DDXP: When Anti's become Pro's

[Roland55]

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).

Now this is some of the very best advice I've ever read on this Forum. I'd give you a cookie or a chiclet, but I don't think ENWorld supports those virtual rewards.

It's a game. As such, you really should experience it first, directly, before deciding whether it's for you ... or not. Reading the rules is not enough -- it can never be enough.

I also have a fundamental disagreement with people who think of 4E as a 'replacement' for 3E. It's not. It's a new and very different game -- an entirely new 'take' on the fantasy role-playing game many of us started somewhere in the early to mid 70s. All previous Editions still exist and can still be enjoyed. If most folks 'move on' to the latest Edition, that's just basic human nature.

So ... get out there and try it. Maybe you'll like it. Maybe you won't. But please remember that it's just a game. It doesn't deserve the sort of strong emotion that's caused so much trouble the past 7 months.

EDIT: Embarrassment!! I didn't answer the OP's question...

When the news hit, I immediately adopted the posture I developed decades ago: on the fence, leaning toward what folks here call Pro. I resolutely maintain that posture until I can play the game myself with one or more of the groups I game with now. Recent news has certainly not made me lean to the Anti side, but I really need to experience the new game myself.

 

[Roland55]

It was really exciting to follow DDXP online, but I was a bit unimpressed by the sample PCs. I don't want to play any of them. So my hitherto perma-boner for 4e has drooped a little.

Don't despair, Sir!!

Once you've tried the system yourself, I predict with some confidence that you will create much more exciting characters than the ones we've heretofore seen. After all, you only have to worry about pleasing Doug McCrae -- WOTC had to fire scattershot at all of us.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've played it and I think it aachieves a HIGHER level of realism than 3e, BECAUSE of it's abstract, gamist slant.

But it's all about playstyle, I agree. It suits my style much better than 3e. I think it would suit other styles better than people think it will, once they have a chance to try it and skew it how they like. (And I don't even mean housrule, I simply mean skewing their understanding of the concepts offered.)

Or, you may really not like it.

Fitz

 

[Wolfspider]

I've played it and I think it aachieves a HIGHER level of realism than 3e, BECAUSE of it's abstract, gamist slant.

I'd be very interested in hearing how you explain this seeming paradox.

 

[Ktulu]

I'd be very interested in hearing how you explain this seeming paradox.

Simple. If I'm not constantly worried about how this doesn't fit the simulation as much as this (HP's VS movement) or Facing VS Space, etc, then I can focus more on how the rules correctly allow for the combat to smoothly run. In turn, this allows for more cinematic and exciting fluff during the encounter, i.e. if I'm not so heavily focused on the 390 abilities of the Pit fiend, I can remember how he enjoys mocking his enemies and play it out.)

Making the game smoother involves some abstract design (removing 11). In doing so, the map is simplified and you're not thinking as a gamist, because you're moving to attack, rather than re-counting your move 3 times to see what the safer path is.

Ktulu

 

[kmdietri]

Trying to like 4th Ed.

I'd have to say I'm in the trying to like 4th ed, but everything I've seen or read makes it harder and harder, the tip over the edge might be when they announced you can play over a dozen creatures from the MM as players... over a dozen, surely they meant several dozen, or maybe several score?.?.?....

Sigh.....

 

[Snapdragyn]

I was fiercely pro from the moment we first heard 4e was coming. I've loved ever bit of flavor we've heard (I seriously can't get enough of the new planes, partly because it's like WotC snuck into my head & grabbed ideas I'd been tossing around, then superchanged them). The early crunch (elf & magic items previews) seemed interesting.

... then it became clear the bard, druid, & barbarian were out for PHB1.

... then I saw just how far they went in lumping skills, that rogues only get 2 more than anyone else, that INT doesn't boost this, etc.

... then I saw that the mechanics are identical for every class (we'd known this for some time, but seeing the character sheets brought it to life); suddenly I had flashbacks of EQ2 where every class uses the same mechanics to fulfill different roles - & playing alts of different classes is, IMO, only worth it for the change of virtual clothes.

... then word from DDXP made it seem even more likely that multiclassing - well, sort of isn't (the 'fighter with a touch of rogue' approach). This was the final straw for me, as it seems to indicate that any character concept that won't fit the base 4 roles just doen't belong in 4e; I don't like having my imagination limited in this way.

So now I am anti - in fact, after writing this, I've decided to quit lingering on the fence & go cancel my Amazon pre-order. *sigh* I might change my mind once the product is released & I have a chance to look it over, but I rather doubt it - & since my 2 main gaming groups were solidly anti-4e (for cost reasons), I doubt they'll switch without me actively pushig for the change.

 

[Primal]

As NPCs.

(Exception-based "monster" design.)

So we're back to the days in AD&D when you needed to use "exception-based" NPC design to mechanically stat a "non-heroic" NPC who still was more exceptional than your average 0-level fighter? Um, what if I don't want to flip through DMG's "Monster Design" chapter each time I create such an NPC?

 

[LostSoul]

Um, what if I don't want to flip through DMG's "Monster Design" chapter each time I create such an NPC?

You'll probably have challenges that are either too easy or too difficult for the party. You'll hand out too many or too few XP.

I can't think of any other consequences off-hand.

 

[Lanefan]

For me, nothing's changed. I started out with some interest in 4e, in vainglorious hopes it'd take the game back to its quirky non-shiny 1e-like roots...obviously, these hopes were soon quashed. So, I became somewhat anti-, but kept on looking for the silver linings...and found some, only every time I found one, something else would come along and turn it black.

The latest example from this past weekend:
POSITIVE: We learned that 4e FR is to base its look and feel on that of Roger Dean's artwork. Wonderful news! Best thing I'd heard about 4e so far; and if it holds up they've probably just sold me a 4e FR setting book on that basis alone.
NEGATIVE: Then we learned that magic item descriptions etc. will be in the PH and not the DMG. Inconceivably horrible design if you like any mystery in the game; magic items were a prime source of it...but no more, as from here on players will expect to have that information in their grasp *in every future edition*! Worst thing I've heard about 4e so far, and that's saying something.

I remain solid in my belief, however, that 4e will have some nicely poachable ideas for my own game.

Lanefan