D&D 4th Edition - The positive, constructive thread, Negativism, go post elsewhere! Options

[Cantankerous]

Of course, it seems odd that when you talk about large, significant parts of the game engine and how that engine works (or doesn't work) that you are being accused of nit picking. If this is nit picking, and the whole game was the size of Texas, then it's a nit roughly the size of Kansas. Actually, it's several nits, one the size of Kansas another roughly the size of Mississippi and another the size of Vermont. Add it all together and you've got a MASSIVE nit that imbalances the whole structure.

And after trying said new system, and finding after use, that it had problems to big to surmount, it got dumped.


Isshia

[Wounded Ronin]

Yeah. And what is even sadder is that these nitpicking people are still eating the garbage they decried upon, old and new "garbage".

Can you prove this statement? Who on this forum has 1.) stated they disliked D&D 4th ed but at the same time 2.) still plays it?

[FrankTrollman]

vs. the people who continuously nitpick at details in something for the explicit purpose of finding something to hate. kind of equally sad in my eyes.

What exactly constitutes "nit picking" in stating categorically that the rule set publishes a set of rules for handling "everything you do outside of combat" and that those rules don't work at all? This is not a small thing, this is half or more of every role playing game that I have ever played, and the rules presented are actually worse than the ones in Cowboys and Indians where you "just make something up."

Heck, the official line from the publisher is that for now you should just accept that characters can't win and simply have the DM write adventures where the players failing over and over again at everything they attempt to do causes them to win in the end for no god damn reason. That and they promise that there will be additional rules in a year or so that you can pay another 35 dollars for that they promise for sure this time will actually function.

This is not nits, this is a completely broken product that has no business being sold in its current state. It's a pre-alpha, and they intend to charge you for it and the beta release patch in a year whether or not that one is functional! By what standard are we supposed to think that the next build will be any better? The current one does not work, and it was sold as a finished product despite the fact that even using it once would convince you utterly that it was a dismal failure. The monumental hubris of this is astounding.

And the pathetic Candidism of people who blindly accept that the Great Leader has "reasons" for everything looking exactly like it totally sucks is just as astounding. They. Lied. To You. And like an abused wife you just keep going back and hoping that Mearls only sold you broken, unfinished products with the DMG. And Iron Heroes. And the PHB2 Knight. And everything else he ever wrote as far as I can tell.

4e Apologists are a sad lot. You all start sounding like THIS GUY. And with good reason. If you weren't willing to accept that all the crap you are being fed was actually chocolate pudding you'd have already left in disgust.

-Frank

[Fuchs]

I have to point out that there are "apologists" in every game system - Shadowrun too. One can always find a justification or house-rule fix for just about everything in a system. If one is a critic or an apologist of comes down to whether or not one likes a system, piece of fluff, or rule. If one likes it the flaws can be fixed, glossed over or justified. If one dislikes it, fixing the flaws is "too much work" or "Not worth it", or the flaws are "too crucial".

[deek]

I have to point out that there are "apologists" in every game system - Shadowrun too. One can always find a justification or house-rule fix for just about everything in a system. If one is a critic or an apologist of comes down to whether or not one likes a system, piece of fluff, or rule. If one likes it the flaws can be fixed, glossed over or justified. If one dislikes it, fixing the flaws is "too much work" or "Not worth it", or the flaws are "too crucial".

That's a very good point...I've bitched about SOMETHING in every game system I have ever played. But, I've never stopped playing them, because they were fun. I think most of this depends on one's attitude. Its easy to criticize something you never actually are invested in or enjoy doing.

I have a friend that read about every 3.x DnD book...spent hundreds of dollars acquiring this huge library...and talked about all the good and bad things...but, never played. To him, reading the rules were enjoyable even if he never played the game. Some people are like that.

On the flip side, some people don't need published rules to play a game...

I just think a lot of the "bark" on this site doesn't have much "bite"...but the bark is enough to turn a lot of people off, which is unfortunate, as everyone should be allowed a chance to discover for themselves. I don't think the Class/Role thing is broken...its a different way to balance a group...its a tool...some may like the balance and others will be pissed because their Figher (a Defender) may never be able to out-damage a Rogue (a Striker). I can see some people being upset with that...others, appreciate the balance and the group dynamic.

The skill challenge system is broken, no question about that, but is a system that some DMs may never even put out on the forefront of play. And those that do, are either going to use the system, fudge a few things and make it work, read up on some little tweaks that allow the system to work with a lot of handholding or just find/design a better way to utilize it. Frankly, there's a difference, a big on I think, between saying something doesn't work and saying it doesn't work as it was designed.

...anyways...

[FrankTrollman]

I just think a lot of the "bark" on this site doesn't have much "bite"...but the bark is enough to turn a lot of people off, which is unfortunate, as everyone should be allowed a chance to discover for themselves.

So Wizards of the Coast should get actual money from every single person so that we can have a referendum on whether they did a good job and deserved to get our money in the first place?

I've got a better idea: how about some of us get the books, read through them exhaustively, play through some of their scenarios, then give up in disgust, take the books back in for a refund and warn other people that the books are unfinished, unfun, and unintelligently written.

-Frank

[hyzmarca]

The simple truth of the matter is that the combat system is good, but substantially too videogamy and CCGy for my tastes. The skill system, as everyone has stated, has extreme flaws and needs a major overhaul.

[Moon-Hawk]

The simple truth of the matter is that the combat system is good, but substantially too videogamy and CCGy for my tastes. The skill system, as everyone has stated, has extreme flaws and needs a major overhaul.

Yeah, I'd agree with all of that. The CCG combat system, the strictly defined roles, etc; these may not be the makings of my ideal RPG, but they do work.
The skill challenges don't work. At all. That's a shame. They sort of look like a system which would work, as long as you don't look too closely, try to use them, or think about it too much. A strikingly similar system could be made to work very well, I'm sure. While I'm not returning my 4e books, I can assure you that their skill challenge system, and the lack of a wholesale, multi-page errata and blubbering apology will weigh heavily in my decision to buy any and all future products from them. In addition, most of the "utility" powers have no use, and sometimes even no meaning, outside of combat. The game seems very combat-centric. This is also not to my tastes, but not technically a flaw.
All that said, (I realize this is the positive thread, I'm going somewhere positive, really) I have had a lot of fun playing it. I won't call it my favorite RPG, it's not even my favorite edition of D&D, but I have had fun, despite the flaws. But I fully acknowledge that that may be more me than it is the game.

Here's something good about it: (At least at low levels) The combat encounter building scheme actually works pretty well. Before 3e, the DM would come up with a "good" fight for the PCs by eyeballing everyone's stats, as well as the monters, and just picking what looked right. Higher XP monsters were generally tougher, but the appropriate level for the party was largely a matter of "feel". In 3e, they introduced the CR. Which....sort of worked, but was often misleading, didn't scale well, and which generally boiled down to the exact same system as before, the GM still has to have a good feel for everything and just eyeball it.
With 4e, (and I'm only speaking about low-level stuff here, I have nothing to say about high-level 4e) if you assemble a fight based on the experience budget thingy, and as long as you're not pushing the boundaries of encounter level and/or creature level which they lay out for you, you're going to get the expected level of challenge. Granted, when you start pushing the boundaries things may get iffy, but that's why those are the boundaries. You push them, you take your chances. So, at least until they publish more classes, feats, powers, monsters, and options, the combat encounter level system works. Yay! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[deek]

So Wizards of the Coast should get actual money from every single person so that we can have a referendum on whether they did a good job and deserved to get our money in the first place?

I've got a better idea: how about some of us get the books, read through them exhaustively, play through some of their scenarios, then give up in disgust, take the books back in for a refund and warn other people that the books are unfinished, unfun, and unintelligently written.

-Frank

No, Frank, I didn't say that, so if I gave that impression, I apologize. Word of mouth accounts for 10 other people's opinions, generally speaking. So, your adamant dislike of the new edition, has turned off 10 people from even giving it a shot. Granted, you feel that is warranted, as its an unplayable system, which I respect your opinion (just that I disagree with it from my own playing experience).

If we are talking about money being given away, about every game company screws its customers...the trend has been to create a core set of rules and expand on that, often times requiring future supplements to really play the entire game to its fullest potential.

I don't know, sometimes I wonder how you determine when to give up in disgust (i.e. DnD 4th Edition) versus spending hours of your free time rewriting everything you don't like (i.e. SR 4th Edition). I mean, its obvious that you are disguested by aspects of both systems (at least from DSF posts), yet you want to call one system unfinished, unfun, unitelligently written and want to lineup for a refund and another system, you'll pour a lot of effort into "fixing" for a handful of gamers that support your vision.

To me, your view on both systems is the same, yet you treat them vastly different. I just don't see any consistency in your behavior...

[Cantankerous]

Discover for yourself is one thing, if you get to do it with a game bought by another poor sap, or if you have a hundred to burn for no better reason than burning it, but god s above, the thing I personally am trying to do is to keep someone from hearing only the light and airy and oooohhh wow fan boy schlock alone.

I've fixed the flaws in five other editions of D&D, if you count 3.0 and expert (since only basic was available when I first got the game) set as seperate games, four other editions otherwise. Likewise I've fixed two other editions of Shadowrun, other than the 3rd edition, which also needed a fair amount of fixing, which I am running now. Likewise with just about every other game I've devoted time to. But some games I bought just weren't worth the time it would have taken to fix them. And D&D4E tops that list for me.


Isshia

[deek]

Discover for yourself is one thing, if you get to do it with a game bought by another poor sap, or if you have a hundred to burn for no better reason than burning it, but god s above, the thing I personally am trying to do is to keep someone from hearing only the light and airy and oooohhh wow fan boy schlock alone.

I've fixed the flaws in five other editions of D&D, if you count 3.0 and expert (since only basic was available when I first got the game) set as seperate games, four other editions otherwise. Likewise I've fixed two other editions of Shadowrun, other than the 3rd edition, which also needed a fair amount of fixing, which I am running now. Likewise with just about every other game I've devoted time to. But some games I bought just weren't worth the time it would have taken to fix them. And D&D4E tops that list for me.


Isshia

And I think this kind of feedback (maybe with a tad more detail) is good to share. I mean, yeah, we don't want to hear only the fanboy comments or just the hater comments. We need to hear them all, but besides giving a personal opinion, we should let those comments stand and let the reader decide what to do next.

We've heard a lot of various opinion (and some facts). We know that 4th edition has some problems (skill challenge math, strict role definition, dumbed down "WoW" feel, buy-in cost etc) and we've heard some praise (more powers to choose from for each class, more strategic combat, faster gameplay, etc).

But to then go on and on about any of those...I just don't think its productive for anyone. I don't need someone to tell me, that if I hate WoW that I wouldn't like some aspects of the new edition. If I read that my fighter is never going to pour on more damage than a rogue...well, again, I'd like to know up front, but I don't need the poster to go on and on about how the whole universe crashes to a halt and its the worst waste of money every because of that.

State your opinions (although in this thread, they should be constructive and positive, as the topic indicates) and move on. Just because you say something 10 times, doesn't make it any more valid...

I'm curious, Cantankerous, with DnD4.0 topping your list, what were the biggest pieces broken?

[Cantankerous]

And I think this kind of feedback (maybe with a tad more detail) is good to share. I mean, yeah, we don't want to hear only the fanboy comments or just the hater comments. We need to hear them all, but besides giving a personal opinion, we should let those comments stand and let the reader decide what to do next.

We've heard a lot of various opinion (and some facts). We know that 4th edition has some problems (skill challenge math, strict role definition, dumbed down "WoW" feel, buy-in cost etc) and we've heard some praise (more powers to choose from for each class, more strategic combat, faster gameplay, etc).

But to then go on and on about any of those...I just don't think its productive for anyone. I don't need someone to tell me, that if I hate WoW that I wouldn't like some aspects of the new edition. If I read that my fighter is never going to pour on more damage than a rogue...well, again, I'd like to know up front, but I don't need the poster to go on and on about how the whole universe crashes to a halt and its the worst waste of money every because of that.

State your opinions (although in this thread, they should be constructive and positive, as the topic indicates) and move on. Just because you say something 10 times, doesn't make it any more valid...

I'm curious, Cantankerous, with DnD4.0 topping your list, what were the biggest pieces broken?

My biggest problem with the system is that no one it it is human, even vaguely so, any longer. But it's all been said, in this very thread, by myself and others, several times now.

The game rules system makes it impossible to role play a human being in 4ED&D. Human beings do not go from a quarter inch from dead (negative hit points) to completely fine and able to perform at absolute peak efficiency (full hit points) after a spare few moments breather. We had this happen in game, where the groups Fighter made a heal check on the Cleric in combat (the Cleric was at -1 HP, dying as per the rules) to allow him a second wind healing surge. The combat then ended and the Cleric used three more healing surges immediately to go from dying, to 2hp below maximum immediately, with NO MAGIC and no other reason than he took a few moments to get his breath.

When the game system makes it impossible to get hurt (oooohh, you can die, obviously, but getting an actual wound must be completely impossible) in combat it makes role playing more than difficult. It makes it untenable for anything even vaguely man like.


Isshia

The problem isn't realism...who wants realism in a fantasy game, but rather verisimilitude.

If you have even the thin excuse of magic you can ignore such stupidity, it's magic after all, it doesn't have to make sense, even in a vague way, or act in an understandable manner because who can dispute it?

BUT

Healing is a natural thing. If you do this to healing it is no different from all water now suddenly being tens of thousands of degrees hot and freezing you therefore on contact. If it should make sense BECAUSE it is supposed to represent a part of the natural and normal environment, you don't fuck with it thoughtlessly, which is what has been done.

And it isn't just the PCs who heal this way. If you pick up a barmaid who is traveling with the group for whatever reason, she too can do this (the healing surge). This has nothing to do with being larger than life. It's there WoW for the table top solution to having everything work the same way for everyone.

The barmaid gets wounded unto death by a broadsword stroke that brings her to -1 hit points. Ohhh, no! Never fear, the most it can take her to heal back to full and complete health is two days of taking normal six hour naps after having worked all day in the bar from fifteen minutes after having taken her deadly wound!

Verisimilitude is an important component of actual ROLE (as opposed to Roll) Playing. If normal, natural things don't work in something at least resembling broadly the same way they do for us, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify with the character. If water suddenly flows upwards, naturally, normally, and gravity only works every other Thursday and water is suddenly dry....

And if you heal from near death to perfect health in two days if you are the average peasant ...

The game fails to be a Role Playing Game. If they were to market it as a Roll Playing Game so that Role Players wouldn't waste their money on it, it would be far more palatable.



Isshia

Hit points aren't just damage, but according to both the DMG and the PHB they represent the amount of damage your character can sustain. They don't even say, in those books, that it ALSO represents this, which is what I have been saying. Their direct quotes talk about how much damage the character can sustain.

What's really sad is fan boys who will eat garbage because it has a certain label on it and compliment the chefs on the taste and then damn anyone who dares say: "but it's garbage".


Isshia

When you get labeled as a hater, as someone who can't even abstract, the Fan Boy comments come swiftly and easily to the lips. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)



Isshia

[DireRadiant]

I played 4th edition the other day and I enjoyed it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Mechanically it's a change, but it sticks to it's roots of primarily being a tactical simulator based on fantasy fictional elements. This part works.

Roleplaying, skills, good enough. It depends far more on the Gm and other players working on having fun together then needing rules to get it accomplished.

I hope I put this in the right thread....

[Cantankerous]

I played 4th edition the other day and I enjoyed it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Mechanically it's a change, but it sticks to it's roots of primarily being a tactical simulator based on fantasy fictional elements. This part works.

Roleplaying, skills, good enough. It depends far more on the Gm and other players working on having fun together then needing rules to get it accomplished.

I hope I put this in the right thread....

I'd argue strongly that D&D was ever "primarily a tactical simulator", or even secondarily one, but it certainly IS primarily (and one would be tempted to argue that NOW it is solely) a tactical simulator now. And since it simulates nothing vaguely human or human like any longer, I think it fails miserably at it's only goal, unless that goal has become to create a tactical simulation of WoW for the table top, sans graphics and without WoWs speed of play. That it does admirably.


Isshia

[Aaron]

I have noticed that D&D 4e rather scratches the same itch that BattleTech does for me.

[imperialus]

Well here's my experience playing 4E for the first time. I stuck it in spoiler tags because it has some Kobold Hall (the adventure from the DMG) spoilers

[ Spoiler ]

Well a month after the release of the corebooks and the splintering of my gaming group because of it (a few of us are also playing a Burning Wheel game) I finally sat down and played a game of 4E today.

We're a small group, consisting of a Halfling Rogue, an Eldran Wizard and a Dwarven Cleric of Kord (played by myself). We're going to be joined by a Dragonborn Paladin next week though so we'll have all the roles covered. Because the group is so small, and we're doing episodic style adventures I was doubling as the DM this week. We plan on rotating the screen around the table as inspiration strikes so everyone has a PC as well. Found it was really easy to run both a PC and a bunch of monsters at once, which was fantastic for such a small group.

We decided to run through the Kobold Hall adventure, just to get a taste for the combat system before moving on to KotS once it's done. By the time we got chargen out of the way, and dealt with the plothook to get everyone to the manor house it was 4:15 and we were only going to be able to play till around 6. I figured we'd get one encounter finished, maybe a bit of a second one before we had to call it a night on account of the BW group showing up.

We managed to get through the first 3 encounters in a little over an hour and a half and this included the time spent flipping through the books looking up condition modifiers and the like since we weren't familiar with the system. I was floored. The PC's were running around the battlefield, jockeying for position, all sorts of stuff. In the first encounter I even decided to try out the grab mechanics and managed to toss a Kobold into the goo pit. I managed it in a grand total of 3 rolls. We assumed that when the grab rules stated you could drag a guy around, I could toss him in the pit by dragging him overtop of it.

The second encounter went really fast. The wizard critted with her orb spell so I used Kords favor to give her a healing surge since we'd been flanked by another kobold who had put some serious hurt on her. The rogue sprang the armour trap but managed to dodge the projectiles and spent the rest of the fight shooting things from on top of the sarcophagus.

The third encounter was a lot more tense. It was higher level than the party and there were only 3 PC's so it was a tough fight. My cleric rushed across the field and took the skull-skull stone to the head, dumping him in the pit. Then the two drakes came out and started bashing on the now unprotected rogue and wizard. The rogue used one of his powers to toss the drake down the pit with me while the wizard killed one of the slingers and a couple minions with her orb power.

Then things took a turn for the worse. My cleric took a crit from the Drake dropping him to 2 HP, used his action to spend a healing surge (I forgot that healing surges were a minor action for dwarves), and promptly got critted again dropping him to -3 HP. Fortunately the other two managed to clear the kobolds and whatnot topside and finish off the Drake in the pit before I died (I bombed the first two stabilization rolls). The wizard had (thank god) picked up the heal skill and managed to stabilize my character so the Paladin is going to walk in just in time to heal him up a bit.

All and all… chalk me up to loving 4E.

[Critias]

So, how's that "positive, constructive thread" workin' out for ya, Bull? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Bull]

So, how's that "positive, constructive thread" workin' out for ya, Bull? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Smartass (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Despite a couple folks who have trouble "letting go", it's actually not been that bad. I'm enjoying reading the mostly unbiased reports of folks who have actually tried playing it so far.

And considering how important math is to certain folks, I'm still trying to figure out how they could have played Shadowrun for so long without going insane, especially with that nagging 7/13/19 problem that's always plagued earlier editions (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ork.gif)

[Fuchs]

And considering how important math is to certain folks, I'm still trying to figure out how they could have played Shadowrun for so long without going insane, especially with that nagging 7/13/19 problem that's always plagued earlier editions (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ork.gif)

As I said, I think it's all a question of whether or not one likes a system. If one does like a system, such problems are either not important or can be fixed by house rules. If one dislikes a system, such stuff breaks it.

[deek]

Well, back to the positive...

If it hasn't been said already (as this thread is starting to get long in the tooth), I really love multi-classing. Its obviously a huge deviation from prior editions, but for the cost of a feat, you can dabble in another class. I think the feat selections give the player a really good taste of a secondary class.

Having been playing a Human Warlord, multi-class Rogue, I've been having a blast. Getting the extra feat from the Human made it a simple task to use it for multi-classing without hurting my Warlord side. So, now I can run around, healing and commanding battles, but when needed, can pull out my blade and get in a sneak attack for solid damage.

The Leader role classes, so far, have got to be my favorite addition to the game!

[Bull]

As I said, I think it's all a question of whether or not one likes a system. If one does like a system, such problems are either not important or can be fixed by house rules. If one dislikes a system, such stuff breaks it.

Oh, totally agreed. There's a couple things in D&D4e I've seen that I'm gonna tweak already. I have a couple SR 4E houserules I use. I can;t even count how many houserules and tweaks we had for 3rd ed, let alone 2nd.

Honestly, there's not a game out there that I haven't made at least a couple small changes to, and there's a few games that no matter how many changes you make, I just won;t like the system. GURPS is like that for me. I can't even really explain it, other than the system is just too damn crunchy for my tastes, and no matter how narrow you focus the game, it feels, well, Generic.

Bull

[Drogos]

GURPS is like that for me. I can't even really explain it, other than the system is just too damn crunchy for my tastes, and no matter how narrow you focus the game, it feels, well, Generic.

Bull

That made me chuckle (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[DireRadiant]

I'd argue strongly that D&D was ever "primarily a tactical simulator", or even secondarily one, but it certainly IS primarily (and one would be tempted to argue that NOW it is solely) a tactical simulator now. And since it simulates nothing vaguely human or human like any longer, I think it fails miserably at it's only goal, unless that goal has become to create a tactical simulation of WoW for the table top, sans graphics and without WoWs speed of play. That it does admirably.


Isshia

Argue away. All the versions I've played since Chainmail came out seem to be focused on tactical combat simulation. Compare the volume and precision of rules related to combat versus other type of play content.

Never stopped me from primarily role playing in the systems though.

[Bull]

Argue away. All the versions I've played since Chainmail came out seem to be focused on tactical combat simulation. Compare the volume and precision of rules related to combat versus other type of play content.

Never stopped me from primarily role playing in the systems though.

I read something somewhere, about a million years ago, probably on the RN list, and it stuck with me. I'll paraphrase here, since my memory is spotty at best...

"You don't need rules to roleplay. Rules do, however, act as a crutch for bad roleplayers. Take that whichever way fits."

I've had some great in character RP sessions over the years. All versions of D&D, Star Wars (D6 & D20), Shadowrun. And dice were barely touched, if at all, in every one of the sessions I remember so clearly.

[DireRadiant]

Multiclassing and flexibility of choice in the system looks good to me. I really like the ritual magic is available to anyone willing to expend 1 or 2 feats. All you need is Arcane/Religion and Ritual Caster, and some money, and you can now have access to a lot of spells. Buy a multi class feat, and you can choose encounter powers from another class, I haven't analyzed this much, but I'm sure there are some interesting things you can do with this. Anyone can do the disable traps/pick pockets by choosing the right feat, it's not a choice restricted to certain classes.

So, you can have the Wizard with thieving skills, a Fighter who at 8th level can Raise Dead, and Cleric that can cast lots of Arcane spells. And it's all pretty easy to get.