D&D 4E Merric's thoughts on 4e

[Wulf Ratbane]

Someone update me: is there some reason that we're allowing posters like see to take it as axiomatic that 4E is fundamentally a different game than 3E and previous editions?

Changes in cosmology, changes to Vancian magic, etc... I'm willing to concede the point, even if the only intent is simply to use "30 Year Tradition" as short-hand for all the sacred cows being slaughtered.

 

[Stormtower]

Someone update me: is there some reason that we're allowing posters like see to take it as axiomatic that 4E is fundamentally a different game than 3E and previous editions? I thought that was one of the topics being argued, not a foregone conclusion.

I'm a 4e skeptic and the fundamental roots of the game seem quite similar to me. But then, I've always been a toolbox/worldbuilding guy and willing to stridently ignore and change flavor text to match my own vision of what's cool and fun.

I can see the issues that some have with the flavor changes such as core tieflings, eladrin, no gnomes and such. A significant portion of players do feel empowered to request (or demand?) that PHBI core races are allowed... how's a DM to say no to tieflings, for example, when they're right in the PHBI?

I think this is largely an issue of semantics - that is, what's fundamental to one person about D&D is someone else's easily changed flavor text. But with these kinds of changes, the game does seem to be developing a slow tropism away from its BECMI and AD&D roots. One could argue that's a good or bad thing, depending on one's emotional attachment to memories of those other games (mechanics or otherwise). For myself, it's still recognizably D&D though.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I can see the issues that some have with the flavor changes such as core tieflings, eladrin, no gnomes and such. A significant portion of players do feel empowered to request (or demand?) that PHBI core races are allowed... how's a DM to say no to tieflings, for example, when they're right in the PHBI?

The same way a DM is to say no to elves or dwarves or halflings?

Tieflings, ironically, are the first non-human core race I can actually see allowing outside of Spelljammer. Especially with the 'ancient empire' fluff that's apparently their default, they, unlike the Tolkienesque races, fit both Sword and Sorcery and Final Fantasy vibes.

I've never had a problem saying no to D&D's core races (and no, and no!, and NO again, because I'm not running Lord of the Rings pastiche #383487901) in non-Spelljammer games, and if, for whatever reason, I had cause to reject tieflings for a given campaign, it would pose no additional problem.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Changes in cosmology, changes to Vancian magic, etc... I'm willing to concede the point, even if the only intent is simply to use "30 Year Tradition" as short-hand for all the sacred cows being slaughtered.

But didn't we already go through this in 1999?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm a 4e skeptic and the fundamental roots of the game seem quite similar to me. But then, I've always been a toolbox/worldbuilding guy and willing to stridently ignore and change flavor text to match my own vision of what's cool and fun.

I can see the issues that some have with the flavor changes such as core tieflings, eladrin, no gnomes and such. A significant portion of players do feel empowered to request (or demand?) that PHBI core races are allowed... how's a DM to say no to tieflings, for example, when they're right in the PHBI?

I think this is largely an issue of semantics - that is, what's fundamental to one person about D&D is someone else's easily changed flavor text. But with these kinds of changes, the game does seem to be developing a slow tropism away from its BECMI and AD&D roots. One could argue that's a good or bad thing, depending on one's emotional attachment to memories of those other games (mechanics or otherwise). For myself, it's still recognizably D&D though.

We still have dungeons, monsters, hit points, bastard swords, the four main core classes, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, fireballs, magic missiles, saving throws, ability scores, magic potions, magic swords, planar travel, etc. etc. etc.

It sounds like fewer changes are being made than were made during the 2E-3E transition. Back then, the whole core system was overhauled. Now, it's getting tweaked to smooth out the rough spots, and half the changes are just refinements of things that came out in later 3.5E supplements. It's the same game with a nose job and some new shoes.

 

[see]

From what we've seen so far, 4e is the way to go if you actually want to help bring new players into the game.

Er, no, we've seen no such thing. "This is different, therefore it will attract new players" is no more a given today than it was when the same logic was applied to Traveller: The New Era. That 4e as it is being developed will attract new players more than a version using the new 4e rules engine but the old flavor elements is pure speculation. If Wizards had test-driven the new D&D flavor in a new campaign world, and it had been wildly successful, with an uptake speed surpassing Eberron's, that would be evidence that 4e's story is the way to go if you want to bring new players into the game. If a massive campaign of external playtesting had lot of come back with "go with the tiefling, drop the gnome", well, that would be evidence. But such evidence doesn't exist.

Heck, if they said that their market research indicated more people were playing warlocks than bards and tieflings than gnomes, that would be evidence in their favor. But apparently the decision was driven entirely because the tiefling artwork looked cool to people who are so much current D&D players that they write D&D for a living. How can anyone spin that into being evidence that the new flavor would attract new players to the game, exactly?

I grant that as a long-time D&D player, my opinion itself cannot be evidence for or against a new flavor attracting people to D&D . . . but then, neither can yours. The only solid data either of us has is that, in thirty years of RPGing, no other RPG flavor has been as successful as traditional-flavor D&D, no matter how many mechanical changes D&D has undergone. Not even TSR/WotC-backed non-traditional D&D settings have outsold their traditional-flavor counterparts. This is not exactly evidence that yet another version of not-traditional-D&D flavor is going to suddenly attract heaps of new players.

And D&D is the engine that drives the whole RPG industry. When Wizards takes a spin of the roulette wheel, everyone interested in RPGs is a chip sitting on red, praying it doesn't come up black.

 

[buzz]

But apparently the decision was driven entirely because the tiefling artwork looked cool to people who are so much current D&D players that they write D&D for a living.

Do you work at WotC?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

When Wizards takes a spin of the roulette wheel, everyone interested in RPGs is a chip sitting on red, praying it doesn't come up black.

Yeah, see, when you say things like "Wizards takes a spins of the roulette wheel," completely discounting the marketing, design, and development talent that is PACKED into that building, the likes of which is completely unparalleled in any other RPG company past or present, you pretty much take yourself out of the argument.

 

[Ty]

As a "D&D" player rather than a generic gamer, I see 4th Ed. in a different light than I think many "gamers" do. I am a D&D player. I viewed Runequest, Talisman, GURPS and other rpg's as fringe game systems that I tried and dismissed because they didn't have the same history or feel as D&D. I tried MtG and didn't care for it. What does this have to do with 4th Edition and why do I have concerns?

This is a quote which demonstrates the potential mindset of the designers of 4th Edition to me and why I am concerned:


"By the time AD&D came out, I had tinkered with enough game systems that I was impatient with AD&D's claim to be the un-modifiable system everyone should be playing with. I was more interested in other rpgs -- I only ran AD&D once...

I skimmed through the 2nd Edition AD&D rulebook and decided I liked the games I was already interested in a lot more. I didn't see 2nd Edition AD&D as an improvement over Runequest or Champions, so I gave it a miss."


The fact is that AD&D and 2nd Edition AD&D entertained me and mine for quite some time; longer than the various permutations of 3.X have. It wasn't the best "game system" but it wasn't the worst either. It was however, D&D. It had a history and it was fun. I didn't need all the rules and we freely altered it on the fly. The game didn't break down at level 20 though, as I recall. If anything, we had a party of characters we played for nearly 5 years, from level 1 to level 28. Those characters started in AD&D and ended with the odd supplements TSR released regarding Combat and Tactics or something.

The point is that despite the naysayers, the older editions had their quirks just as 3.X has its quirks. The opinions that 4th Edition is required to fix X, Y, or Z problem is one person's opinion. We have played 3.5 successfully at 18th and 20th levels. Is it difficult for the DM and players? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

I take issue with the casual disregard of the "grognard" who remembers opening up the Oriental Adventures book and playing a Samurai in the adventure Lost City. There is much in the way of history with D&D that frankly, some designers seem to casually toss aside because of their own past prejudices as to "superior" game systems. I don't need someone to point out the mechanical flaws in whatever version of D&D they care to enlighten us upon. Each edition was flawed in its own, unique way. Each edition though, built on the past history of the game. It provided a continuum that was comforting. It shepharded me through the changes without unduly altering my hobby. This is what D&D is; a hobby that I have enjoyed since I Ronald Reagan pushed Jimmy Carter out of office.

I buy D&D because it is D&D and I am a D&D player. I am not a gamer. I understand you want to create the "Wow!" D&D but I am concerned that the current crop of designers don't show the respect for history that is wise. Instead, I see quotes like the one above and I shudder at what they will do to my hobby.

 

[Turjan]

Heck, if they said that their market research indicated more people were playing warlocks than bards and tieflings than gnomes, that would be evidence in their favor. But apparently the decision was driven entirely because the tiefling artwork looked cool to people who are so much current D&D players that they write D&D for a living. How can anyone spin that into being evidence that the new flavor would attract new players to the game, exactly?

Well, the most successful CRPG on D&D basis of the last years featured a tiefling as one of the main party members, and it was well accepted. I didn't like it, but I'm well aware that I'm in the minority in this regard. But you should recognize that there's a bit more to the decision to include tieflings than just some personal whim.