D&D 4E My First 4E Game: Disappointing. Yours? (UPDATED with player feedback)

[cignus_pfaccari]

The concept of roles might have existed for longer, but 4E is the first time where the PCs are forced into specific roles while you still had a choice in previous editions.

You're not forced into a specific role. No one's saying that the wizard isn't allowed to be on the front lines. You are advised to play to your class's strengths, which is something that you've been supposed to do for the last three editions as well.

2. Likewise the abilities of a class heavily restrict what a class can be good at and where not.. Want to play an archer? Then you must take the ranger as your fist class as only this class has powerful abilities with the bow.

Correct...but remember, this isn't any different from 3/3.5. A magic-using fighter was very difficult to pull off well without torturous multiclassing. If you want to refer to the ranger as an archer, then you can.

3. NPCs have a reduced statblock containing only the combat information that shows what they are supposed to be used for.

SFAICT, this is because most NPCs only exist for combat purposes. There's really no point to figuring out kobold # 12's score in Craft (Basketweaving) if he's going to stop an arrow in the third round of combat. The DMs for my group have been running many combat NPCs with even less information (AC, saves, attack/damage, HP).

Actually important NPCs will likely be statted up. But why spend time on something you don't need?

4. The at Will abilities are strictly better than basic attacks, so there is no reason not to use them every turn (except when you use your daily or encounter power). Other combat manouvers have been nerfed (grapple)

I don't quite get the point here. Having more interesting things to do than swing over and over is, IMNAAHO, a Good Thing. If the caster can toss a Fireball or a Flamestrike, why is the fighter left swinging in the same old way?

5. The default world is still a medieval one with magic added at a afterthought. The society in this world does not take the existance of magic, heroes or the general "physics" of the game into account (3E did this too). Also there are very big logical problems when the PoL is used as presented by WotC.

As did 2E, and 1E, and I imagine BECMI. Note that Eberron was developed with the existence of magic in mind, though.

6. PCs get loads of abilities the default NPCs do not have which includes things like Second Wind or even their racial abilities. It has also been confirmed by WotC that the stats NPCs (monsters) are not "build" like the stats of the PC stats were but instead assigned by level & role. That means there is a huge difference between PCs and NPCs.

See my response to 3. Many monsters are similar to each other, so there's no real reason to add needless complexity and half-page stat blocks that you're not going to use.

While D&D and MMO are still different mediums you can see that 4E borrows a lot of its concepts, certainly more than 3E did, from computer games.

So...how do you demonstrate that these come from computer games? I'm really not getting this at all.

And even if they do...so? Good design is good design, no matter what source it's from.

Brad

 

[UngeheuerLich]

*snip*

Thanks for the review.

 

[SteveC]

Lets see.

- The characters have fixed roles which exactly describe what the character has to do in combat. Check
- The classes are restrictive and even if you can multiclass the class you took at level 1 will define whatyou can do in the game. Check
- Powerful items require a certain level to use them. Check
- NPCs only exist to A. give quests. B. sell loot and C. kill for loot. Check
- Combat involves using a small set of abilities with different reuse timers over and over again. Check
- The (default) world only serves as background for killing things and does not posess internal logic. Check
- The abilities of the PCs only work in combat, but not outside in the real world unless the game specifically wants them to. Check
- The PCs are special and work under much different rules than the NPCs. Check
- The game is financed by allowing players to spend money for more powerful characters (splatbooks->powercreep) or a monthly subscription rate. Check

As you can see there are quite a lot of similarities between MMOs (Vanguard is a better example than WoW as it has a diplomacy system) and the major distinction between D&D and a moderated MMO, the free world and "can do whatever you want" aspect gets reduced in 4E by introducing the rules != physics aspekt and other restrictions.

You're completely right! I highly suggest that you stick with the crisp roleplaying intensive world of D&D 3.5 instead of going down this scary way of pain that is 4E.

Or not...

Seriously: you overstate your case to the point where it is almost entirely hyperbole. For example: "The characters have fixed roles which exactly describe what the character has to do in combat." Where are you getting that from? The game talks about different roles a class was designed to perform, but this in no way describes what they have to do. No more or less than in 3E.

Do you really want a point by point refutation? I am assuming this is a troll on your part, but it is the kind of comment that I've seen enough to warrant a response.

Taken from a certain point of view, any game can be shown to be like an MMORPG. Monopoly can. It's just a question of how reasonable the claims are, and these comments just are not that.

--Steve

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmmh, I am still worrying, that my normal life has certain similarities with second life... Am I living in a MMO?

 

[Jack99]

Are we allowed to use the word pwned on these boards, because I think it would be very fitting?

 

[smathis]

Hi Derren:
For the sake of not getting mired in the subjective vs. objective, analogy vs. not, yadda yadda that could seriously just bog us down into semantics. Let's assume, for the sake of getting on with the matter, that you're right about all the similarities between MMOs and D&D 4e.

But let's take a look at some these...

- The characters have fixed roles which exactly describe what the character has to do in combat. Check

Fighter (actually 'Fighting Man') has been around since the '70s. As far as roles, Wizard, Thief, Cleric and Fighter go way back as well. The Defender, Striker, Leader and Controller are the exact same roles with different terminology. These guys have all been doing the same schtick in combat since OD&D.

Similarity to WoW? Possibly. But how does that not diminish all the editions of D&D that preceded WoW?

- The classes are restrictive and even if you can multiclass the class you took at level 1 will define whatyou can do in the game. Check

Ever play AD&D first edition? Or the Red Box D&D? Previous point stands.

- Powerful items require a certain level to use them. Check

Mmm. Rings. I agree that the designers were perhaps on a bit too much medication when they failed to think this one through. But were there ever any TRPGs that preceded WoW that required a certain level to use? Because I can't think of any off the top of my head, I'll just give you this one. Note I'm just ignoring the wealth/level thing from 3e. Primarily because we're operating on the assumption that 4e is like WoW and RPGs that preceded WoW were not.

Kind of silly, but I want to give the most leniency I can to avoid prolonging this.

- NPCs only exist to A. give quests. B. sell loot and C. kill for loot. Check

Pretty much every Red Box game ever played right there.

- Combat involves using a small set of abilities with different reuse timers over and over again. Check

That's how Clerics and Magic-Users have operated for over 20 years. The only difference in 4e is that the timers are now "at-will/per-encounter/per-day" and non-magic slinging classes have access to similar abilities. Previously, D&D Clerics/Magic-Users either had enough spell slots to essentially make their "powers" at-will, per-encounter or per-day. The only difference is that 4e just simplified the bookkeeping.

- The (default) world only serves as background for killing things and does not posess internal logic. Check

Bwahahahahaha.

Again, that's pretty much every D&D game ever played in Greyhawk.

- The abilities of the PCs only work in combat, but not outside in the real world unless the game specifically wants them to. Check

Yup. OD&D too. We didn't get Skills until the tail-end of 2e. Before that, you either did a roll-under-stat (a generally understood House Rule) or the DM just winged it. Pretty much all abilities in older versions of D&D were applicable to combat and not much else -- with the exception of Thief abilities and some general utility spells.

If you think that's enough to verify that 4e == WoW, then I'm willing to give it to you.

- The PCs are special and work under much different rules than the NPCs. Check

Mmm. This one's really hard to just assume. But, hey, it's what I signed up for so fair enough. Red box treated NPCs mostly as monsters. Bandits weren't built like NPCs in 3e. Neither were Acolytes (NPC Clerics). But you might, say, create a character as a villain. But there was no need to if you didn't want to.

But they all used the same combat rules.

So, okay. I'll give ya this one. But I'm coming away feelin' like ya owe me one after this.

- The game is financed by allowing players to spend money for more powerful characters (splatbooks->powercreep) or a monthly subscription rate. Check

Outside of the subscription rate (if you don't count magazines like Dragon) the TRPG business has ALWAYS had splatbooks.

As you can see there are quite a lot of similarities between MMOs...

As I see it WoW and MMOs borrowed MUCH more from older versions of D&D than 4e borrowed from MMOs. Nearly all of the points you mentioned existed in D&D prior to 3e and prior to MMOs.

And that's assuming that everything you said about MMOs and 4e is 100% true.

Which was fairly generous, IMO.

...the major distinction between D&D and a moderated MMO, the free world and "can do whatever you want" aspect gets reduced in 4E by introducing the rules != physics aspekt and other restrictions.

But going back to that one "gimme" I wanted for the PCs != NPCs earlier...

This is hard to believe given that Ari mentioned he was sliding across the floor and kicking a table out from under two opponents in his first session. If anything, 4e is less restrictive due to the "rules != physics" aspect. Based on everything I've read from actual playtests, it sounds like the Attribute vs. Defense thing is pretty flexible to do whatever the players want.

As an example, try what Ari did in 3e -- have a PC slide across the floor and kick a table out from under two opponents. Yeah, not so much.

By those qualifications, 3e is more like WoW than 4e. And if the reason to not play 4e is because it is too much like WoW. Then it would seem to me that you have no reason not to switch.

 

[Lizard]

Hmmh, I am still worrying, that my normal life has certain similarities with second life... Am I living in a MMO?

You see huge-breasted panda bears with twenty foot glowing purple penises in normal life?

 

[DandD]

You see huge-breasted panda bears with twenty foot glowing purple penises in normal life?

Uhhhh...

 

[Brown Jenkin]

You see huge-breasted panda bears with twenty foot glowing purple penises in normal life?

What, you mean everyone doesn't?

 

[Baka no Hentai]

You see huge-breasted panda bears with twenty foot glowing purple penises in normal life?

Ok, either I misread that or I really need to do more research on MMOs.