What is your top question/concern about 4th edition?

[JVisgaitis]

I think someone needs to go back and read the Design and Development article that includes the dragon fight. I mean, wow...

I don't see what the big deal is. There is a lot of new abilities and such, yeah but it doesn't feel any less D&D to me. What is it about that fight that bugs you so much? If they bring cool ideas and abilities to the table I'm all for it.

Not to hijack the thread further (too late), but I'd love to discuss this with you further, since it seems we got something completely different out of the trilogy.

Yeah, my bad. I owe you an email anyway... One is coming your way in a bit.

 

[breschau]

The wizard tradition fluff being hard-wired into the rules.

 

[pemerton]

My biggest concerns with 4e are a) it will not be easily adapted "back" to what D&D actually is (at least for me and those that started the game in the "olden days") and b) it will continue the trend of removing right and responsibility from the DM in favor of giving those things to the players.

I think this trend will continue. First, it sells books (to every player, rather than just to every GM), and so is commercially attractive. Second, it fits with the emphasis on character build as a key part of the play experience. Third, and not-unrelated, it can be seen as a response to the problem of arbitrary GM-ing, which is perceived as afflicting D&D more than other systems. I believe that this perception is to some extent accurate, and that it is a result of the 1st ed DMG's emphasis on the play experience being determined by the GM's world-building and play adjudication, rather than by the mechanics of build and action-resolution.

I see most 3E rules "innovations" as primarily extensions and regularizing of design principles already laid down in 1E and (especially) 2E. What had previously been special cases (if you belong to this elven sub-race, you can have unlimited advancement as a magic-user, etc.) were now made the norm.

Perhaps this is a bit abstract, but, to me anyway, while 3E does not, as you rightly say, have the same system as previous editions, it still feels like the same game. It still has (most of) the same sensibilities and flavor.

One thing about 3rd edition, though, is that my style of game didn't change drastically. Just about anything that could be done in 2nd edition could be duplicated in 3rd edition, which was pretty key to me.

It's not the same system, but to me it feels like the same game. I should note that 90% of my play has been "core rules only", which probably has a big impact. However, for me, a lot of what makes D&D into D&D (and not just "OGL Fantasy 1") is encapsulated into those sacred cows that some people seem so keen to slaughter: AC, HP, Vancian magic, LG-only Paladins, nine levels of (arcane) spells.

When I compare 3E to 1st ed AD&D I don't really see the same game. Some of the tropes are the same - dwarves, elves, wizards, clerics, alignments etc - but the way in which the mechanics drive the play is very different. Unlike 1st ed, play in 3E is very much driven by the mechanics of character build and action-resolution. And the role of the GM in shaping the play experience is therefore, and of necessity, downplayed.

Three examples to try and illustrate this. Pertaining to the role of character build: (i) in 3E character build becomes a very important part of the play experience, whereas in AD&D character build was trivial (in the 1st ed PHB, for a fighter, choice of weapon is about the only decision to be made) and character individuation depended on in-play exploits rather than mechanical differences; (ii) there is nothing in 3E analogous to the CHA-based henchment rules of AD&D, which led to each player controlling a mini-party rather than just one characters (Leadership, with its feat and level pre-req, is not really equivalent in my view).

Pertaining to the role of action-resolution: The PHB for 3E is dominated by intricate combat rules, followed closely (in terms of intricacy) by rules for skill points and the use of skills. At the same time there is a dearth of advice on equipping for and carrying out a dungeon exploration. But it was precisely such advice, and not rules for action resolution, that were the guts of the play (as opposed to character) sections of the 1st ed PHB.

I'm not saying that these changes to the relationship between the GM, the mechanics and the play experience are either good or bad - but I do believe that they are real.

All I want is a system that lets me play the kinds of games I played with 1E, just more smoothly, easier, and higher definition (i.e. rogues have skills rather than set abilities, multiclassing works better, swashbucklers are workable, etc.). I don't want Exalted, Earthdawn, Legend of the Five Rings, or any other fantasy game.

I suspect you may be able to, but it will become increasingly difficult - just as 3E doesn't support AD&D-style play as well as AD&D did (I think Monte Cook's column on this is very apposite).

 

[breschau]

You *are* old school, aren't ya bro? I too fondly remember this traditional order of attributes. Ah, to be age 10 in 1981 again . . .

I have to stop myself from typing magic-user every time I mean wizard. And he's right, the stats have been out of order for far too long.

 

[delericho]

I'm about to the point where I want the whole thing to crater, and the brand to be cancelled.

Why on Earth would you hope for that? If you don't like it, don't play it. But why hope that the people who do like 4e should be denied their game of choice?

Unless, of course, you hold the hope that a cancellation would lead to a sale, another new edition, and a return to what D&D 'should' be. In which case, I'm afraid the odds do not look at all good. Consider:

Hasbro have always been reluctant to part with IP once they control it. And the peripheral licenses (video games, movies, TV, novels, miniatures) for D&D are much more valuable than the RPG property itself is. So, unless Bill Gates turns out to be a closet gamer, or one of us wins big on the lottery, and are willing to pay well over the true value of the thing, I don't see Hasbro selling.

No, when Peter Adkinson sold Wizards, he tied D&D to Hasbro permanently. (I'm not saying that was a bad thing. I'm not saying it was a good thing. I'm just making the completely unfounded assertion that it is a thing.)

Perhaps more likely is that a mid-tier RPG company (perhaps Paizo or Green Ronin) might license the rights to create a new edition. This is possible, but then they'd be paying Hasbro for the rights to the name. They'd still have to front all the costs for developing and marketing the new edition. And, regardless of what happened there'd be a very real chance that Hasbro would elect not to renew the license in 5 years.

Alternatively, they could simply take the SRD and develop their own OGL Fantasy game. There would be no license fees, no worries over license renewals, total creative control, and no D&D to have to compete with. Sounds like the winning strategy to me.

Of course, there is the question of whether the marketplace would embrace such a game without the D&D name. There is also a question of whether the market would even survive in a meaningful manner if D&D were to disappear. (My gut feeling is that the marketplace would support one such game... but that we'd probably see at least three. The ensuing 'format war' might well kill all three.)

No, I cannot see cancellation as being anything but the end for D&D.

 

[delericho]

And following on from my previous post, my #3 concern for 4e:

That it will be a truly excellent game, but that the Digital Initiative will tank and take the game with it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Making characters more magical :/ I think that should be an option.

 

[GlassJaw]

My first concern is that 4E will suck.

Barring that, my other general concern is that the core books won't be "generic" enough. I don't want the PHB to read like the house rules of someone's new campaign world.

I'd much prefer "Fire Wizard" to Wizard of the Order of the Phoenix or whatever.

 

[Vlos]

That in their statement they are going to make it more like WOW, they are going to make it into WOW.

That is using a skill point system, where weapons use skills, staves wands, etc. You will have skill in each of these (along with everything else as in WOW) and based upon your skill you will roll a die (possibly d20, but more likely d100) and add that to your skill to see if you hit.

They already have that game... It's named Role Master and commonly called ROLL Master for a reason...

 

[Jackelope King]

That it's going to fall short of being a great game because it tries to hold onto the wrong D&Disms.