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

[Mr. Patient]

[*]Adventurers lived in a dangerous world where life was cheap.
etc.

This is how the game was written, and maybe how it was actually played at Gary's table, and presumably other tables. However, I was there in 1980, too, and a lot of this stuff just wasn't true IME. The game may have assumed a ton of henchmen and hirelings, but I never actually saw them in play. Many, and perhaps most people handwaved spell components and rations just as casually back then as they do now.

Of course, we've been through all this before with Quasqueton's many interesting threads. T. Foster also had an exceedingly brilliant post awhile back about how the Player's Handbook's advice for players planning a dungeon expedition really applied only to the Lake Geneva campaign, and not the game as it was played by the rest of us.

Without trying to hijack the thread too badly, I'm just saying that 4e is really not that big a change from what I was doing in 1980.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Burning Wheel I can see doing gritty character drama.

D&D, not so much.

That's probably a fair assessment. (Unless you're playing a non-psionic, non-spellcaster in AD&D; then character drama's all you got, because having cool stuff to do certainly isn't an option.) Of course, action adventure vs. character drama is ultimately a spectrum, and 4e is continuing to wander away from my end of the spectrum. Hence, my suspicion that it may not be for me.

 

[DamnedChoir]

4&5 are really my biggest, if not only problems. A few of the later numbers, 6+ bother me a tiny bit but honestly I could live with them if not for 4&5.

 

[Campbell]

This is how the game was written, and maybe how it was actually played at Gary's table, and presumably other tables. However, I was there in 1980, too, and a lot of this stuff just wasn't true IME. The game may have assumed a ton of henchmen and hirelings, but I never actually saw them in play. Many, and perhaps most people hand waved spell components and rations just as casually back then as they do now.

Of course, we've been through all this before with Quasqueton's many interesting threads. T. Foster also had an exceedingly brilliant post awhile back about how the Player's Handbook's advice for players planning a dungeon expedition really applied only to the Lake Geneva campaign, and not the game as it was played by the rest of us.

Without trying to hijack the thread too badly, I'm just saying that 4e is really not that big a change from what I was doing in 1980.

I think there's a lot of truth in this post. I certainly never played a game of D&D that was at all reminiscent of classic play until about a year ago (I started playing in 1997 when I was 13). Like I hinted at in my post above I think there's been gradual movement away from supporting this play style since the advent of AD&D 2e (although the Dragonlance series probably had a hand in it). The difference this time is that WotC isn't making token gestures towards the old school and sim crowds. They're fixing issues that the old school players consider features and designing a game that fits more with modern sensibilities. They are not holding anything back (basically showing old school gamers the door).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I pretty much like everything in that first post. It's a little weird that they're abandoning all the old setting material, but I don't particularly care. Everything else is either a good idea, or probably a good idea.

My two issues:

Improper Siloing. Telling a player they can't do something they should, logically, be able to do simply because of the weird way powers work is not an experience I will ever subject myself to. This includes trip being per-encounter, monsters not being able to be allied, rogues being the only creatures who can finesse weapons, and 1-1-1 diagonals. Even the 'incomplete' status of the rules can be attributed to this.

This can be broadened to be a problem of myopic focus. By failing to embrace a variety of different approaches, they may have made the game too narrow. There are a few simple ways to avoid this that they may have already done, and just haven't really bragged about yet. The skill system, for instance, put to rest my concerns about the myopic combat focus largely.

Minis Focus. I don't use minis. I don't WANT to use minis. I don't want to have a map, little markers, or any of that gobbledgook. It complicates my games. I want simple games. Rules for little plastic men I don't want. While I can accept a certain level of it, if 4e has reached the point where minis are required to play, because of the mass of complicated movements, shifts, slides, and tactical postitioning strategies it encourages, it has gone past the breaking point for me.

Again, this is something that can probably be easily fixed, and they may already have fixed it, and just haven't presented it yet.

I'm pretty confident these guys can deliver, I'm just concerned that I'm no longer considered a valid player for the game because of my preferences.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

And what "classic" game-play paradigm would that be? Because the most classic, kill dudes and steal their stuff, is still strong and kickin'.

I agree with you in that killing/looting is the external essence of the game and we like it. But, on the other hand, fom a role-playing perspective, 3e felt more like really enacting my character, with his own abilities and limitatios. Characters felt more real.... I could say "I go through the door and see what's inside... " "I'll try to shoot an arrow on those two guys!" and there was a quasy-realistic sense of contingency: I might fail, It might not work, I might die... It was really exciting....

Reading through the forums I've noticed that we could really define the difference between 3e and 4e (I can't speak for older editions, I didn't play them) in this narrative-vs-character thing... Now I can tell the stories WITH the DM, and tell how my character does awesome stuff... and it seems cool. Now it's more like "My character shoots at those to guys in one hote in an amazing display of skill" it feels more pasive... that's not me trying things... it's 'that hero'.

I don't know if you noticed this, or were just being funny, (and I don't blame you, becaused i figured it out kind of recently) but is IS a mayor difference.... I can't tell right now if it is better or worse... but I'm pretty sure we will feel the change. At least the ones that focus heavily in role-playing and conection with the characters (like my group)

EDIT: KM, gives a better word... narrative vs character

 

[Mr. Patient]

The difference this time is that WotC isn't making token gestures towards the old school and sim crowds. They're fixing issues that the old school players consider features and designing a game that fits more with modern sensibilities. They are not holding anything back (basically showing old school gamers the door).

Fair enough, that's one way of looking at it. And with respect to abandoning the "sim crowds," I'll have to agree. But I prefer to see it as WotC making the game as written a better match for the game as actually played -- even, to some extent, as it was played back in the day by old school gamers like myself (1997? Whippersnapper! I was separating the paper chits that came with my Holmes basic set long before you were born! )

 

[I'm A Banana]

narrative-vs-inmersion thing

Hmm...

Narrative vs. Character.

That might work. 3e is concerned with you playing a character. 4e is concerned with you telling a story.

Probably a bit too early to tell something big like this, but it might turn out to be pretty true, and reflects the fact that the goals are compatible, but the emphasis is different.

 

[Campbell]

Fair enough, that's one way of looking at it. And with respect to abandoning the "sim crowds," I'll have to agree. But I prefer to see it as WotC making the game as written a better match for the game as actually played -- even, to some extent, as it was played back in the day by old school gamers like myself (1997? Whippersnapper! I was separating the paper chits that came with my Holmes basic set long before you were born! )

I actually see things in a similar light. I was just trying to highlight what I think our some folks' genuine concerns. They're basically being left behind, but that has to happen if you want to serve the needs of people like you and me.

I should probably clarify what I mean by 'old school gamers'. I basically mean those people that still play the game according to Gygax and Arneson. I'm not really pointing to a generational gap. There are a lot of people who started with 1e and have always played the game in a more narrative focused and action adventure oriented way or have moved in that direction as the game has evolved. Others have not.

 

[Rzach]

While I can understand why some people dislike the changes in 4e, I find myself looking forward to them.

I used to run a campaign in Basic D&D and AD&D second edition. The campaign setting was my own. I had several custom races and I allowed many options into my games.

When 3rd edition was released all of the people I gamed with switched over. I admit I was very happy with the rules as a player. But as a DM I found them flawed in some basic ways. Try as I might I just couldn't translate my campaign setting to third edition. For some reason it lacked the original feel of the game. Prestige classes were a pain to make and the monsters I had made in second edition were very hard to balance in third. I found myself setting my campaign setting aside and instead DM the FR setting in it's place.

When I first heard about 4e I was a little excited but not expecting to much from it. I expected fighters to get some nifty powers and the other classes to get some rule tweaks. But when I saw the characters from the D&DXP and read several play testers reviews of the system I began to get really excited.

See I can see my old campaign setting being translated to 4e with ease. I have already sat down and began remapping several of the land masses. I haven't been this excited about D&D for over a decade. I don't see the changes they are making as ruining the game. Instead the changes seem to open up new options.

With PC's having healing surges I can now run more encounters each day and the monsters can be more challenging. This aspect solves one of the problems I have always had with D&D. Uncertain healing based on dice. The randomness of a die roll can doom a character to certain death. With these new rules I can increase encounter difficulty and not have to worry about PC's dying unfairly.

The fighter gets lots of special attacks. Having read the sample characters I haven't seen a single fighter ability yet that is supernatural. Instead what I see is the fighter class finally has some interesting options built in. No longer do I have to worry about the fighter's player getting bored because other individuals have nifty powers to use and he doesn't.

I really love the way they have designed the races this time. Now I can reintroduce several of the old races and they will translate easily.

My only gripe with the new system is that Magic Missile doesn't auto hit anymore. But I can live with that. The other changes, to me at least, don't seem like bad things but instead seem to remind me of how AD&D 2cnd ed felt when I played and ran it. 4e brings back the feelings of excitement and anticipation that I used to have back in the "old" days when I gamed. That is something that I feel the current (3e) D&D game lacks.


Anyways thats my opinion about the 4e.

Thanks for your time,
Rzach