D&D 4E How do you feel about 4E right *now*? (week of 1/21/08)

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm rather curious about this. What basis is there to claim that there isn't any reason to be skeptical? What amazing product has WotC put out that screams, 'We are masters of mechanical rules making', so there is no reason to be concerned in any way? Personally, I haven't seen them ever produce something that I'd call 'really good' quality, let alone ultra-high. Fair to good seems to be their normal limit, and they often don't even achieve that with the slew of splatbooks.

Well, I'm talking comparative to the rest of the industry. Personally I would put 3E/3.5E corebooks extremely high on the end of the quality scale compared to most of what came out of d20/OGL, and of RPGs in general circa 1999-2007. I just think that any major product they put out is very likely, on a basic level, to be quite a lot of fun, and quite playable. "System master" (aka "rules rapists", in a less PC time) may mess with it severely, but basically good quality stuff.

I'm actually kind of surprised you're even post on a 4E messageboard with such a low opinion of WotC. Am I missing something?

 

[WayneLigon]

What amazing product has WotC put out that screams, 'We are masters of mechanical rules making', so there is no reason to be concerned in any way?

Pretty much all of them. Their over-all quality is quite high. Green Ronin, Malhavoc and a couple others have had some outstanding products (which, by the way, usually involve WoTC personnel acting as freelancers, or former WoTC employees as the people who started those businesses) to be sure, but it's hard to beat most of the WoTC products.

 

[Voss]

I'm actually kind of surprised you're even post on a 4E messageboard with such a low opinion of WotC. Am I missing something?

Yep. This isn't my low opinion. This is my 'wait and see how things turn out' opinion, coupled with a bit of 'reacting to the information they publish' opinion. (Well, except for the FR stuff. That gets fairly low marks, just based on the pure level of stupid in the fluff they're talking about).

Most alternative systems are even worse. Plus have the added factor of trying to convince people to play something they're unfamiliar with, which in my experience, doesn't go well. I made people cry with Rolemaster, once upon a time, and that was just character generation. That campaign didn't go anywhere.

But anyway, I want to see what they make of it, I just don't do optimism. Particularly since, after the plethora of 3rd edition splatbooks and the book of pure mechanical failure known as Saga, I don't really have much reason to be optimistic. Couple it with Mearl's little habit of abandoning projects when they aren't even done and publishing them anyway... eh. Maybe they'll pull something decent out, but I don't see any reason to assume it.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Heh, I've gone the pendulum route...
It started with "Son of a...!"
Then "Ok, I like what they're promising"
On too "What the heck are they thinking with changing that!?"
And is now at the 0-point with "They better deliver on their promises."

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well...

I've finally been told that it's okay to talk about my opinions in a little more detail.

As most of you already know, I've been both playtesting and working on 4E material. I can't say what, of course. But it does mean that I've had the rules for months now, and have been playing in an ongoing 4E campaign with a group of NDAed playtesters.

What I am about to offer are my true feelings. Anyone who feels like dismissing what I have to say because of any assumed bias is cordially invited to stop reading now.

When I first heard about 4E, I knew I'd have to learn the rules so I could keep working. But I was fully prepared to do so only for professional reasons, and keep playing 3.5 in my own campaigns.

That has, thankfully, turned out to be utterly unnecessary. I am absolutely in love the 4E system, to the point where I'm not sure I would even be willing to play 3.5 again. Seriously; I like the system that much more.

The mechanics are more intuitive, the characters more mechanically interesting and--here's the big one--I haven't found D&D combat this exciting in years. I'm having a blast with this campaign.

Are there a few things I'd like to see done differently? I think that goes without saying. There's no such thing as a perfect system for anyone. But on a scale of 1 to 10, measuring to what extent I like and agree with all the changes, 4E easily rates an 8.5 to 9.

I'm sold--not just as a writer, but as a fan of the game who's been playing since 1983.

 

[WhatGravitas]

That has, thankfully, turned out to be utterly unnecessary. I am absolutely in love the 4E system, to the point where I'm not sure I would even be willing to play 3.5 again. Seriously; I like the system that much more.

Considering that most of your stuff you're writing (crunchiness as well as flavour) vibes quite well with my preferences, this is a good sign, I guess.

Generally, thumps up - why?

- I like most crunch ideas and I think the WotC people can design a great game from these design principles.
- Furthermore, the (quite rare) crunch snippets showing up were quite good.
- Finally, the announcement of 3rd party products (some of them very exciting, as ToH and APG) show me, that 4E will more than probably give me the wealth of options I had with 3E. And more importantly, it'll probably be "open-ended" enough to re-introduce old concepts without too much pain.

So, as long as nothing is worse than in 3E, it'll be a better game for me. More preptime or too much over-the-action in the crunch (not fluff) could be a dealbreaker, but it doesn't look that way, right now.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Conjurer]

I'm optimistic so far.

I like:

• No alignments (been doing this for a while now)
• The whole at will/per encounter/per day concept (I really enjoyed the Warblade from ToB)
• Making races more important
• Rogue as a Swashbuckler (here's hoping they get it right!)
• Less dependance on clerics for healings

Still need to learn more about:

• Multiclassing (details, man... gimme the crunchy, crunchy details)
• Actual spell selection for Warlock and Wizard (so I'm biased, sue me)
• I really want to see warriors measuring up to spellcasters in later levels. Here's hoping.

 

[pemerton]

Thumbs up.

Its all about mechanics for me because I know I'll be running a homebrew. And the mechanics are looking good.

I agree that the mechanics seem pretty sound, but:

The Worlds & Monsters book sold me completely on 4e---I'm loving the new design philosophy behind the D&D World.

I agree with this even more. IMO D&D has always been stuck with worlds that don't play to the strengths of a roleplaying game (because they have been treated more like literary creations than places to roleplay in).

It has also been stuck with an alignment system (and a consequent cosmology) that gets in the way of play both for gamists (becauses from time to time it leaps up and nerfs you) and narrativists (because it predetermines answers to all the interesting questions) and even a lot of simulationists (because it gets in the way of exploring real social relations in the gameworld).

4e really looks to be changing all this.

Some good things, some bad things, and a complete inability to build on things that are interesting in concept (Shadowfell, Feywild) and write decent background material.

I don't want them to write background material that builds up a world, I want them to set up conflicts that are detailed enough, but also lightly sketched enought, that I and my fellow players can resolve them in play. And the new approach to the world really seems to do this.

 

[pemerton]

I think a lot of people are unrealistically skeptical about 4E. I don't think there's any doubt that what WotC will release will be a ultra-high-quality FRPG trying out new concepts/ways of doing things (at least new to mainstream FRPGs).

I agree with this. Given the number of, and talent of, their designers it really seems pretty unlikely that it will suck. And given that we have more evidence than just that to reason from, it seems fairly likely it will be pretty good.

 

[kennew142]

To begin with, thank you Ari for your opinions on the new edition. Judging from the stuff you've worked on, it would seem that our gaming tastes are quite similar.

With the announcement of 4e I was feeling pretty negative. My group was already experiencing 3e fatigue to the point that we were beginning to look at other systems again. We hadn't done that since the year 2000. I bought the SWSE because I heard that it was supposed to be a kind of preview for 4e D&D. I loved it. Considering that I have no great love for Star Wars, it's pretty significant that I wanted to try out the game, both as a player and then as a GM.

Next I found an old copy of Bo9S. I loved the mechanics so much that I immediately began to add them to my D&D campaigns.

There have been very few 4e previews with any mechanics in them. What I have seen has looked good. The design philosophy promises an edition more in line with what I'm looking for in D&D.

I'm currently 100% thumbs up on mechanics. We haven't seen much, but I've really liked everything I've seen. This includes the changes we've seen to monsters, and especially the reduced emphasis on alignment.

I'm about 90% thumbs up on the changes in flavor. For the first time - ever - I will be using more D&D background material than I am replacing in my homebrew.

I'm about 75% thumbs on FR. I'm looking forward to the changes. I like most of what I've heard. But I'm not sure that the changes were necessary. And they will impact a lot of the games folks are playing out there.

I'm about 50% thumbs up on the marketing angle. I loved R&C and W&M, and I consider them money well spent. I like the new online format, but I wish we were receiving more regular updates. I would like to have seen a 4e character sheet and a few monsters. Some other things that could have been released by now: PHB table of contents, skill list, initiative rules, etc...