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

[Wolfspider]

3E was a great game.

It still is a great game. The coming of 4e doesn't change that one bit, even if it may improve play in some areas.

 

[catsclaw]

Now let's step back into the world of D&D. Why should a monk only be able to fling sand once a day? If a character wants to use it, let him. Why have unnatural and rather silly restrictions?

You've clearly never had the misfortune of gaming with a spiked chain wielding half-orc with Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip.

With 3.5, your choices are to make combat options really powerful and really unlikely to succeed (at which point someone will build a character to exploit the ability) or make a combat option really weak (in which case no one will ever use it) or make it powerful, easy to pull off, and then contrive so that battles frequently make the tactic impractical (which just frustrates the players).

4e avoids the whole problem. Because you don't have to worry about people using their best attack every round, or every encounter, you can give people really powerful abilities that frequently work. I find it hard to see that as anything but a positive thing.

Game balance? There are other ways to balance a game than a rule that flies in the face of reality, and none of them would be as heavy-handed as the examples that you give.

I'd love to hear them.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

It still is a great game. The coming of 4e doesn't change that one bit, even if it may improve play in some areas.

Agreed. Wasn't my intention to suggest otherwise.

W.P.

 

[Fifth Element]

p.s. I do have to give props to Fifth Element's airtight rebuttal of Senor Smetzger's "D&D feel" list. Good stuff.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Please tip your waiter.

It is difficult to say exactly what the argument is here. I guess a large part of the internet is broadcasting your personal opinion about everything. D&D is no different.

 

[Lanefan]

Now let's step back into the world of D&D. Why should a monk only be able to fling sand once a day? If a character wants to use it, let him. Why have unnatural and rather silly restrictions?

Agreed.

Of course, the opponents can throw sand too...provided they have half a brain and a throwing appendage...

Lanefan

 

[The Little Raven]

Now let's step back into the world of D&D. Why should a monk only be able to fling sand once a day? If a character wants to use it, let him. Why have unnatural and rather silly restrictions?

Why should a monk only be able to use Stunning Fist once a day? Or a fighter that wastes the feats to use it? Why don't higher-level spell slots break down so you can prepare more lower-level spells if you want? Why can a bard only sing his special song once per day?

Because D&D has been full of unnatural and silly restrictions for it's entire lifespan, because it has at least try to make the nod towards balance, even if the definition of balance is ever-changing.

 

[Lanefan]

4e avoids the whole problem. Because you don't have to worry about people using their best attack every round, or every encounter, you can give people really powerful abilities that frequently work.

Why won't people use their best ability - whatever it is - as often as they can?

4e does not avoid the whole problem; it merely hasn't had time to encountere it yet. Comparing the 3e (and 0e and 1e and 2e) versions of this issue with 4e, the *only* difference is that with 4e nobody's really figured out what the best abilities are; but give 'em time, and the cream will rise to the top as always.

Lanefan

 

[Vempyre]

It's funny seeing ppl argue about throwing sand 1/day as if it was an actual 4e rule and then watch them try to defend it or shoot it down.

(I am sure you guys know it isn't, but you are acting as if it is and it's putting a smile on my lips)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

When I read the 3.x rules i thought: hey, all those funny things you can do in combat.

When my players read that: "argh! thats complicated" or "argh! success chances are so low, better don´t try that."

The effect:
once any player reads that section he decides not to do that again in combat.

To the topic:
I want the 2nd edition feel back. (This got me hooked!)

When does 4th edition feel like D&D? when it creates a feeling thats similar to the edition you started with.
Maybe 1st edition would not feel like D&D to me. I know users who started with 3rd edition and don´t know what to do when their tighter rules and versimilitude are taken away. They may feel that those rules are D&D.

Hey, i like vancian magic. Is this D&D for me? (no, but wizards needing spellbooks!)

My perfect solution for 4th edition: Unified mechanics (d20 system), more freedom to apply rules, less freedom in powergaming. And fresh wind. So it should be a mix of 2nd edition and 3rd edition with a bit new flavour, and this is what i have seen so far in previews.

Have I seen enough? Definitely not. But what i have seen is great!

 

[smetzger]

I did read your post. Please note in my post that I stated everyone determines for themselves whether it feels like D&D to them.

If I'm reading you correctly, 1E and 2E once felt like D&D to you (you said they "no longer" do so). Presumably because 3E is now how you prefer D&D to feel. But if your preference in feel can change between editions, why is it bad that 4E does not feel the same as 3E?

Say you play 4E, decide you like the feel, and therefore that's what D&D's feel becomes for you. What then are we to make of the above argument? If the "feel" of D&D can change between editions, apparently for the better, what's the point of deriding a new edition for not feeling like the old?

No 1e & 2e out of the box never felt right for me.