Are we allowed to be excited for the system, but not D&D?

[Patlin]

Ditto on the D&Disms. My homebrew lacks so many things that are "core" D&D (beholders, mind flayers, drow, talking, magic-using dragons, shiny happy woodsy elves) that I started referring to it as "D20 Fantasy" instead of D&D.

There's no talking in your game?

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

For me, the mechanics of 4E are the big draw.

Everything else can (and perhaps should) be introduced and handled by the DM/group.

I wasn't a fan of dragonborn, eladrin, and the loss of the druid etc.

But I'm keeping an open mind, and here's one 1979 grognard willing to move on and move forward - so long as my group and I are having fun.

*group hug*

Wis

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

There's no talking in your game?

Coke out of nose. Diet Pepsi, actually. Well struck!

 

[KidSnide]

I’m not a big fan of D&Disms either (although I do already have a race of dragon-men IMC). But it seems to me that the D&Disms might be easier to remove than they are in 3.X.

The biggest D&Dism is the multi-encounter dungeon model and it’s variant the 5-minute workday, neither of which approximate the type of adventure flow that I want in my heroic fantasy. Also, I found that the spell list itself was annoyingly bound up in the alignment system and the absurd “balance” of magic items. Lastly, the tendency to balance combat ability vs. non-combat abilities generating characters who were totally useless if I wanted to do 5 consecutive combat sessions and other characters that were totally useless if I went 5 consecutive sessions without a combat.

Sure, maybe there will be all sorts of new annoying dependencies that I don’t want and haven’t discovered yet. But my current “grass-is-greener” glasses make me think that 4E could be much better than 3.X for allowing a more generic heroic fantasy.

 

[Graf]

I just spoke with the moderators and they told me "No. Holding your opinion is forbidden."

Please report for deprogramming.

[sblock=Seriously]Why not?
Mechanics isn't fluff. You can dig mechanics and not fluff.

Good on you for realizing that there is a difference, no?

Personally? I love weirdness. So I loves me some 4e.[/sblock]

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...I'm really excited about the new rules without all the D&Disms. Am I allowed to think that way or am I a grognard? Anyone else in the same boat?

I think most people would definitely call me a grognard (although I lack a beard, at present -- hah ). I think separating the system from the "D&D" label is a useful thing. I have no interest at all in 4E, as far as it being my "new D&D." 4E (and even 3E, for that matter) don't seem like D&D, to me, and 4E won't be a replacement/upgrade/new D&D, for me. However, I still think 4E has some interesting features, design-wise. It's a different approach that caters to a different kind of game from the old editions. I don't see myself ever running a 4E game, but I'd happily play in one, now and then -- it may not seem like D&D to me (and I stress the "to me" part, here -- if it feels like D&D to you, I have no argument with you), but it looks like it's a well-designed system that's probably fun to play, regardless.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think most people would definitely call me a grognard (although I lack a beard, at present -- hah ). I think separating the system from the "D&D" label is a useful thing. I have no interest at all in 4E, as far as it being my "new D&D." 4E (and even 3E, for that matter) don't seem like D&D, to me, and 4E won't be a replacement/upgrade/new D&D, for me. However, I still think 4E has some interesting features, design-wise. It's a different approach that caters to a different kind of game from the old editions. I don't see myself ever running a 4E game, but I'd happily play in one, now and then -- it may not seem like D&D to me (and I stress the "to me" part, here -- if it feels like D&D to you, I have no argument with you), but it looks like it's a well-designed system that's probably fun to play, regardless.

Actually, you'd be surprised. In a lot of ways, I think 4e is going back to the old philosophy of player skill. It seems to be creating a medium between 3e and 1e in this aspect.

There ARE still skills, but there is more focus on the player making decisions based on his own knowledge with the skills only being used to determine if some actions succeed or to give a couple of hints.

Which is a fairly large switch from the focus of 3e where to idea was "make a skill roll, if you get high enough then your character figures it out on his own."

It certainly isn't back to the days of "What school IS fireball a part of? If you don't know, your character doesn't know." But, it's a good midway point.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

I think that the rules as we know them are awesome, but the fluff kinda sucks. I understand what Wizards is trying to do, and I respect that, I just don't like the flavour. That being said, I plan to jettison all the fluff crap I don't like, and create a less hodge-podge fantasy setting than the "generic D&D" in the assumed setting. I like Conan, Wheel of Time, Lovecraft, steampunk, and Resident Evil, among other things. I don't like beholders, mind flayers, and bajillions of sentient races. No need of wood elves, green elves, silver elves, moon elves, high elves, gray elves,......

If you like the system it shows that you are paying attention and have an open mind. If you don't like the assumed setting, well that is easier to homebrew than a new game. I have been dumping the implied setting for years now. I am glad that we are likely to get guidlines about how to do other types of games than the vancian magic, magical walmart, anything goes in my world types of games that are the implied setting.

 

[KidSnide]

It certainly isn't back to the days of "What school IS fireball a part of? If you don't know, your character doesn't know." But, it's a good midway point.

Well, I'm glad we aren't going that far back.

I had a game in which I was playing a loyal spy that returned back to his home city. In a later game, I referenced how, if I died, at least my masters had learned the valuable secret I had brought home. My GM told me, "Sorry. You didn't tell me that you told them X, you just said 'I report in'."

From there, I developed a rule I call "Pants". The rule (roughly) says that I, as a GM, don't want you to have to tell me that your character put on pants in the morning. If, for some reason, you failed to mention it, your character still put on pants in the morning and has not been walking around half-naked.

Wizards who cast fireball, but (due to a gap in player knowledge) can't remember that fireball is an evocation, are walking around without any pants. And I'm happy that's not where the rules are taking us.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Well, I'm glad we aren't going that far back. ...My GM told me, "Sorry. You didn't tell me that you told them X, you just said 'I report in'..."

Sounds like a GM problem to me. Sadly, no edition is going to fix that, IMO.