Sunday, June 22, 2008
Fourth Edition, or D&D?
But I finally had time to spend reading the new Player's Handbook (or, rather, the "Arcane, Divine and Martial Heroes" Player's Handbook... publisher Wizards of the Coast is spreading the joy across multiple Player's Handbooks) for Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition. It's been impossible for me to be untainted... people have been talking about this thing since last August, and I've heard plenty of praise and damnation heaped upon the new edition, and so it's been impossible to form my own opinions in a vacuum. And one can't truly offer an informed opinion on the matter without playing through it once.
I may never have an informed, unbiased opinion. So I'll venture the following, which you can discard at your leisure:
On the plus side, it looks like a pretty fun game.
But I had a pretty venomous post written where I had an imaginary product-kickoff meeting where a man in a suit told the designers to turn that "one miniatures game" into an RPG, and make it play like one of their successful collectable-trading-card games, so they could market it like their lucrative businesses. Oh, and make it enough like that Warcraft thing so they could sell it to those guys, too. When one of the designers objected that there was already a Dungeons & Dragons RPG, the suit demanded that they make things different enough so that they couldn't be sued.
And that pretty much describes my attitude towards the game. If it didn't say, "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, I would think it was a well-produced third-party fantasy role-playing game. I'd also ask if they sold cards to go with character actions, as the character abilities are defined very carefully in color-coded strips that resemble deed cards in Monopoly. They scream out for playing as part of an "action deck", with some cards that return to your hand immediately after being played, others that are played only once per combat, and others that are played once per day. I imagine we'll see those once the launch mania is over.
When I got to reading up on the Wizard class - which bears pretty much zero resemblance to the Dungeons & Dragons magic-user / wizard and has a lot more in common with the sorceress in the arcade game Gauntlet (or the late-3.5-era Warlock class - I realized that this was not Dungeons & Dragons. It is a game that could potentially co-exist with Dungeons & Dragons if the publisher didn't have a vested interest in burying the older games where they might never be found again. But there is a bigger gulf between this game and D&D than between the old and new incarnations of Battlestar Galactica.
Now, granted - the potential market amongst Magic the Gathering players and World of Warcraft players is far more lucrative than the fairly small, cheapskate population of pen & paper RPG players. From a business perspective, I can totally see where Wizards of the Coast is going with this. It's a whole new game, folks, but D&D it isn't. And for a lot of people (including, it sounds, Wizards of the Coast themselves), that's a good thing.
I can't fault their logic. They felt they needed to reinvent themselves and the industry, because the old model was broken from the start. And they'd do far better to bring in the brand name to get them there. Hey, my wife's Taurus S.E. doesn't bear much resemblance to the Model T or a Mustang, but they are all a Ford. And I would never be one to proclaim the kludgey game mechanics of ANY of the previous editions of D&D as being somehow sacred. I change 'em and flavor them to taste all the time.
But this thing is not an upgrade. It's not even a lateral shift. It's a completely different game. I'd love to give 4th edition a try sometime, but we're already busy playing Dungeons & Dragons.
Labels: Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 10:39 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
From reading the Design and Development columns leading up to 4e, it's pretty apparent that the designers started out with the intention to fix the most broken of the rules, realized that there were a lot of things that could be tuned up, realized there were sacred cows that weren't actually making the game more fun, and then finished a ground-up rebuild when they realized they'd taken the whole thing to pieces.
3rd edition probably feels more like 2nd and 1st editions. Both of the previous edition upgrades had lots of things they weren't willing to change, and thus there was a clear line of progression. 4e is much more like a designer going, "okay, what is it about our game that people actually enjoy? Let's figure out how to just do that, using more modern design principles."
I think a lot of people are looking at the new edition, noticing all the things that are missing from previous editions, and concluding that it's not the game for them anymore. I'm curious what portion of people are giving it a real play-through with an enthusiastic GM before making their decision. It doesn't look like D&D anymore, but I think it may feel a lot more like D&D than you're giving it credit for.
Meanwhile, a lot of the baggage has been stripped out. As a GM, I'm really looking forward to seeing whether it's true that the PCs are more balanced against one another, adventures are easier to write and set up, and the game doesn't become increasingly difficult to run as the players reach higher level. Having just finished a 3e arc where the players became widely spaced in their capabilities and next to impossible to come up with an appropriate challenge for by 10th level, I'm hopeful that 4e will work better.
Maybe it no longer has a clear line of development to previous editions, but I'm not sure that's a tremendous flaw as long as it feels similar in play and makes it easier to run.
3rd edition probably feels more like 2nd and 1st editions. Both of the previous edition upgrades had lots of things they weren't willing to change, and thus there was a clear line of progression. 4e is much more like a designer going, "okay, what is it about our game that people actually enjoy? Let's figure out how to just do that, using more modern design principles."
I think a lot of people are looking at the new edition, noticing all the things that are missing from previous editions, and concluding that it's not the game for them anymore. I'm curious what portion of people are giving it a real play-through with an enthusiastic GM before making their decision. It doesn't look like D&D anymore, but I think it may feel a lot more like D&D than you're giving it credit for.
Meanwhile, a lot of the baggage has been stripped out. As a GM, I'm really looking forward to seeing whether it's true that the PCs are more balanced against one another, adventures are easier to write and set up, and the game doesn't become increasingly difficult to run as the players reach higher level. Having just finished a 3e arc where the players became widely spaced in their capabilities and next to impossible to come up with an appropriate challenge for by 10th level, I'm hopeful that 4e will work better.
Maybe it no longer has a clear line of development to previous editions, but I'm not sure that's a tremendous flaw as long as it feels similar in play and makes it easier to run.
I get that it's not your only complaint, but are you seriously saying that it doesn't feel like D&D because the wizard is no longer an all-but-omnipotent one-(demi-)human party once they get past their "dead when a kobold breathes on them" levels?
Wizards now fit into a party without massively outdoing everyone else. Older editions were awesome for this, but it sucked for the people who weren't playing them - they may as well be using 0-level NPC stats for all the difference they'd make when the party wizard really got going.
Wizards now fit into a party without massively outdoing everyone else. Older editions were awesome for this, but it sucked for the people who weren't playing them - they may as well be using 0-level NPC stats for all the difference they'd make when the party wizard really got going.
# posted by 
: June 23, 2008 12:17 PM
: June 23, 2008 12:17 PM
I'd say it doesn't feel like D&D because the *kobold* doesn't die when you breathe on it (well, some do, but not all of them). Having recently been playing a not-even-Advanced-yet D&D campaign, the shift in what it MEANS to be a starting character is drastically different.
Was it much fun to be a 1st level wizard? No, not really, and we were solving this by giving everyone multiple characters.... a wizard is a resource you nurture carefully to keep it alive long enough to become a powerhouse!
Now, you can take your baby mage and grind through multiple combats at first level, not even needing to stop and sleep, as long as you've got Surges left. This may indeed be more fun for a first-level mage player. But the gameplay is totally different, and wrapping your head around the way that it changes the entire *world* is different too.
When Raise Dead is available to every churchgoing farmer, what it means to be an adventurer changes.
And when the game is designed around Combat Combat Combat and the healing rules happily pushing you from one fight to the next... it gets old fast if you're the wargame-hating roleplayer in the party.
Was it much fun to be a 1st level wizard? No, not really, and we were solving this by giving everyone multiple characters.... a wizard is a resource you nurture carefully to keep it alive long enough to become a powerhouse!
Now, you can take your baby mage and grind through multiple combats at first level, not even needing to stop and sleep, as long as you've got Surges left. This may indeed be more fun for a first-level mage player. But the gameplay is totally different, and wrapping your head around the way that it changes the entire *world* is different too.
When Raise Dead is available to every churchgoing farmer, what it means to be an adventurer changes.
And when the game is designed around Combat Combat Combat and the healing rules happily pushing you from one fight to the next... it gets old fast if you're the wargame-hating roleplayer in the party.
I think what the last commenter said is part of what makes this not the game for me. I'm not looking for a DnD wargame. I'm looking for a DnD pen and paper roleplaying game where there is still a focus on story and teamwork and strategy. If I saw this game by another name and was looking for a fantasy wargame I'd be all over it. But with the vast changes you can see that this was pretty much an attempt to 'restart' DnD, much as the World of Darkness games under went a restart. It changes the world, the classes, the game mechanics, etc, which may not be a bad thing in and of itself for a game system, but it's still not the DnD that I came to play.
And I've never had a problem playing a DnD wizard and having a great time, even at lower levels. Yeah, you have to work hard...harder than a lot of other classes, but that's okay too. It's a challenge and I love a challenge.
~J
And I've never had a problem playing a DnD wizard and having a great time, even at lower levels. Yeah, you have to work hard...harder than a lot of other classes, but that's okay too. It's a challenge and I love a challenge.
~J
"Yeah, you have to work hard...harder than a lot of other classes, but that's okay too. It's a challenge and I love a challenge."
I prefer a fair style of gameplay which doesn't just punish the wizards. I make my players lift weights to earn their STR scores. It's hilarious to see the fighter's face when he rolls 18/00.
I prefer a fair style of gameplay which doesn't just punish the wizards. I make my players lift weights to earn their STR scores. It's hilarious to see the fighter's face when he rolls 18/00.
# posted by : June 23, 2008 12:51 PM
: June 23, 2008 12:51 PM
My concern with Wizards wasn't that they have mass quantities of spells and hit points at 1st level and will magic missile things every round. But it's more that the uniqueness of the wizard / magic-user is gone.
You basically have your highest-level encounter abilities you run through, one at a time... same as every other wizard. Then downshift. Or use one of your dailies. And then your at-will abilities. It breaks down the gameplay into an easy-to-play routine, which I imagine might be a boon to inexperienced players. But it robs the class of a lot of what made it fun for me.
While there are still feats and skills (kinda), the customization level for all classes seems... minimal. More like playing a token in a board game than playing a character.
Granted - old-school D&D had that problem, too, which was why I got bored and quit playing it in the late 80's until 3E came out. But clerics and magic-users were, in a sense, the original "skill-based" builds in D&D, in one respect, and while they retain some of those aspects with 4E with daily spells and rituals, on the surface of that it doesn't ring familiar to me.
But the boardgame flavah isn't really what I'd consider an improvement. Not that it is bad --- as I said, it looks like it could be a fun game. But I'm having a tough time convincing the pattern-recognition neurons in my brain to see "Dungeons & Dragons" in it. People have been shouting that with every new edition of the game, I guess, particularly with third edition. I guess now I get to quit laughing at the gray-bearded chorus and lend my voice to 'em.
You basically have your highest-level encounter abilities you run through, one at a time... same as every other wizard. Then downshift. Or use one of your dailies. And then your at-will abilities. It breaks down the gameplay into an easy-to-play routine, which I imagine might be a boon to inexperienced players. But it robs the class of a lot of what made it fun for me.
While there are still feats and skills (kinda), the customization level for all classes seems... minimal. More like playing a token in a board game than playing a character.
Granted - old-school D&D had that problem, too, which was why I got bored and quit playing it in the late 80's until 3E came out. But clerics and magic-users were, in a sense, the original "skill-based" builds in D&D, in one respect, and while they retain some of those aspects with 4E with daily spells and rituals, on the surface of that it doesn't ring familiar to me.
But the boardgame flavah isn't really what I'd consider an improvement. Not that it is bad --- as I said, it looks like it could be a fun game. But I'm having a tough time convincing the pattern-recognition neurons in my brain to see "Dungeons & Dragons" in it. People have been shouting that with every new edition of the game, I guess, particularly with third edition. I guess now I get to quit laughing at the gray-bearded chorus and lend my voice to 'em.
Sorry about that, I was in a mood. No offense intended, Mr Barnson, Mrs Stocks.
# posted by : June 23, 2008 1:22 PM
: June 23, 2008 1:22 PM
Hm. Why would you necessarily open with encounter powers? I can see plenty of reasons to use others first, and to vary the order in which you use them, and to use other powers between encounter powers.
I also know how this sounds, but one thing I have seen happen time and time again (well, not that often, given the game's youth) is that people feel as you do until they play it. This happens with everything, yes, but it seems more pronounced with 4e.
One final note is that every other class could be the fighter copied and pasted over and over again without even renaming the powers, the game could be printed on a deck of magic cards, and the WotC ninjas could kick you between the legs when they come to repossess your heretical 3e books, but I would still be madly in love with the game because you can be a cultist of the Elder Gods from level 1 using a base class without any houseruling or anything. I can only assume the other two pacts were put in to help drag the book down to the usual ratio of awesome to suck seen in RPGs.
I also know how this sounds, but one thing I have seen happen time and time again (well, not that often, given the game's youth) is that people feel as you do until they play it. This happens with everything, yes, but it seems more pronounced with 4e.
One final note is that every other class could be the fighter copied and pasted over and over again without even renaming the powers, the game could be printed on a deck of magic cards, and the WotC ninjas could kick you between the legs when they come to repossess your heretical 3e books, but I would still be madly in love with the game because you can be a cultist of the Elder Gods from level 1 using a base class without any houseruling or anything. I can only assume the other two pacts were put in to help drag the book down to the usual ratio of awesome to suck seen in RPGs.
# posted by : June 23, 2008 1:30 PM
: June 23, 2008 1:30 PM
I'm certainly not opening with my encounter power, but I'm playing the cleric. Many of my powers clearly need to wait for the right time to use them.
I still find making characters out of the book somewhat entertaining (although it might get old when I've been around long enough to feel like I've seen all the combinations before, right now it's all still new). It's the actual play I'm feeling let down by.
I'm also still having trouble trying to get the hang of party dynamics... or, as my MMOG-loving teammate would say, knowing the difference between tanks and DPSers.
I still find making characters out of the book somewhat entertaining (although it might get old when I've been around long enough to feel like I've seen all the combinations before, right now it's all still new). It's the actual play I'm feeling let down by.
I'm also still having trouble trying to get the hang of party dynamics... or, as my MMOG-loving teammate would say, knowing the difference between tanks and DPSers.
People crack me up.
Remember, these are only the core rulebooks we have now. They include only the base amount of options.
Martial Power will be released later this year. This will bring dozens (at least) of new powers for the martial classes.
Future power books will be released, as well as future PHBs, campaign books, etc. The level of customization that people say "isn't there", is definitely coming.
Think back to 3rd edition core rulebooks... how much could you really customize those classes? For fighter you would pick a couple of feats, spend all 8 of your skill points, buy your gear, and be good to go.
With the new edition, characters *will* be extremely customizable. It's just a matter of time. They only had limited space in the core book, so obviously much is waiting for future volumes.
And actual roleplaying hasn't gone anywhere. You can roleplay just as much as you could in previous editions.
Remember, these are only the core rulebooks we have now. They include only the base amount of options.
Martial Power will be released later this year. This will bring dozens (at least) of new powers for the martial classes.
Future power books will be released, as well as future PHBs, campaign books, etc. The level of customization that people say "isn't there", is definitely coming.
Think back to 3rd edition core rulebooks... how much could you really customize those classes? For fighter you would pick a couple of feats, spend all 8 of your skill points, buy your gear, and be good to go.
With the new edition, characters *will* be extremely customizable. It's just a matter of time. They only had limited space in the core book, so obviously much is waiting for future volumes.
And actual roleplaying hasn't gone anywhere. You can roleplay just as much as you could in previous editions.
It may be so that it's 'all coming', but I'm not convinced enough by this first offering to put another five or six hundred bucks into getting new books. When 3 and, subsequently, 3.5 came out I felt like it was an offering that enhanced what I loved in the earlier editions and fixed a lot of the things I didn't like and was worth the money. In this case I've got plenty of 3.5 stuff and don't feel like what I'm being presented with is an enhancement on what I've got and worth putting the funding into again. I'm not fond of the changes that have been made. It's a personal opinion and I vote with my wallet by not purchasing the game. It may work for other people, but for me 4E is a combat and mini's game that has removed a lot of the creative choice and flexibility and re-emphasized the rollplaying vs roleplaying dynamics.
~J
~J
I've ran a couple sessions of 4th edition now, and I'm having a blast. And it's still Dungeons and Dragons to me. And for the record, I've been gaming since the red box days.
For a lot of older players, the rules and the game have become so tied together that separating them is all but impossible now. Tell them that the Vancian spell system is gone and they just cover their ears and scream "IT'S NOT D&D! LA LA LA! IT'S NOT D&D!"
3rd Edition was, for me, initially very awesome. At last a set of rules you didn't have to FIX first! Over time, though, it got very tedious to run, as players used every book they could find to make an "optimal" character. The prestige classes were a great idea on paper, but ended up creating huge imbalances. And the game was still owned by clerics and wizards at the high level, something I always disliked.
As for role-playing and story-telling aspects... D&D never had those in rules form, in any incarnation. That was always left to the individual DM and players to decide upon. For which I applaud them; leave that kind of stuff for GURPS.
I personally think 3rd Edition did a lot to kill role-playing, in fact, with too many rules, making it more "roll-playing". I read the older Dungeon magazines which have a lot of cool magical elements that could never have been quantified in rules, and it still has a feeling of magic to it. The later 3rd edition adventures are stark in comparison, at least until the Paizo era was in full swing.
My one complaint right now with Wizards is their marketing department really dropped the ball. There was a lot they could have done to capitalize on a new edition launch, which they utterly failed to do. For example:
- Release miniatures specifically for the one module out, H1, so you could buy a bag of mini's to go with the game. They didn't even release printable or cut-out counters! Fiery Dragon had to do it for them, under the table as it were.
- No DM screen, no power cards, no tools or accessories to go with the core books.
- No support for player groups who may not want to buy the PHB right away. I don't condone downloading ripped copies of the books at all, but asking your players to buy the $35 handbook for something they may or may not like is a bit much to ask.
- A lack of marketing to non-online customers. I guess the sales on Amazon are indicative that this hasn't been a problem, but still, maybe a TV spot?
- The website is still NOT done!
I have a feeling part of the problem is Wizards is short-staffed to handle a lot of this, which is unfortunate, as their GSL has probably alienated most of the 3rd parties that could have taken up the slack for them.
For a lot of older players, the rules and the game have become so tied together that separating them is all but impossible now. Tell them that the Vancian spell system is gone and they just cover their ears and scream "IT'S NOT D&D! LA LA LA! IT'S NOT D&D!"
3rd Edition was, for me, initially very awesome. At last a set of rules you didn't have to FIX first! Over time, though, it got very tedious to run, as players used every book they could find to make an "optimal" character. The prestige classes were a great idea on paper, but ended up creating huge imbalances. And the game was still owned by clerics and wizards at the high level, something I always disliked.
As for role-playing and story-telling aspects... D&D never had those in rules form, in any incarnation. That was always left to the individual DM and players to decide upon. For which I applaud them; leave that kind of stuff for GURPS.
I personally think 3rd Edition did a lot to kill role-playing, in fact, with too many rules, making it more "roll-playing". I read the older Dungeon magazines which have a lot of cool magical elements that could never have been quantified in rules, and it still has a feeling of magic to it. The later 3rd edition adventures are stark in comparison, at least until the Paizo era was in full swing.
My one complaint right now with Wizards is their marketing department really dropped the ball. There was a lot they could have done to capitalize on a new edition launch, which they utterly failed to do. For example:
- Release miniatures specifically for the one module out, H1, so you could buy a bag of mini's to go with the game. They didn't even release printable or cut-out counters! Fiery Dragon had to do it for them, under the table as it were.
- No DM screen, no power cards, no tools or accessories to go with the core books.
- No support for player groups who may not want to buy the PHB right away. I don't condone downloading ripped copies of the books at all, but asking your players to buy the $35 handbook for something they may or may not like is a bit much to ask.
- A lack of marketing to non-online customers. I guess the sales on Amazon are indicative that this hasn't been a problem, but still, maybe a TV spot?
- The website is still NOT done!
I have a feeling part of the problem is Wizards is short-staffed to handle a lot of this, which is unfortunate, as their GSL has probably alienated most of the 3rd parties that could have taken up the slack for them.
I hear ya, Coyote. I was a little miffed to hear about the coming of 4th ed at first, thinking it was just money mongering by Wizards.
Then I started to hear about the differences, and sure enough, I had similar thoughts... "It might be fun, but it's still not D&D."
Then I sat in on a couple of sessions and ran a couple more, and I'm having a hard time thinking about going back.
Still, about the money mongering, it's pretty obvious they're doing it, but I'm okay with that, as the books through Amazon are only $20 and I could buy a few more to get the bard, druid, and monk classes, along with some more powers.
It's true that customization seems watered down, but there really are some cool options and I'm sure we'll see more diversification in upcoming products.
As for RPG, anyone who has played the skill challenge system (correctly) will be happy with the role-playing aspect of the new system. You can now apply the same method to almost any situation that you would to combat. They've standardized the entire process, but still left all the freedom that you get with a real human behind the screen. I love it.
Then I started to hear about the differences, and sure enough, I had similar thoughts... "It might be fun, but it's still not D&D."
Then I sat in on a couple of sessions and ran a couple more, and I'm having a hard time thinking about going back.
Still, about the money mongering, it's pretty obvious they're doing it, but I'm okay with that, as the books through Amazon are only $20 and I could buy a few more to get the bard, druid, and monk classes, along with some more powers.
It's true that customization seems watered down, but there really are some cool options and I'm sure we'll see more diversification in upcoming products.
As for RPG, anyone who has played the skill challenge system (correctly) will be happy with the role-playing aspect of the new system. You can now apply the same method to almost any situation that you would to combat. They've standardized the entire process, but still left all the freedom that you get with a real human behind the screen. I love it.
The cleanest summary I've seen of why the 4e books seem much more limited on a reading than in practice is here.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230509
As for the rest of it - DnD has never been the most elegant system, mechanically. Look at Nobilis, or Burning Wheel, or any of a dozen other systems. Dnd HAS been the largest focal point. What's made it great is the huge number of participants working out new and neat things to be done with it. WotC is betting that they can carry that property through another revision - they've done it twice before, after all.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230509
As for the rest of it - DnD has never been the most elegant system, mechanically. Look at Nobilis, or Burning Wheel, or any of a dozen other systems. Dnd HAS been the largest focal point. What's made it great is the huge number of participants working out new and neat things to be done with it. WotC is betting that they can carry that property through another revision - they've done it twice before, after all.
# posted by : June 24, 2008 7:38 AM
: June 24, 2008 7:38 AM
I agree, and I hate a lot of what I see in 4th ed.
Forgetting that they butchered what I love about the wizard (what, I can cast dispel magic once per day and that's it? Why? So arbitrary? (Wizards are about CHOICE) Forgetting that, there are many other crap aspects.
For example, it doesn't look like you actually spend points on skills. You choose which are trained an untrained, but that is it. Two chars with equal level and equal stats who have both selected "trained" in a skill will be identical. There isn't any choice as you go up level.
And, since you gain your level as a bonus to any of your class skills, a 20th level char will always beat a 3rd level char in a class skill. Higher level is always better, right, it's impossible that a lower level char might just have focused more in some skill? I loathe that.
It's exactly the same mindset as in MMOs, where high level chars resist my spells better than lower level chars just because they are higher level.
And you can retrain your feats/abilities, ugh. "Hey guys, I just forgot how to powerattack, now I can do a feint!!" Or whatever. It's just so metagamey and ridiculous. Reeks of your MMO/action RPG design philosophy.
Forgetting that they butchered what I love about the wizard (what, I can cast dispel magic once per day and that's it? Why? So arbitrary? (Wizards are about CHOICE) Forgetting that, there are many other crap aspects.
For example, it doesn't look like you actually spend points on skills. You choose which are trained an untrained, but that is it. Two chars with equal level and equal stats who have both selected "trained" in a skill will be identical. There isn't any choice as you go up level.
And, since you gain your level as a bonus to any of your class skills, a 20th level char will always beat a 3rd level char in a class skill. Higher level is always better, right, it's impossible that a lower level char might just have focused more in some skill? I loathe that.
It's exactly the same mindset as in MMOs, where high level chars resist my spells better than lower level chars just because they are higher level.
And you can retrain your feats/abilities, ugh. "Hey guys, I just forgot how to powerattack, now I can do a feint!!" Or whatever. It's just so metagamey and ridiculous. Reeks of your MMO/action RPG design philosophy.
anyone who has played the skill challenge system (correctly) will be happy with the role-playing aspect of the new system. You can now apply the same method to almost any situation that you would to combat.
I can only comment based on the Shadowfell game we're running through, and I haven't read the source material, but the play is coming out very much like wargaming. Most of the time, we are given a map, plus a bit of description which most everyone ignores. Constantly looking at a predrawn map with our little tokens to move around on it seems to put everyone in a tactical mindset ALL THE TIME.
All the powers and 'cool stuff' the characters can do is entirely combat-related. All the cleric's healing abilities can only be used in combat (or so I've been told). I'm not even sure what the Heal skill does, but not a whole lot, apparently.
Everything seems to conspire to push people to 'skip past the boring bits' and get back to fighting. Even players who are quite capable of and happy with playing intrigue in other systems.
I can only comment based on the Shadowfell game we're running through, and I haven't read the source material, but the play is coming out very much like wargaming. Most of the time, we are given a map, plus a bit of description which most everyone ignores. Constantly looking at a predrawn map with our little tokens to move around on it seems to put everyone in a tactical mindset ALL THE TIME.
All the powers and 'cool stuff' the characters can do is entirely combat-related. All the cleric's healing abilities can only be used in combat (or so I've been told). I'm not even sure what the Heal skill does, but not a whole lot, apparently.
Everything seems to conspire to push people to 'skip past the boring bits' and get back to fighting. Even players who are quite capable of and happy with playing intrigue in other systems.
@Whiner - Actually, I found this to be a tendency as the 3.x cycle matured, too. So I guess it should be no surprise that this was the tack that 4E took.
Everything seems to conspire to push people to 'skip past the boring bits' and get back to fighting. Even players who are quite capable of and happy with playing intrigue in other systems.
Personally, this seems like an argument FOR 4e rather than against. It tells me that combat is so compelling that players want to do it, rather than other stuff.
If I wanted to do non-combat all the time I could easily just not use any rulebooks and just do group-storytelling or take up theater and acting
Personally, this seems like an argument FOR 4e rather than against. It tells me that combat is so compelling that players want to do it, rather than other stuff.
If I wanted to do non-combat all the time I could easily just not use any rulebooks and just do group-storytelling or take up theater and acting
# posted by : June 24, 2008 10:11 AM
: June 24, 2008 10:11 AM
My GUESS on the customization and massive number of spells thing is that the WotC designers discovered what any MMO or MUD designer has learned about "skill-based" systems with lots of flexibility and customization... it allows players to create totally broken builds.
Certain combinations of spells and classes and feats (and additional abilities, like skill tricks & stuff) could just be really, really broken - particularly once all the sourcebooks were released. And yes, WotC themselves were a major part of the problem. So, now, they've excised that part of the game to a large degree, in the name of "balance." Hey, I had a Psychic Warrior with two-weapon fighting and nasty
And, as a bonus, they can create new, "balanced" classes for years and release them as sourcebooks and miniatures for players to scarf up. You know they will.
Again, there are a lot of things I really do like about the system. And there's a lot I like about Castles & Crusades, which has gone WAY WAY back to 1E style classes with almost no customization outside of equipment, spells, and starting attributes. A lot of the changes and ideas cause me no heartburn and address issues that sorely needed addressing with 3.5.
But as I was telling a friend today - for what I've enjoyed about D&D (both 1E and 3E - I kinda skipped 2E except in computer games), and what I've seen so far with 4E (noting that I have not played it yet), it feels like they tossed out too much baby and not enough bathwater. Principally in the name of making building on the miniatures game experience.
Certain combinations of spells and classes and feats (and additional abilities, like skill tricks & stuff) could just be really, really broken - particularly once all the sourcebooks were released. And yes, WotC themselves were a major part of the problem. So, now, they've excised that part of the game to a large degree, in the name of "balance." Hey, I had a Psychic Warrior with two-weapon fighting and nasty
And, as a bonus, they can create new, "balanced" classes for years and release them as sourcebooks and miniatures for players to scarf up. You know they will.
Again, there are a lot of things I really do like about the system. And there's a lot I like about Castles & Crusades, which has gone WAY WAY back to 1E style classes with almost no customization outside of equipment, spells, and starting attributes. A lot of the changes and ideas cause me no heartburn and address issues that sorely needed addressing with 3.5.
But as I was telling a friend today - for what I've enjoyed about D&D (both 1E and 3E - I kinda skipped 2E except in computer games), and what I've seen so far with 4E (noting that I have not played it yet), it feels like they tossed out too much baby and not enough bathwater. Principally in the name of making building on the miniatures game experience.
I'm quite happy with my DM, thanks - I've gotten him to run me some story-heavy exploration-heavy combat-lite games in a different system as well. :)
I don't want to spoil the fun of the people who're loving the 4e experience, it just doesn't seem aimed at my player type. So my line isn't "4e sucks" but "4e sucks for me".
I don't want to spoil the fun of the people who're loving the 4e experience, it just doesn't seem aimed at my player type. So my line isn't "4e sucks" but "4e sucks for me".
"I'm quite happy with my DM, thanks - I've gotten him to run me some story-heavy exploration-heavy combat-lite games in a different system as well. :)"
Well, the reason I said that was because it appeared that your DM was only interested in running combats in 4th edition, and by your explanation it appeared that you thought 4th edition somehow made it more difficult to roleplay compared to 3.5 and prior.
My point is that if all your DM does is throw maps filled with monsters at you, it is not a justification for saying that 4th edition is all about combat, it is just your current experience with it.
Well, the reason I said that was because it appeared that your DM was only interested in running combats in 4th edition, and by your explanation it appeared that you thought 4th edition somehow made it more difficult to roleplay compared to 3.5 and prior.
My point is that if all your DM does is throw maps filled with monsters at you, it is not a justification for saying that 4th edition is all about combat, it is just your current experience with it.
# posted by : June 24, 2008 12:46 PM
: June 24, 2008 12:46 PM
I have been playing for about 27 years and have played every version of D&D. D&D is as D&D does. Rules be damned you can roll and role play just fine with these rules. If you didn't feel like it was D&D then get a new DM.
# posted by : June 24, 2008 3:34 PM
: June 24, 2008 3:34 PM
@Tim: LOL, okay, you win!
@Jamey: I agree for the most part. Gimme dice and rules, and I'll play it, and a good group will make it fun. But the mechanics definitely play a role in the style and feel of play. For example, we were never quite able to shake the "super-hero" feel while playing Fantasy Hero. The rules didn't really handle things like resource management and attrition very well, and other rules led to a particular style of game. A marginal numerical advantage over your opponent gave you a significantly larger chance of victory, allowing you to battle a dozen-to-one odds against lesser minions and stuff. Again, good fun, but it worked poorly for a more gritty, low-fantasy style of game.
Post a Comment
@Jamey: I agree for the most part. Gimme dice and rules, and I'll play it, and a good group will make it fun. But the mechanics definitely play a role in the style and feel of play. For example, we were never quite able to shake the "super-hero" feel while playing Fantasy Hero. The rules didn't really handle things like resource management and attrition very well, and other rules led to a particular style of game. A marginal numerical advantage over your opponent gave you a significantly larger chance of victory, allowing you to battle a dozen-to-one odds against lesser minions and stuff. Again, good fun, but it worked poorly for a more gritty, low-fantasy style of game.
Links to this post:
<< Home
