Grognard's First Take On 4e

[elijah snow]

Couldn't resist getting Shadowfell from Amazon (the 3 maps alone are worth the $20). Though I never plan to run 4e, I was secretly hoping it would be cool. Having glanced through it last night, my initial take on 4e is -

Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.

A couple of key issues:

1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?

2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.

I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.

 

[Crothian]

If it didn't feel like a new rules system it would have been pointless to do a new edition. I don't think it is supposed to feel like 3ed and I'm very happy it doesn't. I don't want two games that feel the same way. All new rules seem clunky when first read and played. It has a learning curve and once people get used to them then we will know how it is. 3e felt the same way back in 2000.

I don't think it is supposed to make you scared of the Shadowfell. But at the same time it isn't like there was any Wizard adventure in 3e that made me scared of anything. We had good adventures but that wasn't what they were for. Having monster stats on the same page is great and the stat blocks are pretty easy to read once I figured out how the things were set up.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I've been thinking the rules looked no more streamlined for a while now. I'm not a fan of 3.5 either, but you could avoid a lot of complexity in that edition by choosing a the right class. Now everyone has suite of moves with complex features.

It's tactical and adds options, so people who like that will probably get more out of it than I would.

 

[Piratecat]

Having played 4e, I agree that the rules don't feel like 3.5. They do feel like "D&D" to me, though, and that's what I'm looking for. I absolutely love the new stat blocks; as a DM, they make me very, very happy.

In our first game, we had a mix of experienced players and people who aren't too experienced with D&D rules. Both groups adapted quickly. That bodes well to me.

But luckily, you've found a system that works for you. I think you'll be able to find 3.5 players for quite some time. I think that's a great thing.

 

[Kzach]

1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?

This is a good thing.

It's not meant to feel like 3.x. It's meant to address the issues that many people had with 3.x and present a simpler system for DM's and players to open up the market to new entrants. Simpler also equals more fun for those people who can wrap their minds around abstraction.

2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.

This is a matter of opinion.

I always felt the Dungeon method of presenting adventures was confusing and haphazard for most of its life. Erik and Chris did a great job of trying to make the 3.x rules a lot easier to game with but the inherent complexity left me scrambling for pages throughout a game.

Though I've only perused a copy, I can already see that KotS will be far, far, far easier for me to run than other adventures in 3.x. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, for instance, was a nightmare of page-flipping and confusing details which I'm still recovering from.

It must also be said that this adventure is meant to be simple and straightforward as it is acting as an entry point for new players as well as those simply new to the system. I think it accomplishes this quite well.

I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.

And this is a bad thing?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Couldn't resist getting Shadowfell from Amazon (the 3 maps alone are worth the $20). Though I never plan to run 4e, I was secretly hoping it would be cool. Having glanced through it last night, my initial take on 4e is -

Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.

A couple of key issues:

1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions.

I have the same experience with new rules system. You'll have to sink it in to "grog" them. But once you understood the basics, its becoming easier.

4E is not 3E, that much is clear, and I think that was the goal. (I don't see much similarity between AD&D and 3E, either, but I am not an AD&D player)

And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?

For usability purposes, yes, it is easier. You quickly understand what a monster does. Artillery Monsters fight from distance, Skirmishers are mobile, Lurker strike from hiding.
This information is a lot more helpful then just knowing that a monster is an outsider with the fire subtype (which is also useful information, but often, it's more fluff).
The stat-block is designed to give all information needed to run the monster. Knowing how to place it and deciding its tactics are an important part, and the role descriptor helps a lot here.

2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.

Hmm. Hopefully I can see that myself this evening...

I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.

I am not sure that vowing to not ever run 4E can really count as "open-minded". Still, you got the book and tried it...


[off-topic]
But such a "vow" to not do something reminds me of myself as a child.
"No, I don't want to try the salad! I will hate it!" "At least try it!" "Grr." *puts tiny amount of food in mouth* "See, don't like it!" "Okay, at least you tried." (And this would happen regardless how much I'd might like the new taste. I couldn't just go back and say "You know, I was wrong). Ah, well, that was me as a child...
[/off-topic]

 

[Heselbine]

Can I ask, respectfully, why you have such a closed mind? Why you've already made up your mind in advance?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Can I ask, respectfully, why you have such a closed mind? Why you've already made up your mind in advance?

Can I ask, respectfully, why you think he's being closed minded about it?

He specifically said he had an open mind about it. He bought the adventure, he read it, and he didn't like it.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Elijah, you have betrayed Grognards everywhere! Despite your "vow never to run 4e" you admit to "secretly hoping it would be cool" - this is unacceptable. As a fellow Grognard, you knew none of us were to get those books - for any reason* - and yet you did it anyway. Your feeble attempts at being dismissive toward the game do not pardon you.

Turn in your Grognard Card.

Wis, Grognard 14/Dumbass 6


* Unless Oprah adds the core books to her Book of the Month club.

 

[Heselbine]

Because he'd clearly made up his mind before buying the adventure. And buying the adventure seems to have been an exercise in proving his own prior prejudices true. Why bother? No-one's forcing anyone to play 4e.

He said he had an open mind - that makes it true, does it? In that case, I've got a porsche and I'm a millionaire.