D&D 4E Got to play 4E today

[howandwhy99]

* Compare to the original Traveller, where your character can actually die during the process of character generation.

You can die when rolling up a character in Original D&D too. If your Con is 6 or less, you have a -1 to every HP roll. Roll 1 HP at 1st level... and your PC's dead.

(this happened to someone in our group a few months ago)

 

[Kzach]

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.

You're not very good at math either. Starting in the 80's means you've played for 20+ years, not 30+.

What I find amusing about this is that you're blind to your own argument. 4e no more forces you to use miniatures than 1e did.

Oh, but wait, to you that statement constitutes 1e bashing. Riiiiiight. Methinks you only posted here to troll, not to really engage in thoughtful argument.

 

[PeterWeller]

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

I do hope you realize that was a horrible generalization made as a joke. Anyways, I don't see any 1E bashing going on in this thread. I do see people asserting that some of your contentions concerning 1E don't jive with their own, but no trashing on 1E. It's kind of a cop out to say that some inherent hostility to earlier editions is why people are disagreeing with you.

 

[Thulcondar]

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

I disagree. And I am not just "criticizing a new edition"; if you'll look upthread, I actually liked it from a player's POV.

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.

I looked through my posts here, and I confess I can't find a place where I "proclaimed that AD&D was superior". I said "different". I may well have missed something, though; it's late. Can you be more specific?

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.

Just emphasizing the "combat" aspects in what you just said...

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.

Actually, not so much.

Granted, it depends on what the player was trying to do, but in AD&D there wasn't the plethora of skills that one sees in 2E or 3.x or 4E. (There was a slight move in that direction with the non-weapon proficiencies of OA, WSG, and DSG, but it wasn't a core concept of the system by any stretch.)

The test isn't "I use X ability". The test is "I try to do Y". Verrrrry different things, as I hope you'll acknowledge. In AD&D, if the player can make a credible case for how his character could legitimately do Y, then the DM would probably roll a die, and if it wasn't on the hideously low end, it would succeed to one extent or another.

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.

I disagree. It's not "bunk" in the slightest.

If a rules system exists for a given set of circumstances, the DM is, if not compelled, at least encouraged or expected to use it. AD&D had the advantage of giving the DM an enormous amount of leeway because of its vagueness in certain areas. In the absence of a specific rule to cover a situation, the DM has the latitude to make a ruling, based on the role-playing that has gone into the situation.

Honestly, I don't see why that's such a big deal. It's supposed to be the DM's job; they were called judges and referees originally for a reason!

Neither have you, so what's your point?

Actually I did. Today, as a matter of fact. If you happen to think I did not, then you need to take it up with WotC, because they advertised it as such. Sure, I couldn't grapple, but that's another story... ;-)

And again, everybody, please remember! I don't hate 4E! 3E I hate, but not 4E! I just think it emphasizes combat over RP. I maintain an open mind until I see the books.

Joe

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Oh, but wait, to you that statement constitutes 1e bashing. Riiiiiight. Methinks you only posted here to troll, not to really engage in thoughtful argument.

Yeah, sounds like someone's here to troll and depress thoughtful argument. The question, of course, is whom.

Anyway...I wanted to mention that the DM I played with did give a good narrative description of how interesting and crazy the Encounter and Daily powers were, and that was all dramatic and impressive.
I don't think he knew how to explain the fact that Encounter powers can be used at arbitrary time segments and Daily powers can be used at any point in time only once a day (other than specific ones like the Paladin one). Sounds like house rules to the rescue.

 

[Thulcondar]

You're not very good at math either. Starting in the 80's means you've played for 20+ years, not 30+.

1977. You do the math.

What I find amusing about this is that you're blind to your own argument. 4e no more forces you to use miniatures than 1e did.

I can play 1E without miniatures or a battlemat, and have for decades (I hesitate to give a specific number, for fear that you will turn that against me). I was explicitly told by a WotC rep (and my own personal experience confirmed) that the system is infinitely easier to use with minis and a battlemat.

Oh, but wait, to you that statement constitutes 1e bashing. Riiiiiight. Methinks you only posted here to troll, not to really engage in thoughtful argument.

You are incorrect; the fact that I said I would play 4E, but not DM it, gives the lie to your supposition. I might, in fact, say that you have some bug up your ass that anything that is not completely fawning in praise of 4E is a target for attack.

Enough of this... I played the game, and thought people would be happy to hear my impressions. Take them as they will. I shall post no more on this thread.

Joe

 

[Kzach]

I looked through my posts here, and I confess I can't find a place where I "proclaimed that AD&D was superior". I said "different". I may well have missed something, though; it's late. Can you be more specific?

...

Just

...

Granted, it depends on what the player was trying to do, but in AD&D there wasn't the plethora of skills that one sees in 2E or 3.x or 4E. (There was a slight move in that direction with the non-weapon proficiencies of OA, WSG, and DSG, but it wasn't a core concept of the system by any stretch.)

Which is what I said...

4e gives you the tools (skills) to represent your imagination within the system. They can replace imagination if the DM lets it, but that is a DM and group thing, not a system thing and the same thing could happen in any game, with any ruleset.

The test isn't "I use X ability". The test is "I try to do Y". Verrrrry different things, as I hope you'll acknowledge. In AD&D, if the player can make a credible case for how his character could legitimately do Y, then the DM would probably roll a die, and if it wasn't on the hideously low end, it would succeed to one extent or another.

Huh?

That's exactly what they're saying the skill system entails. Give a reason why your skill applies to a situation and the DM determines the difficulty of success and you roll against it.

The only difference here is that in AD&D you didn't have the tools within the system to do this, which put the burden on the DM to make something up on the spot.

If a rules system exists for a given set of circumstances, the DM is, if not compelled, at least encouraged or expected to use it. AD&D had the advantage of giving the DM an enormous amount of leeway because of its vagueness in certain areas. In the absence of a specific rule to cover a situation, the DM has the latitude to make a ruling, based on the role-playing that has gone into the situation.

I'm going to address this as if there are two points being made and not one.

Firstly, you're saying AD&D is better because it DOESN'T have any method whatsoever of addressing an issue, whereas 4e does. Right. Once again, mind-boggling. Car doesn't have brakes, so it must be better than one that does.

Ooooo K.

Secondly, there is nothing within the rules or even implied in the rules of 4e that prevents or limits the DM from making a ruling based on the roleplaying of a situation. In fact, I'm fairly certain I remember reading somewhere in the 3.x rules that rules should be thrown aside in favour of roleplaying through situations... but I can't reference it so it's a moot point I guess.

Actually I did. Today, as a matter of fact. If you happen to think I did not, then you need to take it up with WotC, because they advertised it as such. Sure, I couldn't grapple, but that's another story... ;-)

No, you played a preview of the rules, not the system itself.

Saying you played 4e is like saying you've seen the Iron Man movie 'cause you watched all three trailers.

I've played and DM'd several 4e-like sessions using the rules we know about so far, but I don't consider myself to have played or DM'd 4e since nobody (except that Andy Collins bugger) has the 4e books yet.

 

[Zil]

* Compare to the original Traveller, where your character can actually die during the process of character generation.

I know this wasn't your main topic, but I loved this about original Traveller. Generating a Traveller character was like a game itself, one with potentially nasty consequences. It might not have been everyone's cup of tea, but I got a big kick out of it . We started playing Traveller about the same time as we started playing AD&D and generating Traveller characters was always much more entertaining than generating a D&D character. Darn, now I wish I had a copy of those original rules. I'm sure I still have some of the old basic programs I wrote for character generation somewhere ... on tape or diskette that I can no longer read. ;-P

 

[Zil]

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.

While D&D evolved from the old Chainmail rules to Sword & Sorcery and onwards from there, AD&D never really required the use of miniatures. Sure, our game group did use the old lead miniatures (not the safer metals or plastics you have these days) but they certainly were never necessary for the game. We got along just fine when we didn't have miniatures. Where miniatures were useful was when "combats" turned into marathons with dozens of people on each side and you just had to track things. Thank goodness for plastic chess sets - we got a lot of use out of some of those to fill in for when we had mobs of similar creatures.

 

[Zil]

You're not very good at math either. Starting in the 80's means you've played for 20+ years, not 30+.

What I find amusing about this is that you're blind to your own argument. 4e no more forces you to use miniatures than 1e did.

Oh, but wait, to you that statement constitutes 1e bashing. Riiiiiight. Methinks you only posted here to troll, not to really engage in thoughtful argument.

Whoa, are you actually serious? Have you actually ever played First edition D&D? You certainly never needed miniatures and if you had actually played it, you would realize it. If anyone here is trolling....