A "naysayer's" review of 4E

[LcKedovan]

Ok, so here is the breakdown of my gaming group. Primal (or anyone else), based on your reading do you think 4e would work for us (Personally I am more and more thinking it won't be the case but I haven't played or gotten the books yet so can't form an opinion).

Me: Been playing since the days of Basic. DM. Adaptable. 3e favourite system, but still have a lot of love for the earlier editions for nostalgia and some system stuff (Loved the Companion ruleset and AD&D). Edit: Must add that I hate that certain things have been left out from the start like the races/classes being dropped.)

My Brother: Pretty easygoing in terms of style of play. Likes some elements of realism/immersiveness. Playing almost as long as I have since I made him do it

One of my oldest friends: Playing since Basic days, very often we have arguments regarding realism. He is very much focused on believability within a fantasy context. Needs reasons why things work, not a big fan of 3 times per day kind of personal skills.

My wife: _hates_ combat in 3e, too long and drawn out for her. More story loving, puzzle/problem solving. Newb player overall, not really a rulebook reader.

2 other friends: First one; HULK SMASH, the other will probably go with the flow.

thoughts appreciated.

-W.

 

[Obryn]

Me: Been playing since the days of Basic. DM. Adaptable. 3e favourite system, but still have a lot of love for the earlier editions for nostalgia and some system stuff (Loved the Companion ruleset and AD&D). Edit: Must add that I hate that certain things have been left out from the start like the races/classes being dropped.)

Can't predict. 4e's niche protection will remind you a lot of 1e/2e. You may miss some stuff that's initially left out, but there's a lot left in & a lot new.

My Brother: Pretty easygoing in terms of style of play. Likes some elements of realism/immersiveness. Playing almost as long as I have since I made him do it

4e is not heavy on the realism. It aims to be a game, first and foremost. Immersiveness is what you make of it, on the other hand. If you imagine that you're playing through a very cool adventure movie you should be good. If you're looking for an internally consistent world, you won't find it. It's imbalanced, with PCs intentionally operating much differently from everyone else in the world.

One of my oldest friends: Playing since Basic days, very often we have arguments regarding realism. He is very much focused on believability within a fantasy context. Needs reasons why things work, not a big fan of 3 times per day kind of personal skills.

Not a chance. If you're stuck on simulation - unless you are trying to simulate adventure movies and novels - it won't work for you.

My wife: _hates_ combat in 3e, too long and drawn out for her. More story loving, puzzle/problem solving. Newb player overall, not really a rulebook reader.

While 4e combat is, to all appearances, long, she probably won't find it boring. As a new player, she should get into it very quickly since she doesn't have a lot of baggage from previous editions. I think she'd enjoy it. 4e has simpler rules than 3e, overall, at least from my reading.

2 other friends: First one; HULK SMASH, the other will probably go with the flow.

Absolutely fine for both. I think the first will love the smashiness of the system.

-O

 

[Yeoman]

4e is a lousy simulation of any kind of reality.

(Ironically, I think it's a decent simulation of fantasy movies and novels - but that's another discussion for another time.)
-O

That alone sells me on 4E. I could care less about simulation of reality. It's fantasy novels that drove me to play in the first place.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Don't worry about people saying that you are not open minded.

On this board "open minded" means liking 4E (or rather thinking 4E is the best thing ever). If you don't like it you are by definition a close minded hater.

Don't be a close minded hater Derren!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Don't be a close minded hater Derren!

Isn't that a oxymoron?

But then, I just cleared my Ignore list... It might be time for a change?

 

[Primal]

Thanks, Primal.

I was expecting a lot more hyperbole and, well, naysaying in the review after reading the title. But what I found was an honest, well-written and reasonable review of 4e.

It was totally refreshing.

Thanks.

P.S. I'm glad to see you still have an open-mind about 4e. I'm not sure even I could say that at this point.

Well, I don't any see point in "bashing" the game just out ot principle, especially as there is some stuff that I actually like better than in 3E. I just hope my "street cred" among the "naysayers" is not completely gone now! (No, The Rouse has not replaced me with one of his programmed clones -- I swear it!)

One more thing -- I wrote about traps being more complex now, but I forgot to mention now they work in a much more "realistical" and consistent way. In fact, traps are "monsters" in the sense that they roll initiative and target one of your defenses. For a 'simulationist' it feels that this is how traps *should* work in D&D, and it is, indeed, internally consistent with the rest of the mechanics.

Personally my biggest problems in 4E -- in addition to keeping track of all the various small mechanical details -- are coming up with plausible explanations for how most of the powers work, and the 'exception-based' monster/NPC system. Otherwise the system *is* more internally consistent than any other edition of the game, and my opinion about the Defenses actually changed after reading the books. I think they work better than 3E saving throws. And like Ari has posted here, it *is* pretty easy to come up with "improvised" actions (even tripping) and there are rules (and even a DC table) for such "stunts" in DMG.

What 4E does exceptionally well is encouraging role-playing (outside combat, that is and character immersion and focusing on the story.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I don't any see point in "bashing" the game just out ot principle, especially as there is some stuff that I actually like better than in 3E. I just hope my "street cred" among the "naysayers" is not completely gone now! (No, The Rouse has not replaced me with one of his programmed clones -- I swear it!)

I can attest this. I haven't seen him in any of the programmed clone meetings.

 

[That One Guy]

Thank you for that review. It sounded really fair and open-minded, and I appreciate that. Do you think dming 4e would be easier after playing it? I hope you have fun w/ it if you do play a PC.

 

[mach1.9pants]

yeah a good 'review'. To me it sounds like you are actually 'for' 4E, it comes across as more positive than negative!
Anyway I agree with a lot of your points:
1. The tiny bit of info on page 11 is NOT enough for crafting etc. I don't expect rules like 3E but more info than use your back ground would be good.
2. IMO there is not enough info on modifying monsters, edit in that is missing a creation example. Also not enough about stattting (or at least running) commoners etc. I can say 'OK you always hit and always kill" but there is nothing mentioned at all about commoners in the DMG.

But I disagree strongly with your assumption that the books are written to make you buy more. it is like saying that 3E was written that way 'cos the re was no class x or spell y in it. A book has a limited size, DnD has (almost) unlimited extra crunch options, buying more will always mean more. And IIRC one of the designers said that there are less options as the levels increase as most players won't use them. Esp Epic, and you have to make some compromises.

Anyway if your 'hat of 4E noes no limits' it still seems very reasoned to me

 

[Scribble]

Also not enough about stattting (or at least running) commoners etc. I can say 'OK you always hit and always kill" but there is nothing mentioned at all about commoners in the DMG.

Human Rabble.