D&D is Back!

[Dinkeldog]

Tamvriel, I appreciate that you're new to the boards. Please see the rules posted in sticky threads almost everywhere. They will ensure you have a warm welcome and long stay here.

Thanks,
Dinkeldog/Moderator

 

[mcrow]

So far I like what I have seen of the the game and it really makes me want to play in a way that D&D hasn't in the last two editions.

No, 4E is not dumbed down. I wish people would quite saying was because it most defintly isn't. More streamlined, yet just as tactical , IMO.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Time for a dissenting voice that brings some experience to the party (and hopefully a lot less rancor...)

4e is a lot of things, being like 1e AD&D is not one of them. There is a substantial streamlining of the rules and I for one am grateful for it, but too many things that were 'optional' are now 'mandatory'. I have noticed a great deal of things where the designers threw the baby out with the bath water; for instance, Epic Destinies and Paragon Paths - first there is no fluff and once we get here its like "pretentious much?" Angelic face and astral wings, glowing weapons, what the heck is this the Matrix? What if you don't think this is a good idea or if it doesn't fit into your campaign style? No optional rules, just deal with it this is the way it is. By putting it into the PHB they have already made my job difficult because every player will say, but its in the book... at least when it was in the DMG I could say, you shouldn't be reading that anyway.

I'm looking at some of the rules and thinking, "great job" and others thinking "what illegal substances were you imbibing when you created this?" Mind you the system isn't a total loss, but there are far too many things that should have been changed before it went to press. PoL is an obvious design error and campaign creation is going to be a ton of work that may just have me shelving a 'system with a few kinks'.

The more I've played 3.x and previewed 4e (which I've done over several months btw) the more I want to start an AD&D campaign - you know, before two-weapon fighting, before spell limitations, before UA and the dread barbarian or cavalier... It's not that the system was better, just more realistic (and of course that is a far stretch from meaning total realism.) But there were no video games to influence the design back then, in fact AD&D influenced the video games...

I hate WoW and Evercrack and pretty much every other MMORPG on the market, so when I see their influence on the game that I love, yeah it irks me. I understand the reason for it, and as a poster stated on another thread it seems like we are moving farther away from the DM being part of the equation at all. Just players and rules, no administrator. I would hope this isn't the case, but I have to admit, from what I've seen here, especially SUGGESTING that DMs play a character is breaking a rule that goes far beyond tradition for me, nigh unto blasphemy.

I realize a lot of folks started with either 3.x or even 2e, which were vastly different from the original AD&D (or even OD&D for that matter). Part of the charm was the 'rules light and ready to fight' attitude it had, and while I admire the designers for trying to recapture that feeling, there were just too many other things that they tried to force upon me as a DM through the rules to make it worth my while in running this out of the box. So a year or so from now when I finally have all my house rules done, I'll let you know how it turns out.

 

[evildm]

Time for a dissenting voice that brings some experience to the party (and hopefully a lot less rancor...)

Kudos on a thought-out and well-reasoned response.

In fact I agree with alot of your sentiment. There's alot of "forced fluff" so to speak to almost shoehorn the game into the PoL setting. I like that they moved away from Greyhawk, but I don't like that they moved into a less generic setting. On that same token, however, I think that had they not done this, the books would not be as inspiring as they are. When I say inspiring, I don't mean that they give me ideas for a PoL-like setting. Not at all. Instead, I feel less restricted by the system. As another poster put it, 3e pretty much had a rule for everything. This one seems to encourage DM fiat that much more, which makes me feel alot freer than I was feeling towards the end of 3e. That's the biggest attraction.

I could move to AD&D or C&C or something. And in fact, towards the end of 3e's life-cycle, I was seriously considering it. But while my players enjoyed their foray into AD&D to pay our respects to Gary Gygax, none seemed to want to make it a permanent thing. 3e, I think, was very much the players' game. It gave all kinds of cool new abilities to players and made characters more interesting to create and play (mechanically). Unfortunately, this seemed to greatly over-complicate things for the DM. I think this is what led to alot of DM's fatigue with 3e, it certainly led to mine. So, all this to say that I think it's good that 4e seems much lighter on the DM, while still giving the players what they want: cooler characters.

Again, I totally agree with you on the fluff aspect of it, but I'm thankful that my players will be understanding enough when I tell them to basically disregard all of that and I replace it with my own (Eberron-appropriate) stuff.

I think I blabbered on enough about that. Hope it made sense.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

So far I like what I have seen of the the game and it really makes me want to play in a way that D&D hasn't in the last two editions.

No, 4E is not dumbed down. I wish people would quite saying was because it most defintly isn't. More streamlined, yet just as tactical , IMO.

Yeah but calling it "streamlined" won't insult anyone, so we have to call it "WoW" and "dumb" to get our point across.

 

[Lanefan]

{....} I would hope this isn't the case, but I have to admit, from what I've seen here, especially SUGGESTING that DMs play a character is breaking a rule that goes far beyond tradition for me, nigh unto blasphemy.

I more or less agree with most of what you said, Thunderfoot, except for this. I have no problem, either as player or DM, with the DM playing a character, though I was unaware as yet that 4e suggests it. Usually, the players run the DM's character by committee anyway, except when a significant decision has to be made.

But, party NPCs are useful things...guides, double agents, filler if there's a hole in the party lineup, henchmen, etc.

Lanefan

 

[mrswing]

The 3.x rules were in dire need of revision, simplification, and streamlining.

Agreed.

4E is a quantum leap forward in game design. The main influence I see on 4E is a LOT of Savage Worlds design elements, placed into the context of D&D.

Why can SW then put an entire system plus small monster manual in 158 pages? Sorry, much prefer SW's take to 4e's approach. Why is it a quantum leap forward??

4E supports character building, but without the glory-hogging and ego-tripping of 3.x.. .. PCs are designed to be part of a team in 4E, and if you don't play with the team, you die. 4E also has decreased the need for rules master, which is a HUGE plus in my opinion.

I totally agree on the rules mastery thing (utterl stupid in a RPG context). But what if you only have one player? (a problem of previous editions too, but now, with the added mini/battlemap emphasis, many powers are useless if you have a solo hero). The obsessive emphasis on party roles and interdependency is not a good thing IMNAAHO opinion.
Every character class should be viable as a solo character AND play well together too. That would be a real quantum leap in game design.

For me, the less intrusive the game elements are in the game, the more I get into the game and can visualize the world and my character.

Once again, totally agree - but things like marking and shifting and sliding and narrow PC roles etc. etc. are very intrusive to me and take me right out of the 'reality' of the game. (And no, I don't think 3.X 'got it right'. I just don't like some of the more important 'solutions' 4e came up with for these problems).

I'm interested to know one thing though - with increased HP all around and generally less damage dealt, how do you manage to reduce the time spent in combat so much?

 

[Dice4Hire]

Great so your are all excited because they made it dumb enough for an ape to play D&D, small wonder that....

None of my players are excited by 4e, it just means that they have to spend more money on more books.

WoTC is doing for D&D what they did for Magic the Gathering, every time they perceive a loss of money, they put out an edition. BRILLIANT

There is a simplistic viewpoint.

Or a troll? Hard to tell....

 

[mcrow]

Yeah but calling it "streamlined" won't insult anyone, so we have to call it "WoW" and "dumb" to get our point across.

It does seem that those who don't like 4E try to use the most insulting form of thought they can.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

This is pretty much a cut and paste of what so many people posted up here when 3E came out. the difference back then was that only a few people were disagreeing with them. It was a very small minority back then, now, it is a vocal segment, possibly not even a minority.

You must be remembering a different year 2000 than I do, then.