What Makes 4E Different?

[CleverNickName]

Actually, I thought Reynard's response was spot on, respectful, specific, clear.

I agree, it was. It is just that "edition war" threads have been getting locked out lately (and rightfully so), and I felt we were getting a little too close to the fire.

I meant no disrespect.

 

[frankthedm]

It is more focused.

 

[pawsplay]

It is more focused.

That I agree with. One of the things I was hoping for 4e is that it would focus 3e more. 4e definitely feels like an entirely new design to me, though, with entirely different characteristics.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Although the magic has, in theory, been tuned down, D&D is farther than it ever has been from the Dark Ages.

I'm a turmoil of conflicting emotions. Seriously. I agree with the above quote by Paws, and I'm a huge fan of a Dark Age theme within D&D. 4e has left that paradigm and gone with a more, um, fantastical setting.

And yet, 4e to me seems much closer to 1e than 3e. I think we'd agree 1e was about as Dark Ages as the editions come.

I can't figure it out, but if I have to pick one thing that I like most about 4e, it'd be just that - it reminds me of my pimply-ridden, basement days of 1e. And folks, believe it or not, that's a great, great feeling.

Wis

 

[Darrin Drader]

It's miniatures based and is geared to be run as DM-less as possible. That's fine for what it is, but I like a freer hand. And better official miniatures.

No offense, but I don't consider 4E any more miniatures based than 3E was. Yes, movement is featured prominently in the rules, but then there are a whole bunch of combat options, most of which are still there in 4E, that simply wouldn't work properly without miniatures.

Being DM-less? Sorry, but after looking through the rules, I feel that the opposite is true. The DM is given solid guidelines for encounter building, but this is pretty far away from a game that only needs players. This isn't the new incarnation of F&F minis. After reading through large chunks of the DMG, I just don't get this criticism.

That said, the biggest change that I've seen is reduced prep time that still leads to a fulfilling game. The play experience isn't as different from 3.5 as people keep trying to claim, but the time I have to take before game to get it to go off right is a fraction of what it used to be. This is only a good thing in my book.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I can't figure it out, but if I have to pick one thing that I like most about 4e, it'd be just that - it reminds me of my pimply-ridden, basement days of 1e. And folks, believe it or not, that's a great, great feeling.

You know, I keep hearing that and I want to feel it myself. I haven't yet though and I'm not sure why that is. Sorry if I'm putting you on the spot here, but how are people getting a 1st edition feel from the 4th edition rules?

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

You know, I keep hearing that and I want to feel it myself. I haven't yet though and I'm not sure why that is. Sorry if I'm putting you on the spot here, but how are people getting a 1st edition feel from the 4th edition rules?

Good question Darrin, and I wish I had a good answer. I can and will stumble through an answer as to how I get that feeling, but can't obviously comment on how others are.

I started AD&D as a DM. And I've pretty much worn the DM Hat since 1978. I enjoy playing, but I enjoy DMing.

In 1E, I was able to make many rules on the fly, so to speak. This was due to a number of factors. First, there simply was a fair amount of ground that was not covered in the rules. Second, I didn't understand the damned rules, and we played a version of 1E that - to us - was 1E. To Gary, perhaps not so much.

Let me get an obligatory "I loved 3E" statement out here, because what I'm about to say is no knock on that version. It brought me back to D&D after a 10-year hiatus wherein I learned of women, beer, and - after a decade - the fact that most women didn't dig AD&D. At least at that time.

Anyway, I found DMing 3E became a bit burdensome. Oh, I still loved the adventures, and I still enjoyed getting together with friends, but we had a fair amount of time "lost" to looking up rules. Not because we didn't know the rules - we did. (Many of my players are much, much better than I.) Unfortunately, we didn't know them verbatim.

And so while someone in the group could announce "Hmm...there's a rule for <insert anything here>", we'd spend an inordinate amount of time flipping through books trying to find it. You see - I didn't want a rule for everything. I wanted to just "wing it" - and sometimes I did. My players were always very good about trusting me; they knew I wasn't out to get them.

And yet, there was always a little voice in my head that said - "Dummy, if there's a rule for that, you should apply it." Ergo, time wasted.

I also found myself not enjoying preparing for adventures as much as I did back in 1E. Especially as my group hit, oh, 10th level or so. I found myself "combatting" PC abilities. In other words, I was always worried about countering some character ability without making the player feel like the ability was a wasted choice. Why counter them at all? Well, I really enjoyed a sense of mystery and wonder in the game, and a simple commune or find the path would steal that from me.

I know, I know - you can design adventures with these things taken into account. I have done that. I did not enjoy it as much. I found myself spending more time thinking of rules minutia instead of the actual, you know, adventure. The plot. The story. The sense of wonder.

4e is not The Answer. No game will ever be The Answer. But it does seem a bit more free-form to me. Time will tell if I'm wrong; I've only played a handful of test encounters. I feel like I have a solid mechanical foundation upon which I can "wing it" and yet still feel like I'm not completely out to lunch.

Again, I'm not throwing stones at anyone or anyone's choice of edition. I'm just saying how I feel, and how 4e seemed to recapture a sense of 1e fun that I have missed for some time now.

Sorry this is so long-winded.

Wis

 

[Holy Bovine]

The thing that has finally dawned on me (and has been itching the back of my brain for the last week) is that 4E has made D&D low magic. Really! Yes everyone gets powers/exploits/spells/whatever and they can do lots of things (mainly dish out damage) but gone are the spells that really caused me problems. No more day long buffs, no more scry/buff/teleport tactics, no more 'sweet spot' of PC advancement that lasts 10 level at best, no more watching a colossal Dracolich drop in 2.5 rounds because he couldn't get away from the full attack of the fighter.

I think I'm going to like the 'sweet spot' all the way to 30th level.

 

[Andor]

What makes 4e different as far as I can tell is the shift in focus from describing what happens in the world, to describing what happens on the table.

Earlier editions of D&D said "You throw a fire ball, it does everything you'd expect a ball of fire to do. Things burn, metal melts, etc. Oh and it does 1d6 per level."

4e says "You cast a spell that does burst 2, 3d6 + Int mod and dazes the targets. Oh, and you can call it a fire ball if you want. Or a rain of exploding frogs. Whatever, that's not the point."

 

[Aqua Vitae]

What is it about the 4th Edition, that makes it truly different?

For me?

It's not D&D.

Must I accept it as such because cunning capitalists claim it is?