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.
...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.
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...
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.
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'
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
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
( ) 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.
"THAT makes me a veteran"
No, that just makes you old.
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.
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.)
My friend's wife is GM-ing for the first time, having only played two roleplaying games previous to this one. It happens, and it's getting more frequent as nerds are becoming more mainstream.
If a new GM was actually a "her", I'd be shocked.
For what it's worth, my wife had been DMing at gaming conventions for years before I met her.
Strangely, she has a (I say deserved, she disagrees) reputation as a killer DM. I think she can get away with it more than a guy can because of the boobs. Even most socially retarded geeks manage to not throw a tantrum when a cute girl kills them.
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.
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.
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