The Early Verdict (kinda long)

[Ydars]

Fuzzlewump; I am not sure I am rejecting anything. I am just voicing an opinion. Something that certain people seem to feel very uncomfortable with. Your tone is unnecessarily aggressive, for no good reason that I can see.

I think 4E feels like a wargame for a simple reason; 70% of the PHB is devoted to descriptions of class powers; powers that are usually only useful in combat. I have no doubt that, for reasons of space, much of what we would consider core is yet to be published.

3.5E could indeed be played as a highly tactical game, but it could also be played as a completely different kind of game where characters were not optimised for combat, but were characters to be played as characters. Because it had rules for everything, it could be played many different ways, much as earlier editions could.

My issue with 4E is that it has removed most of the options for character creation and now if you don't fit one of the archetypes, then you can't create that character; illusionists, many types of cleric, casters focussing on charm and manipulation, thieves who use spells (using multi-classing). I am sure these holes will be filled in in time, but I am not comparing 4E to the entire 3,5E rule-set. I am comparing the so-called core mechanics; the only bit of 3,5E I really ever used.

There are no rules for magical research, no rules for encumberance, no rules for crafting, the skill challenge system as written does not work, the equipment lists are very incomplete etc etc. It is hard to feel that the rest of D&D was given as much love as the combat system taking all this into account.

Once these things are addressed I am sure this will be a great game and I intend to run and play it long before then. I just am trying to understand what it is about this game that does not immedately satisfy me.

 

[Cadfan]

But the devil has always been in the details as to what differentiates one adventurer of the same class from another. It looks like this is removed from 4e? or at the very least not really addressed?

Its addressed. Suppose you have a Human Fighter, and I have a Human Fighter. We are likely to have different choices for all of the following things:

Ability scores, trained skills, feats, at will powers, encounter powers, daily powers, utility powers, and weapon selection.

Naturally, we'd also probably have different personalities, names, goals, hopes, dreams, etc, for our characters, but those are system independent so I'm sure you're not worried about them.

I will add one caveat- ability scores will differ between your fighter and mine, but they will be constrained by the mechanics of the game. We'll both probably select Strength as our best score. After that, we'll pick whatever ability score is most associated with our favorite weapon.

It "appears" that many of the given "powers" (be they Per/day/encounter/whatever) are simply just aspects of a generic concept of a class - and the mechanics seem to work (especially since it's all miniatures-based) around video-game mechanics.

In my opinion, 3e was the one with the video game mechanic. In video games, when the designers want you to use something with a duration for a length of time equal to "one fight," the game usually gives you a timer. This timer is then set to an amount of time intended to last for one fight. That was exactly the system that 3e used.

Not that I think its bad to copy video games. Good design is good design. But timers aren't good design in a tabletop RPG, in my opinion.

It seems the role implied here is more to do with combat-role than the idea of the character. I'm not sure I like what I'm reading about it, personally.

Right. "Role" means combat role. This is because your social role or your intraparty role are not determined by game mechanics, or class choice. Should they be? I'm pretty certain that would make the game worse.

1) The prevalance of miniature-based tactical rules - does it overpower the role-playing opportunities of the game in the sense that the game is skewed more towards combat than say, social/political play?

What does this mean? Are you worried that you'll be having so much fun killing monsters and taking their stuff that you'll start resenting having to talk in character?

4e's skill system is more trim than 3e's. This means things like professions or crafts are now purely roleplaying issues rather than issues of game mechanics. This could impact your game if your game has a pressing need to clearly differentiate between someone with a +6 in Craft: Fletchery, and someone with a +9. If you can get by with just knowing that the character is a Fletcher, you won't notice much change. Is this the concern?

2) Can you, for instance, faithfully re-create classic fantasy-characters through the basic game? Or is it unrealistic for Elric to have an ability "Come and Get It" (lol). Does the fact that every class gets these abilities detract from the context of a character? Does the characters you envision match the class? or do they have to wrap themselves around the class and therefore change their own context?

Addressing each sentence in order,

1) Sort of. Ubercharacters who don't need teams or allies and who solve every problem themselves are not well supported. This doesn't appear to have changed from 3e, which also assumed a team context.

2) If a particular power doesn't fit a character, choose a different power. There's a bunch.

3) Everyone's abilities are different, so, no. Both characters might be using per encounter abilities, but throwing a ball of force energy at someone and having it explode is still very different from hitting them in the face with a hammer so hard they fall down.

4) As in every RPG, its a bit of give and take. Sometimes the character can be created flawlessly, sometimes it can't, sometimes compromises have to be made, sometimes the character shouldn't be supported by the game... I don't know how to answer further without an example.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think Orryn is pretty much spot-on, having run 4E myself. I like the game, but I think at this stage in it's life, it is largely a one-tricky pony.

There are just so many things that come across as attempts to "spice things up" or disguise (and I use that word non-judgementally) the simple tactical-combat orientation of 4E. I mean, we've got our terrain, our monsters with fancy abilities, our traps in combat, our skill challenges and so on. Beneath all this lovely stuff, though, is a game that is so dedicated to balance and controlling the experience that it has a strong potential for long-term blandness.

The main solution to the blandness, of course, seems to be "more variety" which WotC wish to provide for you in the form of splatbooks etc. Nothing wrong with that, I just think the OP is right in the comparison he seems to be making, between 1E AD&D at release and 4E.

I imagine that, four years down the road, so much stuff will be out that this problem will be largely forgotten. I do think that it's a potential problem, though, and it's something that makes me slightly unsure about 4E, much as I like it. Oh well, we shall see, I guess.

I do not understand this statement, or, for that matter, other statements like it made by other posters in this thread and elsewhere on these boards.

What do you mean? I started off in BECMI and AD&D and I played in intrigue campaigns. That was without a skill system, There is a skill system in 4e and ok there may be issued with skill challanges but you still could do social encounters in the old way and ignore the skill challange system if you want.

I am running a group through The Keep on the Shadowfell and there has been plenty of rp both during the combat and in Winterhaven. I have not read all the rulebooks yet but there seems to me to be as much rp advice and so forth as anyother edition of D&D.

 

[der_kluge]

I tend to agree with the OP on this one.

As per his examples, it seems like 4e characters "hit the ground running" when it comes to preparedness.

You could make characters like that in 3rd edition, but you didn't have to.

Thing is, in life, people aren't always prepared, which is why it was nice to play the "naive youth caught up in larger events" with less than optimal equipment, or a diverse array of skills, or some other unusual disadvantage. How many of you made 3rd edition characters with more than 1 rank in Profession(Farming) or something equally "useless" because it made sense from a character standpoint? I know I did.

In 4th edition, it seems everyone starts the game off as some sort of seasoned combat veteran who just happens to have all the right answers, all the right maneuvers, etc., to get the job done effectively. Put another way, an average 4th edition party would mop the floor with your average 3rd edition party any day of the week.

It's this power-ramp-up that I don't care for. I blame the youth of today with their ever-decreasing attention spans.

 

[The Little Raven]

As per his examples, it seems like 4e characters "hit the ground running" when it comes to preparedness.

Even when you hit the ground running, you can still trip when someone takes a greatsword to your head.

You could make characters like that in 3rd edition, but you didn't have to.

It was nigh unto impossible to make a character at 1st-level that wasn't a crit away from a dirt nap. Or a couple of poorly CR-judged monsters to TPK a group. In a game that requires a good investment of time to make a starting character, it's not fun when you play the character for less time than character creation takes because of the swinginess of first level.

Thing is, in life, people aren't always prepared, which is why it was nice to play the "naive youth caught up in larger events" with less than optimal equipment, or a diverse array of skills, or some other unusual disadvantage.

It's not nice when it takes 20 or more minutes to make a character that can die to the first orc's axe within 5 minutes. Being able to survive to have a heroic adventure is key to being a hero.

In 4th edition, it seems everyone starts the game off as some sort of seasoned combat veteran who just happens to have all the right answers, all the right maneuvers, etc., to get the job done effectively.

Interesting trivia note... the level title for a 1st-level fighter back in 1st edition? Veteran. Certainly doesn't sound like a farmer who fell off the turnip truck and picked up a rusty sword.

Put another way, an average 4th edition party would mop the floor with your average 3rd edition party any day of the week.

Because the system scales differently. Comparing characters of two different scaling systems isn't a direct 1:1 to comparison.

 

[Celebrim]

IMO B2 was relatively uninteresting as written even in my earliest memories of 1E.

Agreed. But my point was not that better modules couldn't be found, but that it would serve as an interesting test of the ability of 4e's 'adventure'/combat focused mechanics to bring interest to the game. I had decided early one that if I was ever going to try to test run 4e, it would be with B2. It's worth noting, that WotC's introductory module is also a reworking of B2 and further that based on the spoilers I've seen here most of the module would appear to straightforward encounters with humanoids. So, the designers must have been thinking about the same thing. Certainly, alot of groups seem to be TPKing having had little involvement in the module other than encounters with humanoids.

I'm also not say that I wouldn't rework the module to suit a more mature play. I'm merely saying I wanted to see if the 4e mechanics made encounters inherently easier to design, to the point that 30'x40' rooms with a couple of humanoids was still alot of fun. If you are saying, "Well, of course they aren't.", then you are pretty much reinforcing my point in as much as that reworking the module to make it interesting is just as hard in 4e as in earlier editions.

If not, does 4E make it easier to add/alter encounters that complete B2?

That's my point. I didn't find that it did. In fact, I was surprised not to find that it did, because this was one of the things that I assumed 4e would do better.

How often did you add things like terrain, special features, skill challenges to the existing encounters?

I've been doing that sort of thing in my encounter design since the early 90's. It's not a question of "Oh, gee, I never thought to have terrain, 3D features, or exotic furnishings dressing up an encounter; 4e is the r0x0r for inventing the non-generic room!"

 

[der_kluge]

It was nigh unto impossible to make a character at 1st-level that wasn't a crit away from a dirt nap. Or a couple of poorly CR-judged monsters to TPK a group. In a game that requires a good investment of time to make a starting character, it's not fun when you play the character for less time than character creation takes because of the swinginess of first level.

And that makes a lot of sense to me for a 1st level character. It's the GM's job to make sure he doesn't throw a TPK-inducing encounter. A 4th edition GM could also TPK a 1st level party by throwing too many, or too powerful monsters at them. I fail to see the point of your argument.

It's not nice when it takes 20 or more minutes to make a character that can die to the first orc's axe within 5 minutes. Being able to survive to have a heroic adventure is key to being a hero.

Which is why surviving that as a non-optimal character and then achieving great things is one of the best parts of the D&D experience for me.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

It was nigh unto impossible to make a character at 1st-level that wasn't a crit away from a dirt nap. Or a couple of poorly CR-judged monsters to TPK a group. In a game that requires a good investment of time to make a starting character, it's not fun when you play the character for less time than character creation takes because of the swinginess of first level.

It's not nice when it takes 20 or more minutes to make a character that can die to the first orc's axe within 5 minutes. Being able to survive to have a heroic adventure is key to being a hero.

Interestingly enough, this is one of the things I like about 4E... the greater survivability of 1st-level characters. I had in fact already begun adding the PC's CON scores to their HP at first level, as per Monte's Book of Experimental Might, in order to help ensure their early survival. This is not precisely the same level of capability that's applied to a 1st-level 4E character, however.

That being said, I still prefer my players to have the option to focus characters on non-combat development and still have fun, functional PCs who are capable of adding to the game statistically in some fashion.

Again... I don't mean it as a criticism, just an observation. If my players feel like they could develop a character in any direction they choose, with the "builds" supported by the rule system to give them some sort of viability as "adventurers", then their world seems more... I don't know... complete. Streamlining the character options to the point where they all function in precisely the same manner, are all combat-ready and similarly functional... are, in fact, so well balanced... it just seems to detract from the suspension of disbelief and the feeling that the PC's live in a world as rich and varied and unpredictable as they are accustomed to.

Which just happens to be important enough to me to give due consideration. We're still playing 4th Edition... I just have my doubts that the group will want to stick with it as our principle game system.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

It's the GM's job to make sure he doesn't throw a TPK-inducing encounter. A 4th edition GM could also TPK a 1st level party by throwing too many, or too powerful monsters at them.

Incidentally, low-level character deaths have been extremely rare my games for the last 15 years or so... ever since our combat-focused, monty haul powergames back in the 80s fell victim to a fresh awareness of characterization potential that turned our character sheets into walking, talking, feeling people with agendas of their own.

 

[Nebulous]

I
So I guess my questions are -

1) The prevalance of miniature-based tactical rules - does it overpower the role-playing opportunities of the game in the sense that the game is skewed more towards combat than say, social/political play?

2) Can you, for instance, faithfully re-create classic fantasy-characters through the basic game? Or is it unrealistic for Elric to have an ability "Come and Get It" (lol). Does the fact that every class gets these abilities detract from the context of a character? Does the characters you envision match the class? or do they have to wrap themselves around the class and therefore change their own context?

I've run a few playtests and one official adventure session, KotS. My early opinion mirrors what a lot of people are saying here, the game is almost purely focused on combat and doesn't support roles other than that. In our adventure last time there was ample roleplaying after the initial combat. Maybe this worked because the players were experienced gamers. Would i want to run a social/political play with 4e? No. Then again, i probably wouldn't want to run that under any system. I happen to like bashing monsters more. Much more.

2) Recreating characters...yeah, i think it can be done. The limiting factor is really just going to be the few powers in the PHB. Two or three years from now, there will a hundred powers per tier per class per level. And hopefully they'll be balanced! Although i have my doubts. Even core stuff in 3.x got out of hand eventually.