How do you like 4E?

[Azrai]

Hello friends,

beeing away for some time, I would like to ask the Birthright community what they think about the 4E-D&D.
Any discussions so far? I already have seen that there is a 4E Birthright project in the pipeline.



Cheers,
Azrai
(reappearing...)

[Birthright-L]

At 04:38 PM 6/14/2009, Azrai wrote:

>Hello friends,

Hi back atcha.

>beeing away for some time, I would like to ask the Birthright
>community what they think about the 4E-D&D.
>
>Any discussions so far? I already have seen that there is a 4E
>Birthright project in the pipeline.

Responses have been pretty mixed. Personally, I think it has some
good stuff in it... but not a lot that really screams "conversion!"
for Birthright. In general, I find myself drifting away from the
kind of play that seems to be the assumption by the 4e designers, so
I don`t have a real big need to invest in this particular incarnation
of the game.

Gary

[irdeggman]

I pretty much agree with Gary on this one.

The evolution of D&D is going in a way that doesn't appeal to me as a player.

But there does seem to be some good things in the "new" system.

I have learned to "love" what 3.5 did to the game.

4th ed seems to be geared towards newer and younger players so for the company that is a good thing, for us "old folks" not so much.

[Alexander Cecil]

I have mixed emotions regarding 4e. I know that it is supposed to be easier, but I fins it more complex. I am also not a big fan of the, "everyone is equal, down with randomness," school of RPG design. That said, my friends are all 4e fans, and I have no huge qualms with the system.

I am currently writing a home brew 4e conversion for Birthright which includes many pieces I have blatantly stolen from the hard work others have done on this site. I am restarting a campaign my friends and I abandoned six years ago, and they have asked for it to be run in 4e, so I will oblige their request.

All things said, I was more of a fan of 3.0, but that's just me.

[dundjinnmasta]

4E has become my favourite edition by far. It takes the many problems I had with 3.5E and gets rid of them. It has an older edition feel to it with a new edition mechanics which is really good for me. I've not felt as much fun running or playing a game since 2E! If I could just get myself into gear and do a full Birthright conversion then I probably wouldn't need anything else.

[Birthright-L]

So, there you go, a pretty good range of opinions on 4e in just a few
posts.... Nice.

More power to those interested in a 4e BR conversion. I`m always
interested in seeing how conversions work. Not being much of a 4e
fan, though, I can`t really contribute much to such a project, though.

Gary

[AndrewTall]

3e had its flaws, as does every game, but at least I felt it was trying to simulate a world. It got bloated, and had a few mechanic failures, but mainly it seemed versatile enough for a number of styles of play - 4e seems lacking outside of combat - assuming you spend as much time talking as fighting, which would grossly over-state the amount of combat in most games that I've played - you are still missing half the game. Social interaction mechanics are quite possible to build and like any functional mechanic free the DM to build a better world rather than referee, and don't get me started on the 4e approach to economics...

[Thelandrin]

I agree with Andrew. With 3rd Edition, there was an awful lot of differing play styles you can achieve and still enjoy the game, without necessarily getting away from the dungeon mechanic entirely. In 4th Edition, in my opinion, if you dump the dungeon mechanics, there isn't a game left at all.

[tpdarkdraco]

Well I think that most should know that I am a fan of 4e. Yes there are some flaws but all editions have their flaws. I think 4e is the easiest by far. As a DM I think that I have to look at the books once or twice in a full day gaming session. Before I could spend a good hour or so of time looking rules etc up.

I currently use the character builder for my players and it prints out all of their powers, calculates their attackes etc. Pretty much just use the printed out character sheet and powers and don't have to pick up the books. So much easier and streamlined.

That said it does have its flaws. Yes economics are crap but they have never been good in any addition, and don't get me started on how much a horse can carry.



I have mixed emotions regarding 4e. I know that it is supposed to be easier, but I fins it more complex. I am also not a big fan of the, "everyone is equal, down with randomness," school of RPG design. That said, my friends are all 4e fans, and I have no huge qualms with the system.

I am currently writing a home brew 4e conversion for Birthright which includes many pieces I have blatantly stolen from the hard work others have done on this site.

If you are working on a home brew 4e conversion and using stuff already posted, I would love it if you contributed as well. Pass on your ideas and it can inspire others in areas they might not thought of. :D

[Rowan]

I'm a big fan of 4e. I think it's the best version of D&D mechanically, by far. I also think it's the easiest to customize and does succeed in being simpler to play and run.

I also think 4e is strong outside of combat with the skill challenge system. This has been extensively supported on the WotC website and will, I hope, continue to be expanded. Skill challenges, IMO, provide a much more robust system for non-combat resolution than D&D has ever had before, honoring things outside of combat with XP. In this way, I think 4e is actually the best version yet for low-combat gamers.

I do find that 4e's flavor assumptions are rather strong. I think these can be offputting to a lot of people, as 4e assumes a very flashy, cosmopolitan, high fantasy approach. But this is just flavor. For people who are creative and used to making their own settings and adventures and defining their own flavor, this should not be an impediment.

I would include in that "flavor" criticism the default 4e assumptions of common racial intermixing, races as more definitely alien rather than variants on humans, the "economy," magic item acquisition, many power descriptions, and general lack of combat grittiness (crippling wounds, long recovery times, etc). I believe all of these have fixes, though. Racial segregation and racism is easy to introduce, as is disallowing certain races that don't fit your flavor and altering appearances (such as making genasi bear only subtle elemental traits and skin patterns; tieflings having an "edge" about them, a darting shadow, an inhuman glint to the eye, subtly pointed teeth and/or fingernails, rather than horns and tails; devas without blue skin; etc). The economy can readily be fixed to suit, as can power descriptions. And I have several levels of "grittiness" that I've developed to make wounding more meaningful.

So my reaction to 4e is to praise its many mechanical superiorities and to do what I've always done with flavor issues--scrap the default and make my own. I feel that it can support just as many if not more play styles as previous editions if people are just willing to make it their own like they're used to doing with previous editions.

[Gheal]

I'm not a big fan of 4E. Main problems of this system (in my opinion) are:
This is a wargame. Consistent set of easy rules, fantastic combat moves, hard-to-believe powers - and no way to design consistent world with these rules. Too much unbelievable fantasy killed for me inner logic of PC and NPC in-game existence. If my char can push bullette back with his blow, but can't push dwarf in this same manner - this is too hard to believe for me. If PC and NPC plays by different rules - this is too hard to fit into the believable setting.
This is combat-oriented game. Sorry, but we with our home-rules have xp rewards for diplomacy and overcoming challenges even in times of 2.5E (late 90s). And current skill system can't describe some ordinary persons with varied levels of mastery in many different skills. And any non-combat activity looks somewhat underdeveloped. So home-made rules must be written again and again. It worked in 3.5 - but it was mercilessly fixed.:) And when your PC finishes his chewing into solo monster (daily/encounter/encounter/at-will/at-will/at-will...) you suddenly have almost no instruments to describe his day-to-day activities. Last problem had long history in D&D games, but 4E pushed things back to 2E, if not to earlier situation.
This is game of congruous characters. Not equal - congruous. All have equal amount of damage on basic attacks, all chars of equal levels in equal classes with same CON have same HP. All the people have basic bonuses of 1/2 of their HD to d20 rolls and passive defences for everything. Are you 20th wizard - +10 to athletics! Are you 20th pit fighter - +10 to your Nature skill! No obvious weaknesses and flaws in classes - only MMO separation on tank-healer-dps. This is concealed by bunch of different powers, but strongly reminds me about latest versions of World of Warcraft.:(
I still participate in one game under 4E rules, but with some mixed feeling (and a lot of house-ruling). Our DM is most vocal supporter of 4E in our company, and he writes great stories. So our campaign continues.
Birthright always strikes me as one of the best settings of TSR for inner logic and integrity. I still can't imagine how this can be fit into 4E. But... good luck! Maybe you, 4E folks, can do that!

[Azrai]

I also dont like the 4E. The 4E ist D&D for people who dont like D&D - to make a provocative statement. In my experience, the 4E is best liked by people who wherent satisfied with the 3.5.
My major complains:
- magic doesnt feel the same any more
- powers are too combat focused, the rituals dont make it
- I am missing the randomness during character creation and level ups
- powers of monsters and NPC are too few. Take a look at the old forgotten realms evil masterminds. Only 3 or 4 powers remaining.
- character roles are too ultra-modern

Nevertheless 4E is a good game, but not for me.

For that reasons our group changed to the Pathfinder system.

[epicsoul]

I didn't like it when it came out. This was cruel because I hadn't yet played it.

So I played it.

Then I really didn't like it.

While the argument is made that a good DM can home-brew it, remove the races they don't like, the fact remains that the versatility of non-combat powers/spells is lost. I have also never been a big fan of removing randomization from gaming, and making everything equal between the classes. Players should play what they want to play, not the exact same thing as the other player, other than being their archetype of Striker/Tank/Healer/whatever. Character optimization can, and does, happen - 3/3.5e saw to that, as compared to the limited choices in 2e, but I would take that variability of choice over the lack thereof in 4e.

Bottom line is, and it has been said before: They are not the same games. Really, it's unfair to compare - it's apples and oranges. It's extraordinarily difficult to run certain styles of play with 4e, but I won't argue some points: 4e does do combat well in many ways. The skill challenge system is nifty... and easily portable backwards. It does do "a very flashy, cosmopolitan, high fantasy approach" well.

That's just not my style of approach as a DM. I prefer gritty. I prefer dark. I prefer very low magic. I like the standard races.

What it comes down to for me is, I already have my home-brewed campaign rules with 3.5. I adapted a few points from 4e, but otherwise... wasted my money on the books.

[Alexander Cecil]

If you are working on a home brew 4e conversion and using stuff already posted, I would love it if you contributed as well. Pass on your ideas and it can inspire others in areas they might not thought of. :D

It would only be proper to share! I will happily post my work once I have enough together to be able to run a very basic campaign. This will take maybe a week or two to complete. Mostly, it is a compilation of race ideas already found on the boards here, class descriptions and limitations updated for 4e, and much of the 4e blood system taken from another member of this board. I am trying to keep most every additional power included in the original material, as that is part of what made me fall in love with the setting as a player.

[Vicente]

I'm in the camp of the people that like DnD 4e (I liked 2e and 3e). I feel sorry for all the comments it gets about WoW (as most things that people say that DnD has copied from WoW, WoW copied them first from DnD...).

Things I really like about 4e:

- Spellcasters aren't the owners of the game at medium-high levels.
- No easy access to the horde of divinations that were posible in 2e/3e.
- Combat is really fun, and it gives a more rewarding experience for the DM (when he builds a good encounter) and for the players (when they use good teamwork).
- Skill challenges are a very nice mechanic and can be plugged everywhere (inside combat, outside combat,...).

The only thing I'm not liking so far is rituals and their costs. But we had the same problem with 2e and 3e too: material components in spells (which we never used) and the Create Whatever feats (which we never used either, no one has forged an item paying gcs).

Regards!

[Swordhelm]

I'm not a big fan of 4e, though i have yet to play a solid session, and the gamer group thats nearby i've stopped playing with for lack of.......certain qualities i think an rpg requires.

My biggest problem, and it's a double edged sword as just pointed out, is that it feels not jsut like WoW, but like a generic computer game RPG. In fact it feels a lot like Diablo. Yes those games, and pretty much EVERY rpg out there has borrwed from D&D extensively, but they developed into their own genre, and now D&D is copying it it seems. I don't like combat heavy RPG's. To me it's practically making D&D into a first person shooter.....with leveling. D&D, at it's best(and i had qualms and loves for all three editions before) was about characters interacting and adventures. Not about hacking and slashing. But that's a personal opinion. Prior stated group was a hack and slash group, and i know other hack and slash rpgers. Thats fine, and i think 4e is suited towards them. But for me, and i feel those who were really into the Role Playing part, the other editions were better. And as for streamlined and easy to use, thats fine, but a good dm streamlines himself almost all the time. I don't think i've ever played a game where houserules and streamlining by that particular dm had taken place. And xp for outside of combat i've used since i moved onto other systems that picked it up well before 4e, or 3e for that matter.

The mechanics, the rules, the monsters, the creatures, all scream MMORPG at me. And yes they work. And yes it can be interesting. But why play an MMORPG with paper and pencil, if thats your style, when you have WoW, or Warhammer or Conan or Dark Age of Camelot? If D&D is going to clone most of those, why not just play those? I guess for people who want to not pay a fee, but still, seems a bit silly to me. What seperated D&D from all those MMO's was that it was still an rpg. it still had those factors of roleplaying. Whether you used them or not, they were still there. Now D&D just seems to be another MMO, only paper and pencil instead. But thats my two cents.

[dundjinnmasta]

The funny part is that alot of people scream MMORPG or video game RPG (which isn't necessarily a bad thing because they have become more streamlined then tabletop and it is a big thing right now so 4E may borrow some concepts) but never compare 4E to fantasy action movies like Lord of the Rings or fantasy books where the main characters have unique abilities and aren't just swinging their blade over and over again. The focus on combat in the mechanics with their streamlining I believe allows both the GM and players to focus more on their role-playing and less on their numbers.

It was always a bummer for me to play 3.x and I also had to houserule or as my friend once called it "bastardize" the system to make it work for me which didn't necessarily meant that it worked for my group. I had to try to make it fun to DM for me and less a chore (though ultimately I gave up on tabletop because of 3.x). 4E has made it fun to GM again, it puts the mechanics focus where they are suppose to be which is on combat and it leaves the role-playing to the groups.

(Note that everyone says 4E is all "combat" but then how do you explain things like Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight? or the Skill Challenge system which is a really nice mechanic [and you can deport it to other systems with any type of "skills"]. Also the "Knowledge" skills have more support then they ever had from 3.x.)

[kgauck]

A lack of role playing is not a feature of a game system. Its true that the books are largely silent on the subject, but they clearly assume those kinds of players are playing. The books seem to assume that your role playing type (storyteller, slayer, tactician, role-player, &c) are fixed characteristics and the DM should play to their essential nature, rather than try and regard players as capable of growth as players.

However, role playing is a characteristic of the players, not the game, You can role-play with any game and any game system, including games that don't expect a role play component, like checkers, monopoly, and so on. If players want to role play with 4e they will. But I can imagine that with the emphasis elsewhere, 4e is not recruiting storytellers, dramatists, role-players, and players who want to explore characters instead of objects in a crypt.

That's fine. If the game only recruited those kinds of players we'd never expand the numbers of role players because everyone playing would already play that way. Recruiting other kinds of players, like slayers, the hack-and-slash, and so on means that some portion of them will either evolve or expand over time to include more and better role playing. This expands the pool of role-playing instead of just satisfying the existing pool.

[kgauck]

or the Skill Challenge system which is a really nice mechanic

I see this a lot and it really baffles me. This isn't new. Its a formalization (and so one official way) of the various kinds of skill challenges that 3x employed, starting with the crafting system and moving on from there.

Soon we had the concept of a standard test, or simple test, where a character used one skill one time to determine the outcome of an action, and an extended test, where multiple attempts might be made using the same skill (as in craft) or using a variety of skills (depending on what was being attempted).

Several months before 4e was even released I posted this description (http://www.birthright.net/forums/showpost.php?p=44199&postcount=4) of how to apply an extended test to currency reform as a way to play out a domain action.

By the end of 3x, we could arrange an extended test to go after a target DC (like in crafting) which was good for a task which was essentially cumulative, or a competitive challenge in which the difference between two sides is tracked, to see who has the upper hand at the end, or the easiest, simply a string of disconnected tasks in which you needed to succeed in sequence.

I'll grant the 4e skills challenge one thing I had not seen before, substituting the more complex mechanic of target DC's with the allowance of failing a few checks, which is simpler and easier to apply. I would prefer to stick with the target DC for tasks that important to the story, but I am happy to use the 4e mechanic on tangential tasks.

But for certain, what 4e produces is 1) a minor modification of an extended skill test and 2) only one way to handle a complex situation where skills interact. Its not new or original to 4e.

[vota dc]

Hello friends,

beeing away for some time, I would like to ask the Birthright community what they think about the 4E-D&D.
Any discussions so far? I already have seen that there is a 4E Birthright project in the pipeline.



Cheers,
Azrai
(reappearing...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons
Some features seems simplified,that is ALWAYS a good thing.

So for apply the 4E to Birthright you have only to ignore the new races and ignore this "Multi-classing has been eliminated. Players may choose feats to gain abilities from classes." the rest is good.

[dundjinnmasta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons
Some features seems simplified,that is ALWAYS a good thing.

So for apply the 4E to Birthright you have only to ignore the new races and ignore this "Multi-classing has been eliminated. Players may choose feats to gain abilities from classes." the rest is good.

You don't need 3.x or 2E multi-classing for it to be Birthright, that is just silly. The statement on that wiki site is in error. 4E did not eliminate multi-classing as the player multi-classes by getting multi-class feats, the Initial feat gives a class skill, a class feature, and a class at-will that can be used as an encounter. Later feats (Novice, Acolyte, Adept) give you the ability to trade some powers between the classes and then you can give up a paragon path to further continue multi-classing in your chosen multi-class.

That is just the multi-class release with core as now they have multi-only classes (Spellscarred, Dhampyr) which have even better power swapping support. The previews for Hybrid classes which is similar to older multi-classing which will come out in the PHB3.

[Vicente]

4e multiclassing is really different from 3e multiclassing (that was broken all around in general): 3e multiclassing was a powergamer dream (and more or less the same in 2e), while in 4e if you multiclass is more of a flavor reason.

And I agree to dundjinnmasta, multiclassing it's not a feature that defines Birthright at all.

[Rowan]

Kgauck, thanks for the comments on roleplaying. I hate to see people blame a system for a problem that is a group and play style issue. No game system can substitute or create good roleplaying; that must come from the players and the GM. A system can help to some degree, for instance by making sense and staying out of the way (through simplicity), and also by encouraging diversity and description (which I feel 4e does with the variety of powers and rituals).

I still take issue with you about the skill challenges, though. Yes, the concept existed in 3e. The point is that 4e formalized it and created a lot of support for it, providing many ready-to-use challenges (or ready-to-modify slightly), and a greater variety of options that involve the whole group. The seed was there, but it needed to germinate and grow, which 4e has done.

3e seemed to have so many fixes necessary, and few players/DMs could really agree on what those were. I feel that 4e is more consistent and balanced and simple, requiring fewer major house rules, and fewer controversial ones. Combat options in previous editions were really pretty limited for non-spellcasters, such that your average attack had no inherent flavor or variation. And, frankly, it always really ticked me off that the only worthwhile higher level characters were spellcasters. They outshone everyone else, hands down.

My 4e groups really have a lot of roleplay and a lot of plot. I have more time to develop that stuff as a DM because the system is easier to administer and there's so much more support for quickly crafting and running combats and skill challenges. So I just really don't see the loss of roleplaying support or focus. I think it's the opposite.

Oh, and personally, I hated the randomness of hit points at levels and did away with it in 3e as a house rule. 3e was also VERY swingy; shouldn't a character know they can rely on being able to do some things? And if a DM was always streamlining things anyway, why not remove some of that brain damage and help him do it? It sure helped me. And XP for non-combat things--yeah, many people used it, but it was never CORE, not in any significant amounts, anyway. The point is that the system now supports it directly, which is an improvement over having to rule it in just by custom.

I still do think there are better systems out there, but not better supported ones. I personally dislike classes at all, as well as levels and proliferations of spells/powers. But 4e works well enough, better than D&D ever has before, and the Eden Studios unisystem just doesn't have as much support by the publisher or by my players :(

[kgauck]

Rowan, I have no objection to most of your criticisms of 3x. It is swingy, fixes were needed (although it seems these were more genre specific than game-wide, so in some senses this was a feature of versatility than a defect, but yeah, needed fixes) magic powers up too much, but on the question of extended skill challenges, I'd point you specifically to Unearthed Arcana, page 81, complex skill challenges. As I reread it after 4e, I think I have to take back even what I granted to 4e, because even a failure allowance is discussed.

I got most of my skills ideas from d20 products, and I'll note many of the best ideas from third party products seemed to turn up in Wizards materials later on (especially products like Unearthed Arcana).

But ultimately, I'd say it was way more than a mere seed. I think you'll agree if you look at Unearthed Arcana (pub 2004) that the 4e skills challenge is basically, if not totally fully grown there. 4e gets credit for moving it to the PHB, where it belongs, rather than an optional accessory.

The other example I have to mention is from the Medieval Players Handbook, David Chart for Green Ronin, which had the mechanic where Inspiration would set a target DC and then you would work to achieve it over time. Originally intended for the Artist class for creating new art, I use it for everything, like castle building (how defensible do you want it?) and battles (how intricate is your plan?).

If I could graft the 3.5 skills system onto 4e, I would, but I need to either totally revise the list of daily, encounter, and at-will powers, or wait for someone else to do it so the powers address what is to me the real game - combat other than fighting. Duels of ideas, duels of rhetoric, combats based on wisdom, intelligence, and charisma skills to persuade others by insight, reason, or charm in court, council, and assembly rather than the physical combats of sword and battlemat movement.

I used to start characters off as 2nd level characters, everyone was required to take a level of noble, rogue, a PC version of Expert (with feats every 3rd level), or barbarian in addition to their professional class. 1st level characters can get knocked over by a light breeze. 4e starts with a more appropriate level of power for adventurers. I am currently concerned about the power progression of 4e, but I think if I had the powers I want to see, I would be satisfied. Clearly 4e is far more robust, giving a fun challenge out of characters and encounters of more diverse levels, something 3x was very poor at.

Ultimately I would not be surprised to find myself in 4e in a few years, once I can play a game where a character can make an argument, stun his opponent (no reply this turn), and make a new argument in the next turn. A game where generals debate about crossing the river here or moving upstream to cross at the bridge; where diplomats argue for rapprochement with Avanil while others plead for Boeruine; where one priest can advance the interpretation of Fitzalan while another argues for Orthodoxy.

I'll play 4e in BR when I can play that game, and I imagine it will eventually get here.

[Swordhelm]

I just never had trouble with previous systems, of any game. If certain rules were ridiculously hard, you simply streamlined over them. It never took that much work. And the only trouble that ever came from it were the rule lawyers who you can simply house rule over. For the same reason a group determines the level of roleplay, it also determines the level of flow. Some groups can simply mesh, push the story forward and reach exciting conclusions. Other groups cosntantly need to check rules because of some minute detail, or meta gaming rule, or munchkin playing. It's always going to boil down to the group in the end. I guess when it all comes down to it, a streamlined hack and slash system, which is how i, and that is only my opinion, see it, isn't worth buying a new set of books and changing a system i've really never had trouble with. And if i do want that, i can pop on the PC and play a thousand variations of it with real graphics and millions of other players or just my friends.

[The Swordgaunt]

This was a very good read.

As for 4e, I went on record here earlier saying I wouldn't touch it with my 10' pole, and was politely told to get out of that thread. Well, it was a thread calling for experiences with that system... Since then, I've read the core-book, and a good deal of discussions about it. I still won't touch it - at least not as a player/GM.

The way I see it, it was made to keep min/maxers in check. If everybody is equal, no one is special. I know that munchkin-types can be quite a handful, and I respect the effort. Not for me, though. I also believe that no game invented can prevent a devoted rules-lawyer from tweaking his character.

As for the whole MMORPG-issue, well, yes, pnp was first. Now they are all but indistinguishable...

Perhaps the main gripe I have with 4e is that it is too much late Feist for me. Too fantastic, if you will. I happen to like elves, dwarfs and the standard races, and all those super-epic templates and whatnots that came with 3.5 never caught on with me. Warforged? Meh.

Then there is the discrepancy between PC-powers and NPC-powers. This makes for poor roleplaying, in my experience.

Lastly, as 4e looks to be very much geared towards group-playing, and I mostly run one-on-one or small groups, that keeps me off it as well.

As a P.S. I'll add that I see the Rogue as the most unballanced 3.5 class. The 8 skill points make them masters of all traits at mid-level. Fighters and spellcasters are awesome to behold on the battlefield, but the world outside of it is ruled by Rogues.

[Vicente]

I don't think 4e was so much directed to avoid munchkinism as to avoid spellcasters doing all the work (inside and outside combat, no way a rogue will outshine a spellcaster outside combat unless he has only cared for damage spells and things like that).

About the group part, another thing that 4e tried with the "healing sources" is to avoid the mandatory cleric in all groups or forcing clerics to spend a good part of their own spell slots in healing (3e tried the same with the swaping healing spells thing). It's easier to play a small group (or a group with weird composition) in 4e than it was in 3e as all characters have access to healing resources. Although in my games we have found that having a leader character helps a lot (not only because of the healing, but because of all the different modifiers they provide).

[kgauck]

During the second half of 2e's era, story and role play grew into dominant forms of gaming, displacing the standard dungeon crawl with new ways to play D&D. Admittedly most of the people deep into role play and story left D&D for other systems.

4e has returned to the roots of D&D. Its ideally suited for Keep on the Borderlands, and all those other classic modules.

But once you know how to role play, how to inhabit a character, serve its needs, rather than simply optimize the character for fighting you don't need a game that encourages that and offers hooks and seeds to build stories and character on. You can role play a game of checkers. Give the pieces names, distinct motivations, and even play a bad game of checkers because the hot-headed piece called Hugo won't wait for his back-up and charges ahead.

Most of the storyteller and role-playing styles of RPG's only work as games if everyone already wants to play that style of game. This is good because many of them were terribly broken as games. Its much easier to add good story and role-play to a well balanced game than it is to add balance and durability to a game that is designed for story and role-play.

[irdeggman]

Actually I think that the Alternity complex skill check system (the last TSR published books and before 3.0) was the precursor for the skill test system.

I could be wrong though, and have been before.

[kgauck]

Never did play Alternity, so that's quite possible. Given that D&D was a latecomer to the whole skills thing, it would hardly be surprising that these mechanics were developed elsewhere first.

When I think about how I did Starship combat in Star Trek with ICON, a skills only system, it was a multi-character extended character test. Helmsman makes a pilot check, operations officer makes a sensor check to get a lock, guy in the big chair makes a tactics check, weapons officer makes a starship systems check. Just playing a skills only system would accustom one to these kinds of sequenced skill checks to perform single event tasks like firing phasers.

[The Swordgaunt]

You can [...] even play a bad game of checkers because the hot-headed piece called Hugo won't wait for his back-up and charges ahead.

This might be one of the more memorable quotes I've seen in this forum.

I agree totally. I have arrived at two systems myself. I either play Storyteller (the new version is really quite good), or d20 (3.5). What I like about the latter is that it is not at all too different from the old AD&D 2nd Ed, with a liberal sprinkling of houserules, that we used back when I was introduced to gaming.

The new 4E is just not my cup of tea. It has what I expect from a level based system, with all its idiosyncracies and "features". frankly, I see the new edition as one more marketing plot to squeeze yet another buck from the gaming community. Wizards became the leading actor after White Wolf bungled the whole Gehenna-thing and lost the interest of their customers. D20 pulled many of us old ones back to the polyhedral dice after years of d10's. Now, I am not saying that launching a new system is an inherently bad thing, but as with most marketing plots, I ask myself, "is this something I need?". In this particular case, my answer is, "no."

In time, that might change, though. Ten years ago I never thought I'd buy another Player's either.


[...]no way a rogue will outshine a spellcaster outside combat unless he has only cared for damage spells and things like that).


Whithout derailing the discussion, I see your point, but I do not agree. I believe it might come down to playing styles though. I have found that if the lowest skill point gain is 4/lvl, the whole game becomes more balanced. Both Fighters and Wizards become more than walking warmachines.

Anorther move is to make spells less available. Research takes time, and especially if they cannot simply be pulled from thin air. Hunting for spellbooks, scrolls, and lab-equipment is, imo, a part of being a magician.

[Vicente]

Whithout derailing the discussion, I see your point, but I do not agree. I believe it might come down to playing styles though. I have found that if the lowest skill point gain is 4/lvl, the whole game becomes more balanced. Both Fighters and Wizards become more than walking warmachines.

Anorther move is to make spells less available. Research takes time, and especially if they cannot simply be pulled from thin air. Hunting for spellbooks, scrolls, and lab-equipment is, imo, a part of being a magician.

I think the problem with the wizard is not so much their skill points (as they tend to have high intelligence) but their class skill list (where the rogue really shines).

About the search for spells, well, I just said that spellcasters where a problem in 2e/3e as they could do everything, that's why in 4e classes "seem" to be similar. Of course it can be solved by houseruling (although with priests it's harder...).

[The Swordgaunt]

[snip]

*treads carefully so as not to hijack the thread

Priests can be a tricky subject, I agree, but one I believe is kept in check by setting and fluff. They are, as I see it, toghether with the paladin, the class that is most bound by factors outside of the group. They will have both an order and a (sometimes vengeful) god looking very carefully at anything they do.

Skill lists are another issue alltogether, and I have my own lists.

But, just to put me in a camp, I am firmly in the storytelling one, as laid out by Kenneth a few posts up. Yes, I agree that 3.5 is far from perfect, but then again, I have yet to find a system that is. I seriously doubt that this Holy Grail of RPG even exists. And this is why I'm not making the jump to 4E. I do not see that it brings anything really new, or better, to the way I play. This is only one man's opinnion, though.

[dundjinnmasta]

If I have to house-rule a bunch of things just to make the game playable then frankly I don't want to play the game. House-ruling isn't necessarily balanced and there is so many different house-rules and ways to use them that it varies from party to party. I prefer a game that I play out of the book and frankly 3.x is a very difficult beast of burden if you don't house-rule.

[The Swordgaunt]

If I have to house-rule a bunch of things just to make the game playable then frankly I don't want to play the game. House-ruling isn't necessarily balanced and there is so many different house-rules and ways to use them that it varies from party to party. I prefer a game that I play out of the book and frankly 3.x is a very difficult beast of burden if you don't house-rule.

Hmm. I don't see it that way. I see it more as if a system is like a pair of shoes. You need to break them in before they fit properly. I see the development of house-rules as being a part of the game itself. You find a rule you don't like, and make it better, or you cut it. Take my skill-patch, for instance. I happen to think that skills are important, so I adapted that part of the rules.

As for your "beast of burden" analogy, yes, I agree, but once reared properly, it will carry you where ever you want to go ;)

[NaMaN]

I still play Birthright by the original 2nd edition rules. I don`t see the need for two new editions every decade, especially more combat oriented versions, even though I agree that roleplaying is much up to players and dungeon masters. Why not rather develop the old system, fix unlogic rules and so on. There is much about the ad&d 2nd edition thats not to my liking, but it would not take wery much effort to adjust them. Better if Wotc used the effort to publish the great lot of stuff that were never made to the birthright campain, and developed the world, the people, and "world-spesific" rules rather than the game mechanics.. And I would also like to see more birthright novels, such as the earlier planned (The shadow stone by richard baker(converted to forgotten realms), siege by simon hawke and aquitania by lynn abbey). Thats me anyway...

[Dcolby]

Late to the party as always...4E has left me rather cold. I find that it is simply a an MMORPG converted to paper and it seems that people when playing it are more concerned with the "proper Build" and fine tuning of the mechanics rather than the roleplay. Thats fine if you want to chew through a dungeon, But I must be an old dog now cause I like the interaction more than the action. Birthright for example is a very rich "roleplay" setting that I even thought about continuing using 2nd edition rules for even though my group was purely 3.5.

[hirumatogeru]

D&D 4E does have a distinct MMORPG feel to it. I can't stop thinking about WoW when playing it, and how every class is designed to be equal to the others.

The roles also help to define what a class can do, but this also reminds me of WoW-type games.

4E is a good game for what it is. It's not better or worse than any other game system out there, it is just different. It works for dungeon crawls very well, I'll give it that. Players survive a lot longer if they work together as well. But personally I enjoy a more lethal RPG, something where there is a constant threat of death or injury no matter how powerful a PC is.

For me, Savage Worlds is my perfect system and I'll stick with that for now.

[Dcolby]

Lethality does have its virtues. Savage worlds is by the same people that did the original Deadlands right? Does it share any systems or is it a comepletely new?

[Jerrith]

I personally enjoy 4E greatly. Combat, especially, now feels far more balanced and interesting. Characters have the ability to dance across the battlefield with a plethora of powers at their disposal, regardless of class.

My background is playing as a melee class in 3rd edition. The extent of my combat was largely rolling a d20 for a nondescript slash. The pinnacle of achievement was when I finally got to roll a second d20 (with penalty) again in a round. In duels especially, it would have been exciting to add some more mobility to the fight, but moving would break the full attack action for minimal benefit, so both sides remained parked just tossing blows at each other.

Our group largely focuses on roleplaying, and the large lists of abilities for all classes, including widely different attacks for martial classes each with their own flavor, has really brought our combat situations to life. Now my ranger is striking his foes with all his might while weaving through the fray like I had envisioned all along. The descriptions of the abilities help us describe what our attack looks like on the battlefield, and is fuel for a memorable battle. Also, spellcasters no longer dominate the field, so each character feels like they are making a worthwhile contribution to the party.

I really do not miss the lack of long lists of skills. All our non-combat situations were always roleplayed out with a minimum of rolling, so our group did not feel any sting in the change there. Our most common rolls--bluff checks opposed by insight--both still exist in the skill tree, along with the important diplomacy and intimidate.

The biggest issue I have faced so far is that combat is slowed down considerably when playing with those who have analysis paralysis, hold a tactical deliberation every turn, or are unfamiliar with their class's abilities. If each player takes over a minute deciding what to do during their turn, combat can really start to drag. To help alleviate this, advise players to make their own power cards, which will remind them of what they have and have the relevant math for each pre-printed. Some DMs might even want to enforce a turn time limit: 10 to 20 seconds maximum to announce their action, or their turn is delayed or they automatically assume total defense.

[Green Knight]

4ed is a good game, but a few things prevent me from playing it:

- unfortunately it has moved in a direction where it focuses more on tactical mastery of the combat rules than any other thing; which is completely uninteresting to me
- the flavor of the thing, ranging from the artwork to the whole concept of we're-fighting-superheroes; also not interesting
- some stuff got overly simplified (such as the skill selection) and I think the PCs all end up too alike

Hmmm, come to think of it I enjoy the Saga Edition of SW because it is simple and helps keep focus on the story; and Saga has many 4ish elements, but a lot less focus on tacticery and minis, so I'd say that 4ed COULD be made to work for me...I'm sure I could rewrite the whole game...but then it would not be DnD 4ed anymore :)