The Truth About 4th Edition.

[JohnSnow]

If WOTC admits that they took WOW as an inspiration, then why do we still have 4e fanboys getting agitated when someone compares 4e to WOW? Is being associated to WOW such a bad thing? To me WOTC is correct in taking influence due to the current generation.

It's the general attitude that people who dislike 4e use to characterize those who do.

You torpedo your own argument by the phrase "4e fanboys." Look, we're all geeks here. We all know that "fanboy" is a pejorative term which implies an irrational, uncritical attachment to something. So, when someone tags "WoWified" with "4e fanboy," it's pretty clear they intend BOTH terms to be pejorative.

Personally, I think it's great that WotC was inspired to draw some of its changes for Dungeons & Dragons from World of Warcraft. I think they were equally wise to look at some of the other tabletop games that have come out as well. The designers and developers at WotC, obviously, felt those changes were improvements to the game or they wouldn't have done it.

I agree with Andy Collins - I can't imagine how I slogged through the 1e rulebooks, or figured out the to-hit rules, or a hundred other things with the early editions of AD&D. Times change, and the game must adapt or perish.

The only reason not to change it is if you believe the game was flawless at birth. And I think the only person around here who can legitimately claim that is, I think, diaglo. And frankly, even he uses, I think, some of the early add-on rules. Otherwise, all of us like some form of "improved" D&D.

 

[MrMyth]

Here's a little secret, Andy. D&D is a cooperative game. Your point of comparison isn't Carcassone, let alone Dominion. It's games like Arkham Horror you should be looking at for inspiration. A group of players gets together and pulls off a collective gigue in the face of escalating tension.

I think you might be completely misreading his point. His entire point is that making D&D cooperative and interactive is more fun than having a player take their turn, and then have no investment in what is going on in the twenty minutes it takes to get back around to them. He's giving Dominion as an example of a style they want to avoid - they don't want everyone just doing their own thing, they want a way to draw the players together and keep them involved at every moment of the game.

 

[Mark Chance]

I can't imagine how I slogged through the 1e rulebooks, or figured out the to-hit rules....

You can't imagine how you did basic addition and subtraction?

 

[howandwhy99]

Here's a little secret, Andy. D&D is a cooperative game. Your point of comparison isn't Carcassone, let alone Dominion. It's games like Arkham Horror you should be looking at for inspiration. A group of players gets together and pulls off a collective gigue in the face of escalating tension.

Wow, just wow. Someone please help me to erase my memory of that interview. It tarnished my active appreciation of 4E.

I have to agree with you about cooperation games. Games like Arkham Horror and Lord of the Rings by Reiner Knizia are the game designs they should be looking at. Not shoehorning a competitive game into cooperative play by making "cooperate" a rule. Even Spades the card game doesn't require team play, it just rewards it. It's always an option to go alone and an individual scoring system rewards single players for doing so. To be a cooperation game cooperative strategies must be a meaningful choice, not a rule.

I don't know why, but they seem to be overlooking the type of cooperative play used early on in D&D: Caller play. By making players think they must engage in taking individual turns versus group turns (e.g. group initiative when in rounds) they are codifying antagonizing aspects of competitive game design and then adding a "cooperate" rule. By offering the option to act as a group or individually to every player in every instance they end up promoting cooperative play, while still allowing players the option not to cooperate. That last may sound bad to some folks, but it is the current default play style I see used by most every group. The game promotes even demands individual play towards the GM and then wonders why they don't excel as a group. That's in any part of play, not just D&D combat. All this serves to do is force others to sit on their hands and watch while every other player plays the 1-to-GM game instead engaging in full on player group communication as the standard.

EDIT:
Our group can accommodate up to 20 players per referee because we aren't treating him like a computer game we each take turns with. Now, with more inquisitive minds at the table we don't just gain more per turn power, but a greater pool of intelligence for every player to draw on.

 

[JohnSnow]

I find it shameful that Andy stated that he wouldn't be able to understand how to play the game by reading the old Blue Book now.

I mean wow. Really?

I'm older now too, but I don't feel like I've lost my attention span, or somehow become less intelligent.

Well, I'm not Andy, but I largely feel the same way he does. It's not about attention span or intelligence, but about competition for brain space. When the blue book came out, there were 3 TV channels, no video tapes, and very few (a couple hundred maybe) fantasy novels. Personal computers were almost non-existent, the internet wasn't around, and computer games was Pong and (maybe) the Atari 2600.

Today, we have ready access to hundreds of channels, tens of thousands of movies and TV shows, genre novels by the thousands, personal computers, the internet, and at least 3 gaming systems (each of which has dozens or hundreds of titles). There's also dozens more board games than there used to be.

So yeah, I have less time to spend on any one thing than I used to. Don't you? Given that, if D&D were as complex to learn (and presented as obtusely) as it used to be, I doubt I'd bother. It might be very cool, but the barriers to entry would be prohibitive - given all the other options out there.

Like he said, it's a different time.

 

[JohnSnow]

You can't imagine how you did basic addition and subtraction?

More like I can't imagine how I ever memorized 9 sets of tables.

I'm not talking the monumental leap-forward that was Second Edition and THAC0 here - I'm talking weapon speed factors, different to-hit tables for every class, and to-hit bonuses for different weapons vs. different armor types. And don't get me started on the rules for subduing or grappling.

It was NUTS!

Methinks people occasionally are wearing rose-colored blinders when they recall older editions.

 

[Mark Chance]

More like I can't imagine how I ever memorized 9 sets of tables.

Memorization was never a requirement. That's why there were tables, as well as pencils and character sheets on which to record necessary information.

Methinks people occasionally are wearing rose-colored blinders when they recall older editions.

Maybe, but that's rather beside the point. I played 1E. My 1E characters were no more information-intensive my than my 3.5E character were. In fact, they were less so. In most cases, all the information I needed to play the character fit on one sheet of paper, front and back. I seldom needed to look anything in the PH unless playing a spellcaster or my character was psionic.

As a DM, monsters were even easier.

So, while there are some rose-colored glasses issues, there're also some new-is-better, old-is-worse issues.

Not saying you have those issues, mind you, just like I'm sure you weren't saying I have tinted lenses skewing my perceptions.

Right?

 

[Piratecat]

Use this thread as a platform for your edition war - pro OR con 4e - and win a free vacation. Honestly, no one wants to read it. Please post accordingly.

 

[malraux]

snip

I'll say this, as someone who came into the game in the 3e era, I've tried to grok the 1e and 2e PHBs. It just doesn't make sense. I get some stuff, but there's so little overarching unity to the game that it does feel like I need to memorize the whole book to know how it works. That is, once you know how one thing works, you don't know how a similar thing works. Each class has its own rules, progression, and subsystems; each ability has its own chart for how it works, etc. Heck, it wasn't always clear if a high number on the die roll was good or bad.

Contrast that with how the d20 versions of DnD work. Once you know how a basic d20 check works 1d20 plus ability modifier plus ranks/bab plus magic item bonus plus other stuff vs a target number. That works for not just for STR based stuff, but all ability scores. It works for attacks and skill checks. It works if you're a fighter or ranger or a mage (excepting 3e saving throws). Pages of instructions on how to even attempt certain things like bend bars/life gates have been replaced with a reasonable straight forward formula.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Edition I Play is at the perfect level of complication.

Edition I Don't Play is way too complicated, and I have no idea how I ever managed to enjoy it.

Rose colored glasses don't just apply to nostalgia. Everyone puts down what they no longer enjoy, and praises what they currently enjoy. Just as we'll continue to do if a new game or edition comes out that grabs our fancy.