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

[Puggins]

A duration of "until end of encounter" and a "cooldown" of "at end of encounter" are very different mechanics. The former provides you with its benefit for the duration; the latter is a benefit that applies once, then can't be used again until you've "untapped," to borrow a CCG term.

You're introducing an artificial difference. The Barbarian can use his rage once per encounter and then is winded until the end of the encounter, which is actually MORE dependent on the encounter dynamic than anything that 4e has put forth.

And there's plenty of other examples of these "untapping-required" abilities, even in core.

And spell-like abilities are more common for monsters than PCs, making them really "1/lifetime," "3/lifetime," etc. The DM uses the power and marks it off, and, in most cases, doesn't need to worry about when the monster can use it again. Not that I'm defending that mechanic, mind you; it's fairly pointless. I just don't believe that the only workable solution is a mechanic that effectively says "You can't use this power again until you've had your next 'coffee break.'"

The bard can use his music only a certain number of times until his next coffee break.

The paladin can smite evil only a certain number of times until his next coffee break.

The cleric can turn undead only a certain number times until his next coffee break.

Every core spellcaster can cast a spell only a certain number of times until his next coffee break.

The Monk's stuns...

The Paladin's lay on hands...

The Druid's wildform...

And on and on. The sole difference between 4e and 3e (and 2e and 1e and BECM) is the length of said coffee break, which doesn't suddenly morph all of these abilities into "untap" mechanics.

 

[billd91]

And on and on. The sole difference between 4e and 3e (and 2e and 1e and BECM) is the length of said coffee break, which doesn't suddenly morph all of these abilities into "untap" mechanics.

It makes a difference if the pacing and daily resource management is something you consider part of the overall D&D experience. Untapping powers for use in every encounter during the day does feel a bit more like the process between turns in a CCG than untapping powers via a camping/nightly resting time.
But like JD has been saying, whether 4e's changes feel like D&D or not is a subjective judgement. And so far, he's unconvinced.

 

[JeDiWiker]

My assumption is that there are enough designers out there that would have been interested in playtesting. But WotC needs a wider base of people testing their system, not just designers. Designers have probably a different perspective on a game, and their professional attitude to it can affect what they will focus on. They might even have a habit of reporting things differently, or, being the tinkerers they are, give feedback that is inappropriate (instead of critisizing or highlighting stuff, they might want to change rules. Which increases the workload on going through the feedback...) In the end, there needed to be some diversification in the group of testers. (Though I wonder if it's enough, considering that many playtesters were recruited from the RPGA)

Actually, I learned recently that the decision might have boiled down to "Do you work for another game company?" Since I run The Game Mechanics, they may have decided that giving me a copy of the rules (without charging me $5,000) would have been unfair to the game companies they actually approached about the GSL and the "early adopters" program.

As for designers potentially being bad playtesters, I can see that ... for most people. But I would hope that Wizards would have remembered that, ever since I worked on Star Wars, I've championed the idea of non-design feedback: "We tried this, under these conditions, and here's what happened" as opposed to "We tried this, it didn't work, so we suggest you try rules more like this."

And I firmly second your hope that Wizards actually has a well-researched, well-reasoned strategy behind the way they're going about all this. It's been too long since I've worked there for me to claim that I know what the current zeitgeist is, but I'm fairly certain that Wizards of the Coast is staffed by humans, who have all the usual agendas, foibles, misconceptions, power struggles, and not-so-good-after-all ideas that all humans have--but magnified by the corporate environment (just like every other corporation I've worked for). So, while I don't want to suggest that Wizards is going about this haphazardly, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if their plan is less than carefully calculated.

JD

 

[drjones]

It's true that the monk's powers are particularly "poetic" (read: obscure). My argument is that if you wanted to keep a sort of monkish flavor, the terms should have been confined there. But a power that is neither descriptive of the special effect nor the effect is unnecessarily obscure and 4e is compounding the problem rather than solving it.

I realize there have been some fancy sounding power names floated about but looking at the 1st level pregens most of their power names are quite prosaic.

Besides, can't you just get out a pencil and scratch out "Super Eagle Talon Windchime" and write in 'Stab the Guy' if that floats your boat?

 

[Puggins]

It's true that the monk's powers are particularly "poetic" (read: obscure). My argument is that if you wanted to keep a sort of monkish flavor, the terms should have been confined there. But a power that is neither descriptive of the special effect nor the effect is unnecessarily obscure and 4e is compounding the problem rather than solving it.

Hmm, I guess there's where we differ. You see it as a problem, and I see it as a feature. Mordenkainen's Lugubrious Lucubration is one of the most obtuse and cryptic terms I've ever read, in or out of D&D, and I absolutely adore it. Same with every name on the list I made. I like names with some flavor. Tide of Iron may not be descriptive, but I'll take it over the bland "shifting attack" any day.

 

[Puggins]

It makes a difference if the pacing and daily resource management is something you consider part of the overall D&D experience.

The pacing of 3.x was abysmal, and, in my experience, differed from 1e/2e quite a bit. The ability to go through a dungeon or raid a palace without taking a break to sleep is a major step forward.

Resource Management still exists in the game- every class has daily abilities, and per-encounter abilities present a different form of resource management within each encounter. I see no fundamental advantage that any previous edition has over 4e in these terms.

Untapping powers for use in every encounter during the day does feel a bit more like the process between turns in a CCG than untapping powers via a camping/nightly resting time.

Well, that's subjective, but since two reasonable people can have different opinions on this sort of stuff, sure.

 

[Joshua Randall]

4th Edition may be the best edition of D&D yet, but I, personally, find the derivative features a bit off-putting. When I sit down to play D&D, I don't want to be reminded of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs

TCGs and MMOs are two of the most popular types of games in decades. (Not sure about CMGs just yet.)

Why is it a bad thing that D&D is borrowing ideas, mechanics, and, yes, naming conventions from those types of games?

 

[JeDiWiker]

You're introducing an artificial difference. The Barbarian can use his rage once per encounter and then is winded until the end of the encounter, which is actually MORE dependent on the encounter dynamic than anything that 4e has put forth.

If the difference appears artificial, then perhaps I didn't express it well enough. Here's another try: While 3.X has plenty of mechanics that can only be used once per "encounter" (and let's not get bogged down in the semantics of "day," "round," "encounter," and any other division of time that D&D employs), using them did not encourage MY gaming groups to stop after encounters any longer than was necessary to heal, search, and loot. If a 3.X barbarian rages, he knows that he is still as effective as a fighter for another few encounters, at least. In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.

Now, it's possible that the DM did not explain the rule correctly to us, and you don't actually need to take that break for the power to "recharge." But, again, my perception was that 4E had introduced a mechanic with clear parallels to Magic: the Gathering's "upkeep phase." Hence, I saw the similarity I mentioned in the post that started this sub-thread.

JD

 

[JeDiWiker]

Hmm, I guess there's where we differ. You see it as a problem, and I see it as a feature.

... which is kind of my whole point.

JD

 

[danzig138]

Well, then those testers should hold their tongues as well.

Ummm. . .didn't you just say

The playtesters have seen the full rules, and they've praised the game.

Maybe you can clarify, since this reads as the playtesters who like the rules can say so, but those who don't need to stfu. I doubt that's what you're trying to say, since that would be a stupid thing to say.