4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[Gamerprinter]

Yeah... it's soooo hard for the player to roll a d20 and soooo hard for the DM to make up a target number on the spot. I guess there are crappy DM's everywhere that can't handle anything unexpected that isn't covered by the rules anywhere. I guess we should add every single tiny rule that could possibly come up at any point in time in any campaign just to make sure every DM knows exactly what to do.


There's nothing in the rules that prevents you from roleplaying.

Hey there, lighten up! You're not everybody's DM, you got your style and they've got theres. Perhaps its easier for them to work from a table, its not your position to tell them they are wrong or crappy - that's your opinion and keep it to yourself.

This is supposed to be a friendly board - you're not being very friendly.

You obviously prefer 4e, and like to defend from any criticism, there's nothing wrong with your opinion, but there's nothing wrong with Midgard's or Nolgroth's opinion either. Disagree fine, but stop being so condescending, there's no need for that.

If this thread turns into a flame war, I'll recommend that it closes now or be removed altogether. You want to get nasty about it, go to EnWorld or Gleemax. Your attitude doesn't belong here.

Just lighten up a bit. We can discuss issues without getting heated.

GP

[NymTevlyn]

It has nothing to do with 4e itself, but people that whine about any rules system because it supposedly limits roleplaying. I heard it about 3e when it was released and now people are whining about 4e. It's just stupid.

[NeonKnight]

WOW!

I'd hate to put my MODERATOR (TM) hat on and lock this thread, and have this be the FIRST thread in the history of this forum to get this treatment. but lets play nice and AGREE to DISAGREE!

Ok?

[Ascension]

I'm with Neon...you've said your piece Nym, now let it go. We're not here to determine who the superior DM is, we're here to discuss what we like and don't like about the 4e system.

[Midgardsormr]

It has nothing to do with 4e itself, but people that whine about any rules system because it supposedly limits roleplaying. I heard it about 3e when it was released and now people are whining about 4e. It's just stupid.

I'd like to point out that I currently do play 4e, I like 4e, and I am enjoying 4e. There's no whining coming from my corner. No system is completely perfect, though, and I simply offered up what I am going to do to make it better for my group.

I do not appreciate your condescension, nor the implication that you know anything about how good a GM I am having never sat at my table.

If you wish to disagree with my opinion, feel free, but do not reduce the discussion to the level of insults and name calling.

Now, why add system from another game? I won't be adding the die roll mechanics—there's no sense in diluting the elegant d20 rule already in place, but there's also little sense in my writing a skill list and attendant descriptions from scratch. I reviewed the RM rules yesterday, and it looks like that's really the only thing I'll be able to use, anyway: the list and descriptions.

[NymTevlyn]

It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. A GM that can't handle the unexpected shouldn't be GM'ing. That is the point of having a GM at the table. To handle the unexpected when the rules don't apply. If the only things you're allowed to do are what the rules say you can, you have a board game with no room for creativity, not an rpg.

Here's the only rule you'll ever need for when the actual rules don't cover something.

When in doubt, roll a die. Odd, they fail. Even, they succeed.

There. Now anyone can GM and "handle" the unexpected with a simple rule.

[Korash]

Okay, time to chime in with my two cents (plus tax) worth...

To begin with, I must mention that I have read through some of the rules for 4E but have only played in 1 demo session (played a Worlock). I did find that there were a few things that I liked about it (character creation was fast, combat smooth, minions) but that there were quite a few things that bothered me about it (spells/lack of, EVERYone being able to heal themselves/force opponents to attack them/have powers, character developement options, +++). Like I said I am not too familiar with the rules, and so might have missed some finer points to what I see as problems with the system. I will say that I did enjoy the demo, and might play more one-offs in 4E, but I see it more of a combat simulator than a roleplaying system.

Having said all that, I beleive that the two are not mutually exclusive. Roleplaying does not depend on combat mechanics to work (Amber and LRP proved that), but is more often overlayed on a system of rules that allows for comparison of character bilities. Some RPGs put more emphasis on RP and others put it on dice rolling (Rolemaster anyone?). Which is better? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". To each his/her own. I prefer to create a character background, THEN use whatever rules we are going to be using to flesh the stats out to what ever extent the rules allow. If the rules are more combat heavy/skills light (like 4E) I can still play according to the background, it will just take a bit more effort/communication from me and the GM, and the other players if they are also up to doing some RP.

okay....soooo.....maybe a nickle worth...

[Gamerprinter]

There are more differences in style in playing D&D.

Though this doesn't describe me, you have to allow that D&D can be played as a combat simulationist game, especially if you rely on mechanics more than fluff. Nothing wrong with that, but that means if a given mechanic has been removed from the game moving from one edition to another, how does the simulationist DM deal with what they were already comfortable using. This is hypothetical, as I am sure Midgardsormr injects plenty of RP in his games.

What I am saying, is D&D doesn't have to be Roleplaying at all. So to argue just roleplay it in, might apply to a given DMs style of play but might not be the best solution for everyone.

Regarding the fact the skills have been pulled from 4e. 3.5e has many faults and broken mechanics. The question is for me, was the skill mechanic broken? What reasonable reason did WotC choose to remove skills from play. Its their product and if they just wanted to create a different game, so they removed, that's fine. However, my hope was that 4e was intended to fix a broken 3.5e.
Skills weren't broken, so removing that mechanic offers no benefit to those who were already using it.

To argue, make up a house rule or roleplay out, while a viable solution, might not be the only solution or the best one for a given DM. Besides, if you have to start "house ruling" a new game - to those concerned gamers, wouldn't that indicate that the new is game is just as broken?

Besides, unless you completely understand the new edition, having to create a house rule right off the bat, may make the overall game unbalanced. I'd rather play an entire campaign to understand the continuity of the entire ruleset. Once I understand fairly well, house rules can start to enter play in a responsible manner, not to destroy the balance in the game.

I say, don't fix it, if its not broken - of course D&D is not my IP, and I have no control on what the publisher wants to do with their game.

I know DMs that roleplay everything, with hardly a die being cast at all. It works for those DMs, but I personally don't like. I don't want a DM to dictate how a game is played with no rules to refer in understanding their game method.

That's my dimes worth.

GP

[Greason Wolfe]

It seems to me that a point is being missed here.

In all that I've read so far, nobody has "whined" about anything. They've stated their opinions and feelings about 4e based on their experience. The whole thing about whether the DM/GM being able to handle the unexpected was never the issue.

The fact that a GM likes to have such "rules" available doesn't make them good or bad, top-notch or bottom of the barrel. It's all about personal tastes. Not just the GM's tastes, but the tastes of the players as well. What makes a good GM, IMHO, is one that does what it takes to keep his/her players involved and attentive to the game. If you have a group of players that prefer to have such "rules" in place and a clear way to determine success or failure, chances are they won't stay in a game under a GM that constantly wings such things. The opposite is true as well, players who prefer to play such "rules" off the cuff aren't likely to stay with a GM who constantly rolls dice to determine success or failure.

The simple fact of the matter is, everyone has different ideas about how such things should be handled. It should be about the story and how you get from page 1 to the final chapter is up to you and your players as long as everyone is happy in the end.

EDIT : Oh, would you look at that, GP pretty much beat me to my point.

GW

[deanatglobe]

Tabletop RPG's are in some way or fashion an exercise in creativity. Because of this one will rarely find two groups that play exactly the same way. I have Gm'd for groups using the same system, where half the players were the same and had fairly different interpretations of the rules and play styles.

I love that it is a pasttime where there are people embracing 4e and adopting wholeheartedly and others who never understood why people moved on to 2e. I think that is fun.