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

[catsclaw]

... I think it leads to an artificial rest period between groups of monsters, so that they can be technically considered "new" encounters. As I understand it, if the party goes from a group of goblins in this room to a group of goblins in the next room without waiting the full five minutes, they're considered to be still in the same encounter--and, thus, less prepared, for lack of having used their "per-encounter" powers less then five minutes ago.

Artificial rest period? How quickly are you guys sprinting through your dungeons?

If you assume fighting for your life is at least as strenuous as running an 800m race, I haven't seen very many runners who would gladly run two of them back-to-back.

 

[Keldryn]

I hate to say it, but the 5-minute break reminds me MORE of 1st edition than 3rd. Any of those 1st edition players out there remember that the DMG said that it was ASSUMED that all combats took "one turn" (10 minutes) as characters looted bodies, dressed wounds, took quick breathers, etc.? 3e effectively got rid of the "one turn" rule, and here 4e is, bringing it back. It's not the first thing that reminds me of 1e (or as Ari Marmell says, reminds him of Basic/Expert/etc. D&D!) and the more they keep releasing it doesn't look like the last...

I've already adopted that idea for 3.x games when I DM; any combat encounter is assumed to take about 10 minutes when all is said and done. And even if it actually took place over five 6-second rounds, that doesn't mean that all of the action took place over a contiguous 30-second span of time; those 30 seconds just show the highlights of the battle.

I actually really hate the 6-second rounds (and GURPS' 1-second rounds even more) because it encourages people to take things far too literally.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm not saying it's worse, but I do think it *feels* different. You can reasonably expect a PC who's lost a lot of his hit points to want to be healed up to at least half his normal total before continuing. (Players who insist on "topping off" their characters are always going to do so, though--in any version of the rules.) But here, I'm talking about the difference between "I don't think I have enough hit points to survive another encounter" and "I really want to have my Power of Amaunator available for every encounter."

But that's no different from "I only have 1 5th-level spell, and I don't feel comfortable moving on without it." It's always been a factor with resource management, and it was much more limiting to advancement in 3e, since you were bound to a variable "refresh cycle," depending on the ability.

The only difference I see is what was once a system that was different based on the class (8 hours, time of day, 24 hours, etc.) is now a system that is consistent for all classes.

Further, I think it leads to an artificial rest period between groups of monsters, so that they can be technically considered "new" encounters. As I understand it, if the party goes from a group of goblins in this room to a group of goblins in the next room without waiting the full five minutes, they're considered to be still in the same encounter--and, thus, less prepared, for lack of having used their "per-encounter" powers less then five minutes ago.

Again, I don't see how this "artificial rest period" is any different from earlier editions. You go into a dungeon, fight a few encounters, then take 8 hours (or more) to recover, since your spellcasters are out of spells by then. Fighting off a gang of goblins, then taking a couple minutes to catch your breath isn't unreasonable in comparison.

Perhaps. But most parties aren't composed entirely of barbarians--or even classes that have "once per encounter" special abilities. True, a spellcaster who blows his day's allotment of spells in one encounter is going to lobby heavily for resting (for several hours), and I agree that that's bad. But it seems to me that we've merely traded resource management for time management.

"Heavily lobbying" often turns into "complete necessity" when said spellcaster is your only healer, and is blowing through his spells fast because there are 3 or more other people to heal as well as himself.

In 3e, you had three different time management systems that applied to different classes. Divine casters had to prepare at a particular time of day, and only at that time. Arcane casters had to prepare spells after 8 hours of uninterrupted rest. Other per-day abilities require either 24 hours between activation.

If your cleric prays at dawn, and runs out at noon, you either have to wait until the following dawn or continue without healing. If your wizard runs out of spells, you've got to stop for 8 hours and make sure there are no interruptions, then be able to continue. But if you've got a situation where both occurs, then by 8 pm (after 8 hours of rest at noon), the wizard will be ready to go, but the cleric still has another 10 hours in order to be able to pray for spells again.

In 4e, you have two time management systems that apply to all (known) classes. Per-encounter abilities require a 5 minute "short rest" to refresh. Per-day abilities require a 6 hour "long rest" to refresh. Consistent, simple, and allows all characters to be refreshed at the same rate, instead of running into the "I've still got 18 hours left on the cooldown to pray to my beloved deity for healing" issue.

Out of the two, 3e sounds like far more time management than 4e, since you have to track different "cooldowns" for different classes.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's not the first thing that reminds me of 1e (or as Ari Marmell says, reminds him of Basic/Expert/etc. D&D!) and the more they keep releasing it doesn't look like the last...

Yes. But claims of "it doesn't feel like 3E" are not the same thing as "it doesn't feel like D&D". I think most people making the second claim actually mean the first.

 

[AllisterH]

If the goal is to preserve the feel of D&D, then anything that reminds players of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs while they're playing runs counter to the goal.

I'm not sure it's possible for this NOT to happen. Let me explain hopefully.

When I started playing with 1E, there was no TCGs, MMOs, Console/PC RPGs or CMGs. There simply was nothing to compare the experience to.

When I switched over to 2E, there still was no TCGs or CMGs to compare my play experience with. Playing 2E was a singular experience as the only MMO I knew about back then and had played was the original Neverwinter Nights and the console/PC RPGS were basically D&D RPGs (the goldbox series/ultima)

When I switched over to 3E, M:TG had trumped D&D, Diablo had conquered the etherspace and Final Fantasy VII had rocked the N.America gaming scene and I think I started playing Mage Knight the same time. Funny enough, many people claim that 3E plays like Diablo

When 4E is released, it is being released in a sea of TCGs, MMOs, PC/Console RPGs and CMGs. Pretty much impossible NOT to find some aspect of the game with other things in such a manner.

So how is it possible for a game to be unique in such an environment. For example, in my play experience, D&D combat has never really done real-time battles well a la WoW, but in 1E, there was no game to compare it to whereas in 4E, I can say, "Oh, it's not like WoW but more like Disgaea/La Pucelle Tactics" and a fair number of people would nod their heads in agreement.

 

[Zaruthustran]

If the goal is to preserve the feel of D&D, then anything that reminds players of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs while they're playing runs counter to the goal.

All those game formats are derivatives of D&D, in one way or another. So if (a derivative of) D&D reminds you of (the current edition of) D&D, that's bad?

So, while ideas, mechanics, and, naming conventions from other games may be brilliant bits of game design, when they appear in D&D, I'm reminded of those other games. (In fact, I recall using the expressions "tap" and "untap" during our demo game, and at one point saying "F4" and miming pressing a button on my keyboard when activating one of my character's "at will" powers.)

To me, that's not good.

JD

If I understand you correctly, your complaint is that 4E reminds you of Magic and WoW. So if you'd played OD&D, then avoided any sort of game for 34 years, and then tried 4E, you'd have nothing to compare 4E to other than OD&D, and thus would have no problem. Right?

It sounds like the core of your issue is not 4E. The core of your issue is you. You're a smart guy and you've played games other than D&D. Being a smart guy, you perceive similarities between D&D 4E and these other games. For some reason, for you this perception is negative.

I... I don't think anyone, including the 4E designers, can help you with that. You've got to work that out for yourself.

 

[JeDiWiker]

So if (a derivative of) D&D reminds you of (the current edition of) D&D, that's bad?

Your confusion may stem from the fact that you've got it backwards.

If I understand you correctly, your complaint is that 4E reminds you of Magic and WoW.

Apparently, you don't understand me. My complaint, as referenced in the post that started this thread, is that 4E does not feel like the D&D I'm used to. Two of the causes are that it reminds me of CCG mechanics and MMO power-naming conventions.

It sounds like the core of your issue is not 4E. The core of your issue is you.

Apparently, then, I'm the core of some other people's issues, too--because I know for a *fact* I'm not the only one who feels this way.

JD

 

[hong]

Apparently, you don't understand me. My complaint, as referenced in the post that started this thread, is that 4E does not feel like the D&D I'm used to. Two of the causes are that it reminds me of CCG mechanics and MMO power-naming conventions.

As long as you don't also start complaining about how "exploits" are about cheating, it's all good.

 

[JeDiWiker]

But that's no different from "I only have 1 5th-level spell, and I don't feel comfortable moving on without it." It's always been a factor with resource management, and it was much more limiting to advancement in 3e, since you were bound to a variable "refresh cycle," depending on the ability.

The major difference I see is that the refresh rate is so short that it becomes far more attractive. In previous editions, knowing that you were going to be "out of action" for 6-8 hours was a tactical concern--the monsters might be ready for you next time. In 4E, as near as I can tell, the 5-minute refresh rate encourages you to take more rest periods.

But, again, if it doesn't feel different to you, then more power to you. I'm not trying to convince you not to play 4th Edition. I'm just explaining the factors behind *my* disappointment with what I've seen so far.

JD

 

[Zaruthustran]

Apparently, you don't understand me. My complaint, as referenced in the post that started this thread, is that 4E does not feel like the D&D I'm used to. Two of the causes are that it reminds me of CCG mechanics and MMO power-naming conventions.

Well, I hope you're able to work things out but it looks like it's a longshot. Given:

1. 4E is not the D&D you're used to (it is a new edition).

2. The new edition, by design, builds off proven & successful mechanics from other (D&D-inspired) game formats.

Apparently, then, I'm the core of some other people's issues, too--because I know for a *fact* I'm not the only one who feels this way.
JD

I doubt you're the core of other people's issues, man. But if you meant that you know other people who prefer OD&D to the newer editions, and who are also having trouble enjoying 4E's changes because they're reminded of other games... well, I believe you. I don't think your issue is unique.

At any rate: I appreciate the replies, and I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say after the full release.