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

[Voss]

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.

Can you share with members of the audience that are unaware of this evidence? I've seen a whole lot of opinions that it will be good, but nothing in the way of concrete evidence.

 

[danbuter1]

I'm mildly thumbs down. There's some stuff I really like, and there's some stuff I really don't like.

Likes
Rogues as Swashbucklers
Tieflings
NPCs are easy to make
defined monster roles (bruiser/asassin/etc)

Dislikes
Dragonborn
Stupid feat names
the new FR
missing monsters (frost giant,etc)
missing classes (bard, etc)

 

[CanadienneBacon]

I am a thumbs down at the moment.

 

[pemerton]

Can you share with members of the audience that are unaware of this evidence? I've seen a whole lot of opinions that it will be good, but nothing in the way of concrete evidence.

Well, there's all the text of R&C and W&M. I haven't done more than skim the first, but I've read the second and have been posting fairly extensively about it (see especially the "Metagame function of PoL" thread and the "Blood War" thread, both of which are alive at the moment).

There's all the WoTC blog and messageboard posts about the new mechanics - especially the new system of powers - which was discussed to absurd length on the "Why is it so important" thread from a few months ago, that might still turn up on a search.

Then there's some sample races and powers that have been posted, which seem pretty consistent with the descriptions that have emerged through blogs and whatnot.

Then there's the opinion of people like Ari - a type of indirect evidence, perhaps, but still evidence.

I don't know if you count any of the above as concrete evidence, but it's pretty clearly evidence, and to me it all points one way.

Moving into realms that are more interpretive, I also count as evidence that 4e is heading in a more contemporary direction (as far as RPGing goes) the fact that thoughtful posters in this forum who prefer more oldstyle D&D play (like Reynard and Lanefan and HowandWhy99) consistently see things in what we're hearing that they object to, for well-articulated reasons.

I'm not talking now about particular game elements like Gnomes or Druids or Succubi, which from a design point of view I think are pretty irrelevant. I'm talking about important aspects of design that contribute to the play experience in a major way, like whether or not hirelings are supported, and the extent of operational resource management in the game, and social challenge resolution mechanics.

All-in-all, consistent patterns of interpretation of the direction that 4e is headed (even by those who don't like that direction, like Reynard), arrived at without collusion, for me at least count as evidence.

 

[WanderingMonster]

Thumbs up, but I don't think my group will keen to make the switch.

 

[Voss]

Moving into realms that are more interpretive, I also count as evidence that 4e is heading in a more contemporary direction (as far as RPGing goes) the fact that thoughtful posters in this forum who prefer more oldstyle D&D play (like Reynard and Lanefan and HowandWhy99) consistently see things in what we're hearing that they object to, for well-articulated reasons.

i don't know about this one. I've seen a fair amount of conflicting statements that people think its more like BXCMI, or 1e or 2e or this or that or some other thing. For myself, some of it reads like the bad days of Gygaxian nonsense of inexplicable multilevel dungeons parked next to the Town of Shopping District, and its just combat over and over again, until you have to stop to heal and sell your loot. Maybe with a few inexplicable traps thrown in.

I'm also not sure what 'contemporary' roleplaying means. Kids today don't seem to do much in the way of actual roleplaying. Either their prepainted crappy minis are hurling d20s at each other, or they are bleeding to death from papercuts inflicted by Naruto cards used as fake shuriken.

I'm talking about important aspects of design that contribute to the play experience in a major way, like whether or not hirelings are supported, and the extent of operational resource management in the game, and social challenge resolution mechanics.

See, thats the thing. I've heard nothing about things like that, its thats exactly the kind of thing I want to hear about. All I really care about is the mechanics, because if I run a game, I'm going to flush their shoddy fluff (and several of the core races) down the toilet.

Meanwhile, some of the mechanics I have seen strike me as fairly gamist, and seem to remind the players that they're moving miniatures around, and playing more of a boardgame than a roleplaying game. The paladin smites are a good example. There isn't a reason why someone gets a AC bonus, just a feeling that someone hit F8 and triggered the red attack and blue shield macro. This is an instance where there should be flavor (not necessarily fluff), and maybe there is in the actual book, but it was presented to us in a very ugly way. Like Leiber's skinless ghoul-people. Yes, Ffahrd can get his game on, but its really, really creepy.

Then there is Saga, which is supposedly a major preview of 4e, and to my eyes, truly and deeply broken on a mechanical level. Talents and feats largely range from 'I win' to 'I suck', with very little middle ground, and character creation is, as far as I can tell, purely an exercise in exploiting the system's mechanical flaws, with role-playing and flavor bleeding out in the hail of auto-fire and frag grenades.

So I'm not sure its headed in a particular direction, but I see a lot of worrisome signposts.

 

[pemerton]

i don't know about this one. I've seen a fair amount of conflicting statements that people think its more like BXCMI, or 1e or 2e or this or that or some other thing.

Fair enough. I'll admit that my use of "thoughtful" to characterise the voices I'm listening to isn't entirely independent of what those voices say (but I do maintain it is somewhat indepenent thereof).

For myself, some of it reads like the bad days of Gygaxian nonsense of inexplicable multilevel dungeons parked next to the Town of Shopping District, and its just combat over and over again, until you have to stop to heal and sell your loot. Maybe with a few inexplicable traps thrown in.

To an extent that is true - though I think that the explanations are offered, and if W&M is anything to go by are not paper-thin. And I have to ask, if you want to play a very different sort of game (eg a political/social game) then why play D&D? The question is not rhetorical, but it does presuppose that there might be better systems and worlds out there to support a different sort of play.

I'm also not sure what 'contemporary' roleplaying means.

<snip>

some of the mechanics I have seen strike me as fairly gamist, and seem to remind the players that they're moving miniatures around, and playing more of a boardgame than a roleplaying game. The paladin smites are a good example.

<snip>

This is an instance where there should be flavor (not necessarily fluff), and maybe there is in the actual book, but it was presented to us in a very ugly way.

I guess by "contemporary roleplaying" I mean roleplaying where (i) the system has been designed with a clear intention to support a certain sort of play; (ii) the gameworld has been designed with the same intention, and the same playstyle in mind; (iii) as a special but very important case of (i) and (i), simulationist priorities are actually questioned, and jettisoned where appropriate, rather than retained unthinkingly.

I agree with you that a lot of the mechanics seem apt to support gamist play, but for various reasons (many of which I hashed out on the hideous "Why is it important thread" and won't bore you with here unless you ask for them) think these mechanics can also provide a lot of support for narrativist play, if that's what a group is interested in. I'm especially thinking of the per-encounter powers and action points, which transfer narrative power from the GM (who generally gets to set the in-game timeframe) to the player, and also the possibilities opened up by a challenge and reward system that goes beyond combat to social challenges and other sorts of challenges.

As for the (obviously needed) flavour text - maybe they'll give it to us, maybe they'll leave us to make it up. As long as they don't try to use flavour text to enforce simulationist priorities on the game as a whole, I'm not too fussed about which way they go. I can certainly think of adequate flavour to cover all the mechanical examples I've seen so far (Paladin smites, Elven perception auras, Leader heals, Second Winds, etc).

See, thats the thing. I've heard nothing about things like that, its thats exactly the kind of thing I want to hear about. All I really care about is the mechanics, because if I run a game, I'm going to flush their shoddy fluff (and several of the core races) down the toilet.

I happen to like a good chunk of W&M, because it shows how a D&D setting can be conceived of without starting from simulationsist premises, and really (IMO) have the possibility of supporting some fun play (be it gamist or narrativist).

But as for the mechanical stuff - social challenges, operational play etc - I'm just relying on the various bits and pieces of info linked to on this site, then reading it together with stuff that Monte Cook used to write in his old columns on his site, plus stuff he and Mearls did for Malhavoc, plus a bit of intuition. I came to this forum after spending a fair bit of time debating the RM rules revision on the ICE website (ultimately an unhappy experience, as not only does simulationism rule there but they don't even seem to know about other ways to play) so have become used to, and willing (perhaps too willing) to take part in, speculating/intuiting on the basis of a small amount of info.

But at least to me it doesn't seem that hard to join a few of the dots. Very few people really enjoy all the minutiae of full-blown simulationism in play, so it makes sense that the designers would try to go in a different direction.

Then there is Saga, which is supposedly a major preview of 4e, and to my eyes, truly and deeply broken on a mechanical level. Talents and feats largely range from 'I win' to 'I suck', with very little middle ground, and character creation is, as far as I can tell, purely an exercise in exploiting the system's mechanical flaws, with role-playing and flavor bleeding out in the hail of auto-fire and frag grenades.

I haven't read or played it, so can't comment. But yours does seem to be a minority opinion. On this forum I know that Imaro doesn't like it - and also doesn't like 4e - but a lot of others seem to.

So I'm not sure its headed in a particular direction, but I see a lot of worrisome signposts.

For what it's worth, my prediction is this:

*If you like 1st ed-style play, in which character builds are very light, action resolution mechanics are virtually non-existent, and most play is resolved through direct negotiation between player and GM, 4e isn't for you.

*If you like 1st ed-style play, in which it's all about the iron spikes and ten-foot poles, and an encounter avoided is a victory won, 4e isn't for you.

*If you want all simulationism purged from you action resolution (eg no real time/space in your combats), 4e isn't for you.

*If you want a historically/anthropologically realistic gameworld, 4e isn't for you.

*If you like political/social play of the sort that RQ, or most published RM modules, tend to support, 4e isn't for you.

*If you loved what alignment did to the game, 4e isn't for you.

Otherwise, if you like fantasy RPGing, 4e might be worth checking out.

 

[Mercule]

I said "thumbs up", but it's qualified.

I've been thumbing through my Hero 5E book this week and it's giving me an itch to jump completely that direction. That, and my group is starting to talk about leaving the fantasy genre for a bit (nWoD, probably -- or Aces and Eights).

Compared to 3E, though, it's a go.

 

[Voss]

But at least to me it doesn't seem that hard to join a few of the dots. Very few people really enjoy all the minutiae of full-blown simulationism in play, so it makes sense that the designers would try to go in a different direction.

Full-blown does get excessive, but full-out gamist gets excessive as well. I'm a little worried about an overreaction that leads to what is essentially a board game.

For what it's worth, my prediction is this:

*If you like 1st ed-style play, in which character builds are very light, action resolution mechanics are virtually non-existent, and most play is resolved through direct negotiation between player and GM, 4e isn't for you.

Hated this, personally. GMing by fiat annoys me to no end. Mostly this doesn't seem a major concern, but there was a hint of this in the monster design comments a little while back.

*If you like 1st ed-style play, in which it's all about the iron spikes and ten-foot poles, and an encounter avoided is a victory won, 4e isn't for you.

I hate the spike and pole style of play, but the second part doesn't jive with my first edition memories- encounters meant xp and gold (which, in itself, was more XP), which was largely point. Avoiding them was counter productive. Goal and quest based XP is much more fun than body-count XP. Successfully completing recovering the <whatever> should be rewarded more than grinding through every last group of monsters to no purpose. Which is why the combat emphasis of previews so far has me concerned

*If you want all simulationism purged from you action resolution (eg no real time/space in your combats), 4e isn't for you.

I could go either way on this. Played basic, expert and 1e and 2e this way, didn't really use mini's (or counters) until 3rd. Both have good and bad points.

*If you want a historically/anthropologically realistic gameworld, 4e isn't for you.

*If you like political/social play of the sort that RQ, or most published RM modules, tend to support, 4e isn't for you.

I honestly think that all of this, and role-playing, can be done regardless of the system. Social mechanics can be somewhat useful, but they aren't a substitute for proper interaction. And while I intend to use my own setting (though I will probably use the feywild and shadowfell rules to represent traditional 'places' like Faerie and Shadow), I've got a bit of a bias, being somewhat over-trained in history, so I don't really want the default setting to be stupid from a social, historical or economic perspective. And the default setting a has a distinct list toward the stupid from where I sit. Which I guess is better than the new Realms, which seems to have imploded under the weight of its own stupid.

*If you loved what alignment did to the game, 4e isn't for you.

Alignment tends to make for a stupid social setting, so I'm just as happy to see it gone.

Otherwise, if you like fantasy RPGing, 4e might be worth checking out.

Maybe. Its why I'm here, but I'm still uncertain.

 

[Gothmog]

Two thumbs way up from me. I was/am completely burned out on 3E- its just too work intensive and a pain to run for my tastes. My group moved on to WHFRP2, Savage Worlds, and nWoD mostly. But what I've seen in the preview books for 4E have me pretty excited about playing D&D again for the first time in years. I love the changed planes, points of light, demons/devils, Shadowfell, Feywild, Far Realm, the simplicifaction of the system, and the emphasis on character abilities rather than gear. Dragonborn and tieflings are kinda silly as presented, but they are easy enough to ignore if they don't fit into your world.