My take.

[Hussar]

You might have to clarify what you mean by "a long time". The original OD&D boxed set had rules for dungeons, wilderness, ships, and castles all in the same volume. The 1E DMG expanded on all the same stuff. I see a lot less of that in 3E/4E materials.

Sort of.

The 1e DMG had a whole bunch of random tables for dealing with what monsters you'd meet if you wandered around. It had random tables to determine the lay of the land as well, if you wanted to go exploring.

What it didn't really have was a whole lot of reason to actually go out there. The focus was certainly the dungeon. While there may have been extra stuff, it's not a stretch to say that 1e focused on the dungeon. Heck, the whole "back to the dungeon" schtick of 3e was based entirely on that idea.

So, saying that 1e was primarily focused on dungeon crawls and combat isn't really a large stretch. Until pretty late in 1e, with Dragonlance and the Wilderness Survival Guide, you don't get a whole of of emphasis anywhere else in the published material.

Now, what you did around your table is a whole 'nother story.

 

[Branduil]

I don't understand why people are acting like HP being abstract is a new thing.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

You might have to clarify what you mean by "a long time". The original OD&D boxed set had rules for dungeons, wilderness, ships, and castles all in the same volume. The 1E DMG expanded on all the same stuff. I see a lot less of that in 3E/4E materials.

Well, if rules for wilderness means --

-- overland travel speeds and tables showing random combat encounters;

If rules for ships means --

-- a list of gold piece costs and some sort of tactical wargame rules for them ramming each other;

And if rules for castles means --

-- how many cubic feet of mud, hard soil, soft stone, and hard stone that gnome, gnoll, ogre, etc. sappers can excavate in a day or week;

-- all using different rulesets for what were basically tactical minigames, then I agree with you, and our memory corresponds.

So the lack of these clumsy and never-used tactical minigames somehow reduces the role-playing validity of 3e and 4e? I don't agree with that.

 

[Ovinnik]

4e really does seem to be a glorified version of the D&D miniatures game. Where's the social abilities? Where's any sense of roleplaying beyond naming your character?

We haven't seen all the powers, nor the feats (I expect more social feats than powers) nor have we seen the 'social combat system' which has been promised (and, based on the most recent podcast, sounds a lot like Exalted's social combat system). Just adding some kind of decent social conflict system puts 4e one big step up from any other edition, which had pretty much nothing.

And while I understand that any game must try to balance realism vs playability in its own way, 4e has pretty much abandoned any sense of reality at all. Hit points are now a complete abstraction that seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with a character's actual physical condition. Characters can spontaneously heal themselves every fight without magic. "Martial" characters, even at 1st level, can do very magical things (like causing their arrows to duplicate mid flight). Why even have different power sources when they all effectively do the same thing - magic? The difference seems to be nothing more than fluff.

D&D has always had a complete abstraction of HP. Always. When a high level character can leap off a cliff, land on a pile of sharp rocks, and then get up and walk away with no serious injuries (not below 1/2 HP, no broken legs or other crippling wounds), then the system is pretty abstract. The 'self healing' is just the evolution of that abstraction. If HP is more than just physical toughness, why can't someone get a heroic burst of energy at just the right moment? See it often enough in movies, read it often enough in books.

And the ranger's arrows don't duplicate in mid-flight, he/she fires two arrows which separate and hit two targets (who have to be near each other). That's not even all that hard to believe, all things considered. And none of the other martial exploits we've seen so far are obviously magical, just cinematic. Its another thing we've seen in movies and/or books, and no one yelled "OMG MAGIC!" then.

 

[helium3]

Were they also that way in OD&D? I was under the impression they used feet or yards, and that AD&D 1st was actually a change from that.

And D&D evolved out of war-games set in the medieval period, right? So, D&D started off moving away from the battlemat and now it's moving back. It's the natural progression of things I'd imagine. I suspect the next iteration will be just as or slightly more battlemat centric, and that by sixth edition or so the pendulum will be swinging back towards less reliance on it.

 

[Grog]

But if you have creatures who die if they take ANY damage, you have to ask how any of them survived their childhoods to face the PCs. Or at least *I* have to ask this. Because I ask these things.

Did you ask the same question about all the 1HP kobolds, goblins, and orcs back in 1st edition and/or Basic D&D?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Uh huh. Everyone would do well to consider the differences in the state of 2e when 3e came out and 3.5e now that 4e is coming out. 2e needed a rulebook of houserules to be playable. 3.5 is still quite playable without more than a page or two of house rules. The 4th edition transition is driven by economics rather than the system being played out.

That, in itself should be enough reason to consider that some of the criticisms that didn't hit the mark against 3e could be on the mark about 4th. They're different games.

People would also do well to consider that there have actually been a number of games where new editions were in fact not as good as their predecessors. Some argue that 2nd edition D&D was such a game. Though I didn't play them, there are some much-hated editions of Cyberpunk and Shadowrun IIRC. And leaving the pen and paper realm, Ultima IX and Master of Orion III were actually every bit as dreadful as their predecessors were good. Ditto for the X-Com sequels which fell away from the glory of the original just like the Matrix movies failed to live up to their promise.

And blowing off comments comparing the similarities between the rants over 3e and 4e is equally comforting I'm sure.

Are you honestly saying that you NEVER saw anyone talk about 3e as being too much of a board game, taking away too much creative power from the DM and too difficult to "truly" role play in? Gimme a break.

Heck, you yourself are guilty of claiming that "truly creative" DM's won't play 4e.

 

[helium3]

Science Fiction, has been on life support for so long

Science Fiction is on life support?

 

[Zelc]

Uh huh. Everyone would do well to consider the differences in the state of 2e when 3e came out and 3.5e now that 4e is coming out. 2e needed a rulebook of houserules to be playable. 3.5 is still quite playable without more than a page or two of house rules. The 4th edition transition is driven by economics rather than the system being played out.

You were doing well until that last sentence. Just because 3.5e is playable without too many houserules does not mean it does not have serious flaws, or that the release of a better ruleset is solely an economic decision. I see a TON of improvements to the game being made in 4e that I think will make for a better playing experience.

 

[Ahglock]

Science Fiction is on life support?

Well technically they are bacta tanks.