Slashdot Mirror
A Veteran GM's First Impressions of D&D 4th Edition
Martin Ralya writes "I spent several hours with the three core D&D 4th Edition books on launch day, and wrote a detailed look at all of them based on my first impressions. Two big takeaways: Yes, the World of Warcraft comparisons are fair (and a good thing), and the way character powers work now will make the game more fun for everyone."
Yes, quite great. *gurps* Excuse me....
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I put on my robe and my wizard hat.
I never played D&D, but it's still nice to read about true rpgs sometimes. Though I still would prefer Rune Quest or Rolemaster over DnD...
...having played less than 12 hours of DnD (or any tabletop game) in my life, this is the first time I've ever seen or heard something that made me want to sit down and play DnD.
Took this comment seriously, did you?
It seems a bit funny to me that they are making it WoW-like in the "everybody can play easily" quality. I never liked that about WoW, because it just meant that a bunch of idiots could sign on and play, but in a tabletop game it will just make it easier for friends who thought it was too complicated before to get into it. Hearing this about it makes me happy.
Reading it only says so much. I had my first session today, and I must say that I found it less MMO:ish once you actually started playing it. Sure, some fundamental rules use the same ideas, but, that is in no way an issue when actually playing. I must say I liked DM:ing it, but it will be a while before I learn the mechanics, they are far less intuitive past a certain level since every power is an exception to the very bare core. So, a lot more "studying" is necessary than previous editions if you want to learn it all, but there is a shorter span until you can start playing your first game and understand what you are doing.
...and had a blast. My brother and I have never played D&D, but I have been listening to podcasts and reading about it for the past few months and definitely wanted to give it a try with someone who knew what they were doing.
We had a great time, especially when we essentially tied down an Ice Dragon and our main Fighter intimidated the Dragon into giving up (even without knowing the Dragon's language!) and we won the encounter without even killing it! It was so much more fun than raiding Onyxia, especially given all the freedom you have in D&D. I bought a book and can't wait to rope all my friends into it.
There's no other explanation for a review this positive to:
a) exist
b) get a slashdot front page story
The 4e books have about 1/4 the content of previous edition books. They have large type, a lot of whitespace, and hell of a lot of repetition and iteration through trivial variants.
Every new power or creature has an embarassingly bad "Magic: The Gathering" style name, which often has only a slight connection to the game mechanic it represents. Many of the powers have rules that only make sense in combat, and the ones that are designed to be done outside of combat are slapdash.
It's all designed around "game balance" (i.e. balance as a competitive tactics boardgame, not as a cooperative role-playing game) to the point of continual absurdity.
I could go on and on, but there is a lot to hate in 4e, and anyone who gives it an entirely uncritical review is either taking money or ignorant of previous editions.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080430
I posted my review at here. It seems to be unapologetic in imitating many aspects of MMORPGs. So you can like that or not, but its there. The good news is that unlike previous editions, when 3.5 goes out of print, there will still be many ways to get the rules. 3.5 is open-sourced (kinda). See d20srd.org. Also Pathfinder will provide new 3.6-ish books for new players wanting to try the old edition. Overall it's going to be a better time for all RPGers, even if you don't like 4th edition.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
A Veteran GM's First Impressions of D&D 4th Edition
Should it be DM, or do I not know what GM stands for...
When you use acronyms, make sure you spell out the word and then associate it. It wasn't rocket science, but I had to figure out what the heck a PHB was.
Each system has its own flavor of system and setting, and quirks as well. It's possible to like some and hate others, like them all, or be cold on all.
Some may like Rolemaster (and/or SpaceMaster), but others may find its reliance on entire books of tables somewhat daunting. Likewise, Runequest has a very loyal following, although the latest incarnation from Mongoose Publishing just kind of lies there; they focused a little too much on system and not enough on the setting that had been assembled over the course of a decade or two. (Incidentally, I consider HeroQuest to be a worthy spiritual successor to Chaosium's Runequest, moreso than Mongoose's.) D&D has certain strengths over both of them
There's no reason you can't appreciate each system for what it is.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
As a former player when I was a kid, I recently saw these two videos on youtube and think it's a great parody of the stereotypical DND player:
Episode 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
Episode 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bP3GYdrW450
The 4e books have about 1/4 the content of previous edition books. They have large type, a lot of whitespace, and hell of a lot of repetition and iteration through trivial variants.
Every new power or creature has an embarassingly bad "Magic: The Gathering" style name, which often has only a slight connection to the game mechanic it represents. Many of the powers have rules that only make sense in combat, and the ones that are designed to be done outside of combat are slapdash.
It's all designed around "game balance" (i.e. balance as a competitive tactics boardgame, not as a cooperative role-playing game) to the point of continual absurdity.
I could go on and on, but there is a lot to hate in 4e, and anyone who gives it an entirely uncritical review is either taking money or ignorant of previous editions.
Fantasy-oriented computer games started out by trying to imitate games like D&D, and now D&D is trying to imitate them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"If a new GM asked me to recommend a book that would teach her the basics, Iâ(TM)d hand her the 4e DMG."
If a new GM was actually a "her", I'd be shocked.
Sorry I don't care about your revenue streams generated by D&D v4.0. It doesn't make the game more playable to me. 4.0 D&D is targeting the computer gamers not the 25 year "ONGOING" campaign running DM and Gamers of the past. It's not the same game it was 25 years ago and they're just capitalizing on the old TRS Trade Mark and branding. Just call it something else and leave the Classics alone, instead of improving it to the point that it evolves in to something entirely else at the lowest of standards of mediocrity. You could have named it something more fitting like - "War Craft", "Everquest" or something, but I guess those are taken.
If I wanted to run D&D on the computer with my friends I have lots of options with a hugh variety of choices, and there has been lots of software over the years to do just that. If I want to run a fast moving pen and paper well balanced D&D type game the options tend to get poorer the farther I seem to move farther from AD&D v2.0.
BTW, WTF is wrong with GNOMES? Who was the genius that thought that one up? What's next Orcs? (What a bunch of Stereotypical team of writers and computer jockeys.)
This "article" is sad in its unapologetic sycophanty. It says that everything in hte book is good.
- Spells are called "powers" (goodbye psionics?) and are detailed in the class section; there is no other"magic" area in the book. Great for a person only playing a wizard, ever, but wtf for people making classes. Horrible.
- No confirm criticals, criticals are just max damage on a 20. Goodbye dramatic tension as you bunch over the faded die, figuring out if you got a 7 or 17 on that confirm roll. Goodbye variability. Goodbye fight-ending strike.
- Most rolls 1d20+1/2 character level+other. Wow, that means that high level people will be able to do everything better than 1st level players! Horrible.
- They increased type size AND whitespace in the books. Yep, less content.
- The PHB tells players how to play AND the GM how to gm. No dice.
- They still didn't simplifiy combat. Good god, I thought that was the reason they made another edition.
- No ranks in skills. So much for making a detailed and unique character, huh? Cookie-cutter it is then.
- Attackers roll saves instead of defenders. Stupid. It takes the fate out of your hands and into mine, not to mention I have to look up the bonus a cliff gets to its reflex attack. wtf?
- No strategy. Instead of having to rest and pray (or study) to gain spells back, they have the equivalent of "cooldown" (which I can forgive in an MMO, but makes no real-world sense). Basically your players can use their best spells every fight. No strategy, no need for lower-level spells at all. Why do they even exist once you pass 5th level (or whatever level it is you get fireball now)?
-On that subject, he makes a big deal of how there is only ONE CHART!!!!! LOL for all classes, and says it is simplifying. Then he says you slip to the section on your class to get, essentially, your unique "key" to help you read the chart. GG.
-"There are fewer types of action, standard, move, minor and free." Given that that's about the same as 3.5 core (full-round, standard, move and free), I wonder about this guy's mental health exclaiming its virtues.
-Diagonal movement works the same as lateral movement". I assume this means they moved to hexes? no? Then I guess you can move faster by moving diagonally in about ANY circumstance. Once again, way to break the world.
-Every class has two suggested "builds". What did I say before about telling us how to play? Honestly, at least leave WHO we play up to us. Similarly, each class has a "role". Not that they are customizable or anything. Nope, it's just like "Do you want a DD or a tank?" all over again.
-Retraining is now not only core, but really basic. So in other words, feel free not to put thought into what skills and feats you take, just get the shiniest ones and clean up later.
- His section on the DMG made me just a little bit nauseous. He was all, "saying that people have to cooperate?! Not only is this idea foreign to the other Dungeon Master's Guides, but nobody but those savants at WotC would've thought of it! I thank them for imparting this knowledge into my undeserving hands."
-Treasure parcels. It's where you get 4 magic items and some money. Before I decided treasure by what the villain would have; how foolish! Now I have learned to make sure everyone gets a magical item every encounter!
-MM has 1 monster per page. In other words, say goodbye to all of the lesser-used guys: lantern archons, rasts, all them things my players would always scratch their heads about when they first appeared. Say hello to there being monsters someone with any time could easily memorize all the weak points to, and just plain not enough to make dungeons flarvorfully unique.
-In the MM section he makes deals over things that ALREADY existed, like a picture for each monster.
-Replaced DR with something that means the same. This guy loves it.
- Everything is just to explain to newbies how to play. No advanced mechanics. No strategy. No fun.
I think you can tell about everything you need about this reviewer when
Guess the server failed its Fortitude DC 150 save vs slashdotting...
twenty-sided-dice-throwing over... oh wait, that'll never happen!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
...and I play a monk. No monks in 4th ed. Time for a new character.
I know, I'll play a barbarian...ooops, no barbarians in 4th ed.
Well, if I can't be a monk and I can't be a barbarian...how about the good ol' half-orc fighter. Nope. No half-orcs, either.
I guess I could play a fey Eladrin Warlord. Except that I'm straight.
Advice: on VPS providers
coming back like a bad B film of the 50s it seems.
Review the system, leave your opinion of the other reviewer at the door.
It reflects better on your review if you impart your knowledge/opinion of the new system without being judgemental or opinionated about the writer of the other review just because his review/opinion happens to differ from yours.
Attacking the reviewer not only weakens your well reasoned arguement in the eyes of the reader, your judgemental attitude reflects poorly on your ability to offer a non-biased opinion in the future.
If I had been modding your review I would have been willing to give you an informative until you started attacking the abilities/intelligence/person instead of sticking to what you were essentially attempting to do in the first place, which was, provide your opinion of the new system.
after all, "better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak up and remove all doubts""better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak up and remove all doubts" -Galileo, Samuel Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Queen Elizabeth the Second and a host of others throughout history.
-Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
Original D&D, three white box set and suppluments such as Blackmoor and Gods Demigods and heroes in the 1970s
THAT makes me a veteran
I think I'll avoid this incarnation from everything that is being said
No, the best evocation of gamer geeks, ever, was in the late, lamented series MTV's Downtown.
Here's a little taste...
The two kinds of people in the world.
If you want more, go to Chris Prynoski's blog and you will find instructions on how to see the entire series. Including the 5th episode, "The Con" which is what this clip I linked to is from.
"NO! She's revealed the secret map!!! The campaign is ruined!!!"
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
( ) 1) winner of the internets
( ) 2) respected and loved
( ) 3) appear intelligent
(X) 4) an ass
(X) 5) an even bigger dork than the OP
No, that simply makes him someone who's been gaming for a while. Me, I started around '83. Traveller. AD&D. Good times. Yes, girls were playing back then. There just weren't a hell of a lot of us. Stopped playing back in '87 or so. Got reintroduced with BESM. Too bad Tri-Stat is pretty much dead...thanks a lot White Wolf. Very cool system of gameplay for "storyteller" kind of FRP campaigns, not so much for "dice weenie" kind of FRP campaigns.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
No, I've gotta agree with the parent poster. The original poster saying that somebody who began in 89 isn't a veteran just because the OP started with the original white box does, in fact, make him an ass.
The largest thing I'm missing from 4e are lots of spells for the Wizard. Looking through them, the majority of them are boring XdY damage of Z type with some pretty lame names. Where's my Grease spell, or my Summon Monster spell, or Feather Fall, or Spider Climb, or that spell that creates a big talking sword to sit in front of me and fight? Did I miss something? I hope so! The wizard, it needs more flavor.
"THAT makes me a veteran"
No, that just makes you old.
... for Slashdotters not to get laid.
Alas, it feels like the collectible craze has finally struck the heart of D&D.
At the risk of sounding like I'm shaking my cane at those dratted kids (and maybe I am), this isn't a followup to the classic game, it's a repackaged version of the miniatures game. Look at the monsters ... they're essentially a card. The actual description, background and mythology of the creatures are negligible. The mechanics themselves are designed to be bound to a board, not played out in the imagination.
On some level I guess I can't blame them. As a system linking MMORPGs, miniatures games and card games, it works. They look at the income of Magic the Gathering or WOW and say "why can't we get a piece of that?!" so they design a game that will allow them to leverage the different merchandise against each other. It's not a bad system if that's what you have in mind and I can see it being very successful in that Microsoft sort of way. I know a lot of people who wouldn't touch this system with a 10-foot pole if it didn't have the D & D name on it, but since it does, they probably won't want to play anything else.
What's really sad to me is how hard it is to dig up any information on what can or cannot be created and distributed by players. They seemed to be starting to get the hang of it with opening the d20 system but this feels like a step in the opposite direction. It's becoming about leveraging their games onto players, not about empowering players to create their own games and worlds. I want tools to create stories with, to build worlds with ... as a gamer, I'm not a consumer of fantasy, I'm a creator of fantasy.
How is this ironic? This manner of interchange of ideas is only natural.
Mozart and Haydn found much inspiration in each others' work. I fail to see irony here.
Some friends of mine were running one of the D&D game days going on today to introduce 4th edition. Due to some unforeseen circumstances I wasn't able to make it in time to play, so when I did show up about an hour later I decided to just hang out and watch.
What really surprised me and I totally did not expect from anything I'd heard about 4E is how much longer combats took to resolve. A little bit of that was clearly, okay, here are people are familiar with 3E and can play 3E fast and this is new so it takes longer, but... more, the amount of hit points everyone has have gone up a lot, the access to healing that everyone has has gone up a lot, characters can heal while doing other things, damage hasn't gone up a lot, and spells and powers that can really turn the momentum of a fight (e.g., 3E slow vs. creatures with a large number of weak attacks) have pretty much gone away.
The D&D game day module was for pregenerated first level characters. In all earlier editions of the game, combat for first level characters will go pretty damn fast. No one has the hit points to take much of a beating, and maybe your cleric has 3 cure spells to throw around. In 4E, everyone at the table is getting healing surges for hit points back all over the place. No joke, in the middle of one combat I left to get some dinner and decided to have a sit-down meal at a restaurant about 15 minutes away. I got back around an hour and a half later and the same combat was still going and no end was in sight. In previous editions that would never, ever, happen with first level characters.
Maybe I'll come around to thinking that's a good thing, but personally, I enjoyed the way 1-3E played at low levels, and the way they played at mid levels, and the ways in which those were different. (If 4E actually did successfully fix how much the game broke down at high levels, I may be able to make peace with this.)
I think that the time is right for what I'm calling a Computer Aided Roleplaying Game (CARPG).
What this would be is a mostly traditional tabletop RPG (not a Computer RPG or MMORPG), but the game would be designed from the ground up with an accompanying computer program and you would be required to have at least one computer at the table to run the software. The system requirements would be very modest (no real-time 3D or the like), so I don't think that it is asking too much for 4+ geeks to scare up one old computer. (An optional form of play would have one computer per player, networked.)
The point of all this is to have the computer take over all the boring game system stuff that computer are good at and let the player focus on the fun, creative stuff that humans are good at.
I'm well aware that there are programs available for most of the major RPG systems that sort of do what I'm saying (and 4E will have some online software of this sort). But the point of a designed-from-the-ground-up CARPG is that you can design the rule systems to best take advantage of the availability of the software; rather than just writing a program that simply supports rules that were designed for humans to manage.
He'll just regenerate anyway. :)
...and got some neat little schwag. Dice, a play matt, and free mountain dew!
:)
I'll tell you about the experience:
There was myself, my girlfriend, two of my friends, and some guy that stepped in for another who dropped out.
I am fairly analytical, my girlfriend is too although she hasn't really played much D&D despite being a big fantasy genre fan. The two friends have both enjoyed D&D over the years as I have (we're all mid-late 20's). The person we met up with seemed fairly analytical too.
My first impression was how powered up everything seemed. Many more hitpoints at 1st level. Simplified skills list, although they seem to be so general now that it could hinder the long-term roleplaying viability here. For instance, Thievery encompasses all thief skills now. Athletics lumps together things like running and climbing, which are really two very different ideas (as a runner and climber myself). The ease of understanding and keeping track of all this was pleasant, though.
Fairly easy to understand the rules, and with some GM prodding we were up and running quickly. I'm a 2nd Edition vet and so this was a breath of fresh air.
Combat was MUCH more fun at first level. Our dice rolls were very bad, and it would have been nice to see the 3rd edition rerolls again. Mages seemed quite useful even at first level, already possessing melf's acid arrow and an ice blast spell that was pretty spiffy.
The simplicity really helped the analytics move along for a change. The ease of getting into it made 4th much more fun than 2nd for the g-friend, and the other 2 vets seemed to enjoy the game system too. They had the rogue and wizard, and heartily enjoyed the powered-up aspects of those classes at 11st level.
All in all, a breath of fresh air. Me? I didn't like 3rd edition. It seemed oddly clunky and unintuitive to me, perhaps I just prefer the detailed math rules of 2nd edition. Here, though, the races and classes have been turned on their heads in some cases, and new ideas brought in that really make me want to play D&D again. Skill rolls and saving throws were all simplified too, which was enjoyable, even if I did lik saving vs Death Magic.
I went to Gary Gygax's funeral, and I have to say that I think as a story telling platform this is something he'd be very happy with if he were here. It's more acocesssible as many here have said, and since it lends itself to miniatures play, it will not only make the story more real to people, it will make Wizards more $$ as well
-
As I read the article, I found myself wondering how much Hasbro payed him to write this.
I will start by saying that I love Star Wars Saga edition rules. Parts of that rule set are incorporated in 4E (or vice versa). I picked up the 4E box set from my local game store on Friday and spent the last couple of days reading through the books. Prior to that, I did go through the Keep on the Shadowfell quick start materials.
A few big differences I have with general review comments:
I am quite unhappy with the paper quality- the paper seems thinner than 3rd Ed, and both my PHB and DMG have "creases" in the page, which I find really annoying. The pages don't lay flat, either- they appear "warped" to a certain extent, most noticeably in the PHB.
I'm not thrilled with the artwork. Part of this is raised expectations from the WotC blogs- I expected to be blown away. While I found the artwork more consistent, I'm not a fan of the art style that is the most consistent. ^^; That's a personal preference, and persons' opinions will vary there.
I've got mixed feelings on the new character class layouts. On the one hand, I do like that most powers/abilities are in one place. On the other hand, it's still a pain to flip through a few pages to look for the exact powers that you need. I'm hoping that we get character sheet creators that do the same type of thing that the quick-start characters do from Keep of the Shadowfell- only put the powers you need in one place.
I'm not as fond of the DMG. Yeah, it might be helpful for new DMs. For me, the only things I really found useful were towards the back, where it discussed conditions and certain types of actions.
One elaboration on this review- criticals are auto-hit, but you still have to beat their AC to do max damage.
Overall, I like some of the simplification- I'm pretty sure I'll like the new skill system when I really get to see it in action, especially since I've liked Saga skills so much. I like some of the streamlining and rules changes- movement, opportunity attacks, and the new role for saves. These aren't insignificant changes, and I think they'll change the game for the better.
I'm not fond of some of the quote-unquote sacred cow removals- I liked familiars. I'm not fond of multiclassing in this system- basically using feats and abilities to take a couple of characteristics from other classes. I'm not fond of the role constraints- to me, it seems like you have far fewer options than you did in the past, and even when compared to Saga you seem to be more constrained to play a particular role.
We'll be starting a campaign in a week or so, and from there we'll decide if we're going with 4E or focusing on Paizo's game. ^_^
First, kudos to the designers for trying to change the game for the better in a substantial way, instead of making minor tweaks to the "tried and true". The effort is worth praise, even if I do not find myself at ease with the final product.
The big problem I have with 4th ed is that it really feels more like playing an MMO than traditional D&D. Everything from the game mechanics to the art in the books feels more "World of Warcraft" like and less traditional swords and sorcery.
The biggest game mechanic change, in a nutshell, is that every ability (whether it arises from racial, class, spell, or any other source) is now a "power". When a power is used, the rules describe a mechanism for resolving the power. The rules also describe when the power refreshes and can be used again: either your next action (at-will powers), after resting 5 minutes (encounter powers), or after getting a day's rest (daily powers). The system is designed so that players will tend use a reasonably small list of powers over and over again.
Very streamlined, yes. But also appears very cookie-cutter. The computer game analogy is quite apt here: Imagine playing a game and on your screen is a bar of icons, with one icon for each power at your disposal as well as icons for standard actions (such as attacking or moving.) Each time your turn comes, you choose an icon from the list and click on it to execute the action or use the power. And once the action is resolved, the icon dims out and does not refresh until the action or power can be used again. Alternatively, I could write down each of my powers on a card before a game session and when I use each power, I can "tap" the card (in the MtG sense).
When I play a computer game, I can tolerate an icon bar because computers are stupid and require a large degree of uniformity for resolving game actions. Also, players of a MMO computer game are often treated much more impersonally than players sitting at a common tabletop, where each participant can see the faces and expressions of the others. Given the impersonal nature of an MMO, a uniform system is also helpful to maintain fairness.
But when I play a tabletop game, I don't want a game system that has been so streamlined that it appears impersonal. For all of the faults, inconsistencies, and complexity that is classic Dungeons and Dragons, the rules are presented in a way that highlights the distinctive features of the different classes and races and the player's role in controlling and nurturing a unique, individual being.
Streamlining game mechanics is fine, but not when it takes away from distinction or appears to boil down a player's actions into a list of icons to click, or boils down a player/character's contribution into a role like "leader", "tank", "healer", etc. And in my opinion (and its only my opinion), Fourth edition has taken things down this route.
I am mindful that D&D really isn't a computer game, and the dungeon master is still present and players have as much freedom to control their characters as any tabletop RPG. Thus, my feelings about Fourth Edition are mixed and not completely negative. Given the way that the game system has evolved, I think it is very reasonable to compare the presentation to a MMO, and that is distasteful to me.
Cheers!
Today is the day that Dungeons and Dragons died. This is it. The game system that survived Second Edition, the WOTC purchase, a collectible miniatures game, and not one but TWO horrid movies. I played in some games during beta testing and I can tell you, that as 30 year(well, 29 year if you want to be technical about it) veteran of D&D (ah... the basic box set with the Errol artwork.. classic) as well as countless other games that most of the gamers today have never heard of, I can say that this is the final nail in the coffin for such a beloved game system. Its a good thing that Gary did dye before this came out because he would keel over on the spot if I saw what had become of D&D.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
In Memoriam: Gary Gygax Blizzard Entertainment would like to dedicate the patch in memory of Gary Gygax. His work on D&D was an inspiration to us in many ways and helped spark our passion for creating games of our own. As avid D&D players and fellow game developers, we were all saddened by the news of his passing; we feel we've lost a true adventuring companion. Thanks for everything and farewell, Gary. You will be missed.
Veteran GM?
Is that like a really old Chevy?
(before 1919)
Actually, this is something they run into with each edition. SE is what did it for my group of friends many years ago. They'll get enough younger gamers to hang onto the franchise. Then the next version will come along, those gamers will be grownups, move on, and new ones will come in to replace them.
The great thing about paper role-playing systems is you don't have to run out and buy the latest version. Just find like-minded folks and keep playing by the rules you like for as long as you like and leave the new/stupid stuff for kids who don't know any better.
(emphasis mine)
Why? Why thank you? if you're going to be so turned off playing D&D because english doesn't have a proper gender neutral pronoun maybe move on. you got bigger things to occupy your time like being outraged over the fact that box of raisin bran which only has 1.97 scoops of raisins in it..
I remember Trav when it first came out. The Original one.
I played more Space Opera and MegaTraveller
CLassy, organised and professionally produced. It was amazing compared to the other games out at the time.
Then I wonder if one of the Character Examples is LEROY JEEEEENNNKIIIINS!
...I'd be playing one of them instead of a tabletop RPG that's been warped into playing something like them.
Everything I've seen about this seems like the system is just being loaded down with regressions. My impression from everything I have read of it is that the entire game has shed nearly everything that made it "Advanced" D&D, and now it's just back to plain, vanilla, 1980s D&D (aside from the total combat overhaul). The new alignment system is a direct throwback to the Basic Set era of non-Advanced D&D. The classectomy takes out a lot of the original complicated problem child classes leaving the list far more like the original D&D list of classes (hunt down an original copy of the AD&D 1st Edition rules and take a gander at what used to be required to be a bard, and druids were always a tortured rules situation in the default rules). Even the assumption of miniatures is a total throwback to original D&D (remember, this all started as a fantasy version of a wargame).
I'm just glad I still have my old 2.x Core Rules CD-Rom. That was real Advanced D&D. Yes, there were big problems with it, but the system was impressively modular. You could lop huge chunks of it off, or beat parts you didn't like into a better shape, or attach new rules without needing to rework the entire system. The very first bit of text in the original 2nd Edition PHB was the editor's note telling you, explicitly to get rid of whatever rule in the game that you didn't like, though no one apparently read it, because people acted like the game was a straight-jacket, and bad DMs thought that just because player X bought crazy new supplement Y that it was official, and that they had to allow it in their game, whether it made sense or not.
All they needed to do in 3.x was to make the good changes they did make (get the druid class under control, reform the experience/level system in general, and get rid of racial limits) and explicitly modularize every the system. What they didn't need to do is throw the baby out with the bathwater, but there was such a bad taste in people's mouths from the waning days of pre-WotC D&D, that I guess they felt they needed a wholesale, and obvious change to get people back to the game, and apparently surface regression to 1st edition (bringing back the Barbarian, monk, etc) and making it more super-powery (ie, feats) was the way to do it. Obviously worked well enough, since so many people play 3.x and more power to them. What I don't understand is why they thought a regression to the freaking Basic Set was going to go over well.
I'm just glad I've got my copy of the Core Rules CD-ROM, and some PDFs of the most original RPG campaign settings ever thought up (Planescape, RIP. Dark Sun, why did they revise you? Wither Spelljammer?) and I'll cheerfully ignore all the crappy stuff (remember the "Shaman" supplement anyone?) like people should have done in the first place.
Bah! Real tabletop gamers don't use simplified rule systems and only one die. We want esoteric to-hit tables, armor charts, save modifiers out the ass, and most importantly, lots of dice rolls. When my warrior executes a jumping, 360 degree sword sweep while simultaneously imbibing a potion of gaseous form and making a rude gesture to the Supreme Overlord of the Undead, I expect to feel the beginnings of carpal tunnel!!!
I fling my poo at the d20 system, WoTC, and especially D&D 4E with its new fangled, computer-artsy books and "prestige" classes. No good DM should be letting his players live past level 6 anyway.
A pox on you WoTC!
hiding from the stirges in room 3...
veterans, pfft.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Before reading this review, I was considering picking up the PHB, backporting the Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies rules to 3.5, and continuing on as I always have.
Now I'll definitely be doing that. Video games and role-playing don't mix, and these new rules look even worse about that than I'd feared.
1. The basic philosophy of the game does seem to be "dumbing down" the core mechanics, as opposed to the rules-rich 3.5. While this makes the rules more accessible for the newbies it is also probably easier for the RPGA (the WoTC version of S.P.E.C.T.R.E :P) to build consistent scenarios and manage them at the tournament/global domination level. This RPGA angle is clearly stated in the rules where characteristics cannot be generated randomly for RPGA playable characters. The RPGA is a major growth area for WoTC - oddly enough 4e will probably end up alienating vast swathes of them.
...or is it just cool for the kids...?
2. The players handbook clearly states that one of the core mechanics is that D&D is a game of "exceptions". This means that the various handbooks that you *know* will follow will be less of an optional luxury and more of a necessity. Adding feats, powers, classes and races that will make your character less cookie-cutter. No rule-rewriting just new "bolt ons". Thats also why the content is cut back. Core == Starter Set. Cha-Ching.
3. Is it just me or are there just some odd fantasy "archetypes" in there? Tieflings, Dragonborn and Eladrin - where on Earth does the teleporting Noldor archetype fit into the traditional fantasy mold?
4. I thought the whole alignment stuff in 4e is just a mess - making it simpler made it nonsensical. They should just dump it IMHO (but then I have never been a fan of them in the first place). Why not just say Lolth is Evil rather than enforce it with a game mechanic?
I have no particular axe to grind against 4e - I haven't played it much yet, just read the rules so the jury is still out from my personal point of view. I'm sure its a fine game with slick mechanics and fun (which is the point), but have they thrown out the baby with the bathwater? XP versus Vista anyone?
Fart.
You should check out gametable.
Pros:
- It's FOSS
- Written in java, so it runs on almost any computer
- Can be used for almost any table-top game. (Square or hexagonal grids of any size available, and it doesn't enforce any rule set, though it does handle dice rolls)
Cons:
- 2d graphics (Though this might be better for people with finicky/slow graphics cards)
- No built in VOIP (Does have text chat though)
- DnD rules not built in (Though, as mentioned above, this lets it be used for other games)
I always feel that the slogan "News for nerds, stuff that matters" makes very much sense when reading an article about D&D :)
Anyone who is a fan of any kind of creative work who bothers to read examples from before "their time" will see that derivative genres influence the future development of the genres they sprung from.
Example: Jazz & Rock or Film & Theater.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
If you've been doing something for 19 years, you're a veteran at it by any sane standard. Gaming doesn't work on the seniority system. This is a hobby, not a union payscale.
And frankly, if you've been doing the same thing for 30 years, and all you can do is flaunt close-mindedness on any new ideas and pooh-pooh the experience of anyone who came a few years after you that officially makes you an old fart, not a veteran.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I find it rather strange that in a community so bent on not being mainstream, only the prime mainstream RPG is discussed.
Having played well over 20 RPG systems myself, I can safely say that D&D (no matter which edition) is one of the worst I've ever played. But that's just my impression. From a passionate RPG player, here are some alternatives to D&D Fantasy Roleplay:
Palladium & Rifts
Exalted
Runequest
Harnmaster
GURPS
Torg
If you haven't played at least one of the above besides D&D, you should do it ASAP.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Kind of late to the game...nearly 24 hours after story posting. Was actually running my D&D campaign yesterday so no time for Slasdot.
Up front, I was quite pessimistic about this new edition...and still not sure where my judgment will ultimately fall.
However, after a bit of exposure to the three core books (they're up on bit torrent and better copies on that place that the first rule says you aren't supposed to speak of...). I'm guardedly excited. Enough so that I did allow myself to get caught up in the excitement of release day and picked my copy of the PHB up on the way home from work Friday evening.
The book is quite lovely, and I have to say I'm really happy how clean the print is (I don't own 3.5 edition books, but my third edition ones have a horrid background that obscures the text). The artwork is nice and it's nice to see women adventurers depicted sensibly (no chainmail bikinis).
I'm not versed enough on the rule set yet to say anything other than they look interesting. I could see playing them if I can twist my players arms harshly enough the next time we re-boot and start a new campaign (we are on second edition as of now).
I am not happy with what appears to be very miniature focused tactical rules. However, perhaps ranges of "squares" can be easily converted. My group is darn cheap. We have a small collection of minatures...enough that all the current players have someone to depict their characters and there are some which are fitting enough for a few of the main NPC allies they have. For opponents we actually use hexagon tiles that I pencil something descriptive on...like orc 1, 2, 3...or NPC's names. We don't use a battle mat. I draw a rough map out on a white board laid flat on the table. I also write 'NTS' on my little maps as I have one jerk who will complain that the map is not to scale...
Other than that possible concern about the role of miniatures in the game (and for my group it's more about some players being under financial constraints), the only other things I think that are worth pointing out are:
1. The index (like most RPGs) is not very expansive.
2. There is no appendix of important tables in the read of the PHB. I think that would have been handy to anyone using the book whether a player or the DM.
3. The inclusion of a section detailing a great number of magic items. This was always something left to the DMG. I don't understand why it had to be put into the PHB. I would much more rather have seen those pages utilized with something like an appendix of useful tables, more spells, or, heck, even a more extensive listing along with descriptions of odd ball equipment.
In summary, it looks promising and I'm looking forward to reading through my copy of the PHB in the next couple weeks. I don't know enough yet to recommend the game or not, but I would advise anyone to take a look online for the PDFs and take a gander first. If it looks cool to you then plop down your money and get a copy. (Same as I say to anyone who I tell about a good band...d/l some MP3's, check it out and if you dig it, buy it.
If I wanted to play WoW - I'd play WoW. If I wanted to play D20 WoW - I'd buy the books for it. 4e is WoTC's swan song. TSR gave me 30 good years and like most things after 30 years, one of us had to die of old age.
I am surprised by all of the complaining about how the mechanics of the game are all MMO based and RPG is left to the side.
:)
This is simply not true. My group just gave 4e a shot on Saturday, and I have to say that the general reaction from all 7 of us was that it is a fine gaming system... we still have a lot to learn about it, but it went well....
We also had one of our best ROLEPLAYING sessions to date, and this group has been playing well in this regard for years. We spent TWO HOURS in non-combat situations, talking to the local townsfolk in our starting village and in Winterhaven. We learned a lot, and made a lot of friends in the town through some very savvy roleplaying (and our dwarves still got drunk and made an a** of themselves, but our wizard was savvy enough to make sure the barmaid was aware of the situation before hand...
We had a great mixture of the serious and humorous aspects of the game, from all involved.
The skill checks for diplomacy, and sense motive (insight) and the like were still there (when they needed to be)... all the options are still available, just condensed into more sensible skill check options.
Can you pull off a roleplaying session like that in an MMO? Nope. It's still D&D folks. At it's heart, it is still a roleplaying game. Each group will roleplay to the extent that they want to. It's all in how the DM presents the material and how the players react to that material.
This has ALWAYS been the case, regardless of edition. Roleplaying isn't a rule you can codify and enforce, at least well. It has to come from the players and the DM.
Given the non-combat encounter system, I'd say this version even attempts to encourage this kind of thing, but I can't comment on it because we haven't tried that yet.
We also fought in two encounters (about an hour each) The kobolds were tricky little guys, using their powers to shift all over the board. Even with our numbers, they were a threat, the wizard almost bought it, as did our dwarven fighter, even with healing surges and all the like (btw, you can use second wind only once per encounter... there is still a need for clerics (and warlords), their abilities came in very handy.
Give the game a shot before you poo-poo it. I think it's quite interesting, and is still D&D. THe "powers" format will take a little getting used to, but I think it will ultimately simplify things while still giving characters enough rules-based flavor to allow people to roleplay their characters anyway they want.
Sorry, that doesn't make you a veteran. That makes you "an old-timer." ;-)
I am one myself, but I played D&D only from 3rd to 6th grade, then abandoned it and didn't touch it again until I was in my 30's.
Unless you fought in a war, you're "veterancy" comes much more from your frequency and length of playtime, not your "born on" date.
Having made a 4e character and played through the combat system, and having played and DMed 3.0/3.5 since it was released, I think this is the best way of summing up my thoughts:
4e is like getting a meal at a chain restaurant - it might taste good and always be consistent, but it won't have the unique attributes that can be given by a good cook at home. 3.5e is the home-cooked food - it can be good or bad depending on the cook, but the flavors can vary more widely.
4e thus far is alost cookie-cutter in character generation. All first level characters of a particular class are practically identical. Skill-wize, almost anyone of a given level is identical. At least with the old skills system you could have, say, a specialist in something like knowledge(cartogaphy) or other random skill and were utterly clueless when it came to other skills. This actually came up in a campaign a while back - the party needed to figure out where we were going and make a map, and my wife's character had ranks in knowledge(cartography). This almost dumbfounded the DM, who had not expected that, and the map was created much easier than he expected.
Also, I can't see any reason why a 4e 10th lvl wizard should be better than a lower-level trained fighter at athletic skills. Tying everything to level is just power inflation. Characters with weaknesses are the most fun to play, and no one should be uber at everything.
Being one of the seriously way back original D&Ders and having run conservatively 1000's of RPG gaming sessions of all types and participated in the early playtest/development of GURPS etc. I have some real issues with the 4e PHB. Now I never played 3/3.5e, so I am really looking at this in comparison to 1e/2e "old style" AD&D.
The game mechanics in the PHB are as clear as mud. This is a book only a rules lawyer who enjoys puzzling out the exact meaning of obscure paragraphs of rules text could love. It obviously never got run past anyone outside the design team and highly experienced players. I could never give this book to anyone who doesn't fall into that category and hope to end up with anything but a hopelessly confused player.
I appreciate the thrust of what they were attempting to do with the game mechanics. They may well BE very good game mechanics, though I have a few thoughts about that as well (but not having played they are obviously only first thoughts). Obviously there was a concerted effort to do away with certain confusing and awkward terms and provide more consistent game mechanics. Unfortunately I believe what replaced them is no better and perhaps worse overall. There are other serious flaws as well.
The 1st problem is that the game mechanics and terminology should have been explained in a much clearer and more thorough manner right from the start. Much of what you read is essentially unintelligible at first read due to that lack. A one page description of combat mechanics near the beginning of the PHB that explained turn structure, actions, and movement would have done wonders for clarity. Sadly this is lacking.
Secondly the descriptions of classes leave a LOT to be desired. They are OK from an 'atmosphere' point of view. The text gives a pretty clear idea of what each class is intended to do and what sort of characters would be based on that class. The problem is trying to figure out the abilities your character has is a nightmare. The system for determining what the combination of race/class/build gives you for abilities is terribly disorganized. This aspect would have been 1000% better if only a few charts had been provided.
The selection of powers for the various classes also leaves me feeling quite disappointed. Everything is purely combat-centric. Not only that but 90% of the powers read like infinitesimally minute variations of each other. Clerics have 18 different variations of basically the same thing 'smite the enemy and do extra damage'. Only the most extreme armchair game technicians are going to enjoy attempting to decide between them all. It feels like someone generated a lot of filler by a rather unimaginative process of slightly changing dice rolls, types of saves, etc between what are all essentially the same thing.
Wizards seem to have a slightly better time in this department, though the spell selections are still pretty anemic. It feels to me like the goal was to leave you needing to buy supplements to get some variety.
The whole endlessly detailed subdividing of powers down into various subcategories also seems quite tedious. I can anticipate what will happen if I try to run this. 50% of game time will be burned just trying to explain to the players what choices they have to make and can they use this or that power now or is it used up or etc...
This was compounded by the class descriptions where a class/build abilities choices are described in a fairly muddled fashion. A chart like those in the 1e PHB would have worked a lot better. Often it is not clear at all which powers are 'free', which ones take up slots, and exactly which type of slot they might take up. 1 chart is worth 1000 words...
Overall this feels like a 'dice optimizer' style of game. The player type which will dig it is going to be the one that likes to spend 3 hours figuring out if the power that does +5 damage and gives you an extra saving throw is better than the one that does double damage and 'marks your enemy'. Blech! That sort of gaming i
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
With D&D you had local rules, minor fiddles and twiddles and you used whatever form made sense for the way YOU played.
As a closed source application, you only have the power the program gives you.
Worse, what about ultraportables? Will it be released on N800? After all, these have enough power to help DMing, but no program to do it.
If you had ANY Geek cred at all, especially on slashdot, you would have at least mentioned
Paranoia
So sad.
Yeah, I guess 19 years experience isn't enough to be called a veteran.
My husband is from the same era of D&D gaming as you are claiming for yourself and he loves what he is seeing in the 4e materials (except that the online component is windows onlie - looks like we'll have to load bootcamp).
You might want to wait for the hype to die down and make your own decision on whether it will be worthwhile or not.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
-- I think you'll find that although not "simple arithmetic progression," the saving throw charts followed a consistent progression.
-- As opposed to no or few choices?
-- That's how magic works, duh. It worked for my granddaddy, it worked for my daddy, and it worked for me.
-- Nooo, each spell has its own range/area/duration. You'd find that there are only about 4 different "kinds" of spell range, about 3 different areas of effect and I think 4 durations also, if you looked.
-- That sounds like a bonus.
-- You have a Fighter with less than 12 Constitution? Did you read the rules? Did you understand them?
-- Intuitive I might concede, but it was certainly fixed and consistent. Have you ever heard of a mathematical curve? Doesn't seem like it.
-- This is covered by another poster, but you do know that MR is a VERY rare attribute possessed only by monsters, right?
-- Yeah, it's called a consequence. It was meant to fuck you up & over in order to make the monster feared.
Honestly, it seems like you're whining about the wrong things.
-- I agree that AD&D is probably not my first choice in a gaming system, but people tend to underestimate its strengths and overestimate its flaws.
Pick up a few Level 4-6 modules from Ebay, get your DM to start you as a FIRST LEVEL party, do a test run, then jump into the module. The game is the opposite of fan service.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac