D&D 4E Rant on the 4E "Presentation"

[Vigilance]

Can you point out the edition boom between 2nd to 3rd and from 3e to 3.5?

I must've missed those. I saw a few things incorporated into the setting that could've easily been worked out with a few lines of text and appropriate location spotlightting but that's about it.

No, there hasn't been a "boom" with every edition.

But since a "boom" makes it Michael Bay, I guess it's been one since the Time of Troubles right?

I mean... lots of gods walking the earth, getting killed off.

Pretty "boomy" stuff and pretty firmly entrenched in FR lore.

 

[Vigilance]

So Chuck, you're saying that if they go..

Month One Core:

Humans... talk about humans in the game. Talk about how they were actually in the monster manual. Talk about how many sword and sorcery fiction books that initially inspired the game were all about the humans, etc... would be too much? Talk about how 3e was one of the first editions to bring some actual game mechanics to the humans that wasn't, "Hey, we're average." and how 4e is going to continue to embrace that. There could be a weekly article about some of the standard roles humans are expected to fill and each one can come with a game mechanic. I mean if they give us that very specific bit about rangers and their shot return power, surely that's not too much?

And for classes....

Fighters. Talk about the fighters traditional role in the game. Talk about how 3e made some of the biggest changes to the class not only in terms of giving, via the bonus feats but also in taking away with the elimination of % strength and Con bonuses for everyone and what roles the fighter can take in 4e, that I'd be upset?

You're right. We do have eight months. But in that eight months, since they keep touting how much better an electronic Dragon is, they've got a lot of shoes to fill and if the print Dragon could do a lot, the online version can too.

(My opinion on the counterattack was yeah, that was "Boom!" It's so cool" thing btw. Just my opinion mind you.)

No, actually I was highlighting that nice little false dilemma you posed Joe.

One minute you're saying they've given you nothing but generalities, and the next you're saying you'd be satisfied with seeing how the classes will be playable at every level.

So it sounded to me like you were saying anything less than that, and all you were getting was glittering generalities.

If this is all the information we have 4 months from now, I will join you.

I think waiting till the rules are finalized, and everyone has a chance to recover from the holidays, makes a lot of sense from a marketing standpoint.

But saying all they've offered are glittering generalities, is misleading and I continue to disagree with that characterization.

I've seen class abilities, I've heard questions answered on a variety of topics, I've seen a monster write up.

Those qualify as specifics in my mind.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Looking at the monster, assuming we're talking about the one from the miniature?

It's from a card for the miniatures game.

In the past, those cards have ommitted feats and other abilities and built them into the statistics of the monsters like improved initiative.

Hardly a 'finished' product but I'll agree that it's certainly a start.

 

[JoeGKushner]

No, there hasn't been a "boom" with every edition.

But since a "boom" makes it Michael Bay, I guess it's been one since the Time of Troubles right?

I mean... lots of gods walking the earth, getting killed off.

Pretty "boomy" stuff and pretty firmly entrenched in FR lore.

I'd say taht the Avatar series and the transition from 1st to 2nd was definatly a Michael Bay thing, especially the sappy happy ending (Ah man, Torm died doing his duty so I'll bring him back!") and that the fiction line is heavy with such events (especially the Dragon's Rage) but I don't read huge chunks of FR lore in say Ancient Empires and go, "Man, that looked good but made no sense."

 

[Piratecat]

But since a "boom" makes it Michael Bay, I guess it's been one since the Time of Troubles right?

I'd agree with this. The Time of Troubles seemed like needless world-shaking for a rules change. For me, it wasn't that epic world-changing events were occurring, it was that they seemed so... pedestrian. Even at the time I was underwhelmed.

Mind you, my major impression was from the novels, so my viewpoint may be skewed.

 

[Veander]

I've been lurking on this issue since I came home from GenCon and I'm still disappointed by everything I see with 4e. The presentation at the con also made me wonder what exactly they meant. I mean how many times are they going to redo D&D in the hopes to make it a perfect game. It's almost like they change it specifically to make money and not to actually improve. Streamline D&D? What? I still can't make sense of streamlining the game. When I was younger, I wanted to play Advanced D&D not regular D&D. It was harder to figure out, but that was the point. 3.5 could use some tweaks, but everything I am reading and hearing is making me feel like they're changing things just to change.

Don't get me wrong, I adopted 3.5 at mid-campaign so I like changes when they are warranted. However, I am also one of those people who loves that monsters are like characters as far as building them with classes. Getting rid of that seems to bring the game further away from the improving it needs. Well, just my opinion of course.

 

[hong]

I'd agree with this. The Time of Troubles seemed like needless world-shaking for a rules change. For me, it wasn't that epic world-changing events were occurring, it was that they seemed so... pedestrian. Even at the time I was underwhelmed.

Mind you, my major impression was from the novels, so my viewpoint may be skewed.

From my perspective, the Time of Troubles gave me an excuse to trash the city of Saradush (along with my fellow Bhaalspawn), so it wasn't all bad.

 

[Henry]

Don't get me wrong, I adopted 3.5 at mid-campaign so I like changes when they are warranted. However, I am also one of those people who loves that monsters are like characters as far as building them with classes. Getting rid of that seems to bring the game further away from the improving it needs. Well, just my opinion of course.

I was always one of the ones who argued strongly for LESS complexity for monsters; that particular change, I'm enthused about, since I do a lot of my DMing on the fly, and wound up creating monsters that way anyway. That said, I suspect that the monsters will STILL be able to be built like PCs with a small amount of work, or the option will come along again in an expansion book down the road. There are too many tinkers among DMs for this idea to stay hidden away.

 

[Henry]

From my perspective, the Time of Troubles gave me an excuse to trash the city of Saradush (along with my fellow Bhaalspawn), so it wasn't all bad.

One of my favorite quotes from the Time of Troubles was (paraphrasing) "half the town council of Waymoot dropped dead when Bhaal was destoyed."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've been lurking on this issue since I came home from GenCon and I'm still disappointed by everything I see with 4e. The presentation at the con also made me wonder what exactly they meant. I mean how many times are they going to redo D&D in the hopes to make it a perfect game.

I think you can do it forever. Perfection is unattainable. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't set this as a goal.

Having a system for 4-10 years, then using our experience with it to improve it sounds like a good plan. Certainly from a business perspective, but I think also from my perspective as a player.
I enjoy systems well done, and I also enjoy trying out new game systems. Maybe I am in danger of being to much on the gamist side of things, and concentrate too little on the pure cooperative storytelling aspect of the RPG. But I have the impression that I wouldn't be the only one.

Streamlining doesn't necessarily mean reducing options. It think it means more predictability for the game, eliminating unforeseen (and more important: unwanted) side effects of rules applications.