Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition: Initial Impressions

[Alex_P]

As several people have said before, if you don't like 4e, don't play it. This obsession some people have with making others dislike something just as much as they do, something that I will freely admit that I'm guilty of at times, just ends in redundant, circular arguments.

Not every game is going to be suitable for or even appeal to every person. My group, for example, is going to love 4e, because we're a 'beer and pretzels' kind of group that likes dungeon bashes and epic loot (they like more than I do, but that's a different story). Will they care that you can only use Brute Strike once a day? Probably not.

I think it's compounded by the fact that most people play one game: D&D.

If it veers further away from what you want, it's very easy to feel betrayed.

-- Alex

 

[Chibz]

Oh, and I will NEVER accept the 1HP goblins.

Ever.

Really? I like the idea of minions, they're like stocking fillers for encounters.

They're not for everyone though, I suppose.

No, it's just Wizard of the Coast's seeming hatred towards all things goblin shining through.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

As several people have said before, if you don't like 4e, don't play it. This obsession some people have with making others dislike something just as much as they do, something that I will freely admit that I'm guilty of at times, just ends in redundant, circular arguments.

Not every game is going to be suitable for or even appeal to every person. My group, for example, is going to love 4e, because we're a 'beer and pretzels' kind of group that likes dungeon bashes and epic loot (they like more than I do, but that's a different story). Will they care that you can only use Brute Strike once a day? Probably not.

I think it's compounded by the fact that most people play one game: D&D.

If it veers further away from what you want, it's very easy to feel betrayed.

-- Alex

You have a point. I'm quite lucky in that regard, as my group has played all kinds of games. I'm also old enough to own three full editions of AD&D, so I get to pick my favourite.

Oh, and I will NEVER accept the 1HP goblins.

Ever.

Really? I like the idea of minions, they're like stocking fillers for encounters.

They're not for everyone though, I suppose.

No, it's just Wizard of the Coast's seeming hatred towards all things goblin shining through.

You get human minions too...

 

[Chibz]

They are just trying to keep the green man down, nilcypher. Ever wonder what the LA system was for? To make hobgoblins unplayable.

Just read the "Monster Manual" entry on goblins, or kobolds.

Keepin' the green man down...

 

[Alex_P]

And ew, Gleemax....

I don't think I've ever seen a discussion actually resolve there. Pretty much ever.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

Gleemax however, I was on there maybe for a month, and I still feel dirty.

It used to not be Gleemax. I'm surprised that they kept the name, given how badly it failed.

...

That leads me to a major, pretty much indisputable criticism of 4e: WotC tried to make their products a lot more Internet-oriented, with all kinds of various tools and special features promised, and then failed miserably because they can't really write software. (For what it's worth, they did this with 3e, too, it's just that fewer people noticed.)

-- Alex

 

[Chibz]

But yes, realism, verisimilitude and personal taste all play a huge part. But it comes down to, if you're having problems accepting the way things work in D&D, why the hell are you still playing it.
And ew, Gleemax....

My problems aren't with how the game was made, or how the 3.5E system was done but rather their illogical (and pointless) new edition, and hatred towards the green man.

 

[Chibz]

But yes, realism, verisimilitude and personal taste all play a huge part. But it comes down to, if you're having problems accepting the way things work in D&D, why the hell are you still playing it.
And ew, Gleemax....

My problems aren't with how the game was made, or how the 3.5E system was done but rather their illogical (and pointless) new edition, and hatred towards the green man.

Don't call 4e illogical or pointless. It reeks of elitism and straight ignorance, especially since goblins, hobbos, and kobolds are actually playable in it. What with having no penalties and a decent at will ability, kobolds are a very sound choice to make. (Shifty is the best ability ever. Every turn you get to shift, for free. That's a five foot free action step in 3.5 And now you get to do it every turn, even after making a full move action. And with a +2 to CON and DEX and no penalties, +2 to stealth and thievery and +2 against traps, they make for the best rogues.)
4e is not illogical, that comes from expecting it to "fix" 3.5. the only way to fix 3.5 is with house rules. 4e was made to streamline combat back into a balanced war game. And it succeeded. How is that illogical or pointless? Is it illogical and pointless for Microsoft to continuously make a better OS? Is it illogical for companies to release better and better video card even though half of the cards out there smash any requirements to dust?

Maybe you're blind or daft, so here's the reason in plain english.

Because. It. Is. Not. A. Wargame.

BECAUSE. IT. IS. A. ROLE. PLAYING. GAME.

If you want a wargame go PLAY one (D&D miniatures for example) and leave the real D&D to the role players.

 

[Chibz]

D&D was made originally as a war game. However Gary Gygax saw an opportunity to throw a catchy element into it, role playing. So he took a game he and another gentleman were working on, slapped on some last minute, and poorly built, role playing rules, and called it Dungeons and Dragons. If you think D&D was originaly made with Role Playing being the main concept, you're very mistaken. There is a reason the term, "role playing, not roll playing" came about.
Or did you think the game focused too much on combat mechanics while role playing mechanics were useless for no reason?

The game's origins aside, at the point of 3.5 it was solidly defined AS A role playing game. This is why D&D minis was made, and why D&D minis succeeded. I feel that 3.x does go a little too far in combat mechanics, but unlike 4th there IS stuff outside combat.

 

[Chibz]

D&D was made originally as a war game. However Gary Gygax saw an opportunity to throw a catchy element into it, role playing. So he took a game he and another gentleman were working on, slapped on some last minute, and poorly built, role playing rules, and called it Dungeons and Dragons. If you think D&D was originaly made with Role Playing being the main concept, you're very mistaken. There is a reason the term, "role playing, not roll playing" came about.
Or did you think the game focused too much on combat mechanics while role playing mechanics were useless for no reason?

The game's origins aside, at the point of 3.5 it was solidly defined AS A role playing game. This is why D&D minis was made, and why D&D minis succeeded. I feel that 3.x does go a little too far in combat mechanics, but unlike 4th there IS stuff outside combat.

Of course D&D 3.x is defined as a role playing game, you wouldn't call it anything else would you? That's what they want you to call it. But let us compare it to games like World of Darkness..... Go ahead, I'll give you a few minutes...
Can you still call it a role playing game? When a game in the genre does the worst job at it, can you still call it that?
Let's face it, D&D is a role playing game by classification only. I mean, think about it, from the mechanics given, a Bard can have +20 to diplomacy by level 3! LEVEL 3! And the mechanics say that while role playing he will tell God himself that he's a platypus. And the dice will say that god believes him. And this is with just a +4 CHA modifier.
If you have to home brew and make your own rules for role playing, are you still playing a game that can respectfully call itself a role playing game?

First off, it would be "bluff" to tell 'god himself' that he was a platypus, and it would carry massive negatives to said bluff.

You're confusing roll playing with role playing.

 

[Chibz]

You're confusing roll playing with role playing.

Right there. Right there is where the distinction between D&D and role playing games is drawn.
The mechanics for role playing in D&D are SO BAD, that you have to go outside of them, determine and agree upon what is doable, rational, and what is illogical, and implement it yourself without having a power curve that puts wizards to shame*.
This, is 3.x. D&D, is not a role playing game. It's certainly a game where you can role play, but the actual role playing element in 3.x, is one you have to create yourself.


*I once diplomacy...ed the Tarrasque into joining us. That takes a very expensive rod, and knowing whatever language a terrasque might speak. But because of hand;e animal, I made it into a pet. That's roll playing, but because I was using a rod and handle animal, that was 3.x's idea of role playing.

Actually, no. Diplomacy doesn't work on beings with animal intelligence. Also, the Tarrasque doesn't HAVE a language.

1. Handle animal does not work on magical beasts'. Also, it involves rearing it (at least in 3.5E. I doubt you found a "baby Tarrasque".

2. That's your idea of role playing, not 3.x's

3. Not the game's fault your DM was inept.

 

[Chibz]

You're confusing roll playing with role playing.

Right there. Right there is where the distinction between D&D and role playing games is drawn.
The mechanics for role playing in D&D are SO BAD, that you have to go outside of them, determine and agree upon what is doable, rational, and what is illogical, and implement it yourself without having a power curve that puts wizards to shame*.
This, is 3.x. D&D, is not a role playing game. It's certainly a game where you can role play, but the actual role playing element in 3.x, is one you have to create yourself.


*I once diplomacy...ed the Tarrasque into joining us. That takes a very expensive rod, and knowing whatever language a terrasque might speak. But because of hand;e animal, I made it into a pet. That's roll playing, but because I was using a rod and handle animal, that was 3.x's idea of role playing.

Actually, no. Diplomacy doesn't work on beings with animal intelligence. Also, the Tarrasque doesn't HAVE a language.

1. Handle animal does not work on magical beasts'. Also, it involves rearing it (at least in 3.5E. I doubt you found a "baby Tarrasque".

2. That's your idea of role playing, not 3.x's

3. Not the game's fault your DM was inept.

So you're response was, "Nuh-uh, that's your problem". Are you going to make an actual case or are we done here?

I've made one. It's doubtful that DM has even read through the basic rules. A bad GM can make any RPG look bad.

 

[Alex_P]

3. Not the game's fault your DM was inept.

The game book's giving the GM tools and advice. You can't blame it for everything but it's definitely an important factor.

-- Alex