D&D 4E I'm really concerned about 4E

[Minicol]

Bad analogy.

Vista was written for content providers, not for consumers. It was built to be a digital rights management operating system, and costumer concerns were at the top of their list if that customer is a multi-billion dollar corporation that produces music or movies.

So, one was designed with the people who use it in mind (4e) while the other was designed with other parties in mind besides the end-user (Vista).

I respect yout point of view, though some could voice concerns that 4e is written to help COMPUTER SOFTWARE programmers build video games more easily, rather than catering to TABLETOP gamers consumers.

Of course, it's a matter of opinions, and I admit I am biaised on the subject.

 

[Minicol]

I think people are way to quick to judge. I'm not saying people don't have the right to have opinions or anything like that, but I think its silly when people are getting bent out of shape because something has the "potential" to be bad.

At the risk of looking even more grognard than I really am : two words : Murphy's Law.

 

[Nifft]

I respect yout point of view, though some could voice concerns that 4e is written to help COMPUTER SOFTWARE programmers build video games more easily, rather than catering to TABLETOP gamers consumers.

I'd have to disagree. It's easy to build video games that make lots of rolls -- like saving throws vs. area attacks, for example.

From what I've seen so far, 4e tries to minimize rolls (while retaining the same power and options), which is catering precisely to tabletop gamers.

But I'm just disagreeing with a hypothetical, so it's all kinda moot.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Minicol]

As for adventures, we have been promised that the DM's job of building monsters, planning adventures, and other bookkeeping tasks will be made significantly easier.

.

I would wish so, though after three editions, or rather 5 if you count old D&D and 3.5 I tend to get cynical over this.

 

[Nifft]

I would wish so, though after three editions, or rather 5 if you count old D&D and 3.5 I tend to get cynical over this.

IMHO, there's been a lot of progress.

The "unmanageable" levels used to start a lot earlier, and there wasn't a coherent wealth-by-level mechanic to discuss, let alone to improve upon.

Cheers, -- N

 

[WayneLigon]

Answer this question then...

So if I make D&D 4e a game with only one mechanic... where you flip a coin with heads=succeeds and tails=fails...(no classes, you just describe your man, no spells you create them on the fly, etc.) is it still D&D?

If it has that name on the (very small) box the game comes in, yes. In other words, what most people think of as D&D is just something they've come to associate with the D&D rules set. There's not as great a difference as most think between D&D and any other RPG ever made. Many, many things people have mentioned on this board as 'integral to the D&D experience' - including the ever popular 'kill things and take their stuff' - are things I've never done in D&D. And yes, I've played in a campaign where we didn't kill very many things and we almost never took their stuff. Still D&D.

The rules set can and will continue to change, but it'll still be D&D. It may not be "your fathers' D&D" but then why would anyone want it to be. I certainly don't.

 

[The Little Raven]

I respect yout point of view, though some could voice concerns that 4e is written to help COMPUTER SOFTWARE programmers build video games more easily, rather than catering to TABLETOP gamers consumers.

As a programmer, I don't see it at all. By making the math of the game less complex, it becomes easier for a human to use. When programming games, we tend to make the math incredibly complex so we can have a much finer gradient of probability manipulation than the 5% granted by the d20 system's minimum +/-1 modifier.

 

[Fishbone]

I'm really worried by what I read. This change is going to be a lot bigger than most people realize. This is like going from 2 to 3 and not 3 to 3.5.
It will take me a long time to come to grips with it all but unless WOTC REALLY botches this it will rule the d20 market and lead to a lot of stuff being chucked.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The only thing I can determine is that I think and therefore exist. I have no way to prove that you think and are just not a robot reacting to some external input, or that you're a figment of my imagination.

That's a fairly accurate assessment.

Science only works on observations, which always include a margin of error.

Also accurate, but in the case of emotional content, you aren't able to make a single, let alone repeating observations, about the emotional states of others. All that you have are correlations between what they say - which is where your observation stops.

It is certainly possible to correlate neural activity with that sort of observation. But if those same people said they'd seen UFOs, it would be non-evidenciary. I say that the same criteria applies.

BTW, did you read the October Scientific American yet?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The "unmanageable" levels used to start a lot earlier

Out of curiosity, what level became "unmanageable" for you in 1e? 2e?

IME, neither edition had "unmanageable" levels.

RC