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

[The Cardinal]

I think I've finally sussed out what was bothering me.
Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is NOT an update of Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.
It is a completely new game.
The rules, world, systems - everything, have been completely rebuilt from the ground-up. So much so, that what they have ended up with bears as much resemblance to what we used to call D&D as I do to Brad Pitt.ot Dungeons and Dragons.

Well, it is, because that's what its called. I think if they'd called it something else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

BINGO! A different name would have been really nice - maybe D&D Ultra or Xtreme D&D or D&D Miniature Roleplaying - as long as it's not "just a new edition". A car is never gonna be the "new edition version" of a motorcycle (even if there's "Honda" or "BMW" on both of 'em)...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

BINGO! A different name would have been really nice - maybe D&D Ultra or Xtreme D&D or D&D Miniature Roleplaying - as long as it's not "just a new edition". A car is never gonna be the "new edition version" of a motorcycle (even if there's "Honda" or "BMW" on both of 'em)...

How about "Advanced D&D 3E?"

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

It is a completely new game.

Well, yeah.

Of course, that's exactly why I like it. Previous editions didn't do enough to improve the game, in my opinion. 3rd edition was a step in the right direction, but still clung to a lot of trite material and sacred cows. 4th edition has moved away from a lot of that, and I think that's what's rubbing people the wrong way.

That and not accepting that it is DnD, and will always be as long as it bears the logo.

 

[Rel]

A couple things:

First up when I got the PHB and paged through it, I was not jazzed in the least. I find it uninspiring and frankly a bit ugly. I can't place myself in the mind of a person who has never gamed before but I have a suspicion that if I were, and if I picked up a 4e PHB and paged through it, I'd put it back down and walk away.

Having now played the game and gotten more familiar with it, I have a greater understanding of why this is. The 4e PHB is almost the complete ruleset. In fact I ran my first couple 4e games using ONLY the PHB and had no difficulties. It reads more like a textbook than a "portal to adventure!" Even though I kinda like the game, I don't think the PHB makes a very good first impression. YMMV.

The other first impression that I got was "this is a completely different game!" Again, having run and played it a bit (though not a lot) I've refined that opinion as well. I now feel like the stuff that is the same is the same and the stuff that is different is very different.

For example, I think that the PC's options in combat are very different. They feel different than any previous edition and the At Will/Encounter/Daily structure is very different. But the combat round is structured almost identical to 3.x. Move/Standard/Free vs. Move/Standard/Minor/Free makes the flow of combat pretty much the same as far as I'm concerned.

Skill checks are nearly identical in usage even though you use a different method of getting the total bonus that a PC has in their skills. Skill Challenges are very different and not really much to my liking but I understand why they are there. I will probably tend to use something much more free-form than that for my 4e games.

Anyway, from somebody who at first glance even said the dreaded words, "This doesn't look like D&D", I now maintain that while it may not LOOK like D&D, I think it plays an awful lot like D&D in a majority of respects. But the differences are significant and I could see some folks having a tough time swallowing them.

 

[rounser]

That and not accepting that it is DnD, and will always be as long as it bears the logo.

Well, it's someone's D&D. I think people can decide whether it's D&D for them on a case-by-case basis.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Well, it's someone's D&D. I think people can decide whether it's D&D for them on a case-by-case basis.

Certainly someone can decide it's not the game they wanted and is not for them. I'm not disputing that. To say it's "not D&D" is not correct, though; it is branded by the logos, it is associated with the IP. It has everything it needs to be called Dungeons & Dragons.

It's something of a semantical argument and the ground has been tread before, so I won't beat this horse to death. What I will say is that what is currently Dungeons & Dragons in no way invalidates what was Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Imaro]

Well, yeah.

Of course, that's exactly why I like it. Previous editions didn't do enough to improve the game, in my opinion. 3rd edition was a step in the right direction, but still clung to a lot of trite material and sacred cows. 4th edition has moved away from a lot of that, and I think that's what's rubbing people the wrong way.

That and not accepting that it is DnD, and will always be as long as it bears the logo.

I agree (somewhat) with what you are saying...However I think the disconnect is also because of a few more things...

1. 4th ed. doesn't seem like an extension of 3.x but more of an alternative direction in design. It doesn't necessarily build on 3.x but instead tears away, IMHO, both good and bad aspects of 3.x to replace alot of it with something from left field. I was hoping for something more similar to Star Wars Saga ed. (which I think actually refines and evolves 3.5 and is a better game system) than what 4e actually turned out to be.

2. I don't think the Fluff of D&D 4e was thought out very well. And I'm not talking about the power descriptions, but the actual default PoL. It seems like WotC wanted a more edgier, dangerous and grittier world... yet the playstyle of D&D seems to not only drop the ball here...but at times actually contradict that feel. The world comes off as Warhammer-esque in feel yet in play it doesn't feel that way. That coupled with the even more abstract nature of the game can at times give it a surreal feeling that I'm not keen on.

3. The killing of "sacred cows"... Contrary to popular belief, some people play D&D to play D&D, there are a multitude of different systems (many which use the same d20 base as D&D if they wanted to change up). This is perhaps the basis of the "not D&D" feeling people are having. I get the feeling that many who go so far as to say 3.5 didn't change enough perhaps don't want to play D&D but also, for whatever reasons, don't want to try different games either... not sure how you can accommodate both camps.

4. Improvement is a very subjective term... and alot of the change in D&D 4e isn't necessarily an improvement. I for one am very disappointed in the skill system and the rigidity of the powers... The skills needed some streamlining but I feel a better system would have been to have tiered skills and adequate picks amongst the different types of skills...not to just destroy the option of having a skill that doesn't directly pertain to combat. and the "Oh your Rogue can learn to use the longsword...but he will never learn to use it with any of his powers." thing irks me to no end.

I also don't believe multi-classing was an improvement...and am actually starting to wonder if the combinations are even balanced against each other. IME, a Fighter/Wizard is just a better all around choice than a Wizard/Fighter in what is gained.

 

[el-remmen]

BINGO! A different name would have been really nice - maybe D&D Ultra or Xtreme D&D or D&D Miniature Roleplaying - as long as it's not "just a new edition".

Ha! Some friends and I have been referring to 4E as "D&D EXTREME Edition"

 

[Raven Crowking]

Certainly someone can decide it's not the game they wanted and is not for them. I'm not disputing that. To say it's "not D&D" is not correct, though; it is branded by the logos, it is associated with the IP. It has everything it needs to be called Dungeons & Dragons.

Despite attempts otherwise, the meaning of language is not something that can be owned or controlled by a corporate entity.

Being branded by the logos and being associated with the IP isn't necessarily everything required to be accepted as having the meaning associated with "Dungeons & Dragons". Language is a funny thing that way.

(For myself, though, I certainly do accept that 4e is D&D, even if it isn't "my" D&D.)


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think I've finally sussed out what was bothering me.
Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is NOT an update of Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.
It is a completely new game.

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.