I miss Synaptic Dragon.

Doc_Klueless

Doors and Corners
Supporter
Maybe I've become jaded in my old age. Maybe I'm as senile as my daughter seems to think I am, but, with the roll out of 4e, we're seeing a roll out of the same types of complaints that we saw with the arrival of 3e (yes, I was here at the beginning of Eric's Site, just under my real name, is all). For the most part, 3e was still D&D, still fun, and still a good excuse to get together with friends, suck down Mountain Dew and feast on Doritos.

I find is difficult, myself, to piece together all the little changes happening that have been spilled into a cohesive whole that gives me a good picture of what 4e is gonna look like. I suspect that the future will reveal more tidbits that'll help to alleviate some of the ill will/hurt feelings, but it may also serve to alienate people.

Rather than state the obvious ("You can just keep playing 3e","You could always play Savage World (or another game system), I think it might be worthwhile to see what 4e brings that might be useful in a 3e or 2e or younger campaign.

Sure, there are some things I don't like too much: Tieflings in the "core," for example. But those things are not deal breakers to me. For the game to remain D&D to me, it only needs a few criteria:

1) It must be level-based. I have Savage Worlds for my non-level based play. I like point buy, but I prefer level-based for my less-than-serious gaming, which is what I usually try to play. My campaigns are filled with puns, quippy sayings, and silly situations.

2) It must be class-based. To me, D&D is a Wizard, a Warrior, a Thief & a Cleric walk into a bar... and say ouch! I think you get what I'm saying. I like the niche/role each plays/fills. It makes it really easy for beginning players to figure out what they are supposed to do in the group environment and it makes it easy for me to reward and challenge them.

3) It must have AC & HP. These to concepts scream D&D to me. Other systems have Damage Reducing Armor and Wound/Condition Tracts and they work awesome for those systems... I just don't want them in my D&D.

So far, 4e has preserved these elements. I like that. But I realize that I'm not necessarily a typical poster here in that lots of changes don't bother me... nor do they excite me too much, though some do make me go: Cool or Whaaa?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There are alot of things I don't like about the direction either mechanically or in the flavor, but none of them make the game 'not D&D'. They just make it the game I don't want to run or play.

1) Increased emphasis in 'fiendishness' (ei, Asmodeous gaining divine status, tieflings in core, flavor changes in 'Expedition to Castle Ravenloft' now seem like likely previews of 4e style).
2) Greater genericness to monster stats. (part of the general emphasis of gamist at the expense of simulationist)
3) Greater emphasis on 'per encounter design', including most especially 'per encounter' mechanics.
4) Attempts to unify the attack mechanic (no saving throws, spell critical hits) seem driven by a desire for game system elegance, not by a desire to improve actual play.
5) Classes seem to be losing thier distinctiveness as part of the drive for elegance and balance. Both are good things, but take them too far and they can be vices.
6) Flavor changes that seem more like the designers taking mere personal campaign preferrences (succubbi as devils, no elemental planes) and imposing them on the game for little more than personal whim. They are perfectly valid choices, but where do they get off imposing them on generic D&D? I mean, I don't particularly like 'the great wheel' but that doesn't mean that if I were in charge of design of a new edition that I'd be doing away with that decades old cosmological detail. It's not like 'the great wheel' is wrong, it's just not my preference.
7) Continued power creep.
8) Worsening more childish/cartoonish art. Wuxia/anime style to the art/flavor, and likely mechanics if Bo9S is really the preview it seems to be.

There are some good things I'm seeing. The emphasis on telling and showing new DM's how to design interesting encounters is great, and will probably be valuable even to experienced DMs. My very first post on EnWorld was on dungeon/encounter design, and I'm sure I'll learn something by reading/seeing examples from strong gamers like Mearls, Collins, etc.

But on the whole, from what I see so far it seems to be a game not designed for me. I've never completely accepted the 'video gamey' description, because video games are as diverse as pen and paper games. 'Becoming more video gamey' could mean alot of things. But, if I were using an analogy, I always thought that the 3e system had learned alot from Fallout's mechanics. The 4e system seems to be drawing more from Diablo.
 

Celebrim said:
1) Increased emphasis in 'fiendishness' (ei, Asmodeous gaining divine status, tieflings in core, flavor changes in 'Expedition to Castle Ravenloft' now seem like likely previews of 4e style).
I've seen this mentioned more than once, but I've only glanced at EtCR. What elements of it seem like 4E previews?
 

I dont mind the art, but it makes me want to play D&D Super-Heroes and not D&D Semi-Medieval Fantasy.

My biggest complaint is the non-backwards compatability issue.
I dont like the generic monsters with only a few abilities. If you take a monster from folk lore it better do everything it does in the lore. Dont give it a few abilities cause it's only going to be around for 3-4 rounds.
I dont like the allusion to the fact that monsters wont be playable as characters. Blink Dog fighter was the example used at one point by someone in 4e design.
So far 4e seems to be going back to limiting things, with the inclusion and reliance on party roles. I dont want to have to have a cleric to survive. Didnt need one in 3.5, dont want to have to have one in 4e. Sure multiclassing and racial limits arent coming back but there are limiting me in other way. . . so far at least. Im still going to wait and see.
Maybe backwards compatability is possible they are just being too lazy and actually trying it, or they dont think it would work with certain things so they are being safe and just saying it wont work at all.
I dont know.
 


If you take a monster from folk lore it better do everything it does in the lore.
And 'which' lore are you talking about? Vampires, Vampyres, Nosferatu... take on the shape of butterfiles and land on your lips while you are sleeping to steal your very life-breath away?

No, I prefer my DnD myths and legends to be somewhat trimmed down, thank you :)
 

Celebrim said:
4) Attempts to unify the attack mechanic (no saving throws, spell critical hits) seem driven by a desire for game system elegance, not by a desire to improve actual play.
Woah there. Elegance is supposed to mean easier to learn, easier to master, thus easier to use, and thus improved play.

Celebrim said:
8) Worsening more childish/cartoonish art. Wuxia/anime style to the art/flavor, and likely mechanics if Bo9S is really the preview it seems to be.
D&D has always had mixed artwork.

There will always be good pictures, and there will always be forgettable pictures. :)

Cheers, -- N
 

Primitive Screwhead said:
And 'which' lore are you talking about? Vampires, Vampyres, Nosferatu... take on the shape of butterfiles and land on your lips while you are sleeping to steal your very life-breath away?
Let's not forget prana-drinkers or baital. ;)

Cheers, -- N
 

I was getting nostalgic with someone at work just the other day, He's been playing about 3 years and started with 3.5.... We were talking about 4e and I talked to him about all the days of 3e news

He was suprised anyone could be excited by the announcement of 3e becuase from playing 3.5 everything his freinds had told him about 3e it must have been a big mistake. so many problems....

I don't think I succedded in letting him know what 2e was like......
 


Remove ads

Top