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

[pemerton]

The biggest change was the unifying mechanic of d20 plus modifiers, higher is better. That made a lot of sense and was generally well-accepted. Additive multiclassing was more intuitive and more elegant than the 2E version. Feats didn't seem a big deal at first, just allowing for a bit of customization (I certainly didn't perceive how much of an impact Power Attack would make). 3E really didn't change any game design principles the way 4E looks to. Demihuman level limits almost never came into play in 2E, so removing them wasn't a big deal; opening up all classes to all races was interesting, but IME you still mostly saw dwarves as fighters, halfling as rogues, and elves as whatever they wanted to be -- just as in 2E.

I have to disagree with this very strongly.

3E radically changed the design of D&D. Whereas in AD&D character build was essentially uninteresting - for Fighters it consisted entirely of weapon selection (or NWPs if that optional rule was in use) - in 3E it is a huge part of the game (feats, skills, PrC etc - do you think that core AD&D could possibly give rise to a character optimisation board?).

Likewise, in AD&D action resolution itself was not the focus of gameplay - the combat rules were simple, and the non-combat rules handwaving at best - but rather the consequences of action resolution, often as adjudicated by the GM. In 3E action resolution is a huge part of play.

These two factors combine to lead to the complaint that 3E has neutered the GM.

The nature of adventure design has changed also between 1st ed and 3E, to reflect the changing role of the GM and the changing approach to character build and action resolution.

Compared to these radical changes, a few cosmetic changes to tropes - Dwarf paladins, 20th level Half-Orc thieves - were trivial aspects of the AD&D/3E transition.

 

[Lanefan]

My biggest concerns about 4e:
- That the DI will ultimately end up killing the tabletop game and taking its stuff - what is supposed to be a tool for playing the game ends up becoming the game
- That with 3 new core rulebooks a year the game system will never settle down long enough to play a decent-length campaign using current rules-as-written without having to change on the fly all the time
- That yet again no rules consideration will be given to running long (5+ year) campaigns
- PC power creep - if a party of 6 4th-level 4e PCs can obliterate a party of 6 4th-level 1e PCs 99 times out of 100 that's power creep, particularly if the same happens at every other level as well
- That too much flavour and quirkiness will be lost in the name of efficiency and streamlining

My biggest hopes (yes, I have some!) for 4e:
- That the DM regains her role as authority at her table, and such is clearly spelled out in the core books right from day 1
- That the rules are clearly noted as guidelines only, on which any DM can build or alter as she sees fit
- That the points-of-light setting ideal is held to throughout, rather than having each new release develop more and more points until all that's left is light (I'm looking at you, FR)
- That the release can re-invigorate gaming as a hobby the way 3e's release did
- That it is still recognizable as D+D, whatever that may require
*edit* - oh yeah, and STR-INT-WIS-DEX-CON-CHA in that bleepin' order!

Lanefan

 

[theredrobedwizard]

I'll be the first to confess. Now, who are my four accomplices?

Well, I guess I'm number 6.

My biggest concern is that they might try to cater to what I like to call "My grand-parent's D&D"*: hobbity halflings, ultra lethal combat, taking 6+ real life years to get to 20th level (single campaigns lasting this long, as well), and a whole lot of 'you've done something the DM doesn't like, 20d6 lightning bolt, no saving throw' crap that makes the game unfun (to me, at least).

If there are 5 people at the table, the players should be having 80% of the fun. I mean, as a DM, what the crap is the point of the game if my players aren't having fun?

My biggest question about 4th edition is, why didn't *I* get a playtest email?

-TRRW
*[edit: To clarify, my grandpa actually did play OD&D and several Wargames back in the 70s. He taught my dad, who taught me. I've been playing for 16 years now.]

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I guess I'm number 6.

My biggest concern is that they might try to cater to what I like to call "My grand-parent's D&D"*: hobbity halflings, ultra lethal combat, taking 6+ real life years to get to 20th level (single campaigns lasting this long, as well)...

You've just summed up my biggest hope! Hobbity halflings dying in ultra-lethal combat after taking 6 years to reach 20th level, here we come!

Seriously, campaigns lasting 6+ years are almost certain to be richer and more fulfilling than campaigns lasting 2- years...unless fulfillment is only measured by speed of level gain. When I design a campaign (which I don't do often, for obvious reasons) I design with the intent that it will last the rest of my life or until I get bored of it or until nobody wants to play...in other words, completely open-ended campaign lifespan.

Lanefan

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Seriously, campaigns lasting 6+ years are almost certain to be richer and more fulfilling than campaigns lasting 2- years...unless fulfillment is only measured by speed of level gain. When I design a campaign (which I don't do often, for obvious reasons) I design with the intent that it will last the rest of my life or until I get bored of it or until nobody wants to play...in other words, completely open-ended campaign lifespan.

Lanefan and I's D&D tastes are about as different as they come; yet we get along just fine. Why can't both sides of every argument be this amicable?

D&D campaigns like the one quoted above are what I like to call Soap Opera campaigns; there's a basic over arching plotline, but it keeps going until someone dies or the people involved get bored with it.

I prefer D&D campaigns to be like a TV show with a pre-planned, finite ending point. Something like an extended mini-series (24 episodes or so). This is why I enjoy the concept of Paizo's Pathfinder series so much; they'll last me about 6 months worth of gaming each before I can move on to something else.

I just can't fathom stretching a campaign on for that long (re: 6+ years). Heck, I'm pretty sure the longest campaign I've ever been involved in lasted about 13 months. Even *that* seemed to be stretching it.

I guess *my* biggest hope for 4e is that there's a way for both mine and Lanefan's expectations to be met, to a degree.

-TRRW

 

[Mouseferatu]

Seriously, campaigns lasting 6+ years are almost certain to be richer and more fulfilling than campaigns lasting 2- years...unless fulfillment is only measured by speed of level gain. When I design a campaign (which I don't do often, for obvious reasons) I design with the intent that it will last the rest of my life or until I get bored of it or until nobody wants to play...in other words, completely open-ended campaign lifespan.

I disagree, actually. My most fulfilling campaigns have lasted anywhere from six to fourteen months. I enjoy campaigns that have one or two major "plot arcs." That doesn't mean every game is involved in the main plot, just that the threads are there throughout. I find those more satisfying than completely open-ended campaigns, as both a player and a DM.

And it has nothing to do with speed of level gain, thank you.

 

[Stalker0]

My current belief is that a year to a year an a half is a perfect stretch for a long campaign, more than that tends to drag on. But this is also molded by the fact that higher levels get more and more tedious. If 4e can in fact deliver on streamlining and cleaning up higher levels, it may actually encourage longer campaigns.

 

[Reynard]

If there are 5 people at the table, the players should be having 80% of the fun. I mean, as a DM, what the crap is the point of the game if my players aren't having fun?

This is absolutely true, but by the same token the DM does 80% of the work and therefore it is incumbent upon the players to accept limitations and modifications based on the needs and desires of the DM. If the DM and the players can't come to an agreement regarding how much of which, then it is time for one or the other to move on. Maybe a player can step up to the plate and the DM can take a break. Maybe they all just hit the GSG boards and part ways. In either case, it is not the responsibility of the DM to bow to every whim of the players in order to make sure they are having fun -- player and DM definitions of fun need to match up.

It is also not the job of the rules set to codify everything in order to ensure that fun is equally distributed. It is impossible for one rulesset to cover every eventuality, especially in a fantasy adventure game.

 

[Reynard]

I guess *my* biggest hope for 4e is that there's a way for both mine and Lanefan's expectations to be met, to a degree.

Here, here. The problem is that the rules, inherent playstyle and implied setting need to be loose and generic enough to stretch from old skool krawling to anime-esque power creeping to low-key politicizing to empire building. the easiest way to make this happen is to limit the number of actual rules, making sure the various "implied setting" elements are suitably generic and to give the DM a wide latitude in defining the campaign he is going to run.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

3E radically changed the design of D&D. Whereas in AD&D character build was essentially uninteresting - for Fighters it consisted entirely of weapon selection (or NWPs if that optional rule was in use) - in 3E it is a huge part of the game (feats, skills, PrC etc - do you think that core AD&D could possibly give rise to a character optimisation board?).

Not core AD&D, no. But certainly the bloated mess that 2E had become was full of options for character optimization (such as two-weapon style specialization).