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

[EricNoah]

My biggest concerns are a) the electronic support (particularly the character generator); the relative power level between editions (if I grab a 3E adventure, how easy will it be to convert -- can I put a 4E wizard in where a 3E wizard of the same level was?); and the balance between streamlining/ simplifying and yet providing interesting (and optional) complexity when desired.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I suppose my top question/concern about 4e is this: how will the changes to fluff affect the rules?

 

[pemerton]

Delericho, thanks for your reply. Most of what Reynard said I agree with, so I'll just pick up one one part of your post.

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?

I picked on iron spikes (it could equally well have been the 10' pole) just because I find them deeply illustrative of the difference between "old school" play (as I understand it) and contemporary play. (If by "old school" one only means the tropes of dungeon-bashing, somewhat arbitrary collections of creatures and so on, then I have no doubt that 4e will fully support such play. It is the operational aspect of play that I am meaning to pick out with this term.)

As an item of equipment, iron spikes are used to secure dungeon doors from the inside, so that monsters cannot get in. Thus, they are only relevant to a game in which (i) the PCs explore dungeons, (ii) the PCs spend time resting in dungeons, (iii) the dungeon is populated by wandering monsters who, when they come to a door they can't open, will simply wander off elsewhere, (iv) the players are happy to spend play time working out an equipment list (and at low levels, before they have bags of holding, their encumbrance), and to describe the details of the camp they make and the techniques they use to secure that camp.

Of the 3rd ed adventures from WoTC, I can't think of a single one that supports anything like this style of play. (Likewise for 2nd ed adventures from TSR, but I don't know as many of them.) It may be that the Necromancer and Dungeon Crawl Classics modules do encourage this sort of play - by having lots of empty rooms, a large number of essentially static room inhabitants (or at best inhabitants who react within narrow geographic confines) - but to me that gives rise to the question, if a significant part of the play experience is this sort of operational planning and decision-making, which draws on the players' knowledge (but not mechanical knowledge of the game) and intelligence, why bother with a character-build system that puts so much effort into detailing the PC's knowledge and abilities, and requires so much effort at mechanical mastery before it becomes fully playable?

Given the effort the 4e designers are going to to make sure that every player has something to do every round of every encounter (by changing the resource management paradigm, and eliminating the need for the player of a wizard to choose between "I do nothing" in order to conserve spells, or nova-ing and completely outshinging the fighters), I expect 4e to have even more complex mechanics (from the perspective of PC build and PC choices during encounters) and therefore to be an even less attractive ruleset if the aim of the game is to challenge the players' operational skills rather than their mastery of the game mechanics.

Btw, this is not meant to be either a defence or a criticism of either "old school" or 4e. It's simply an attempt to explain why I don't think that the two will mix all that well.

 

[delericho]

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

Yeah, but wait a second...

Group #1 goes into the dungeon. No-one prepares for ear creepers. Someone dies. The party henceforth prepares for them.

When the replacement character joins the party, he prepares for ear creepers. Why? Out-of-character, because his player knows they exist. In-character, it is because the survivors tell the new character to beware.

So far, so good.

But, suppose the player of the dead character left the group (for whatever reason), and a new player joined. In this case, the new character still prepares for ear creepers. Why? Well, because out-of-character the existing players tell the new character to prepare. In-character, it's because the experienced characters tell the new character to beware.

This all still makes sense.

Now, suppose at some later point there is a TPK. The party starts over at 1st level, with new characters.

Group #2 enters the dungeon. The characters all prepare for ear creepers. Why? Well, out-of-character, it's because the players know they exist. In-character it's because...?

Two possibilities exist. The first is that the group metagames, because running through the cycle of "we lose a PC to ear creepers so the rest of us can learn the lesson" is a pointless waste of time. The second, and more sane, approach is "we heard about ear creepers from a retired ex-adventurer/some buddy in the army/around the campfire".

Which is great... except that we then raise the question: why exactly did the original party not have the same priviledge? They, too, must have been trained somewhere.

From a world-building point of view, it only makes sense that skilled experts in the field would talk. Common hazards would become known to those in the trade, and those who want to join the trade would be briefed on them by the masters with whom they train. In effect, Knowledge(dungeoneering) would exist, and it makes far more sense from a world-building point of view that it exists than that it does not.

And then there's the sanity check: if a person wants to go climb a mountain, he doesn't just pull on a coat and go climb it. Instead, he prepares himself: he speaks to people who climb mountains (and, ideally, have climbed that mountain). He makes sure he has prepared himself mentally and physically. He then goes and acquires the right equipment for the job. He potentially hires a local guide. And so on. In effect, he gains ranks in Knowledge(mountaineering).

So, if dungeoneering is at least as dangerous, why on earth would a novice character not do the same?

Now, you could go through the process of requiring the players to do all this. They have to travel the taverns of the world, and make extensive enquiries about dungeon dangers, the relative merits of Everlast and Holdfast iron spikes, the best way to shield a lantern from detection, and so on....

or you could just handwave it, stick a couple of ranks in Knowledge(dungeoneering), and actually get and play the game. When about to enter the dungeon, you make the roll, the DM lists a handful of possible hazards (some or all of which may be present... and the list may not be complete), and then you decide how your character is going to protect himself.

Frankly, the latter seems like a far more elegant solution, not to mention one that's going to be more fun.

I think it is worth pointing out that "old school" play isn't for everyone...

But that doesn't make it an invalid playstayle

No, of course.

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.

There's some truth in that. The way the system should work is that solutions exist, but it is for the players to determine which ones to try. Once they have selected a course of action, though, there absolutely should be some mechanical means for resolving that attempt. In effect, the players choose which dice rolls to attempt.

I'll certainly agree that the existing Search and Disable Device rolls for handling traps are a poor mechanic. In effect, it doesn't matter if the trap is a black bolt of disintegration, a poisoned needle in a lock, or whirling blades of death - the Rogue searches, then he disables the trap, and we're done.

But then, Wizards have already noted this weakness, in their Design & Development column, and the "encounter traps" from Dungeonscape. This would suggest, therefore, that they're actually doing more to support old school gaming than the existing edition, at least in this one respect.

Basically, I take the view that the "old school" style of play should be about how the rules for these things should be applied, and not about either omitting or nerfing those rules. Search checks really should reveal any and all traps (subject to the DC being set appropriately), but it is for the players to determine where and when to Search, and then to determine what they'll do about the trap.

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.

In principle, I agree that this is the way the game should be. But once again, we hit a sanity check issue.

If you were a would-be adventurer, and were heading into the dungeon with a limited set of resouces that renewed each day, and assuming you had no fixed time limit for your explorations, would you not take things extremely slowly, extremely carefully, and in effect do precisely what groups now do: that is, expend almost all of your resources on a small number of encounters (probably one), whether in the form of buffs, fireballs, or healing, and then retreat and rest to prepare for the next section of your quest?

After all, you've brought along your iron spikes, so you can fasten doors shut from the inside, and hole up reasonably well...

I picked on iron spikes (it could equally well have been the 10' pole) just because I find them deeply illustrative of the difference between "old school" play (as I understand it) and contemporary play.

Okay, understood. I was just wondering if I was missing some key insight.

(iv) the players are happy to spend play time working out an equipment list (and at low levels, before they have bags of holding, their encumbrance), and to describe the details of the camp they make and the techniques they use to secure that camp.

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Although I'm curious how long the interest in that could be sustained before the party develops a set of standard operating procedures which they mostly follow thereafter. I fear it may not be too much fun for them to rattle off the same list of precautions they've used every time thus far, once they're on the hundredth or so iteration.

I guess a good game (old school or not) will keep mixing up the challenges, so those SOP should only be part of the play...

Of the 3rd ed adventures from WoTC, I can't think of a single one that supports anything like this style of play.

True. There are some (mostly low-level) dungeons in Dungeon magazine that support that sort of thing. Mostly, though, the game has moved to objective-based adventures, where dungeons are small, and the details of the crawl are considered routine.

So, old school is no longer the default style. But it is available if you want it, IMO. And, yes, I think some of the DCCs and Necromancer modules are better in this regard, from the old school point of view.

if a significant part of the play experience is this sort of operational planning and decision-making, which draws on the players' knowledge (but not mechanical knowledge of the game) and intelligence, why bother with a character-build system that puts so much effort into detailing the PC's knowledge and abilities, and requires so much effort at mechanical mastery before it becomes fully playable?

There are two reasons for this:

1) The rules really don't need to legislate for player skill. The advice in the 1st Edition PHB is all well and good, but for players who've been around for a while, it could be ripped out of the book entirely and the game would play the same.

2) Character build options sell books.

I'll certainly agree with you that the closer one stays to the core rules in 3.x, the easier it is to do "old school".

eliminating the need for the player of a wizard to choose between "I do nothing" in order to conserve spells, or nova-ing and completely outshinging the fighters...

If that genuinely were the case, I would have to say: that game sucks!

However, other proponents of the old school style have been quick to point out that the Wizard shouldn't ever actually be 'doing nothing' - he should be sniping with his crossbow, moving for position, or guiding the tactical situation so that the enemy are placed perfectly for his nova action to end the encounter.

And I'll agree that some of that has been lost with 3.x, and it looks like some more will be lost for 4e. How much remains to be seen.

Btw, this is not meant to be either a defence or a criticism of either "old school" or 4e. It's simply an attempt to explain why I don't think that the two will mix all that well.

Again, understood. I do quite often feel it would be nice to get a chance to play in (rather than DM) an old school game. Unfortunately, every time I sit down with a DM who claims to run in that style, it seems to devolve into them running a random deathtrap, and bypassing or ignoring the rules, because it's just so much easier to screw players over than it is to run a thoughtful and well put together game.

 

[pemerton]

<snip well-presented prelude>

Which is great... except that we then raise the question: why exactly did the original party not have the same priviledge? They, too, must have been trained somewhere.

From a world-building point of view, it only makes sense that skilled experts in the field would talk.

<snip>

or you could just handwave it, stick a couple of ranks in Knowledge(dungeoneering), and actually get and play the game.

<snip>

Frankly, the latter seems like a far more elegant solution, not to mention one that's going to be more fun.

As it happens I share your playing preferences. But I don't really feel them to be old-school preferences (I don't mean for that to be an offensive remark, so I hope it's not - I've already tried to indicate what I mean by "old-school"). Introducing those sorts of world-building constraints is what made systems like RM or RQ attractive as alternatives to AD&D.

The way the system should work is that solutions exist, but it is for the players to determine which ones to try. Once they have selected a course of action, though, there absolutely should be some mechanical means for resolving that attempt. In effect, the players choose which dice rolls to attempt.

<snip>

But then, Wizards have already noted this weakness, in their Design & Development column, and the "encounter traps" from Dungeonscape. This would suggest, therefore, that they're actually doing more to support old school gaming than the existing edition, at least in this one respect.

Basically, I take the view that the "old school" style of play should be about how the rules for these things should be applied, and not about either omitting or nerfing those rules. Search checks really should reveal any and all traps (subject to the DC being set appropriately), but it is for the players to determine where and when to Search, and then to determine what they'll do about the trap.

In any sort of play, even the most hardcore simulationist RQ or RM, the player ultimately has to make a decision which is not determined by the action resolution mechanics - otherwise the game would just be character building, with the actual adventure unfolding by rolling the dice.

So the difference between AD&D and RQ/RM has to be found in the point at which the decisions are made. While admitting that it is all a matter of degree, I think there is a difference between the two approaches to play. White Plume Mountain, for example, makes sense as a 1st ed module, because it has lots of wacky rooms that require player ingenuity to sort out. In RQ or RM it would degenerate into a series of skill checks. I haven't read Dungeonscape, but I gather that the encounter traps there are designed to make that series of skill checks interesting in the same way that a series of attack rolls is interesting in a typical combat. To my mind this is different from "old school", and getting mechanically closer to games like HeroQuest and The Dying Earth which have universal action resolution systems for all conflicts.

If you were a would-be adventurer, and were heading into the dungeon with a limited set of resouces that renewed each day, and assuming you had no fixed time limit for your explorations, would you not take things extremely slowly, extremely carefully, and in effect do precisely what groups now do: that is, expend almost all of your resources on a small number of encounters (probably one), whether in the form of buffs, fireballs, or healing, and then retreat and rest to prepare for the next section of your quest?

Hence the tediousness, for many of us, of playing out Tomb of Horrors as written . . .

After all, you've brought along your iron spikes, so you can fasten doors shut from the inside, and hole up reasonably well...?

Now that's what I want to hear!

Character build options sell books.

I agree with this. Thus, I don't think "old-school" is such a good business model, because all it sells are adventures (which only the GM buys).

However, other proponents of the old school style have been quick to point out that the Wizard shouldn't ever actually be 'doing nothing' - he should be sniping with his crossbow, moving for position, or guiding the tactical situation so that the enemy are placed perfectly for his nova action to end the encounter.

At levels above 1st or 2nd the crossbow is probably not all that effective, but at low levels it is a viable option, I agree (though flavour considerations would lead me to prefer a "wizard's ray" ranged but not touch attack for 1d6 hits).

But the moving for position and tactical advice just aren't very viable in 3E, I feel. In the first case, it takes too long for you turn to come back around, so it is more fun to actually do something. In the second case, battle mat play means that everyone at the table is giving tactical advice so there is nothing special for the wizard player in having his or her PC do this.

In 1st ed the time per round is reduced because action resolution is simpler, so the waiting is less pronounced (but still potentially an issue).

Again, understood. I do quite often feel it would be nice to get a chance to play in (rather than DM) an old school game. Unfortunately, every time I sit down with a DM who claims to run in that style, it seems to devolve into them running a random deathtrap, and bypassing or ignoring the rules, because it's just so much easier to screw players over than it is to run a thoughtful and well put together game.

My view is that there is a non-coincidental connection between AD&D and this sort of GMing - because the absence of action resolution rules makes so much turn on the players' capacity to impress the GM with their ingenuity, the game is particularly vulnerable to a collapse into player vs GM. 3E, with its extensive mechanics, I feel has less of a systemic vulnerability in this respect.

 

[delericho]

As it happens I share your playing preferences. But I don't really feel them to be old-school preferences (I don't mean for that to be an offensive remark, so I hope it's not - I've already tried to indicate what I mean by "old-school").

It's not offensive, so don't worry about that.

Based on the above, then I will have to conclude that 'old school' simply isn't for me: that sort of world-building (and the accompanying versilimitude) is an essential component in my enjoyment of the game.

So the difference between AD&D and RQ/RM has to be found in the point at which the decisions are made. While admitting that it is all a matter of degree, I think there is a difference between the two approaches to play. White Plume Mountain, for example, makes sense as a 1st ed module, because it has lots of wacky rooms that require player ingenuity to sort out. In RQ or RM it would degenerate into a series of skill checks.

Ah, I understand. In which case, my preference is for the middle ground - the player ingenuity is needed to determine the course of action, and then we resolve mechanically. So, it's not quite the case that it "devolves into a series of skill checks", but those checks do have to be made.

But the moving for position and tactical advice just aren't very viable in 3E, I feel. In the first case, it takes too long for you turn to come back around, so it is more fun to actually do something. In the second case, battle mat play means that everyone at the table is giving tactical advice so there is nothing special for the wizard player in having his or her PC do this.

Well, that example does presuppose that:

1) The Wizard has only a small number of spells. The Wizard's player is the only one who knows which spell he's planning on using, and the specifics of how it works.

2) The spell will end the encounter.

and perhaps (3) The turns move reasonably quickly.

In this case, it becomes viable for the Wizard to guide the other players to push their opponents into just the right positioning for the fireball/cone of cold/whatever, much like a chess master building a trap.

Of course, of the assumptions, #1, #2 and #3 all fail with 3e. It's possible there may be a weakness in the example somewhere...

 

[pemerton]

Based on the above, then I will have to conclude that 'old school' simply isn't for me: that sort of world-building (and the accompanying versilimitude) is an essential component in my enjoyment of the game.

Likewise for me.

Ah, I understand. In which case, my preference is for the middle ground - the player ingenuity is needed to determine the course of action, and then we resolve mechanically. So, it's not quite the case that it "devolves into a series of skill checks", but those checks do have to be made.

We play in a similar way. But I get the impression you still like the "old school" tropes - dungeon exploration, a varied assortment of monsters, etc. Is that right?

Well, that example does presuppose that:

1) The Wizard has only a small number of spells. The Wizard's player is the only one who knows which spell he's planning on using, and the specifics of how it works.

2) The spell will end the encounter.

and perhaps (3) The turns move reasonably quickly.

In this case, it becomes viable for the Wizard to guide the other players to push their opponents into just the right positioning for the fireball/cone of cold/whatever, much like a chess master building a trap.

Of course, of the assumptions, #1, #2 and #3 all fail with 3e.

I see what you had in mind. In that case, I think 3E only undermines #3 of necessity, but satisfying #2 requires a more careful selection of spells than earlier editions.

I should add - it's very pleasant to have an edition-comparison conversation that doesn't degenerate into a flame war!

 

[Theldyrn]

My question is this: How will character generation, combat, skills, feats, social encounters and monsters work? I know this is a post-NDA question; that's OK, I can wait.

Concerns? I don't really have any. Mainly wondering when the next preview or playtest report is going to show up on the Wizards site. Well, I do hope there's a decent section on sea adventures in the DMG, because I do really like those, and it'd be a shame to have it skimpified.

 

[RFisher]

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

My biggest concern is the few signs that the designers don't really know the state-of-the-art. The idea that most encounters include only a single monster (or single type of monster). The idea that encounters aren't commonly staged with re-enforcements arriving from nearby areas. The impression I sometimes get that their campaigns are greatly dominated by combat encounters. The idea that the virtual game table is something completely new. (Even though I think they may indeed have things to contribute to the concept.)

Granted, I'm projecting a lot from a few comments, but it is my biggest concern. It just happens to not be all that big. (^_^)

 

[A'koss]

While certainly not my biggest concern, the latest Des & Dev articles have showcased more and more art from the 4e MM. I was expecting that for a new edition that WotC would go out of their way to commission absolutely the best art possible. Something that would blow the previous generation away - but the monster pieces we've seen so far range from disappointingly mediocre...

... to downright ugh.

Even WAR's demon lacks his usual "oomph"...

Now I mean no disrespect to the artists involved with this work, but for the flagship MM book in the newest edition I would want to... blow away my audience. *Every* monster IMO should make you go *wow*. Obviously it's early yet to make any judgements based on a handful of images, but if this is the level of quality we can expect... I will be sorely disappointed.