Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

does the 4e feel like d&d? or not
a long blogpost with interesting reply that shed light on the position of a lot of ex WotC employers (like Reynolds and Cook) that rightly would have liked to playtest 4ed.... but were denyed (a mistake IMO)

here
http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/43482.html?view=343770#t343770

 

[MerricB]

I think JD is way off base. He hasn't read enough of the information on 4e, it is clear - especially the description of the chase in Sembia. And, IMO, 3e was far, far more the thing he and SKR pillory than 4e is described as.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"my monk, Bannor, carried salt around to throw in the eyes of opponents"

Throwing salt in the eyes once = coolsville
Carrying it around and using it a lot = yawnsville

It's a tedious form of powergaming -
1. Keep going outside the rules.
2. Wait until the DM makes a ruling that results in X being overpowered.
3. Do X from now until the end of time.

Powergaming within a well designed rules set is a lot more interesting because the same action won't always be optimal.

 

[Cam Banks]

I am constantly amused by the notion that 1st edition was superior at opening up options for players by virtue of it not having rules for them.

I had a ton of fun playing 1st edition and OD&D back in the day, but in many ways we made do with the lack of rules for something, not because we thought it made things much easier and open, but because they weren't there and we had to house rule it.

If you're going to go this route of "no rules = makes game more fun" then why not throw all the rules out and just sit around a table doing some improv?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I read it. I thought JD worded his concerns very well, brought some good issues to light, and generally wasn't really raggin' too hard on 4e. However...

His blog is littered with "So fars," "Seems," and such, that it is immediately apparent that he hasn't seen any more of 4e than I have and, possibly, even less. He's a fantastic designer, but he's not a prognosticator. So, I'm not going to put any more weight on his comments than any other poster on any other random blog/board/what-have-you.

The big 3e names (Monte, SKR, JD, etc.) might have been beneficial to Wizards to bring in for playtests, but I'm not so sure about that. The number of players who are fanatic enough about D&D to hang out on the internet searching for clues about the new edition and who are only slightly negative enough about 4e that a positive word from those 3e names would sway them into the 4e fold has got to be very, very small.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I am constantly amused by the notion that 1st edition was superior at opening up options for players by virtue of it not having rules for them.

The 1st Ed idea of the 1-minute round was supposed to incorporate the idea that PCs were doing all of these fancy options, but that in the end it was resolved by one good attack. However, I think that in practise, these options were merely forgotten.

 

[Belphanior]

The distinction is subtle. Both 1st and 4th say "when the rules don't cover it, let the DM decide what happens." But the emphasis on minimizing DM adjudication--which was a philosophy that was present when I worked at Wizards, and seems to have taken root in the last six years--appears to have created an "anything other than these basic options is a suboptimal choice" mentality in the rules. If I decide to try throwing dust in my opponent's face to blind him (an old, old Hollywood fight gimmick), it's not as good a choice as using lance of faith. My DM might rule that it's more effective, but the rules make it pretty clear that it's not.

And the rules of OD&D, 1e, 2e, and 3e made throwing sand clearly more effective than magic missile? :\ Because if not the comparison is useless. If having mechanical support for actions is not like D&D then goddamn I guess I don't want to play D&D after all.

 

[Dwight]

But, again--and I can't stress this strongly enough--I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules.

If he couldn't have stressed that strongly enough why not put it at the top of that post?

But that aside, I understand what he getting at. Except what Doug said. That's how stuff like that tended to come out in my experience. You tried to find something that worked with the DM and then ran with that. You played the DM. With less holes in the rules, more options in the rules, you don't have to play the DM so much. Eventually you can go outside the rules the need just isn't as strong to do so because there is a lot more room inside.

P.S. Your character can still haul salt and pepper around in your pocket and throw it at people.

 

[zoroaster100]

I like having rules for some of the more common tactics, and I think both 3E and 4E are better (for my taste) than previous editions for covering more things with rules. Where I think 4E may hopefully be an improvement over 3E is in having simpler rules for the more common tactics, with more focus on having the end result be a smooth and quick resolution at the game table.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, after 8 years of listening to EXACTLY the same words about 3e, whenever I hear this now, I just tune out. "It's not D&D anymore" wasn't true for 3e and likely won't be for 4e. Anymore than 1e wasn't really D&D because it changed OD&D, or BECMI D&D wasn't D&D anymore, despite being a very different game from 1e. Or 2e wasn't D&D anymore.

Sigh. Could people actually take the time to come up with actual criticisms?