My take.

[Celebrim]

I'm pretty solidly in the 4E critic camp. Getting actually crunchy previews hasn't changed that, and yet it has.

I haven't got a chance to play, but I think we have enough rules that I can play in my head and have a good idea of how the game works. That sentence itself ought to be revealing. Two days I wouldn't even have cared to try playing 4E. Looking at the rules, it does seem like combat will be as fun as advertised. The core gameplay seems appropriately complex, with a large number of decisions and potential synergies. But at its heart, it seems to me to be a board game and I would most enjoy playing it like a board game. It looks like it would be great fun for occassional more casual gaming. I wouldn't even want to role play in a serious manner. Roleplaying would be a distraction from its core game experience, which involves pushing minatures around a map, doing crazy things, and generally just doing the 'beer and pretzels' sort of thing. It is a game which is fundamentally suited for playing like a traditional game. Play it like you would play Settlers of Cataan, Sorry, Roborally, or Decent. Worrying about the game reality is in context really silly. What do hit points represent? Doesn't matter. They are a game resource, and thats really all that matters. Worrying about the larger universe in which the game is taking place is fundamentally pointless. Does the game imply a universe where people are never injured for more than a few hours? Sure, but in the context of the game, so what? And that is as a design is just fine for a game.

But for me part of the joy of role-playing is imagining the game world to be a real place with much of the complexity of the real world. To really get into roleplaying I have to be able to walk in the shoes of the character I'm creating and see through there eyes a world that is in some fashion believable. Now, you can do that without a system and indeed with any system, so its not like roleplaying is impossible with 4E. But it does seem to me that 4E doesn't do alot to encourage that sort of play, and perhaps even deprecates it. I can't see myself wanting to start up an actual campaign using the 4E rules. I can't see myself wanting to play this system for years and years except as an occasional break from something else. DMing more fun? Maybe, depending on how you look at things. It makes me more want to play than DM, maybe because it appeals so strongly to my gamist/tactician side. I definately can see groups using a rotating DM for 4E, and playing the game in a semi-competitive way.

Honestly, I think 4E would be most fun on a computer with a random dungeon generator of some sort. Generate a random dungeon, let one player take the baddies, and then see how well you can do against the dungeon master. I'd definately play that way.

But design a campaign world with 4E? It seems kinda ridiculous. All the sudden the venerable gentlemen in my campaign world with 3 Str, 3 Dex, 3 Con, 18 Int, 18 Wis, and 18 Chr are all Cohen the Barbarian, intelligence is only really useful if you are a librarian, six hours rest cures all evils, every trained fighter is a supernatural force, and children can reasonably allowed to play with sharp objects because it takes overwhelming force to do more damage to someone than can be healed in 5 minutes. Sure, I can ignore that by just saying that none of the rules apply to anyone who isn't a PC, but then welcome to the world of unlimited DM fiat. And contrary to some claims, DM fiat is just a headache even for the DM. It's alot less work having some rules to help you make decisions.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Hey smile now you're not alone here..

I agree, based on all the stuff coming out of DDXP it looks like a very fun game, but so purely gamist it's hard to see where the R in RPG enters the picture. Probably all that if you treated it as a squad level skirmish game but just too out of sink with even a slightly simulationist perspective.

 

[withak]

For me, the important parts of role-playing are the ability for the PCs to: interact with people and institutions in the game world; affect the story/plot; and make interesting/difficult decisions, as they pertain to either the plot or strictly to character development. Making combat more or less "gamist" would have very little impact on these things.

So I'm a bit confused as to why making D&D more tactical, more skirmish-y, and more gamist would detract from the ability for players to role-play. Could you guys expand on this point a bit? I'm not sure where you're coming from.

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

Keep in mind that damage has gone up with HP. And in what 3e universe did all ills not dissappear after the cleric had a night's rest? More gamist?! D&D has been a 100% gamist system from the get go. Nothing has changed in that regard. If the game is now more fun to play, then it is better. Full stop.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

For me, the important parts of role-playing are the ability for the PCs to: interact with people and institutions in the game world; affect the story/plot; and make interesting/difficult decisions, as they pertain to either the plot or strictly to character development. Making combat more or less "gamist" would have very little impact on these things.

So I'm a bit confused as to why making D&D more tactical, more skirmish-y, and more gamist would detract from the ability for players to role-play. Could you guys expand on this point a bit? I'm not sure where you're coming from.

I'm somewhat confused by this approach as well. I suspect that the disappointment is because of a wish to have the game rules do the simulating rather than the players.

Essentially, the game rules for combat run the results of particular narrative events in the combat, not particular sword swings or even particular wounds. The hit point damage that characters take is not directly related to physical damage, but rather to the ability of the character to pursue different options or paths within the narrative of the game. Thus, the game rules are not simulating a particular sequence of cause and effect and players must, from the given narrative outcomes, create their own simulated world that corresponds to these outcomes.

Games that include combat details essentially become games where combat is the preferred method of conflict resolution. Thus the focus of the game will most often revolve around the behaviour of these rules systems. For this reason, I suspect that because the rules don't simulate cause and effect within combat, it is condemned.

It is worth noting that while 3.5 may bee taken to have a rule that simulates all aspects of combat, this is perhaps going too far. Certainly editions of D&D prior to 3rd edition had no pretense of simulating combat events.

The is some confusion around the meaning of "simulationist," of course. Some take it too mean that the purpose of play is to be true to cause and effect within the game world. Yet since there is almost no cause and effect specified by the rule system for combat, I have a hard time understanding how the rules system could conflict with this meaning of simulation.

 

[techno]

I agree with Celebrim's comments. The "resting six hours cures all injuries" thing really bothers me. It reminds me of hitting the Rest button in Neverwinter Nights.

 

[JeffB]

I'm pretty solidly in the 4E critic camp.

I was the first coupla months , but had very much warmed up to what I was hearing about the new edition in recent months...until the rogue article showed up, and now all this DDXP surfaced...

why?

Looking at the rules, it does seem like combat will be as fun as advertised. The core gameplay seems appropriately complex, with a large number of decisions and potential synergies. But at its heart, it seems to me to be a board game .

I was trying to put my finger on how I felt since yesterday and reading up all I could coming out of DDXP, and your assessment just put into words what I am feeling.

I'm sure it will be a fun game, but I'm so dissappointed in what I've been hearing/reading. Its not shaping up how I thought it would. I cancelled my pre-order and I'll take a VERY thorough look at the PHB when it hits the shelves instead.

Sorry for the hijack.

 

[eleran]

Huh? How in any way shape or form does the new ruleset preclude, disgorge, or eliminate the roleplaying aspect of D&D?

I am serious! I don't see it. I am planning a brand new campaign for 4e and honestly the previews we have gotten so far have made me more anxious rather than less. Is there something I am not born with that makes me believe that the R in RPG comes from the members of the play group (ie players + DM) using their collective imaginations to hash out an ongoing story, which includes combat, info gathering, socialization, interaction and all-around derring do?


Honestly folks, what is it about the 4e rules that doesn't allow roleplaying?

 

[Kirnon_Bhale]

While I am very decidedly pro-4e, I think that I see where you are coming from. I did however want to point you to Part 2 of the review which talks specifically about being able to run a completely non-combat game with the guidelines from the DMG. I know that the op is pro-4e as well but I trust that he is also a long time player who seems well informed.

The article draws the game away from combat and shows a bigger picture of the game that helped excite me a little more.

 

[Clavis]

For me, the important parts of role-playing are the ability for the PCs to: interact with people and institutions in the game world; affect the story/plot; and make interesting/difficult decisions, as they pertain to either the plot or strictly to character development. Making combat more or less "gamist" would have very little impact on these things.

So I'm a bit confused as to why making D&D more tactical, more skirmish-y, and more gamist would detract from the ability for players to role-play. Could you guys expand on this point a bit? I'm not sure where you're coming from.

The problem is that a tactical game, with many PC powers that can interact in unpredictable ways, is much harder to write for as DM. 4th edition look to give the DM many more powers that he has to account for when creating suitable challenges for the characters. Consequently, the DM is forced to either buy pre-packaged adventures (created by prefessionals who can afford to spend time doing the required math), or spend his time creating suitable combat challenges rather than making good NPCs or interesting adventure hooks. Personally, I think that's the point - to make the game so hard to write for (while all the while telling us its easier) that homebrewing DMs will simply give up and buy their adventures and game worlds.

As a DM, I see 4th Edition's promises of faster prep and easier DMing as akin to the scams a lot of store pull at Christmas time. They raise their prices by 20%, and then have a 15% off sale. All people see is the sale, and they forget that they're actually paying more than they did for the same items in November. 3rd edition (especially at high levels) made DMIng so hard compared to previous incarnations of the game, that anything will seem easier. I won't compare 4th edition to 3rd edition; that's the comparison WOTC wants me to make. Instead, I can pull out my old AD&D and Rule Cyclopedia material, and compare it to them. And you know what, 4th Edition is going to be a headache to DM, if you are a homebrewer.

I don't want to play in WOTC's world. I don't want them to make flavor decisions for me. From the first time I read the Moldvay Basic rules as a boy, I knew that I wanted to create an imaginary world and watch players interact with it. I wanted to play the villains, and watch the PCs try to spoil my nefarious plots. I wanted to create exciting locations filled with pitfalls, and watch PCs either cunningly avoid them, or die horribly. I bought modules and the original World of Greyhawk, not beacuse I wanted to run them, but to learn from them. I do not want to be reduced to a mere rules referee. I feel like that's what WOTC wants DMing to be.

The worst way 4th edition is going to negatively impact roleplaying is that there will be fewer creative DMs, the kind who create and love to play exciting NPCs. Roleplaying certainly suffers when there's nobody to play your role to.