Jack Daniel
Legend
I tried to avoid spoilers and reserve my judgment until after I'd gotten the chance to hold the books in my hands and flip through them. The thing is, though, you couldn't possibly be on this board (or any other RPG-related message board) and not pick up all the juicy little tidbits of what 4e was going to be all about. Encounter powers, rituals, using the better of two ability adjustments, missing traditional classes, added not-traditional races, points-of-light-in-a-world-of-darkness... all that stuff. And now that I've seen the whole finished product, my feelings are mixed. There's good, there's bad, but mostly there's a whole lot of "meh".
I really like the concept of class powers. Per-encounter abilities are a cool way to keep the game interesting, and a power list keeps the mages and clerics balanced and manageable for the first time ever in the history of the game. But whoa... powers, powers, powers! Just flipping through the list, which makes the 3e index of feats look downright concise, is enough to make my poor grognardy head spin! The designers of 4e promised us easier and more streamlined, and I'm afraid I see "just as complex as 3e, but in a different way." The complexity is taken out of the lap of the DM (well, and spellcaster PCs), and apparently spread out among all the players---but this is still Advanced-to-the-nth-degree D&D, just like 3e was (not surprising, since it's still d20 System). In short, powers are cool (and the possibilities for character development, especially in a Final Fantasy or martial arts or anime inspired campaign, are wonderous), but in my experience, any ruleset that lets you *build* a character really tends to get in the way of developing the character as a roleplayed personality.
And apart from powers, what does the 4e ruleset feel like at first glance? Well, encounters based on set XP totals and particular levels and roles for enemies are a very good thing. Clearly, this is where 4e shines. I could use 4e to make a whole wonderfully balanced campaign out of tactical battle scenarios and wind up with something that feels like all my favorite SRPGs (Shining Force, Ogre Battle, FF Tactics, etc.). Equally awesome are the rules for magic items, which are finally limited in number and scaled to levels. These things seem very useful.
But I've never had a problem doing them intuitively when reffing the old TSR editions. I can run OD&D or AD&D with all the touted minimal prep-time that 4e promises, and I'm pretty sure that there'll be a whole lot less to keep track of from round to round each battle.
So what don't I like about 4e? Mainly, it just feels like it's gone too far. If this game didn't have "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, and I were to blindly pick it up off the game store shelf, I would think, "Hey, this is a pretty cool-looking fantasy RPG. It's even kinda like D&D. Might be fun to try once or twice." Even 3e never struck me that way, but 4e does it right out of the gate. (Probably because of the warlords, dragonborn, and tieflings. These do *not* scream "D&D" to the olde guarde RPG crowd.) But this can easily change: as soon as we have gnomes, half-orcs, monks, bards, druids, and barbarians again, the game will feel a whole lot more like it's supposed to! (Aw, heck, even kender and psionicists will help in that department!)
Ultimately, I like 4e's gamist approach. There are some things about it (encounter design and pacing, magic items, class balance) that I wish could easily be ported into earlier editions! But... the whole feel of the game is so different from old-school D&D, so utterly foreign to what I know and love, that I can't see myself converting to the new edition unless I try it out and the gameplay experience somehow blows me out of my seat. Fact is, though, I don't see that happening. 4e just seems more "different for the sake of different" than "new and improved". For now, I have to stick with 2e and BECMI. (Thanfully, OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord are there to help supply new material, more or less compatible with these editions!) 4e gets neither a thumbs up nor a thumbs down yet: just a resounding shrug.
I really like the concept of class powers. Per-encounter abilities are a cool way to keep the game interesting, and a power list keeps the mages and clerics balanced and manageable for the first time ever in the history of the game. But whoa... powers, powers, powers! Just flipping through the list, which makes the 3e index of feats look downright concise, is enough to make my poor grognardy head spin! The designers of 4e promised us easier and more streamlined, and I'm afraid I see "just as complex as 3e, but in a different way." The complexity is taken out of the lap of the DM (well, and spellcaster PCs), and apparently spread out among all the players---but this is still Advanced-to-the-nth-degree D&D, just like 3e was (not surprising, since it's still d20 System). In short, powers are cool (and the possibilities for character development, especially in a Final Fantasy or martial arts or anime inspired campaign, are wonderous), but in my experience, any ruleset that lets you *build* a character really tends to get in the way of developing the character as a roleplayed personality.
And apart from powers, what does the 4e ruleset feel like at first glance? Well, encounters based on set XP totals and particular levels and roles for enemies are a very good thing. Clearly, this is where 4e shines. I could use 4e to make a whole wonderfully balanced campaign out of tactical battle scenarios and wind up with something that feels like all my favorite SRPGs (Shining Force, Ogre Battle, FF Tactics, etc.). Equally awesome are the rules for magic items, which are finally limited in number and scaled to levels. These things seem very useful.
But I've never had a problem doing them intuitively when reffing the old TSR editions. I can run OD&D or AD&D with all the touted minimal prep-time that 4e promises, and I'm pretty sure that there'll be a whole lot less to keep track of from round to round each battle.
So what don't I like about 4e? Mainly, it just feels like it's gone too far. If this game didn't have "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, and I were to blindly pick it up off the game store shelf, I would think, "Hey, this is a pretty cool-looking fantasy RPG. It's even kinda like D&D. Might be fun to try once or twice." Even 3e never struck me that way, but 4e does it right out of the gate. (Probably because of the warlords, dragonborn, and tieflings. These do *not* scream "D&D" to the olde guarde RPG crowd.) But this can easily change: as soon as we have gnomes, half-orcs, monks, bards, druids, and barbarians again, the game will feel a whole lot more like it's supposed to! (Aw, heck, even kender and psionicists will help in that department!)
Ultimately, I like 4e's gamist approach. There are some things about it (encounter design and pacing, magic items, class balance) that I wish could easily be ported into earlier editions! But... the whole feel of the game is so different from old-school D&D, so utterly foreign to what I know and love, that I can't see myself converting to the new edition unless I try it out and the gameplay experience somehow blows me out of my seat. Fact is, though, I don't see that happening. 4e just seems more "different for the sake of different" than "new and improved". For now, I have to stick with 2e and BECMI. (Thanfully, OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord are there to help supply new material, more or less compatible with these editions!) 4e gets neither a thumbs up nor a thumbs down yet: just a resounding shrug.
Last edited:
