D&D 4th Ed., Whats your Feelings... Options

[Nightwalker450]

I think that covers a good variety of opinions. But just curious how people actually feel about the new edition of D&D.

There is no vote for those who plan on checking it out, but haven't yet. Because you should wait till you actually look into it before you vote. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[deek]

I got the books last week (PDFs a bit before that) and started playing three days ago. Having played most of my "career" in 2nd Edition and never really liking the 3.x variants (although I did play in a campaign over a year long), I've really liked the new edition. I've also been playing WoW for about two years, so I enjoy some of the similarities between the two.

After one session, I'm hooked and look forward to our bi-weekly campaign. If you've been looking for a time to give it a try, now is a good time to get in. Its pretty easy to DM and is a lot of fun at the table. A battle grid is pretty much required for combat, as there are a ton of powers that factor in movement and relative proximity to your target. The grid makes that a whole lot easier!

[Aaron]

No matter what, I think we can all agree that playing it still gives you cancer.

[Daier Mune]

i've actualy never had an interest in playing D&D, however, 4th edition has managed to make me curious. i'll probably give it a go at some point, but i know i don't have the money to buy all the minatures needed, much less the rulebooks.

[Adarael]

It's like every other D&D - differently broken than a prior edition upon release. Not more broken, just differently broken.

[FrankTrollman]

I'm actually really surprised at 4e. It's slick and they clearly gave it a lot of work.

But they didn't put any work into making the system work. I'm seriously offended at how incredibly shitty the skill challenges are. With the amount of money they threw at this project, they couldn't play through it once? They couldn't be bothered to tweak it the slightest little bit so that the show stopping failures of the system would be the slightest bit hidden from view.

Having Class A bugs in the final release accessible and unavoidable from 1st level for all classes is completely unacceptable. That's beyond unprofessional, that's jaw droppingly insulting.

-Frank

[Cthulhudreams]

It's like 80% of the way there, but once they built a good framework for having everyone on the same page, they screwed it by making the page really boring (the majority of abilities) or just completely unworkable (Skill challenges)

They really need a 4.5 where they re-tool all the abilities to be actually cool, and fix the bugs, and then it will probably be quite good.

[Larme]

Wait, what's wrong with skill challenges? What's a class A bug? Is that like where a glitch gives you infinite rolls to gain experience or something?

[Wounded Ronin]

1st edition remains the best, especially Oriental Adventures.

[Zhan Shi]

I agree with Wounded Ronin. I gave 4e a look at my local book store. A very brief look, so I can't speak to the system or rules; for all I know, it may be terrific. But I'm just too attached to 1st to make the transition. Plus I resent the manner in which WoC handled the 3/3.5 switch, and I think they may pull the same stunt again.

[PBTHHHHT]

I agree with Wounded Ronin. I gave 4e a look at my local book store. A very brief look, so I can't speak to the system or rules; for all I know, it may be terrific. But I'm just too attached to 1st to make the transition. Plus I resent the manner in which WoC handled the 3/3.5 switch, and I think they may pull the same stunt again.

I didn't touch 2nd for ages and then really only dabbled into 3, so when 3.5 came out, that's when I really started playing again. At that point it wasn't too bad, but now I don't plan on going to 4th, invested too much into 3.5 so not gonna make the jump. Especially from what I've seen, no interest.

[FrankTrollman]

Wait, what's wrong with skill challenges? What's a class A bug? Is that like where a glitch gives you infinite rolls to gain experience or something?

They are a complete disaster start to finish.

• At the listed DCs, a party composed entirely of characters with appropriate skills linked to attributes that they have an 18 attribute in complete challenges only slightly more than 11 percent of the time at all levels. Parties composed of less singularly devoted characters fail at these challenges substantially more often. This is a Class A bug.
• Even if you adjust the DCs to something that players are capable of actually passing by handwaving in new DCs that match the bonuses that PCs actualy have, there's still the fact that Complexity has exactly the opposite effect as it is supposed to have. A Complexity 1 challenge is failed if you get more than 20% failures, while a Complexity 5 challenge is only failed if you get more than 29% failures. A Complexity 5 challenge is almost half again as forgiving as a Complexity 1 challenge! This is a Class B bug.
• Despite flowery words in the DMG to the contrary, there is no incentive whatsoever for "every character" to contribute to skill challenges. Indeed, you are just as able to get that giant 1 in 10 chance of succeeding at a challenge by having just one appropriately skilled character and demanding that all other characters stop contributing as by having the entire party be at maximum skill for the task. The total number of skill attempts that the party can make is essentially fixed by Complexity, and every attempt made by a character with medium or low skill removes a potential attempt by one of the character's with high skill at a ratio of 1:1. This is a Class B bug.
• Despite flowery words to the contrary, there is no incentive or meaning behind trying different tactics. Since you have a fixed number of attempts and most DCs are pretty much identical (being as they are based on your level rater than the challenge at hand), the correct choice in almost all circumstances is to simply choose your bestest skill and roll it 5 times in a row. Roleplaying and reacting to the ongoing story of the skill challenge is basically discouraged unless your roleplayed reaction is "I do exactly what I just did again!" This is a Class C bug.

Bugs are classed A, B, and C. A bugs are ones which destroy the game or stop play; B bugs are ones which disrupt the game; and C bugs are annoying but can be worked around/ignored. There are also "D" Bugs which are simply preferential stuff like "I think halflings should be shorter/taller/hairier/whatever."

The Skill Challenge system of 4th edition is a complete and unmitigated disaster. Every part of it is a major bug, and the only way to fix it is to tear it out stump and root and make a completely new skill challenge system that doesn't work like that at all.

-Frank

[Fuchs]

Or you just take the base idea behind the system - solve a task by using skill checks chained together - and run scenes with that in mind. From what I can tell, I already did such stuff in my games (make players RP their actions, roll for results, adjust the situation according to the result) so I'll probably mine the section for ideas for situations, and simply ditch the math.

The example that was talked about prior to release, about how to escape from a city while hunted by guards, was showcasing the different ways one could use skills such as history, athletics, diplomacy, stealth etc. to achieve the same goal. History knowledge might let one discover an old escape tunnel, athletics makes the roof escape, diplomacy calls in a favor, stealth or disguise goes through the gate undetected, etc.

I would dare to say that you don't really need a system, as long as the DM can pick DCs for the tests on the fly and adjust accordingly, and the rules give him enough ideas for that.

[FrankTrollman]

Yes Fuchs, you can in fact completely ignore the system and happen to be one of the people for whom the tirades on how the system was supposed to work and what it was supposed to accomplish inspires them to imagine up a functional system that uses essentially none of the actual mechanics in the presented 4e D&D skill challenges and ends up with something workable. Go you. That is what most people would call "Tearing it out stump and root and making a completely new skill challenge system that doesn't work like the original at all in its place."

So yes, we agree. It's entirely within your personal capabilities to design a system that allows and encourages multiple party members to use multiple skills together to achieve campaign goals in a cooperative and dynamic fashion. But the presented 4e Skill Challenge system is not that system.

-Frank

[Fuchs]

I'd not say that "just doing skill checks and adjusting the situation according to their result" is "designing a new system", I think it's just using basic skill mechanics, and taking the skill challenge description as inspiration to chain them together.

The way I see it, it's dropping the crunch part of the skill challenge system, and keeping the intent/goal.

[FrankTrollman]

I'd not say that "just doing skill checks and adjusting the situation according to their result" is "designing a new system", I think it's just using basic skill mechanics, and taking the skill challenge description as inspiration to chain them together.

The way I see it, it's dropping the crunch part of the skill challenge system, and keeping the intent/goal.

That IS designing a new skill system. It's a very simple and rudimentary skill system, but the point is that your system:

1. All the players describe what they want to do.
2. Every player rolls a die.
3. The Dungeon Master ad hocs something together based on how he feels about the die rolls and the plausibility of the action.

...is a much better system than the one in the 4e DMG. It's a perfectly workable system whose only real failing is the Cops and Robbers dilemma where if one player thiks that a plan of action should work and another person at the table doesn't think it should work, then it is very hard to get them to agree on whether it ends up working or not if the roll is something like a 9 or a 13 that is kind of "in the middle."

The presented system in the DMG has several key factors:

• Limited chances for the team rather than the individual.
• Very specific DCs for use in all circumstances.
• Specific numbers of successes/failures for the team to succeed or fail.
• Specific effects on the number of rolls and overall difficulty based on the complexity of the task.

If you aren't using any of those rules, and you are not, then whatever it is you have done is making a completely new system. Whether it's "inspired by" the steaming piece of crap that was the pre-packaged 4e rules or not, the fact remains that your system is a unique system to itself. The fact that it is so very simple and yet so very much better than the packaged rules is about as bitter an indictment of what they sold as anything could be. You're running with virtually no rules at all, and that's still better than what they wrote.

-Frank

[Fuchs]

But I am just using the basic skill checks, which are also in the rules.

[Bull]

Frank, I really need to ask you a question here. Pure curiosity, I'm not trying to be a dick and not playing mod or anything...

But if you really hate D&D 4e so much, why do you relentlessly post in every thread about it?

[deek]

Frank likes to argue, plain and simple. He is more excited when he can pull math in to back up a point...

He also takes things a little out of perspective, at times. He posted a link to an ENWorld thread and I spent about 2 hours reading through a ton of posts. Then there was a link to a post by a DnD dev that put everything back into perspective.

If you listen to Frank's arguments, he's 100% right. That is, unless you factor in DMs giving +/- 2 mods to good/bad use of a skill. Or the fact that some skills, when used the first time, grant an automatic success (which greatly changes that 11% figure he always talks about). Or the fact that higher complexity, per RAW, does not equate to higher difficulty...it equates to more complex and many times a longer investment in the character's time.

So yeah, only a 11% chance to succeed, when you ignore important features of the RAW...

[Wounded Ronin]

But if you really hate D&D 4e so much, why do you relentlessly post in every thread about it?

Well, I can't speak for him, but if I were in his position, able to use mathematics to examine RPG rules I mean, I suppose I'd feel an imperative to do something like what he's doing on the grounds that very poorly done RPG rules represent cynical commercialism, which has ruined many a hobby.

[Caine Hazen]

Remember, this always explains everything for me...

[deek]

Well, I can't speak for him, but if I were in his position, able to use mathematics to examine RPG rules I mean, I suppose I'd feel an imperative to do something like what he's doing on the grounds that very poorly done RPG rules represent cynical commercialism, which has ruined many a hobby.

True...I mean, I like the fact that he is so passionate about pointing out mathematical flaws in RPGs. I'd actually pay money to get that type of analysis of the games I play, so I know where the weak points are and have a way to improve game play.

I'd also think he'd have a good foundation to create his own system that is mathematically sounds. Granted, it likely wouldn't sell unless it was attached to a big name in RPGs, but that could happen.

I think my biggest issue is having someone find a flaw and then rant about how worthless and terrible the whole system is. I mean, I had so much fun with our new DnD4 campaign, to hear someone say its all horrible...well, I just can't agree because I've played it and its fun.

As a side note, I've played Heroes System and it had so much math (which i assume is quite sounds, since that's the focus) and frankly, I never got into it because of all the calcs...

[Moon-Hawk]

Remember, this always explains everything for me...

You know what? I'm not even going to click on that link because I stopped reading after .http://xkcd and I already know exactly which comic you're referring to. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

edit: ahh, it made a link out of my fragment. Bad link! Bad, bad link! (fixed with an unobtrusive period)
Also, I haven't voted yet because I haven't made up my mind yet.

[Cthulhudreams]

Complex maths is not the same as a good system. For example, aside from the retarded hitpoints issue, combat in D&D 4th is actually pretty solidly balanced. Everyone stays on the random number generator, combats are usually 'fair' and it all hangs together. It's a mathematically strong system.

It's a bit bland ability wise, but there you go. It is mathematically sound (aside from retarded hitpoints issue)

If you want to see what Frank did for D&D 3.5 edition in terms of 'new matrix' style rules overhauls, you can check it out http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453 It includes flavour text, class descriptions and other material, and probably could have been sold as a D20 sourcebook if you had someone print it and provide art. It does change the feel of the game, and makes it fiercely more complex because of the range of abilities that each character has.

I suspect part of the reason that he's so vigorous about it is that he has a significant emotional investment into it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Bull]

Well, I can't speak for him, but if I were in his position, able to use mathematics to examine RPG rules I mean, I suppose I'd feel an imperative to do something like what he's doing on the grounds that very poorly done RPG rules represent cynical commercialism, which has ruined many a hobby.

The thing is, he's made his point. He's explained it all very clearly about a dozen times now. Obviously not everyone agrees with him, or agrees that the game has to be played strictly by the book. I know that this doesn't effect me, my interest in the game, or how I'm going to run the game in the slightest.

It's not that he's making the argument that has me baffled, it's the fact that he is just relentlessly defending his opinion, despite the fact that pretty much no one is really arguing with him anymore. Even when folks say "Well, yeah, you're right, but I can fix that" he continues to argue.

I realize this is the internet, and the internet is all about pointless argument (sadly), but Frank seems like a somewhat intelligent guy. And I just don't personally understand how he can be so single minded, so critical, and so disrespectful to other people and their opinions, because he's simply not willing to allow other people to have opinions or disagree with him, at least on this subject.

I disagree with folks all the time, but I make my case, respond when necessary for clarification or correction, but there quickly comes a point in a point of discourse when I realize any further discussion is pointless, and walk away.

<shrug> Like I said, it was mostly curiosity on my part. From a mod standpoint, as long as he stays civil, he can disagree until his fingers fall off from typing. But from a personal standpoint, folks who do this really baffle me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull