[Those who like 4ed] What has been lost?

[Nifft]

Seconded

I hate the fact that the setting books are written in such a clinical, detached manner. I miss the Wanderer's Journal from Dark Sun, Volo's Guides to the Realms, the vernacular in Planescape products, etc.

Thirded.

In addition to the (IMHO enjoyable) vocabulary lessons, older editions seemed just plain more fun to read.

It's something I get more from my Exalted books these days.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't care about rules and aspects of 3E that aren't currently in 4E the same exact way I don't care about rules of D&D that don't appear in Shadowrun. They're different games. And I play them as such.

When I play D&D, I take some of the things I liked best about 2nd edition and throw them into 4th, and draw inspiration from sources well outside D&D. I don't give up on inspirational reading like Lankhmar or Orlando Furioso just because they're not really designed to fit the 4e mindset. Salvaging things you liked better from previous editions isn't too far off.

I'm on the side that says one of the neat things about gaming is that everyone's game can be customized to play a different fashion. While it does make transplanting from one game to the next harder, with house rules and themes and all varying, I like the personalized games, with their customized themes and sensibilities, too much to have it any other way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

When I play D&D, I take some of the things I liked best about 2nd edition and throw them into 4th, and draw inspiration from sources well outside D&D. I don't give up on inspirational reading like Lankhmar or Orlando Furioso just because they're not really designed to fit the 4e mindset. Salvaging things you liked better from previous editions isn't too far off.

I'm on the side that says one of the neat things about gaming is that everyone's game can be customized to play a different fashion. While it does make transplanting from one game to the next harder, with house rules and themes and all varying, I like the personalized games, with their customized themes and sensibilities, too much to have it any other way.

More power to ya.

But personally... if I want to play (as an example) a game set in George R.R. Martin's 'A Song Of Ice & Fire' setting (or one that is a lot like that)... then I'l just play the A Game Of Thrones rpg, and not bother trying to jerry-rig D&D to compensate.

They have games for almost all settings, genres, and brands. I just play the ones that fit.

 

[TerraDave]

1) Familiarity: Having a core of things that players do and that I and the other players know what that is. Like casting fireball. With powers, so many of them, this is basically gone.

2) Exploration: Part of a long term trend, and ultimatelly under DM control, but still, default 4E puts very little emphasis on non-combat not nec. a skill challenge just wandering around finding weird stuff exploration.

 

[Barastrondo]

More power to ya.

But personally... if I want to play (as an example) a game set in George R.R. Martin's 'A Song Of Ice & Fire' setting (or one that is a lot like that)... then I'l just play the A Game Of Thrones rpg, and not bother trying to jerry-rig D&D to compensate.

They have games for almost all settings, genres, and brands. I just play the ones that fit.

Sure. It's a no-fuss, no-muss approach, and it saves a lot of work.

I'm too interested in theme for that approach to work for me, honestly. I like the setting-rich themes from 2e and the "dynamic mechanics" theme from 4e, and don't see a reason why I should have to choose one or the other when I can do both. After some 17 years of running this world in one campaign or another, "my home game" has a meaning that transcends edition. It's like that for a lot of us veterans, I bet. We know what we like and are willing to work for it, but wouldn't mind if we had to do a little less work, hence some regret for things that are "lost."

 

[My Lego]

But the way treasure awards scale so dramatically with level kind of undercuts the idea that the luxury good you bought at 8th level is still worth something at 18th. It somewhat undercuts the player who likes spending gold on the trappings of success.

This and speed of play. It really take a long time for the players to accomplish anything since the combats take so long. Don't get me wrong, the combats are fun but adventures sometimes don't seem to go anywhere. Compare to BECMI where combats are really fast and you get a lot of "adventuring" done.

 

[Dausuul]

Then more power to ya.

The question though... was what has been "lost" in 4E. Which implies that you are making a direct connection between the parts of each edition of D&D, and that bits are being left behind.

I don't do that. I play 4E as its own game. I don't compare it to my previous games of 3E or 2E or 1E or red box Basic. Those were their own games... my current campaigns are their own games. And the campaigns of 7th Sea, Shadowrun, Star Wars, Star Trek, Feng Shui, and Riddle Of Steel I've played in are their own games as well.

I don't care about rules and aspects of 3E that aren't currently in 4E the same exact way I don't care about rules of D&D that don't appear in Shadowrun. They're different games. And I play them as such.

Meanwhile, I care about rules and aspects of 3E that aren't currently in 4E - the exact same way I do care about rules of Shadowrun that don't appear in D&D. If it's a good idea that I think would improve 4E, I'd like to see it imported, regardless of where it comes from.

I participate in these discussions partly to hear others' ideas and clarify my own thoughts (and perhaps my plans for homebrew rules), partly in case anyone from WotC happens to be listening and taking notes, and partly because I just like talking about stuff like this.

 

[Remathilis]

I think 4e has become too forgiving of dump statting. I think allowing players to pick their stats for defense bonuses is kind of nice, but I do believe it allows too much to be lost in stat parity. For example, while I can use either Dex or Int for my reflex defense, unless my powers specifically include Intelligence, Dex is almost always better because it adds to skills that are used more often in your typical dungeon crawl and adds to my initiative and my base ranged attacks. As a rogue, I can pretty much dump Intelligence without a second thought. I would have preferred Int retain the trained skill bonus that it had in 3.x. Then it would be a more real trade-off

Agreed. While I like (in concept) the option of covering a weakness with a strength (so a low-wis fighter doesn't have to be charm-bait) the scores are not balanced enough to make viable choices. Unless a score is prime/secondary, Con (Hp/Heal surges) trumps Str (melee basic), Dex (Init, range basic) trumps Int (knowledge skills) and Wis and Cha battle for redundancy (Intuition skills vs. Social skills).

The two major things I miss from earlier editions of D&D are:
1) Lack of long-term spells/effects. I've started using the disease condition track to keep track of curses, etc- but having something like long-term charm effects or other weirdness would be cool.
2) Magic items feel fairly non-magical. To solve this problem, I've started giving every magic item an at-will, encounter, and daily power. It helps to bring back some of the mystery and "magic" of magic items, and so far the players seem to like it.

Yeah, while its much easier to track effects when they begin/end at the start/end of combat, it feels a bit like an old Final Fantasy game where the screen-shifts to "combat mode" and the whole game perspective changes. (I still can't figure out why I couldn't use a Phoenix down on Aeris, I did in combat 5 minutes ago...)

What happened to magic items though, esp wondrous items and potions, is a travesty.

I miss the ability to take a new book and read it from cover to cover.
I plan on just paying for subs to DDI and gaining access to all the rules that way rather than buying books to hold onto.

The books were dry, boring lists of powers (class powers, magic item powers, monster powers, etc). Only the DMGs, IMHO, reach any level or readability. While spells and magic items have never really been all that readable, they didn't feel like they bulk of the book (even if they were), there was plenty of other interesting things to read.

Kudos though for making things (mostly) clear. Too bad its at the cost of quirky charm and readability.

1) Familiarity: Having a core of things that players do and that I and the other players know what that is. Like casting fireball. With powers, so many of them, this is basically gone.
2) Exploration: Part of a long term trend, and ultimately under DM control, but still, default 4E puts very little emphasis on non-combat not nec. a skill challenge just wandering around finding weird stuff exploration.

The First is something that hurt my heart. While I know D&D has changed from 1974 to today, for almost all the years I played it (1992-today), certain things felt "familiar". Saving Throws (My Jesus Saves and Takes Half-Damage joke is now obsolete), Fireball d6/level, nine alignments, rolled Hp/level, Cure Light Wounds, even the concept of "spell slots" felt odd to be without.

The latter seems tied to the concept of 4e's pacing. Earlier D&D searched slow and fought fast. 4e runs on the opposite; expanded set-piece combats punctuated by some minor dungeon-fluff in between. I especially hated WotC's "An encounter in every room" method of designing modules. Some of the best 4e adventures I ran was when there was one combat and lots of exploring, RP, and problem solving (most of which could be done in any edition). When I tried to run 4e by the spirit of the modules (lots of combat, skill challenges, and a dash of story) it felt hollow and boring.

The above, with a few other arguments I won't get into here, is what ultimately drove me away from 4e.

 

[Lanefan]

The question though... was what has been "lost" in 4E. Which implies that you are making a direct connection between the parts of each edition of D&D, and that bits are being left behind.

Yes, I think that was the idea; based on the not-all-that-abstract assumption that all the various iterations of D+D are in effect the same game reskinned. They're just not as backward-forward compatible as would be nice.

I don't do that. I play 4E as its own game. I don't compare it to my previous games of 3E or 2E or 1E or red box Basic. Those were their own games... my current campaigns are their own games. And the campaigns of 7th Sea, Shadowrun, Star Wars, Star Trek, Feng Shui, and Riddle Of Steel I've played in are their own games as well.

Taking this literally, you're saying that the differences between 1e-2e-3e-4e are similar in scope (as defined by each being "its own game") to those between Shadowrun-StarWars-7thSea-RiddleOfSteel.

So, if the 4 editions are in fact each their own separate game, which one in your opinion is D+D?

Note that if you answer something like "they all are" you've at that point admitted they're also all part of the same game, and have validated the original question in the thread.

Lan-"my games are all different even within the same rule-set"-efan

 

[wedgeski]

Only the DMGs, IMHO, reach any level or readability. While spells and magic items have never really been all that readable, they didn't feel like they bulk of the book (even if they were), there was plenty of other interesting things to read.

Have you read Manual of the Planes? Open Grave? Draconomicon? The first of those, in particular, is rich with atmosphere and plot hooks and is one of the very few books, in any edition, that I've read cover to cover. A superb piece of work.