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

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Unlike my homebrew campaign, the players in the AP game are more casual. Well, you've got one or two who are fantastic at building characters and finding the best supplements. (Craig's effectiveness at building a druid was eye-opening). But you have the other end as well: the players who are fantastic role-players, but are... challenged... when it comes to rules knowledge.

This highlights one of my major worries with 4e: with every class getting at-will, per-encounter and per-day powers, what options will there be for new or casual players? In 3e, and from memory in 1e as well, the fighter and barbarian were the most common introductory classes, and remained popular with players who just wanted to play without keeping track of a lot of complicated rules.

Will there be equivalent classes in 4e? From what I've read so far the spellcasters may be simpler, but the fighters sound more complex.

PS: Merric, I agree with pretty much everything you write here. I've been playing in Age of Worms: it's been my first experience of high level 3e play and I haven't been overly impressed.

 

[Felon]

That didn't last long. After all, I'm blindly optimistic, right?

Well, not quite. It's probably more accurate that I tend to see the successes of companies I like more than their failures.

It's not a binary equation. The available options aren't limited to either extreme cynicism or lapdoggish optimism. There's also an option to be even-handed and discerning.

If there's one thing that really makes me cringe, it's that "teaser" video displaying the "problems" with the previous editions of D&D. Now, I - and most people familiar with 3e - can relate to the problems with Grappling in 3e. (Incidentally, I don't have a problem running Grappling, I just have a problem with how powerful it is with large creatures). However, the problem with AD&D is... you don't know what mini stands for which monster? Huh? How on earth is that a 1st edition problem?

I don't think the videos was illustrating a defect with older editions so far as demonstrating the strides the game has made. Cheap plastic minis kind of have erasers and clothespins beat cold....not that I ever used minis in previous editions.

 

[Li Shenron]

At every possible level (how some game things works overall, specific mechanical changes, and flavor changes) I find in 4e both something that I like and something that I dislike. That puts me in a situation where I do not really know yet if the game will be overall better or worse, but it certainly feels like it will be different, and that makes me generally wanting to try it out, but not necessarily stick to it and drop 3ed.

Basically it's for me a similar situation the the 3.5 revision (a mix of plus and minus) with the BIG exception that this time the changes are much wider and affect also the overall functioning of the game (e.g. the resource management changes a lot, as does the meaning of equipment and wealth). But while I ended up not buying 3.5 at all because it was neither better for me nor different enough, 4e promises at least to be different... so as long as it isn't significantly worse, I should end up buying at least the early books.

 

[TerraDave]

Its a very good summary.

To rephrase, what I think I am seeing is:

-Developers: trying, and promising to fix the problems so many of us have noted. But, outside of one devil stat-card, its promises, not much more (but I guess they know what the problems are).

-Desingers: looking for Big Bold Flavor: I really see what they are trying to do. And I actually do not have the "backwards compatability" problems that some people do (some things actually seem to fit better). BUT, sometimes Big Bold Flavor just taste bad in a Big, Bold way.

-Other People: the ones doing the overall bussiness strategy stuff, IT stuff, marketing.... These people seem to be behind the curve. Maybe all the senior people involved in the last launch are gone, and they are learning this all over again? Of course, the launch of 3rd edition actually won a marketing award. I am not seeing that now.

So, overall, I also remain optimistic. But yeah, they probably need to get better at this, the sooner the better.

 

[TerraDave]

One more thing:

Following up on what the antipodean OP was saying:

One good thing a new edition can do is take all the new mechanics, classes, etc that are really starting to clutter up the game, strip out the best stuff, make it work, and ditch the rest (which will then start to be recycled in latter supplements a few years down the line).

3rd edition certainly did that. Hopefully 4th will as well.

 

[Hussar]

As usual, Merric hits it pretty well. ((Although, you didn't like Tome of Magic? Really? I'm playing a Binder and having a blast))

To be honest, I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm no longer the target audience and likely won't be fore some time. Since the latter days of 3e, my buying habits have become much more discriminating. Long gone are the days when I bought up the latest book when it hit the shelves. Heck, for 3.5, of the core 3, all I've bought is the PHB. Other than a few books here and there (maybe 2 or 3 books per year) I don't buy much at all.

That being said, I'm also set for gaming for the next few years. A subsciption to Dungeon has set me up pretty nicely for the foreseeable future. I won't be an early adopter and, my online gaming needs are already serviced quite well with OpenRPG. So, my interest in 4e is mostly academic. I'm curious to see where they go with things. Starting with Basic D&D, every edition I've played has been an improvement on what goes before. Based on that, I'm pretty optimistic about what they will do with 4e.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

good post

I would like to applaud Merric for letting out his inner cynic! We don't get to see the Evil Merric much here.


Also, I pretty much agree with what he said.

Ken

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Very well put Merric.

About The Gleemax- As of today I've started look at Dev posts again. Looks like they've been linked in a logical fashion at the D&D page.

There's always hope-but like a friend of mine used to say, Hope is not a technique.

 

[Wormwood]

Holy crap. I'm more optimistic than Merric?

At the end of the day, the only things that bother me about 4e are:

• Gleemax, for the very same reasons Merric mentioned. Good points all.
• the Three Core Book model. Seriously, it's 2008 and they're selling us a rulebook in three parts?
• I really, really hope that Eberron was an isolated case of designer capitulation.

Everything else---from Tieflings to Death Knights to cosmology to stat blocks---are welcome improvements to a game I enjoy despite its flaws.

The pace that Wizards is doling out preview information seems about right, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Cadfan]

Agreed on the addition thing. I'm fast at adding up dice, and remembering modifiers. My players are not. They love rolling a million dice, unfortunately, because its got that visceral "With this many dice, it HAS to be good!" effect. But then we all have to sit there while they count things up wrong.

Some of the updates have been sort of "meh" for me. But this is usually because they relate to aspects of the game about which I care very little. Changes to established settings? I don't use them. Which races will be in the PHB? Won't affect my enjoyment of the game much, since "human" is still there, and my players can do whatever they like. Names of abilities might be flashy instead of austere? Doesn't matter, I don't think in terms of names, I think in terms of in game results. I retheme on a constant basis.

So a lot of the flame wars on this forum leave me a bit cold, since they're over things I don't care about.

I care about rules changes. I care about changes to the default setting only to the extent that they affect rules changes, which is not much. I care about character class design. I mostly care about changes to the math.

I see good things coming from those areas of the game. My only reservation right now is action points. They tend to be a metagame influence more than other rules, and historically they haven't been very satisfying rules-wise. I can be convinced though, its certain not a deal breaker.