We're back to AD&D1

[Joe Sala]

Yesterday I spent two hours with the core books at a friend's place.

The rules are completely different, but the game’s philosophy goes back to AD&D1. The “role playing” part of the game is downgraded compared to 3E, and everything is around combat, combat and more combat (the famous “character roles” are exclusively defined by it). The “noncombat encounters” chapter in the DMG gets only 17 pages and includes puzzles and traps.

Even the artwork is different compared to 3E. Everything is grandiloquent, over-the-top. All depicted characters are fighting or with their weapons (or powers) ready. No one is smiling, relaxed.

Because of the game’s philosophy, I can’t imagine many D&D3 campaign settings being played with D&D4. Again, it’s too combat oriented. For example, it would be very difficult to play Freeport or Midnight with it.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Yesterday I spent two hours with the core books at a friend's place.

The rules are completely different, but the game’s philosophy goes back to AD&D1. The “role playing” part of the game is downgraded compared to 3E, and everything is around combat, combat and more combat (the famous “character roles” are exclusively defined by it). The “noncombat encounters” chapter in the DMG gets only 17 pages and includes puzzles and traps.

Even the artwork is different compared to 3E. Everything is grandiloquent, over-the-top. All depicted characters are fighting or with their weapons (or powers) ready. No one is smiling, relaxed.

Because of the game’s philosophy, I can’t imagine many D&D3 campaign settings being played with D&D4. Again, it’s too combat oriented. For example, it would be very difficult to play Freeport or Midnight with it.

two words. neo classical. a renaissance if you will.

 

[pogminky]

Sounds fine to me. I liked AD&D. I only need rules for combat and action stuff, anyway - the role-playing we can do without any rules.

 

[Joe Sala]

Just a paragraph I couldn't avoid writing down from the DMG:

"Memorable nonplayer characters are best built on stereotype. The subtle nuances of a NPC’s personality are lost on the players. Just don’t rely on the same stereotype for every NPC you make"

1980 or 2008?

 

[Njall]

Just a paragraph I couldn't avoid writing down from the DMG:

"Memorable nonplayer characters are best built on stereotype. The subtle nuances of a NPC’s personality are lost on the players. Just don’t rely on the same stereotype for every NPC you make"

1980 or 2008?

And this proves your point because...?

 

[D'karr]

Just a paragraph I couldn't avoid writing down from the DMG:

"Memorable nonplayer characters are best built on stereotype. The subtle nuances of a NPC’s personality are lost on the players. Just don’t rely on the same stereotype for every NPC you make"

1980 or 2008?

It was true in 1980 and even more true today.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

dungeons and dragons arcade for the win!!!

 

[vagabundo]

So we DONT like ADND 1e today, huh?

gotya.

More seriously: You can role play with nearly any system, the mechanical systems are at the option of the DM. If you run a mechanics lite campaign and fill it up with character interactions and story then great. The core 4e system is small and efficient, the rest of the stuff is fairly modular and the maths predictable.

In short, I believe, 4e will allow you to run with more play-styles than 3e.

 

[blalien]

I will agree with you that 4e gameplay feels more like a video game than 3.5. I think it's how powers are structured that do it for me. But yeah, good role-playing should be independant of any set of rules.

 

[Falling Icicle]

After having played with the social combat rules in Exalted, I much prefer a system that mechanizes roleplaying as little as possible. 4e seems to me to have just enough rules to justify skills like diplomacy, but no so much that it actually interferes with the roleplaying it is trying to promote.