Poll: Dungeons and Dragons 4th EDon'tion

[Alex_P]

But Star Trek isn't good science fiction, in any kind of way. It might be enjoyable, but its not good science fiction. Its the same with DnD. It might be enjoyable, but its not good roleplaying. Because its by far to close to the boardgames for my taste. I mean, do they even have rules for social conflict for example? Or just general indept rules outside the combat? Well even if they do, DnD is still very centered around thise whole go-around-kill-random-encounters even if a good DM can turn it around.

Most science fiction isn't good science fiction. Most RPGs aren't good RPGs. They can still have good parts, however. Original Star Trek is a lot like original D&D: cliched, confused, at times ridiculously incoherent, and deserving of some modern-day scorn due to its role in establishing a pattern for a bunch of schlock work to emulate -- but they're both also full of interesting ideas (for their time) struggling to break out. (Of course, once those good ideas have broken out, this leaves their descendants as hollowed-out shells with very little going on. Which I'd argue we've seen with both Star Trek and D&D.)

Still, there's nothing wrong with simply enjoying light/campy/schlocky fiction. The problems come in when you close yourself off to everything else and treat the light/campy/schlocky stuff as the pinnacle of its genre, obsessing over little details while failing to appreciate the big picture.

Rules for social conflict aren't a prerequisite for making a worthwhile game, though. Ronnie winner, RPGnet mini-darling, and all-around awesome game 3:16, for example, doesn't really have a "social combat" system beyond a simple mechanic for dishing out psychological abuse. And it works great.

-- Alex

 

[Spacelord]

I actually prefer 4E over 3.5, you elitist prick.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

-SNIP-

ok if you look in the optional rules in the DMG you will notice there is a whole section on ad-hoc experience for solving problems, puzzles, and riddles, as well as playing in character and following your alignment. As for backgrounds and motivations, this is covered in the PHBII
where a whole chapter on backgrounds and ect. add more depth to the pcs as well as give them bonuses for choosing to use such bonuses.

Still not quite on the level with Spirit of The Century or Hollow Earth Expedition, which integrate personality into gameplay in a more direct manner.

Besides, XP is largely useless and my group has pretty much discarded it completely.

 

[dstryfe]

I have no love for 4th, but I'll play it, if need be. If everyone else wants to do it, then sure, since it's not so bad a system; it knows what it is and stopped trying to be everything else. It's a tactical minis game, and isn't apologizing. 3.5 was a little indecisive...combat was an intensive session of rules-heavy tactical minis stuff...then it gave you a shit-ton of rules for talking to people. The catch here is that while 4th ed. has no rules for anything but combat, it allows you to insert your own. Sadly, it includes little in the way of information for monsters outside of combat, which is always nice to have.

I've played both since getting 4th ed, but I tend to throw in a few of the 4th ed. rules when playing 3.5...it's more like 3.8.

 

[Alex_P]

Most science fiction doesn't even have anything to do with science. I'm inclined to think that we should start reserving the title for works that include a reasonable amount of real scientific accuracy.

I don't think "hardness" is the core of good science fiction any more than "realism" is the core of a good RPG.

-- Alex

 

[sumanoskae]

I prefer 4th, I like the edition of the powers system. And if It's like WoW I wouldn't know sense I don't play WoW like you so rudely assumed, don't be bias towards a viewpoint by badly representing the other ones, it's immature, rude and annoying, so just write me down as "I prefer 4th, and you suck for assuming I'm a WoW fanatic"

 

[Alex_P]

Most science fiction doesn't even have anything to do with science. I'm inclined to think that we should start reserving the title for works that include a reasonable amount of real scientific accuracy.

I don't think "hardness" is the core of good science fiction any more than "realism" is the core of a good RPG.

I'd be inclined to think that realism is an even less integral part of RPG game design than hardness would be of science fiction writing.

So, why bring it up in the context of science-fiction writing, then?

-- Alex

 

[Dramatic Flare]

My opinion on 4th edition is slightly complicated. I don't believe it's the most awesome game since the invention of Chess, but it's not burning material either.
What it is, is comic book. It's about making your character look awesome at what it does, and making it quick, easy, and simple to do so. 3.5 Had a lot more customization (I don't care what WotC says otherwise) and the first two had a lot of interesting things for the DM to do. 4 has ease, and speed.

What I'm noticing as the most obvious is how much easier 4th edition is upon Dungeon Masters than 3.5 was. I have no idea about DMing for the editions previous to 3.5, but 4th seems very straight forward and simple, which is good because it gives me more time to focus on the storyline, the emotions, mood, and implications I want my players to feel. I don't have to worry about the CR of particular monsters and how they'll stack up against my party- I can crack open the monster manual and pick some things equal to my party level and it will be fairly challenging. All in all, this makes my job easier and more fun.
I don't do four kinds of math, I do one and work everything out of it.

Also, we all just had a discussion on this in the Tabletop gaming User Group. Alex_P actually makes a really good post, but I don't think I'll quote him. He can use his own ideas, if it pleases him.

 

[Dancingman]

Wow, this thread wouldn't last a second in the WoTC forums.

Yes, because the WotC forums are owned by WotC. So you either have to suck Mearls' and Collins' dicks all day long or you get banned.

4E is bad, and is failing heavily in the markets (this is a good thing, current predictions are for a 4.5 or whatever within 12 months, or the thing just outright folding within 18), and the people who like it are actively hurting the hobby for those who like 3E (more people mindlessly converting to the newest number == less people staying to play 3E with people who understand how numbers work and how to actually make a fun game).

Lol, the comment about the WoTC forums isn't true, they let you criticize 4E as long as you do so constructively (i.e. not "4E sucks and is really bad and it sucks and 3E is better and I don't like 4E" like you and others on this thread are doing)

 

[spindle]

So don't frigging use it, its not like 4th edition has better graphics.

 

[Alex_P]

So, seeing the amount of hate 4th Edition gets on the Escapist, I decided to blow a whole bunch of my free time poking through RPGnet's little D&D/D20 subforum in order to better gauge fan reactions and understand the distinctions between 4th Edition, 3rd Edition, and Pathfinder.

And I have reached a somewhat-informed conclusion.

Y'all are full of shit.

You can like whatever game you want. That's cool. That's what personal taste is all about. But the confused nonsense most of y'all are jawing about 4th Edition -- you should be embarrassed, ashamed, mortified! There's an overwhelming failure to understand this game, folks.

Every single person who's compared it to WoW, is especially on notice: you have a terribly limited understanding of video games. Most points of commonality between the new D&D and video games aren't with the MMORPG genre. This is freakin' obvious to anyone who actually considers 4th Edition.

But you haven't actually considered it. You decided it sucked without actually understanding enough of the game to see what worked or didn't work, and then you started threadcrapping every D&D thread with your own fantasies masquerading as criticism.

I'm sure D&D 4th Edition has quite a lot of flaws that are worth calling out. But I've hardly seen anyone here even begin to address them in an informed manner. They're all too busy regurgitating the same fan-rage nonsense instead of coming up with something actually thoughtful to say.

-- Alex

 

[axia777]

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition FTW forever. That is what I have come to conclusion of. It was the best D&D ever was or will be again. Once TSR died the real soul of the game died with it. Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro are just milking D&D's dead corpse for cash. It is sad. RIP TSR. What a loss.

 

[Alex_P]

Once TSR died the real soul of the game died with it. Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro are just milking D&D's dead corpse for cash.

Bah. To hear the old folks talk about it, the whole lifecycle of 2nd Edition is the story of milking D&D's corpse for cash: Gygax was long gone, the game kept spawning settings and supplement lines while its already-dated design (seriously, Ars Magica came out in 1987, Pendragon in '85) was haphazardly stuffed into a dozen different ill-fitting costumes in order to pretend that AD&D was designed to handle more than spells and dragons and treasure, and nerds made "Nazis (tm)" jokes about TSR because the widespread perception was that the company loved its revenues but hated the hobby.

-- Alex

 

[NeutralDrow]

Once TSR died the real soul of the game died with it. Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro are just milking D&D's dead corpse for cash.

Bah. To hear the old folks talk about it, the whole lifecycle of 2nd Edition is the story of milking D&D's corpse for cash: Gygax was long gone, the game kept spawning settings and supplement lines while its already-dated design (seriously, Ars Magica came out in 1987, Pendragon in '85) was haphazardly stuffed into a dozen different ill-fitting costumes in order to pretend that AD&D was designed to handle more than spells and dragons and treasure, and nerds made "Nazis (tm)" jokes about TSR because the widespread perception was that the company loved its revenues but hated the hobby.

Gee, I wonder why that particular perception sounds so familiar? ^_^

So far, the only opinion I have on the 4ED game itself is based on hearsay and skimming the books, and I have to say it sounds interesting. I'm originally an old WoD player, but my short forays into D&D 3.5 were pretty fun, and I suspect when I get around to playing 4th, I'll have a good time. Especially if my suspicions and the recommendations of others are correct, and the character creation and use requires a lot less bookkeeping. Not that I minded bookkeeping, really, but it could be a distraction, at times.

I think my only complaint is that the sourcebooks are a bit off, design-wise, and aren't nearly as fun to read (I collect 3.5 edition books mostly as reading material). Still, for the inclusion of Invokers, I'm willing to forgive.