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

[Geron Raveneye]

And yet, here you are. Over 20 other wonderful forums to enjoy where you would be able to fully participate on topics involving a game that you've already said that you enjoy, as opposed to the single forum where you're involving yourself in topics that are of no interest to you.

Wow...care to explain that leap of logic that leads you from me saying that 4E does NOT sound more D&Dish to me than 3E did to me involving myself in topics that are of no interest to me? Or did you simply quote the wrong person? Just trying to chase off everybody who isn't jumping up and down with cheer at the sheer mention of 4E? Had a bad day and need to vent your frustration on somebody who simply answers a posed question? Got a personal problem with me? What is it, huh? I'd like a good reason to not report you for harassment, you know...because as far as I see it, your post came off totally unjustified in the context of this thread, my posting history here in toto, the personal interests in the game (edition nonwithstanding) I've stated here multiple times already, and the fact that I'm neither an extreme h4ter or f4nboy, and is nothing but a not-so-subtle hint for me to "bugger off" your 4E front lawn. Which I don't intend to do, by the way, so you better get used to me. So either I missed some crucial hidden snark in my simple response, or you're picking a bone with me without a reason. Either way, I'd like an explanation that sounds reasonable.

 

[Monkey Boy]

Ummm... so you are saying it reminds you more of something because its more new, novel, unique, and different from the thing it reminds you of?

You know, I can understand it giving you a sense of wonder. I can understand you liking the changes. I can understand you getting excited. And I can understand how being excited and having a sense of wonder can make you feel more like you did when you first approached the game.

But I don't think you can say that it is more like D&D because it is different from D&D. So, praise it for being new if that's your thing. But don't try to have your newness and your rhetorical cake too.

Something just didn't make sense with the OP, thanks Celebrim for figuring it out. MerricB I think your optimism in this instance is misguided.

 

[pawsplay]

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

No. To me, 3e was D&D, fixed. 4e to me sounds like a strong move away from what made D&D, D&D. I may or may not embrace 4e, but I know I'm not attracted to it the way I was to 3e, which won me over despite my reservations.

 

[MerricB]

No. To me, 3e was D&D, fixed. 4e to me sounds like a strong move away from what made D&D, D&D. I may or may not embrace 4e, but I know I'm not attracted to it the way I was to 3e, which won me over despite my reservations.

Interesting. If I may ask, when - or how - did 3e win you over? Were you coming from the perspective of someone who enjoyed AD&D or BECM D&D, or from another system having abandoned D&D?

Cheers!

 

[FourthBear]

From all reports, it's D&D to me. Will the default assumption be an assorted group of itinerants of varying races and abilities, wandering the lands in search of adventure and to right wrongs? Will there be elves, dwarves and other non-humans possible? Will there be spellslinging wizards and holy symbol wielding clerics? Sneaky rogues backstabbing and burly warriors hewing foes? Will the heroes be delving into weird ruins and vast underground complexes? Will there be bizarre and deadly traps? Will there be a bewildering variety of monsters and villainous opponents? Will the players build their heroes with races, classes, levels and attributes? Will we, in fact, be killing things and taking their stuff? C'mon, if it's not D&D, everyone would be calling it a rip-off!

I don't really understand the association of some of the game elements being changed with D&D. Most of those things to me are just things that happened to be present in the game I played, not integral elements to D&D. It's like during the 2e reboot someone complained that they couldn't see 3e as D&D since they dropped Save versus Wands. It's just not what I consider the heart of D&D.

 

[pemerton]

My impression of 4e is that it will continue the trend of 3E, which is taking D&D play away from the sort of play found in AD&D (especially 1st ed).

Have a read of the 1st ed PHB. The rules for character build are very simple - about the only choice a player has to make is one of weapon proficiency. The rules for action resolution are also very simple - there is a discussion of armour class and hit points. A good chunk of the book is spells - the most complex point of interface between character build and action resolution - and a good chunk of the book is advice on successful dungeon delving, bascially none of which draws expressly upon the character build and action resolution rules.

And a module like Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain is entirely consistent with this - the challenges in those modules are not mechanical challenges to be solved through sound mastery of the game rules - they are essentially operational challenges to be solved by clever players persuading the GM of the cleverness of their solutions. (IMO, it is this immediacy of this interface between player choice and GM decision that gives AD&D its reputation for suffering from abusive GMs.)

Now look at 3E. Extensive rules for character build. Extensive rules for action resolution, that interface in an intricate way - far more intricate than 1st ed spells - with those character build rules. Good play is very much about sound mechanical mastery. And there are frequent complaints about the GM being nerfed.

We are told that 4e will have equally extensive character build rules, and more complex action resolution mechanics (eg every class having at-will, per-encounter and per-day resources). So on the players side of the screen, those respects in which 3E differs from AD&D will be emphasised. At the same time, we are told that GM-ing will become easier ("points of light" makes it easy to world-build on the fly, new monster rules mean the GM does not have to interact with the character build rules, SWSE-style skill rules and reduction in contribution of per-day resources to PC power make mechanically-balanced module writing easier, etc). So the dominant role of the GM at the table will be reduced further, to perhaps being merely first among equals.

My own suspicion is that 4e will be a good game, worth playing for those who like heroic fantasy RPGing. But while it will have some tropes and themes in common with AD&D, I think the actual play experience will be very different.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[pawsplay]

Interesting. If I may ask, when - or how - did 3e win you over? Were you coming from the perspective of someone who enjoyed AD&D or BECM D&D, or from another system having abandoned D&D?

Cheers!

I cut my teeth on Basic D&D (red box) at age 8, and later moved on to AD&D through the neighbor kids. I eventually got frustrated with the rigidness of some game constructs and some aspects of realism (not necessarily combat lethality and such so much as "What do all these things eat?" and "Alignment tongues... why?"). By age 12 I was a convert to GURPS, Talislanta, and DC Heroes. I played just about everything. AD&D had left a kind of sour taste in my mouth, but I did play a little in college (any port in a storm, right?).

I heard some rumors about 3e on the Internet, became intrigued, then actually examined the books, and said, "Wow, they fixed just about everything important I considered needing fixing." 3e is far from a perfect gaming experience, but it allowed me to play D&D again, pretty much as I used to play it, but with less headaches. So I become a D&D player again in spite of myself, and have not looked back. I'm currently running a campaign that has gone from level 1 to level 13.

 

[MerricB]

My own suspicion is that 4e will be a good game, worth playing for those who like heroic fantasy RPGing. But while it will have some tropes and themes in common with AD&D, I think the actual play experience will be very different.

Very nicely stated. You make some very good points in your post. Thanks!

Cheers!

 

[Grog]

I don't know - if they really are ditching the four encounters per day paradigm, I think that alone will make 4E feel much more like 1E than 3E does. IMO, anyway.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of potential to regenerate some of the feel of play that I had back in the day playing Basic and AD&D. A lot of that comes from two places:

1. The notion that I will be able to use the game as a grab bag of challenges that I'll be able to throw at my players, and not worry so much about whether they're able to handle it. Back in AD&D, we fought a lot of stuff without having to camp every five minutes...at least, once we cleared about level 3 or so. And you didn't worry about whether you ran into orcs, giant snakes, or otyughs. It was all pretty similar after a certain point. It felt more organic. You could clear a dungeon level and rest next to the pile of bodies, at a natural break point, before you went down the stairs to the next level. I like the idea that 4E's challenge system will be more forgiving than 3E's CR/EL system, so I don't have to carefully weigh out whether I should have three ogre bashers and two orc shamans, or three orcs and two ogres. It reminds me of the old days when I used to design adventures by flipping through the Monster Manual with a few bookmarks and thinking about what it would be fun to fight this week.

2. The players don't all know what every monster is capable of. This was, to a certain extent, true of 3E. However, 3E made a lot out of maintaining some sort of continuity with 2E. 2E players knew what to expect from spells, classes, monsters, etc. 3E was an echo of earlier editions. Now, a lot of the basic systems are changing, and that means that there are going to be more surprises.