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

[bramadan]

Don't get me wrong - I had *fun* under 1st edition but boy - these guys must have played some other 1st edition then I did.
If there ever was a system that was disempowering of the DM, it was ADnD1. Very detailed rules for combat, moving through dungeons and equipment (to the point of distinguishing ten different kinds of pole-arms) combined with utter lack of guidance as to anything to be done outside the very narrow Gygaxian game model.
Sure, we could improvise, but whenever we tried game was more of a hindrance then a help.

Point of the rules in an RPG is to keep it from becoming a moderated "cops and robbers" improv, without putting the game into a straightjacket. ADnD1 (which was great at the time) had a strong dichotomy: you are either in a straight-jacket or you are playing improv.
ADnD2 loosened the straightjacket somewhat (but at the cost of some initial blandness) but improv was still improv.
DnD3 felt as if it tightened straightjacket somewhat again (though not by much) but provided decent if not good guidance outside of it with d20 system for skills etc...
DnD4 looks as if it is tightening the jacket yet more - which is the part we know - but people promise us that the guidance outside is yet better then it was in DnD3. The way I see it, at worst it is back to 1st ed (except with mechanically better rules for the stuff there are rules for) and at best it may be the best incarnation of DnD yet.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

Agreed. I think professionals in the RPG industry (or ex-professionals; whatever) should hold themselves to a higher standard when blogging about games. If they haven't seen the full, complete rules, they should refrain from making sensationalized statements like "Why 4E Doesn't Feel Like D&D". To be frank, it's simply foolish to post "It appears to be following a trend that favors the rules over empowering the DM to actually run the game" based only on excavated rules from a combat playtest, having never seen the DMG.

Sure, the guy is welcome to his own opinions, it's a free country and he can say what he wants, etc. etc. I just think industry professionals should hold themselves to a higher standard.

I mean, what is the point of making a public post titled "Why 4E Doesn't Feel Like D&D", only to end with this statement?

Again--and I can't stress this strongly enough--I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.

But I haven't seen that so far, and, thus, so far, 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me.

To paraphrase: "I am completely ignorant about how DMs function in 4E, and based on my ignorance, I am declaring that the way DMs run games in 4E makes 4E not feel like D&D."

:\

 

[Stalker0]

When I read the review I'll be honest. What was going through my head was....

"What is this guy smoking? "

If he's comparing 4e 1st level to 3e 1st level, I can't see how it thinks there's less to do. 1st of all, I can throw tons of different monsters at a 1st level 4e party, and in hugely varying numbers. I could theoretically use 20 minions or 1 solo. I can use kobolds of all shapes and sizes, spellcasting hobgoblins or sturdy hobgoblin soliders. The variety there is large.

2nd, while the individual aspect of 4e characters (at 1st level) may not be that much more than the 3e version, the teamwork aspect has been greatly enhanced. A quick example, my pregen party faced two hobgoblin soldiers (that receive +2 to AC when adjacent to each other). The fighter used tide of iron to knock one of the hobgoblins back, effectively giving the ranger a +2 to attack rolls!!

In 3e, you'd likely use bull rush to do this. You would take an AOO, have a large chance of failure, and do no damage. But you gave the archer an advantage right? Oh wait, your now in melee with the guy. Does a 1st level archer have precise shot? If he's not human he doesn't, well that's a -4 to your attack roll then.


And even if that was not enough, we don't even have all of the combat rules yet!! We know that you can grab as an action, and bull rush. There could be aid another, minor disarm and trip rules, etc.

I'm sure 4e has its flaws, but just looking at 1st level everything the man said in his review is just flat out wrong from my experience.

 

[Jack99]

A blog post by ex-employees who are butthurt that they're no longer with the program? Say it ain't so~~!

When I read the blog, I thought of Grumpy Old Men for some reason...

 

[Delta]

Well, to be fair, JD said 3E didn't feel like D&D to him, either. And he's hoping for better with 4E. And Ari seems to indicate that - yes, 4E *is* more like D&D.

To be even more fair what he literally said was that 3.5 left him hungering for a 1st Ed. feel. He actually said that 1E, 2E, 3E, all allowed him to do the things he wanted. I actually share the opinion that 3.5 was a bigger fork to the rules than what had come before.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This...

When I played 1st Edition AD&D, anything I wanted to try was either directly supported by the rules, or encouraged by the rules to let the DM adjudicate.

...is not fundamentally any different that this...

--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.

It is entirely up to the whim of the DM to make these two be different.

If the DM does not happen to have strong positive vibes about these kinds of things the 3e/4e "straitjacket" provides immensely more freedom than the old ways, because at least we have some broad rules to fall back on that grants some options.

 

[Verys Arkon]

Again--and I can't stress this strongly enough--I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.

But I haven't seen that so far, and, thus, so far, 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me.

I can't believe someone who is/was in the industry would try and judge a 1000+ pages of rules on a 40 page, fan-compiled collection of preview material. I say it in big red letters in post 1, plus in the preface: "DON'T JUDGE 4E UNTIL YOU GET THE RULES". It is less than 0.05% of the pages! What else would you pass judgment on having experienced so little of?

 

[neceros]

To paraphrase: "I am completely ignorant about how DMs function in 4E, and based on my ignorance, I am declaring that the way DMs run games in 4E makes 4E not feel like D&D."

Well said.

 

[The Little Raven]

BUT: What I've seen of the 4th Edition rules doesn't seem to support anything other than a few basic options, including moving, attacking, resting, and a handful of others.

Considering the information we have (PHB Lite, etc) comprises less than 5% of the total content/word-count/whatever of the final core books, this is a big "duh." If I read less than 5% of Lord of the Rings, I'd say it doesn't really have an epic adventure or a battle between good and evil, but rather it simply focuses on the activities surrounding hobbit birthdays... but I'd be wrong, because I'm jumping to massive conclusions based on a fundamental lack of knowledge.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Again--and I can't stress this strongly enough--I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.

But I haven't seen that so far, and, thus, so far, 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me.

By this time in 3e's marketing, we hadn't seen anything on DM adjudication or anything about pages in the DMG being devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games and provide new options not supported by the rules and such.

It strikes me as entirely silly to jump to this conclusion (4e doesn't support DM adjudication) with so little knowledge (less than 5% of the total book content) before the books are released, especially when the previous edition had the same "problem," which actually turned out not to be a problem (according to him, since 3e apparently supports DM adjudication in ways that 3.5 doesn't).

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I can't believe someone who is/was in the industry would try and judge a 1000+ pages of rules on a 40 page, fan-compiled collection of preview material. I say it in big red letters in post 1, plus in the preface: "DON'T JUDGE 4E UNTIL YOU GET THE RULES". It is less than 0.05% of the pages! What else would you pass judgment on having experienced so little of?

How is this any different from people who have been exposed to the same amount of rules and yet declare that 4E is FRENCH FRIED AWESOME.

(Or at least really like the game based on that limited exposure?)

His opinion is just as valid as the many people on this board who have played "4E" based on the materials from the DDXP and declared that the game plays great. It doesnt matter if he was in the industry or not. Right now, in this case he's a gamer just like us and he feels that what he's played so far doesn't feel like D&D to him.

You know I REALLY can't wait for the Non-disclosure thing to get lifted so that people who have been play testers and have actually played the game can give their honest opinions as to the benefits and flaws of 4E. Not just the mostly positive reviews that WOTC has allowed out recently.