log in or register to remove this ad

 

4E I have seen the coming of 4e...

Imp

First Post
Incenjucar said:
Honestly, considering how precise things are with 4E, it would make a terrible real-time game.

You would never be able to work in half of the mechanics.

An MMO would be a nightmare.
But a tactics RPG would be a lot of fun I bet! And a lot of the moves do remind me of stuff in especially Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea.

(Don't have a PC, never got to play the Temple of Elemental Evil game :p )
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Imp

First Post
Hussar said:
Late era 3e -> 4e is not a big jump.

Core 1e -> core 2e - very large jump. Massive rewrite of the rules. Late era 1e -> 2e, not a big jump.

Core 2e-> Core 3e - very large jump. Massive rewrite of the rules. Late era 2e->3e, still a big jump :)

Core 3e-> 4e. Yup. Big jump.
I can't agree with this; a) late 3e -> 4e seems like a larger jump than late 2e -> 3e in that 3e for better or for worse preserved a lot of the look and feel of the old classes, spells, monsters, etc., and b) I don't agree that core 2e is that big of a difference from 1e, even core – you can (and I seem to remember doing in a few really suboptimal situations, but it's been a long time) play 2e PHB with 1e Monster Manual, and I know I played 1e PHB with Basic/Expert modules, and things made enough sense to work without much rewriting. Ogres and orcs stayed ogres and orcs. Now, obviously crossing the 2e PHB with the 3e Monster Manual is going to result in a big ol' mess. Whatever the virtues of 4e, it's in a totally different language from 3e, and you aren't going to be able to play for example The Sunless Citadel at all with 4e unless it's ported. There's a metric, anyway. I don't think comparing core editions is very useful.
 


Aus_Snow

First Post
qstor said:
The rah rah go 4e climate at DDXP left a cold feeling in my gutt...When 3e came out in 2000, I embraced the new system and loved the changes to D&D. I saw how rolling a d20 and adding skills and to hits made the game simpler and how 3e is/was part of OD&D, 1e and 2e...and how it improved D&D
I acknowledge the fact that you have played the game, and I haven't. Still, from what I've seen (and I've been taking in most of the data publicly available) D&D 3e was by far a greater leap from AD&D 2e than D&D 4e will be from D&D 3e. No, this is not enraged grognard speak for 'skills and feats suck' or what have you. I actually disliked AD&D 2e, and came on board for 3.x. It was in fact the many striking differences that helped persuade me to do so.


I also started with the red box, but. . .
Castles and Crusades anyone?
No thanks. :) But enjoy! Pretty neat game, lots of support, active fanbase. :cool:

All that aside, if someone capable made a computer game based on 4e, I might buy that. :D
 

Incenjucar

Adventurer
Imp said:
But a tactics RPG would be a lot of fun I bet! And a lot of the moves do remind me of stuff in especially Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea.

(Don't have a PC, never got to play the Temple of Elemental Evil game :p )

Yep. They could make a pretty amazing tactics game out of it. Would be pretty easy to deal with flight, even, if they just had a few different layers of "battle mats."

But I can't imagine trying to PVP in a real time game when other classes can shove you onto other squares every round.

That would be a migraine even in an RTS.
 
Last edited:

Morrus said:
I find it hard to empathise with the POV that "I don't like that they changed X". 4E isn't supposed to be 3E with a few changes, it's a totally new game. They haven't changed anything; they've written a completely brand new game. Or rather - they've changed everything. That, to me, is what "new edition" means; I don't really want to buy 3E again because I already have it.

I certainly understand that people may not like the new game; that's cool. But not liking it simply for not being the same as 3E doesn't make sense to me. Were people hoping for 3E to be released with a new cover, perhaps?

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I was rather hoping for is that they would:

1) Identify the problems with 3e (they did this).
2) That the game apart (they also did this).
3) Fix the underlying math.
4) Put the game back together, so that it was still fundamentally the same game... but with the problems gone.

Unfortunately, once they got to 2, they decided to spin off and create a whole new game, as you said. And it distinctly feels like it's not my game any more. (Indeed, they've seemed to have been quite deliberate about this - they're saying to the kids playing today that "this is not your daddy's D&D". Well, I've been playing for 20 years now; so that statement means it's not my D&D any more.)
 

qstor said:
Over all I feel exactly as JeffB put it in a closed thread
"It seems to me that the 3E and 4E design teams are just people who never much cared for the original games , the kids I used to play with who had to have 25 pages of house rules and whose tastes differed from the intent/spirit of those early versions. They (WOTC) have remade it to appeal to the younger generation and different style of gamer than I am, and they will do well with it."

If the current designers never really cared for the original games, they wouldn't currently be game designers. The range of skills required to put together a successful RPG is huge - writing skills, understanding of probabilities, knowledge of what makes for a good game.

If the guys making the new edition of D&D didn't love the game, they would be off making far more money in other fields, be it writing, business, education, or designing the next incarnation of WoW.
 

Derro

First Post
Mephistopheles said:
There is a lot of good design in computer games. If WotC designers are inspired by some examples of good design and incorporate them into 4E that's not a bad thing. It obviously may not result in a game to the liking of all existing D&D players but I don't think likening aspects of 4E design to aspects of computer games is necessarily a strike against 4E.

That's a pretty positive take. Good on you.

I see it a little differently though. By incorporating computer gaming conventions the game design is walking the middle path.

I don't know how much stock is being put into these virtual minis by WotC but that just sounds like a bad idea to me. It alienates those that don't want computers in their RPG and probably won't fulfill the desires of avid CRPG/MMO players.

In the grander scope of the game itself why would those more inclined to virtual gaming take a perceived step backward to PnP. At the same time some traditional gamers have voiced that they don't want to feel like they're playing a video game.

Ultimately whatever is being voiced by the public has an element of truth to it. Whatever is being said there is a segment that adheres to it. I think it's risky to alienate a group that says they want what is traditional. Change the game, sure. But too radically and you might lose a group that you formerly relied on and be unable to make up the difference with that new and desired crop of consumers because they are already consuming something they perceive to be more advanced than your latest breakthrough.

Or so I think. YMMV and all that.
 
Last edited:

hong

WotC's bitch
Derro said:
I don't know how much stock is being put into these virtual minis by WotC but that just sounds like a bad idea to me. It alienates those that don't want computers in their RPG and probably won't fulfill the desires of avid CRPG/MMO players.

You do realise there are already free virtual tabletops, yes? WotC just wants a slice of the action.
 

Derro

First Post
If there free why pay for the privilege from WotC? I'll admit that I've only given WotC's product a cursory examination and it's not required for 4e but why even split your forces? Do one thing well not a multitude with mediocrity.
 

hong

WotC's bitch
Derro said:
If there free why pay for the privilege from WotC? I'll admit that I've only given WotC's product a cursory examination and it's not required for 4e but why even split your forces? Do one thing well not a multitude with mediocrity.

Your point being...?
 

JahellTheBard

First Post
4E isn't supposed to be 3E with a few changes, it's a totally new game

Yes, it is what i feel too ... i really agree with your sentence ... the only thing I do not like is calling it D&D 4.0, they should have selected just any different name .. it has nothing to do with D&D, is just for commercial reason.

And as I like present game (3.5) , even with the weak spots or little problems ( but if you do not allow splat books, even Wizards, you just take many problems away), i see no reason to change to 4.0 ed., with is not evolution but 'something else completely different', if i should move i could just select any other RPG, for this has no feelings of previous version ... is just one in the lot of different games you can play ... totally new and fully different game ... for the moment i will stay with 3.5
 

Derro

First Post
hong said:
Your point being...?

That it's not a very sound business strategy to offer a product that doesn't contribute anything and tie it to the release of THE NEXT BIG THING. There's been enough misunderstanding about those virtual minis already to probably cost a few sales.

There's rarely a thought of repercussions when the next big idea starts to foment in the brains of those that have them. Do you think the design team thought about who they'd drive off with their newfangled gadgets. No, they were excited about their development and perceived improvements.

Understand, I'm not calling 4e down. I'm sure it will serve it's purpose just fine for a while. What I am doing is asking if this much of a leap is necessary or desired. By changing the game in this manner is it better or just different.

I like most of the core mechanics that I see. I don't like most of the attendant fluff and a good portion of the operating features.

It's a little weird to be on this side of the fence. I pretty much embraced 3e as necessary and desired. Now that I hardly even play RAW D&D anymore this new edition chafes me. Sacred cows? Grognardism? Maybe I just like the debate. Whatever the case I'm just not convinced.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully

Adventurer
Imp said:
I can't agree with this; a) late 3e -> 4e seems like a larger jump than late 2e -> 3e in that 3e for better or for worse preserved a lot of the look and feel of the old classes, spells, monsters, etc., and b) I don't agree that core 2e is that big of a difference from 1e, even core – you can (and I seem to remember doing in a few really suboptimal situations, but it's been a long time) play 2e PHB with 1e Monster Manual, and I know I played 1e PHB with Basic/Expert modules, and things made enough sense to work without much rewriting. Ogres and orcs stayed ogres and orcs. Now, obviously crossing the 2e PHB with the 3e Monster Manual is going to result in a big ol' mess. Whatever the virtues of 4e, it's in a totally different language from 3e, and you aren't going to be able to play for example The Sunless Citadel at all with 4e unless it's ported. There's a metric, anyway. I don't think comparing core editions is very useful.
I think everyone has different priorities and what's a major change for one isn't so important for another.
I'd say that the switch from AD&D 2e to D&D 3rd edition looks pretty strong, since so much has changed in the rules.

But others look more at several flavour effects and thing the changes aren't that big.

4E might be changing a lot on both accounts. The implied setting isn't any of the previous existing ones, and has many strong changes (gone are Astral, Ethreal, Shadow Planes, here come the Feywild and Shadowfell). The mechanics are still roll d20 for anything important, but the combat mechanics rely a lot more on power instead of simple attacks.
Which might be its greatest weakness in winning over "old" players, since there are many changes to digest.

I wouldn't care that much for the implied setting of D&D, though I think I prefer the new implied setting more, since it inspires me more then the old. But that might just be the "old vs new" thing.
 

hong

WotC's bitch
Derro said:
That it's not a very sound business strategy to offer a product that doesn't contribute anything and tie it to the release of THE NEXT BIG THING. There's been enough misunderstanding about those virtual minis already to probably cost a few sales.

And this has to do with 4E's design, how...?
 

Derro

First Post
And this has to do with 4E's design, how...?

Because game design and marketing strategy don't exist independent of each other. If the design incorporates elements that the consumer perceives to be linked to video games then that changes the image of the game.

Dungeons and Dragons is not just a game it is a commercial entity. Changing the structure of that entity in such a fashion that it only has passing resemblance to its previous incarnations dilutes the brand.

And sure the argument here can be, "Let the old guys play there old game, this is new D&D for a new era." But who is this game appealing to specifically? What is the long-term viability? How does it relate to the past incarnations of D&D beyond name and familiar concepts (classes, levels, races, etc.)? Is it D&D in name only?

If it's an effort to keep up with the Joneses then somebody should tell WotC that the Joneses packed up and left about 5 years ago.
 

Psion

Adventurer
Morrus said:
I find it hard to empathise with the POV that "I don't like that they changed X". 4E isn't supposed to be 3E with a few changes, it's a totally new game.

I think differing with that philosophy is as fair a grounds for criticism as any. Particularly with respect to said changes were meaningful or well motivated, or (perhaps more to Mike's point) how well it addresses the viewpoints of longtime players.
 
Last edited:

BryonD

Hero
Incenjucar said:
Honestly, considering how precise things are with 4E, it would make a terrible real-time game.

You would never be able to work in half of the mechanics.

An MMO would be a nightmare.
I think it is exactly the opposite.

Remember, an MMO would not be a straight port over. But the baseline of linear scaling of everthing and "the math works" would all lay a perfect foundation.

4E P&P isn't remotely as precise as WoW.
 

BryonD

Hero
Mephistopheles said:
There is a lot of good design in computer games. If WotC designers are inspired by some examples of good design and incorporate them into 4E that's not a bad thing. It obviously may not result in a game to the liking of all existing D&D players but I don't think likening aspects of 4E design to aspects of computer games is necessarily a strike against 4E.
I agree with this.
I don't like what I've seen of 4E. But taking inspiration from computer games isn't a cause. It certainly could be something that was done very poorly. But it is also something that could be a source of great ideas.
 

qstor

Adventurer
Morrus said:
But not liking it simply for not being the same as 3E doesn't make sense to me. Were people hoping for 3E to be released with a new cover, perhaps? If you don't have it, pick up the leatherbound 3E collectors editions - they'll make a great 4E for you: exactly the same, but with a different cover! :)

It's a new game. Not the old game changed a bit.

For me it's more that 4E doesn't seem like D&D. I mean there's wizards, orcs, to hit vs AC etc but the tone has changed completely. It's more of a radical departure from the previous editions. I'm not sure WHY game balance and ease of play are the reasons for the change. Sure high level combat in 3e takes a long time but have the WOTC play testers wrote out 25th level 4e PCs? I'm sure high level combat takes some time in 4e as well. esp if you have tons of powers to deal with. The conspiracy theorist in me seems some hidden ORCUS memo from Hasbro as the reason for 4e like "How to get more people off of WOW and playing D&D"

As far as lava being instant death? I thought one of the points in 4e was nothing was automatic anymore? At least one of the players at the preview table said that in response to my "WHAT magic missile doesn't hit automatically anymore?" No more save or die in 4e. So auto death by environmental damage?? Personally I'm not so sure
 

COMING SOON! Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top