Game of Choice

[ekimekim]

I took a look at 4E. As per what many of you are saying, I can see how it would appeal to younger players. That said...

I started D&D with 3.5 at the age of 15 and I'm now our resident DM, at 18. As a DM, 4E gave me a headache. Literally, it hurt.
There are only three unpardonable sins in 4E:
1. What Grampy bone said. If you want to do something weird, you need a power from it. It constricts the player.
2. SPELLS. Where did they go? 4E's lack of spells beyond the most basic, generic stuff actually led me to start a mages-only 3.5 campaign, as I realised just how good 3.5 magic was.
3. Anti-standardisation of character creation (this takes a bit of explaining):

In 3.5, monsters were characters. They had an average statline and had a class like Undead or Dragon, which was called their Racial Hit Dice. There was a full set of rules to give ANY monster PC classes, or for a PC to be any monster (balence issues aside). One campaign, I wanted to be a psion that had been reincarnated as a parrot (it was a pirate campaign). There was rules for that.
In 4E, monsters and characters are two different things. They are incompatible. They followed two different sets of rules. As a programmer, this could be considered repitition of code (rules) that does similar things, and thus BAD design.

As more minor gripes, basic races had 3 types of elf (half-elf, elf and 1.5-elf (eldarin)) but no gnomes, and wtf is with teifling and dragonkin? They used to be cool, more powerful options to make an interesting character, now they're standard. That sucks.


Ok, /rant. Sorry. Anyway, in summary: I have many personal issues with 4E that makes me hate it, but I can see how it would be a compelling option for the first-timer used to video games where they do the work for you, at the cost of creativity.

 

[Fenixius]

It's great to see lots of Dungeons and Dragons people here, weighing in. But as some people are giving complaints and comments about 4th Edition, the one I prefer, I'll try to answer some.

But I should be clear up front: I'm just another DM, and I like 4th Edition. I've no intent to convert people, or make people rush out to buy it. That's the wrong impression totally. But I find it to be a versatile, fun rules system, and lots of people are giving up huge complaints.

Spoiler: ekimekim

wtf is with teifling and dragonkin? They used to be cool, more powerful options to make an interesting character, now they're standard. That sucks.

I fail to see how including those two races in the Player's Handbook makes the game any less rich. In 4th ed, it seems, playing a Gnome is another option in another book. Why should it be one way and not the other? Gnomes are in Player's Handbook #2, but before that, there were rules for playing a Gnome in Monster Manual #1. That said, I agree that 3 flavours of elf is a little overkill. But it's really "High Elf" "Forest Elf" and "Half-Elf". We probably didn't need that last one, but the first two are fairly distinct, in my opinion. Half-Elf is a staple, anyway, and I bet that's why they kept it.

If you want to do something weird, you need a power from it. It constricts the player.

Look, it all depends how flexible your players are, and your DM is. Putting rules for reincarnation a psion into a Core rulebook would be ridiculous in my opinion; it's a very specific thing. I'm sure you had to ask your DM's permission (or have the player ask you, if you were the DM at the time) to do it. I know I've let some crazy stuff happen without people having a very specific power. It was great for the game - just remember to be a bit flexible with your interpretations, and don't say "No" all the time to your players.

SPELLS. Where did they go? 4E's lack of spells beyond the most basic, generic stuff actually led me to start a mages-only 3.5 campaign, as I realised just how good 3.5 magic was.

Go check out the Rituals. They're in both PHB's - this might be the sort of thing you were looking for? A lot of non-combat magic is now a Ritual. Which I agree can be a bit of a pain, but it's also a useful distinction. And in addition, you don't need to spend your precious spell-slots on them. Also, behold the "Utility" powers. Those are similar sorts of things.

What's happened is that they've standardised actions to be taken. I think it's a good thing - it's all still separated by flavour, but you don't need to learn more rules and systems to go from a Fighter to a Wizard.

What I'm annoyed that they took out is Familiars. They were fun! Now, they're in Arcane Power, which is a bit of a pain.

Anti-standardisation of character creation.

I'll agree with you here: it would have been nice to keep it all open. But they've strongly simplified monsters. Characters are much more complex for good reason. You can still interpret the rules and make yourself a character based on various monsters using the pages towards the end of any Monster Manual, or just come up with rules yourself. You're encouraged to develop the game as far as you like on your own terms. Think of the rules as a basis, not a limit, and let your imagination run wild. But Monsters are just enemies. And 4th Edition lends you to dispatching -lots- of enemies. It's a very combat-heavy ruleset, with enough rules for you to extrapolate out and improvise should you need it.

The aim of 4th Edition, as I recall, is not to just provide more rules for existing players. It's to attract new people, which I think is a great idea. There's no need to be elitist about who can and can't play, of course. I like 4th edition because it's simple, but has the potential for great depth. And that, I think, is the strongest principle of table-top gaming as a whole. That you can simulate whatever scenarios you can think of. As far as fantasy roguelikes go, I like the 4th Ed rules. To each their own.

Spoiler: Grampy_bone (warning: especially long)

It is true that if you don't like 4E you can just keep playing 3.5 or Pathfinder. However, D&D tends to shape the PnP industry as a whole. In fact, D&D pretty much IS the industry. So I lament a future where hard-coded 'builds' and powers that all read 'make an attack and move' become the norm.

If you're just going to play an existing game, what does it matter where the industry goes? You -have- your game. That said, I understand that everyone wants to play something newer, and better. Fourth Edition is aimed at bringing more people back to the table, where videogames have taken over the predominant form of entertainment for adolescents. I believe it's good for the industry that more people are coming to it - weren't the numbers actually dwindling beforehand?

That's what I'd heard at least... but whether or not new people are coming to the table, or people are returning, I wouldn't be despairing because while the character creation and combat have been simplified and prioritised respectively, there's still room and potential for everything else. Roleplaying, storytelling, grand adventures, crazy characters, all that's still in 4th edition. If you play with that in mind.

Ha ha, good luck getting kids to have fun with 4E. 4E is much harder than 3.5, and not in a good way. The encounter balancing is completely out of whack and the available customization options to the players are distressingly thin. Magic items are total weaksauce and buff spells basically don't exist. In fact 4E essentially doesn't have magic at all!

Now, what you were dead right about were the limits on character classes and creation. But you know, I think that's fine. If you wanted a classless experience, go and try out a game designed with that in mind, like the Hero system. I hear that works well. Dual-wielding aside, which I feels needs a lot of expansion, 4th Ed has a wide variety of available classes, if you grab both of the Player's Handbooks available at the time of writing. And each class has more than one combat style, too. Your illusion spells are all in Arcane Power. It's more like World of Warcraft or Diablo because those systems do combat really well. The rest is still very DnD - rules-light, open and extensible storytelling and event simulation.

As to profitmongering by Wizards, this is nothing new. Some people object to the requiring of miniatures, but I just use whatever's handy, including Lego figures. Have to buy lots of books? As I recall, to get the majority of the ludicrous characters in 3.5, you needed more than the core rulebooks there, too.

Finally, as to Magic, a lot of the noncombat spells are now Rituals. I think this change is largely superfluous - but it does have the advantage of allowing for players to pick their combat abilities and non-combat abilities a bit more distinctly. Buffing is less common in arcane classes so far, which is catering to the action-oriented rules, I suppose. I know the Bard, though, does get some buffs. It's the division of responsibility which is also causing the lack of magic spells to help people - now that classes are based on role and power-source rather than just whatever arbitrary divisions existed before, it's all compartmentalised. Leaders have the buffs. Controllers and Strikers don't. Whether this is good or bad is something I don't really have an opinion on. I know you do, but I find that it makes people's lives a little easier, knowing what they're supposed to be doing in a fight.

4E kills all the creativity of the game. Want your character to do something? You need to have a "power" for it. What are powers? Pretty much just regular attacks with a lot of fluff attached to them.

See my response to ekimekim in the previous bracket for my response to this same statement. Powers are just there to dictate what happens in combat. If you have a flexible DM and some imagination & interpretation, you can do so much more than what your powers are.

Spoiler: PedroSteckecilo

I comment that DnD has few "narrative support elements" because well... it doesn't. Elements of Narrative Support are System Mechanics that help to drive The Story, not just The Action. DnD drives The Action just fine, but point out to me a good "Story Support Mechanic" in DnD, a specific rule that helps the PC's and the DM create a better story.

I guess what I was initially getting at is that saying 3.5 had MORE Roleplaying than 4th Ed is folly, DnD has NEVER had good roleplaying rules and as you point out, the two DMG's are some of the best Campaing Help Books I've ever seen.

Well, then I can agree. There aren't so much mechanics in Dungeons and Dragons for dictating how and where the story can or cannot progress. It's all up to the DM, and what the players will go along with. What I find is that by having a person to adjudicate and control the gameplay, the world, and the non-player characters in it, you end up with pretty much infinite control over what happens. Neverwinter Nights attempted this, and did pretty well, but it was still a cRPG. It can't match the flexibility and power of a person's mind, and the players' imaginations. That is why I champion pen and paper over computers for roleplaying.

It just so happens that I, and the people I play with, like a lot the combat of a computer game, and I know that DnD emulates that fantastically. I can certainly fill in the rest with the mechanic "D20 + Modifiers Vs DC", which has been around for ages. And in that simple mechanic, I've found ways to let players attempt lots of things which they don't have specific rules for. And I think that's the best rule and rule system of all - one which allows for great extensibility, customisation and improvisation. So what I'm saying is that as a Pen and Paper game, it's perfect to run as a counter to a videogame, no matter which system you use.

I understand what you mean by saying that Dungeons and Dragons doesn't have explicit support for dictating the story, but in my opinion, you don't -need- hard and fast rules for that. You just need a DM who can do it, and a mechanic to test what a player wants to do against the chance that his character could. That's how I feel, at least.

And anyway, who the hell wants someone to start rules lawyering the STORY progression? Haha, I'm happy it's just in combat that that happens.

Spoiler: Artemis923

By the love of Thor, go with 3.5.

4th edition feels more like a WoW/Diablo knock off on pen and paper.

If that's what it feels like, well, that's because that's the most intricate thing that I've found I ever needed to adjudicate and control - combat. Roleplaying doesn't so much -need- rules, as long as one has the generic rule for checking if something works or doesn't. Mind you, 3.5 has its equivalent capabilities. You can build a much more unique and specific character in 3.5 than in 4th, but I find that the people I play with, and I know it's true for me as well, that we enjoy 4th edition's simplicity more.

3.5 is just... huge. There're so many books you need to make those characters. So especially for new people, but also for people who just want to play a fun game rather than spend the next 12 hours figuring out how to build a character, 4th Edition is the perfect fit, of the two systems. As has been said, if you like 3.5, then by all means stick with it. But I don't find its advantages outweight its disadvantages.

Hopefully, if people have any questions, disagreements, or comments, they'll post them back here with a quote of what I said - that way, I get a message about it and will notice.

Like I said before, I'm not trying to sell it to the people here, just to answer their comments with my experiences. But I definitely think that everyone should enjoy whatever system they like.

--Fen

 

[kingius]

This posts contains a number of inaccuracies.

A game is only *dead* when no one is playing it.

The best game is one that you can make your own. Rules exceptions don't make the blindest bit of difference to anything. Nobody cares about this theoretical nonsense. All anyone wants out of any game, is *fun*. Don't ever lose sight of that.

For the record, I recommend trying out Labyrinth Lord. Nice, simple, expandable in anyway you like. I increase the spell count with spells from various editions of AD&D in my home-brew campaign. Combats are indeed fast and furious. I have DM'd a battle with three characters facing 200 skeletons on a pirate ship in less than an hour, and a fight against waves of zombies that totaled a hundred in a tower against four player characters in about the same length of time. Simple rules let you scale things up which is *fun*.

 

[apeloverage]

I don't get into edition arguments particularly, but...

i) old editions of D&D aren't dead, in fact there are lots of products coming out. See for example the reviews on the Grognardia blog ( http://grognardia.blogspot.com )

ii) Swords & Wizardry ( www.swordsandwizardry.com ) is based on the original 'white box' rules, but fixes many things that people found confusing, including descending Armour Class and weird saving throw categories. On the forum someone put a 'background professions' rule which addresses another problem people had, that "my Fighter is a noble knight, and yours is a scurvy pirate, but mechanically they're identical."

 

[Simriel]

I dunno what it is but I just cannot get into 4E. I quite enjoy Star Wars Saga and that is very similar, but the complete change of the way abilities work has me... distanced. Also the fact that the power level is quite frankly silly. You are a demi god from level 1. I personally have been loving Pathfinder, fixing the flaws of 3.5 but staying as a Role Playing Game rather than the role playing GAME of 4E.