The "Smell Test"
- Thread starter Mercule
- Start date
Invisible Stalker
First Post
I identify with 1E, 4E and BECMI in that order and it smells fine. It's a long long way to go before a real taste test can occur.
Li Shenron
Legend
Haven't played it yet, only read and started preparing the adventure, but to me it smells like D&D already (I identify with 3ed).
However, I am not so sure it smells like first-level D&D
However, I am not so sure it smells like first-level D&D
Ahnehnois
First Post
It felt D&D-ish (as a 3e player who also played some 2e). It definitely wasn't 4e. It felt like retro D&D.
I never understood what the big fundamental difference was between reading the book and imagining what will happen as opposed to...actually imagining what happens. Sure, acting in real time with other people is somewhat different; but D&D is all about imagining things.Mercule said:
IronWolf
blank
Seeing some mechanics in action are simply the rubber meeting the pavement to use an analogy. Take Advantage/Disadvantage. It sounds cool. But I am anxious to see how it works when you are actually getting to roll the extra dice. Is it fun? Is it annoying in some cases? I can think about the situation, but actually playing through the situation is what really tells how well the rule works.
Sometimes things that sound good (or sound bad) on paper actually play out quite well.
Andor
First Post
Haven't played it yet, only read and started preparing the adventure, but to me it smells like D&D already (I identify with 3ed).
However, I am not so sure it smells like first-level D&D
You know, I thought they were a bit buff for 1st level too. One of my younger players however thought they were too weak and grumbled a bit. That may be a 4th edition thing as well, I don't know.
If us "old schoolers" like weaker 1st level PCs and 4ers like stronger ones, that's a difficulty.
Althought they did say something about starting PCs at lvl 3 by default, and providing the option of starting at 1st. That would at least move the 4e vs the world fight to the individual table rather than the message board wars.
ppaladin123
Adventurer
As a fan of 4e (but also of 3e and Pathfinder) I like what I've seen in the playtest so far. Sure it needs work but that is the point.
These are good core rules. If there was nothing coming to add tactical complexity (i.e. what was presented is the complete system) I would not switch from 4e. However, we've been told over and over again that rules for 4e-style maneuvers and flanking and opportunity attacks and so forth will be released along with the game and that we'll have a chance to playtest them too so I don't see much reason for 4e fans to be upset yet. Let's withhold judgment until we see the tactical module.
These are good core rules. If there was nothing coming to add tactical complexity (i.e. what was presented is the complete system) I would not switch from 4e. However, we've been told over and over again that rules for 4e-style maneuvers and flanking and opportunity attacks and so forth will be released along with the game and that we'll have a chance to playtest them too so I don't see much reason for 4e fans to be upset yet. Let's withhold judgment until we see the tactical module.
Li Shenron
Legend
Maybe it's me, but the first time I ever played D&D (was an OD&D reprint) I was all about "what? a magic weapon gives a miserable +1? what difference does it make"? It took me some time to realize the value of that tiny bonus. And as years go by, I grow nostalgic for grim & gritty games, at least at low levels, but the game's editions always go the other way.
Mercutio01
First Post
I mostly play 3.X/PF, but I identify most with 2E, so that's what I checked. If I thought I could do it, I'd pull back some of the 3E innovations into 2E and just used that home-brew. That said, I like most of what I see from DDN. It's passing my smell test right now.
Similar Threads
