Wired Reviews 4e

[Matthew_]

Weren't people saying the same exact thing about D20 when it was first released? I am sure that part of WotC's advertising campaign was that D20 was closer to AD&D 1e than AD&D 2e.

There are good things in 4e, that's undeniable. Some of them were in previous editions, that's true too. But I ain't buying any of this 4e is more like AD&D 1e than any previous edition stuff, or even that it's closer than D20. I am not even sure that the majority of the 4e audience would consider that a good thing.

Regardless, it looks like it will be a fun game, which shouldn't surprise anyone, there are plenty of them.

 

[Ruslanchik]

Did the AD&D PHB have psionics?

Yes.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Yes.

Probably missing a joke here. Waiting for the punch line...

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

There are good things in 4e, that's undeniable. Some of them were in previous editions, that's true too. But I ain't buying any of this 4e is more like AD&D 1e than any previous edition stuff, or even that it's closer than D20. I am not even sure that the majority of the 4e audience would consider that a good thing.

Regardless, it looks like it will be a fun game, which shouldn't surprise anyone, there are plenty of them.

You don't have to buy the 4E is like 1E thing. In the end, it comes down to your own personal opinion. On these boards we seem to think that any opinion different from our own is categorically incorrect. I'm not point a finger at you, mind you - I'm just saying that it's a "feel" thing, not a "prove it" thing.

And that same type of philosophy, I believe, overrides the 4E game vis-a-vis 3E. Now, I loved 3E. But I loved 1E. The design in 4E seems much more a "do what's cool" with monsters and character abilities instead of "do what you can calculate" that was, IMO, prevalent in the latter days of 3E.

Will 4E avoid those same pitfalls? I dunno. I suspect we'll certainly see some broken and unbalanced things. I bet they're already being found by people much smarter than I am that care to look for those things.

In the end, though, 4E does hearken to 1E - for all the reasons Henry listed so eloquently, and many more. I played 1E for many, many years. It was a part of my life growing up. It has a very definitive feel to me. 4E has recaptured that, and I'm happy for it.

Finally, I agree with you on your statement that not all of the 4E audience will think that the 1E tie-in is a "good thing". Heck, from what we're hearing, many 4E players weren't even born when I was in my buddy's basement going through Hommlet. And that's fine, too. In fact, it's more than fine.

Toodles,
Wis

 

[Henry]

Heck, from what we're hearing, many 4E players weren't even born when I was in my buddy's basement going through Hommlet. And that's fine, too. In fact, it's more than fine.

Damn that Rannos Davl...

 

[Matthew_]

And that same type of philosophy, I believe, overrides the 4E game vis-a-vis 3E. Now, I loved 3E. But I loved 1E. The design in 4E seems much more a "do what's cool" with monsters and character abilities instead of "do what you can calculate" that was, IMO, prevalent in the latter days of 3E.

Sure, and that's one of the things I like about 4e. Of course, the same exact thing could be said of Savage Worlds or a number of other RPGs otherwise unrelated to Dungeons & Dragons.

In the end, though, 4E does hearken to 1E - for all the reasons Henry listed so eloquently, and many more. I played 1E for many, many years. It was a part of my life growing up. It has a very definitive feel to me. 4E has recaptured that, and I'm happy for it.

I am in two minds about this. It may well be the case that 4e recaptures some of the spirit of AD&D 1e, but that is a very mutable concept that differs between groups of people. From reading the rulebooks, I am not at all convinced, but many people are saying that it plays quite different from how it reads, so I intend to reserve judgement about that until I have played it a few times.

Certainly 4e is harkening back to 1e (or even just AD&D) in some ways, just as D20 harkened back to it in others. From my point of view it is in general a greater mechanical departure than any previous edition, but opinions vary, and that's fine. We're all free to express them.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Certainly 4e is harkening back to 1e (or even just AD&D) in some ways, just as D20 harkened back to it in others. From my point of view it is in general a greater mechanical departure than any previous edition, but opinions vary, and that's fine. We're all free to express them.

Actually, I think I agree with you completely. I should have been clearer. 4E captures the "feel" of 1E for me, but I agree that it is a large departure mechanically. Probably moreso than 3E, which was a huge evolution in its own right.

Ergo, mechanically:

(4E -1E) > (3E - 1E)

I'll say this, since it's somewhat related: I think WotC did a huge disservice to themselves by omitting some of the things they chose to omit. I'm not a fan of gnomes or bards, but I like them in my D&D. Barbs weren't in core 1E, but I like them as well. I have less concerns about tossing the Great Wheel aside for a more designed-from-the-foundation approach. I'm sure we could poll 10 folks and we'd have 10 different answers about what should have been included and what should have been dropped.

I don't think it was a game design "mistake" to omit some of those things, but it was a PR mistake. They probably turned aside a lot of gamers that otherwise may have switched to 4E or, at a minimum, taken a look at it with an open mind.

Wis

 

[Andor]

Combat moves so fluidly now, and the DM has so much less prep time to worry about, that the art of role-playing itself finally moves into the foreground of Dungeons & Dragons. Telling a compelling story, and having a ton of fun doing it, is ultimately the reason players sit down to game in the first place. What D&D 4th Edition represents is the chance to have fun with your friends without a ton of hassle, to immerse yourself in a fantasy world without working at it.

But don't let that stop anyone from making the same unqualified, tired "it's a video game" claims that we've been hearing since the announcement of the new edition. I'm really pleased with it so far, and I'm not looking for a video game: I wanted back to basics.

Of course he also said "Given the constraints of play-testing, there was almost no storytelling. We did very little role-playing, almost no character development --"

Oh and "In fact, many of the mechanics are so easy to use that they remind players of what it feels like to play a massively multiplayer game. Wizards' Slavicsek has absolutely no problem with those comparisons, as all good games build on what has come before."

So you may be SOL with that 'no video game' wish. But hey, read whatever you like in the article.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Which edition of first edition did you play?

When I look at my old several hundred page DMG and Player's handbooks with no skills or feats or paths, purely random generation, 36 levels, and 9 alignments, the only thing I see in common in random dungeon generation.

Plus, 4E has no:

.5 orc, druid, assassin, illusionist, gnome, monk, bard, psionics, magic-user (4E has sorcerer named Wizard), magic-user familiar, or ranger animal companion.

And, worst of all...


No wandering Harlot table.

This is the perfect representation of an argument that 4E is like a video game.

I mean, seriously, this seems to represent the core logic of the argument.

On its face, it is a non sequitor; that is, the argument presents premises that bear no relationship to the conclusion.

If we accept, however, that there is some sort of reasoning here, then we must accept not that what is being argued for is that 4E is like a coputer game, simpliciter, but that 4E is like a certain kind of computer game.

If we accept that all kinds of D&D are like a kind of computer game, then all that the argument needs to do is delineate what kind of computer game 4E is to be considered. And that's exactly what the arguer above has done. They are distinguishing between 1E, which was like a text-based MUD, and 4E, which uses contemporary techniques to appear more realistic or immersive.

If realism or immersion is a problem, then I fear that 4E will be problematic.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

Of course he also said "Given the constraints of play-testing, there was almost no storytelling. We did very little role-playing, almost no character development --"

Oh and "In fact, many of the mechanics are so easy to use that they remind players of what it feels like to play a massively multiplayer game. Wizards' Slavicsek has absolutely no problem with those comparisons, as all good games build on what has come before."

So you may be SOL with that 'no video game' wish. But hey, read whatever you like in the article.

Huh. I know that answering a provocation on the internet is like accepting an invitation to the special olympics, but I'll take a stab at this one anyway.

Please refer to the first quote in my post: the one that gives the second quote a context. The poster to whom I was responding basically said it 4e gaming experience was the same as a video game experience (the implication being that you can't do the immersive world building/narrative stuff in a table top rpg that plays like a video game). I pulled the quote from the article to demonstrate that wasn't the case.

Yeah, I read whatever I liked in the article, and thanks for the snark. Let the madness continue, by all means.