D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game

[Raven Crowking]

It's videogame-y, it's rollplaying over roleplaying, it's the munchkin edition. Now it's not D&D. How about calling it anime next? That's the only lazy cliche you've not used yet.

"It's fun" is a lazy cliche, too......

Seriously, the fact that something feels "rollplay-ey" or "munchkin-ey" or "not like D&D" to some folks is a perfectly valid expression. Nor does it mean that it feels that way to you.

The elements that make some folks feel that something "is D&D" are not necessarily the same elements that make you feel that something "is D&D". Or me, for that matter.

RC

 

[Vocenoctum]

It's videogame-y, it's rollplaying over roleplaying, it's the munchkin edition. Now it's not D&D. How about calling it anime next? That's the only lazy cliche you've not used yet.

Psht, it wishes it were anime.

 

[Vocenoctum]

"It's fun" is a lazy cliche, too......

Seriously, the fact that something feels "rollplay-ey" or "munchkin-ey" or "not like D&D" to some folks is a perfectly valid expression. Nor does it mean that it feels that way to you.

The "rollplay" thing is as old as D&D, so I would have to assume if someone says 4e is Rollplay, then it MUST be D&D.

The elements that make some folks feel that something "is D&D" are not necessarily the same elements that make you feel that something "is D&D". Or me, for that matter.

RC

D&D is a lot of things, Spelljammer certainly felt different than Greyhawk. Even Eberron, which was very D&D to me, it's certainly different D&D than FR. No one would put at something and say "it's a good game, but that's no Dark Sun".

OTOH, no one would point at Iron Heroes and say "that's D&D!", even if it might be closer than some of the other "D&D brands" that flourished.

So, yeah, more than another other opinion on a message board, "that's not D&D" has to have the automatic "IMO" assumed at the end.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's videogame-y, it's rollplaying over roleplaying, it's the munchkin edition. Now it's not D&D. How about calling it anime next? That's the only lazy cliche you've not used yet.

4E is videogamey; check

4E is rolllplaying: check ( and thus the same as all other D&D out of the box)

4E is the munchkin edition: Nope. 3rd Ed is the ultimate munchkin edition (so far)

4E is not D&D; Nope (it says D&D right on the front cover)

 

[Jhaelen]

OTOH, no one would point at Iron Heroes and say "that's D&D!", even if it might be closer than some of the other "D&D brands" that flourished.

Umm? I beg to differ. I think 'Iron Heroes' is very much D&D.

I guess this is yet another proof that 'D&D' means something different to everyone.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I'm on board with 4E. I think it is a fun, well-balanced game that is enjoyable to play.

I think in many ways it is a superior fantasy simulation to 3.5 E. I especially feel that 4Es healing system is far superior to previous editions of 3E.

I also find the encounters more balanced and interesting. I like that all the PCs can contribute meaningfully to an encounter with more than a standard damage dealing power.

4E was a very satisfying play experience. If it stays as balanced and easy to prepare encounters as the early 4E levels, I will be very pleased. I grew weary of designing high level 3E encounters that required excessive healing potions, magic items, and other types of contrivances you don't at all see in fantasy stories.

Now a lvl 10 or 16 giant is a challenge for a lvl 10 or lvl 16 party with just his great club. No more having to watch a giant get butchered in seconds by the multiattacking crit master warrior or a simple Hold Monster effectively ending the encounter with the giant.

Now when that giant wanders out of his mountain cave, a party best be ready to take him on because it will be a fairly tough fight depending on whether he is elite, with a group, or a solo.

4E seems to have had alot more thought put into the coneptual idea of what an encounter should be like, much more thought than previous editions. I'm sold on 4E. It's a good game that is alot of fun to play. It does a good job of making an encounter feel tough and epic with half the necessary creatures and no need to stack a bad guy with a ton of magic items to make him effective.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's always nice reading from a skeptic that he eventually liked the game, Celtavian. (Not that your critic was entirely invalidated by this - the Wizard is still nerved and less flexible then in 3E)

Now I think, for balance, that some of us "lovers before release" guys stand up and declare that ultimately 4E turns out not be what they want and go back to 3E. Wormwood, I nominate you.

Okay, a little more serious:
D&D it is because of the name of the cover, wizards stilll cast magic missiles, fighters still kick as in combat, Thief are still backstabbing bastards that defuse traps and open doors, and Clerics still heal people, and because my group declared the experience they had playing it as D&D.

D&D it is not because the seperation in power acquisition between spellcasters and non-spellcasters is gone, because it no longer uses skill points and thus is no longer a "logical" evolution from rogue/thief skills non-weapon-profiency to skill points, and probably still a few other points.

4E seems to have had alot more thought put into the coneptual idea of what an encounter should be like, much more thought than previous editions.

Again, I am not familiar with editions before 3rd, but the whole CR/Encounter Level system of 3E for me was genius - a system that allowed me to gauge how hard an encounter will be for my PCs? I hadn't seen that before, nor I have seen something after. 4E is clearly a refinement of that prinicple. It is probably also an ultimate expression of "gamist" concepts in D&D, only existing to facilitate the "kill people and take their stuff" trope, but, well, I think it is a very powerful and important tool for DMs. Expanding the system to handle "skill challenge" and quests just seems logical.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Again, I am not familiar with editions before 3rd, but the whole CR/Encounter Level system of 3E for me was genius - a system that allowed me to gauge how hard an encounter will be for my PCs? I hadn't seen that before, nor I have seen something after. 4E is clearly a refinement of that prinicple. It is probably also an ultimate expression of "gamist" concepts in D&D, only existing to facilitate the "kill people and take their stuff" trope, but, well, I think it is a very powerful and important tool for DMs. Expanding the system to handle "skill challenge" and quests just seems logical.

In Dragon long ago (1st edition I think, but maybe second) was a system to determine the suitability of an encounter for a group of pcs and to determine how many of a creature would be what kind of a challenge. It never seemed to gain traction and I never saw it again.

I think 4e is a great core game that lost too much in the pruning. It's a lot easier to gauge CR when your options are all basically the same... It'll be interesting to see 2 years from now when the options have flowed, whether game balance is maintained.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So, yeah, more than another other opinion on a message board, "that's not D&D" has to have the automatic "IMO" assumed at the end.

Oh, I dunno. I think just about every opinion on the internet automatically has the "IMO" on the end. The idea of "It's not D&D to me" is somehow different or special from that, I just don't really get. Or rather, I DO get it, all too much, and i find it really dumb.

 

[Jack99]

Again, I am not familiar with editions before 3rd, but the whole CR/Encounter Level system of 3E for me was genius - a system that allowed me to gauge how hard an encounter will be for my PCs? I hadn't seen that before, nor I have seen something after. 4E is clearly a refinement of that prinicple.

You mean eyeballing it? I think that was it. It's embarrassing after playing 2e for 11 years or so, and I can't for the life of me recall if there was a system, or if I always "eyeballed" it.

Cheers