4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[dormouse]

I/we still play 1e. Saw no advantages to 2e. 3e & 3.5e too complex/fiddly and part of a process where more stuff was moving from DMs control to the printed rulebooks (and there were enough of them in 1e). 4e seems to be an acceptance of the over-complexity of 3.5 but keeps the rulebook control and has removed a lot of interest as well as the complexity. 1e for all its faults was a good enough basis for DMs' creativeness and group RPGing and without lots of time being taken up with combat; a lot of interest was in the group and in the campaign. It may well be that 4e is the last throw of WotC's dice; too many previous versions, books, modules still being used; too many alternative Games/Rules for those who like their RPG differently biased.

[Redrobes]

My issue with 4e is that no matter what random page I open the PH you end up staring into a large tabulated table of figures. It reads like a program requirements specification and has no mystique, flavor, or style to it. I guess your supposed to add that yourself and use this as the rules to frame that in but it still does not seem like as much fun as it used to be.

[NeonKnight]

My issue with 4e is that no matter what random page I open the PH you end up staring into a large tabulated table of figures. It reads like a program requirements specification and has no mystique, flavor, or style to it. I guess your supposed to add that yourself and use this as the rules to frame that in but it still does not seem like as much fun as it used to be.

But that is really not that different from previous versions with regards to the spell lists taking up the majority of the books really.

At the moment, for the biggest thing is that a character regardless what class is useful in every fight. Something previous editions (especially with regards to wizards) sorely lacked.

[matholwch]

At the moment, for the biggest thing is that a character regardless what class is useful in every fight.

And therein lies the nubbin - useful in every fight. 4E has reduced D&D to a fantasy skirmish system. Methinks they should take the term 'roleplaying' out of the game altogether for fear of running foul of Trading Standards.

Craig.

[NeonKnight]

And therein lies the nubbin - useful in every fight. 4E has reduced D&D to a fantasy skirmish system. Methinks they should take the term 'roleplaying' out of the game altogether for fear of running foul of Trading Standards.

Craig.

Well, see, here is where I must deign to disagree

While I will agree the current rules are more combat oriented, the old rules were as well. Movement was measured in Inches, Spell Area's and ranges were listed as inches, and looking at original modules like Keep on the Borderlands, while there was Roleplay in the Keep, the Caves of Chaos were combat after combat as you cleared the caves. In fact, as an adventure for first level characters, a level 1 wizard was a server handicap. You could maybe cast a single sleep spell once per day, so to be of use to your party, you could only do a single room per day before returning to the safety of the keep.

The current game system is no different. Movement, spell ranges, etc are listed as squares instead of inches, but, roleplay still exists, and I personally do not think any set of rules can set out how exactly one is supposed to Roleplay

[Karro]

Sadly, I have yet to even have an opportunity to try 4th Ed., as yet. Some of what I've heard about it sounds intriguing. But I don't have a current game group, nor the free time to game if I had one (poor me hasn't played in something like 4 years.)

And therein lies the nubbin - useful in every fight. 4E has reduced D&D to a fantasy skirmish system. Methinks they should take the term 'roleplaying' out of the game altogether for fear of running foul of Trading Standards.

Craig.

Not to be too snarky, but does 1st Ed. D&D have a lot of rules for non-combat situations? I'm afraid I didn't get on the D&D bandwagon until 2nd ed, so I'm not so sure about 1st Ed, but as I recall 2nd really didn't have much in the way of non-combat rules. What did exist was tacked on and clunky.

The point I'm trying to make: AFAIK, D&D has always been a fantasy combat simulation with role-playing tacked on and thrown in the mix because it sounded fun! Non-combat rules have always been few and far between, and rarely fully functional (at least until 3rd Ed. standardized it), and it's always been up to us to to provide the roleplaying color. So, insofar as 4th Ed provides a clear and cleaner and fairer set of rules for combat (not saying it does, as I haven't had the opportunity to evaluate that), then that makes this a superior edition of D&D. If, OTOH, you want your RPG ruleset to be more robust in the non-combat department, there are numerous games, both paid and free, that do just this (I myself was working on one, at one point, before other larger life-issues sucked time away from that project).

To mollify my tone a bit, though: if you like 1st Ed. D&D fine, then I, personally, think that's great. Though I've never played it, I would hope you continue to get years of joy out of it. I just think that knocking 4E for being too combat-centric is an invalid criticism of a game that, ultimately, evolved from fantasy wargame ruleset. (Or rather, it's not a valid criticism when comparing editions of D&D; it's perfectly valid when comparing two very different RPGs.)

[Pilias]

So a lot of us are rpg-ers, the latest edition of D&D has been out for a while now and everyone (ie. those of us willing to try it) has had time to get to know it from personal experience. I was wondering what you think of it now. Has anyone changed his/her mind about it? And if so, is it better than you expected or is it a (major) disappointment?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's already a thread like this one somewhere in the unfathomable depths of the forum, but I haven't been able to find it. So there

Overall I like 4th edition, its much less intimidating for newbies to pick up and get into the game (like certain wives of people in the group).

I love the fixes to the skill system, it is much more balanced and I also like that as a DM I can use poison and diseases without the players just shrugging them off after 6th level.

I also like the skill challenges and the way they do traps now, and the rewards for accomplishing quests.

My only gripe with 4th ed is you don't have the same amount of choice in how to build your character. With the expansion books it's gotten a little better but it's much more focused than 3rd ed was, but I've found that it helps with unit cohesion a bit so even that is only a minor gripe. Overall.

[Gamerprinter]

I can probably agree, that for newbies to the game, learning 4th edition is probably easier than 3.5 (I haven't played 4e, but from those who have, this seems to be a consistent point they bring up.)

Its like Checkers and Chess. Checkers is much easier for a newbie to learn, where as Chess is far more complex and strategy based. Both games can be fun, but if you're familiar with the rules of chess and like the game, chances are that checkers doesn't do anything for you. As a choice between the two, chess players prefer chess over checkers.

I have been playing D&D since 1977. All the players in my group had started about the time, if not earlier. We are familiar with the rules and the idea of a game friendlier to noobs, doesn't mean anything to us. We do have a couple of new people, though they are thoroughly indoctrinated to 3e, moreso than myself, even - so they aren't excited about moving to 4e either.

We don't need a more new user-friendly system, so 4e offers little to invite us to play. We are more like chess players, and don't believe moving to checkers is going to be better or more fun to our gaming needs.

As an aside, the whole Fighters and Rogues have "powers" too - in my mind is completely not D&D, so there are many more reasons that I won't play 4e. Its just that that its more friendly to noobs, by itself is no incentive to play it, by my gaming group anyway.

Nothing wrong with 4e in of itself. I just don't want to play "checkers."

GP

[NymTevlyn]

I can probably agree, that for newbies to the game, learning 4th edition is probably easier than 3.5 (I haven't played 4e, but from those who have, this seems to be a consistent point they bring up.)

Its like Checkers and Chess. Checkers is much easier for a newbie to learn, where as Chess is far more complex and strategy based. Both games can be fun, but if you're familiar with the rules of chess and like the game, chances are that checkers doesn't do anything for you. As a choice between the two, chess players prefer chess over checkers.

I have been playing D&D since 1977. All the players in my group had started about the time, if not earlier. We are familiar with the rules and the idea of a game friendlier to noobs, doesn't mean anything to us. We do have a couple of new people, though they are thoroughly indoctrinated to 3e, moreso than myself, even - so they aren't excited about moving to 4e either.

We don't need a more new user-friendly system, so 4e offers little to invite us to play. We are more like chess players, and don't believe moving to checkers is going to be better or more fun to our gaming needs.

As an aside, the whole Fighters and Rogues have "powers" too - in my mind is completely not D&D, so there are many more reasons that I won't play 4e. Its just that that its more friendly to noobs, by itself is no incentive to play it, by my gaming group anyway.

Nothing wrong with 4e in of itself. I just don't want to play "checkers."

GP

Easier to learn doesn't mean less complex. As for rogues and other martial classes having "powers", it's not that far fetched. It's more like a maneuver or technique. Something they've trained to do. Encounter and daily powers can be fluffed away by saying that they're more powerful techniques that can only be used in certain situations when the opportunity presents itself. The difference is, that instead of waiting for it, the player decides when that opportunity happens for their character.

[rlucci]

See, this is why I love Cartographers' Guild. I've seen this topic discussed on various other boards with with the usual flame-war results. Nowhere can you get such a thoughtfully and civil discussion. You guys are the best.

I've been playing D&D from THE beginning (Dave Arneson was my neighbor for a while there). My current group tried the system for a few months but eventually abandoned it. It just wasn't our cup of tea...