predictability. And now you're thinking, "Did this jack-ass just say he prefers unbalanced classes?" It may have sounded like it but no. What I am saying is that cut and dried class balance formulated to fulfill roles will lead to less spontaneous and interesting characters. If you have 3 choices, A, B, and C and they all have the same potency of effect, whatever the effect may be, you're doing little more than choosing a color.

I think your concerns are valid, but perhaps a bit premature. As you noted, we have only seen preview materials. As a reasonable counter example to the notion that having different classes fulfill the same role could be a problem, I will refer you to Starcraft.

Starcraft managed the difficult trick of having 3 very different races balanced against one another. It was certainly not perfect out of the box and needed to be patched a few times as flaws were discovered but lets overlook that for now.

Each race had a basic infantry unit. But the differences were significant. Zerglings were very weak, but very cheap. Marines had a ranged attack and could stim. Zealots were very durable. But they all fulfilled the basic role of a basic infantry unit. Each race had a seige unit that could overcome static defenses. But again, they all worked differently. Playing as Zerg was different then playing as Protoss or as human. While basic strategies applied to both, the tactical implementation was very different. Any race could try to do an early rush attack. But while a Zerg rush would almost always hit before your opponent had units, a Zealot rush was trickier to pull off, either having to happen later, or having to rely on you storming in with just one or 2 zealots and using very careful technique to control your men to harass the opponent until your reenforcements could arrive.

There is no reason that 4th edition cannot manage the same trick. Each class has to have per day, per encounter, and at will abilities. But I am not convinced that each race is going to rely on doing its job the same way despite having the same role. I suspect the Rogue is going to depend very much on obtaining or creating Combat Advantage. I do not think the Warlock is going to need to do the same. I expect that the Rogue will need to be in melee to do its job optimally. I expect the Warlock will not. If two different strikers have a Per Encounter ability that inflicts 2d6+3 damage, that seems a bit too similar. But if one is an attack against AC and the other is against Reflex or Fort? If one has a chance to daze an opponent and the other might knock the opponent prone?

Despite being brown carbonated beverages sold in the same size container and having alot of sugar, Dr Pepper is not the same as Pepsi, and neither is the same as Root Beer. If the classes are more akin to comparing Pepsi to Coke however, I will concede the point.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[howandwhy99]

Can we try and be more civil? I know I'm not a fan of 4e, but I hear groups on both sides decrying the other as evilwrongbad.

It's as if one side believes the game is no longer D&D because it can no longer be played like they played it (and yes, I find myself at least sympathetically on this side of the community, if not in total agreement). And that the way it is now played is evil-not-D&D.

And the other side is saying that D&D was only played in the manner 4e now better facilitates. And that the way other side plays is psycho-wrong-D&D.

This is not good ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Derro]

I think your concerns are valid, but perhaps a bit premature. As you noted, we have only seen preview materials. As a reasonable counter example to the notion that having different classes fulfill the same role could be a problem, I will refer you to Starcraft.

Thank you for not dismissing my point out-of-hand. It's "potency of effect" that got me in trouble and I see why. I should have said potency of role to clarify.

And you're right about the prematurity. I'll freely admit to that. It's purely an instinct thing for me. I've played enough different games to recognize what I feel are similar design patterns. I think Diablo is what springs mostly to mind. Whether it's the actual CRPG or the 3e game that was released I get that same sort of feeling that further down the road many powers are going to have similar primary effects, lesser similarity in secondary effects and different flavoring representing a different power source. It's like that feeling when replay a game with a different character and start to see the similarities in there effects as opposed to what made them unique.

I'm just exercising my critical eye here. There are some outstanding things that give me a no feeling and I think it's okay to voice that.

 

[Derro]

I think you've lost track of what it is you're trying to argue.

Or I'm trying to further illustrate what another poster was conveying and you're dismissing out of hand.

Potency of effect is not the term to use. I can see that in retrospect. But it doesn't mean I'm not arguing a valid point. We've taken off on a tangent only only nominally related to the OP but character builds/concept do relate to role-playing in some manner. I think we've all seen capability reflect in how the character conducts themselves.