D&D 4E Mouseferatu weighs in on 4e

[Klaus]

As they say over at Disney, "In Mouse We Trust".



Ari, I know you're a big Ravenloft fan, and RL has always been a more roleplaying-oriented setting, where the PCs are more-often-than-not outclassed against their opponents. How easy do you think this situation can be done with the 4e rules, specially since PCs tend to be more powerful or at least "in control"?

 

[Lizard]

From Ari Marmell's blog. I believe he's posted it here as well, but since I'm not sure where...


4E manages, IMO, to give you exactly the mechanics you need, without giving excessive mechanics to what you don't, in a way that no prior edition has managed.[/bq][/indent]

And this, I think, is the crux of the problem. 3e gave you mechanics for damn near everything, and let you ignore the ones *you* decided you didn't need. 4e, from what I've read, decides for you what you need. It has, seemingly, stripped the game to the point where it supports only one playstyle mechanically, and if you want to play the game in a different way or with different emphasis, you have a lot more work to do. It's much easier, it appears, to run the type of games the designers think of as "D&D", but less easy to use the core rules as a toolkit. The game has become less generic and more tightly focused. This is, of course, my opinion, based solely on the preview material and designer interviews, which show us, what, less than 1% of the material in the game so far?

"Red box" and other simple systems never appealed to me; I learned with the insane Gygaxian kitchen sink of wildly incoherent rules that was 1e, was repulsed by how bland and boring 2e was, and basically avoided D&D from 1988 to 2000. 3e had the kind of crunch, detail, and depth which appealed to me, and it was quicker and faster than Hero, my other Game Of Choice. 4e might have a lot of 'hidden depth' they're not showing in the previews because they want to sell 'simple', and that's about my last, best, hope for liking it.

Ari's work is generally great, and if he likes it, it's worth looking at in more detail, but the reasons why he likes it and the things I like in games seem to be opposed. So it goes. I've got enough 3x books to keep me gaming until I'm in the Shady Valley Rest Home.

 

[Lizard]

Will 4E manage to remain uncluttered forever? I wouldn't dare prognosticate on that. But I think there's plenty of expansion possible before said clutter becomes an issue.

Now, THAT'S an intriguing statement. It implies there's a solid core which can be expanded on in terms of what I call "game lego" without needing new mechanics, and I like that...

(The best games, IMO, have a core system you can use to model new things without needing new mechanics to do so...the weaker games require a new set of rules for each new 'thing' you add and everything is a special case. Just MO on game design. Others have the opposite view.)

 

[loseth]

Never doubted that it'd be a class act mechanically. I just hope that the warforged hexblade wielding a spiked chain factor is minimised in the core, because WOTC's idea of cool is not always my own.

Well put. I think that probably sums up the hopes, fears & expectations of a significant number of players (inculding me).

 

[Wolfspider]

Uh, I can't comment on the stats of Orcus, I fear. That'd be pushing the bounds a little too much, I think. (I'll say he's no pushover, but that's all I'll say.)

Just tell me one thing. Does his Wand now shoot screaming skulls that explode into hellish fire and jagged bone fragments upon striking hapless PCs?

Because that would be kewl.

It's just too bad he doesn't have electric-slide exploding minions to go with it.

Wait! Maybe he has zombie minions that dance with him like Michael Jackson does in the music video for "Thriller."

That would be sweet.

 

[Wolfspider]

Like many here, I also value Mouseferatu's opinion, so reading his comments on the game make me more hopeful at least. I'm glad he's excited and having fun.

Someone answer me this question though: Why in the world should I be excited about the opportunity to play more "mechanically interesting" character?

Mechanics have never been something that has excited me before. I'm more interested in playing a character with a rich personality and background and exciting goals and role-playing opportunities.

Why should I now get hot and bothered about the mechanics of a character?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm glad to hear your opinion, Ari!

Oh, and I love the flavor of gnolls in 4E.

You make me cry tears of joy.

And my players tears of pain.

 

[Derren]

Sorry if that sounds offensive, it is not intended this way (but I seem to attract flamewars whenever I talk about 4e).


I am a bit disappointed about this information because it basically just repeats what the designers said. "Combat is simple, combat is cool". I know that by now.
If anything, it just further increases my fear that 4E will focus only on combat and remove any non combat information about monsters. And judging from the Pit Fiend discussions I am not alone with this fear.
Sadly this blog entry seems to further confirm that in 4E monsters will only be XP containers with combat stats. If you want them to use to something besides combat it requires houseruling (=preparation).

I just hope that Combats in the real game are really exiting, because the 4E Pit Fiend doesn't look exiting at all (one trick pony. Protect yourself against fire and this guy is harmless. And just 3 possible actions? It will get boring very fast as the players will always know what to expect).

 

[Klaus]

Like many here, I also value Mouseferatu's opinion, so reading his comments on the game make me more hopeful at least. I'm glad he's excited and having fun.

Someone answer me this question though: Why in the world should I be excited about the opportunity to play more "mechanically interesting" character?

Mechanics have never been something that has excited me before. I'm more interested in playing a character with a rich personality and background and exciting goals and role-playing opportunities.

Why should I now get hot and bothered about the mechanics of a character?

Let's say you write up an awesome, richly-detailed warrior, etc, etc. You have fun speaking in-character, deciding on his family coat-of-arms. But when combat begins, your options are limited to choosing who to hit, and how much Power Attack to use. It's always "roll d20, add bonus, roll damage, add bonus".

Now imagine if you had the samw awesome warrior, but when combat came out you had four or five different tricks to try out. The latter is mechanically more interesting than the former.

 

[Irda Ranger]

3e gave you mechanics for damn near everything, and let you ignore the ones *you* decided you didn't need.

3E's tight integration though made it very tricky to remove certain elements, however. This constrained the types of games you could play. I'd rather a system that started out very simple, because then you know that the very core is a complete game. You can add the (inevitable) modules if you choose, but you don't have to.

4E is still built on the same d20 engine that 3E was though, so there's nothing that couldn't be added back in eventually I'm sure.