Li Shenron said:
I don't think this D&D is already anymore the D&D we've known. Let's still call it D&D, but at this point perhaps OD&D+AD&D1e+2e+3.0+3.5 were the first era D&D, and 4e is the second era D&D.
I think the differences between 3E and 1st ed AD&D are very significant (I never played 2nd Ed much, so can't comment on it).
In 1st ed character build is an almost insignificant part of the game, and the action resolution rules themselves are a tiny part of play (unless one tries to grapple, pummel or overbear). In the PHB, once one gets through the character build rules and the spells, the bulk of the text tells you not how to resolve character actions, but how to go about preparing for and carrying out a dungeon exploration.
The actual challenge of play in AD&D mostly unfolds through interaction with the GM, as the players (not their characters) come up with ingenious techniques and solutions, and hope that the GM will agree with them.
In 3E character build is a huge part of the game, and the action resolution rules are also hugely important. A big part of the challenge of play is optimising the mechanical aspects of play (good character build, effective use of that character build, knowing when it is rational or irrational to risk an AoO, etc).
It is no surprise that many people complain that 3E neutered the GM - a changed role for the GM is a natural consequence of these dramatic changes to the mechanics. (I also think this is why AD&D, but not 3E, has a reputation for being so prone to domineering GMs - the game gives the GM a centrality to the play experience that is absent from a game in which the mechanics, rather than the GM, take centre-stage.)
In this respect, 4e seems to be continuous with 3E and unlike 1st Ed AD&D - although unlike 3E, it seems that the mechanics are being designed with deliberate attention to the sort of play experience that they will produce when they become the focus of play. (3E, on the other hand, seems to have very much muddled through by intution.) Therefore 4e should be a good game for those who enjoy the ways in which 3E differs from AD&D, but not for those who don't enjoy those differences.
Philotomy Jurament said:
The more I've heard, the more I see that the gulf between my preferences and the direction WotC is taking the game continues to widen.
Given your preference for AD&D and earlier editions, you are undoubtedly correct.
Korgoth said:
So the solution? "OK, we shouldn't have tried to turn D&D into GURPS. We should have tried to turn it into Exalted." But turning D&D into D&D? Perish the thought!
I suspect there is little market for D&D in your sense. People no longer want to play a game which is all about planning and undertaking assaults on dungeons, where every iron spike left behind might mean the difference between life and death. For better or worse, the zeitgeisst has changed. People want to experience game mechanics, both in building characters and in resolving actions.
The suggested social mechanics only emphasise this trend: instead of resolving such encounters among the players with no mechanical system and with the GM's adjudication playing a crucial role, social encounters will now be resolved by a system that will reward those players who can best grasp the mechanics, and best build a character to take advantage of them. We will now see diplomats, as well as killing-machines, being posted on optimisation boards. And social encounters will almost certainly become more important to more D&D games, because they will deliver the experience that players are looking for.
Samnell said:
There's no reason a game should have two different systems, one for antagonists and one for protagonists.
If the protagonists are the PCs, then the system that generates them must generate balanced protagonists, in the sense that all must be able to participate meaningfully in the game. Antagonists, on the other hand, do not need to be balanced in the same way.
This is a good reason for not subjecting monster building to the same constraints as PC building.
On the other hand, it may be helpful if the action resolution rules for the two are in many respects the same (because this gives rise to fewer systems to master). And it is pretty clear that in 4e monsters will have the same sorts of stats, and thus use the same action resolution system, as PCs (ie they will have ability scores, skill bonuses, AC, to-hit bonuses, etc; but probably they will not have the same variety of choices as PCs have, in order to make them easier to run).
The fact that the 4e designers have noticed this reinforces my sense that 4e is being very deliberately build to optimise the sort of play experience that WoTC believes the market to desire.
