D&D 4E This isn't my 4e - I like it!

[thecasualoblivion]

That was the sales pitch for 4e, so there's irony in a 4e fan panning 5e after reading an incomplete set of rules.

And yet that sales pitch ended up in failure the first time around. Why would you expect things to be different this time around?

 

[Lanefan]

It is very possible to take a Dungeon style of play and system (which around here we find to be generally more fun, obviously your experience may differ) and spin it out into a Dragon style of length and story - I've been doing this for close to 30 years now.

The biggest single change you have to make is advancement rate - going up a level or two per year instead of per month (or per session, as seems the case in the latest playtest...sigh).

What I'm not at all sure of is whether the reverse is possible and-or playable: to take a Dragon style of game and system and shoehorn it into a Dungeon-style length and story. I suppose if it was a campaign built entirely around exploration and interaction with almost no combat at all it could be done, but as soon as combat comes up frequently things just take too long.

Lan-"3e's slogan was 'back to the dungeon', does this mean 4e's should have been 'back to the dragon'?"-efan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What I'm not at all sure of is whether the reverse is possible and-or playable: to take a Dragon style of game and system and shoehorn it into a Dungeon-style length and story. I suppose if it was a campaign built entirely around exploration and interaction with almost no combat at all it could be done, but as soon as combat comes up frequently things just take too long.

I've done it, but it was with Fantasy Hero, not D&D. I think I could do it with 4E now, with the house rules I have in place. But then those house rules halve the combat times, and we were already fairly quick before those changes. So I think it can be done in a D&D geared towards "Dragon" play, if the heavy tactical aspect is replaced with something fast that still involves a lot of decision making.

 

[Hussar]

A very interesting premise.

I come down pretty strongly on the Dragon side of things, although, from time to time, I'm not against doing the Dungeon side either.

As others have said, I hope the mechanics are such that I can flip flop between the two and not having things go wahoonie shaped. 3e did Dungeon really, really well. 4e does Dragons really, really well. Hopefully we get a sort of Frankengame hybrid of the two at the end of the day.

 

[Underman]

Despite the 12+ xp that the OP rec'd, it still bugs me. I think there are at least 3 major strands:
Dragons & Dragons
Dragons & Dungeons
Dungeons & Dungeons

Dragons & Dragons "4e" is where the mechanics presupposes/predestines heroic fantasy
Dragons & Dungeons "often 2e and sometimes 3e" is where the mechanics emulates Dungeons but the social contract and good adventure building allows PCs to rise to heroism

Dragons & Dragons assumes you are all heroes. Dragons & Dungeons enables you to have viable hope to be a hero. I find the latter much more exciting. I think heroism is boring if it feels predictable how the movie ends (defeat the monster and marry the king's daughter). I can agree that 4e is the apotheosis of Dragons play at the expense of Dungeons (dungeon delve skirmishes not included) but I cannot agree that 4E is the apotheosis of Dragons play for me. I hope I'm not in some strange minority.

Dragons & Dragons = let's pretend we are heroes
Dragons & Dungeons = let's pretend we can be heroes

 

[Neonchameleon]

Despite the 12+ xp that the OP rec'd, it still bugs me. I think there are at least 3 major strands:
Dragons & Dragons
Dragons & Dungeons
Dungeons & Dungeons

Dragons & Dragons "4e" is where the mechanics presupposes/predestines heroic fantasy
Dragons & Dungeons "often 2e and sometimes 3e" is where the mechanics emulates Dungeons but the social contract and good adventure building allows PCs to rise to heroism

Dragons & Dragons assumes you are all heroes. Dragons & Dungeons enables you to have viable hope to be a hero. I find the latter much more exciting. I think heroism is boring if it feels predictable how the movie ends (defeat the monster and marry the king's daughter). I can agree that 4e is the apotheosis of Dragons play at the expense of Dungeons (dungeon delve skirmishes not included) but I cannot agree that 4E is the apotheosis of Dragons play for me. I hope I'm not in some strange minority.

Dragons & Dragons = let's pretend we are heroes
Dragons & Dungeons = let's pretend we can be heroes

Lovely. Just what this thread needed. Someone trying to redefine things so all editions except 4e are Dungeons and Dragons.

The power level of a first level adventurer with respect to an orc hasn't changed much from 3e to 4e. And it actually takes orcs longer to kill PCs in AD&D than it does in 4e (one minute combat rounds). Unless we're talking about BECMI or pre-UA 1e fighters or, arguably, AD&D thieves, a first level PC is already a huge cut above the norm.

And in 4e PCs die - often as much as in earlier editions. A first level PC has a hard time against a battletested orc warrior just as a first level PC in earlier editions does against an ordinary orc warrior - and it takes longer for an orc to kill a first level wizard in AD&D (one minute) than it does to kill a fully armoured fighter in 4e (5 rounds or so or about 30 seconds). It doesn't matter which D&D you play - first level and you are wet behind the ears.

The real difference in heroics isn't as you describe it. Most NPCs are near non-combatants by RAW (0th level in AD&D, commoners in 3.X, and Minions in 4e). A first level fighter in AD&D with weapon specialisation and heavy armour can chew through a lot of them. A first level cleric with Sleep in 1e or worse with two uses of Phantom Forces in 2e is seriously powerful, and the 3 spell 3e version is almost as bad and can repeat and then cast a pile of cantrips. It's that 4e PCs (other than in Eberron) live in a crapsack world, whether the Nentir Vale/PoLand, Athas, the post Spellplague Realms, or wherever. There is no Elminster, no Mordaniken, no Drizzt. No one to shelter behind or who will play backstop if this gets out of hand. The 4e worldbuilding with its Points of Light is set up so PCs try to be heroes not because they are more powerful than the surrounding world (that has always been true). They are called to be heroes because there is no one else to do the job.

 

[Underman]

Lovely. Just what this thread needed. Someone trying to redefine things so all editions except 4e are Dungeons and Dragons.

I did NOT state in any way shape or form that 4E is not D&D. That deserved to be bolded.

I could have written "Lovely. Just what this forum needed. Someone trying to redefine things so that no editions except 4e are (the best at) 'Dragons'". I know from other threads that you and I are on completely different pages. I'm not trying to convince you of anything (because I can't) or vice versa; I wrote that because I don't believe there are only "two major strands of D&D" as expressed. Obviously, some number of people agree with you and that's OK too.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I did NOT state in any way shape or form that 4E is not D&D. That deserved to be bolded.

In which case you entirely missed the rhetoric and the argument.

By defining things as "Dragons" and as "Dungeons" I was explicitely keeping everything in the framework of "All editions are a part of Dungeons and Dragons." Your modification to this had "Dragons and Dungeons" - i.e. the whole of D&D. You also had "Dragons and Dragons", singling 4e out as not being Dungeons and Dragons. And mysteriously you defined 4th edition as literally the only one you named that didn't have both. That is why I accused you of defining 4e as not Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Underman]

By defining things as "Dragons" and as "Dungeons" I was explicitely keeping everything in the framework of "All editions are a part of Dungeons and Dragons." Your modification to this had "Dragons and Dungeons" - i.e. the whole of D&D.

See post #5 . I was using your own terminology.

You also had "Dragons and Dragons", singling 4e out as not being Dungeons and Dragons.

Again, using your own terminology. 'Dragons' play with 'Dragons' crunch. It's still the game of D&D. I don't understand your accusation.

And mysteriously you defined 4th edition as literally the only one you named that didn't have both.

I don't follow. 1) What did you mean that 4E was 'Dragons' at the expense of 'Dungeons'? 2) You missed the "Dungeons & Dungeons" strand, that also didn't have both; which according to my confused interpretation of your argument, means that your above quoted statment is flatly wrong.

So, why did you miss "Dungeons & Dungeons" as not having both?

 

[Neonchameleon]

See post [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=5]#5 [/URL] . I was using your own terminology. 'Dragons' style with 'Dungeons' crunch.

No you weren't. You were grafting something on to it.

I don't follow. 1) What did you mean that 4E was 'Dragons' at the expense of 'Dungeons'?

If you want to play Dungeons some things make it easier, others harder. The FourthCore crowd absolutely do play Dungeons using 4e. But that doesn't mean that detailed half hour combats are something that facilitates Dungeons play. Or that one minute/one roll facilitates rich, detailed, immersive, and cinematic combats. 4e is harder to use for Dungeons play but much easier for Dragons.

2) You missed the "Dungeons & Dungeons" strand, that also didn't have both;

You mean the strand for which you mentioned not one single example of a game that fitted. That is the problem.