My take.

[cignus_pfaccari]

Err... Cohen the Barbarian is a character from Terry Prachett's Discworld books. And he's scrawny and skinny 'cause he's about 100 years old. But in his youth he made Conan look like Don Knotts if it makes you feel any better.

Incidently being ancient and scrawny hasn't made him any less dangerous, in one of the Discworld books Cohen and his sliver hoarde (All 4 of them) conquer the equivilent of China.

A paraphrase from a vaguely-remembered conversation:

"He's an old barbarian, yes?"
"Yep."
"That means a lot of people and things have tried to kill him, and failed?"
"Yep."
"Oh, my."

Brad

 

[BryonD]

I also agree with the OP.

I see some really great ideas in there. I see some things I will certainly steal for my own game.
But I see lots of other things that just confirm the things I have become aware of over the past few months. It looks a lot closer to what I would consider a pure minis battle game or a board game than a roleplaying game. Sure, you can roleplay on top of this game, but that was true of DDM 2 years ago.

I look at the characters and the texture is greatly lacking. And yeah, I understand that they are 1st level, and I'll cut some slack on that account. But they look a lot alike to me. Everything is just +x attack for y damage and maybe a move effect. All the texture of one thing being different than another is gone. They've been bragging about the unified mechanic for a while now. And I'll admit, they did that big time. And I miss the differences already. And I haven't even played the game yet. Everything works exactly the same and I got bored just reading it.

And the monster is the same. Again, some slack for first level, but it is just a one dimensional battle pawn. And I'll readily admit that 9 out of 10 kobolds in my 3X game are bags of HP with a spear. But not only is there that 10th time, but the kobolds are always there in a way that represents a lot more.

Have they built a better minis battle game? Is 4E combat more fast and furious than 3x? It may be so. And yeah, I just might find it really fun to kick back and slay some nameless beasts with this system. I probably would in the same way I enjoy Descent and Tannhauser now. I like roleplaying games AND other games. And if I stop trying to judge it as a roleplaying game I think I can give 4E high marks. But I'm still not seeing anything that provides a fraction of what I want in terms of grit and substance for a get into the character's head roleplaying game.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Twas ever thus.

The text on the cover of the 1983 Red Box Basic Set: "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in the player's imagination with dungeon adventures that include monsters, treasures and magic."

Prior to 3e, D&D was not a miniatures boardgame. Yes, you could use minis to represent positioning. Yes, you could use some optional rules to make combat a miniatures wargame. However, the game was designed to run just fine without minis.

 

[Andor]

OK. Now on topic, my take on 4e and Roleplaying.

I do think 4e seems to fall flat on it's face from a simulationist perspective. What I mean by that is this:

While I could easily imagine playing 4e as a computer game (Indeed I would love to see a Final Fantasy Tactics style game made with 4e rules) I cannot imagine what it would be like to actually exist in such a world.

Suppose you were actually in Greyhawk 4.0 watching a fight from the sidelines with an exposition fairy sitting on your shoulder explaining what was going on. How exactly is the fairy to going to describe the Paladin's marking ability? And once that has been explained how does she explain the Paladin's supernatural mark being superceded by the fighter's purely mundane one?

Does 5 minutes of rest really seem like enough time to go from death's door to all better? And why is it the cleric's prayers could heal you before you ran out of healing surges, but once you rested and burned them up his prayers are no longer answered?

Basically if the game produces a situation that would cause you to break your suspension of disbelief if you were reading about it in a fantasy novel, then how do you suspend your disbelief to roleplay that game?

 

[Celebrim]

I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.

Please enlighten yourself.

 

[Grog]

Twas ever thus.

True. Everyone seems to forget that movement rates in 1st edition were given in inches, for crying out loud.

 

[Just Another User]

Yes, 3E was not perfect, but it seems that 4E will be worse.

That is because 3e at least tried, 4e officially don't give a damn about it.

 

[Just Another User]

I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.

Never read discworld? Shame on you.

 

[ferratus]

The 3e skill system let me be an amazing diplomat or an intimidating warrior or a master crafter or a lore-filled sage or a master of exotic dance, and it let me do that mechanically. The 3e NPC system let me be uniquely powerful, above and beyond what the other people of the world could do, and it let me do that mechanically.

I think I would say that 4e will still allow you to specialize, but allows for a much greater amount of flexibility in roleplaying. I guess the best example would be the NWP from 2e of the Etiquette and Heraldry proficiencies to allow you to move in high society. The etiquette skill was bundled up into Diplomacy in 3e, which allowed you not only to know what fork to hold, but also how to be a good dealmaker. The problem was that you had the odd thing of being good at diplomacy but perhaps horrible at bluff (because you're a paladin) or not good a sense motive (because you're wisdom is low). 4e takes measures to solve problems like these by bundling more skills together, and by allowing some reasonable proficiency as you go up in levels. So now, you may be better at dealmaking, but you still have a decent ability to bluff or sense motive, which makes a lot more sense.

I can see an objection being made to characters being allowed to do too many things, like being able to ride horses as a city thief, or ballroom dance as a barbarian fighter. I would say the best solution would be to simply allow the player to opt out of his abilities that he doesn't want until a suitable training time is given.

However, I see too much good in the more flexible spell system. It will be great to have an aristocratic PC fighter who can dance, knows how to eat politely, has a passing familiarity with the noble families of the region, and can seduce the blonde haired daughter of the Viceroy without nerfing his dungeon and athletic skills that he needs out in the field. As well, I also approve of moving unlikely skills that a player will not need or use to a general proficiency so that he doesn't waste it in preparation for a situation that never arises.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.

That be some old-skool trollin' KK