D&D 4E Got to play 4E today

[Thulcondar]

It's not WoW that you have missed to understand something like 4E skill challenges, but all the modern (post AD&D 1E era) RPGs development.

Don't assume that the AD&D 1E definition of what is a Role-Playing game is the end of all thing.

Indeed. I have played one or two RPG's printed after 1983. Why, I even hear there's this interesting Vampire game out there that's all the rage among the young'ns nowadays...

However, to turn your snarky remark into an opportunity to make a real point, there really has been a change in the definition of what an RPG is. Back in the day, the DM would design encounters that would challenge the players. Nowadays, the DM designs encounters to challenge the characters. A very real, and in some ways subtle, difference.

So I would remind you not to assume that "newer" is necessarily "better". I happen to find that AD&D is a better game than 3.x. If I want to play a tactical game with both hand-to-hand and ranged effect weapons that relies on counters moving on the board, I might be tempted to dig out my old Squad Leader sets. I'm holding the question open on 4E until I actually see the books.

And, I would also remind you that WotC has explicitly stated that one of their goals in designing 4E was to appeal more to the online gamers. Many of the changes they have wrought were a direct response to that effort. And with several of the gamers at the table today making WoW jokes, I'm inclined to believe the comparisons are valid.

Have you, by the way, actually played 4E yet?

Joe

 

[Rechan]

If I want to play a tactical game with both hand-to-hand and ranged effect weapons that relies on counters moving on the board, I might be tempted to dig out my old Squad Leader sets.

Squad Leader - is that like Chainmail, the game D&D came out of? Where you have a tactical game of both hand to hand and ranged effect weapons that relies on teams of individuals versus monsters or other teams, represented by counters?

 

[Thulcondar]

Hmm, at my demo game today someone was passing around a PHB. I almost *&^% my pants when that dropped into my lap.

Gadzooks... That sucker would've paid for a new car on eBay. I am envious. (Where'd you do your demo, btw?)

While you might not agree with the reasoning, the idea that heros should do their iconic heroic thing is consistent within itself. Also, even though the at-will powers have special names, really they are just ways of adding flavor to the "I swing my sword at it."

Perhaps so, but they all seem to almost be "too special", if you know what I mean. One imagines the local innkeeper, rather than simply pouring an ale and sliding it down the bar, invoking his Mead of Intoxication at-will power, attacking at Will +3 (cumulative with each attack) until the target passes out. Save means they just tip at 2x normal rate. ;-)

Sometimes just hitting it with your sword is the most appropriate thing to do.

Surviving even a single hit is better than what a 3e wizard can do. Also, while the numbers are higher early on, they seem to be lower (compared to 3e) at higher levels.

I'll defer to your 3.x expertise.

I don't know if its WoW in specific. And if the powers inflict more damage than "normal" attacks, aren't the powers really the normal attacks.

Exactly my point. Why do I need "priestly shield" to have a special power when you can have the same effect by saying "priests can attack with X bonus". It almost seems like they're actively discouraging "mundane" weapon-play.

In fairness, this was a demo, rather than a weekly game. In my demo that I played today, there were 8 players, so the DM was rather forthright that he was not going through the challenge in the normal way, but being expeditious for time's sake. The other thing to consider about skills with RP is that is backs up the claim of the PC when he says "I blend into the crowd" if he can mechanically back his statement up.

Absolutely, and I made note of that in my original post. Although I would say that when one of my players says "I blend into the crowd", there's a lot of variables that go into the calculation of how successful that player is going to be. I didn't get a sense that there was any calculation of preparation, appropriateness, etc. But then again, it was just a demo...

While it might not work for you, I think the other point with moving some RP events to a mechanical basis is not to force those who have been RPGers for decades to give that up, but to give scaffolding to new DMs/less skilled DMs.

Again, that's something we won't really know until the books come out. I retain my open mind. Skeptical, but still open. And I'd play again tomorrow. And at Origins, and GenCon (if there is one...). The long-term options just seem rather limited. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

<stabs self in the foot for fisking>

I was hoping someone would. It's a post designed to be fisked.

Joe

 

[Kzach]

I play with neither battlemat nor figures, so I was somewhat disheartened at the prospect. You 3.x'ers might find that puzzling, but I'm sure most of my fellow grognards are nodding sagely in agreement.

I find statements like this absolutely mind-boggling. Go back and look at all your 1e books. Those little " next to all the area effect, speed, distance, etc... yeah... hate to break it to you, after twenty years of gaming, but... those mean INCHES.

Let's see now... why would they be talking in inches in respect to characters and their abilities and the distances in combat... hmm... real brain-scratcher that one. Don't suppose... OMG! Could it possibly be in reference to the use of MINIATURES?

Frell me. You've been playing 1e WRONG for 20 years!

That officially makes you not a grognard. Sorry, you'll have to find some other subculture to draw strawmen from.

 

[Thulcondar]

Squad Leader - is that like Chainmail, the game D&D came out of? Where you have a tactical game of both hand to hand and ranged effect weapons that relies on teams of individuals versus monsters or other teams, represented by counters?

Absolutely!

And if I want to play Chainmail, I will do so, too. And I might even throw the Fantasy Supplement into the bargain.

Neither, however, is D&D.

Joe

 

[PeterWeller]

Absolutely!

And if I want to play Chainmail, I will do so, too. And I might even throw the Fantasy Supplement into the bargain.

Neither, however, is D&D.

Joe

The only real difference between D&D and Chainmail is that D&D additionally concerns itself with what goes on before and after the fight.

 

[Thulcondar]

I find statements like this absolutely mind-boggling. Go back and look at all your 1e books. Those little " next to all the area effect, speed, distance, etc... yeah... hate to break it to you, after twenty years of gaming, but... those mean INCHES.

*GASP*

You have pulled the wool from off my eyes after all these many decades.

How can I possibly repay you for your thunderous insight? "Inches" might actually mean... "inches" on a miniatures table? In a game that was based on a miniatures game to begin with? Truly, I stand in the presence of wisdom. I prostrate myself before you.

Somehow, I've managed to play the game incorrectly lo! these 30+ years with just paper and pencil. You have truly shown me the error of my ways.

Joe

 

[Rechan]

The only real difference between D&D and Chainmail is that D&D additionally concerns itself with what goes on before and after the fight.

And you play one guy, instead of four.

 

[Kzach]

However, to turn your snarky remark into an opportunity to make a real point, there really has been a change in the definition of what an RPG is. Back in the day, the DM would design encounters that would challenge the players. Nowadays, the DM designs encounters to challenge the characters. A very real, and in some ways subtle, difference.

No, you've just mistakenly assumed that as a stance within which you can criticize a new edition from.

In AD&D, you had no tools with which to be challenged as a player in combat. There was no real tactical aspect to it. So how you can possible proclaim that AD&D is superior because it challenges the players, I have no idea.

4e gives you more tools and a greater level of detail in combat. This enables players to get more actively involved in complex tactics. This challenges the players, not the characters.

4e gives you more tools and a greater level of detail in non-combat. Again, it is up to the player and their imagination as to how they use those tools.

Sure, in either situation you can sit there and just dumbly roll dice and say, "I use X ability," but you know what? Surprise, surprise, that was the ONLY option you had in AD&D.

So tell me, how is it that AD&D challenged the players rather than the characters when you had no options in or out of combat that were represented in the system?

And don't give me that "roleplaying vs. rules" bunk either. You can roleplay just as much or just as little in 4e as you can in AD&D. That is a personal and group decision, not a system one.

Have you, by the way, actually played 4E yet?

Neither have you, so what's your point?

 

[Thulcondar]

The only real difference between D&D and Chainmail is that D&D additionally concerns itself with what goes on before and after the fight.

We must resolve to disagree on this point, I'm afraid.

I must say this spate of 1E-bashing has been fun as far as it's gone (which isn't very), I was kinda hoping people would be happy to see a review of 4E from someone who's played it who comes from a different perspective, rather than use that as a jumping-off point to bash 1E.

But as has been said in another thread here, this is a 4E board now, and one must expect a certain hostility to other versions of the game. Infinitely and inherently superior though they may be. <grin>

Joe