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

[pemerton]

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

I'm pretty confident that this won't happen.

As I said in my earlier post, the authority of the GM in AD&D is a consequence of the fact that the mechanics play very little role in the AD&D play experience - character build is a non-event, and action resolution not much more (except for 1st ed DMG non-lethal combat). It is all about the players grappling with the challenges posed by the GM, and the GM deciding whether or not the players' ingenuity will be rewarded. This is demonstrated by the fact that the "playing the game" section of the PHB is devoted primarily to effective techniques of dungeon exploration.

4e, on the other hand, will continue 3e's emphasis on character build (and will increase it, by putting race into the mix in a more complicated way) and action resolution systems (which will also become more intricate, with the changes to resource management for all classes). The mechanics will therefore continue to be at the centre of the play experience. In such a system, the GM will never have the same role as that conferred by AD&D.

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.

Again, a system with the mechanical emphases of 3E/4e will not support old-school play. Old-school play is about the players planning their expedition, equipping their characters with iron spikes, using their own knowledge of the dungeon environment, deciding when to use their (sparse) resources and when to run away.

4e will continue to emphasise character build and resolution of character actions. In such a system, the players optimise their characters and the use of their skills. When it comes to success on an expedition, it is the character who makes the in-game decisions, while the player simply refers to ranks in Search or Survival or Knowledge (Dungeoneering).

The new social mechanics will probably complete this transformation, by turning social interaction - the last sphere of play in which many people still use an old-style approach - in to a sphere in which success, for the players, will depend upon build optimisation and effective use of the action resolution mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Thanks.

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.

Actually, in mine there'll be one overarching plotline that eventually gets resolved, leading to another...but it's the same characters and-or identifyable party (or parties) throughout.

In my Riveria game, for example, there were a bunch of overarching plotlines that interwove sometimes:

1a. Kingdom overthrow prevention, led to
2. Amber keys series, led back to
1b. Kingdom overthrow prevention and resulting mop-up, led to
3. Asgeir's saga series, led to
[various unrelated adventures including a time-travel adventure back to kingdom overthrow], led to
4a. Swords of hope series, in conjunction with
4b. Hobgoblin army thaw-out prevention series, led to
5. Giant invasion, led to
6a. The Gith prequels (The Coldwood Menace, Attack of the Bones, Revenge of the Gith), and
6b. Drow series.

Each of those noted series represents at least 3 distinct adventures, and there were quite a few unrelated adventures in between times. For much of this there were two parties (or more) running concurrently, and a few characters lasted almost from beginning to end (and *many* more did not). That's a 12-year campaign, using modified 1e.

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.

As a player, 6 months in I'm just getting settled down. Also, if there's a predefined end in place right from the start that just seems so...*limiting*, somehow.

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.

As long as you've got a good story that can lead in to another good story, you can keep going as long as the players are willing. But if you're running 3e (or 4e) you *have* to slow down the advancement rate to a crawl or else you'll have characters at stratospheric levels with your campaign only half-done.

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.

Agreed, and they can go a long way towards such by simply presenting two advancement tables...a fast and a slow...and some sidebar notes on how to effectively run long campaigns.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I'm pretty confident that this won't happen. [...]

Again, a system with the mechanical emphases of 3E/4e will not support old-school play. Old-school play is about the players planning their expedition, equipping their characters with iron spikes, using their own knowledge of the dungeon environment, deciding when to use their (sparse) resources and when to run away. [...]

The new social mechanics will probably complete this transformation, by turning social interaction - the last sphere of play in which many people still use an old-style approach - in to a sphere in which success, for the players, will depend upon build optimisation and effective use of the action resolution mechanics.

That is so sad. "Build optimisation" is, to me, a low priority...I want to pretty much just roll some dice and go. A character's character should come from it's character (now *there's* a mouthful!) rather than its "build"; and using action resolution mechanics to handle social situations kind of defeats the purpose of a "role-playing" game, doesn't it?

Lane-"always in character"-fan

 

[Reynard]

and using action resolution mechanics to handle social situations kind of defeats the purpose of a "role-playing" game, doesn't it?

Not if it protects the poor innocent players from the mean old fiating DM...

 

[Lanefan]

Not if it protects the poor innocent players from the mean old fiating DM...

So what you're saying is:

Real DMs Drive Fiats!

Lanefan

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

and using action resolution mechanics to handle social situations kind of defeats the purpose of a "role-playing" game, doesn't it?

I'm a big fan of in-character stuff, but no more so than not conducting fights with boffer weapons and hired extras.

 

[delericho]

Again, a system with the mechanical emphases of 3E/4e will not support old-school play. Old-school play is about the players planning their expedition, equipping their characters with iron spikes, using their own knowledge of the dungeon environment, deciding when to use their (sparse) resources and when to run away.

I completely disagree with your assertion. Since the 'old-school' style you describe is rules-neutral, it won't matter what the rules actually say, if the group as a whole want to play in that style then they will. If the DM wants to play in that style but the players don't then there will be a problem... but that's a problem of conflicting styles, and not an issue of the system not supporting a given style.

Simply put: do we really need the rules to talk about purchasing, and proper use of, iron spikes for it to support an 'old school' style? Surely not!

4e will continue to emphasise character build and resolution of character actions. In such a system, the players optimise their characters and the use of their skills. When it comes to success on an expedition, it is the character who makes the in-game decisions, while the player simply refers to ranks in Search or Survival or Knowledge (Dungeoneering).

1e: The player says, "there might be a trap here," the thief rolls Find Traps.

3e: The player says, "there might be a trap here," the Rogue (or perhaps another character) rolls Search.

How is that in any way different?

Unless, of course, the party are in the habit of simply searching everywhere... in which case you eliminate the player talking at all, and go straight to the rolls, in both cases.

Where there is a (potential) issue in 3.x is that there is no penalty for a failed Search check - if the Rogue fails to find a trap he doesn't run a risk of setting it off by mistake. Thus, the Rogue can always 'take 20' on those Search rolls, which is unforunate.

However, to sort this, one can House Rule 3e with two simple rules:

1) If a Search check fails to find a trap by 5 or more, it sets it off.

2) Knowledge (dungeoneering) does not exist.

... and the problem is solve. Given the extremely minor nature of these rules, I submit that the existing rules system does support that 'old school' style, if it is what the whole group wants.

And I cannot imagine 4e being any different. Yes, there will be more character-building options in the game... but if the group is so inclined they will be able to short-cut much of that by always taking the next talent in the tree, and only using feats, spells and options from the core rules (defining 'core' the old school way, of course ). Of course, having not seen 4e, I might be completely wrong about this... but I would be very surprised.

 

[pemerton]

That is so sad. "Build optimisation" is, to me, a low priority...I want to pretty much just roll some dice and go. A character's character should come from it's character (now *there's* a mouthful!) rather than its "build"; and using action resolution mechanics to handle social situations kind of defeats the purpose of a "role-playing" game, doesn't it?

I don't know if it defeats the purpose - I mostly play RM, which has (admittedly fairly skimpy) social encounter mechanics. But I think it takes away the "old school" feel.

And I agree that there is a difference between a character whose character comes from it character, and one whose character comes from its build. My feeling is that 4e will continue the trend in the second direction.

Not if it protects the poor innocent players from the mean old fiating DM

And there's the condundrum right there. Replacing GM fiat with mechanics is simultaneously shifting the focus of play from the players interacting with the situation set up by the GM, using their PCs as vehicles (which I take to be typical of AD&D) to a focus on mechanics (build and action resolution). And that means no "old school" feel.

Simply put: do we really need the rules to talk about purchasing, and proper use of, iron spikes for it to support an 'old school' style? Surely not!

In my view, no new players, reading the 3E core rules, would be able to produce a game in which iron spikes are a key item of play. No new player, reading the 1st ed AD&D PHB, could fail to grasp their centrality to play.

I completely disagree with your assertion. Since the 'old-school' style you describe is rules-neutral, it won't matter what the rules actually say, if the group as a whole want to play in that style then they will.

I agree that a group can play old-style if they want - they could even do that using HeroQuest or The Dying Earth. But it doesn't follow it's a rules neutral matter. Rules can push in a certain direction without being determinative if a group wants to go in a different direction.

Of course, it's possible we mean something different by "old-school". I hope it's clear I don't mean just dungeon-bashing and "kick down the door" play - after all, Tunnels and Trolls also supports this. I mean operational play, where the emphasis is on the players' planning, problem solving and resource management. This is what I think 4e will not support.

1e: The player says, "there might be a trap here," the thief rolls Find Traps.

3e: The player says, "there might be a trap here," the Rogue (or perhaps another character) rolls Search.

How is that in any way different?

That's not - but you've helped yourself to about the best example that can be given. And the old modules often give some indication of how the trap works, or how the secret door opens, which implies that if a player states that their PC is searching in a certain place, or looking for a certain thing, then they find it regardless of the result of the dice roll.

But let's go to the opposite end of the spectrum - 1st ed AD&D takes it for granted that it is up to the players to explain how it is that they are protecting themselves against ear seekers, checking for trappers and lurkers above, securing the door of the room they are resting in against intrusion, distracting the monsters they are trying to escape from, etc. But in 3E a character with ranks in Survival or Knowledge (Dungeoneering) or Profession (Dungeon Explorer) or whatever the relevant skill is would be quite entitled to expect a successful role against a DC to resolve these issues - that is, relying on effective character build (and thus the player's mechanical skill) rather than player choices during play (and thus the player's operational skill).

Knowledge (dungeoneering) does not exist.

That can be done (and logic suggests that the Survival skill also should go, presumably leaving Search to handle Tracking). In effect this solution pushes the game (however slightly) back in the direction of 1st ed, by reducing the importance of character build and action resolution mechanics in one particular domain of play. But at this point you will get the standard complaint: to play an effective fighter I don't need to know anything about fighting, so why do I need to know anything about dungeoneering to play an effective dungeoneer? Without prejudging the proper answer to that complaint, I think it is not obviously absurd - it is a natural complaint to make in a system that emphasises character build and action resolution in the way that 3E does.

And I cannot imagine 4e being any different. Yes, there will be more character-building options in the game... but if the group is so inclined they will be able to short-cut much of that by always taking the next talent in the tree, and only using feats, spells and options from the core rules (defining 'core' the old school way, of course ). Of course, having not seen 4e, I might be completely wrong about this... but I would be very surprised.

I'm not meaning to be dogmatic - so I agree that a group might be able to use 4e for old-school play. But (i) I don't think this would be very easy if the group contained new players, because the rules will not even indicate that this is a possible style of play, whereas the 1st ed PHB canvassed very little else; (ii) I think the inclusion of social challenge mechanics, and the (likely) inclusion of environmental challenge mechanics, will get in the way (the point of the bizarre rooms and corridors in a module like White Plume Mountain was not to trigger a raft of skill checks, but to trigger a flurry of activity on the part of the players, as they, not their PCs, try to come up with solutions); (iii) as was discussed to death on another thread, the introduciton of per-encounter resources will significantly reduce the operational dimensions of play (and are likely especially to change the play experience for the players of Wizard PCs); (iv) I wonder to some extent why someone wanting to enjoy old-school play would use 4e.

I imagine this post will not change your mind that I'm wrong, but I hope it helps you see where I'm coming from in thinking about the sort of play that the rules do or don't support.

 

[delericho]

In my view, no new players, reading the 3E core rules, would be able to produce a game in which iron spikes are a key item of play. No new player, reading the 1st ed AD&D PHB, could fail to grasp their centrality to play.

Two things:

1) If a new player joins an existing 'old school' group, then the rest of the group can bring him up to speed on the style they use. If a new player joins a new group, surely it doesn't matter whether the game impresses on them the importance of iron spikes - they'll develop their own style natually, and if they're having fun why does it matter?

2) I don't get why iron spikes are so essential to having an 'old school' style, and yet you've mentioned them three times? Note that I haven't read the 1st Edition books (I went from BD&D -> 2nd Ed -> 3e), but the DCC and Necromancer modules I've seen don't put undue emphasis on them. Is there something I've missed?

But it doesn't follow it's a rules neutral matter. Rules can push in a certain direction without being determinative if a group wants to go in a different direction.

You're right. My mistake.

And the old modules often give some indication of how the trap works, or how the secret door opens, which implies that if a player states that their PC is searching in a certain place, or looking for a certain thing, then they find it regardless of the result of the dice roll.

The best of the new modules should do that also. Although I'm inclined to think that the clues should tell you where to check, and maybe a bonus, rather than give automatic success. If the players fail to specify they're checking, the clues should also be obvious in hindsight - a trap generally shouldn't 'come out of nowhere'.

But let's go to the opposite end of the spectrum - 1st ed AD&D takes it for granted that it is up to the players to explain how it is that they are protecting themselves against ear seekers, checking for trappers and lurkers above, securing the door of the room they are resting in against intrusion, distracting the monsters they are trying to escape from, etc.

Okay...

But at this point you will get the standard complaint: to play an effective fighter I don't need to know anything about fighting, so why do I need to know anything about dungeoneering to play an effective dungeoneer?

But, to put not too fine a point on it: isn't that a valid question? The players aren't supposed to know the contents of the various Monster Manuals (for 'sense of wonder' reasons), so how are they to know there even are such things as ear creepers, lurkers above, and so forth?

And so, I would argue that those ranks in Knowledge: Dungeoneering should be used for precisely that: the DM should inform the players in question of some of the likely hazards, with brief synopses, and then let them determine their responses accordingly. And, of course, the completeness of the information should depend on the quality of the roll - perhaps a marginal success only gives incomplete information, or gives a lot of 'false positive' results.

And, in fact, that's entirely the intent of the skill: you might know about these things, but that doesn't necessarily imply that you actually apply that knowledge!

I'm not meaning to be dogmatic - so I agree that a group might be able to use 4e for old-school play. But (i) I don't think this would be very easy if the group contained new players, because the rules will not even indicate that this is a possible style of play, whereas the 1st ed PHB canvassed very little else;

As I noted above, I would think a new player joining an 'old school' group would be brought up to speed by the existing players. They won't fit in right away... but they wouldn't in 1e either, most likely.

(ii) I think the inclusion of social challenge mechanics,

I'm with you on this one, to an extent. My prediction, though, is that these mechanics will not get used very often. Instead, we'll see what we've seen in every edition thus far: the DM's good buddy Al, who is playing the Cha 5 Half-orc Barbarian, will use his own natural charm and way with words, and his relationship with the DM, to work through every 'social challenge' encounter in the game.

and the (likely) inclusion of environmental challenge mechanics, will get in the way (the point of the bizarre rooms and corridors in a module like White Plume Mountain was not to trigger a raft of skill checks, but to trigger a flurry of activity on the part of the players, as they, not their PCs, try to come up with solutions);

My prediction here is the opposite: that the inclusion of these mechanics will make it easier for the DM to include these effects, but that it will still be incumbent on the players to come up with solutions. And, barring standard effects (tilting floors, pit traps, teleport squares), Knowledge: Dungeoneering will be of little to no use. And, really, it should work on the standard stuff, since we've all seen it hundreds of times, so so will the adventurers of the world. It's time to come up with new stuff.

the introduciton of per-encounter resources will significantly reduce the operational dimensions of play

It will significantly change them, but I'm not sure about reduce. At present, it's all too common to see the party expend all their resources on one big encounter, then break for the day. And then repeat. There's no resource management there at all.

The new edition will shift some of that, so that the spellcasters are never truly out of resources, so there is motivation to continue the adventure. Which in turn gives them incentive to not blow everything on that first encounter. Which would be nice.

Or, we'll see absolutely no change: the party will exhaust their "per day" resources in the first encounter, and then break for the day. Which would not surprise me in the least, and which I would find frankly hilarious.

I wonder to some extent why someone wanting to enjoy old-school play would use 4e.

Hopefully, the mechanics for the rest of the system will be considerably better than anything that has gone before. If they are not, then I agree entirely with your point - might as well stick with what you know, since it works.

 

[Reynard]

But, to put not too fine a point on it: isn't that a valid question? The players aren't supposed to know the contents of the various Monster Manuals (for 'sense of wonder' reasons), so how are they to know there even are such things as ear creepers, lurkers above, and so forth?

Mostly by getting whacked with them or watching one of their associates get whacked with them.

I think it is worth pointing out that "old school" play isn't for everyone. In fact, based on the fact that each edition has reduced its importance, it isn't for most people. It makes sense that 4E should concentrate on the style of play that will reach the widest audience.

But that doesn't make it an invalid playstayle, or presume that players and DMs should try and force 4E to do it. Rather, by cutting off that playstyle with 4E, WotC is cutting off a segment of its potential consumers, who will either start raiding ebay, Troll and Toad or Noble Knight Games for old school games, or who will jump ship to a different company producing "modern old school" games.

My prediction here is the opposite: that the inclusion of these mechanics will make it easier for the DM to include these effects, but that it will still be incumbent on the players to come up with solutions. And, barring standard effects (tilting floors, pit traps, teleport squares), Knowledge: Dungeoneering will be of little to no use. And, really, it should work on the standard stuff, since we've all seen it hundreds of times, so so will the adventurers of the world. It's time to come up with new stuff.

It depends on how the mechanics are implemented. If a skill check allows the PCs to overcome the challenge, the player is motivated only to go for a mechanical solution. And if it is reduced to a die roll, a lot of folks won't bother with it at all.

It will significantly change them, but I'm not sure about reduce. At present, it's all too common to see the party expend all their resources on one big encounter, then break for the day. And then repeat. There's no resource management there at all.

That's a function of the fact that the "old school" playstyle is on the outs, not a weakness in the system. A fundamental definition of "old school" is managing your resources -- not blowing all your limited resources in the first encounter because you know there is more to be done. You get through with wit and grit and carefully used resources, not by expending every fireball in your memory bank.

The new edition will shift some of that, so that the spellcasters are never truly out of resources, so there is motivation to continue the adventure. Which in turn gives them incentive to not blow everything on that first encounter. Which would be nice.

It depends on whether the few remaining per-day resources are big guns or not. if they are, you may be right -- if the wizard can get by on his at-will zap-em power in an encounter, he might do so and save the big gun for later.

Part of this has to do with actual adventure designa nd how players interact with that design. Short, linear dungeons -- the kind we have seen a lot of in 3e, up until the Expeditions series -- suggest there's a "boss" right around the corner and players can prepare with a specific encounter in mind. they aren't exploring so much as running a gauntlet toward the big fight. This engenders a certain kind of resource management, of course, but it is a different kind than an open, diverse dungeon environment where the PCs don't know what's around the corner and are there to explore.