Farewell to thee D&D

[apoptosis]

I think that depends on how you view characters who cast rituals. Is a character who started out as a Fighter, then trained in Arcana and learned to cast Rituals still a "Fighter" in his own eyes and the eyes of the other characters or is he something else? In my opinion, a character who trains in an area that is normally outside his specific "career" and then gains magic powers related to that knowledge has transcended he boundaries of his original class and become "wizard-like" or "cleric-like" enough to count as a member of those groups, even if the sum of his abilities isn't exactly the same as a normal member of that class. In fact, if your point of view is that being capable of "extreme feats" that alter the very fabric of the world through magic is the defining feature of a Wizard (or Cleric) then that's even further justification for considering anyone who acquires that power to be part of that group. From that perspective, rituals are still only available to Wizards and Clerics, some of those character just come to be Wizards and Clerics through non-standard routes.

That is a good way look at it.

I overall honestly dont like the general direction of it for my own version of a FRPG, but at the same time I think that your idea is definitely a great way to approach 4E. it does not do much for the wizard unleashing potent powers during a battle but it does address some of the other issues in a nice manner.

It does render the class names somewhat irrelevant

Basically it means that Wizards (class) just practiced combat magic while everyone (generally i believe most everyone would) practices magic.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am totally cool with narrating regular attacks with cool descriptions. The problem in 4E is that so many actions and conditions are "keywords" that have mechanical meaning beyond the narrative. The real problem I keep bumping up against with 4E is that the SYSTEM and the GAME THEORY seem to be at odds with one another.

The DMG gives great advice on running a game the way YOU want with lots of great suggestions on making stuff up to suit your tastes.

The PHB is a huge clumsy collection of mechanics that is at odds with the DMG. Its a monster made of text that takes over 350 pages to tell you what you can and can't do.

As a whole the system is confused about what it wants to be. I like games where story is the important element and rules don't have to make sense but It helps if the game is RULES LITE (Basic D&D for example).

If a game is going to have involved complex rules then I expect those rules to make sense and for the system to have overall internal consistency. (GURPS for example)

Good old Basic D&D. Its easy to make things up, monster and NPC design is a snap, and the rules are simple and stay out of the way.

Isn't this dichotomy between abstraction and concrete concept (hit points vs. Craft (Basketweaving), perhaps) something that has always been in D&D?

I question whether the "purity" of the game to lean to one concept at the expense of another is actually such a great idea.
What I see in 4E is mostly an attempt at "utility". The system does what we like or want systems to do, even if it mixes concepts that we usually don't associate. It's goal is not purity of design, but combing ease of use with interesting use.
Resource Management is interesting, hence we get a power subsystem that requires resource management. But we also like to rule stuff that's not explicitly part of the game system, so we get the stunt rules and skill challenges.
Maybe it's all an example of what "exception based" design means. You define a lot of common game terms, but then use more vague guidelines how to have them interact with each other. Individual powers might seen like pretty hard-detailed concepts, but the framework that allows us creating them only uses some basic building blocks and a few guidelines on how to create them.

I guess in some ways it does depending on how you look at it.

From my perspective it completely does not do this and is one of the worst of systems for this. The wizard has pretty stable power distribution throughout the story and it is very very similar to every other class (this is of course by design).

Rituals do change this a bit i imagine but there is also the added issue that rituals are not specific to wizards (or clerics) but are pretty much available to all.

Well, 3E and 4E both have multiclassing. Just because Ritual Spellcasting is not labeled as multiclassing, it is still a form of multiclassing. You even need to learn Arcana to get access to Rituals as a Non-Cleric or Non-Wizard, and is a fighter or paladin versed in knowledge of magic really a mere fighter or paladin anymore?

 

[BronzeDragon]

My players tend to be a little more unpredictable than yours it seems, and that's fine. I have to prepare for them and you have to prepare for yours...

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with you Guomindong. You seem to have a very different view of what the game is and you also seem to think your way is much better, so more power to you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Basically it means that Wizards (class) just practiced combat magic while everyone (generally i believe most everyone would) practices magic.

In many respects, this is certainly true. In a way, your power source and combat role just define your "fighting style". (Similar to Iron Heroes classes, in that regard).

Though there are some things that go a little beyond that. There are class features that go beyond that, but they aren't as obvious as the rest. The Rogue for example is always trained in Thievery. That tells us nothing about his combat style or role, but a lot about his role in the world or the party.

I suppose they could (and maybe should) have done more in that regard. Personally, I'd like to see a "non-combat" equivalent to the entire power system made by the 4E designers. Though it might not appeal too many - I don't know.

 

[Ourph]

Basically it means that Wizards (class) just practiced combat magic while everyone (generally i believe most everyone would) practices magic.

It's fairly "expensive" resource-wise to gain the ability to cast rituals if you don't at least start the game with the Arcana or Religion skill. So far, I have not seen a great desire on the part of players of those classes (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue for example) to invest in getting the ability to cast rituals. I can see someone doing it if they had a specific character concept in mind (especially if they were already multiclassing as a Wizard or Cleric) but I disagree that "most everyone" will take the opportunity to gain the ability to cast rituals. I think it will actually be quite a rare occurence for martial-type characters.

 

[Kitirat]

Interesting thread, I found most of it actually pretty civil and the rudeness calls a bit over zealous. People will respond to "I dis-like posts" with debate and discussion, especially when their view points are not as the OP's. I think the post itself was better focused as a blog entry if no differing opinion posts were desired.

But to the point, I think your analysis is well thought out and a very good description of why simulationist may not like 4th. For myself, so far it has been a blast and I've DMed or played in over 30 sessions. However your correct IMO with the assumption that it is perception which determines your like and dislike of 4th. Gothmog BTW had awesome suggestions on how to make any 4th ed you have to play in the future more enjoyable for those whom have difficulty with relative threat. I think this is where much of the dislike for 4th comes from. For example, minions out of context are a bit silly. A 4 year old with a slingshot getting lucky and taking down a 20th level devil is horrid conceptually. However, when you take it in the context for relative threat (a 20th level devil is better described by another stat block to that low a level threat) it works well even for simulationists. In a fight against 20th level characters, the devils do not pose that big a threat and can be dispatched by focusing on them. They have different stat blocks not for complication but for simplification. When the party deals with them they will almost always be high enough level to make the devils seem like minions for their relative difficulty.

Your issues on dragon breath size is reasonable IMO, mostly for the blue dragon as most othe others have moderate sized greath and a "feat" of enlarged breath will likely come out in the drancomion to deal with that.

From my experience 3.5 is a wonderful system up till about 11th level, then it starts to decay horridly and after 15th gets overly burdened with up to 15 "buffs" per individual, etc.

4th is fun, its new, and I'm still looking into it more. I wish ya the best and am sorry for your group loss. In time I hope ya find a way to be more flexible in your relatvie threat thinking, but many folks have difficulty with it forever.

Wish ya well,
Kitirat

 

[ExploderWizard]

Isn't this dichotomy between abstraction and concrete concept (hit points vs. Craft (Basketweaving), perhaps) something that has always been in D&D?

I question whether the "purity" of the game to lean to one concept at the expense of another is actually such a great idea.
What I see in 4E is mostly an attempt at "utility". The system does what we like or want systems to do, even if it mixes concepts that we usually don't associate. It's goal is not purity of design, but combing ease of use with interesting use.
Resource Management is interesting, hence we get a power subsystem that requires resource management. But we also like to rule stuff that's not explicitly part of the game system, so we get the stunt rules and skill challenges.
Maybe it's all an example of what "exception based" design means. You define a lot of common game terms, but then use more vague guidelines how to have them interact with each other. Individual powers might seen like pretty hard-detailed concepts, but the framework that allows us creating them only uses some basic building blocks and a few guidelines on how to create them.

An interesting point. Abstraction vs detail has always been an important factor in every edition. To me, Exception based design still seems like a copout to explain lazy or rushed mechanics. I just don't see the point of complication when there is a huge handwave at the end. I don't see 4E being a very successful attempt at utility. The system is more complex than it needs to be for what it sets out to accomplish.

Resource management has always been a part of play but some players actually liked the freedom of only having to manage hit points for a fighter and keep things simple. Others loved managing spell lists and played casters. In 4E equal complexity is forced upon all classes. I don't enjoy that kind of force fed complexity.

The stunt rules are a great idea. Skill challenges were a good idea that was poorly implemented.

As far as the system doing what we like systems to do, well thats very subjective. I like a system to handle basic resolution without it being so painfully obvious about doing its job.

As far as game balance goes, 4E has yet to do battle with the almighty splatbook.

 

[apoptosis]

It's fairly "expensive" resource-wise to gain the ability to cast rituals if you don't at least start the game with the Arcana or Religion skill. So far, I have not seen a great desire on the part of players of those classes (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue for example) to invest in getting the ability to cast rituals. I can see someone doing it if they had a specific character concept in mind (especially if they were already multiclassing as a Wizard or Cleric) but I disagree that "most everyone" will take the opportunity to gain the ability to cast rituals. I think it will actually be quite a rare occurence for martial-type characters.

i did not really convey what i meant well. I was jumping from a game perspective to a world-building perspective when I started talking about most players gathering rituals.

Though, I think since rituals are where a lot of power is (could be WAY wrong on this), many people probably will grab it at higher levels. But since I don't play 4E, others are way more competent to answer this question than I (which you actually chimed in on which so far is my only data point).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I guess it comes down to whether you like a gamist philosophy versus a realistic simulation philsophy. I freely admit I fall on the side of realistic simuation insofar as that is possible in a fantasy RPG.

I think you're a little confused here. AD&D 1&2E, whilst more simulationist than 4E (and to a lesser extent the somewhat confused 3E), are not exactly "simulationist" games. They're distantly wargame derived FRPGs which incorporate a mixture of game-oriented and simulationist concepts in a wierd and slightly random mix.

Saying that 3E, for example, advocates a "realistic simulation philsophy", to me, borders on the actually delusional. I have no doubt that Monte Cook and other 3E designers absolutely would not agree that that was what they were doing (esp. given intentional "newbie traps" etc.). Nor do I think Gary Gygax would have suggested that AD&D 1E was really going for "realistic simulation".

I mean, when Gary DID go for "realistic simulation" in the utterly simulationist Dangerous Journeys (which amazingly, I own), it could hardly have been further from AD&D, in most ways. Rolemaster would be a much more comparable game. Or GURPS, even. Those are games which go for a "realistic simulationist" approach, as do a couple of d20-based games, but D&D? Pfffft.

So, whilst I agree that you're completely reasonable to dislike 4E, and I can even say that I "feel you" on your criticisms, as they're problems I had with 4E at one time, too, I can't say that claiming you like "realistic simulation" as the reason you dislike 4E, seems even remotely reasonable. 3E was a good game with certain strengths, and clearly MORE simulationist than 4E. However, so is virtually every game on the market, that doesn't make them "realistic simulations".

Perhaps a more reasonable position would be for you to claim that you liked the peculiar mix of gamist and simulationist elements found in previous editions of D&D, and feel that by almost entirely stripping simulationist elements from D&D, 4E has also stripped D&D of it's heart and soul for you.

 

[SteveC]

In looking at this thread, I am really surprised at the number of people who don't seem to understand the OP's opinion at all. Coming to this discussion as someone who likes a lot of what 4E has to offer, I also realize that a lot of what it is doing is fundamentally different from what D&D has done before.

I absolutely love the new "narrative control" aspects to 4E, and I realize that this is nothing new to gaming as a whole, but it is all something very new to D&D. Shared narrative control is fundamentally different from what D&D has been about, at least historically. In addition to that, the metagaming levels that are a part of the game have also risen dramatically. Frankly that's also something I enjoy, as I find it fun to switch between immersive roleplay and the more "gamist" aspects of the system, because I like to compartmentalize the different parts of the game. But that is just me.

When I recently ran a Spirit of the Century campaign with more traditional gamers, about half of the group loved the control and jumped in head first, while the other half absolutely loathed the game. I haven't had such a strong and diametrically opposed reaction to a game in years (if ever).

What all this is intended to mean is that the core audience for earlier editions of D&D is in no way guaranteed to like the changes that have come with the new edition, and we shouldn't be surprised or angry that they're talking about it. The OP has been playing D&D for a long time, and has certain expectations for what D&D is to him. This new edition challenges many of those expectations. I would expect that if you asked Mike Mearls if he expected that some of the old timers would have this reaction, he would tell you that it was expected.

--Steve