4e rant

[qstor]

I'm posting this on ENworld, dragonsfoot, paizo and the troll lord forums

I’ve been really on the fence the last few months about 4th edition. I have fun playing with some people at my FLGS. But I think I’d have more fun playing another edition/game/Pathfinder/3.x /2e/1e…whatever with the same group of people rather THAN 4e. From the beginning I got the books. I was half hardily ridiculing it. Then I started playing Living Forgotten Realms with a group of folks and I really enjoy their company. So I played it for a while. Some friends said well if you don’t think of it AS D&D then you might enjoy it. Well that’s what WOTC calls it. But it’s NOT D&D to me. The powers, the use of trading cards in play, the “everything” fits if its D&D so now there’s Dragonborn and orcs in the Dragonlance setting…these aren’t D&D to me. So…I’ve been torn. I want to “try” to like 4e even after all this time but it’s getting to the point where I can’t, and it pains me.

So the main point of this is, I’ve been hearing a lot the past few months about Mike Mearls column’s which are called Legends and Lore. I figured I’d see were the direction of the game that I love was going. I didn’t even finish skimming them all when I saw some things that have irked me and I wanted to point these out.

1st edition
“I have never played this edition: 43.4%” from the poll at
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110322

Umm I see a big number of people that voted on the poll and that are reading his column’s are younger than me. And don’t have the experience of editions apart from 4e, which I think is a bad thing. I’ve played 4e and other editions. I have to say that was a good thing in my mind. Like I test drove the edition.

“4th Edition took another route, by creating more classes with easy access to healing. The bard, shaman, rune priest, and others can match a cleric in healing, or at least come close enough that the party doesn’t feel too threatened.”
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110503

Ah…in other editions the bard and the paladin can heal. I think the statement above is a general statement about 4e that bends the truth about the other editions.



“Making healing an optional resource is a tricky proposition, one that offers many obvious routes that conceal follow-up problems. However, solving this issue would go a long way toward creating a game where players are free to create the characters they want.”
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110503

Ummm solving this ISSUE, and people complain that 4e is like an MMO and GURPS is too lethal. NO you solve that issue by making 5e a PURE MMO and you lose more people from playing D&D. Healing needs to be part of the game just as it is in other rpg’s. You don’t need an abstraction where BANG my character heals itself on a whim. That’s kind of like healing surges and 2nd wind in 4e is to me. The cleric and other spell casting classes provide tons of healing. Other editions didn’t have the characters heal themselves and that from the beginning was a big issue for me with 4e. Go backward’s with this and don’t SOLVE it.


“The interesting thing to me is that every edition of D&D supports all of these elements in one form or another. 4th Edition has the most different magic system, but it still features daily powers that function in essentially the same way.”
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110621

Mearls lists some of them. My gripe is on the word ALL.

“Classes as the basic framework for what a character can do.”

In 4e powers abstract what your character can do. The framework is the powers IMHO. Not the class itself. The class isn’t the framework. The framework is the power selection the player makes.

“Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger.”
Ummm…in 4e not so much. The saving throws are NOW rolls made by the DM against defenses NOT rolls made by the player to avoid damage. The saving throw rolls made by the player are basically 50/50 instead of a greater chance of danger. Try having a fighter in 1e-3e and tell me how much of a chance there is to avoid a spell. NOT much. That’s a saving throw to me.

“Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting”
Again 4e doesn’t support this. One word POWERS instead of spells. Vancian magic is gone.

Save a spot on the soapbox for me.

[Sir Ironside]

Never played 4e so my comments are limited.

From what I understand D&D4e is heavily unbalanced towards fighting but does its best to make a balanced game. The word "balanced" has become a standard word in rpg's these days to the point that any system deemed unbalanced is unplayable. This has never been a issue with more experienced players because balance is glossed over with a good GM and good role-playing.

The rest is an emphasis on wanting to have rules that solve practically everything through dice-rolls, makes the need for balance that much more important and draws people away from what makes a rpg an rpg and that is using your imagination to solve problems (Within the confines of your character) rather than having a mechanic for everything.

Because D&D4e is all about miniature like battles the whole healing thing becomes the elephant in the room and the easiest thing is to fix it by making healing easier rather than destructing the rules. In a sense they have painted themselves into a corner and that is the most sensible and easiest way to do it rather than trying to fix it with more rule books.

I really have no problem with the poll being heavily biased towards people who really haven't played anything else. That is a pure poll and I like pure polls. They are happy with 4e and it isn't anyone's business to tell them what they should be doing or what they should play. Yes their exposure is limited, but they are having fun and in the end that is all that matters. From what I have seen, of 4e, I have little desire to play it. There are so many notes that do not resonate with me I really don't want to put the time in to see if I really like it or not. I'm not going to look down on people who like D&D4e because this is a hobby and like all hobbies people have different tastes. I know many people who cut their rpg teeth on AD&D but have never played or even read OD&D but I don't think they need to go back to the roots of D&D to fully appreciate the D&D experience.

All in all, those that love D&D 4e a portion may want to try something else thus exposing themselves to new games, new systems and new styles of rping, which is good for the hobby as a whole.

Edit: Even some old-time players might like the absence of vanican magic to be a good thing.

[redwullf]

Never played 4e so my comments are limited.

From what I understand D&D4e is heavily unbalanced towards fighting but does its best to make a balanced game. The word "balanced" has become a standard word in rpg's these days to the point that any system deemed unbalanced is unplayable. This has never been a issue with more experienced players because balance is glossed over with a good GM and good role-playing.

+1

I don't recall "balance" being a topic that ever came up in D&D and AD&D 1e and 2e. I'm sure there were min/maxers or designers who discussed these topics, but it was an unknown concept in our groups. Encounters were not balanced in the sense that the party could "defeat the encounter by expending approximately 32% of their resources" or some such nonsense. Encounters were either "Easy," "Challenging," or "Run Away!" That was the extent of our balance in that regard. PCs being balanced against one another? Pfft... there were some knowns about PCs and their relative power at various levels. MUs died on contact at low levels, and they laid their melee counter parts to waste at high levels. No balance there at all, it was just "the nature of things."

The rest is an emphasis on wanting to have rules that solve practically everything through dice-rolls, makes the need for balance that much more important and draws people away from what makes a rpg an rpg and that is using your imagination to solve problems (Within the confines of your character) rather than having a mechanic for everything.

A big +1 here. This started with 3e and became progressively worse (see Pathfinder). Though arguably AD&D 2e headed down this road when you rolled in the "Options" books...

Because D&D4e is all about miniature like battles the whole healing thing becomes the elephant in the room and the easiest thing is to fix it by making healing easier rather than destructing the rules. In a sense they have painted themselves into a corner and that is the most sensible and easiest way to do it rather than trying to fix it with more rule books.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: A Game of Miniature Warfare.

I really have no problem with the poll being heavily biased towards people who really haven't played anything else. That is a pure poll and I like pure polls. They are happy with 4e and it isn't anyone's business to tell them what they should be doing or what they should play. Yes their exposure is limited, but they are having fun and in the end that is all that matters. From what I have seen, of 4e, I have little desire to play it. There are so many notes that do not resonate with me I really don't want to put the time in to see if I really like it or not. I'm not going to look down on people who like D&D4e because this is a hobby and like all hobbies people have different tastes. I know many people who cut their rpg teeth on AD&D but have never played or even read OD&D but I don't think they need to go back to the roots of D&D to fully appreciate the D&D experience.

All in all, those that love D&D 4e a portion may want to try something else thus exposing themselves to new games, new systems and new styles of rping, which is good for the hobby as a whole.

It pains me to agree with this, but you're right, of course. I want to tell 4e players that "they're doing it wrong." But, as you pointed out, if they're having fun, who am I to judge. I think the new systems are hard for some old schoolers to take (like myself) because we're old schoolers, not because there's necessarily anything "wrong" with 4th Edition. It's just not the edition we cut our teeth on, so it feels like a perversion of what we cherish and coddle with our overblown sense of nostalgia. 4e almost hurts us, on an emotional level, because it CANNOT recreate the experience we had in the old days. Thus, our instinct is to shun it outright. All of that, however, doesn't mean that it's not fun for those who "don't know any better" and they should be left to their enjoyment and encouraged to keep table top roll playing gaming alive (even if its in a form we, personally, don't care for). It's better than the demise of the game format...

Edit: Even some old-time players might like the absence of vanican magic to be a good thing.

Yeah. I've toyed with variations (spell points, mana, spell retention, reduced "rest" periods) yet I always land back on the standard system, it seems. Truth is, it only really blows at low levels. After about level 5 or so, Wizards and other casters can hold their own for a good span of time (with scrolls, wands, etc.).

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I really hope this doesn't turn into yet another round of edition wars.

I know there are people on these forums who enjoy 4e; they've laid out why they like the game, and I respect their honesty and the articulate way they defend it.

I've said many times before that I gave 4e an honest shot when it first came out. I ran my game group's first go at the system, and they went on to win the DCC tournament at GenCon that year (the first time the tournament was in 4e). I played in the DCC tournament myself (never won...played with other guys from that same big group) twice in 4e. The system's okay for what it does.

I'll just say the same thing to the folks who knock the game without having given it a go that I've heard others say about the upcoming DCC RPG. The way the rules read don't necessarily translate out to how the game plays. At times, it can be a lot of fun. The rest of the time...well, I'll let you form your own opinion.

The whole reason I turned to C&C was because I wasn't impressed enough by the gameplay of 4e to want to sink any more money into WotC products. If I was going to buy a different game than D&D, I was going to make a complete break from WotC. I have no interest in turning back.

[REHowardfanatic]

For what it is, 4e is pretty cool. It's probably the best of the epic/super fantasy games that are so popular now thanks to WoW. I loved the new magic system (though I didn't care for how every character is a spellcaster now). I really liked the restructured game world with the new planes and gods. I really, really like the new direction chosen for the art. It is without a doubt to me, the most beautiful of the editions. I hated the emphasis on miniatures and I didn't care for the skill system.
I'm glad there are folks out there who do like it because that keeps the hobby alive in a gasping economy. I'm just not into the epic/super fantasy stuff (Exalted, Earthdawn, 4e, Pathfinder, etc). I like gritty, bloody, and lusty- like C&C, Warhammer 1e, and Cthulhu Dark Ages/Invictus. (That said, I recently got the Hercules and Xena RPG and I'm loving it, lol.)

[tylermo]

I only played a game and a half of 4E when it first came out. Just not my cup of tea. Spellcasting is probably better for lower-level characters, and maybe a few other things. As my friend said, it's a good miniatures skirmish game, but not so much for roleplaying. Thank you Castles and Crusades, and Savage Worlds.

[Relaxo]

They are happy with 4e and it isn't anyone's business to tell them what they should be doing or what they should play. Yes their exposure is limited, but they are having fun and in the end that is all that matters. ... I'm not going to look down on people who like D&D4e because this is a hobby and like all hobbies people have different tastes. I know many people who cut their rpg teeth on AD&D but have never played or even read OD&D but I don't think they need to go back to the roots of D&D to fully appreciate the D&D experience.

+1
This really couldn't be better said.

The wizard in 4e seems interesting, no fire and forget, just running around shooting off magic powers left and right... that's pretty bad ass and cool. I mean, you don't play a wizard so you can hide in a tree and ignite one pine cone, you play a wizard hoping to toast things with that Fireball.

[Ancalagon]

Tried 4e when it came out and disliked most of the experience. I'll stick with (A)D&D, C&C, WRFP2e, etc.

[concobar]

I play 4E weekly, just started a new campaign a few weeks ago and the group has almost reached level three. when we play it tends to be sessions of four to six hours in length. We are pretty hard core. That said I will try to explain my take on some of your issues and my experience with this latest incarnation of the game.

On a side note all of the players in my current game are playing essentials characters. we have a human knight, a human fighter (slayer), a human druid of the spring, a eladrin mage, and a halfling executioner assassin of the red scales guild. the age of the players ranges from 17 to 60

I'm posting this on ENworld, dragonsfoot, paizo and the troll lord forums

I’ve been really on the fence the last few months about 4th edition. I have fun playing with some people at my FLGS. But I think I’d have more fun playing another edition/game/Pathfinder/3.x /2e/1e…whatever with the same group of people rather THAN 4e. From the beginning I got the books. I was half hardily ridiculing it. Then I started playing Living Forgotten Realms with a group of folks and I really enjoy their company. So I played it for a while. Some friends said well if you don’t think of it AS D&D then you might enjoy it. Well that’s what WOTC calls it. But it’s NOT D&D to me. The powers, the use of trading cards in play, the “everything” fits if its D&D so now there’s Dragonborn and orcs in the Dragonlance setting…these aren’t D&D to me. So…I’ve been torn. I want to “try” to like 4e even after all this time but it’s getting to the point where I can’t, and it pains me.

4e Is as much D&D as any other edition at least in name if not in mechanics, A lot of sacred cows ended up dead on the alter of playability and fun and I for one approve. Dragonborn and orcs only exist in your Dragonlance campaign if the DM says they do. this has not changed from any edition so why it is a major complaint now eludes me. I do not allow warforged in any of the campaigns I run because I do not feel they properly mesh with a medieval fantasy world. I also refuse to use the collectable cards in my campaign mostly because i am too cheap to spend 4.00 dollars for eight cards. that is highway robbery in my opinion. I like powers as implemented in 4e though.

So the main point of this is, I’ve been hearing a lot the past few months about Mike Mearls column’s which are called Legends and Lore. I figured I’d see were the direction of the game that I love was going. I didn’t even finish skimming them all when I saw some things that have irked me and I wanted to point these out.

1st edition
“I have never played this edition: 43.4%” from the poll at
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110322

Umm I see a big number of people that voted on the poll and that are reading his column’s are younger than me. And don’t have the experience of editions apart from 4e, which I think is a bad thing. I’ve played 4e and other editions. I have to say that was a good thing in my mind. Like I test drove the edition.

Like it or not people have been born since 1989 and later and many have not had the luxury of playing some of the older editions like we two have. I personally loved B/E and BECMI and I loved AD&D1 warts and all and there were many warts. I kinda dropped out of D&D during the second edition times, had a war to fight and was more interested in playing Traveller so I really owe my current D&D gaming to 3e because that is the edition that got me back into D&D.

All my rambling aside I do not think one should have to have played the older editions in order to have an opinion on the latest edition.

“4th Edition took another route, by creating more classes with easy access to healing. The bard, shaman, rune priest, and others can match a cleric in healing, or at least come close enough that the party doesn’t feel too threatened.”
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110503

Ah…in other editions the bard and the paladin can heal. I think the statement above is a general statement about 4e that bends the truth about the other editions.

It seems as each edition was released the number of classes that could heal has increased. Basic/Expert had one (cleric) BECMI had a couple AD&D had five or so 3e had quite a few and now 4e has quite a few.

“Making healing an optional resource is a tricky proposition, one that offers many obvious routes that conceal follow-up problems. However, solving this issue would go a long way toward creating a game where players are free to create the characters they want.”
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110503

Ummm solving this ISSUE, and people complain that 4e is like an MMO and GURPS is too lethal. NO you solve that issue by making 5e a PURE MMO and you lose more people from playing D&D.

Hard to say, I would play a 4e D&D MMO.

Healing needs to be part of the game just as it is in other rpg’s.

Healing is very much a part of the game. Were it not for the druid in the group healing her tail off the knight the mage and the assassin would have died multiple times. Monsters in 4e hit for tons of damage and rarely miss. a goblin with a short bow has a damage range of 5-12 with a crossbow 5-10 or 6-16 if the goblin has combat advantage... in a standard encounter the players could be facing down four or five of these guys rolling at +9 vrs AC. In a combat round that is a lot of damage flying across a room. If all the goblins focus fire on one player there is a very good chance that said player will be knocked unconscious or even be killed in one round.

A first level knight with toughness can have around 36 hp at level one. if he is attacked by four or five goblins that can hit him 90% of the time and even if they all do minimum damage he will be bloodied, average damage and he will have very little HP left. 4e is in its own way as lethal or more lethal than earlier editions just because the amounts of damage being dealt are so much greater.

You don’t need an abstraction where BANG my character heals itself on a whim.

Second wind is usable one time per encounter and is a standard action for everyone except the dwarfs. you trade your main action to heal 6-9 hp and you feel that is over powered? It represents a character digging deep and pushing himself to win against the odds. I think it is very fitting in any heroic fantasy game. Just think of all the times Conan used a second wind to come from behind and win.

That’s kind of like healing surges and 2nd wind in 4e is to me.

There are very good and very logical reasons why second wind and healing surges work the way they do and are actually much more believable than healing in older editions of the game. HP themselves are abstract and represent physical stamina, mental fortitude and the will to win and actual wounds. it only makes sense that healing would be equally abstract when you think about it.

The cleric and other spell casting classes provide tons of healing.

They need to or the game would end with a party wipe most of the time. The druid in the party can heal for surge value +1d6 twice per encounter.... That is not a lot of healing in a game where an orc can hit for 6-15 damage or 11-20 damage on a charge.

Other editions didn’t have the characters heal themselves and that from the beginning was a big issue for me with 4e.

clerics bards druids rangers priests paladins all could heal themselves.

Go backward’s with this and don’t SOLVE it.

As I have stated Healing is just about right for the amount of damage that players will soak up in an adventure and even more limiting than older editions of healing as once a warrior has expended all of his healing surges he can not easily be healed until a extended rest. A fighter with twelve healing surges can be healed no more than twelve times per day excepting a few rare abilities where the healer actually uses their own surges to heal someone else. even healing potions cost a healing surge to use. in 4e there are very real limits to how much abuse a person can take in a day.

“The interesting thing to me is that every edition of D&D supports all of these elements in one form or another. 4th Edition has the most different magic system, but it still features daily powers that function in essentially the same way.”
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110621

Mearls lists some of them. My gripe is on the word ALL.

“Classes as the basic framework for what a character can do.”

Classes are defined by their abilities and powers in every version of the game.

In 4e powers abstract what your character can do. The framework is the powers IMHO. Not the class itself. The class isn’t the framework. The framework is the power selection the player makes.

in 4e class selection determines what powers are available.

“Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger.”
Ummm…in 4e not so much. The saving throws are NOW rolls made by the DM against defenses NOT rolls made by the player to avoid damage. The saving throw rolls made by the player are basically 50/50 instead of a greater chance of danger. Try having a fighter in 1e-3e and tell me how much of a chance there is to avoid a spell. NOT much. That’s a saving throw to me.

The only difference is who rolls the dice. I prefer the way 4e handled this especially. Guess how often a fighter with a low will or reflex defense will avoid a mage spell that targets those defenses?? Not much. The 10 or higher on d20 to end damage over time or other effects works well. I like both of these rules a lot and feel they are vast improvements to the game.

“Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting”
Again 4e doesn’t support this. One word POWERS instead of spells. Vancian magic is gone.

Save a spot on the soapbox for me.

Vancian magic needed to be gone. wizards at low level were next to useless after expending their one or two spells and at high level they were godlike. No wizard should ever be forced to throw a dart or lug around a light crossbow. Clerics were somehow also forced to follow the vancian rules for magic which really made no sense when you recognize that their abilities were miracles derived from prayer and not at all requiring memorization. In 4e powers are spells for a mage or wizard and function as spells. mages in 4e have spell books and have to select which spells they will use each day. the fact that a mage can cast magic missile each turn instead of breaking out a light crossbow is a good change.

[finarvyn]

I'm not a 4E hater and there are certainly a lot of elements of 4E that my group finds fun. They like the extra hp. They like the powers lists. They like some of the race and class options. They like the fact that characters can do something every turn, which they often felt is lacking for some classes in older D&D. They like the fact that wizards can cast more spells. Lots of little stuff.

I'm the big factor that keeps us from playing 4E, since I'm the GM and don't feel comfortable with running the thing. For some reason I just don't "get it" the way I get OD&D or C&C.

What I wish is that someone could put out a real "4E lite" which could take some of the coolness and combine it with something more old-school (OD&D, AD&D, C&C, whatever) so that I could essentially run an "older edition on steroids" game instead of a 4E game, if that makes any sense. I keep thinking about giving it a try myself, but I'm not familar enough with 4E to really do a good job with it.

There had been talk of a 1E-4E hybrid game under development, but I think the designer changed his goals and ended up with his own RPG at the end.

[Breakdaddy]

I don't have a horse in the pro vs anti 4e thing, but I must say I recently invested in the two WoTC adventure boardgames Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon and I'll be damned if they aren't fun as hell. They use a ruleset that somewhat resembles 4e but is particularly distilled for dungeoncrawling boardgamey goodness. These games are Breakdaddy approved

[tylermo]

Seems like it would be suited for board games at least.

[Lord Dynel]

I'm not a 4E hater...

Well, I am, so I got you covered!

Seriously, though. I don't like it and pretty much haven't since the game came out. But I do respect others' right to play it, if they so choose. I don't have a right to tell them their game is crap, anymore than they have that same right. It doesn't feel like D&D to me, but the younger folks that haven't tried it might think 2e isn't D&D, either. To those who have played older editions and willingly switched to 4e? Well, I might think you're smoking the crack but in the end, if you're happy then that's what matters.

qstor, I understand where you're coming from. Sounds like you want to like it because you're having a good time with the people you're playing with, but the system isn't to your liking. The only advice I can offer you is perhaps stick it out - either you'll come around to the system or you can maybe get them to try something else (*cough, cough...C&C, cough*) after a while...and you never know where that might lead.

[concobar]

I like 4e and willingly switched over from 3e. been playing since release so I have a pretty deep understanding of how the mechanics interact and why and also can fully state that it is just as easy to RP in 4e as in any other edition of the game. This debate is cyclical, when 3e released all the hard core AD&D players said much the same as what you hear now about 4e.

I am more than willing to help clear up any 4e rules questions if needed.

[mordrene]

I have a question. Can you play 4e without mini's?

I have recently been reading up on 4e. I was very angry at wotc for 4e but that may stem from my hatred of 3.5. See I bought in to 3.0. I got 3.0. But the business model of wotc put out 3.5 and I didn’t see the need for the changes. Then every month a new 3.5 book came out and I was not, nor could not financially, going to keep buying. So when 4e came out and pathfinder arrived I became so angry I grabbed my cnc books, my adnd books and said no more. Recently I have picked up the dragon age game. I really dig the setting and the RPG is simple. However, it has the second wind feature where every encounter you can spend a full round action and heal a small amount of hp. combat is pretty deadly so my game group is ok with it. So, since i am ok with this I decided to look at the 4e free starter. It seems like it could be fun but like 3.0 and 3.5 you need minis. The darpg doesn’t. So if 4e can be played w/o minis, it may like it.

Finally I would like to ask, why are we all not just playing cnc and burning everything else. As a once proud troll defender I feel ashamed in asking such blasphemous drivel. Please forgive me.

[Rikitiki]

(Disclaimer: I don't have a horse in this race; I've only ever looked at any
4e stuff one time -- not my cuppa),

Mordrene - What you stated about not seeing the need to go from
3.0 to 3.5 is pretty much why I never progressed beyond AD&D 1e:
it wasn't broke for me, worked fine, and at the time it just seemed
to me that TSR was doing all they could to produce as many 2e
products as possible to nickel-and-dime as much money as they
could from folks, telling them we really, really, really had to get
this new book, handbook, splatbook, etc. Meh!

[Relaxo]

Who wanted 4e light? from what I can tell (I'm no 4e expert) Old Skool Hack might fit that bill.
The beta rules are free and short. It looks fun.
http://www.oldschoolhack.net/

BTW: if "in the face" seems silly, just make that "critical hit"

(you're intrigued, now, aren't you.... LOL)

[GameOgre]

I love 4E (at the moment,this does swing back and forth). Yes 4E can be played with no miniatures and work just fine BUT only with the right mindset. The DM and players have to let go of the mat and wing it with the DM deciding what move effects happen or don't.

I would however say that I enjoy the miniature battles(even when I just use pennies and Dimes as miniatures). I never used them before 4E and most of the time do not use them with C&C ect..

4E just makes them more fun!

[mordrene]

so i broke down and got the starter red bok from amazon. it not that bad. nowits not D&D but its a decent fantasy game. I can also see it s easier to run than the 3.whatever stuff. I cannot go back there again. But if i cannot play CNC, 1st edit, 2nd edit, savage worlds or Dragonage;then i can see playing 4th.

[koralas]

I don't like 4E... tried it, and didn't like it. As others have said it has the feel of an MMO RPG on Paper and Table Top, it is not the traditional D&D us old schoolers grew up on. That said, just like all other things, it has evolved. Look at other forms of entertainment, for example we have gone from plays, to movies, to radio, to TV. All the same basic concept, but one that has evolved over time. Walking, riding horse, wagons, trains, cars, and airplanes, all ways to get from here to there that have evolved. Concobar puts forth many points, and I would say for those that like 4E they are good points, for those that don't, most are what they don't like about the game.

What don't I like about 4E? Well first and foremost, the power/number creep. This is in keeping with the MMO RPG crowd, namely the younger players that haven't played previous editions. A goblin with a short bow dealing 5-12 points of damage (or more based on powers selected), instead of 1-6. This is somewhat silly to me, not that taking particular skills increase damage, but just the base increase. Why... of course, because I am used to 1-6 points of damage. From the other perspective it is always cooler to deal "more" damage, bigger numbers always sound better. However, the much greater access to healing options MORE than offsets that higher damage potential. Much of the discussion Concobar had put forth dealt with healing, and the need for healing to be the way it is in order to help the characters survive based on the elevated amounts of damage they will soak... my point exactly, power/number creep... It does help maintain a balance, but it is, IMO, pushed to far over the top in the favor of the players.

Next the magic system... I played a 4th level wizard that was simply nothing more than a magic missile machine. A ranged attacker... That was his usefulness, plain and simple. He had a few buff items that made him basically never miss, so he just sat back and cast, and cast, and cast, and cast, and cast, and cast, and cast... you get the point. Hated it! now many people don't like a Vancian like spell casting system, and that is fine we went through our periods with different systems, usually came back to it. However, the system we used for a while where each time you cast a spell it became more difficult to cast again, until you could rest and study, was probably the most fun system. It was complicated and required meticulous book keeping, but it was fun. In 4E, damage spells were just roll to hit, apply damage, rinse, repeat. Mind you this was a pre-gen from the DM, and if I did play a true campaign in 4E, I would have gone a different route... of course that route would not have been as successful since I am not a power gamer at heart. If this is your style of gaming, great, enjoy it, it just left me flat...

Third, the automatic gaining of "magic" items simply by leveling up... That was the point of many epic quests, and some not so epic. It made the finding of an item of power a memorable moment of joy. Where is that when you can basically choose what you want as you level up? Now I can see an item growing in power as it's possessor does, but usually that is through an unusual circumstance, or the owner imbuing part of his/her essence into it. And while you could devise a story mechanism in 4E to explain it, it occurs with to great frequency, and is not a part of the mechanic of the game. Though I would say developing that backstory on the increase in ability of a personally owned item would bring more of the ROLE back into roleplaying that I feel is missing in 4E.

Those are my three major problems with 4E.

One additional note about Vancian magic systems for the game. As Concobar states, a low level mage has only a few spells of real power available each day, while a high level wizard is incredibly powerful. Smart players of wizards have always found ways to keep their low level characters relevant. Yes, darts, or in later editions, crossbows, etc. can help in combat, but wizards often find usefulness in other ways, most of them outside of combat. Whether it is deciphering an arcane script, or speaking with the town magistrate. Cantrips on the other hand are exceptionally useful, and in our games, the number of cantrips a magic-user could cast was based on the characters intelligence, not based on level. These minor-magics are what the initiate learns, and are so simple to use that to even a first level wizard they are easily wielded, taking only a minor toll on the character. As for the higher level magic-users, with great power comes great danger. Sure, if you take an 18th level wizard and plop down a horde of goblins in front of him, the goblins are toast... yet if a greater demon was in front of him, now you have a fight on your hands! In fact, I would still rather have a Fighter against said demon when going one-on-one, since the demon will dish out a lot of damage, and the fighter is going to average 2.5x the HP of that wizard, and better armor...

[finarvyn]

I recently invested in the two WoTC adventure boardgames Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon and I'll be damned if they aren't fun as hell. They use a ruleset that somewhat resembles 4e but is particularly distilled for dungeoncrawling boardgamey goodness. These games are Breakdaddy approved

I like them, too. A very streamlined version of 4E, and they work well together. (You can mix the 5 pre-gen characters from CR with the 5 from WoA and that gives more choices.)

The 3rd one (Drizzt) is supposed to be out in a month or so and is supposed to be equally compatible with the first two!

[Breakdaddy]

Yeah, I'm looking to pick up the Legend of Drizzt as well. We have done some mix and match with the two existing games and even used a campaign mode that mixes key elements from both games that was featured on Boardgamegeek. Very fun

[TheMetal1]

I picked up a lot of the 4e Essential stuff - Red Box; Heroes of the Fallen Lands (along with ...of the Forgotten Kingdoms and ...of the Shadow); , Rules Compendium, DM Kit, Monster Vault. Even picked up The Dark Sun Stuff, Several Modules (H1-H3 and Hammerfast) and Shadowfell Box set, along with some third-party stuff (Gale-Force 9 tolken sets).

I've played the Red Box, at least the 1st part of the adventure a few times and it has been enjoyable and if given a chance I would try to run a game as a DM or play in one as a character.

I guess with the various editions, I'm cool with playing any of them really. As there are so many games, editions, and variations out there, I want to give most of them a chance. So far though C&C still remains the game I'm most comfortable with and enjoy the most.

In regards to D&D4e being a war game or board game or ccg. I'm thinking, good on WOTC for doing the Board game thing. Sounds like there is a lot of fun and interoperability between the games which is great. I know that people who want more customization will naturally be drawn to trying out 4e as well, which is great for the whole hobby.

I certainly can't blame WOTC either for the CCG or use of minatures. There is of course the legacy of D&D being a minis game and Lets face it Games Workshop has really set the standard for the industry in terms of the business model. It is a money maker and not just for GW, it is why most hobby shops/game stores carry their product. A few years back WOTC even tried to do the brick mortar store thing. If there is a way for WOTC to standardize play like GW and get that rolling, even more so if they can get the customer base to accept new editions to the rules every so many years, it's a big win for them. I think they're struggleing right to figure out which way to go. In doing so, we have the articles like merals been writing about what is D&D and what it 'use' to be. And of course what it could be.

It would be interesting to read the corperate mission statement and vision for WOTC about D&D. Personally, and this is pure speculation on my part, I think their mission statement is something like this:

WOTC will the D&D IP into the future making it the premier Fantasy Setting across the full spectrum of entertainment and gaming while staying true to the Hobby Roots - which includes Miniature War Gaming and traditional Pen & Paper games.

WOTC Intent

We will accomplish this by

1. Developing a balanced Pen & Paper game mechanic in the PNP that can be easily translated to Board Games, Card Games, and Computer Games.

2. Developing a competitive means of play across the spectrum of entertainment, implement micro purchases alongside higher cost core or faction books to enhance game play.

3. Once the Pen & Paper game is established and has synergy with the other forms of entertainment, we will release the other editions of the game, along the lines of Games Workshop releasing limited edition games - such as Space Marine or Dreadfleet or Fantasy Flight Games Special Releases (Rogue Trader and Deathwatch Collectors editions) will be of high quality at a comeserate cost. These limited releases starting with OD&D Wood Box sets, followed by AD&D PHB, MM and DMG in a slip slevee will be revised and rewritten and cleaned up, highlighting the history and origin of the hobby along with how the rules developed to what modern D&D is.

Like I said speculation on my part.