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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Funny, I started a thread asking for exactly what the OP did, which was a summary of the basic objections towards 4e for people who've not been able to keep up for various reasons.

BUT everyone who posted to those two threads (pro and anti) said that it would lead to rioting in the threads, flame wars, cats and dogs living together, etc. And yet, here we are, summarizing basic positions on the rules without a flame war in sight.

I'm glad to see that my basic faith in enworld's community affirmed.

And, good work, ferratus!

Damn, that can't be true! Quick, incite a flame war!
*throws oil flask onto the thread, and readies a torch*

They brought in a whole herd of new ones

Can they be already sacred cows if they first appeared in an edition that's not even published yet?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Outstanding analysis. Spot on. This may be one of the best summaries of the differences in play style between 1980 and 2008 D&D ever written.

I would add one other thing: an overall goal of immersion into the game world, which meant that the players would be much more in the dark. There was a reason Gygax put most of the combat and other rules in the DMG -- the less the players worried about that, the more time they would have to interact with the game world. The theme of D&D was going somewhere unknown and dangerous and coming back to talk about it. A sense of mystery was *crucial.*

The more I think of it, the more logical my love of the Amber DRPG is. It also embraces that approach -- the rules mechanics are completely invisible to the players, which means they have no choice but to immerse themselves in the worlds they explore. Also, Amber is all about uncovering deeper mysteries.

Thanks again for your excellent post.

Interesting point.
But this only works if the DM role is assigned to one person and no one else.
In our group, everybody gets to wear the DM hat.
It would be impossible to manage otherwise, since everyone of us has a full time job and also reserves some (a lot?) time for non-RPG activities. And besides that, we don't want anyone to give up on playing. Not all of us are good DMs, most of us probably enjoy playing, too, but that doesn't change that we do it. In this scenario, "hiding" the rules is impossible.
Another issue is - I like digging in rules. I play the "gamist" elements of RPGs. I wouldn't want to miss on it just because I am a player.

There are obviously groups (probably not too few) that work different from ours, but if I am looking for a game, I prefer "rules transparency". And that was clearly a strength of 3.x, and will probably again be a strength of 4E. (Except that 4E seems to give more leeway in limiting the access to the DMG or MM for players, if that's what you want, since all player-relevant information is part of the PHB. Or so the designers tell us )

 

[timbannock]

... Some critical components of classic play include:
[*]Adventurers lived in a dangerous world where life was cheap.
...

Although 4e characters definitely seem more durable, I definitely think the deadliness of a game system is way more in the hands of the particular DM than the game system, more often than not.

... [*]It was often assumed that PCs would have a litany of henchman and many players ran multiple PCs.
...

Since 1985, I never played this way.

... [*]Direct combat was rarely seen as a positive occurrence. You were expected to find ways to deal with creatures without putting your life on the line.
...

Combat's fun and exciting, and D&D promotes this. IMO, that's a good thing.

... [*]PCs started out as normal folk and grew into something greater. They were still not special (no protagonism).
...

0-level rules might say otherwise. Aside from that though, many of the "normal folk" characters also had a stunning lack of options compared to characters nowadays, even in other game systems that focus on "normal folk." D&D's earliest editions gave off this "normal folk" feel simply because they didn't have the options and rules for something else. That ended pretty quickly, as soon as people started figuring out how to play non-normal folks...just look at the popularity of Complete Book of Humanoids for 2nd edition, and how many "new and kewl" PC races came out in subsequent settings (Dark Sun, Dragonlance, FR, Planescape, etc.)

... [*]Keeping track of things like arrows, spell components, and rations was considered a critical element of play.
...

Unless they got rid of that in 4E, I don't see any difference between editions on this point, other than spell components. And frankly, I've never played in or DM'd a game where keeping track of all your spell components was critical (if you had a spell component pouch, you were all set...save for the occasional super expensive material component like Identify's 100gp pearl).

... [*]PCs were often out only to serve their own ends. Heroism was not assumed.
...

Except for the occasional "villain campaign," heroism has always been a part of the sessions I've played since the earlier editions. I vaguely remember the language mentioning "heroes" all the time for PCs, but that might be my mistake.

... [*]Preparation and strategy were more important than combat tactics.
...

IMO, preparation and strategy are part of combat tactics. Combat tactics don't begin and end on an initiative roll.

... [*]Attrition of resources was a critical element of play.
...

You're spot on here. But personally, I played that way because the rules were too damn hard to change -- even in earlier editions of D&D -- without cascading effects. I like the idea of not having to sleep several hours and coming up with crazy watch schedules.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I like the idea of not having to sleep several hours and coming up with crazy watch schedules.

Not actually any different here except for 2 hours. While previously it was the spellcasters who needed 8 hours of sleep, now it is everyone who needs 6 hours (healing surges and per day abilities). And for watch scheduling, why would the DM be any less likely hit the party during the middle of the rest period than before.

 

[Kobu]

As I stated, I was completely ignorant of this trope. Just so you know, to an outsider it come's off as potentially racist. I am sorry if I came off as a jerk Kobu, but I tend to be a little overzealous on the human rights issues.

It would be more than a little awkward if I were racist towards Japanese people. Or maybe it would be plain hilarious, I'm not sure.

The point is that D&D seems to acquire vocabulary in the same way Japanese language does. The general gist of the word is there, but it rarely uses it appropriately or fully absorbs it. The words stick to the language pool like bits of grit in jelly. In contrast, a language like English absorbs foreign words and makes them it's own like an amoeba engulfing its food.

When people need to pull out dictionaries to make contrasting and tortuous arguments on why "exploits" is an acceptable substitute word for "maneuvers", there's a problem.

 

[timbannock]

Not actually any different here except for 2 hours. While previously it was the spellcasters who needed 8 hours of sleep, now it is everyone who needs 6 hours (healing surges and per day abilities). And for watch scheduling, why would the DM be any less likely hit the party during the middle of the rest period than before.

Fair enough. To word my comment better, I hate the resting and watch-scheduling thing happening ASAP after the wizard/cleric/spellcaster character runs out of [insert limited resource here]. Resting and watches are fine...resting and watches happening several times a session in order to maximize your resources is annoying.

But you certainly have a point...maybe it's just the types of environments I run.

 

[Epic Meepo]

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.

Then again, some people love the new Battlestar Galactica and, for the same reasons, have reservations about 4e.

IMHO, 4e looks like the original BSG: a cinematic action adventure where characters get to do kewl stuff. Older editions of D&D, particularly pre-3e, look more like the new BSG: a gritty character drama where characters grow by learning to cope with realistic limitations. I love the new BSG specifically because I prefer a gritty character drama to a cinematic action adventure, and I am skeptical about the relevance of 4e to my style of gaming for the same reasons.

 

[Delta]

Some critical components of classic play include:

• Adventurers lived in a dangerous world where life was cheap.
• It was often assumed that PCs would have a litany of henchman and many players ran multiple PCs.
• Direct combat was rarely seen as a positive occurrence. You were expected to find ways to deal with creatures without putting your life on the line.
• PCs started out as normal folk and grew into something greater. They were still not special (no protagonism).
• Keeping track of things like arrows, spell components, and rations was considered a critical element of play.
• PCs were often out only to serve their own ends. Heroism was not assumed.
• Preparation and strategy were more important than combat tactics.
• Attrition of resources was a critical element of play.

That really is a fantastic post. If I was editor of some D&D journal I'd definitely want to include it.

 

[LostSoul]

IMHO, 4e looks like the original BSG: a cinematic action adventure where characters get to do kewl stuff. Older editions of D&D, particularly pre-3e, look more like the new BSG: a gritty character drama where characters grow by learning to cope with realistic limitations. I love the new BSG specifically because I prefer a gritty character drama to a cinematic action adventure, and I am skeptical about the relevance of 4e to my style of gaming for the same reasons.

Burning Wheel I can see doing gritty character drama.

D&D, not so much.

 

[ironvyper]

I have been playing since 2e, so i guess that makes me a grognard, although i dont think 4e looks that bad.

• 
  [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 the new cosmology is cooler, simpler and makes alot more sense, especially the devil/demon divide. Having a home for fey creatures is a cool touch too, i can allready see using that to bring a little of the traditional fairy tale feel of fantasy back to D&D with fey rings and elf mounds and such. All in all i totally approve of the new planes.
  The monster design is flawed i think, but we can probably count on unholy heaps of monster books from 3rd parties again, so i am not that worried.
  
  

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

  
  Eh, not much feeling on this, if u bought half orcs before being as common as they were i dont see why u cant have lots of dragonborn, just explain it by making full on dragons more common, and more horny i guess. Although with demons being raging elemental beings now those tieflings really have to be part devil, not part demon. Even that ties into the new cosmology in lots of neat ways if u think about it though, so all in all not too bad.
  
  
  

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

  
  Thats okay, bards, gnomes and illusionists all sucked anyway, a little variety will do u some good.
  
  
  

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

  
  I dont think having good tactical rules will in any way inhibit my roleplaying. If rolling a diplomacy check in lieu of actually roleplaying didnt break your ability to immersie yourself i dont see why having extra combat options should. Besides, if anything makes the 3x mess that was combat less slow, clunky and restricting its a good thing. Fighting will allways be at the heart of any RPG and doing well shouldnt be seen as a bad thing.
  
  
  

  [[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.

  
  This is a serious problem, and probably the only one i have in this system. Its making all characters into Beowulf from the new movie instead of being maximus from gladiator. Either character can be fun to play and either campaign can be fun, but its alot easier to add power then it is take it away, and this system looks like its not just making u beowulf by default, its making it very hard to rework in a way that makes maximus playable.
  
  

  [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.)

  
  Good and bad in this. I hate the healing surge mechanic, but will just houserule it out of existance, so no big deal there. Vancian magic on the other hand is something that i have hated for decades now. Changing the magic system was #1 on my wish list for a 4e and that by itself is enough to get me to buy the books and at least try a campaign with 4e.
  Resource management now looks like it depends more on the GM keeping an adventure running without letting the players take a rest to recharge. I see per encounter powers recharging when the players get a chance to take a breather and collect themselves, not when the last monster dies. So if players are in a dungeon or castle or some other closed setting they are still going to have to find a safe place to rest during the adventure to get thier powers back. The only real difference is that they only need to rest long enough to re-gather thier wits, not for 8 or more hours to sleep. Not a bad thing in my opinion, seems easier to keep an adventure moving now.
  
  

  [[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.

  
  Well as i said above i am getting rid of healing surges and the 6 hour cure-all nap. And i dont see taking this mechanic out having any real effect on the rest of the system. This system seems more modular, which is a great advantage to me. Besides 3x didnt have any long term affects from wounds anyway unless u house ruled some sort of critical damage tables, so this is really a non-issue.
  
  
  

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

  
  I dont like to call this a problem, but after seeing a 1st level kobold with almost 30 hit points i think they went too far with it. Unless damage scales up much more then it seems to so far i think fights are going to be absurdly long just because of the amount of times a character or monster has to be hit to die.
  
  But again i can just raise the damages of weapons, maybe make everything 2 of X dice of damage instead of 1 dice of X. That should bring the length of combats back down, and add an extra level of randomness.
  
  
  

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

  
  Eh this is also an issue, which for those games where u want to play Maximus the human gladiator not Beowulf the super badass is a huge problem. But the more i think about it the easier it seems to make up for that in ways like giving weapons more damage, and simply doing away with some of the super powers. Might not be elegant but its fairly easy and workable.
  
  All in all theres some stuff i like, some stuff i dont like and a lot i still have questions about. But the apparent modularity of the rules, the change from vancian magic, getting away from CR's and the new way of approaching saving throws is more then enough to convince me to buy the books and give it an honest try.