We're back to AD&D1

[Rechan]

I will agree with you that 4e gameplay feels more like a video game than 3.5.

That's because there's not a processor big enough to compute all the rules for 3.5. I mean there's a rule for everything. It'd be a game where you could do anything, interact with anything, somewhere it's programmed to let you do that.

 

[WhatGravitas]

"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?

That's good advice. Stereotypes (or archetypes) are so popular, because they have traction. I mean, many characters in films, even good films, are based on archetypes/stereotypes!

Subtle nuances GET lost, unless you have prolonged and repeated contact with the NPC. Starting with an archetype is a pretty good base to get an impression with the PCs. Fleshing the character out is something that will arise from play and the underlying motivations of the NPC.

Cheers, LT.

 

[med stud]

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?

If you need advice in the first place, this is good advice. If you feel competent enough to role play nuanced, complex NPCs then you don't need the advice in the DMG.

 

[hong]

4E is 1E, with the addition of skill challenges. Which I wager will get more people more involved in noncombat interaction than either 1E's retarded (literally!) nonweapon proficiencies or 3E's unfocused menagerie of skills ever did.

 

[Pinotage]

Yip. 4e has many similarities to 1e, but like others have said in the past, it's mainly the good similarities. Nothing wrong with being like 1e - it was a good game. As long as it doesn't make the same mistakes 1e did.

Pinotage

 

[Aeolius]

The “role playing” part of the game is downgraded compared to 3E, and everything is around combat, combat and more combat...

meh

From the way WOtC has presented 4e, it seems more like 2e to me; options have been removed and the rules have been "dummied down".

 

[Piratecat]

meh

...options have been removed and the rules have been "dummied down".

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.

 

[PeelSeel2]

4E feels like BD&D and a little 1E to me.

Roleplaying or Roll playing? You can Roleplay with any system. You can Rollplay and pretend your roleplaying with system with heavy rules for doing so. I am glad 4e has steered clear of touching rules for rollplaying and let the DM develop the story for roleplaying.

I know if you ask my players about roleplaying, they will say their is plenty in KOTS. At the Dragon grave yard, they decided on an unconventional approach. It involved a lot of roleplaying. The 'lead' character bluffed his way into camp and was 'leaving' with them when the party ambushed. How much rollplaying was done? very little. The rest was pure roleplaying. Yeah the Gnome had kinda of a cliche personality. But my players will talk about how they bluffed their way into that camp and remember it for a long while. That is what makes a campaign. Rarely are combats remembered, unless they are ones that have had a lot of history and roleplaying building up to them.

 

[Gargoyle]

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.

The thing is, I don't need professional game designers to tell me how to roleplay. I need them to help me resolve things like combat quicker so I can have more time to roleplay.

So I think 4e promotes roleplaying.

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.

Matter of taste...

Because of the game’s philosophy, I can’t imagine many D&D3 campaign settings being played with D&D4.

I can because DM's are tired of spending so much time preparing.

Again, it’s too combat oriented. For example, it would be very difficult to play Freeport or Midnight with it.

I'm not familiar with those settings, so I'm curious why that would be. It seems to me that the DM still determines which encounters have combat and which are purely roleplaying, so I don't see how the setting matters.

 

[phloog]

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'm not going to question your recollection, but I see this a lot:

"That's what hundreds/thousands/millions of people said about [prior version]"

- - I guess if I multiply [topics being complained about] times [prior versions that came out for discussion], it seems like there must be no room on any boards anywhere for discussions of any other type.

As far as not reaching a conclusion before having a chance to play a bit, I can understand where you're coming from, but I'm a Small Town Dude (TM), and so to get a chance to play a bit, I would need to buy a set of Core Books, sinking a substantial amount of cash into a game just to try it.

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.

I think they really dropped the ball (with ME) by releasing an ADVENTURE for $30 that (if these forums are to be believed) gives no clearer picture of 4E than reading forum rants.