What 4E is to me - my opinion - no you don't care! ;)

[LordDamax]

After reading a bunch of threads, the edition wars, etc... here's my thought:

4E is a great RPG. It's simple, it's easy to learn, it's MMO-like in it's simplicity of rules (everything boils down to damage, even vorpal weapons just have the potential for massive damage - instead of insta killing you). It's a blast to play, and will bring in scads of new players, especially 13 year olds who want to play a dragon-man.

4E is NOT D&D. On its own, without the D&D label, I'd probably love it. But the feel, the rules, the missing classes, the iconic spells now gone... its not D&D. I wont get into all the reasons why, it'll likely start an edition flame war, I'm extremely opinionated on the matter.

For ME, 4E is not D&D. And thats a shame.

 

[delericho]

4E is a great RPG.

Agreed. (Though 'great' may be overstating it a tad.)

and will bring in scads of new players, especially 13 year olds

Disagree. Unfortunately, I just don't see it happening.

4E is NOT D&D.

And disagree again. To me, 4e definately is D&D, just a different D&D to 3e.

 

[Tervin]

To me, 4th Edition D&D is clearly different from the earlier editions, I agree on that. I like it as a game, and I suspect that it will have a lot more depth than it might seem from the start.

If it is too much different to be called D&D? I would personally think it has the right to keep the name, but it is not a big deal to me. What is weird with this new system is that it is the first new edition that feels like an improvement, but still doesn't make earlier editions of D&D feel unplayable.

As it feels right now Pathfinder is less interesting than 4th Edition D&D to me, but still when Pathfinder is out that might very well be the game that makes the old D&D versions feel unplayable. I am still more interested in the new house than renovating the old one... Especially as the new house adds so many features that weren't possible when the old house was planned.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Having played since '78' and the first edition of AD&D, I will say that 4E is 'closer' than 3.X ever was...however, it isn't 1E by a country mile. It's a NEW edition, not a re-vamped edition. My biggest problem has been the 'fluff' insistence of PoL (which is probably the weakest setting for ANY RPG I've ever seen.) But the rules are easy, quick and open...light in other words, just like the old days. Want to do something, do it, the DM will figure out what happens, not the player, the way it should be or possibly could be, as the newest edition also makes some in roads to a non-refereed game where a DM isn't needed at all. No previous edition could get away with doing both (though they tried like mad during 2E.)

You say it isn't D&D to you, neither was 3.X to me, at first, then once I was able to get into the rules and run it the way I wanted to run it, it became D&D, I have no doubt that 4E will play out the same way, We just have to get there.

 

[satori01]

4E seems like the thou shalt edition to me.

The D&D gods say: Thou shalt play only good characters

The D&D gods say: Thou shalt only be able to use thy magic items a limited number of
times a day, in a decision that while it may be balanced mechanically kills a more emotional sense of magic, and hurts those people that like a lot of little less powerful, but more quirky magic items.

The D&D gods say: Thou shalt forget spells....spells are no more. The long tradition of designing, or combing source books for unusual powers. The tradition and source of endless inspiration and creativity.....in the history of D&D you could count on the community creating 3 things, in all 3 editions: Monsters, Classes, Spells.
not anymore, which I find a shame.

The D&D gods say: Thou shall accept the clunky, arbitrary, and offputting concept of the milestone. Yes it will encourage people to do "one more room", yes it makes people think in a metagame sense, which actively discourages an aura of fun, and flexibility that action points should encourage.

The D&D gods say: yes to exception based design, which can be fine, but in terms of monsters is what lead to the vast hordes of redundant monsters. Flinds were created because people did not feel there was a way to give gnolls special weapons....Lizard Kings were created because someone wanted a more powerful & evil boss lizard man. Both in 3e are completely unnecessary.

3E for all the people's complaints about rules lawyers, could really handle any effect you wanted to add. Template, class levels, CR bump up for special ritual, power replacement, Stat alteration...you name it.

4e feels very arbitrary.....it is because I say so.....which does not inspire me creatively. Maybe that will change. Perhaps I am too much the Nietzschian, because I do not like " Thou Shalts".

 

[med stud]

After reading a bunch of threads, the edition wars, etc... here's my thought:

4E is a great RPG. It's simple, it's easy to learn, it's MMO-like in it's simplicity of rules (everything boils down to damage, even vorpal weapons just have the potential for massive damage - instead of insta killing you). It's a blast to play, and will bring in scads of new players, especially 13 year olds who want to play a dragon-man.

I'm not sure about "scads" but this is a good opportunity to bring in new players, with fantasy games being mainstream and all (I think WoW is the marijuana to D&D's heroin). About 13 year olds being dragonmen, well, whatever floats their boats . I like the dragonmen too, and it was a while since I was 13 ~~.

4E is NOT D&D.

Not true .

For ME, 4E is not D&D.

True .

 

[kristov]

You know, I read alot of the positives and negatives of 4e before it came out - and I will say when we sat down at the table, and started our adventure:

1) ambushed by kobolds
2) visiting a small keep
3) staying at the inn
4) elves, halflings and dwarfs
5) wizards, fighters, paladins and clerics

It was D&D - maybe in a different format, but there is no doubt this is D&D. Everyone I play with agrees - and I still even have a few who arent sure if they like this better than 3.5 - but everyone knows its D&D - thats not really even a point of argument in my opinion.

 

[LordDamax]

You say it isn't D&D to you, neither was 3.X to me, at first, then once I was able to get into the rules and run it the way I wanted to run it, it became D&D, I have no doubt that 4E will play out the same way, We just have to get there.

Maybe. Time will tell. I do absolutely love many of the new rules and features. I LOVE how it gives melee's combat options. I love how it keeps casters from being worthless for the rest of the day after a spell or three at low levels. I love the cinematic feel to it.

I've always ran a hybrid game system. I wrote my own system based off 2E a long while back. Then 3E came out and I realized how much I loved it, and incorporated SO many of 3E's rules and systems into my game, people thought my game was a heavily house ruled 3E. Now with 4E? I am fo' sho' mixing in daily, encounter and at-will powers into my game. Not as heavily as 4E, but it'll be there. I want a fighter to be able to do something other than "attack". I like the idea of taking a short rest and recuperating your powers, instead of waiting until tomorrow...

My point with this thread was to say that TO ME, 4e is a really good system, but for what D&D has been to me since 6th grade when I got the red box set, it doesnt fit the bill. 1st-9th level spells. Magic items that arent 'slotted'. Your god healing you, not you just deciding to heal, etc... doesnt feel like D&D to me. But I'm absolutely ripping off entire chapters of rules I DO like to put into my game

Its a great game. Its just not D&D to me.

 

[med stud]

You know, I read alot of the positives and negatives of 4e before it came out - and I will say when we sat down at the table, and started our adventure:

1) ambushed by kobolds
2) visiting a small keep
3) staying at the inn
4) elves, halflings and dwarfs
5) wizards, fighters, paladins and clerics

It was D&D - maybe in a different format, but there is no doubt this is D&D. Everyone I play with agrees - and I still even have a few who arent sure if they like this better than 3.5 - but everyone knows its D&D - thats not really even a point of argument in my opinion.

I agree, a cathegorical statement that 4e is not D&D is objectively false. The owners of the IP says it's D&D, then it is D&D even if WotC made a car that's called D&D and dropped the RPG altogether.

Your feelings about what is D&D is another matter. Not that I understand the almost religious adherence to "what is D&D" but noone can tell you that your feelings are false.

 

[hewligan]

And this is a new thread ... why?

There is already a 4e opinion thread (well, lots actually)