D&D 4E Where the break between pro and anti 4e is

[Lanefan]

From the sound of it, the players you're talking about have trouble learning/remembering the basic rules of the game since they have trouble with the most basic element (movement). If someone can't remember the basics, is it so surprising that small complexities escape them?

Some of the better* players I've known couldn't give a flying fig about memorizing any rules other than the most basic e.g. what dice to roll when. They just do what they do until something - usually the DM - tells them it can't happen. (and movement in 3e is not "basic", unless you take out AoO's)

What makes the game better for these players is to remove what complexities can be removed...3e kinda does the opposite. I'm *hoping* 4e doesn't continue down the same path, but I'm slowly growing more dubious as the crunch leaks out.

* - "better" as defined by role-playing their character well, getting into the spirit of the game, and having fun with it.

Lanefan

 

[Li Shenron]

Mmm... I realize that most people of ENW see me as anti-4e, but on that list the only point in which I recognize myself having a problem is [4], but none of the others. I do have issues with healing surges, but not the ones mentioned.

One serious source of contention that I don't see listed here is the amount of player and character separation. Rules elements like Daily and Encounter Powers for martial characters, Action Points, the new Skill Challenges rules that involve a measure of stake setting, Death and Dying rules that reinforce PC protagonism, and the further abstraction of hit points are all potentially jarring because they involve players interfacing with the rules in ways that do not directly represent their characters' interactions with the game world. Using game rules as narrative devices in this manner seems wrong on a fundamental level to players and GMs who value immersion more than game play or narrative elements.

Exactly.

The feeling I get so far is that I am too far away from my PC. I am not an immersive roleplayer tho. In fact, I am not thinking about actual roleplaying at all here... I'm thinking about combat. What I know so far of 4e gives me a feeling that as soon as combat starts, there will be a clear "shift" in my mind: I won't be seeing through my PC's eyes anymore (so to speak) but I will be suddenly thinking in very different terms.

3e had some "detachment" problems too, particularly when going beyond the core, but 4e doesn't seem to even want to try the style of play I'm used to.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

For my part, I think the three issues that are shaping up to be the biggest ones are not on your list:

1. From my perspective, a large part of the D&D experience has always been having a long list of spells that have flexible and uses and considering the possibilities and interactions that those spells have. If the wizards level 11-16 preview is any indication, that is no longer a part of the game and I think the basic design philosophy is going to preclude ritual magic doing most of those things. Planar bindings, magnificent mansions, mind blanks, hero's feasts, etc are part and parcel of D&D as far as I'm concerned. Without it, the game may still be good--and it may actually be well suited to one of my experimental campaigns--but it's not D&D.

2. The "everyone fights" mentality. Yes, there are character roles, but the previews and design philosophy statements seem to indicate that those roles are "do your 1d6/1d8+stat bonus with maybe another 1d6 or 1d8 damage per round and maybe, if you didn't get that extra die of damage there will be a one round condiiton modifier or movement adjustment attached to it." Essentially, everyone is supposed to roll an attack on a monster every round. Now, in general, that was my cup of tea in 3rd edition and previous editions, but I enjoyed having the option of playing a character whose combat contributions came in other forms. I have rather enjoyed playing 3rd edition clerics for instance who spend (or who can spend) at least as many actions buffing or healing their party members as damaging the enemy. I have also enjoyed playing with bards whose primary contribution to the fight was making everyone else fight better. Conversely, the warlock is the one 3rd edition class that bores me to tears every time I think about rolling one up. But the 4th edition designers seem to think the warlock was a design success to be emulated and made core.

 

[Zinegata]

I'm probably old and cynical enough to be considered a grognard (not to mention I actually play old-school wargames, who do proudly call themselves grognards) so I'll give the list a whirl.

[1]The reorganization of the planes and monsters is too much of a departure from D&D's established continuity (and/or my personal campaign setting).
[2]Dragonborn & Tieflings are not traditional races, and are too monstrous to integrate with other races believably.

Blowing up continuity does kind of piss people off regardless of the game. Largely because when continuity gets re-written the material tends to "jump the shark."

[3]I will not get to play the race/class combinations that I have been traditionally allowed to play in prior editions.

... Wait, we can't? WHAT?!

[4]D&D has embraced wargaming elements too much, making it a tactical wargame instead of a roleplaying game.

D&D started as a wargame... so not really a big deal. My bigger concern if they can make it a good tactical wargame and not just "two sides flailing away at each other with the neatest powers/magic/weapons possible."

[5]Giving martial characters superhuman ability is too cinematic/cartoonish, making the traditional setting of the medieval world with magic and monsters "less gritty" where ordinary people confront supernatural menaces.

Doesn't bother me at all.

[6]Healing Surges and the loss of Vancian magic takes away resource management aspect of the game, and may make characters invincible. (Unless of course you fight in several encounters in a row. Instead of calling it the end of the 15 minute workday, they should have called it the end of the 4 easy challenges and 1 difficult challenge workday.)

I have concerns about resource management, but it's just suspicions and not yet outright dislike so I won't comment on it yet.

However, I'm not entirely sold on the Healing Surges, and I know why - having everyone capable of healing takes away from the uniqueness of the healing classes.

Moreover, I'm particularly annoyed at how the healing surge mechanic is mostly the same for all of the classes. You have a second wind, and your HP is restored. I would have preferred it if there was some variation depending on the class. For some classes, the second wind could be a lot of instant healing. For others, it's a steady, gradual trickle of healing. And for others, it could be a boost of temporary HP.

The problem of course is the "between encounter" healing, but if I'm reading Rituals correctly they could do the job instead. Or a more powerful Heal skill or cheaper bandaids (CLW potions).

[7]Using healing surges to recover from wounds may be a good way to simulate an action hero shrugging off broken ribs or deep cuts, but I want a serious wound to cripple or kill my characters.

I'd just use 3rd party crit hit tables if I was that mean.

[8]1st level characters can't be killed with one blow anymore

Yeah, I'd miss the thrill of trying not to get killed at level 1. But one can always go back to 3.X for a quick level 1 session if I get the itch.

[9]There are too many abilities granted to 1st level characters, which means that 1st level heroes are professionals instead of apprentices.

In a way yes, it would have been ideal if 4E started with some complete newbie levels. It wasn't really a problem in older editions anyway. Just start at level 3 or 4.

I don't think the line is that distinct. I think if that many of of the people who choose to stick with 3e D&D will not be stabbing the giant in the ankle. I don't think they will say that their characters are never wounded seriously except when they lose their last hit points. The name of the spell cure serious wounds is pretty hard to ignore. However, I think the idea of an everyman facing a world of supernatural peril is a compelling one. I don't think that any edition really did that really well (certainly not in higher levels), and I don't think this really happened in anyone's home game... but I'll concede the point that with 4e that ideal is just a little more distant.

It may be truer to say that every group's D&D is different. And that much of the hostility against 4E is whenever the designers announce something that is seen as moving away from "their" D&D.

 

[The Little Raven]

Blowing up continuity does kind of piss people off regardless of the game. Largely because when continuity gets re-written the material tends to "jump the shark."

1st Edition through 3rd Edition have a relationship like the Dr. Who shows... they follow a single continuity, but make small changes and alterations to it throughout to adapt it to their current ideals. They are the same continuity.

1e-3e's relationship with 4e is kinda like the two Battlestar Galactica shows. They have many elements in common (characters, themes, plots, ships, etc), but have no direct relationship in terms of continuity because they are completely separate continuities that have nothing to do with eachother.

So, instead of trying to adapt 1e-3e's continuity into 4e (like making another Dr Who show, with some heavy changes because of necessity of system changes), they elected to go the BSG route and take iconic elements and spin an entirely new continuity.

Some people (like me) love the new BSG, and are loving what they see of 4e so far. Some don't. Sucks, but it takes all kinds of fruit to make fruit cup.

 

[Zinegata]

Some people (like me) love the new BSG, and are loving what they see of 4e so far. Some don't. Sucks, but it takes all kinds of fruit to make fruit cup.

The problem really isn't the change in itself. The problem is that this kind of change usually results in the show, game, or series becoming pretty bad. The new Battlestar Galactica is one of the rare examples where they were able to completely change the style and tone of the show and yet they were able to make it better and more popular.

In contrast, we have a whole host of other shows that fell apart after "re-imagining". Just check TV Tropes for a list of such failures. When it comes to "re-imagined" series, failure is the rule rather than the exception.

Which is why people tend to be very suspicious and hostile when they hear something they love (i.e. D&D) is getting a makeover. By experience, they know it tends to go very badly rather than to go very well.

 

[ferratus]

I'll praise the discussions around 4E "Healing Surges" this way -- it's made me reflect more deeply on what I want for rates of healing in my D&D games. And what I've decided is that I want much less healing -- even 3E has too much, and I didn't realize that until now (I guess it was right on the tipping point).

On behalf of your players, I beg you. Please do not do Dungeon Crawls! I am currently doing B4: "The Lost City", and while it is an awesome module, it really is frustrating being perpetually out of spells and and half hit points, trying desperately to get back to the top level to stay among some friendlies.

Do a campaign about palace intrigue, or fighting bandits, or some other type of surface world adventures. Have fights once or twice a day, and make a safe haven available more often than not.

There is a reason AD&D moved away from the Dungeon that 3e went back to.

 

[Wyrd]

Before beginning this, I would like to state up front I am not pro or con on 4e, I am not pro or con on any edition of the game, I play a mix of editions when I play D&D, and likely will pull some things from 4e into my personal play. I use materials from OD&D, BECMI, 1e, 2e (even skills and powers), and 3e now.

[1]The reorganization of the planes and monsters is too much of a departure from D&D's established continuity (and/or my personal campaign setting).

I think this is just one of those "this would be cool" moments all people who create things hit upon, it's an early stage thing, they gotta do something to make their mark, which usually means screwing things up. Luckily, I make my own world, their new cosmology can go rot if I don't like it, and I can steal what I do like of it.

[2]Dragonborn & Tieflings are not traditional races, and are too monstrous to integrate with other races believably.

See comments dealing with point 1, this is just more of the same, doing cool stuff just to do cool stuff, no need to think it through, most people playing a fantasy game want to play the archetypal fantasy characters and races.

[3]I will not get to play the race/class combinations that I have been traditionally allowed to play in prior editions.

I can see this to a degree, it will be difficult to play your favorite gnome illusionist right out the books, since neither of them exists in the core, I think the removal of the illusionist from core had something to do with the removal of the gnome as well. It will require a great deal of work to play many characters we have grown used to playing now. Some will decide if they have to make that substantial a change, going to some other game system might not be too hard.

[4]D&D has embraced wargaming elements too much, making it a tactical wargame instead of a roleplaying game.

I'll ignore this one as failure to see the past, the same comments were made about 3e when it came out, as well as the whole MMORPG elements argument. D&D evolved from a wargame, it has and always will have wargaming elements. MMORPG's are a source of BIG revenue, WOTC would be idiots to ignore that.

[5]Giving martial characters superhuman ability is too cinematic/cartoonish, making the traditional setting of the medieval world with magic and monsters "less gritty" where ordinary people confront supernatural menaces.

I'll buy that, from what I have seen and read 4e is more like an anime than a "classic" fantasy novel. I am waiting to cast "Giga Slave" myself, that is probably one of those 30th level spells, wonder if WOTC has arranged to license the Slayer's world?

[6]Healing Surges and the loss of Vancian magic takes away resource management aspect of the game, and may make characters invincible. (Unless of course you fight in several encounters in a row. Instead of calling it the end of the 15 minute workday, they should have called it the end of the 4 easy challenges and 1 difficult challenge workday.)

The reduction in options will make the game easier to play for casual players, assuming they have pregen characters. I have a feeling making a character might be a beast though. This is pretty ironic actually, the most heard argument in the past about D&D being better than GURPS (or Hero), was the fact that you could sit down and make characters in a few minutes and get playing, where with the other systems, it took a while to make characters, even if play itself was faster.

[7]Using healing surges to recover from wounds may be a good way to simulate an action hero shrugging off broken ribs or deep cuts, but I want a serious wound to cripple or kill my characters.

Depends on style of play, are we playing an action hero cinematic game now?

[8]1st level characters can't be killed with one blow anymore
[9]There are too many abilities granted to 1st level characters, which means that 1st level heroes are professionals instead of apprentices.

This comes in with granularity and poor design, Hero system had the same issues, it could define mid and high level characters well, "normals" were not so good. This is probably my major concern with the system, something this glaring shows a lack of design ability, and hopefully it does not permeate the rest of the system.

Overall, 4e will likely be something I have to learn for convention play, but will only take a few pieces from for my home game, which is likely to remain a heavily modified 3e game, I already have addressed many of the "issues" people had with 3e with my own set of rules modifications, almost to a whole new system, but much closer to D&D in flavor than 4e is.

 

[Wolfspider]

Not much different than Body and Stun in Champions. In fact, I'll probably call them that.

I think this is a brilliant idea. I've always been a fan of Champion's particular way of handling damage.

 

[Delta]

On behalf of your players, I beg you. Please do not do Dungeon Crawls!... Do a campaign about palace intrigue, or fighting bandits, or some other type of surface world adventures. Have fights once or twice a day, and make a safe haven available more often than not.

I would never, ever do that. Those kinds of games bore me to tears.