We're back to AD&D1

[Fobok]

I agree with some of the others. I used to be the kind of DM and player that preferred rules for every little thing, from haggling to sailing to riding a horse. I've long since abandoned that approach since it gets in the way of true roleplaying. You can't explore a story if you're busy rolling dice. Combat? Sure, that needs rules, and 4e looks like it provides good ones. The skill challenge system I like too, for more complicated situations, but most of the time, just leave us be to roleplay.

 

[Aeolius]

Actually, that's what many people originally said about 3e! I read that exact statement over a hundred times here on the earliest edition of Eric's boards and on rec.games.frp.dnd. Since I don't feel that's what happened in 3e, I'd be cautious about reaching a conclusion before having a chance to play for a bit.

Fair enough. I do have the 4e books on order

I remember the day 2e was released. I drove the the game store, got the 2e PH, and drove to a local watering hole to peruse my purchase. On that day, I decided to stick with 1e.

 

[mhensley]

You guys keep saying it's like AD&D but I get the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

My other option is to get KOTS - which I did at the cost of $30, and frankly I hate what I've read....and NOW of course I assume everyone's retort to my dislike for aspects of KOTS is 'well, it's really more of a combat demo and not how the game will really play out'....so I'm back to buying all the books to really 'get it', or just ignoring 4e.

Is this true? Was the first adventure released for 4E intended primarily (or even solely) as an exploration of the new combat rules? I suppose I can see the rationale, but I didn't get this from any of the descriptions I read advertising the adventure. I was still entertaining the idea of purchasing it, despite the imminent release of the core rulebooks, but I haven't really been able to put the money aside just yet.

Maybe that's for the best....

 

[lutecius]

Actually, that's what many people originally said about 3e! I read that exact statement over a hundred times here on the earliest edition of Eric's boards and on rec.games.frp.dnd. Since I don't feel that's what happened in 3e, I'd be cautious about reaching a conclusion before having a chance to play for a bit.

I don't know what people said about 3e, but my first thought was that it was a huge improvement over ad&d, roleplay wise. Not because it had role playing rules, just because the rules made more sense 'in game'. I still feel that way even if 3e turned out to have playability issues.

I may be wrong this time, but 4e seems to be all about playability and tactics. Fluff justifications look like an afterthought. A good example is all the "successful hit = cool but completely unrelated effect" powers.
I don't think i will find them less annoying when i see them in play. To me it's not going back to AD&D1, it's going back to whatever wargame D&D came from.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

I remember the day 2e was released. I drove the the game store, got the 2e PH, and drove to a local watering hole to peruse my purchase. On that day, I decided to stick with 1e.

*grins* I didn't even have to go through that kind o' trouble. I was psychic enough to know that I had absolutely no interest in the new edition. I don't think I even touched a 2E handbook until about 1992, after I'd moved to a new town and hooked up with a group that was playing it.

Mind you, I eventually came to like it, and ran 2E games for several years. So when 3E came out, I decided to embrace the idea from the beginning and keep an open mind. And it was good.

I'm trying to do the same thing now, and I've got the books on order... but sometimes optimism can be quite challenging.

 

[Fifth Element]

Even the artwork is different compared to 3E. Everything is grandiloquent, over-the-top.

Heh. We get this complaint the day after we get complaints that some of the 4E core rulebook artwork is recycled from 3E.

One of the most common complaints about 3E artwork is that it's grandiose and over-the-top (WAR armour and weapons, for instance). Compared to earlier editions, 3E artwork is the same as 4E artwork. I really don't see a significant difference.

I'm one who agrees that it's more like AD&D in a good way. 3E suffered from rules bloat, which 4E seems to be avoiding.

And no, you don't need rules to roleplay. That's what imagination is for.

 

[Morrus]

I'm confused; what "role playing" rules were you hoping to see in the books? What role-playing rules were in the 3.x core rulebooks but absent from these?

 

[Fifth Element]

Is this true? Was the first adventure released for 4E intended primarily (or even solely) as an exploration of the new combat rules? I suppose I can see the rationale, but I didn't get this from any of the descriptions I read advertising the adventure.

I'm not sure if that's the primary intent, but that's the way it's likely to play out until the core books are released. Before we have the core books, we're limited to the pregen characters. Pregen characters are no way for players to get involved in the game - they have no attachment to them. Play the adventure with characters the players have created themselves, as part of a larger campaign, and it will not seem like a combat demo.

 

[Dausuul]

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?

See, that's the sort of thing that makes me very hopeful that the DMG will actually have good and useful advice. It's practical, it's usable, and it's down-to-earth. It's also true for every game I've ever played in. We're not writing great literature, here.