Is 4E still D&D to you?

[Calico_Jack73]

Having started with AD&D, I'm not possitive how true this is. But I know the original pamphlets were at least three books but you might have been able to play with just a D20 I don't know. I know that AD&D required at least three and I'd have had a hard time only using a d20.

If you have the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia you'd have your "One Book" system through you would need the whole set of dice rather than just the d20.

http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Rules-Cyclopedia-Allston/dp/1560760850

My Criteria for D&D is the ability to play a Cleric (who heals), a Fighter (who hits things), a Wizard (who blows stuff up), and a Thief (who disarms traps), plus be able to be Human, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling(I'll accept Kender ..maybe). They mostly spend their times in Dungeons, can fight Dragons and accumulate magic items. There are probably dice involved.

I agree with you but with that definition the Palladium FRPG is also D&D as is Rolemaster and most other fantasy RPGs on the market.

IOW: It does not seem to have (m)any discriminatory elements that are unique to traditional D&D and not share by many other other fantasy RPGs.

Very well said.

 

[Ander00]

He would have been smart enough not to get into melee with Eadric, if that's what you mean by "overpowered".

More like obliterating a small demonic army before it even got to do anything, when it was likely supposed to be a real challenge. I'm not saying the distinctions between caster-types and others didn't have a certain flair and could not be made to work (and work really well, this campaign being a case in point), but for a lot of people they apparently lead to real problems (heck, even there, at one point Ortwin in particular really started to feel inferior, if I remember correctly).


cheers

 

[Heselbine]

What's interesting for those who say it's not D&D is - why not? What are the key things for you that are not present in 4e?

 

[dmccoy1693]

Voted: No. Real answer: I don't care. Wizards' actions over the past year made me not care about what they call D&D anymore.

I hope the fans enjoy it and that no one loses their jobs, but other then that, I've moved on. Pathfinder is the real D&D as far as I care.

 

[wingsandsword]

What's interesting for those who say it's not D&D is - why not? What are the key things for you that are not present in 4e?

In 1e, 2e and 3e, a player who had only the core rulebooks would perfectly understand the story of a Gnomish Illusionist that was stranded on Elysium and had run out of spells for the day and then met a gold dragon. That entire concept is bizarre to someone who has only ever read the 4e core. That core 4e player could then spin a tale about a Dragonborn Warlord lost in the Feywild that has 1e, 2e, and 3e players scratching their heads in confusion.

That's what it really comes down to, that 4e was built on such a different baseline of setting presumptions, right down to races and classes, that it is incongruous with what came before.

If 4e is still D&D for any reason other than it having the D&D trademark on it, then Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes and Blue Rose are also all D&D (those 3 games are all fine games, but I wouldn't call them D&D).

4e may be a fun game, it may be just fine, but it just plain feels too far removed from what came before to really capture the spirit of D&D as opposed to being another d20-based fantasy rpg obviously inspired by D&D.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

In 1e, 2e and 3e, a player who had only the core rulebooks would perfectly understand the story of a Gnomish Illusionist that was stranded on Elysium and had run out of spells for the day and then met a gold dragon. That entire concept is bizarre to someone who has only ever read the 4e core.

That concept would be bizarre to anyone who only ever read oD&D too. So I guess D&D hasn't been D&D for a long time.

 

[wingsandsword]

That concept would be bizarre to anyone who only ever read oD&D too. So I guess D&D hasn't been D&D for a long time.

I know it's inflammatory to a lot of people, but I consider OD&D to be more of a prototype or incomplete edition than a fully realized, fully fleshed out edition. Personally, I consider D&D to have come of age as of 1e.

 

[EATherrian]

This is a very interesting question. I've played D&D in many forms since the early 80's, and this is the first version that doesn't feel like it is D&D anymore. Don't get me wrong, it is fun. It is a fun tactical fantasy combat game with small bits of role-playing added on. This makes it fun, but also makes it less D&D than the other editions. Yes I know that all of them come from miniatures play, but I never played with miniatures until 3rd edition because I never needed to. From my play of 4th, I can't see how to do it without miniatures. Too much of the game is focus on combat powers. Heck, I can't even just throw some random encounters at the PCs, or at least not easily. Every encounter has to be a set-piece that is carefully created. I don't like that, it makes it too stale. So, fun game for what it is, but it is not D&D.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes I know that all of them come from miniatures play, but I never played with miniatures until 3rd edition because I never needed to. From my play of 4th, I can't see how to do it without miniatures. Too much of the game is focus on combat powers.

I think not the general existence of combat powers are the problem (Shadowrun has tons of them in shape of spells, ki adept powers and fire modes) but their reliance on movement causes the miniature focus.

Heck, I can't even just throw some random encounters at the PCs, or at least not easily. Every encounter has to be a set-piece that is carefully created. I don't like that, it makes it too stale.

I am not sure stale is the correct word. I think a lot of combat games suffer from the fact that ultimately, it is just rolling some dice, and a lot of the descriptions or narration you might try doesn't has relevance to resolving the encounter. That's why I like 3E and 4E combat.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It is a fun tactical fantasy combat game with small bits of role-playing added on. This makes it fun, but also makes it less D&D than the other editions.

I don't understand this comment in regards to any edition of D&D or for that matter any RPG that I have played. Every game I have played (all versions of D&D, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, GURPS, Palladium, Rolemaster, Marvel Comic Superheroes, TORG, Toon, Paranoia, Unisystem) is a set of rules on how to do stuff (fight, resolve skills, etc). None of these games has rules for roleplaying. I'd really like to understand how a game can contain "more roleplaying" than another. I always thought the amount of roleplaying came from the players and gamemaster. Am I wrong?