D&D 4E Former 4E doubter , I have high hopes now

[Acid_crash]

I've never been a doubter at all about 4e... I'm going to purchase it with open arms and run the game of D&D that i've always wanted to run.

Good by 3.xe, and good riddance. No going back to you. Nope. Into the trash heep you go.

 

[Xyl]

I can't tell if this is a simple, new car/old car metaphor or a more elaborate, chintzy sh*tbox/icon of American culture metaphor.

The Model T may be more iconic than the Focus, because it was revolutionary when it first came out... but I'm pretty sure that the Focus is, objectively, a better car to drive.

 

[BryonD]

I disagree with you on most things ByronD, but I agree with you on this, exactly the proportions too.

It is mutual.

I think there are a lot of people I strongly disagree with here that I'd have a blast sitting around a table with.

Games can only encourage immersion a bit (and more with good consistent interesting fluff than rules), but the rules can easily break (or wildly change) immersion into little pieces by constantly screaming ITS A GAME!

Whilst I would never say 3.XE hides it's game nature well (even Chaosium's system does better), mostly due to it's super-tactical combat, it's clear that in 4E, as you say, the ITS A GAME signs will be all over. Oh well.

As you say... Oh well.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm afraid Pemerton's case is really very strong and well-worded. 3E and 4E aren't "entirely different games", but AD&D and 4E pretty much are. Bad thing? No, not at all, I think 4E will be awesome, but calling the differences "extremely minor tweaks" seems really silly, to say the least.

These are really significant changes that will have a very meaningful and, to my mind, largely positive effect on the game and it's playability.

No, those changes aren't that significant. Getting rid of races and classes? That's significant. Switching to a percentile die system? Significant.

Tweaks to the mechanics of races and classes? Not significant. Renaming of saves from "Breath Weapon" to "Reflex" or whatever? Minor tweak. Tweaking the way XP works? Minor tweak. Getting rid of XP altogether? Significant change.

Nope. Possibly well worded, but not a strong case at all. Unless you don't know much about games other than D&D and the scope of what you can imagine an RPG looking like is extremely narrow, that is.

4e still looks like iconic D&D to me. It doesn't look any more different from AD&D than OD&D did.

 

[PeterWeller]

The Model T may be more iconic than the Focus, because it was revolutionary when it first came out... but I'm pretty sure that the Focus is, objectively, a better car to drive.

Very true, but rarely does one hear objective points used in discussing the relative merits of different cars or RPGs, hence the confusion. It also didn't help that you used the automobile that started the company and one of the automobiles that may end up killing it.

 

[pemerton]

Well, yes. That's true.

I'm sorry, but what is your point?

Ever since 4e was announced, a debate has been going on on these boards as to whether the game will really be D&D, will finally nerf the role of the GM, etc.

Sometimes it's hard for me to work out what the criteria are for "real D&D" (eg I don't think it makes a great difference whether or not Gnomes are in the PHB). But those (like Reynard, Celebrim, Lanefan etc) who contend that the game won't support AD&D-style play are (IMO) right. My difference from them is that they think this is a bad thing, whereas I think it is (on the whole) an improvement.

To my mind (and I'm not now talking about you or about Hobo, but more generally) I find that D&D players have a far more expansive notion of what it means to "play D&D" than do players of other RPGs. So someone who houserules all the classes, strips out all the races, changes the feats, bans half the spells on the list, drops alignment and jacks on a new XP system is still happy to desribe him or herself as a 3E player. Thus, on another thread someone suggested to me that OGL Conan and D&D are really the same game. Yet no one that I know of suggests RQ and CoC are the same game, although purely mechanically they probably have as much if not more in common that OGL Conan and D&D.

This tendency makes it hard to talk about the playstyles that D&D supports, because "D&D" can be taken to mean so many different things. I'm sure some groups will buy the 4e books, drop half the elements I've identified, use it to play an operationally-based dungeon game, and find the suggestion that it is a very different game from AD&D ludicrous.

But, as written, it looks pretty different to me.

The product is called "Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition". The entire purpose of the product is that it is a brand new game. That's what it is.

I don't understand what the alternative could be.

Well, with some RPGs (eg RQ, RM, Hero, perhaps even Ars Magica) new editions have not meant major changes in the basic way the game plays, but simply minor tweaks to the mechanics to improve the way in which the game delivers the same play experience that was always intended.

That's not what WotC has set out to do with this product, and chastising a brand new game for being a brand new game... I mean, wow, that doesn't make any sense.

I'm not chastising. I'm simply arguing with those who deny that it's a brand new game.

All of those things that you call different: I call extremely minor tweaks to the exact same thing it's always been.

I guess I don't see how 4e really bears any greater resemblance to AD&D than it does to RQ: human stats are in a 3-18 range, and longswords do d8 damage or thereabouts.

Other than that, 4e and AD&D have different rules for character build, action resolution, encounter design, monster build, alignment, rewards (both XP and items) etc. And different expectations about the system-relevant aspects of the gameworld (eg PoL, not just as a trope but as a set of very specific conceits and devices spelled out in W&M, is completely different from the approach sketched in the 1st ed DMG). And diferent expectations about the unit of play (one dungeon expedition vs one encounter) and the success conditions for that unit of play (getting out alive with treasure vs resolving the challenge using one's PC's powers in the optimum fashion). And (and in my view most importantly) very ifferent understandings about the relationship between the mechanics, the other dimensions of the system and gameworld, and the distribution of narrative control between GM and player.

No, those changes aren't that significant. Getting rid of races and classes? That's significant. Switching to a percentile die system? Significant.

Tweaks to the mechanics of races and classes? Not significant. Renaming of saves from "Breath Weapon" to "Reflex" or whatever? Minor tweak. Tweaking the way XP works? Minor tweak. Getting rid of XP altogether? Significant change.

Renaming save is irrelevant, and not something I mentioned. Shifting between rolling d100 and rolling d20 I also think would be pretty insignificant, if nothing else changes. HARP and HARP d20ified are exactly the same RPG.

Changing race and class mechanics may or may not be significant, depending on the changes. Compare AD&D Fighters (one meaningful action, namely, attack, which one simply repeats each round) to the plethora of choices that will exist in 4e, and we're looking at pretty different play experiences (hence the complaint that Fighters will really be wizards: from the point of view of flavour, this is false, but mechanically I can see the force of the remark).

Changing the way that XP work is also (potentially) a big change. Compare how improvement points are earned in The Dying Earth (ie by generating amusement at the table by delivering a pre-determined tagline) from how they are earned in AD&D (by the PCs killing and, more importantly, looting). The difference between these is more than just a tweak.

But in fact the XP system wasn't one of the principle things I canvassed.

Possibly well worded, but not a strong case at all. Unless you don't know much about games other than D&D and the scope of what you can imagine an RPG looking like is extremely narrow, that is.

Well, that's needlessly rude. I've got a reasonable sense of what an RPG can be - and also what it's not. An RPG is not just the same because it has some of the same tropes - if it was then RQ or HeroQuest would just be another "fantasy heartbreaker".

I'm afraid Pemerton's case is really very strong and well-worded. 3E and 4E aren't "entirely different games", but AD&D and 4E pretty much are.

Yep.

Bad thing? No, not at all, I think 4E will be awesome

I haven't gone to "awesome" yet, but I think it will be a pretty good game, and certainly a very clear improvement on 3E.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

*further redistributes narrative control to the players, for example by:

*making Demons, Devils and other monsters more immediately recognisable to the players, and gives them distinctive tacics (thus allowing the players to recognise a monster and take account of its known and distinctive tactics in their play choices);
​

Don't see this at all. Recognizable to the players is not recognizable to the characters unless the characters have encountered said creature before. There is no meta-gaming at my table so memorizing a monster manual won't save you. If I catch someone overtly and shamelessly metagaming I will severely dock them EXP. Thankfully I game with people who grasp the difference between character and player knowledge. Everyone can slip up a little of course, but my players are excellent in this regard.

If you want to memorize a game book and metagame your way to success, play a videogame. I'm sure there are cheatcodes available too.

*rebalancing magic items and encounter build rules (to make players less vulnerable to accidentally unbalanced GMing);

Maybe, maybe not. I see the rebalancing of magic items as a mechanical innovation that will let the DM run a campaign with the level of magic he and his players desire. Sounds good to me.

*introducing Second Wind rules and making APs core;

*giving all PCs per-encounter abilities (which mean that players are no longer hostage to the GM's decisions about the overall passage of time in the gameworld);

Held hostage LOL.

Overwrought much?

I think that this helps players and DMs. If I go to 4e I won't have to worry about a TPK because the party is out of resources. It might make for some great action.

*introducing the PoL assumption that PoLs are safehavens until the players choose to trigger adversity (see sidebar, p 20, W&M);

This isn't going to be Elder Scrolls Oblivion where no matter what's going on outside, the town is going to be a safe zone. That is pure videogame conceit and has no place in an PRing game that presumes an interactive setting with proportionate action and reaction. I don't see the 4e designers going for this. The POLs in the POL assumed setting are nothing more than bastions of civilization in a dark and dangerous world. Many hamlets, towns and villages in the current D&D settings are POLs themselves. POL is a philosophy, a darkening up of things to make things in D&D more like dark ages Europe as opposed to early Renassiance in regards to level of civilzation.

In 4e, you piss off the red dragon and run to town with the dragon still following you, the town will burn along with you and your friends. There aren't mythals arount POL towns and cities preventing attack.

*transfers narrative control from the designers to the players and GM together (removal of mechanical metaphysics of alignment, which allows the gaming group to answer moral questions in their own way, during the course of actual play);

Not so much.

Moral questions are posed in the context of events and situations set up by the DM often as a consequence of PCs actions or inaction. The metaphysical reality of morality isn't gone without alignment. The mechanical elements of alignment are gone. A good and benevolent deity is still a good and benevolent deity. Asmodeus is still evil even if he can no longer do "vile" damage...whatever the hell that is.

The DM still contains the key to the cosmology and still controls the reactions of the world around the PCs. The PCs can decide that eating babies is good and that rescuing innocents is evil but that won't stop the rest of the world from differing on these points if the DM has decided that eating babies is evil and aiding the innocent is good.

Moral ambiguity can add great depth to a game however once things cross into either good or evil, it is the DM who will show the players how the setting (and its folk and mortals) reacts to their actions. A lack of alignment mechanics does not shift all good and evil into a state of post modern subjectivism.

*undoes imbalances of narrative controls between players (PoL eliminates a lot of campaign backstory, putting different players on an even footing in that respect).[/indent]

POL is not a campaign setting, it is a design philosophy. Settings that have backstories will still have backstories. Settings that go in a more POL direction will still have backstories as to how things became POL, maybe an empire fell, maybe constant conflicts with humanoids has limited human dominion, etc.

Players are on equal footing by reading up on the setting they are playing in and getting a sense of the setting. If the setting is a homebrew, then the DM will tell them what they need to know. You are reading way too much into the POL design philosophy. All the existing settings, whether published or homebrew, have their own realities. Some are POL and some are not. A DM isn't forced to run a POL type campaign if she already has a setting to work with.

All of this facilitate gamist play, by stopping the GM and the game designers getting in the way of the players' pursuit of system excellence. Interesting, it also facilitates narrativist play, by making adversity in the game, and its resolution, something much more shared between players and GM in a potentially co-operative fashion, than something almost entirely under the GM's control (as was the case in AD&D to a significant extent).

Getting in the way of player excellence!?!?! I never realized how much my 23+yrs of DMing has been the history of shattering the dreams, hopes and ambitions of my poor players. I guess I should just tell them that I am hanging up my exclusive DMing cap so as to do a little more narrative cooperativism. Seriously though, my work at making certain that everyone has a great character who (hopefully) achieves greatness is what has allowed some of my players to have characters who are 10+yrs old and so full of depth and richness they seem real. I have done nothing as a DM if I have not pushed the character's to excellence by challenging the players to think and consider the consequences of action or inaction.

But system excellence? System excellence is something that the designers should worry about. IMO players working toward system excellence sounds like code for munchkin "beat the system" gaming which is another thing I will not tolerate at the gaming table.

After all, in traditional quasi-simulationist D&D play, the GM has almost total narrative control. The GM determines the general degree and frequency (be it spatial and/or temporal) of adversity, whether by placing encounters in a dungeon or plotting up a series of events, and determines the level of reward (by awarding XP and loot), and resolves moral questions (by adjudicating alignment matters), and has a big say in action resolution (for example, by ignoring the dice if they would "get in the way of the fun"). But I've never heard it suggested that GMs don't have fun playing D&D, or are unable to immerse themselves in the game.

I just don't see it. Rule 0, the penultimate rule of the game allows me to do supercede anything in the rules to the benefit of my (and my player's) campaign and preferred playstyle. I will always determine the degree and frequency of adversity, placement of encounters, levelling frequency, the use of dice or role-playing in order to overcome challenges, the answers to the big moral questions in the campaign via the type of moral assumptions inherent in the setting I am running, etc.

I don't see where you are getting your conclusions.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Dire Lemming]

As someone who started out playing computer games before I really got into D&D. I'm finding myself increasingly dissatisfied with 4e. Every thing I see so far seems to be following the current trend in the video game industry of simplifying things and dumbing them down to appeal to a wider audience who doesn't like the kind of games that I do. D&D Fourth Edition constantly makes me think of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Which completely overhauled everything that was a hallmark of the series except for the names and the concept of a big open world, and made it all much more simplistic and generic. That's all I'm seeing so far with $E.

So in conclusion, I'm not optimistic about it.

 

[med stud]

As someone who started out playing computer games before I really got into D&D. I'm finding myself increasingly dissatisfied with 4e. Every thing I see so far seems to be following the current trend in the video game industry of simplifying things and dumbing them down to appeal to a wider audience who doesn't like the kind of games that I do. D&D Fourth Edition constantly makes me think of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Which completely overhauled everything that was a hallmark of the series except for the names and the concept of a big open world, and made it all much more simplistic and generic. That's all I'm seeing so far with $E.

So in conclusion, I'm not optimistic about it.

That's interesting; I am from more or less the same camp as you are but I like what I have seen of 4e for the same reasons. I don't think about it as "dumbing down" but more as stripping things down to what is needed for an enjoyable experience while doing away with the unnecessary.

I started out with a guarded optimism and I have grown to like what I see more and more. I think I'm different than many here in that I'm extatic to see the old fluff go

OT: I agree with you that I don't like Oblivion as much as Morrowind but that's because of the scaling opponents and weaker story line.

 

[RisnDevil]

First off, before the 4e announcement was made, I had stated (and I quote) "3.x is EXACTLY what I need, and since I have invested so much time and money in it, I have no intentions of going on to another edition."

I seem to be eating those words (which my wife jokingly harasses me about, especially the time and money investment part!).

The first thing I read about that I loved the change to (in theory, because I have yet to see the write-up showing it in actual play/numbers/rules) was the automatic racial leveling (it just makes sense to me). BTW, yes I know they posted the elf, but unless I missed something, it did not show the "leveling bonuses." From the moment I read that change, I was pretty hooked.

There have been several things that my first reaction was "meh?" The rings is a good example, which I REALLY started to think about after starting this thread (and by think about, I mean think of an in-game reason). First off though, I thought about all my old 3.x games, and looked at a couple of "facts." Even in 3.x rings are meant to be special and for higher characters (look how high you have to be to forge one!). Secondly, unless in a published adventure, I hardly ever found rings before about level 8, and if I did, it was only one anyways. It was always MANY levels in before I got a second ring. So it is just a case of rules matching what was really happening if you ask me.

And about magic items, while I understand there are "level requirements" on items, there are also "approximate levels" on items. Just use that as a guide and ditch the requirements.

Some of the other changes to the system that I have "questioned" involve changes to magic (no "schools", limiting certain other "schools" uses for PCs, that stuff). But again, I think I just scratch my head at the sounds because 1) I haven't seen the rules yet and 2) It is human nature to resist change.

Those are my two cents though.

RisnDevil

(Closing/side note: Why (mechanically) only two rings/not till later levels? How about this: The unique size, "power level" and location of rings make it where the magic "radiating" out of it is hard to handle, and most lower level characters are not hardy enough to allow all this energy constantly flowing through their bodies, or be able to separate and/or use more than two strands of this constant magic.)