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

[Fallen Seraph]

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.

The difference as I see it, with the inclusion of per-encounter and at-will powers, it is simply less necessary to stop and rest.

This means you can open up dungeon-crawls more, say have them rushing to rescue someone, or escape a dungeon that is slowly filling with water, etc.

 

[Wolfspider]

The difference as I see it, with the inclusion of per-encounter and at-will powers, it is simply less necessary to stop and rest.

This means you can open up dungeon-crawls more, say have them rushing to rescue someone, or escape a dungeon that is slowly filling with water, etc.

Reminds me of the C1 Lost Shrine of Tamoachan.

And A4 In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords.

I'm glad to hear that 4e is finally going to let me run adventures like that.

 

[catsclaw]

I'm glad to hear that 4e is finally going to let me run adventures like that.

Nobody's saying it was literally impossible to run those adventures in previous versions, as if the books would self destruct if you had more than 4 combats in a day. If you really, really wanted to you could run a space-opera-meets-superheros-meets-Muppet-Babies game under 3.5 rules. The point is how easy the game system made it to run them. If you're playing a 5th level wizard or cleric in 3.5, having more than 4 combats in a day is suicide unless the combats are pushovers. If you're playing a 5th level fighter or rogue, you can go all day until the healing runs out. As a GM, you're forced to either design adventures with 4 combats or less, pass out wands so the wizards aren't totally useless, or watch the spellcasters get bored and start playing Halo on your XBOX during the 6th combat.

For what it's worth, I don't think 4e will be a great system to run that space-opera-meets-superheros-meets-Muppet-Babies game I alluded to earlier. I do think it's going to be a better system to run adventures with a built-in time limit, however.

 

[Lizard]

For what it's worth, I don't think 4e will be a great system to run that space-opera-meets-superheros-meets-Muppet-Babies game I alluded to earlier. I do think it's going to be a better system to run adventures with a built-in time limit, however.

I am interested in seeing how healing-surges-as-primary-resource-limit works in extended, as opposed to tournament, play. Assuming all healing, even item-based healing, consumes someone's HS, it provides a hard limit on how far you can go. (Look for mechanics to use healing surges to power non-healing-powers...for example, a fighter who 'exhausts himself' (burns a healing surge) to perform a powerful attack (maybe something that ignores DR). If WOTC doesn't use this concept, someone will.)

 

[Wolfspider]

As a GM, you're forced to either design adventures with 4 combats or less, pass out wands so the wizards aren't totally useless, or watch the spellcasters get bored and start playing Halo on your XBOX during the 6th combat.

Adventure design for more than 30 years supported this supposedly flawed approach. In 28 years of DMing using this approach and running plenty of adventures involving non-stop action and end-of-the-world deadlines, I never had players of spellcasters get bored enough to leave the table and fire up the Atari 2600 or Atari 5200 or or Sega Genesis or Nintendo 64 or Atari Jaguar or Sega Dreamcast or Playstation or Playstation 2 or X-box or X-box 2 or Playstation 3 or Wii.

I obviously must be doing something wrong.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Easily fixed by the DM house ruling that, unless he says different, /encounter powers reset between combats. That leave it open for a surprise attack on a weakened party, but in almost all cases its just not an issue. I put this in the category of stuff with the player who always moves in a zig-zag, just because he can in 4e. Its distracting only because its new and different.

I think that it the logical way to go. Just tell the players that it is assumed they have taken a quick breather unless the narrative tell them they have not (yet).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Adventure design for more than 30 years supported this supposedly flawed approach. In 28 years of DMing using this approach and running plenty of adventures involving non-stop action and end-of-the-world deadlines, I never had players of spellcasters get bored enough to leave the table and fire up the Atari 2600 or Atari 5200 or or Sega Genesis or Nintendo 64 or Atari Jaguar or Sega Dreamcast or Playstation or Playstation 2 or X-box or X-box 2 or Playstation 3 or Wii.

I obviously must be doing something wrong.

I get your drift. I have many fond memories of dungeon crawling as a Wizard carefully counting every last spell. "Do I use the last Fireball now, or hold onto this one big spell in case we get attacked at the end of the day when we are depleted?"

Nonetheless there is a real pacing issue here that every DM of every edition must wrassle with. The "9:15 am: It's Miller time!" is not new to 3e, although 3e did add certain kinds of options that made this more likely to occur IMO.

3e has given the players and PCs a lot of interesting options. That is a good thing. The downside is that PC potency became much more varied, not just PC to PC, but minute to minute. The net effect is it is harder on the DM to design encounters to be an appropriate match for his party -- the very same encounter could be either a cakewalk or eat a PC based on a bunch of little things the DM cannot easily influence.

4e is trying to take a problem off the DM's plate with a fresh look at resource management. The down side is we are losing the challenge of certain kinds of resource management. The plus side is we are losing the challenge of certain kinds of resource management.

From my POV, the net is players are losing a little while the DM is gaining a lot. My guess this will turn out to be a good thing overall. We shall see.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

This has been discussed before. If something's a good idea, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Ideas from a MMO should not be rejected simply because they're from a MMO.

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.

I ask again: so what? Of course it's not going to feel the same. It's not the same. 3E feels different than 2E. AD&D feels different than BD&D. So what? It's a new edition; if it were the same as 3E, there would be no point.

 

[catsclaw]

Adventure design for more than 30 years supported this supposedly flawed approach.

And for thousands of years, people copied books by hand. The existence of scriptoria is a lousy argument against the printing press.

In 28 years of DMing using this approach ... I never had players of spellcasters get bored enough to leave the table

Good god, man! 28 years? Doesn't it seem to you that with 28 years of experience you might be a tad better at it than 95% of the DMs out there?

Great DMs don't need rules that help them DM. Heck, a really great DM could run a great game based on the rules for checkers. Or maybe based on a medieval miniatures wargame.* But the sad fact is, the vast majority of us lack either the time or the talent to be a great DM. And that's where we need the rules to help us.



* Although maybe not rock-paper-scissors.

 

[Wolfspider]

Dear lord. 28 years.

I need a new hobby.