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

[Herremann the Wise]

... Good Stuff...
There seem to be a ton of little narrative hurdles like that, and until I see how or if people deal with that I don't think I'm going to buy into this new edition because I can't see what it looks like in my head.

Addendum:
Also – if 4e is fundamentally about killing horrible monsters, then the part when I kill the horrible monsters should be the very last spot where I have to break immersion in order to play the game!

I think this post was incredibly well put and I concur. Whilst I do not yet have the official books, from what I have seen I think this is a key point and problem for a lot of DMs.

As a player and DM who is planning to play a lot of 4th Ed., I have found this thread very enlightening (and so thank you Turanil in starting it). I'm glad that the vast majority have taken it in the vein it was intended. I particularly find cogent BryonD's various posts that to be honest have me worried - but at the same time nodding my head. Thank you BryonD for the feedback.

However, I am thinking perhaps there is one factor that may be interesting in all of this. My group play pretty much as our group does, regardless of game or edition. We're older, immersive kind of guys who will always prefer to roleplay in our various worlds. Will 4E change that? Most probably not. And so, what do I hate about 4E? I'm not exactly sure but I'll post back when I truly know after playing with our group. At the moment, I just have concerns and fears... but not yet hatred.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Stoat]

The whole math and mechanics in 4E, makes the game feel like a facade(to me, that is). 3.5 feels like a world to me.

Could you elaborate? I have some concerns about a minions, but other than that, I don't get this vibe from the preview stuff I've looked at.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yes, because there are no roles in chess. If you were playing a specific chess piece, instead of the guy controlling all of the pieces, you might actually get closer to a role-playing game.
Monopoly is also not a role-playing game, because the game doesn't care if you're a car or a shoe.

Sadly, one of the best chess players I know might disagree with you... I swear, him using the voice from Sir Didimous (Labyrinth) for his knights is downright disconcerting. which might be the point....)

The Auld Grump

 

[Casupaa]

Could you elaborate? I have some concerns about a minions, but other than that, I don't get this vibe from the preview stuff I've looked at.

It's alot of small things, minions included. In 4E i feel that my character, is much less character, and alot more combat machine. I liked being able to pick skills(sometimes wierd skills) that supported my character concept. I don't like the way that ability scores work with classes now. As a rogue you have to be very stupid not to constantly max out your dex, and you have to be stupid not to leave an 8 in intelligence. In 3.5 I felt that either score could bring something good down the line, because of all the opportunities in multiclassing or a PrC, and that way I didn't have to "sell out" on my character concept(4E multiclassing seems very limited). My point with ability scores is that they dont feel like how good you are at an ability any more. I could probably go on with these smaller things. I'd rather quote BryonD's earlier post wich pretty much summed up exactly how I feel about this:

I don't like it because I am a world builder.

I want a game that is about making a cool world and then using that world to build cool characters in it. 4E, to me, is exactly the opposite. 4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.

I want a world where a monster is imagined and designed to be exactly whatever the DM sees it as. Not a world where its attack bonus and AC are confined to a range to match its level. Not a world where a monster might be a soldier if you meet it one time and a minion if you meet it another.

I want a world where gauntlets of ogre strength simply make you stronger. Being stronger means being stronger and then you deal with balancing that in the game, or not bothering to balance it, as best fits what is fun to you at the time. I don't want a world where gauntlets of ogre strength are simply as close as you can get to "stronger" within the the math constraints for a encounter expected to include level X items. I don't want anything to be defined by balance. I want everything to be defined by what it is and then have balance work backward from there.

I want a world where magic missle isn't just the wizard's version of a longbow.

I want a game which makes a world where the characters don't matter at all, and then leave it up to the players, including the DM, to make characters that make themselves matter.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

New edition, we have things like the pally's divine challenge and the fighter powers that inflict damage on a miss and things that suggest that ablating hit points is basically a matter of gaining – to use a term that has a different technical meaning in 4e – combat advantage over your foes, to the point where you can dispatch them with a final blow. Which is fine as a system, and which is why I don't mind fighters doing damage on a miss out of general principle. But.

How the hell do you narrate that? The transfer of combat superiority? "You see the knight's parries weaken, his movements grow more hesitant"? Ok, but over and over again, fight after fight after fight after fight? "You hit, he misses" may be rote, but at least it's short.

It would depend on the specific situation; for example, in the case of a heavily armored foe you might say "your weapon comes down hard on his shield, and while he holds back the strike, his shield arm still takes the impact of the blow, and he begins to give ground." Each situation will require a slightly different narration, if you are the sort to do that - I am, and I've always found that sort of thing to be easy.

 

[billd91]

Sadly, one of the best chess players I know might disagree with you... I swear, him using the voice from Sir Didimous (Labyrinth) for his knights is downright disconcerting. which might be the point....)

The Auld Grump

Hey, no different from making engine noises while moving the tanks around in Advanced Squad Leader, or ordering the troops around with fake Dr. Strangelovean German accents.

 

[JeffB]

Lots of good (and few "out there" ) points made

I picked up KOTS and still was pretty square on the fence. Unfortunately, after taking a gander through the 4E books there are alot of things I still don't like/cant deal with re: 4E. The Good is *really* Good, the Bad is *really* Bad , and outweighs the good for my tastes.

3.X was the same for me- theres just too much BS I'd have to change to make it worthwhile- games shouldn't be work :shrug:

I ended up spending the money I had allotted for the 4E books at the TLG $10 sale

 

[haakon1]

Because four is death.

Yes, 4 = death in Chinese. Therefore, 4e has bad feng shui.

Switching countries, it also has bad kharma for killing Dungeon & Dragon magazines, and messing with Paizo, which WOTC is jealous of 'cause Paizo writes more interesting stuff.

On the other hand, 4e has good kharma because it's dedicated to Gygax.

As for the actual GAME, well, I haven't read it yet, except the Keep on the Shadowfell.

Which provides good kharma because it has a cool name.

 

[The Little Raven]

It's that the two are completely incompatible with each other as it stands. You cannot both roleplay and play the minis game they've got going on.

This is absolutely a failure of imagination on your part.

 

[noretoc]

I havn't gotten the book yet, so I will only comment on the things I have heard on the boards.

The fact the Roleplaying takes a back seat combat is big for me. We can say that in other version it always has, but I have never felt that way. I have always thought that with most of the 3.5 stuff, The story came first, and the stats, feat, etc were made to fit it. That may not be true for everything, but for quite a bit. 4th is the opposite. Build an ability and class, and let the players figure out how it fits in. If I want to do that, I might as well build the class and abilities myself, as I have done in 3.5

Someone in another post said something that sums up some of what I think is wrong. he said that he and his group were able to roleplay with 4ed. Out of a four hour session, he spent a whole hour just roleplaying. Well, in my games, out of a four hour session, 3.5 is just roleplaying. The rules, the fluff, the classes all had a role outside of combat (Well, maybe the fighter didn't really, but then again he is a fighter.). In this addition they all have thier place in combat, oh, and if you want you can roleply them too.

The balance thing bothers me too. It is like catering to underachievers. Are you mad because you took a fighter and now the wiz can kick your tail? Well don't worry, in the new edition there are no people onthe bottom. It is like giving every kid a trophy rather than the winners. "Your special too".. What is wrong with being the underdog? Its a roleplaying game, not a competition. If you get mad because you can't do as much damage as the wizard at level 15, suck it up. Play a wizard next time. Then you will be mad because 1 hit can kill you at level 1. For a wizard, the whole concept was weak at low levels, and strong at high. What is wrong with that? It's fun to play the guy who is afraid of getting turned into a newt. that is what Roleplaying is about.

If I wanted a game where everyone is a hero, and has powers, there are games out there that do it a hell of a lot better then D&D. In thoes games the point is to be a superhero. IF fits in with the theme of the game. I don't think the new edition rules fit at all with the theme of the game that has been d&d for years.

Let me keep my fantasy game, and you can have your paper video game