The DDXP are you seeing the elephant or just the tail?

[Miar]

Reading all these discussions I find myself rather frustrated. It seems like people are taking the DDXP as the game rather than as a limited set of combat mechanics examples. It has been stated (correct me if my memory is off wrong here) that there is a bunch of "roleplay" stuff and rules for rituals we haven't got a look at yet, somethings were simplified for convention play, and somethings coming from the DDXP have already been changed.

Comments from people who have played the game as playtesters also seemed to be pretty positive about the roleplay aspects. In one of the many threads it was mentioned (pointer anyone) that the gag order comes off the playtesters soon. I think a much better sense of the game is going to come from these people than from the DDXP.

Some complaints are about the fluff or the mechanic X that leads to game Y. I would not be surprised at all to see sidebars in the DMG saying if you prefer a darker game or have few combats in your game change the healing surge refresh rate or something. After 3rd ed came out they put out Unearthed Arcana. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that here with things they didn't quite get to or things that shot yet another sacred cow and they didn't feel like they could risk in the core. That all said it seems like 3rd party publishers will have a field day giving the game different feels in fluff with minor rule changes to make it work. Sets of different encounter/daily powers and descriptors could give the game a much different feel.

One thing that was bothering me was the whole warlocks must use wands. I waited a bit and hey sure enough they don't. Maybe they give them some pluses but they don't have to use them and there are things they can use like scepters instead.

Let's wait a bit more on the hate until there is more info and we are sure what is hated is so ingrained in the system it can't be changed. That's not to say the play style is going to be your thing for that matter it might not be mine but Calm . . .

 

[delericho]

I have to agree. There are, what, two different low-level games being offered at DDXP? By contrast, there are some thousand pages of core rules, and 30 levels of play out there.

I must say that I am greatly reassured that the reviews out there have been generally positive. To be honest, I was half expecting some sort of train-wreck. But, no, people seem to be enjoying the new game, and that's good.

Sadly, it doesn't shake my impression that this will be a good game that just isn't for me. Perhaps I should have paid the air-fare and made my way over to the convention?

 

[Insight]

I have to agree. There are, what, two different low-level games being offered at DDXP? By contrast, there are some thousand pages of core rules, and 30 levels of play out there.

I must say that I am greatly reassured that the reviews out there have been generally positive. To be honest, I was half expecting some sort of train-wreck. But, no, people seem to be enjoying the new game, and that's good.

Sadly, it doesn't shake my impression that this will be a good game that just isn't for me. Perhaps I should have paid the air-fare and made my way over to the convention?

The games I played were all fun. I never felt frustrated or as if there wasn't anything for my character to do. Except when my character went down, which happened once towards the end of a delve. That's fine with me.

I came into D&DXP feeling generally positive about the coming changes. I like simplification, because it allows the DM to expand more of the RP time and condense some of the combat time. Not that you can't RP during combat, but you know what I mean.

I am definitely switching to 4th ed when it comes out because I'm tired of 3rd ed rules bloat and unnecessary silliness when it comes to certain things (like the skill system and 90% of the prestige classes).

 

[quindia]

I really hope you're right, Miar. I was not able to attend, but three of my players went. These are guys that have been playing in my weekly campaigns for more than twenty years and I value their opinions. All three were pro-4e. All three are also pro-MMO so the complaints that 4e leans in that direction did not bother them.

After a dozen games, they left this weekend underwhelmed, with the feeling that 4e may make for a fun boardgame, but it is not D&D. Please don't start the attacks. I am not anti-4e, and if the criticisms being leveled hold in the final product, no one is going to be more disappointed than I am. I am only reporting the impressions of three people who I know enjoy the same kind of game that I do.

Maybe this is the result of all of the points you cite, but if that's the case then it was a poor choice for WotC to stage this event at this point. Giving people a taste of 4e and then saying, "well, it's not really 4e because it was streamlined for the event and we've changed a bunch of it so it's really better now...." meh.

My friends were not fortunate enough to play with any of the WotC heavy hitters, but rules like "marks" and other powers seemed to vary from game to game as have been pointed out on other posts here. The game did not seem faster or streamlined as we have been told (I've actually seen lots of reports that combat takes the same amount of time or even runs longer). One DM admitted to only getting the combat packet 30-minutes before. Maybe he was a last minute sub or something.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I am still going to buy the first three books and my players are stilling getting PHB's at least, but their trip to Experience has dampened their excitement rather than raised it.

I really hope you are right.

 

[Miar]

Maybe this is the result of all of the points you cite, but if that's the case then it was a poor choice for WotC to stage this event at this point. Giving people a taste of 4e and then saying, "well, it's not really 4e because it was streamlined for the event and we've changed a bunch of it so it's really better now...." meh.

I have to agree I think they would have been better off showcasing a variety of aspects rather than focusing on one. Right now I've got the box set ordered but I'm really waiting for more opinions from playtesters once the gag is off. Given that the writers are fans of the game as well as writers and financially how much Wizards has to loose if 4th ed sinks I can't help but think they produced the best thing they could. The question then seems to be not if it's a good product but if it's the product we want. I'm interested in getting it just to see what they did. Given the work on it it also seems like it might be easier to tweak to get what you want than to pull the neat aspects from 4th back into 3rd.

 

[dm4hire]

That all said it seems like 3rd party publishers will have a field day giving the game different feels in fluff with minor rule changes to make it work. Sets of different encounter/daily powers and descriptors could give the game a much different feel.

This will depend on what is allowed by the new guidelines WotC puts out. From some of the developer comments it seems WotC has gotten smart and will be putting a stop to alternate rulebooks and companies will only be able to put out campaigns and adventures. If that's the case then businesses would be smart to come out with OGL 3.5 books that consolidate everything and give the players what they want.