The State of D&D: Present

[vxicepickxv]

I guess I just don't understand why 4E is so "bad for roleplay". I've played 3.5, 4, and Neverwinter Nights multiplayer(which is 3.5-based but performs in a radically different fashion)

Neverwinter Nights is based off of 3.0, and Neverwinter Nights 2 is based off of 3.5. Oddly enough, Neverwinter Nights is the superior game, while 3.5 is the superior RPG system between the two.

The changes made to Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 were based on the limitations of the way the game engines were built.

 

[Jikuu]

Greg Tito plays 4th edition. It's highly unlikely he's bashing 4th edition if he still partakes of its rules.

 

[Kilo24]

I guess I just don't understand why 4E is so "bad for roleplay". I've played 3.5, 4, and Neverwinter Nights multiplayer(which is 3.5-based but performs in a radically different fashion), and all of those games only provide as good of roleplay as the DM/s can provide. There is absolutely nothing about 4E, including the grid, that actually restricts RP when compared to 3.5. I have never experienced the feeling some people in this thread have mentioned; that 4E makes you feel like you're just playing a board game as opposed to a roleplaying game. But I guess I'm not surprised. People have been hating on 4E since before it was released, as the article points out--an incredibly biased, negative article, at that. One way or another, D&D and tabletop gaming at large will survive.

4th edition focused on combat to exclusion of everything else. It resulted in great combat that gets the party working together effectively, but it sacrificed a great deal to do so. Skill challenges and rituals are rather poor substitutes to the capabilities of previous editions.

Basically, it's "bad for roleplay" because characters have so few capabilities outside of combat. There's a divide between hack'n'slashing and roleplaying and many people equate combat to the former. Therefore, 4e is "bad for roleplaying."

In my opinion, the mechanics that were replaced weren't very good in the first place. Spellcasters eclipsed other characters quite dramatically (if designed semi-intelligently) past low-mid-levels in terms of capabilities. The skills system was quite lacking, and there were a variety of other problems too. It requires a good DM to secure a fun experience from those mechanics, but if you already assume a good DM then you might as well work from the more barebone out-of-combat mechanics of 4E. And in doing so, the DM makes combat much more enjoyable and easier to run.

Personally, I could have forgiven the majority of the rules changes brought about in 4E(though I never really got into miniatures play). But I think that R.A. Salvatore touched on what bothered me most about the new edition. The new WotC had no respect for what came before. They weren't building upon a legacy; nor were they mending long neglected flaws. They were just changing things. While specific changes to the crunch can be argued for or rationalized, the jarring, often nonsensical alterations of some of the game worlds(specifically, the Forgotten Realms) reminded me of a television exec making disastrous changes to an existing show he just inherited either to make his mark or to intentionally make it crash and burn so that he could start a new project.

I'd agree here. It would bother me more if I felt particularly strongly about any D&D settings (ignoring the technically defunct Planescape here), but some of the changes just got intrusive. Cramming dragonborn and tieflings into every setting, changing their lore, and gutting the previous planar cosmology (I think I like the new, not-so-alignment-focused ones a little better than the old, but that still didn't warrant the slashing and burning).

But I'm not that angry about it because I've just gotten a bit jaded about fictional settings that have so much material from so many authors crammed into them; I've come to expect rather little from such enterprises. Too many cooks spoil the broth, I suppose.

Anyway, my own personal feelings aside, this article series is coming along quite nicely. A fair treatment overall. Oh, and since you're doing this anyway, how about making this a regular thing. Not D&D specifically, but just overall coverage of the PnP world. If they all got treated like this series, it would be a great thing to read.

I concur.

 

[Draconalis]

It's funny really. Most of the complaints on page one were complaints I had when 3rd edition first rolled around.

2nd edition fo life nigz!

 

[camazotz]

It's funny really. Most of the complaints on page one were complaints I had when 3rd edition first rolled around.

2nd edition fo life nigz!

I can get behind this! 2nd Edition AD&D was top dog for me, still the best edition of the game I have ever played.

 

[Draconalis]

I can get behind this! 2nd Edition AD&D was top dog for me, still the best edition of the game I have ever played.

Bro-fist inc!

*action here*

 

[ZephrC]

I never thought I'd see the day when "more freedom to create and do whatever you want" was a bad thing.

Seriously, you don't get that? Why even play a game if that's what you want? Why not just roleplay the combat and have a collaborative storytelling session with your friends.

Not that there would be anything wrong with that, but some of us like to have challenge and structure in our encounters, non-combat included. We may even want to play characters that are more eloquent or intelligent than we are. You just can't really do that effectively without dice rolls, and 4e doesn't provide the means for that sort of play.

I guess the problem I have with 4e is that you have to be a really, really good roleplayer, or just not do it at all. There is no in between. If you're just okay, or you're inexperienced, or even if you have a group of good roleplayers that are used to having die rolls to settle disagreements, you're shit out of luck with 4e. There are no tools to help you with roleplaying. You get combat and that's all.

 

[Swny Nerdgasm]

I hope Richard Baker gets picked up by Paizo. Can you imagine a Tome of battle like book in pathfinder? That would be a dream come true.

NO NO NO NO!!! Tome of Battle was a patch on the existing 3.5 system and seems to me a early test of 4E mechanics, I don't want that shit in my Pathfinder

 

[Danceofmasks]

4e plays better than previous editions, in combat.
There are a few outstanding issues, such as battles dragging on and on when they are close ... which makes me miss the decisiveness of combat in 3.5e, but I guess when you design a game to have low lethality grinding becomes a possibility.

I do have some qualms about power creep, with each new book tipping the scales in favour of the PCs ... and item rarity had to be brought in as (effectively) a ret-con in order to rein in the madness.
(And no, it's not option creep, it's power creep. If your mid and high level characters' equipment and feats look increasingly similar, meaning there are fewer and fewer actual choices to make - such as the feat tax that was the expertise feats they added in 'cos the fundamental maths was borked, it's power creep)

Outside of combat, the mechanics of skill challenges are, for lack of a better word, ass.
4e played without skill challenges, where interactions are mostly free-form with an occasional die roll, functions IMO better than accumulating points for success or failure (regardless of how well it's masked; the mechanic itself is retarded).

The main issue I find a lot of people have with 4e is, it doesn't feel awesome.
See, the powers and combat grid pretty much tells you exactly what is happening, and it's often a case of using up your resources to underwhelming effect.
The vaunted game balance even limits your improvisation options to mechanics that deal equivalent damage as expected for your level.
So, at the end of the day it comes down to having slightly different methods of chipping away at your foes.

Which brings me to why wizards (among other things, wizards are just the easiest example) are OP.
'cos being able to manipulate the battlefield to an extent where daily powers can effectly be "I WIN" buttons, whilst having access to some of the highest damroll modifiers in the game .. which gets disgusting when used to multi-target ...
The game balance is actually not present if you're any good as an optimiser. And unlike previous editions, cracking down on charop in 4e equals telling your players that you would rather waste their time with lenghty unsatisfying grindy combat.

 

[Swny Nerdgasm]

Which brings me to why wizards (among other things, wizards are just the easiest example) are OP.

The martial/caster disparity you're describing is referred to as Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards.

 

[vortalism]

I recommend Pathfinder it's pretty good. Has that classic D&D feel to it, but not too classic.

Expanding on the combat mentioned earlier in the thread, I find that compared to 4th ed's combat system I prefer the combat system of 3.5 ed. To me that was the best of all the combat systems D&D offered (during the 2000 - 11 timeframe). It was quick, decisive, and depending on the DM very lethal. This of course made it fun for the players as they risked their lives even in the first few levels of play. With 4th ed, combat took forever. My group couldn't take it so we went back to 3.5 ed. So I guess what they mentioned about 4th ed having better combat doesn't apparently apply for everyone, either that or we're too accustomed to playing 3.5 ed.

 

[pffh]

I hope Richard Baker gets picked up by Paizo. Can you imagine a Tome of battle like book in pathfinder? That would be a dream come true.

NO NO NO NO!!! Tome of Battle was a patch on the existing 3.5 system and seems to me a early test of 4E mechanics, I don't want that shit in my Pathfinder

Tome of Battle is one of the best 3.5 books to make playing a melee fun. It doesn't quite fix the linear warrior quadratic wizard problem but it gives the fighter type something else to do than just "full attack again".

 

[castlewise]

I can't really speak to how 4th edition trashed old traditions, because I never played the older versions. I can say that it largely met its goals when it came to the newer players. The group I game with now are all professionals, they don't have time to read the rules before they play. So the power cards are great, because players don't have to know how things work before gametime. So I see the 3rd vs 4th edition stuff as kind of a tabletop mirror to the hardcore vs casual stuff, with many of the same (valid) points to be made for either side.

(I do agree with some of the stuff Salvador said about the cosmology though. Its not as well developed as it could be. Then again that just feeds into what I was writing above. Nobody I game with would read a book on the lore of the world, so it can't play a fundamental role in our game.)

 

[Intensifizer]

The biggest argument for 4E hampering roleplay seems to be that there's less to do out of combat/skill challenges. Honestly, if that is the case for you, I suspect you might just have a bad DM. In one session I can recently recall, we went 3 hours without a lick of combat, and only one(admittedly monumental) skill challenge. The rest of it was intrigue, information gathering, and deduction--and it was a fucking blast. Even the skill challenge, as the DM went about it in such a way that we had to use the power of imagination to figure out what skills we actually needed for it. If you don't get RP out of 4th Ed, don't just go blaming the game system. The only REAL step backward for utility is the lack of a spellbook, but the trade off is making spellcasters way, way easier to pick up and making a DM's life way, way easier.

Ultimately, it's a preferential thing, and it doesn't bother me when people play 3.5 over 4. It does bother me when they play it once with a crappy DM and immediately turn around to say "All of my suspicions are now confirmed, this game is made of butts and farts."

 

[veloper]

Bad for roleplaying or not, I would so dig a turn-based (or even RTWP) CRPG based on 4E D&D.
The combat system is just perfect for it.

I don't need any fancy gfx, just a simple isometric view and handpainted backgrounds ala BG2 and IWD.

 

[pffh]

Bad for roleplaying or not, I would so dig a turn-based (or even RTWP) CRPG based on 4E D&D.
The combat system is just perfect for it.

I don't need any fancy gfx, just a simple isometric view and handpainted backgrounds ala BG2 and IWD.

Yes that. Even though 4th ed is not for me in tabletop format it would be perfect for a turn based isometric video game. I would play the shit out of that.

 

[Dylan Voyda]

Thinking about the whole issue of 3.5 verses 4 the biggest problem with it is it doesn't feel like Dungeons and Dragons. 4th edition is a very good system on it own. The core mechanics are very well balanced and the game is fun, but the emphasis on grid based combat, the addition of the skill challenge making straight role playing unnecessary, the major changes to several existing campaign settings, and a lack of materials for creating user generated content strip allot of what I loved about D&D out of the game.

The 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons put combat and characters stats. If you like what it has become go right ahead. IT IS STRUCTURALLY A GREAT GAME. To me though having the emphasis on combat takes the R out of RPG. For me it is not about the choices I get at customizing my characters stats, but customizing my characters story and personalty. I just want a structured way of making my character start out weak and watch him slowly become a God. Otherwise the board is irrelevant. I am not playing a board game. That is where the game fails. 4th edition feels like a board game. 3.5 wasn't much less of a board game, but it allowed each class fulfilled a multiple roles so you weren't worried what you had in your party, items weren't tied to level so there was a question of what you could have when, and it was easy to create a world and adventures tied to you one style of game play. All of this is gone in 4th edition and that if why I find it lacking.

It is sad that pen and paper roles players put such an emphasis on the D20 system. There are so many great systems. That is why I quit Dungeons and Dragons altogether after 10 years of playing and found a new game. They range in scope and scale and have as many rules as you want. I found what I wanted in Earthdawn. Dungeons and Dragons doesn't have to control the genre. Why do we let it.

 

[Dylan Voyda]

I don't know much about 4E or 3.5 D&D, all I know is my brother and I got that Starter Box and had no clue what to do with the game after we went through the included adventure...

Then by the core books of any role playing system you find that you are interested it, learn the system as well as you can, find an introductory adventure set it that system (it exists if you look), and find 2-4 friends that may be interested as well. If you did it right you won't even have to create characters and you will know if pen and paper RPG's are right for you. Come on grab life by the horns. Carpe DM.