Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Former 4E doubter , I have high hopes now
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4016009" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Ever since 4e was announced, a debate has been going on on these boards as to whether the game will <em>really</em> be D&D, will finally nerf the role of the GM, etc.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But, as written, it looks pretty different to me.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not chastising. I'm simply arguing with those who deny that it's a brand new game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>really</em> be wizards: from the point of view of flavour, this is false, but mechanically I can see the force of the remark).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But in fact the XP system wasn't one of the principle things I canvassed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4016009, member: 42582"] Ever since 4e was announced, a debate has been going on on these boards as to whether the game will [i]really[/i] 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. 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. I'm not chastising. I'm simply arguing with those who deny that it's a brand new game. 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. 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 [i]really[/i] 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. 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". Yep. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Former 4E doubter , I have high hopes now
Top