You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[SweeneyTodd]

I think that regardless of whether or not you like the intent of the design team on 4e, it's really helpful to know those intentions. If nothing else, it lets you know what you'd want to change if you want to play the game with different priorities than the designers intended.

It's a game system that models the outcomes of adventure fiction-style exploits in a fictional world -- it doesn't attempt to model that fictional world directly. Whether or not you like that they do that or not, it's certainly better to know it than not, right?

I'll be really curious to see what they do with the Forgotten Realms supplements, since when you're talking about a preestablished fictional world they may have to do a lot more in terms of "This is how X actually looks in the world" as well as having game mechanics for it.

 

[Sacrificial Lamb]

The more I read, the more I am stunned. Well, at least as I want to compare it to previous editions of D&D. Maybe if it was a new game, I would just ignore it. However, 90 minutes to resolve a fight between four 1st level PCs and eight kobolds?!? Three kobolds have dozens of hp and five of them have 1 hp each? Fighters inflicting damage even though they don't hit, yet not on minions? More book-keeping and battlemat use than ever? Well, the more I read about it, the more it seems 4e is like an enormous hoax or April's fool...

It was an experience. I was actually shocked at how much more cumbersome 4e is than 3e. There's a wide array of different powers running simultaneously, and most of them provide a bonus or a penalty, depending on you being adjacent to the right type of creature. To any who are in doubt, my experience is that 4e absolutely requires the battle grid and awareness of exect positioning, even moreso than 3e. I could houserule away Attacks of Opportunity in 3e, but you can't really do that in 4e. There are far too many powers that rely upon exact knowledge of every participant on the battlegrid. There is no "fog of war" in 4e.

Oh, and 4e also requires a ton of bookkeeping, even more than 3e (if that even sounds possible).

It's not the Opportunity Attacks that are so much the problem, but there are so many powers that only activate when you're adjacent to the proper creature. Our group tried to use dice as a replacement for miniatures, but we'd accidentally mistake one die for another, thus getting abilities like marking and Mob Attack mixed up.

To anyone else present, read the link to the thread I provided. Read the entire thread, if you have the time. The experience was...painful.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10663

 

[Henry]

Before you base your whole decision on this thread, Turanil, it might help to check into some of the positive experiences, too. There's quite a bit of pro and con going on, and a lot MORE of it over the next month, I'd imagine. But as with any edition, if 3e is currently "floating your boat", there's nothing positively life-changing that will come out of a switch.

 

[mhensley]

4e turned me into a newt!

 

[billd91]

And to think... back in 3e when he described his OA game, I was enthralled by the detail and flavor he put into the game, with cool little tidbits from folklore. This doesn't sound like the James Wyatt we see quoted here.

That was when the core system for 3.0 was already in place and he was talking about a setting add-on. Now, he's talking about getting the core of the new game in place rather than the campaign add-on. I see a significant difference in the two topics. Since D&D is fundamentally more about killing horrible monsters (and taking their stuff while exploring trap-laden ruins), I can understand why that has to be the focus of the core rules, certainly moreso than visiting the wee people of the faerie realms. Once those are in place and robust, then it's time to push things out to the corners of the envelope.

You gotta wear different hats depending on what segment of the game you are designing. Each segment will have different design goals.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Since D&D is fundamentally more about killing horrible monsters (and taking their stuff while exploring trap-laden ruins), I can understand why that has to be the focus of the core rules, certainly moreso than visiting the wee people of the faerie realms.

fundamentally?!? Not sure I agree with you here.

With 4e that may be so. With prior editions, not necessarily so.

RC

 

[Stoat]

4e turned me into a newt!

Well, I hope you get better!

I'm curious to hear why folks don't think 4E supports world-building. When I hear the term, I think of political machinations, organizations with conflicting goals, NPC personalities, geographical features, and ancient histories. I think of these sorts of things as being largely independent of the rules.

What don't I like?

I don't like what they've done with gnomes.

 

[Turanil]

Before you base your whole decision on this thread, Turanil, it might help to check into some of the positive experiences, too. There's quite a bit of pro and con going on, and a lot MORE of it over the next month, I'd imagine. But as with any edition, if 3e is currently "floating your boat", there's nothing positively life-changing that will come out of a switch.

You are right, and in fact I am looking forward to read people's experiences of play, in a few weeks or months (when people will have played it a lot). I will be interested to read why some other gamers like the game.

 

[sinecure]

Personally, I blame the Forge and vocabulary of gaming they created out of the spite they had for 99% of games and gamers. It's now infected D&D so it has become nothing but a miniatures game with a single "narrative" mechanic tacked on. It's the least ROLEPLAY-oriented game with the title of RPG that I've ever read. I mean, I can call Chess a role-playing game, but how dumb would that be?

I chalk it up to the badly mistaken notion I've heard some of the developers claim that (paraphrasing) "Any game can be roleplayed. It's not some rule you add to the system". These guys have been locked in the maze too long.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

What I hate about 4E:

Having people walk up to me and explain to me why 4E sucks without having even heard anything about it.

(I'm not slamming those in this thread, I spend a lot of time at the game shop, and I've had people walk up and explain to me why 4E sucks, and it's apparent they have NO IDEA what they are talking about. And it drives me nuts.)

I would vehemently disagree with you, except this is the exact reason I refuse to play GURPS. There are (or at least were - the shop were they congregated has since closed) some local GURPS players who would go out of their way to explain why any other game was bad. Going so far as to take a box of the starter D&D set out of the hands of a kid at the local bookstore.

As for e4 - my initial feeling was apathy, which grew to dislike as I heard more about it. At least part of my dislike is indeed from the folks who try to shove it down my throat, but most is from just not liking the direction the rules seem to be going. I will take a look at the bookstore, but from my budding dislike, and the investment in the previous edition I doubt that I will be making a purchase.

Last week at one of my games I was surprised when the discussion turned to e4. It turned out that I was the most tolerant of the new edition of the folks gathered around the table. Mind you, this was at a Spycraft game, sort of the opposite end of things from e4 in terms of complexity. (My Spycraft Delta Green game to be precise. I don't think my Steampunk Spycraft players care a whit. )

The Auld Grump, Pathfinder also looks more to my tastes, even if it is more 3.75 than e4.