D&D 4E I have seen the coming of 4e...

[Imp]

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 )

 

[Imp]

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.

 

[Mortellan]

Opinions aside, at least qstor -tried- the game out to test if his feelings about 4e were right. Good post qstor.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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.

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

 

[Incenjucar]

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 )

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.

 

[delericho]

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.)

 

[delericho]

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]

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.

 

[hong]

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]

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.