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

[SSquirrel]

'Kill dudes and steal their stuff' isn't really that strong of a defining trait for a role playing game. A large number of RPGs which are not D&D also emphasize combat and looting. Even those games that don't emphasize pillaging tend to have a good deal of murderizing.

As far as classic game play goes I see some elements of 4e that are tacit rejection of classic tropes. While D&D has always been driven mostly by game play elements, D&D game play as conceived by Arneson and Gygax focused on a structure that was reminiscent of extended war game campaigns where attrition, logistics, and preparation played a much larger role than they do in 4e. Classic play also focused more on adventuring and world building than the current paradigm does. World fidelity was considered a crucial element of play. There wasn't very much attention paid to the creation of a satisfying narrative or action oriented play. 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.

4e basically embraces a more action adventure oriented approach that assumes a certain degree of PC protagonism. It also places the importance of the creation of a satisfactory narrative above world building and modeling. Additionally there is further emphasis being placed on each individual encounter serving as challenge (tactics over strategy). It continues a process that started with AD&D 2e material and continued with 3e. The difference this time is that Wizards has basically abandoned the incremental approach. They are creating an edition that matches their vision of the way D&D should be played without looking back and taking half measures. They did not construct a list of sacred cows this time around. That is a huge difference.

All these things you list as the classic elements of play are reasons I don't play the classic versions of the game anymore. Even when I was playing BECMI and AD&D 20 years ago we never had loads of henchmen and when was avoiding monsters ever the better route? you didn't get XP for that

And for the people who mention people not even being able to keep track of 5 abilities or remember rather simple rules like movement, yes I know it's a social event, but it isn't hard to learn these rules. If you can't remember a few simple abilities should you even be playing D&D? Not to sound elitist b/c I'm far from it, the people I've gamed with in the past who had problems like this were either too lazy to read or were just kind of there and didn't really care about what they were doing. I just don't understand spending a lot of time doing something if you don't enjoy it, so I prefer everyone I game with actually enjoys what we're doing and does the modicum of reading needed to figure out what they're doing with their character.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I think there might be a tendency, but I am not convinced that the shift is "total". The balance might have changed more to the "narration".

I am not sure D&D would be as succesful as it was if it hadn't always given room for multiple approaches to play the game. I think every edition had just a different balance. (Which might be why it's so hard to define "What is D&D and what isn't")

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Game Style and Supportive Rules

Perhaps we should continue this discussion in a separate thread.

I'd like that, if you're willing.

-Samir

 

[Cactot]

I would just like to point out the absurdity of the "i only want to play maximus, not beowulf" argument i have been hearing. First off, Maximus Decimus Meridus was perhaps the most experienced warrior in Rome, he had been in the leigons since he was 17 and was the Legate of the Roman Legion (AKA a 4-5 star general) by the time he was 24. He, in D&D terms would have been a MINIMUM of level 10, and there is absolutely nothing (that we have seen so far) that is so "extraordinary" that it would be unbelievable for Maximus to be able to do it.

In fact I think that 4e may do an even better job of representing him than 3.0/3.5 ever did. First off he will be mostly relying on his own skills instead of a christmas tree of magical items (thats a BIGGIE); secondly with the flavor that we have seen so far from the fighter (and likely will continue to see) have been completely grounded in mostly believable behaviors. Hell in gladiator Maximus did the following: bull rush, throw a short sword, spinning stab, sidestep/trip/counter, and a variety of other amazing but believable feats. I find it hard to believe that there is anything that they will come up with for the fighter that you could not find a way to explain/rename to make them more "realistic" or "gritty".

That being said, heres to hoping that they dont add in things like "X slams the ground, causing a shockwave of damage to all around him" or "X swipes at the air, causing an immense sonic boom damaging everything in front of him". As much as i like these tropes in asian movies, cartoons, and crpgs (disgaea, final fantasy tactics, suikoden, etc) they are totally inappropriate for what i think of for a fighter type in d&d. But i have ZERO problem with abilities that give you things like "redirect Y's attack to hit someone standing next to you" or "bull rush Y out of the way and attack Z" as they are completely understandable and believable, ESPECIALLY considering it is a fantasy setting.

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

I thought I'd take a shot at the original post, giving my view of the common complaints. I've been playing D&D since 1993 or 1994, playing plenty of 2nd, 3.0 and 3.5. I am very excited about 4th edition.

[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 love the Great Wheel cosmology, but I think I'll be able to adapt it easily, and I heard or read an interview with a designer in which the designer stated it wouldn't be that bad. Greater differentiation of demon and devils is a good thing IMO, and the feywild seems a good idea too.

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

The current game I'm running only has humans as a 'civilized' race. How can the inclusion of two new races be a dealbreaker? Just do what you want.

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

Lucky me I have no use for gnomes.

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

I don't see 4th and 3.5 different in this regard. 3.5 implies minis and maps pretty strongly. Even if the rules imply lots of combat, how can they actively diminish roleplaying at your table?

[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 see this complaint as valid. I just hold an opposing viewpoint about what is most fun at the table.

[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.)
[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.

Vancian magic stinks, people have been replacing it with spellpoints for a decade. I've read that the audience at Gencon cheered when it was revealed that vancian was mostly out. Without extensive personal playtesting, how can someone claim that characters will be invincible? D&D is supposed to be heroic fantasy, if you prefer a more gritty or more simulationist approach, why not play another game?

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

Isn't this a good thing? As a roleplayer, I don't want to have the character I've lovingly poured my creative energies into killed at first level anyways.

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

I understand this point. On the other hand, by flattening the power curve, a wider number of kinds of combats are possible than in 3.5 where only CR's very close to PC level produced viable combats. Also, by making first level characters better, I can play characters with more elaborate backstories than before. A first level character in 2nd or 3rd edition had to be a young kid with no experience, because anyone with any experience would be more talented.

I just hope people don't get scared off of 4th edition because of someone else's complaints. I'm excited about more action driven combat, a larger sweet spot, every class having cool stuff to do, clerics not stuck in healer mode, wizards who can do little tricks at will, viable ranged-combat classes in core, fewer magic items, no more save or sit, and a lot of the other stuff they've shown us.

 

[SSquirrel]

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

Sorry but I think I have to revoke your grognard license, you said positive things about 4E
Grognards are less people that have played a long time than people who have played a long time and don't like the way the game is changing.

 

[ironvyper]

I would just like to point out the absurdity of the "i only want to play maximus, not beowulf" argument i have been hearing. First off, Maximus Decimus Meridus was perhaps the most experienced warrior in Rome, he had been in the leigons since he was 17 and was the Legate of the Roman Legion (AKA a 4-5 star general) by the time he was 24. He, in D&D terms would have been a MINIMUM of level 10, and there is absolutely nothing (that we have seen so far) that is so "extraordinary" that it would be unbelievable for Maximus to be able to do it.

In fact I think that 4e may do an even better job of representing him than 3.0/3.5 ever did. First off he will be mostly relying on his own skills instead of a christmas tree of magical items (thats a BIGGIE); secondly with the flavor that we have seen so far from the fighter (and likely will continue to see) have been completely grounded in mostly believable behaviors. Hell in gladiator Maximus did the following: bull rush, throw a short sword, spinning stab, sidestep/trip/counter, and a variety of other amazing but believable feats. I find it hard to believe that there is anything that they will come up with for the fighter that you could not find a way to explain/rename to make them more "realistic" or "gritty".

That being said, heres to hoping that they dont add in things like "X slams the ground, causing a shockwave of damage to all around him" or "X swipes at the air, causing an immense sonic boom damaging everything in front of him". As much as i like these tropes in asian movies, cartoons, and crpgs (disgaea, final fantasy tactics, suikoden, etc) they are totally inappropriate for what i think of for a fighter type in d&d. But i have ZERO problem with abilities that give you things like "redirect Y's attack to hit someone standing next to you" or "bull rush Y out of the way and attack Z" as they are completely understandable and believable, ESPECIALLY considering it is a fantasy setting.

See that brings up something else i have seen that i dont like. Things like bullrush or trip being class specific abilities rather then tactical options for anyone. While i do like that they arent going completely anime with the powers, i dont like taking basic options away from people either, which is what your doing when u say "only fighters can trip, and they can only try to trip someone X amount of times per day. " I think its silly and sounds hard to justify to a new player.

But my problem with the super heroic guys isnt the powers, most important to me is the rediculous amount of HP and the healing surges. It seems like they decided the game would be more fun if it was almost impossible to die, right from the beginning and that removes the drama for me. Nothing that cant be changed with a few houserules, but its still a gripe i have.

 

[ironvyper]

Sorry but I think I have to revoke your grognard license, you said positive things about 4E
Grognards are less people that have played a long time than people who have played a long time and don't like the way the game is changing.

Drat, lol and i thought i finally fit into a gaming caste. Oh well guess i have to deal with individuality for another day.

 

[Cactot]

See that brings up something else i have seen that i dont like. Things like bullrush or trip being class specific abilities rather then tactical options for anyone. While i do like that they arent going completely anime with the powers, i dont like taking basic options away from people either, which is what your doing when u say "only fighters can trip, and they can only try to trip someone X amount of times per day. " I think its silly and sounds hard to justify to a new player.

But my problem with the super heroic guys isnt the powers, most important to me is the rediculous amount of HP and the healing surges. It seems like they decided the game would be more fun if it was almost impossible to die, right from the beginning and that removes the drama for me. Nothing that cant be changed with a few houserules, but its still a gripe i have.

i understand what you mean, but if i recall correctly, about 80% of the demo groups during DDXP had a TPK... so its not THAT hard to die = D

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

See that brings up something else i have seen that i dont like. Things like bullrush or trip being class specific abilities rather then tactical options for anyone. While i do like that they arent going completely anime with the powers, i dont like taking basic options away from people either, which is what your doing when u say "only fighters can trip, and they can only try to trip someone X amount of times per day. " I think its silly and sounds hard to justify to a new player.

It's not too difficult. I was doing it all weekend. You simply say "You are playing D&D. In this game you have a number of actions every round. Here is a list of the things you can do and what type of action each one takes. When you take a class, you get training on how to do some new stuff called Powers."

But my problem with the super heroic guys isnt the powers, most important to me is the rediculous amount of HP and the healing surges. It seems like they decided the game would be more fun if it was almost impossible to die, right from the beginning and that removes the drama for me. Nothing that cant be changed with a few houserules, but its still a gripe i have.

Ridiculous? Compared to what? Enemies on a good hit can do 3d6+5 points of damage in one hit. That's a possible 23 points of damage. Enough to drop a wizard in one hit.

The difference is, it isn't LIKELY to take him out. On average no one will die in one hit anymore. Now you'll have time to react to changing situations and change your strategy accordingly. Which makes for a much more interesting game than "He power attacks full and does 24 damage to the Wizard. That kills the Wizard, he cleaves to the Rogue and does 20, that kills him."

And it'll let 1st level parties fight more than one combat per day.