D&D 3E/3.5 Does 4e sound more D&Dish to you than 3e did?

[M.L. Martin]

Define 'D&D'.

It sounds less 'old school' to me--but I am thoroughly sick of the ambience of "nasty, brutish, high-lethality, low-wonder, purely shades of gray fading to black, ruthless, amoral, demon-infatuated dungeon-crawling" that seems to define 'old school' to a sizeable minority, including some very influential people and publishers.

It does, however, seem to be carrying some of the sense of wonder and heroic feel I got from first looking at things like the Mentzer Expert rulesbook, 2E, and the other things that started me on D&D. I realize that I am an Offense Against True D&D, so I await the coming of my vorpal sword-bearing executioner.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Define 'D&D'.

It sounds less 'old school' to me--but I am thoroughly sick of the ambience of "nasty, brutish, high-lethality, low-wonder, purely shades of gray fading to black, ruthless, amoral, demon-infatuated dungeon-crawling" that seems to define 'old school' to a sizeable minority, including some very influential people and publishers.

It does, however, seem to be carrying some of the sense of wonder and heroic feel I got from first looking at 2E and the Rules Cyclopedia. I realize that I am an Offense Against True D&D, so I await the coming of my vorpal sword-bearing executioner.

[silly joking]

brutish: the new games will feature monsters specifically as brutes, so that's covered.

high lethality: from some of those playtests...oh baby yeah. Check.

shades of grey fading to black: points of light setting, check.

amoral: no alignments affecting the game, check.

demon-infatuated: tieflings as core race, but no aasimar, Asmodeus as a major deity, check.

dungeon-crawling: looking at the playtests, I think that can be viewed as a foundation, check.

You were saying?

[/silly joking]

 

[MerricB]

But I don't think you can say that it is more like D&D because it is different from D&D.

If you grab Original D&D (the three booklets) and then compare it to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, you'll find a bunch of stuff that has grown up about that core.

If you then look at BECM D&D, you see a different bunch of stuff that has grown up about the same core.

But they give two quite different feels.

So, with 4e.

One thing that I really, really like about 4e is how it's going to make groups of orcs the default assumption for encounters with orcs, rather than just a couple.

Cheers!

 

[Abstraction]

Yes, it does.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

The new Edition seems to bring a sense of wonder back, i assume this based on the news about monsters having more distinctive "monster powers" not just arcane oder divine spelleffects disguised as abilitys. The parts about Gnolls fighting like savage hyenamen, orcs fighting different than hobgoblins etc., all that strikes me as like they try to infuse the game with the same kind of charme and, well, sense of wonder most of us used to feel while playing AD&D for the first time. Of course, most of my assumbtions are merely wishfull thinking at this point, but that's the kind of vibe i get from the previews. True to the essence of D&D in spirit

 

[mmu1]

One thing that I really, really like about 4e is how it's going to make groups of orcs the default assumption for encounters with orcs, rather than just a couple.

1. "Just a couple" of orcs is only the default assumption for a 1st level party. (and, as has been pointed out lots of times when the WotC guy whose name escapes me wrote a rant about it, this argument is a gross oversimplification and something of a strawman)

2. You can do the same thing in 3E, simply use Goblins but call them Orcs, or give the PCs an extra level.

It's not like they're going to wave a magic wand to make this happen and create something we've never seen before, you know - they'll either make the PCs stronger, or the Orcs weaker. Whether this is done by fiddling with HP, damage output, Armor Class, special abilities, or magic (or a combination of some or all of these things) might affect the exact feel of it, but in the end, it's just simple math.

 

[The Little Raven]

1. "Just a couple" of orcs is only the default assumption for a 1st level party. (and, as has been pointed out lots of times when the WotC guy whose name escapes me wrote a rant about it, this argument is a gross oversimplification and something of a strawman)

4 heroes can only face 2 orcs starting out? That is lame, since the only real challenge involved is who wins initiative.

2. You can do the same thing in 3E, simply use Goblins but call them Orcs, or give the PCs an extra level.

If you have to make a workaround, there is a problem.

It's not like they're going to wave a magic wand to make this happen and create something we've never seen before, you know - they'll either make the PCs stronger, or the Orcs weaker.

Spending years developing and testing things is a little more involved than the faerie godmother-style activities you ascribe to it.

 

[mmu1]

4 heroes can only face 2 orcs starting out? That is lame, since the only real challenge involved is who wins initiative.

Damn. I really don't see how I can possibly refute a brilliant argument like "that's lame".

I mean, what can you possibly say to that... other than it's just your own opinion - and considering the little threadcrapping game you've been playing, pretty much worthless.

If you have to make a workaround, there is a problem.

Who says you have to make a workaround? I don't think the current system is lame and your unsupported opinion on the subject is irrelevant, so no one has to do anything, and there is no problem.

 

[Celebrim]

Spending years developing and testing things is a little more involved than the faerie godmother-style activities you ascribe to it.

If only I had your confidence. But I don't see alot of evidence of years of developing and play testing.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm sorry but WoTC can't sell me my youth back no matter how much they shake up the ant farm and say it's brand new material and that the changes are good. Most of the fluff and attitude I've seen so far say, "Hey, we've moved beyond you in terms of stories you can tell because we want a new generation to be able to tell this stories of farm boys in dangerous worlds" as opposed to say me running a highly political adventure in Waterdeep with a host of power players and deities involving themselves in things. (Or basically anything other than the 'points of light' campaign which should just be ONE campaign model not the default in my humble opinion.)

The mechanics on the other hand are interesting to me but remind me of nothing D&Dish and for me, that's a good thing.