Random 4e thoughts

[thormagni]

So, recognizing that some of my gaming buddies have backed away from rpgs, I'm interested in the group's overall feelings about the 4th edition of D&D.

Personally, I am fairly ambivalent. On the one hand, I am intrigued by some of the changes, like making it possible for 1st level characters to have an exciting fight, and for spell casters to continue to be useful after an hour of adventuring. The idea of giving every player something interesting to do throughout the night's game is certainly encouraging. And hard-coding the idea of role-playing by setting up systems for social, ah, combat also sounds pretty interesting (and is certainly something I have railed about before, at length.)

On the other hand, I am less than enthralled with the complete switch to a "map and figures" game. And what I have heard about the fairly rigidly set "roles" is discouraging (What would be the purpose of a role-playing heavy but combat light character in a game which seems to define everyone by their combat specialty?)

And a big negative for me is the sheer amount of 3.5 material I have accumulated. I guess on a book-by-book basis I probably had as many 2nd edition books, but those were flimsy, black-and-white softbound books. Not the well-illustrated, full-color hardbacks that are my 3.5 collection. That is a lot of money and shelfspace invested just to see them go obsolete.

I guess the big deciding factor for me is the group. If anyone is interested in playing 4th edition, I will play it. But if no one shows any interest, I'm not sure I will even pick it up (yeah, I know. I don't believe myself when I say this either.)

Does anyone want to try the new edition or have thoughts one way or another?

 

[Fyrestryke]

So, recognizing that some of my gaming buddies have backed away from rpgs, I'm interested in the group's overall feelings about the 4th edition of D&D.

Personally, I am fairly ambivalent. On the one hand, I am intrigued by some of the changes, like making it possible for 1st level characters to have an exciting fight, and for spell casters to continue to be useful after an hour of adventuring. The idea of giving every player something interesting to do throughout the night's game is certainly encouraging. And hard-coding the idea of role-playing by setting up systems for social, ah, combat also sounds pretty interesting (and is certainly something I have railed about before, at length.)

I'm really looking forward to all of the new things. I wish I was more versed in what's coming "down the pipe" but I haven't read all of the articles and whatnot to be honest.

On the other hand, I am less than enthralled with the complete switch to a "map and figures" game. And what I have heard about the fairly rigidly set "roles" is discouraging (What would be the purpose of a role-playing heavy but combat light character in a game which seems to define everyone by their combat specialty?)

I disagree on both accounts.

I have played in numerous groups (for years in the online group where the players weren't even in the room together and communicated via IRC (text chat) and we had some of the most awesome adventures ever!) without the slightest hint of a map or miniatures or anything of the sort. You don't need them to play DND and I highly doubt 4E will change that no matter how much WotC might focus on such. Everyone knows they're only doing it to sell more minis, nothing more. I will say that having a grid and minis helps to strategize, but IMHO it also slows the game down. As long as the group can decide on common ideas of what the room is like, etc. It's all good.

They've put the roles in there to help you determine what kind of things the characters excel at. There's no reason you can't play a battle hungry mage or a lightly armoured/swift fighter. At least I hope not. The rulebooks are like the pirate code "more of a guideline".

And a big negative for me is the sheer amount of 3.5 material I have accumulated. I guess on a book-by-book basis I probably had as many 2nd edition books, but those were flimsy, black-and-white softbound books. Not the well-illustrated, full-color hardbacks that are my 3.5 collection. That is a lot of money and shelfspace invested just to see them go obsolete.

Yeah, that is a downside, but your 3.5 stuff is hardly obsolete. We proved that with the DND Basic set or whatever we played that time.

I guess the big deciding factor for me is the group. If anyone is interested in playing 4th edition, I will play it. But if no one shows any interest, I'm not sure I will even pick it up (yeah, I know. I don't believe myself when I say this either.)

Does anyone want to try the new edition or have thoughts one way or another?

I'm definitely interested in having a group to play 4E with and I'm definitely getting the books.

 

[thormagni]

You don't need them to play DND and I highly doubt 4E will change that no matter how much WotC might focus on such. Everyone knows they're only doing it to sell more minis, nothing more. I will say that having a grid and minis helps to strategize, but IMHO it also slows the game down.

That's not what I am reading about 4e, but obviously we won't know until the books come out. My understanding is that most "powers" (which are basically the class abilities) and feats are much more mechanical in 4e, i.e. they have a specific effect on the pieces on the board. More of a "this power moves your miniature 2 squares" and "this power moves an opponent back one square" than in the current edition.

And, of course, changing measurement scale to "squares" rather than feet or inches (or meters) certainly seems to indicate that a map is preferred.

But obviously, we will see. I'm just going by my impression of what I have read so far.

 

[BobProbst]

I'm interested in trying it out but don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Any good summaries of changes out there?

It's clear that Wot¢ has learned how to make a profit. It's the same model used with Magi¢ the Gathering. Make a product that has an "official standard" sell a bunch of product and then change the standard. That's why I've not sunk more into the games than buying the core books. In college, I just used my friends books since we shared a room. Frankly, I think you can have just as much fun with PH & DMG alone than with the supplements (don't tell anyone or Vince will be out of work!). It actually makes creating a campaign more fun for me since I get to imagine the whole of the world instead of borrowing it.

 

[thormagni]

And especially in 3.0 and 3.5, where you have a really insidious case of "crunch creep." You start off with a few core classes and a few prestige classes and five years later, you have something like 50+ core classes and 150+ prestige classes. And who knows how many feats there are spread out amongst all the books. A thousand, maybe?

You could feasibly make an entire campaign with a single copy of the Hero Games or BESM core book.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

So, recognizing that some of my gaming buddies have backed away from rpgs, I'm interested in the group's overall feelings about the 4th edition of D&D.

Temporarily, mind you. I am very ambivalent toward 4E.

Personally, I am fairly ambivalent. On the one hand, I am intrigued by some of the changes, like making it possible for 1st level characters to have an exciting fight, and for spell casters to continue to be useful after an hour of adventuring. The idea of giving every player something interesting to do throughout the night's game is certainly encouraging.

All of these were promises made for 3E, too. I feel like players have this already if they want it. Some players just like to sit around and do little. I am not sure solving everything through mechanics is the best plan. But still, promises promises. I have heard this before.

And hard-coding the idea of role-playing by setting up systems for social, ah, combat also sounds pretty interesting (and is certainly something I have railed about before, at length.)

This could be interesting - or cumbersome.

On the other hand, I am less than enthralled with the complete switch to a "map and figures" game. And what I have heard about the fairly rigidly set "roles" is discouraging (What would be the purpose of a role-playing heavy but combat light character in a game which seems to define everyone by their combat specialty?)

I have to admit I am very turned off by the "role" concept. It seems too "computer RPG" for me. It also forces "well-balanced" groups, instead of interesting groups that might have to overcome their weaknesses.

And a big negative for me is the sheer amount of 3.5 material I have accumulated. I guess on a book-by-book basis I probably had as many 2nd edition books, but those were flimsy, black-and-white softbound books. Not the well-illustrated, full-color hardbacks that are my 3.5 collection. That is a lot of money and shelfspace invested just to see them go obsolete.

I am in in complete agreement here.

I guess the big deciding factor for me is the group. If anyone is interested in playing 4th edition, I will play it. But if no one shows any interest, I'm not sure I will even pick it up (yeah, I know. I don't believe myself when I say this either.)

I am not all that interested. I really like the Savage Worlds system I am working on right now.

Does anyone want to try the new edition or have thoughts one way or another?

I will try anything, of course, but the money and shelf-space issue... Ugh. I certainly don't want to buy anything I won't like or use, so I really will have to try it before I buy it.

 

[Grimhelm]

Frankly, I am tired of any company who sees fit to reinvent the wheel that often. I am supremely unaroused by 4E.

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

Sounds like a boardgame to me, I'm interested.

Can we use our plane minis as, uh, spelljammer ships? Then we could have air and ground troups. Huh, that reminds me of another boardgame.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Frankly, I am tired of any company who sees fit to reinvent the wheel that often. I am supremely unaroused by 4E.

It seems the magic is gone. Or have I left the magic? Have I deserted the League on my own failed journey to the East? Is Inzeladun really Leo?

 

[thormagni]

Frankly, I am tired of any company who sees fit to reinvent the wheel that often. I am supremely unaroused by 4E.

It is really an interesting business model, when you think about it. Most mainstream games come out with a set of rules that come out once and then remain fairly static for, well, forever... You don't see a Monopoly 4e or Yahtzee 4e. And that sameness has allowed those games to be sold for generations and to become landmark "family" games.

Even though Wizards is owned by Hasbro, it doesn't seem like there is a push to make the D&D brand fit into something timeless that can be sold on Wal-Mart shelves with rules that are perfected then set in stone. One estimate I read recently puts total RPG sales at about $17 million last year. I bet Monopoly sells that much by itself. I wonder how Wizards resists the corporate pressure to fit D&D into the same box as everything else?

Although, with the success of D&D minis, I bet it won't be too long before people view that as the "true" D&D game and the RPG as just some optional add-on. It truly is the "board game" version of D&D that Craig mentioned.