DDXP: When Anti's become Pro's

[Darrin Drader]

It was really just a couple of seemingly small things that pushed me over th edge towards getting off the fence. The first is story based XP rewards. Sure, any DM could already do that just fine, but bringing the story back into the equation in more than just a background sort of way really makes me happy as someone who runs story based games.

The second seemingly small issue was that it has actual rules for the DM setting the rate of advancement for the party. Like many, I feel that the sweet spot with 3.5 ends somewhere around level 14. If this extends that to level 20 and then has good guidelines for making that range last even longer through judicious XP rewards or alternate advancement tables, then great.

The third issue is the nixing of prestige classes. Yes, I've designed my share of them, some of which have apparently proven popular, but I was never that big of a fan of them. To me, a prestige class is just an alternate set of class abilities with some flavor text tacked on. I'd much rather see the rules support sticking with the original core class with some ability to multiclass. Looks like that's what they did (and I'm sure the min-maxers out there are getting their torches and pitchforks ready for me right about now).

Another main factor is that it sounds like its easier for beginners to learn. Sure, I'm no beginner, but I often have at least one beginner in any of my games. 2E was great for beginners. I ran a campaign back in 1998 where there were six of us and only me and one other guy had done any amount of RPGing in the past. The others picked it up really fast because the system was easy to learn. I had a little more of a hard time getting beginners to "get" the game with 3E. They often seemed confused about their options and felt that many of the rules were difficult to grasp, like grappling, overrun, etc.

I also like that the game does not assume that you will be loading up your PCs with magic items. As a DM, I have always tried to create an epic but gritty feel, and one of the ways I accomplished that was by being notoriously stingy with the magic items. It's a good thing that the game no longer gets messed up if the 5th level fighter's best weapon is a +1 longsword.

So in essence, it was the Ain't It Cool News review that pulled me over to the dark side. Now that I'm onboard and have preorderd the books, I have to sit patiently for the next three months while we wait for the new rules to release. I have a feeling that's going to be somewhat more difficult.

 

[Glyfair]

The funny thing is that I've seen quite a few (maybe just as many on here and RPG.net) go the OPPOSITE direction; they have been previously hopeful and liking the tidbits, but the info dump this weekend has turned them suddenly OFF.

I've seen a few people on the forums like that, but I haven't seen that from anyone who actually played the game.

To me, that's the test. It's easy to theorize about how you expect it will work. Until you sit down and try it, it's hard to know for sure.

I've seen a few people who have played and come to the conclusion that it wasn't for them. However, they all had very positive things to say about the game and how well it worked. They just felt it wasn't their style (or they felt attached to their 3.x purchases).

 

[Mirtek]

I liked most of the 4e crunch from the begining. My problem was and still is with the 4e fluff which I still dislike as much as when I first read about it.

 

[vazanar]

Another main factor is that it sounds like its easier for beginners to learn. Sure, I'm no beginner, but I often have at least one beginner in any of my games. 2E was great for beginners. I ran a campaign back in 1998 where there were six of us and only me and one other guy had done any amount of RPGing in the past. The others picked it up really fast because the system was easy to learn. I had a little more of a hard time getting beginners to "get" the game with 3E. They often seemed confused about their options and felt that many of the rules were difficult to grasp, like grappling, overrun, etc..

Funny I found it the opposite. I found in 2e new players could make characters quick with help, but had no clue how to play the game. Heck grapple/overrun were just dm decisions. Most of my group commented on liking 3e cause they understood the system. Everything is a d20 + a number to hit DC. Every group has their own playstyle and way of thinking.

Personally I think starting a new player with 8 powers, 2 of which make a standard attack silly will be quite confusing. Combine that with four AC's is a lot to take in. Having said that Im liking 4e for many things, but the new player aspect. (I also have a feeling Ill be stuck being the only DM even more since monsters and players use diffrent rules).

Overall I started more anti, but am slowly sliding towards positive with net info. A lot will be decided if WOTC can get their act together with the GSL. (Most games Ive run are in 3rd party worlds Ptolus/Iron Kingdoms or modules Dungeon/Pathfinder).

 

[DaveMage]

I've seen a few posters on various boards that were pro-4E, that are now convinced that 4E will provide nice house rules to add to their 3.5 game (which they are staying with).

 

[Darrin Drader]

Overall I started more anti, but am slowly sliding towards positive with net info. A lot will be decided if WOTC can get their act together with the GSL. (Most games Ive run are in 3rd party worlds Ptolus/Iron Kingdoms or modules Dungeon/Pathfinder).

My use of 3E campaign settings ignored most of the crunch whenever possible. In fact, we usually stuck to core rules only in most cases. Eberron was the major exception.

 

[Henry]

I've seen a few people who have played and come to the conclusion that it wasn't for them. However, they all had very positive things to say about the game and how well it worked. They just felt it wasn't their style (or they felt attached to their 3.x purchases).

Isn't that pretty much the same as getting turned off by their experiences with the game, though? Even if they think it's a decent game but not for them, it's still a question of their experience with it causing them to say "pass."

 

[GuardianLurker]

Still on the fence

I'm still on the fence personally.

Going in, I heard a lot of good design principles, but the rumored implementations still felt a little flat to me. I was actually worried that there'd be so many changes it wouldn't feel like D&D anymore.

The good news is that it still feels like D&D. The bad news is that I didn't see any compelling reason to switch. This isn't to say that I won't be switching, just that there's a very real possibility I won't be switching until after my current campaign is over (and it just started).

The biggest part of the bad news is that they reduced the complexity on the GM side by spreading some of it to the players (though some is just outright gone). A perfect example are what used to be saves and done by the target, are now attacks rolled by the attacker. Unfortunately, in doing so, a lot of the GM-bookkeeping tactics for dealing with saves in large groups (such as rolling "group" saves), are now much more intrusive, so if you're not careful you could end up with 2 mages each attacking a group of 10 monsters with an area spell, resulting in a total of twenty rolls, where in pre-4e, the GM would much likelier roll 2 saves total (or maybe 4, 8, or 10). I also have a feeling that the area effect damage will feel more complicated in play to most people than it really is. It certainly did to me.

In terms of doing "stuff", 1st level 4e characters seem to have about the same number of abilities and tactical choices as ~3rd level 3.x characters. Despite all the talk about "something to do every round", it many cases that was the same thing (because, frankly, some of the power choices are just no-brainers). Which implies a further power creep. On the plus side it does mean that every character seemed to be in parity.

The caveat to that is that the characters are very low level, and even in 3.x, there isn't a lot of power differential between a 3rd level fighter and a 3rd level mage. I suspect that most of the "simplifying" changes and/or "balancing" changes won't really start to impact until higher levels (maybe late Heroic, but more likely Paragon).

Finally, a lot of the changes I saw could, for the most part, be implemented in a 3.x game. Not the "at will/encounter/daily" division of powers, but most of the rest, including the healing changes. I expect that there will be a sizable contingent of GMs who retrofit/bolt-on those 4e changes to a 3e framework. I might even be one of them.

I didn't see anything to drive me away, but I didn't see anything to pull me in either. I really want to see the books when they come out in June. And hopefully the intro adventure will be Paragon-level. I just need more information.

 

[hong]

Personally I think starting a new player with 8 powers, 2 of which make a standard attack silly will be quite confusing.

This is only silly if you're coming to it from a 20-year D&D background. In a lot of v*deog*mes, auto-attacking is relegated to what you do when you're NOT using a funky power.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm still ambivalent.

ANGRILY ambivalent.

I might stay that way 'till 5e.

There's too much bad for me to just overlook it in favor of the good.

There's too much freakin' awesome for me to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'll probably be taking the hard hammer of House Rules to 4e like a wrecking ball, and re-building it around the skeleton left.

For all that, my first major 4e campaign will be Planescape, and it'll probably be embracing all of 4e's various weirdnesses as much as I can stand just to see how it works when thrown into my favorite thing.

My guess is I'll be playing a lot of FFZ instead, which won't be a PERFECT compromise for my purposes, but it will be 4e enough without being TOO 4e.

I'm not going to buy the books immediately at launch, though. I'll be biding my time, crocodile-like.