What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?

[Raven Crowking]

I agree with RC.

Careful.

That can get you in trouble around these parts.

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, Raven Crowking, I took a look at your RCFG project. As I said before, I've never played anything earlier than 3.5, but I've read about earlier editions and I find it interesting that your system is a seamless blend of the first three editions. I wish you luck with your project!

Thanks! Playtesting is showing a few bugs that need to be worked out, but that is the purpose of playtesting. Overall, I'm pretty happy with how the first draft is working. Definitely shows how a flatter power curve allows a wider "foot" to balance on!

But...do dwarven women really have to have beards, though?

The GM/players can change anything they want to.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sir, there are a couple of Grognards here that want to have a word with you. Carrying pitchforks and scythes.

Seeing as how the OP admits to having no experience with the game at its roots and entered the hobby with 3.5 we can put down our weapons.

 

[The Highway Man]

Careful.

That can get you in trouble around these parts.

I'm... sort of used to that at this point.

If anything, I guess I would have liked 4e to be much like C&C, but with a Skill system a bit more developed/back in, the same XP Chart for every character class (and thus a slightly more overt balance between them), a cleaned up feat selection, a more open explanation of the way each component of the game works with each other (designer commentaries of sort)... A 3rd edition lite, so to speak, that could have been expanded upon in any number of ways by its users.

Provided I would have wanted a 4e to be published at all, of course.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

For the most part, I wanted 4E to be... 4E.

If it were up to me, it would have been faster paced and more rules light, but thats about it.

 

[Vurt]

I think I would have been most satisfied with a 4e that had taken 3.5 and shoved it through the same sausage-making process that Star Wars Saga Edition came out of, instead of starting from first principles and rebuilding everything from the ground up.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I really wanted 4e to be the D&D that fit me. 3e doesn't fit me: the rules weren't transparent enough for easy houseruling, too many tactics, and too focused on resources. Earlier editions don't work for me: not enough flexibility in the rules, not enough of the sort of rules support that I need to houserule, still more resource management than I want, too many un-unified bits, and too much assumption about what kind of story you are telling.

4e came out and there is still too much focus on tactics and resources.

What I wanted from 4e was a game that finally said "To hell with tactics! Let the players jump all over the place. To hell with resources! Let the game participants decide based on their story when they need to stop. Because this is a game for telling stories with." And not just one kind of story, either. I wanted them to drop all their past assumptions about what the default D&D story-world was like and present something that allowed you to make up your own story-world.

So:
They would have dropped Attacks of Opportunity. They would have dropped every rule that needed a grid. They would have dropped all "per day" stuff. They would have dropped anything where you needed to track time. They would have dropped any need to track ammo, coinage, and XP. They would have dropped skill points or made them easier to use. And they would have made the rules clear enough that if you saw a problem still existing you knew what to do to fix it yourself.

It wouldn't be D&D to a whole lot of people, I know. And in my opinion that's half the point.

 

[Wormwood]

I wanted 4e to simply be a cleaner edition of D&D. Easier to play, and more importantly: easier to run. DMing 3.5 was a nightmare, and I would do anything for a little relief.

Suffice it to say, my expectations on that point were wildly exceeded.

But I also hoped that 4e would embrace more indie-RPG elements (like shared narrative control).

That said, I have other games to satisfy my inner gaming snob. 4e runs so well that I really don;t want to change a thing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I really wanted 4e to be the D&D that fit me. 3e doesn't fit me: the rules weren't transparent enough for easy houseruling, too many tactics, and too focused on resources. Earlier editions don't work for me: not enough flexibility in the rules, not enough of the sort of rules support that I need to houserule, still more resource management than I want, too many un-unified bits, and too much assumption about what kind of story you are telling.

Or assumptions that you are playing to tell a story perhaps.

I agree with your assertion that the 4E rules are too fiddly and detailed.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Or assumptions that you are playing to tell a story perhaps.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that part. Thanks.