Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Ariosto]

Just wait for that mythical Final Edition, where everyone gets exactly the rules they want because they choose which rules they want for their own games, still professionally designed, rather than relying on an immutable codex of rules that happens to change once every 5 or so years.

I would not hold my breath, but that very well could (in theory) be roughly the shape of things eventually to come.

Recall that the first two D&D supplements were titled Greyhawk and Blackmoor, after the first two campaigns. They were in essence presentations of "house rules" (although mostly from the pens of Gygax and his crew even in the booklet attributed to Arneson). In other words, they were not in a sense any more "core" D&D than The Arduin Grimoire.

The concept of the game as singular and more or less consistent entity, beyond an identity that was to some extent defined in opposition to identification with any particular source of inspiration, started IMO really to get solidified with AD&D (and the several Basic sets that for so many preceded the hardbound tomes).

The notion that "everything (published by Company X) is core" has played ever more hob with the original tool-kit concept as the product has tended to a more monolithic kernel (to borrow computer operating-system jargon). Inherent modularity has given way to large-scale integration, and the "basic" game has grown into a monster.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can staple paper wings on a car, but that doesn't mean that I can now say that my car supports flight more than the next car.

4e has non-combat powers and spells: they're called rituals and utility powers. And feats to increase skills. And magical item creation rituals. 4e has non-combat skills.

Just because the Craft and Profession skills exist does not give 3e a robust number of non-combat options.

There's always an underlying assumption with these arguments that frustrates me: that 4e is the most deviation from all the D&D editions.

You know what skills were in 2e? Non-weapon proficiencies - it says right there in the name, 'This has nothing to do with weapons'. What were the non-combat related stuff in 1e?

If you set all the editions next to one another, the one that stands out the most different from the others is 3e.

Neither I nor the original proposer of the Transformers analogy referenced 2Ed or 1Ed, as far as I can tell. The comparison was strictly between 3Ed and 4Ed.

1Ed didn't have much in the way of noncombat skills- well, skills of any kind, really- but it did have non-combat spells. 2Ed expanded upon that, as did 3Ed. 4Ed dialed that all back a bit...somewhere between 2Ed and 3Ed, by my reckoning.

If I wanted to in 2Ed Players Option or 3.X, I could design a cleric or wizard virtually devoid of offensive capacity. Every spell would be defensive or buffing or otherwise non-combative. And yes, they can be fun and effective PCs who carry their own weight.

I haven't seen that kind of commitment to supporting non-combatant PC designs in 4Ed- at some point, a PC will be forced to have a combat power, be it a daily, encounter or whatever.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

There's always an underlying assumption with these arguments that frustrates me: that 4e is the most deviation from all the D&D editions.
...If you set all the editions next to one another, the one that stands out the most different from the others is 3e.

I disagree, and I think more than anyone, Mr Browning has hit the nail on the head in this regard:

IMO, the seminal difference between 4e and the prior incarnations of D&D is this: In 4e The world exists based upon the PCs interactions. (For example: In this type of role-playing minions make sense. The power of a creature is viewed only in relation to the PCs powers.)

The earlier editions of D&D believed this: The world exists and the PCs interact with it. (For example: In this type of role-playing minions do not make sense. Each creature has power based upon it's place in the world, regardless of the power of the PCs.)

Both types of play can be a lot of fun, but they are entirely different ways of viewing a role-playing game and, I believe, this is the primary reason for the dissatisfaction many of the the D&D audience has with 4e. The basic assumption of what type of role-playing game D&D is changed.

So rather than quibling about combat/non-combat issues, I think this gets at the heart of what makes 4E so different to think about compared to other editions. In terms of play and from a player's perspective, the way my group plays D&D is how we play D&D, regardless of edition so what irks me discussion-wise is more a muted "bleargh" during play. I would love to see an amalgum of 3.x and 4E brought together into a cohesive whole with some of the "simulation" poured back in. That would be fun to discuss and play (in my opinion of course).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Rechan]

I read it more like calling 4e a good RPG is like calling Transformers a good movie. It's fun and entertaining and all, but it lacks depth and substance and if all you're going to do is watch explosions and look at hot girls, you can satisfy this by buying a gun and watching porn, without needing to go to a movie theater.

... The implication there being that 4e is shallow, not that it's not fun, but it's not something you can invest yourself into

Isn't that what I said? Certainly in more words, but that's what I meant. But then, I have a poor view of Transformers, so.

First, the final bit: a lot of 4e is deviant, seen from the perspective of other editions. It switches cart and horse, it sacrifices sacred cows, it is about action and combat not about survival and resource management, etc., etc. 4e being deviant isn't limited to what it does or doesn't do to the combat/noncombat mix.

IMO the places that 4e deviates from 1e/2e is the same place that 3e deviated, except in three circumstances.

Races can be any class, no level limits, feats, players can make and buy magical items, no dual classing, no infravision, there are guidelines for adjusting NPCs/monster stats, de-emphasis on exploration, the loss of acquiring/making Keeps, the importance of minis, etc.

3e deviates from them all: everyone behaves by the same rules (NPCs are built like PCs, and PCs can use all the mechanical tricks NPCs use). The emphasis on simulation/rules as physics. The magical item reliance/arms race.

The only place that I feel 4e differs from the editions before it is the removal of the Vancian system for the Powers system, the system does not support the concept of boys fresh off the farm, and the castration of the Alignment system.

Someone else put it in a way that I like: 4e seems more like a transition between 2e and 3e, than it does coming from 3e. It has 3e mechanical conceptions, but behaves more like 2e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Someone else put it in a way that I like: 4e seems more like a transition between 2e and 3e, than it does coming from 3e. It has 3e mechanical conceptions, but behaves more like 2e.

In many ways, that's probably pretty accurate.

 

[Rechan]

Neither I nor the original proposer of the Transformers analogy referenced 2Ed or 1Ed, as far as I can tell. The comparison was strictly between 3Ed and 4Ed.

I was responding to was your "It's Combat Focused", which I take issue with.

With regards to edition wars and particularly the non-combat argument, I just think that the above assumption is present.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Eh, no harm, no foul!

Moreso than in face-to-face discussions- where one can also read verbal intonations and body language- confusion is all part and parcel of debate on the internet!

But as KM pointed out- better than I did, FWIW- 4Ed is noticeably more combat focused than 3Ed.

 

[Ariosto]

I believe that the "default" DM style has gradually shifted from being a referee running mostly status quo encounters in a sandbox-style game to an entertainer running mostly tailored encounters in a game with an assumed plot or story arc.

I concur, and note that there seem to be many contributing reasons for the shift.

Those who consider it self-evidently not mere difference but objective improvement may little notice the "shoe on the other foot" factor. I think I speak for more of my generation than just myself in stating that my aim as an "edition warrior" is fervently not homogenization of the D&D scene into conformity with some One True Way -- but to stave off the encroachment of that very phenomenon.

The whole diversity of the hobby today sprouted from the seminal work of Arneson and Gygax. Whatever one's parochial limits to the game (and mine are no less so than yours, I think), they are contrary to the spirit that was fountainhead -- and I would preserve as touchstone -- to all.

Rather than diving from one fad or fashion into another as into a cult, always in Year Zero, can we not preserve the full richness of our shared and growing heritage?

 

[Rechan]

Those who consider it self-evidently not mere difference but objective improvement may little notice the "shoe on the other foot" factor. I think I speak for more of my generation than just myself in stating that my aim as an "edition warrior" is fervently not homogenization of the D&D scene into conformity with some One True Way -- but to stave off the encroachment of that very phenomenon.

Then we are in the same boat even as we are on opposite sides.

I am an "edition warrior" not because I think it's better, but to push back the "It's not D&D" "It's shallow" "It's just a videogame/boardgame/whatever derogative dumbed down term". It's a position of defense, like yourself.

To make a point, I don't go at length about what I thought of 3e or why I don't play 3e. But I cannot count how many times I've seen 'Yeah well this is what I think of 4e and why I don't play it' in multiple threads. The only complaint I see from 4e-players in reference to 3e is prep-time for DMs.

 

[AllisterH]

:re Sandbox DMing

I actually think many of the more modren day MMORPGs and RPGS might be to blame for this but not in the way people think (providing tailored encounters)

Many such computer games do allow for free range of the party/PC but the lethality is so jacked up that if you just LOOK at something funny, your PC is dead.

This is all because of the level system whereas in say a sandbox game like the Grand Theft Auto series which doesn't have levelling per se, the threat level across regions remains more or less constant.

Would you wander around Azeroth significantly above your level range even though it has great scenery?

This is why I tend to believe 4e is more suited for sandbox play as the common complaint that monsters don't do enough damage means that you won't get one shotted and players would be more willing to explore.