I’m a long time role player who group up with Dungeons and Dragons as well as a bunch of other RPG systems such as the Palladium family, the Storyteller books and whatnot. When I was younger the Palladium Fantasy universe was our playground. As I got older, I turned more towards Dungeons and Dragons and have enjoyed many hours of playing over the past decade.
Fourth Edition D&D has been out for a bit now and I’m starting to see lots of discussions on why it’s great or why it sucks. So which is it? Is it great or does it suck?
I’ve read through some bits and pieces for the books but due to upgrading from a one kid family to a two kid family I just haven’t had time to really dig into it yet.
I’d love to hear from you all what your thoughts and just as importantly, what your experiences have been with 4.0. If you’ve played it and have some thoughts please feel free to discuss them here (but keep it civil). There has been an interesting discussion going on in an older post about this but I’d like to update it and keep it going here.
I could spend $60 and get the three core books and be off and running – or I could stick with my 3.0/3.5 stuff as well. What, in your opinion, should I do? While I’d love to hear anything you have to say about it, I’m particularily interested in thoughts on the MMORPGifiying of the game (Massive Multiplayer Offline Role Playing Game?), the use of miniatures in 4.0 and thoughts on multi-classing.
A lot of “professional” reviews seem pretty positive about the changes while a lot of player reviews seem to fall somewhere between “eh” to “screeching death”.
So give it to me straight. What do you think of D&D 4e?
Technorati Tags: dungeons and dragons, 4th edition, D&D, wizards of the coast, role playing game, opinions wanted
Popularity: 8% [?]
July 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
It is a good game. Plays very close to computer RPGs. People says it is because they want to make computer adaptations easier, but I disagree. They made the game easier to be played, easier to make a character, easier to survive from bad decisions. I think they are aiming to make the game more dynamic like Marvel Universe was (at least in my 3.5 games, every turn was followed by a half an hour discussion regarding all rules that would, would not, could, could not apply and all variant interpretations if anyone tried anything fancier than swinging a sword).
July 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m curious about this as well. I thumbed through the PHB a while back at Borders and it seems like they’ve taken a lot of the choices away and made character creation more like . . . well a video game.
I haven’t decided yet if this was a good thing or not. I can’t get anyone in my local group to try it out though, as they’re all of the opinion that 4th edition sucks. I’d like to give it a go though and see how it actually plays.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
If you’ve been away from the RPG scene for a while and you’re into computers then this is a definite buy. Get the core books and even if you never buy another book for this edition you’ll always be able to pull these off the shelves and play a game.
My group intends to continue to play 3.5e for at least the next couple of years while 4e matures, but we’ll be playing both. I’ve played 4e and I’ve been involved with the 3.5e living campaigns. I say that $60 is the same cost as a video game these days and for me it’s no question that I’ll get way more play time out of the 4e D&D books than any video game.
Regards,
-Benjamin
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 am
The thing about 4 is that its not a progression, it’s a regression.
D&D was coming a long way in its mechanics (I’m wearing my GM hat now). For example Basic had classes that were a race. “I’m a 4th level elf”!. Advanced fixed some problems, 2nd ed fixed more problems (eg proficiencies aka skills existed). 3rd ed even made it better. All of it was an improvement.
4th ed is not. The idea someone can multiclass is gone. Skills outside that of basic adventuring – gone. The ability to tailore a character through circumstances etc – gone.
The combat leaves me cold. The change in ‘squares’ instead of ‘feet’ crps me off big time. It’s basically embracing the idea of the tabletop environment for combat. 99% of games I’ve played we didn’t use figs. Now … well … it seems a given.
They’ve designed the game around the idea you have to pay US$10 a month to access new rules. I bet that’s where we see Monk and Druid come up.
I’m all for streamlining and simplicity in combat. But they’ve made it far more complex with all the powers this and that that can be used. Vancian magic is effectively adios despite the fact that it has been accepted and embraced by many since inception.
No rolling for your own saves? That’s a core part of table fun. That’s gone. And the backwards compatability issue is exceptionally tragic. Basic – AD&D – 2nd Ed – to 3rd ed. It was still basically the same game.
4th ed. Well, the stats are the same. But level based magic is gone – it’s all class based now. Variety is gone. Playing a wizard and judging carefully what spells to learn for the day. That’s all gone. It’s basically the PS2 version of D&D instead of the game I know, embrace, and loved.
Final verdict? The 4th Edition D&D is absolutely WORTHLESS.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I’ve posted on this a few times before but like all the old school DM’s i like to make sure I’m heard so here’s me again. The original few version of D&D were the basic skeleton of the idea Gary had for the game. 2nd ed came out and filled in a lot of things but left a lot of the very specifics of the rules completely untouched It was in essence the framework but not a lot of the frills. This was why so many of us who played 2nd ed for any large amount of time had a tough time adjusting to 3rd ed, 3rd and later 3.5 didn’t take the same path, 3.0 but 3.5 more specifically was more like a completely build house. It didn’t have just the framework it came with all the frills, fancy little light switches and all. The problem we had switching from 2.0 wasn’t that it was new it was that it took much of the open space that we considered ours to innovate and make up what we wanted away. In 3.5 you can’t say take out, “Movement” or you’ll tear everything apart. I often explained to new players that 3.5 was like a spiderweb with all the rules interconnected and you can’t go taking out one rule without causing the whole web to fall apart under you. If you do choose to remove 1 or 2 rules you have to do so with great consideration to the impact on the entire game. So for those of you who grew up on 3.5 and are saying that people who dislike 4th ed is because no one likes change just like when 3.0 came out your wrong. Those are the main reasons many of us had problems with 3.0 but we learned that 3.0 and 3.5 were build to assist us no limit us, they had all the basics covered and it was still as complicated as was necessary to make it as close to the physics of our world ((magic not withstanding)).
Our problem with 4th ed isn’t that it is new and we is scared of new stuff boss. It is that we are insulted that after 30 years of going from installing a foundation, then putting up a framework and then finally completing this wonderfully large and awesome mansion. We see all this work and hear about 4th ed we expected them to bring us an extra wing on our house we all had a great time building and instead they bulldozed our mansion and brought in a sandbox for slow people to play in. The same people who were always standing outside our mansion because they couldn’t figure out how to work the incredibly complicated lock we installed to keep idiots out. That is our problem with 4th ed so please don’t further insult us by suggesting we is just skerd of da new stuff boss.
Really fast, if you like 4th ed because “its not as complicated” you are the people we always tried to keep out because your not smart enough to understand 3.5 thats why you have to have people looking up how to grapple every time you play. I’m not being insulting just honest. Sorry reality bites.
So enjoy your sandbox special kids, we’ll be over here on our own playing in what is left of our mansion.
DMdomination
July 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
DMdomination:
I wouldn’t go quite that far, though I do agree with a lot of what you said. It’s not so much that they bulldozed our mansion at fourth edition. In reality, the house was built by 2e, if not at 1e. It just wasn’t fancy. There was a lot you had to bring into the house in order for you to feel like it was home. It was an unfurnished house. When the 3e house was built, it was much bigger, with lots of open space, and came completely furnished. Of course, you could always throw out the furniture and get new stuff.
4e is like the 3e house, with a massive sandbox (for your idiots), and all the furniture is nailed down tight and covered with plastic. You could remove stuff from 3e, with a bit of work (some of the furniture was quite large and heavy), but in 4e, I can’t see how you’d remove most of it at all.
And yes, I do agree that the complex lock isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When things become mainstream, and I mean really mainstream, they lose all sense of flavor and originality, which is what’s happening. AD&D wasn’t mainstream. Very few people played it, very few people liked it. It had a stigma about being for devil worshipers, sinners, blah blah blah. (I was in elemenary school at the time, and the punching bag for quite a few Christian zealots.) Even with 2e, after TSR removed all references to devils and demons, it still carried this horrible stigma, and kept a lot of close minded people out of the game. And that was fine by me. When 3e rolled around, and they removed a lot of what I had come to know and love, I felt like that lock became far less complex. They opened the door for more close minded people to come in, and rip up the place, the whole while not really understanding or caring that it was someone else’s house. (I’m referring to power gamers with cocktail characters, hundreds of books adding BS classes and races, etc.)
With 4e, there’s at least a bouncer at the door, to try and keep those ruffians out, but with everything so heavily guarded and protected, I can’t help but feel insulted. The character classes (and in fact the characters) have gone from being tadpoles to masters of their trade at level 1. There’s not much sense that your characters are or have been young and inexperienced. There’s no sense of mortality in the game, nor has there really been any since 3e and the days of 2 hour character generation. It’s a fluffy, feel good version of itself, which is absolutely stunning for new players. You get to play a game that’s renowned for being hated by people for being dark, insidious, and violent without ever really stepping into the dark, insidious, or violent.
That’s where I have a problem with it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
Interesting points there, though I think you really go overboard, DMdomination. The idea that Complex = Smart is a poor argument. Having more people play our hobby is only a good thing. The larger the pool of money, the heavier the investment the more options. It doesn’t mean you absolutly HAVE to play with those people, you still have a group in front of you.
Making things needlessly complex (like item saving throws on a 1) doesn’t make the came more fun, it makes it tedious. Yeah I’m a DM and I know an unholy number of rules going all the way back to when an assassin rolled % to kill someone.
To me the D&D experience is about fun and enjoyment. Does 4th edition have flaws? Yes, as it stands now I can’t DM it, because it has none of the rules I require for making a world. The fact that they took out all abilitiy to build anything (introduced with NWP long ago) is weak. I want skills around Boatbuilding and Candlecrafting, if only so I can build believable NPC’s. Right now nothing exists in the rules for me to make one, are they all Minion’s?
Also the idea of too many “closed minded” people coming in to our game is funny. Can you even see the irony of saying, “Too many closed minded people are coming in to our game, we should keep them out”? It’s hillarious to say that man.
Flavor of a campaign is still the purvue of the DM. I run games with splat books, I run them with Core Only. The heaviness of Combat Vs. Role-Play is a DM related issue, not a Rules related issue.
Finally 4th edition has created some things I do like. For 1 taking away the mad-cap multiclassing that was 3rd edition actually TAKES AWAY from the power gamers. It forces balance by limiting choices. The sheer volume of classes in 3.5 were what killed it. Just like Kit’s killed 2nd Ed. 4th edition also introduced Skill based encounters in a complex variety. Including how to use History and Diplomacy to run one. Something no one has introduced before. They have pages on how to run role-play encounters, I personally think that’s a great step.
Also I like the idea of Saving throws being Defensive. Now you always roll offensively, and never roll defensively. It’s easier to keep track of what you are doing with consistency.
And as for this…
“Really fast, if you like 4th ed because “its not as complicated” you are the people we always tried to keep out because your not smart enough to understand 3.5 thats why you have to have people looking up how to grapple every time you play. I’m not being insulting just honest. Sorry reality bites.”
That’s absolute bullshit. Needless complexity is not the place that intelligent people hang out. Things should be as complex as they have to be. Making things difficult to “keep out the riff-raff” is the kind of elitist bullshit that people throw around to protect their own ego. Try embracing people instead of saying, “you’re too stupid to play with me.”. How about introducing them to the game and teaching them to play?
July 29th, 2008 at 12:09 am
I haven’t played D&D for 20 years, I miss it terribly. I’ve recently decided to try to start up again; I’m waiting until I find a group to decide what to study v3.5 or v4. In searching the web I’ve read allot on peoples opinion on which version is better. Reading Domination’s post really struck a chord with me. When I was gaming regularly, we as a group stood for something. If you wanted to come and use your imagination to assist in the creation of a unique world, you were alright by us. What separated “us” as gamers wasn’t rules (Hell in first addition we made our own rules half the time) or intellect, it was the willingness to become a co-creator of a story and to help make it real. Honestly, I fear that Domination has issues that haven’t been resolved and has allowed the bullies in his past turn him into one of their own. Sorry not to add to the conversation on which set of rules is better – but I felt compelled to say something.
Phaedrus you’re the kind of DM I would want to role-play with.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:54 am
I nabbed all three core books a little while ago. You can find a lot to complain about, especially if you compare it to 3rd edition, but the same basic complaints were raised when 3rd was released and compared to 2nd edition. You’re going to hear a lot of, “they dumbed down this” or “that was my favorite race/class/spell and it’s gone/fubar”.
In my opinion, it’s best to ignore this stuff and take the game in its own context, in which it has a lot going for it. Engaging and varied gameplay no matter what you class – no “crap guys I’m out of spells, I’ll be in the corner” or “yeah.. I’m a fighter, I swing my sword AGAIN”.
I’ll hold off my final judgement until I actually have a chance to play and/or run a few sessions, but I am not disappointed in general.
July 29th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Again, a long time gamer here.
The biggest change for me in 4.0 is the empahsis on combat, and strategy within combat. D&d spawned video games, and as a book is to a movie, the video game had to drop certain things to make it viable. D&d is now becoming more video gamish, and is catering to that wider audience.
For me, it seems heavily combat oriented. Skills and powers focus on it. The variety in combat people talk about will now shift from, “I use this sword”, to “I use this power, then that power”. Less on rp’ing. But for me, if I want a serious strategy game, I’ll play a wargame, or video game. Having d&d fill that role won’t cut it for me. So I’ll be sticking with 3.5, which is the extent that I’m willing to deviate from the original.
Yes, you can rp around 4.0, but it’s going to take more effort. Tieflings and dragonborn? As PCs? Sure, but there was at least social issues to deal with. But core pc’s? That’s power gaming. No rp’ing is behind tieflings being evil spawn, or any social ills that were around before, just, oh, that’s a tiefling. No gnomes? Not enough power, so out it goes… and so forth.
Just my two cents
July 30th, 2008 at 10:36 am
My group has started playing 4ed (coming from 3ed, skipping 3.5) and so far we’re enjoying it quite a bit. The biggest “complaint” (if you can call it that) is the virtual requirement of miniature/tabletop combat. Personally, I don’t mind, since a part of the D&D RPG experience was painting a figure to represent my character. I’m just hoping that such figures can still be found, as I am not a fan of the pre-painted plastic variety that are being spewed forth in the market now.
With regards to the game itself, it DOES make combat more strategic. The monsters themselves have various “roles”, in the same way as the various character classes do. Learning the monster’s abilities makes combat far more “interesting”, especially when you introduce the idea of “bosses”. Yes, to many, this is more like a video game, but many aspects and/or powers would not be easily reproduced in a video game setting.
As far as the role-playing aspect goes – to me, that is game independent. All that you really need is a creative DM, and players who are willing to work at generating the story together, come up with interesting backgrounds for their characters that a good DM can merge into any campaign – regardless of role-playing system.
I have no doubt that many of the things that people believe have been “dropped out” will appear in future player’s handbooks (Wizards has clearly indicated their plans for coming out with additional PHBs), which will likely include old races and classes (gnomes, half-orc, druids, barbarian, bards, etc.) Maybe they are all planned, or maybe Wizards is scouring postings like this to see what people want that they feel is missing…
I’m looking forward to seeing how my character develops and to see how things work at the higher levels of power. Hopefully Wizards will be able to publish some good quality modules at various levels of play, for those players who do not have time to fully develop worlds from scratch, and to provide “templates” for those players who do.
So far, I find it much better than previous versions, as combat appears to be equally suitable for everyone at all times, and executes relatively quickly.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
My personal preference is for the role-playing and less for the tactical combat. By this, my preference of DnD flavors was Advanced 2nd edition (but truly I’m a Palladium child). I think that 4th ed probably isn’t far off from what Gary’s will would be, though. DnD originally developed from a table top miniture’s rule set “Chainmail”. Sadly I’m not old enough to have purchased Chainmail, but I still have my Advanced 1st edition PHB. DnD 4ed really brings DnD back to its roots, but I think it looses a bit of soul.
To note, my current group is playing 3.5 (this is my second 3.5 group, so its still somewhat new to me), and I’m starting my first 3.5 campaign as DM this week. I’m going to try to focus the game less on the tactical and more on the character development. I’m hoping these tactical miniatures players will enjoy it, and that the new focus won’t be as ackward as the Mechwarrior adaptation to Battletech! Wish me luck!
August 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Personally, I’ve been very disappointed with the release of version 4. As a player of versions 2, 3, and 3.5, I’ve had a fair amount of experience with the various rulesets. When I purchased 4th edition, I thought I was getting a new version of the game that would only build on the previous game that I had grown to love.
I was dead wrong. 4th edition did eliminate much of the confusion of 3.5, streamlining abilities, skills, and equipment, making character creation much easier and playing the game simpler. However, I feel like the game has abondoned me. With the new ruleset, roleplaying has just about stepped out of the picture. Much of the content in the way of classes and races that appeared in 3.5 is nowhere to be seen in 4, suggesting a new release and yet another book to purchase. The dungeon master’s guide stresses less how to create a campaign world and more on how to run published adventures. The game is almost impossible to play without minatures, and anyone who played with the plethora of options in 3 and 3.5 is well aware that 4 caters more towards hack-and-slash power gamers instead of roleplayers. I could go on, but that’s not to say that earlier versions didn’t have their own issues and bugs.
For all its simplified glitz, the feeling that used to be behind the D and D ruleset is gone. With material that echoes Harry Potter, Magic the Gathering, and video games like World of Warcraft, it seems to me that the creators have abandoned the roleplayers to sell their wares to the next generation, who seem to know little of true fantasy or roleplaying. The old tales of epic fantasy are dead. As a player and dungeon master that continues to play 3.5, I’d say 4th edition made a mistake at the heart.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Been playing almost 20 years. Personally I don’t like fourth edition. I liked every edition and think they all had there ups and downs. Played 3.5 and loved it, thought the hit points was too much at high level and playing over 15th level was too much. Fourth edition was too much of a disappointment. The magic system wasn’t entertaining for us. We didn’t like the change in Saving Throws. The spells didn’t have flavor for us. All the attacks seemed very similar. The game seemed too centered around hit points for us. We didn’t mind save or die effects in game. We’re actually back to playing second edition and Basic D&D from the Rules Cyclopedia. All in all we were very disappointed. But we have all the books up through 3.5 so hope the new kids like fourth.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
It seems that most everyone that’s posted here has some gripe with 4.0 taking a dump on their 3.5 lawn. I’ve been playing since just before 3.0 came out and I enjoyed 3.5 quite a bit… at first. The endless multi classing and character over-optimizing got way out of hand. There was just too many choices for everyone and it drove many people to power gaming.
A lot of what I’ve read is blandly “I’ve been playing for like forever and this is just… well… I’m very disappointed” Disappointed in WHAT?? I’m not trying to defend 4.0, I’m just trying to clarify what’s truly missing. Personally I miss the massive skill list (then again i usually played a rogue), but most people got very few skills and/or points to put into them. So, to make everyone happy they just chopped that up. I’m a little sore on that but truly if you want to go with the old style, just do it. It’s not a truly integral part of the game so replacing it with 3.5 equivalents isn’t too painful.
Spells were another problem with 3.5. A 15th level wizard had just shy of an encyclopedia’s worth of spells to choose from. Now they have a very limited choice but a solid number of rituals. The fact that anyone can pick up ritual casting and start pumping out spells makes anyone who has the appropriate skill can cast most 3.5 non-combat spells (if you want to do some work).
All in all, 4.0 is Very new, and won’t be what most people want it to be for likely a few years (or v4.5). But some of it’s defining traits are that it’s very malleable, if you don’t like something you can generally work around it. Hopefully in time it will get back the “soul” of what DnD had in 3.5 with a stronger foundation to work with.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
While we can all argue about the strong points and weak points of this new system I think most will agree that it is simpler than the 3.5ed. Some call it streamlined but for me it it akin to remove a chess game and replace it with tic tac toe and call it chess 2.0 (or rather 4.0).
From a buisness standpoint it might make sense. But for someone who isn’t 14 and don’t play more than a few times per month it’s just a very slow MMORPG.
Of course, you can always play around it’s weaknesses, it is a roleplaying game. But if you aren’t going to use the system and it’s uncannily figuregamelike mechanics then buy another RPG. There are several that solves easy to grasp gameplay better and there are lots that offer more variety.
But if you want to play a lvl 4 dwarf or a lvl 3 Dragonborn go ahead. (notice.. classes and races can’t be combined in any but few predetermined ways if you want to have any chance of interacting with opponents with other words than “I missed”)
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
I was thinking about it some more. This is just what Wizards wants.
Think of Shigeru Miyamoto’s example. Take a niche market, like console video games. Let’s say the available market is around 10% of the total population. Microsoft and Sony are fighting each other for that 10%. Nintendo, instead of making their game system more powerful, they made it more accessible. This opens to them and additional 70% or so of the market (i.e. my wife wouldn’t touch any of my consoles until I got a DS, and now she won’t put it down). A better niche system could at best gain them the full 10% of the niche, but a more accessible system is worth far more.
Wizards is simplifying (somewhat degeekifying) DnD to expand their available market. I’m probably not going to play DnD 4.0 anymore than the once I’ve touched it. I love detail, detail in rules, detail in descriptions, detail in pre-existing options. I want to learn about the world and discover how it works. 4.0 doesn’t offer anything for my imagination to bite onto, it feels like trying to put a screw through steel with a hand drill. I think 4.0 will serve Wizards well, but its just not for me. Anyone up for some Palladium?
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Eric, you bring up some good points.
On the Palladium subject – we recently went back to the original Palladium fantasy RPG. This was our lifeblood during a years long campaign throughout high school.
On returning to it, the system felt very clunky and munchkinized. Even with some of our house rules. The new Palladium was even worse. It’s too bad, because I had very fond memories of the system. I think if I ever get the time to really role play again, it’s going to have to be a totally new game.
Ben
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
It’s funny you say that. I tried to teach Palladium to my 3.5 group and it didn’t take for them at all. The whole parrying, dodging, saving throw for poison (or wait is it saving throw for drugs this time) really confused them. I think my fond memories of it are more because we played it all the time and understood it. After 8 years of not playing it it did feel clunky.
It has somethings I wish were better in DnD though. I like the method of the defender getting an attempt to block. It helps define whether you were hit and it deflected or if your character’s skill with parrying stopped it. I like Palladiums alignment system better. I like Palladiums Magic system better. In fact, I think individually, save a couple rediculous or hard to understand components, I like each better than DnD. It can, however, be overwhelming to take it all in at once.
I’ve actually recently have had a similar experience with trying to pick up Earthdawn again, but the stupid staging system really made me angry. I don’t remember it every angering me before. Am I just stupider now? Out of touch? I wonder if DnD 2e will feel the same way to me. Maybe we’ve been culturized to 3.5 and gone to a place from which we can never go back.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
DMPhaedrus said:
“4th edition also introduced Skill based encounters in a complex variety. Including how to use History and Diplomacy to run one. Something no one has introduced before. They have pages on how to run role-play encounters, I personally think that’s a great step.”
A great step? Being told how to run role-play encounters, and which dice to roll?
If you consider that role-playing, then maybe 4th Edition is the right game for you.
Jeremy said:
“When things become mainstream, and I mean really mainstream, they lose all sense of flavor and originality, which is what’s happening.”
DMPhaedrus responds:
“Having more people play our hobby is only a good thing. The larger the pool of money, the heavier the investment the more options. It doesn’t mean you absolutly HAVE to play with those people, you still have a group in front of you.”
Phaedrus, meet Reality. Reality, Phaedrus.
See, when you take a product that’s traditionally a niche-market product, and you water it down to make it more mainstream, and attract more and different customers, you alienate your original core customer base. Existing customer base + new customers – old customers = Not necessarily “more” customers. When you purposely tailor the game to attract a group of people with a short attention span (the MMORPG/Video Game crowd), and you’ve gotten rid of your long-time customers who have proven to have a long attention span and stick with you, you’re killing your product.
Welcome to the end of D&D, and a new dark age for all RPGs. D&D has long been the springboard into other RPGs. Without “the big guy” to attract everyone, less people are going to join the hobby.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Brian,
Though I share your sentiment I think your summary may be a little melodramatic (which is great for role-playing!). Although, I think you’re right about having too many rules; it removes some role-playing aspects sometimes. However, 4th edition isn’t new to using non-combat scenarios. L5R is a highly diplomacy/culture/tradition based game that relies on skills like ‘sincerity’ to bridge the gap between who the player is, and who his character is [beyond that, virtually and LARP game]. Some L5R encounters equate to two samurai out speaking each other. I don’t think this within itself destroys the game, but if the rules become to constraining, I agree with you, the GM needs to act.
You’re technically right that the count of $ coming from new customers doesn’t necessarily out-count the money from old customers. At my work-place (a 250 year old non-profit) we’re going through a tough time of adjustment, and it feels like management is cold to our business purpose. Sometimes they seem to speak only in money and numbers of people counted, but not to the spirit of the organization. I don’t think this trend in business is unique to my work-place. The reality is, speaking strictly in terms of dollars generally make companies more money than speaking in terms of spirit. The one’s they lose due to loss of spirit will be more than made up for in other products. If Wizards kills D&D, they’ll sell it or bury it and move on to something else (like a mana-based collectable pog fighting game based on Hannah Montana characters [thats what money looks like]). They don’t care, and caring doesn’t make their shareholders money.
So I believe your conclusion that it may be the death throws of D&D may be correct, but this test of it is inevitable. I severely doubt that table-top role playing gaming will be maintained in its current form beyond our children’s deaths of old age. It will become something else. In the meantime though I’ll be rolling my dice behind a shadowrun game screen.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I agree with you all.. every one of you. I love AD&D dearly, nostalgically and recently even more. Dungeons and Dragons had a profound impact on my psyche as an adolescent, and gave me a foundation of knowledge which I have nothing but respect for. I still find it useful today. D&D taught me about the world, other cultures, weapons, history, religions, social / professional skill and crafts while I was a poor, shy boy in small town wisconsin.
The second edition (AD&D) core set was easy to learn and really was a guideline for Role Playing. Except for the first few times I played in high-school I have always been a DM and GM for other games. I guess I should admit that I enjoy being a god and having ultimate control.. cathartic to some, psychotic to others. Regardless, life got to be busy and I stopped playing in college. Over 20 years later… watching my nephew being frustrated in my home town, I decided to play with him. It was great and in the end I gave him almost all my D&D stuff.. books, magazines, and modules galore. Alas…he now plays video games instead, but it did bring me back to a part of my own soul I had forgotten about. I play video games as well, but they don’t seem to touch something that satisfies real escapism. I find video games to limiting.
I recently started to play D&D with some friends… now that we are older and have decided relaxation is more important than work. Two years ago I was given the v3.5 edition as a gift. At first I LOVED it, was excited about it… until I tried to introduce to my new players and found how difficult and complex it was. V3.5 really was a compilation of the amazing volume of AD&D materials people like us have created over the years. V3.5 only works well for those like me, that knew the AD&D rules, monsters, and spells by heart. The books are way too complicated for new players. Still we played on.. I re-made the character sheets four times to make it easier, but nothing worked better. The five of us spent more time figuring out what they could do, than role playing OR rolling dice for combat. So far, they have actually enjoyed it and we have played quite a few more times.
And yet… I was hoping v4 would be a relief for them.. I ordered it before it came out. My first thought was… YES!! this will be great!!” Then after I read it I thoroughly my excitement turn into… “Man this really sucks!” There are things about V4 that I do love… the powers and rituals and great… the Skill challenges are great… the simplified way to generate a character is great. BUT over all I agree v4 has no soul… all rules not really guidelines. It is a drastic and unappealing change from AD&D… so much so that I don’t want to play it, even if it is easier for new players. It does not seem easier for an experienced and imaginative DM to have so many restrictions and… i believe… more math and set up work than role-playing and story telling. Another complaint of mine from v3.5 and the d20 rules.
I honestly do not like figuring out the Difficulty Level for every little thing… but i also found the THAC0 and charts just as obnoxious. But the glory of growing up with v2 D&D.. is that my imagination is stronger than the rule books no matter what version, no matter what changes are made. I have always found a way around them.. and I am always elected to be DM because I like it when the players and I tell a story together. V4 won’t stop me from enjoyment, but I do feel v4 caters too much to the video culture.
D&D is not dead, nor is it dying… this is an opportunity for those of us still in love with it to move in and make it what we need it to be… it is up to us to bring in the soul. I am a part time database designer, so I have started to pull the best from each edition… and what a beautiful assortment of ideas we have to pull from. I am not sure what my end database product will be… but I know it will be fun for me and my friends to play. My goal is an easier, healthier someplace between a video game and role-playing. Even if D&D stop being updated; stops being made… people still want to act out fantasy and still dream of magic and swords. That is D&D… we are D&D (to sound profound)… not the rule books or the guys in suits trying to earn money for their investors.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:01 am
I didn’t read all of these posts, but I did get far enough to say that if you have to look up a rule like grappling after a few sessions of play then sorry to say I don’t think I could sit at a table for several hours. I agree that “efficiency,” AND “complexity” is the hallmark of intelligence. People seem to confuse complexity with just “really hard” or as some sort of labyrinth of rules. Complexity has to do with intricacy; the complexity of the game did make it better because for those that can handle it, it offered more options. However, there are signatures things that make dnd and I think to just cut whole corners out makes it not that game and does take away from the game. It is for babies, and I can not see myself playing with demographic 4e is meant to reach out to. The kiddy style magic system is something else to gripe about; thought went into what you memorized, you could almost put yourself in your wizards robe as you carefully selected which spells to memorize according to what encounters you expected. Having all those sheets of paper and such. I hate how people see this as negative, because it requires more THINKING and more INTEGRITY. You have to KNOW what you are doing and if you do not have the competency to manage a simple dnd spell list for a 15th level character than I am sorry to say I also CANNOT sit at a table with you. I threw challenges all the time that required real thought, and I need intelligent people that can think on their toes and get their shit together rather than have it all packaged for them. And I am not an elitist of some sort; hey I got my drinking buddies and I got my dnd buddies and I love em both. But some of those drinkers I could not sit at a gaming table with and hold their hand forever. DnD had its “niche” so to say, and there were plenty of other fluffy RPG’s out there but THIS IS DND DAMNIT! I felt sorry for people when i was in college who had to memorize all these stupid mneumonics with the simplest concepts in calculus and those pathetic silly general science classes because the shit was so easy. Again, dnd – game for people who can get their shit together.
October 21st, 2008 at 3:27 am
ive been playing 4.0 since came out im not a big fan of the version it is very simplified to were anyone could play the game it is also made that anyone could be a dm and the dm guide if your not going to dm is pointless to buy because all the magic items are in the players its kind of nicer the dm guide is just that the dms guide. it might get better for me atleast with the additon of the druid but not sure. i dont like that there realy arnt any spells there more just abiltys basicly its pretty much just me cuse the other 5 people that i play with like the version alot better i have notice thow that there is almost no arguing after battles wich is very nice one of the guys in my group has told me the only thing he hates about 4.0 is the selling and making iteams
October 21st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Personally there are things about 4.0 I do like. However, being a firm believer in the flexibility and creativity of 3.5, and the original rule that i believe will always be implemented, ” DM makes the final decision”, should dictate this game. What stops you from making your own remake of 4.0 with all the other rules and calling it your own game, use the basic 4.0 for basic players, for those who liked the mansion, go build your own, they have supplied you with years of lumber, think of this as the new material, like carbon fiber, use whats good and throw out whats useless…I’ve done it for years, allowing character to be super complicated with equal ability to their drawbacks, or simple characters, and being able to play together efficiently. this game just help bring in those who where too ADD to play before that may have had the potential to be great DM’s…why be shuttered by rules, its your game…if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be pen and paper…
October 26th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I was excited about 4e. When I saw the core rule books at Boarders, I instantly snatched them up without hearing any feedback whatsoever. I was very eager to see how they fixed the mass amounts of screwups in 3.5
I got home and cracked open the phb. OMG! I ran frantically to the dmg looking for safety in DnD but it only confirmed my worst nightmares. WotC has succeeded in taking the rp out of rpgs. I knew it would happen. I predicted that would happen 11 years ago when TSR was bought out.
I loathe 4e, to put it mildly. There are many reasons, most of which have been stated either on this thread or this thread’s predecessor. However, my biggest grip is how everything is measured in squares. Yes, all of us can do simply mathematics to convert it back to feet. But that’s not the point. The point is “The ghouls up ahead are about 20 squares away” is completely unrealistic! I may be wrong, but I firmly believe the purpose of an “RPG” is to… role-play. Hence the name! It is impossible to role-play and talk of distance in terms of squares at the same time.
Overall, everything in 4e just smacks of cheap game development with the sole purpose to make money and to hell with the standard of the game or it’s loyal fan base. I’m seriously considering burning my 4e core rule books. The only reason I haven’t yet is because I like having proof of how phenomenally horrible it is.
Here’s an ironic quote from the VP of WotC concerning why TSR collapsed:
“…a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy.”
My only hope is that WotC has the same results.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
ive played my first game in 1980.This the worst thing to come along in dnd for 30 years.Enough said no use repeating what you have already have said.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Look, I really don’t understand how anyone can say, “They took the Role-Play out of RPG”… Honestly, we as players and DMs are the ones who decide how much RP actually happens…
I would simply like someone to explain what they mean when they make a complaint… Because you can NOT take the RP out of RPG unless the players all decide to sit around a table, mouths open while they role dice with spacey looks on their faces… REAL gamers will game reguardless of what rules are there. I have recently played my first 4.0 experience, and yeah, I didn’t like some things, but the core idea that me and a bunch of friends are getting together to create unique story characters while someone guides us along a story that is ENTIRELY open to what the players decide to do, has not changed a bit.
The RP is what YOU as players make it.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Right, I’ve taken a peek into the 4.0, mostly because I heard character creation was simpler, and because 2 of my current players are complete n00bs at the game, and honestly, I’ve gotten tired of the first gaming session taking up an hour of playing, proceeded by 30 minutes of Monty Python quotes and 3 hours of character creation paperwork.
–
Sure enough, simple, unfortunately, also extremely limiting: Seriously, removing multi-classing? Yes I know it gets abused, just like every thing in the game is at one point or another. That is one reason why the DM is a “referee” as well, that’s why they get to say “No, that’s just ridiculous and damaging to the game” or my personal favorite “Fine… If you can justify it in your backstory during creation or find a way to roleplay it out.”
Because honestly, I see no reason why a Wizard/Sorcerer can’t pick up a level of Bard, say, under the explaination that s/he had to sell her paltry magic as an act in order to pay for further lessons from a more experienced user, and magic componants and materials for thier spells, for example.
–
I also enjoyed the concept of “action points” to give characters a boost when they really need it to appear heroic, or lucky, blessed, or just scathe by when I accidentally make a challenge too hard, or success is paramount.
Because normally I do something similar anyways as a house rule, a single guaranteed 20 roll, per character, per session. I find it stops characters from dying in stupid ways, and gives them that extra boost, normally explained through a god’s blessings, or the such, while at the same time adding a little extra tactics, because it’s only usuable once, and timing is everything, since it’s a gamble everytime, they only use it to succeed if it is of the utmost importance. And personally I don’t find it ruins the game, because it’s about the roleplaying, the group fantasy novel style, and hero’s don’t die, at least not without a heroic effort before hand.
–
It pretty much goes like through my whole experience, I like some features, but the tradeoff they offer isn’t worth it.
Yes, simple, clean, efficient is good.
Limiting to character design, skills and so on, is not.
Because yes, you can create new classes, new skills, which is more work on one hand anyways, but not everyone is super imaginative, and also, a reminder that “Knowledge: History” is an available skill and “A Druid/Barbarian mix (nature priest with a bad temper, raging wild shape anyone?) might spark some creativity in character development and creation itself: which makes for better games.
Because a 10th level Human Barbarian, is rarely as interesting as a Half-Orc Bard 4/Ranger 6 who travels the wilderness (since he isn’t popular in most lands anyways, and prefers a more natural life) and just plays it small fringe towns to make some cash for necessities and road-toll payments.
–
Overall, I’d say 4th edition isn’t worth it, the limits on possibilities far outweigh the gains in playing time.
I could go on about the things I liked and didn’t, but I’ve outlined my most important issues with it in detail.
I’d rather take 3 hours to make 4 fun, unique, and interesting character archetypes, (with a moderately detailed backstory) than 3 hours of arguing about why “My character can’t be a Fighter/Rogue? Why not, he’s a highway robber thug after all! Because as an ex-soldier whose nation lost the last war and they had no resouces to provide their veterans with homes, and he choose to rob the enemy immigrants for years afterword as a matter of principle, although, he’s learnt to use less than scruptulous tactics.”
4th Edition isn’t worth it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“No, sir, I don’t like it.”
Qualifications: I have TONS of experience in all levels and types of RPGs. They were my lifeblood growing up. They are my life now, and will continue to be. I still have my oroginal copy of Chainmail in its foil cover with black comb binding and extremely brittle yellow pages. Anyone else remember “Melee” with the maps and little dense paper chits? D&D, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and (shudder) GURPS, and a lot of the “other” titles, along with plenty of the obscure RPGs (Immortal, Chill). Fantasy video games from Questron and Ultima (when they were black and white backgrounds with sprites) to massive amounts of my life spent on Everquest, WoW and Warhammer. Tabletop games – WH and WH40K (okay, its not fantasy, but). Heroquest, Confrontation. (I stayed away from the card type games. They did nothing for me). I could go on wiht all the games/systems/types I’ve played. And funny thing is, I love them all, as each one is very different in its aspect of play.
So I’ve done PnP, VG and tabletop miniatures, etcetera, etcetera…
And I reiterate “no, sir, I don’t like it.”
Along with many of the shortcomings I see above (catering to the new generation of instant gratification hack-n-slash ADD kids being my largest gripe), I think this one fails as both an RPG or a miniature game, as there are already incarnations out there which are far better for its niche. The only thing this HAD going for it was the D&D stamp but I think those true to the heart of the D&D system are smart enough to see this new “thing” for the worthless excrement it is. This was a ploy to make as much money as possible by creating something that was so utterly different from the brand (but not so different from the MMO’s) and to make it non retro-compatible with the previous incarnations.
For those who say that the crux of the system is combat and experience from battle: There have been times when we’ve role-played and not touched a single die the entire evening and yet… we made enough experience to level! How could that be? Because we had a good DM who rewarded us for role-playing instead of just roll-playing. It never HAD to be about combat alone.
For the person/people (and it might have been in another thread on this site) who said it doesn’t effect us who play and support 3.x, then don’t buy it. That isn’t the case. WotC will try to run with this failing turd and spend their efforts supporting it while 3.x lingers to its untimely demise. But… we won’t allow that to happen, will we?
Boycott. Now. Let us write to WotC with our dissatisfaction.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
While I haven’t played too much 4.0, I did read through a lot of the players core book and some of the other 2 core books. I have only been playing D&D for about 13 years, using a very heavily modified AD&D then switching to 3.0 and later 3.5. I did primarily DMing, though being a PC was always what I preferred.
While I stopped playing 4.0 pretty quickly, there were some redeemable qualities. Combat was made much more streamlined while at the same time being more strategy based. I found that the refresh rate on some of the powers made it less of a one-trick system, like how my favorite wizards in 3.5 loved baleful polymorph, and more of a planned uses of the tactics.
The downside I saw was in the skills and feats sections. One fighter was basically the same as another with the exceptions of rolled stats. 3.5 had a much wider range of customization, partially from the ludicrous number of additional books and classes, but also because the basic system allowed you to pick special feats or skills that would work together and add depth to characters.
I guess what I am saying is that if you are heading for a combat heavy game then 4.0 may be a better route because it requires more strategy while still being easier (no stack of 7-8 books for wizard spell descriptions), but if you are looking for something less combat oriented and more customizable then 3.5 is a much better pick.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
When my fellow gamers and I herd some hints of what 4e was doing, we we’re quite excited. I’ve played the classes out of Book of Nine swords in the last few 3.5 campaigns and the Star Wars saga edition, both of those we’re testing grounds for 4e. The concepts worked great and only whetted my appetite. When the books came out, I got my PHB and started reading, the rules sounded good and was excited. I planned to play a two handed sword fighter, looked good.
Then came the day we started playing with the Keep of Shadowfell. Our party of three consisted of my human fighter, a dragonborn warlord and a tiefling rogue. We had our first encounter with kobolds, and the party was barely alive. This was in part due to a clunky combat system that left too much calculation cause one of the baddies had you marked while you marked another, there was the “shiftig” ability the critters had and to top it, a “wyrm priest” that flung energy blasts that required an all to easy reflex defense to hit. The party barely survived despite the groups best efforts and sound strategy. Three games sessions and two TPKs latter, we had enough of 4E and got into Pathfinder.
It wasn’t just the broken monsters or the “simplified” combat, it just didn’t have the feel to it. Some of the stuff we did liked but all the new stuff we can easily import into 3.5/Pathfinder. There was just too much stray from the old edition, we we’re hoping it be more like Saga Edition of Star Wars. Yet it wasn’t. Don’t get me wrong, 4.0 could be good for a “beer & pretzels game” but if you keep having to get a new character every two games, why bother with that either.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I Picked up 4th Ed and was intially excited about it. THen I read the books and I started to have my doubts. The classes all seemed pretty cookie cutter and there was no real variety. Some things they did were great – the monster abilities were good, the movement system (I ignored the whole square thing)was better than 3.5 IMO and the player races were ok.
Then I got to the dragons and looked around for dragon spells. Looks like in 4th Ed, Dragons are just big bags of HP with a few extra abilities. Why were spells taken out? Becuause it took to long to make a dragon the old way. Hrmm … so rather than just add spells on the fly if you have to – you take them out because its easier and faster? I guess I can understand that if your just looking to simply open a book and use the Dragon as written.
Its this approach that is all over 4th Ed. If its take time or is to hard to do, it was removed. The game was simplified to the point where it now has a more 2D feel rather than the vibrant 3D version that had existed before. I know there are many who love 4th Ed and how simple it is and thats why they like it – they dont have to think. No imagination neccessary – just use the book.
On top of all of that, the game was solely combat based. You run from one combat to another. No other basic info – even the skills represent this. Sure they have diplomacy – but that was about it. In short, anything non-combat was tossed a bone and leftr outside in the rain. A pity that the game of imagination would take this route … but I forget who has this now and they only care about one thing.
But I digress …
My group tried 4th ed for a few months. We tried it at low levels (It was speedy and easy), Mid levels (starting to bog down on all the upkeep for who did what to whom and when) to high levels (I dont wanna go there – lets just say a level 15 combat will take some time for even a minor encounter unless they are all minions).
Only one in our group liked the system. So we are back to 3.5 with some changes (like movement and me adding monster abilities) and I have to admit that when we did so it was with a big sigh of relief. 4.0 has is plusses, but the negatives … oh the negatives. Thats quite a list.
TO sum it up:
4.0 = If you want to play a board game MMO where your choices are mostly made for you – this is your game
3.5 – If you like your games to be more like a simulation – this is your game.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I know most of you are fairly older folks who grew up with AD&D and so forth, but I’d like to offer my perspective as a child of the 90′s.
The main reasons older players seem to dislike 4.0 is because of the lack of depth and the lack of focus on solid roleplaying rules. They compare the depth of the previous iterations and complain that 4.0 isn’t “deep” or “complex” enough.
1. Stop whining, new expansions books are coming. Give it some time for Wizards to develop deeper content. The initial learning curve of D&D has been made less steep so that D&D could become more popular, and thus more profitable, and by extension, a cheaper hobby (which is good!).
2. You want roleplaying elements? Add your own! Having to rely on a set framework of rules for something that’s supposed to come from your imagination is a little sad. Okay, okay, I enjoy the inspiration and ideas that lots of rules provide as much as the next person, but outside of game mechanics, you can make up any roleplaying flavor you feel like creating. D&D 3.5 and 4.0′s core d20 mechanic is designed to be modular, anything you want to do, assign an arbitrary difficulty value, roll a dice, add applicable modifiers, and you’re good to go. D&D is about imagination, why should you need to rely on WOTC for providing that?
3.The d20 mechanics and combat system that 4.0 is built on is supposed to serve as a framework for building a roleplaying experience. Imagine when you were a kid playing cowboys and indians. Pretending to be someone was the funnest part, and shooting each other with finger guns and then arguing over who’s dead was usually the hangup. The 4.0 combat system is simply a template to simulate the more difficult to roleplay elements of a roleplaying experience, i.e. who dies and whem and how and so forth. It’s like a physics engine for a video game, it’s simply the engine that allows developers to simulate whatever they want with a realistic approximation of real world mechanics. Same idea.
Give WOTC time to crank out some content before passing judgment. I think they’ve done a brilliant job in balancing the original spirit of the game with better and more modern game play experiences.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Im severely dissapointed with 4th edition. I have played the numerous editions and incarnations of D&D throughout my lifetime on regular basis with much enjoyment. Every time editions changed, fear crept into our hearts (myslef and my players) about changes that would limit our ability to enjoy the next edition as much as we had the previous.
Eventually though, we would make the change, find things that we did enjoy about the new edition and tailor the things we didnt to fit our style. It seemed that no matter what we originally thought, with some adaptation, our gaming would survive and we could eventually grow to enjoy the new edition.
I even came to enjoy 3rd/3.5 because as a DM or player the options presented by the sheer amount of material made it almost impossible that you could ever play every single prestige class and no matter what you envisioned your charachter as and wanted it to become, there was material for what you needed. The previous editions all had that “D&D” flavor (if you have played at all, you know it) even if some rules changed,that made it a unique experience you couldnt get elsewhere.
I also ran out and bought up 4th edition books thinking that it would be a new, scary and exciting change, but one that would ultimately be for the good. My heart sank when I read through the core rulebooks.The role playing game I had come to love over many years appeared to be dramatically changed into a miniature wargame. Not wanting to give up that easily though, I decided I would reserve my opinion and be cheery and hopeful until my group and I had killed the first 3 modules I picked up. Within 2 months the modules lay conquered at our feet. Upon completion I asked my group their feelings. The first response I got that was quickly and unanimously agreed upon by al others present was “Well that was neat, but are we going to start playing d&d now?”.
So here we are a fair amount of time later. We (my group and I)are well into another 3.5 Forgotten Realms campaign and couldnt be happier. I ebay’ed my 4th edition books and used the proceeds to expand my 3rd/3.5 book collection. We found 4th edition to be fine in and of itself, but it just isnt D&D to us. It plays more like a miniature version of world of warcraft, the varitey is gone, classes are really just broken into roles now (tank=fighters, dps=strikers, healer/buffer=leaders, etc.)and it is extremely difficult to make your way through easy encounters without having a charachter in each role unless you got LOTS of healing potions.
So thats just my opinion, I would say play it and try for yourself to decide, just make sure you borrow the books from a friend before you buy them. Happy gaming everyone.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:00 am
There is a certain irony for me concerning 4.0. I have been playing dnd for over 25 years. i consider myself a traditionalist. I have most of the old books. Building a new world is the least of my concerns. Anyway, over the last couple decades players have always been hard to come by. Most of my dnd experience has come via solo dungeon crawls using the random dungeon generator from 1st edition and the use of minatures I collected as my primary “players.” I never took to video games in a fantasy setting for I thought them too limited, but playing solo I also did not need the complexities and nuances of every little detail featured in the dnd ruleset.
I could see how people are disappointed in 4.0. But for me it works out because I play primarily solo. As a matter of fact, 4.0 sounds ideal to play solo so long as i build a world and continue to randomly generate dungeons and utilize all the charts at my disposal to create an experience in my mind.
If I were to ever start a group with bright players I would run 3.5.
But insofar as playing solo, 4.0 sounds ideal.
So I’m actually quite excited.
And I got my 4.0 books for free.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
They should not have called this new edition Dungeons and Dragons. Sure, the classes\races\pictures etc. are in the books but it is not the same game mechanically.
I have played since 1986 with pretty much the same group….We started in grade school, through Highschool, College, Wifes, Kids, you name it. We still have a group of about 6 originals spread out in NY, NJ, PA and play about once a month. We have every book and about a thousand minitures (ANd the good ones made by Ral Partha, not the new plastic crap)… I as well as my friends have finally said enough.
I wasn’t overly happy with the 3rd (and 3.5)edition but I could stomach it, but the 4th edition is a joke. I thought the D20 system made the game over simplified but the 4th edition totally re-writes the game mechanics. If anyone else remembers the 2nd edition BattleSystem books for minitures (especially the Skirmishes book)….take a look at them….Thats pretty much how I feel D&D has become..essentially just a table top miniture game.
I love minitures for combat in D&D becasue they add a lot of flavor to strategy and planning for the players and DM; they are however not required to play, and sometime just using your imagination can be better.
Finally…..Many of us have probably spent about a thousand dollars + on all of the books over the years, and I never minded buying the new editions in the past as they seemed to add value to the series\game and or made an improvement; This new edition just does not seem like D&D, and to be honest, it really hasn’t to me since TSR left the scene. My group is going to skip this revision and wait for 5.0 (which will more than likely be a throw-back in the way of rules)
Just my opinion…sorry for the complaint
January 19th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
The shift to a more profit based product started with 3.0 with the introductions of the plethora of books and cheap plastic mini’s that weren’t cheap to buy. 4.0 makes that the marketing plan.
you wanna play… you need to spend more money.
the biggest difference i saw in Ad&d, 2.0 and 3rd edition was that the rules became more complex and it took a while for me to get the handle on things, but the core of the game “role playing” was there.
I cannot make the same claim with 4.0, it is more a marketing strategy then product for gamers.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I started playing 5 years ago, my freshmen year, with 3e. But my longest campaigns started when we began playing 2e. This is where 4e hurts me. My group played about every other weekend for a good six months from lvl 1. After a very long time I finally became a demigod. But now, you can become a demigod at 21, just on a whim. To me that’s just a slap in the face. Once I started playing 4e everything lost flavor, it was all beat this guy, beat that guy, instead of find out where the dude’s lair is, without hurting anyone. And now there seems to be no real why of cross over. I brought my demigod into a few 3e campaigns, but now I would like to bring in my lvl 36 gnome bard but there just isn’t a way…yet. Can’t wait to shell out a few more bucks just to do something as simple as cross over a bard.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I was going to write a lengthy review, but I don’t think D&D 4.0 deserves any more of my time.
Cliff’s Notes version:
I’ve played D&D from the beginning. I started with the pink boxed set of Basic Rules. (Keep on the Borderlands for all of you old timers.) I have moved with the game through every one of its iterations.
But 4.0 flat out sucks. My group has played it for about 12 sessions now, and we finally all agreed that the gaming system is a complete pile of crap. So, we’re going back to 3.5.
So, for my 2-cents, I wish I could get my time and money back that was wasted on 4.0. But, if it’s working for some people, then have fun. As a guy who has played and DM’d literally every single version of D&D over the last 30+ years, I have to say 4.0 is an absolute and complete failure.
But in some good news, I’ll never have to spend money on D&D stuff again! We’ll happily play 3.5 until the day we grow up… or die of a heart attack at age 95 when the DM slaps a great wyrm red dragon in front of our level 8 party!
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
I’ve been playing D and D for about 12 years now. I was brought into the tail end of 2.0, and loved every second of it. Now I’ve been a DM for at least 6 years, running 3.5 and I have transformed worlds at my fingertips with my players and it is some of the most enjoyable times ever. I recently purchased 4 ed and gave it a run. As a Creative DM, as most good ones are, It was a Nightmare to me, simply because it feels as though they have stripped my ability to mold things. My players have an “eh” feeling about it. I am sticking to 3.5 and teach 4.0 with the old school to my kids so they can get into it.As for Mr.Domination’s reply; if you came over with a homie and asked to start a char to run, we wouldnt stop you just becasue you have a complex. Role play with the players, have fun and forget all the “im better than you crap”, cuz we have use rope son, and we’ll tie you up and rob you, then let the assassins have their fun.you may be “better”, but we’re richer
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Hey,
First of all I would like to say you guys have said some hilarious jokes, you must be some good DMs… anyways
ok I have not really looked at 4.0 much yet, my main question was: How have they handled accuracy? What i mean is does 4.0 -in your opinion simulate an actual encounter well. Complexity I don’t mind (to a point), If it improves accuracy. I do not just mean in tactical situations, but also say in diplomacy. Rules agreed upon by a party allow order in those tense, but possibly lengthy battles and situations. They allow players to more fully know the results of an action before it is taken thus allowing them to better decide a course of action. Which is important when the storyline depends on crucial tactical actions- which seem to still get the adrenaline going, b/c you (the players) know how crucial it is. When the rules get so crucial my party decides that before something that crucial comes again we should make the rules as accurate to real life as we can so we are not like, oh man if that was more real we could have been able to do this and… thus used our minds like in real life and avoided those unfavorable circumstances, because really what happened would not have… (i hope i stated that in an understandable fasion). magic aside, (though magic can be applied to some sort of science emulating something real-say a flame thrower) (just quick on the science thing- magic is to technology as medieval fantasy is to futuristic science fiction -think about it) lol
I suppose the way my party plays is we have added a good deal of rules, to make it more accurate to real life, in our opinion. It might be called a reality simulator. So I suppose my question would be well phrased, does 4.0 simulate reality better with its rules or does 3.5 do a better job.
For reference we have basically played 3.5 and on computer Icewind dale and Baulders Gate- I mean the old original one, not for ps2. The storylime and roleplaying are of course central and driving, but we enjoy “accurate” as possible be it if only guessed.
Oh one other thing reguarding some of what jeremy said (like 6th post down from top, what is all this about TSR (who are they?) and all the devil/demon stuff in dnd before 2.0.
anyway dont mean to clog up the blog or anything lol
February 6th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Interesting. Very interesting. So i read the rules and some of the supplements to DnD 3.5 for months before playing and so far have perhaps 12 hours of actual play to 100+ hours of learning to play. Intersting and complex but user-unfriendly and not so high on the RP bit. I dont need a list of 900,000 skills completly with listed difficulties for everything i might want to do. A bad dice roll and limited skill points should not supercede the fact that my character was a blacksmith in his background.
The more rules there are outside of combat, the less its about role-playing and the more its about maximizing a dice roll. 4e aparently doesnt have a lot of that, so its a boon on my role-play side.
My first session of DnD i was told that my bard couldnt play his bard song during a critical encounter because he had used it as many times as his level aloud already. It doesnt make sense, but its an extension of the “spells run out of your mind when used” rules i guess. If 4e got rid of that system then its a loss in terms of history but an improvement overall (kinda like destroying nazi memorabillia. Ruining history to improve the world.)
The reason i think most people dislike it is that they have watched DnD get bigger and more complex and they wanted it to be at the level of FATAL in terms of user-unfriendlyness by 5e. To them a step in the direction of imagination and simplicity is a step WRONG direction.
This person has played DnD on occasion but spends a damn lot of time reading about it and has a 20 year old AD&D DM Guide. He is glad that the elitist min-maxers out there will be sticking with 3.5 where he hopefully wont have to deal with their shallow egotistical bullshit.
February 7th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I’ve ranted on 4th Edition since the beginning, ever since I first heard about all the “sacred cows” they were discarding in favor of catering to an audience of people that really do not care to sit and play a TTRPG when they have World of Warcraft on their PC. They ditched the original fanbase and are catering to a wider audience and I do not believe D&D should be more open to everyone. There are types of people you don’t want in a D&D game for the sheer reason of the fact the game won’t be D&D anymore because those same people require major modifications to the game to get them to actually play it consistently. Would you want a football jock who’s never had interest in chess to suddenly sit there and try and school you on chess because someone simplified the rules and called it “checkers”?
No.
And that’s basically what happened with D&D. Very few enjoy the game. Some played it and finally learned it sucks. Some were smart enough to freely download the 4E books instead of pooling more money into WotC’s pockets and then played it, to learn that it sucks. Some are still in denial and are secretly playing 3.5e games and are quiet about their defense of 4E now. Most have sold their books back on Amazon or let it sit there dusty on the shelves.
D&D built a lore that, no matter who you are or how you played your D&D game, knew things that were core to D&D for 35 years. And 4E trashed it all. Everyone knows there’s 9 alignments. Demons were demons (not elementals), there are the Inner and Outer Planes, Ethereal, Astral, Material, and succubi were demons, not devils (and the erinyes is the devil version). Paladins had to be LG, elves lived for centuries and not for 200 years, eladrins are Celestials that represent Chaotic Good, and so on. And then they RAPED the Forgotten Realms setting and will continue to rape every setting after that.
1E to 3E…90% of D&D was still the same. Yes…the SAME! Not in 4E. Which tells me, it’s not D&D.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I have not played 2.0 or AD&D it was before my time. I was orriginaly introduced into rpg’s by my cousins who played hackmaster when i was eight. to put it lightly that was incredibly confusing, so i thought 3.5 an incredibly flexable game, and it is. I have played it for maybe 6 years now and own many of its books.
my initial reaction to 4.0 was good. I read several of their articles and was impressed by the changes they promised to make. now i will rant. movement in squares is f#$#ed up, not only does it make everyting sound reducuolus but it makes harder to play on a hexigram grid. Skills oh what have they done. now a fighter cannot learn certain things like say lockpicking. True before he could never be amazing at it (cc skill) but it was possible to learn it. But now it is impossible, some mystic forces of the cosmos declared that no one could have schooled him ever in the art of lock picking. Fixed hp is the outline of how they made all character cookie cutter cut outs of every one else. Your character is and always will be amazing whitch for me takes out some of the reward of reaching a higher level. I hate the per encounter spells… how long is an encounter? two rounds, five rounds ten minutes? but you only get that spell once per unknown time period. Not only does that not make sense but it removes all restraints players should put on their characters. I can cast all of these spells for each encounter so why not…why not lay out my enitre hand, its not like it will won’t spontaniously recharge once i’m out of danger…
4.0 is a disapointment… it does not deserve the title dnd.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
been ploughing through these posts with some interest, firstly in regards to the question which ruleset i would say 4ed.
now im not new to this ive been playing since 2ed and DM for what seems a lifetime, dnt get me wrong 4ed has its problems and flaws compared to that of 3/3.5ed but the now simplified rules (cause they are) are better all round.
for a start the powers … many dont like them (including myself from time to time) but look at what they do when the DM asks “your turn Hurin”? the player now answers with “Jaws of the Wolf” instead of the usual boring “i run up and hit him with my sword” each power the player now picks they think about for possible solutions for example the group i play with regulary ran into a pheonix and the warlock was stuffed because of picking every fire spell going
i will however say it does seem magic has been dummed down a bit in the powers and i was a fan of the 3/3.5ed where u picked spells to memorize and so on.
as with the simplifying its great!! means more new players can play and learn the rules (which isnt it all about?? getting together and playing?) the rule set has allowed me as the DM not to worry about teaching other things to players because they can pick up and play while i spend my time on my created world and making each session more memorable and more in depth without worrying about flipping through books to find certain information.
finally the comments about it becoming more of a computer game version of d an d, i can see why people say this but if that means it drags others from these same computer screens to play a game with real people and getting the to use their imagination isnt that a good thing?
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Interesting article and thread.
I’ve played both now and consider them to be very different games. I would not consider them to be part of the same evolutionary progression. 4.0 is a new game that has little to do with 3.5.
WoTC is, like most businesses, out to make as much money as possible and this is reflected in their choice to randomly package miniatures instead of letting people just buy exactly what they need. They turned miniatures into a version of their more profitable and popular trading card games. Now they are trying to make D&D more closely linked to the more profitable and popular computer games.
It makes sense for them but I am frankly suspicious that they are also trying to make the best pen and paper rpg. I think in 4.0 they have severely compromised so as to make something more easily ported or licensed to computer gaming.
My paranoia aside 4.0 is not terrible. It’s just really different from 3.5. Others here have already gone over it; it’s simpler, is more focued on combat, easier to get started, etc. It’s explicitly focused on getting you to buy more things like miniatures and eventually cards. And it is not backwards compatible to 3.5.
After playing it I found it’s a game I don’t like. Too simplistic and artifical. But I know many who do like it. It’s just different.
And on an important note for someone who does not have unlimited funds, I look at the dozens and dozens of 3.5 books and magazines I have and recognize I have material to run game for the rest of my life and then some. 4.0 is nowhere near good enough to get me to start buying it all over again. Nice try WoTC.
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:29 am
4.0 is a disappointment, 3.5 is a way lot better.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Okay, here it is. Whether D&D 4.0 is “sucks” or not is really up for you to depend. Because whenever people try to improve something for the fans, all the fans end up hating it, because if people haven’t realized it by now. They are very whiny and moody creatures. I know that years from now if a 5.0 was released, all the fans would be whining again about how “they changed soooo much” Wah wah wah. I look at each thing individually. And I think that D&D was vastly improved, and I really like 4.0 personally. But then again, I liked 3.5, and 3.0 too. They were all good in their own ways.
Now this is just MY opinion:
I like that now all classes aren’t completely useless. There were some classes that were just pretty much crap. And they made everything more balanced so that spell casters weren’t sitting around once they ran at of spells. Perhaps, people would think it was too “easy”, but that really depends on what you make it. It’s much more balanced between races, classes, etc.
I guess the multiclass feature is gone, but I never did that anyway.
And I noticed that people were complaining about miniatures or something. If you don’t want to spend money on them, don’t buy them. Use darn sheets of paper that’s what I do. I know that I’m poor.
The fact of the matter is. You can listen to people bitch and moan or defend 4.0 to the bitter end. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is what you think. You may like it, or you may prefer another version. But for all of those that like 3.5, you can continue to play that version. No one is going to stop you. But to call something crap just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it the absolute truth.
So yay. Everyone is happy now right?
April 1st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Okay, I’ll preface this by saying that I’m not even as old as DnD itself – I’m 21. I started playing DnD barely a year ago ,also, so I’m not like the rest of you 30+ year veteran players who have copies of every DnD book and obscure TTRPG like Chainmail. However, for all that I have to say that I’ve been into fantasy since I was a very small child – my father introducing me to the Lord of the Rings (progenitor of all High Fantasy RPGs) before I started preschool.
I’ve wanted to play DnD all my life, though various things just got in the way. The biggest thing that stood in my way, though, was the sheer amount of material that was required to be memorized before you could begin playing. I hate to say this, but kids in my generation don’t have time for that while they’re being paraded around to three different clubs and going off to do stuff on the weekends all the time because our parents want us to experience different things because their parenting books say it’s good for us.
Now I started playing 3.5e, and I have to say that the wealth of knowledge and potential astounded me. I’ll admit, there was a lot of role-playing potential around because you could tailor your character JUST right with the proper skills/multi-classing (heck, I created an Out-rider style character that had been a noble before being framed for a murder and driven out of his homeland and eventually joining the service of a powerful warlord with a dark past he was trying to overcome) and I had a great time with it. I guess I was one of the few idiots standing outside of your splendid manse that found a way in because I’m just that f***ing smart, despite not relying on DnD as an escapist reality for the majority of my life (I’m not going to spew my life’s story and problems to justify my own need for escapism).
Anyways, with the release of 4e I rejoiced! Finally they’d laid a new foundation for people like me who’ve always wanted to play but didn’t have the thousands of books to do it. I set about purchasing the core books and started voraciously learning the new rules. I found character creation to be streamlined, which really helped. The fact that the characters were *mostly* cookie-cutter made me grin with the infinite possibilities I could install into them much the same way people in 2e did long ago. I started off with a Half-Elf Paladin of Moradin who’d been raised in a mostly dwarvish community who had three use-names depending on the society he was in.
I also really liked the focus on Powers and their sources. Giving three tiers of powers (At-Will, Encounter, and Daily) was a brilliant move, as they not only made each spell or ability progressively more epic, but also made it seem like it really took the energy necessary to perform such feats. That aside, when I got the chance to DM, I used my ability with descriptive language to supplement my less verbose “I swing my axe” friends to great effect.
People who can’t calculate basic multiplication need to return to the third grade. 1 square = 5 feet dang it, it’s not that hard to do 6×5= 30 feet away, ya lazy bums. My OCD friends love that the infinite options of 3.5e are gone – it frees up their time to actually play a game than calculate just how to maximize their characters.
I’d like to hear the opinions now that PHB2 is out.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I was worried when WotC took over TSR that they were going to pimp out D&D. Now after 3e, 3.5e, now 4e so close together with too many books to buy at higher prices, I’m done with D&D roleplaying (love the books though-Drizzt fan for life). As for the game mechanics, simpler is NOT better, and as for me, I do not like how the game plays. More like super heroes than fantasy characters. Its like a meal at a 5 star restaurant, over priced, pretty, but not filling.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Hey, me again. Read some of the posts and wanted to add something for the defenders of 4.0. I add my own rules as much as the next player. But WotC is NOT paying me to fix their fluffy ‘rpg’ with my own rules. I don’t work for them. Sure a mechanic could buy a car that was broken and fix it for his own use, but I bet he buys his personal car in working order. I’ll do the same with my RPGs.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:13 pm
a lot of what i hear is “they changed it, now it sucks”.
i could give my “qualifications” but really that doesn’t matter. i know people who’ve been “driving” for over 20 years, but i’ve seen people more cautious while participating offensively in a demolition derby.
some people have a problem with the power system putting everyone on the same resource management system, but for me that’s a strong point.
in 3rd ed and previous, unless you were on a strict time schedule your fighter didn’t swing his sword all day long… he swung his sword until the caster ran out of spells, less the 4-man party wish to travel at 3/4 capability. this ran into a problem as the fighter’s (or rogue, or barbarian, ect…) his scthick, to swing all day, is cut short as the wizard needs his 8 hour beauty nap.
the other issue is versatility: being able to do 1 thing often VS one cool thing every now and then is hard to judge. a 3rd ed warlock could fly invisibly all day while a wizard could only do so once or twice but how often will being able to do so truly be required? during days where flight+invis is pointless, the wizard/cleric/whatever can use his spell slots for other things while the warlock is stuck flying invisibly.
at-will/encounter/daily
this i don’t see what the problem is. at-will and daily is something almost EVERY 3rd ed player is familiar with. fighters can power attack to various degrees at-will while barbarians can rage X times per day. the “encounter” is essentially one scene of a story and is a good measuring stick on when you can do something. instead of micro managing the duration of effects and when you can use them/wear off (rounds/1 minute/10 minutes/1hour/day/week/whatever). “one encounter” is a simple and, IMO, elegant way of resolving it. when the scene changes, you get your abilites back.
sure some people will say it’s not realistic that a fighter can only use his “daily” once, but it’s really giving the player some narrative control of the events. flavor it however you want: requires very unique conditions to be met so it can be used, too stressful on the body to use more then once per day, whatever. i’m still wondering why a 1st level 3rd ed barbarian could only get “really angry” once per day, but i made it work.
some people complain about realism lacking, but honestly, i never saw D&D as trying to emulate any reality i know of, at best it attempts to emulate a romanticized fictional pseudo-europe. a first level commoner in 3rd ed could be killed dead by a common angry housecat. i guess i must be a pretty high level character in real life as i don’t think our 5 pound housecat, DJ, could pose such a threat to me. going by the books, a 9th level bard could do a standard musical performance so grand (DC 30. 12 ranks, 5 cha mod, +2 mwk instrument=19. requires only a 11 or higher) that extraplanar entities might take notice and invite him over to play at their nephew’s upcoming barmitzva.
if by realism they mean that it emulates the world, i’m sorry but random charts does not a “living” world make. if that’s your thing, i’m fine with it but saying that your world is more real because the chance of rain is 10% every day while in mine it rains when i say it does, it’s no more real. i would much rather play in a game where attention is paid to a good story and narration rather then have the GM be lost and confused.
commoner start VS heroic start. this is entirely a scope of the game and choice on the players & GM. i’ve always envisioned D&D as a game where the players are a notch above the common folk, even during 2nd ed, and played it as such. to say that the bar has been raised in 4th ed is non-nonsensical. i can GM a game where the players are no better then the common folk. how? make the common folk using PC rules and the status quo is returned as the pcs can be put down by the dirt farmer next door. if i want to emphasize that PCs are that much more awesome? commoners are statless with one HP and all defenses are 10. good lord, the PCs are now heroic! but that’s just the mechanics and only part of the equasion… the gist of the scope relies the DM to set the tone of the scene and describe how things are.
sacred cows. this concept is pretty funny in my books as what mechanical concepts defines D&D will vary from player to player. for me, i never really cared much for mechanics. D&D is generally easy enough to play that i can tell the stories i want without much problems. when a problem does occur, it’s usually because of a mechanic some people tout as “sacred cow”. for me the less mechanics that get in the way of telling the story, the better. if making a few sacred hamburgers is the way of removing needless complexity from the rules, then so be it.
as for me, i’ll still play any edition. my 2nd & 3rd ed books have yet to spontaneously combust nor have i had a gang of WotCninja kick down my door and remove my books from their shelves while i sleep. my old books still exist. if i don’t like current “fluff” i have 2 previous editions to borrow from or just make my own (which i usually do). if i feel like playing another game, i’ve got older D&D and other systems entirely.
my final verdict? 4th ed is very much D&D. it plays differently (which truthfully, all editions do) but i still get to save the world, slay the evil overlord, get the girl, use enough one-liners to make Ahnold cringe and everything in between and far beyond.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I haven’t played D&D for over 20 years, but i’ve dabbled in MMO’s and RPG’s.
So, I was so stoked when my son said he wanted to start PnP gaming with his friends. Well, being the proud father I ran right out and bought 5 of the core books.
Not only do they suck in all the ways already mentioned, they are a total rip-off. 35 bucks? You gotta be kidding me! And where in the Nine Hells is all the info? it’s all pretty “pitchers” and goofy fonts with no real information. Where in the Abyss are all the nice tables and charts for reference? Where in Gehenna did all the lists of magic items and artifacts go?
I guess I’ll just reccomend NWN or NWN2.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:54 am
i’m not going to complain too loudly about fourth…others have done that here already, but i am mildly curious about one thing. Are the campaign settings from 3rd (and 2nd and 1st) going to be carried over? If so how is Wizards going to rationalize the magical history of those settings? Its kinda hard to explain why there are a bunch of Manshoon clones duking it out when that spell no longer exists.
hey…controllers can’t do that!
i can see the new dungeons and dragons novels having some problems adjusting to the new system. It would be fairly silly in a story for all spell casters to have the same eight or so spells…sorry, i meant powers… to throw about, not to mention the idea of a world in which housewives everywhere can just take a five minute cat nap to heal any time they accidentally cut themselves.
sad, really, that D&D can’t tell a believable story anymore.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
I am an old school player (Graybeard!) and I have a beef with anyone who has ever said this …
“If you don’t like 4th ed, then continue to play the older editions…”
My rebuttal? F*** you. Telling me to continue playing 3rd edition is easy. But what about all the new gamers who are now stuck thinking 4th edition is best version available? Where’s their option for a better D&D experience? EBay? And that’s if they even know what to look for. Where would their product support be? A huge online community of 4th edition haters?
Maybe if the Nazi’s at WotC kept the 3rd edition alive in a smaller capacity with the release of 4th edition we wouldn’t be hate mongering them so much. They could have called 4th edition D&D Plus, D&D Extra or whatever. They are obviously two different games now.
WotC has done us a great injustice with this new release (as all the comments above are testament to). Maybe if the 3rd and 2nd edition game designers felt the same way a new option in gaming delight could take form …
Help us Monte Cook, you’re our only hope.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Here’s my opinion on the entire thing. Lack of choice is bad. Ease of use is good, but not when you sacrifice so much for it.
People talk about how it’s a balance issue and it helps keep the power gamers away, but here’s the thing. Being TOO balanced ruins everything. You don’t want an entire party of characters that can do damn near the same thing.
Getting rid of 3.x skill points was the worst thing the game system did, and while I’m all for cool stuff your character can do (powers), I’m not for it when all it does is stomp all over other mechanics. I think what they did to spellcasters is atrocious. You lose SO much not being able to craft a custom spellbook to choose spells from it’s insane. Now all you are is a laser gun that has different settings. I understand there are ‘utility’ spells, but seriously, what is the issue with deciding for yourself what kind of caster you want to be?
I’m not a fan of anything being shoehorned where it shouldn’t go, and I’m not a fan of stifling creativity to make something easier. 4th edition is not dungeons & dragons the Table Top RPG, it’s an MMO on paper.
My two cents.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Nice forum thread. I’ve been silently fuming since I tried 4.0 and realized 3.5 would no longer see improvements. I agree with 90% of the arguments against 4.0. The one area I wouldn’t agree is to put down or criticize 4.0 players that like it. There is no need to make elitist comments. I simply think 4.0 is too basic for in depth play, the mechanics of 3.5 allow for better roleplaying and an overall deeper experience.
Ex. A character who put points in Knowledge: Nobility making a DC check to uncover vital information during a roleplayed conversation is cool for the player and group when they realize diversifying their characters beyond combat earns them experience and actual in-game value… This is even more true if those knowledge skill points were “granted” to the character for his detailed written history that illustrated his early childhood living amongst the nobility, etc
More diverse options: Having compendiums of spells and rules in 3.5 allows more options which = more strategy and skilled play. Ex. Do I memorize that utility spell or take another offensive spell? (Player thinks to self) Wait a second, that gaseous cloud earlier might have been a vampire! … memorizes Daylight just in case… etc OR Damn my sword was broken by a poor save in combat! What now?!? (Run back, grapple, climb the rope, jump the crevice, trip, draw second weapon, access pack, throw sand in eyes, beg for mercy, strike with broken sword, attempt disarm, etc) 3.5 lends itself more realistically to a more immersive play experience.
In essence 3.5 is the closest thing yet in allowing a DM to make a realistic world (physics, rules supporting innovation and strategy, roleplaying) allowing for magic in it…
4.0 is a decent tactical game.
It is unfortunate that 4.0 was not a refinement of 3.5, because 3.5 is a great but imperfect game.
Issues:
If you run low magic “realistic” campaigns like I do, spell-casters are way overpowered after level 9 (sorcerer in particular). The 3.5 changes addressed this from 3.0 but didn’t come close to fixing it. The basic premise I have is that a strong mage should lose to a strong fighter that succeeds in getting up in his “grill”. Otherwise the fighter-type is basically useless after low levels.
The rules support the benefits of designing characters for min/maxing over designing for flavor or realism.
Characters level much faster than in older editions. This is a plus and a minus. It is good as it keeps the gamer fresh. It is bad as the characters become very powerful unrealistcally fast. (After 4 months game-world time my 18 year old level 1 fighter can become amongst the deadliest heros in the realm). Personally a system that levels PCs much slower but gives boosts in other areas between level boosts would be better. (Knowledge boosts, reputation boosts, etc)
Many house rules are in place to equalize this in my campaigns but it would have been nice to see 3.5 continue in 4.0 to a more perfect system, not a different game.
The best thing that could happen IMO is for Wizards to release a 3.7 for the hard-core gamers while continuing its 4.0 line (if it likes) for the lighter-core enthusiasts.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:37 am
For me DnD 4E is different bunch of TTRPG ed. completely unrelated to DnD 1E, 2E, 3E and 3.5E.
For those who don’t like 4E, we still have hope;
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG
Beta is free download and it feels like(personally) an improvement of 3.5E.
I think Paizo is our next hope for DnD creativity.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I agree with most comments stated above re: 4th edition. I bought the books with an open mind – but soon lost interest when I came to understand the over-simplification of the rules. However, this may appeal to the younger generation that may prefer simplicity and speed over detail and depth. I will stick to 2e and 3.5e. Seems that Paizo (thanks Taga) may have hit hit the mark where Hasbro completely missed it. Perhaps Paizo will grow large enough to purchase the rights from Hasbro once the D&D branch goes belly-up.
Just my humble 2 cents!
August 7th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Why is everyone so upset about 4th ed “ruining” role playing and being for 14 year olds and power gamers!? Just becuz you’ve been playing dnd since gygax and arneson published it doesnt mean that everything since then is horrible…. You sound like you are 70 yrs old and complaining about those damn kids and that rap music. lol.. i’ve been playing since 2nd ed and ive seen new and better things come out with each edition… glad to see thac0 leave thank christ.. im also glad that they changed to magic system…. why does about every spell caster get the same spells and no matter what you do, you can only manage to cast a few per day… then what? try and play fighter with your cane? seriously… if it was a good system they wouldnt have changed it… dont be scared cuz ou have to re learn sumthing.. and btw… if there is too much combat…. not enough roleplaying… or character races arent explained well enough as far as their place in the wold… dont blame the edition… blame the dm… if he hasnt explained racial tensions or they dont exist its becuz he dont write em in… dnd is “your” make it and play it the way you want…. but please stop bitching becuz they throw sumthin new at you and you refuse to adapt or break old habbits.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Well I been playing AD&D D&D from the first book out.The core game will change and you as a player or group must decide together or even you should vote on what to play.I still know people who have great collections of books from the conception of AD&D.They have taken rule and made there own fine tuned tables from here and there.
Personally my group has played 4.0 again and again the game played was the same smash and dash.We vote 3.5 was the way and style we as a whole liked to play.
Important things to remember a toy company owns this game now and they wish to make money,that is business.
You must remember what makes the game so much fun is role playing your characters in older 3.5 you have more to chose from and different skill
and professions.Our group has been playing together for 17 years know and we don’t what to go out to spend a ton of money for and unproven game setting.Because we play the Forgotten Realms and the death of Mystra we think that there is no way the Gods would allow for the weave to be broke for long.It is a way to get people away from the old ways of role playing to the new ways of build and kill,and buy all new books.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I’m waiting for 5e.
Having played and DM’d a few 4e games, there’s a lot I like (daily and encounter powers) and a few things I don’t… the main one being the lack of Flavour.
The Monster Manual has no descriptions, no tone, just stats. Ho hum.
PHB is mostly the same abilities with different names, with little reference to the 30 years of D&D history.
DMG, must admit I haven’t really read it. Looks like good advice, but after nearly 30 years of playing D&D I don’t really need to know how to roleplay.
I do admire Wizards outrageous and blatant attempts to get a consistent revenue stream (subscription everything: PHB1,2,3,4,5… D&D Insider (with repackaged hardcover versions of “subscriber-only” content AKA Dragon Annual). It’s a business, more power to them.
My summary? It’s no longer Dungeons & Dragons… it’s been pushed too far and become a different game; even with 3.5 it was possible to trace back that Magic Missile all the way back to my 10 year old self playing Keep On the Borderlands.
That doesn’t mean it can’t be fun, though.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Just wait till they come out with the upcoming Darksun 4.0
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
to quote myself from another post:
D&D died after that idiot gygax decided anything more then OD&D was needed. Poopfinder, Turd edition, $th edition… bah humbug… grumble grumble grumble rage rage rage! yer aaaaaaaall a bunch of unimaginative kids who couldn’t RP their way out of a wet paper bag. back in my day we had to roll our dice uphill, both ways, in the snow and against the wind! AFTER writing in the numbers in crayon!.
grumble grumble grumble rage rage rage!
also, i’m afraid you all don’t know what D&D is. only i do, this is a fact and my cat can back it up. she’s awesome like that. no matter how loudly you proclaim to the heavens above, your D&D is wrong, you should feel bad and cry in a pillow.
…
seriously, you sound like kids who had their toy trucks stepped on by the big kids, who then proceeded to kick sand in their eyes. last i checked my 2nd ed books have not been burned by the WotC Book Ninja Squad.
play nice! i know i will come monday.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Ok, heres my spin
ive been playing sense the 7th grade (23 now), and it started out as us just kinda imitating dnd (6 sided dice only, dm makes stuff up as you go along, just kid fun), then around the beginning of HS, we got into my friends dads dnd (adnd) closet, it was a treasure trove of what seemed to be hundreds of books, and it was Awesome… for about 2-3 years we played this, gradually moving to 3.0 (and 3.5 shortly after) once we got use to it. Now it may not seem like to much, but the game had that magic i loved, and 3.5 seemed to lose a little of its Adventure to be replaced with a better structure in comparison to adnd, and that was a good trade off for me because though the rules may be “to complicated” for some, but i took to it quite well. I had lost (some 15+ books lost in an unholy fire that drained my will to live) all my 3.5 books in a “Trashcan incident”(including a near mint adnd monster Manuel i was saving) so i decided to give 4.0 a spin
long story short, i didnt stick to long to it, i liked some of the changes, but it just felt… hallow… it was like the soul of the game was fadeing. Ill admit i went in with a little prejudice over wizards releasing a new edition so soon(because those greenbacks just taste to sweet) but after a while i just felt wizards had traded in there dice for a couple of silver.
Ok, heres a bad example of what im trying to get at
last game i actually finished, by the end i was a Gnome Half-iron golem Ninja/Dread Pirate (lol, cyborg pirate ninja, how freaking sweet is that) it was a great char, i got to go wild, make a charcter completely my own, and got a couple of Great laughs out of it. Maby 4.0 will get better in a few years, but i didnt invest all my money (and im rebuilding my 3.5 collection) in a game just to have to “upgrade” again.
Im sorry, i guess im kinda speaking out of hurt, kinda felt like wizards got me good with that sneak attack…
But as most said, if your into Ease of use over Personalization, then maby 4.0 would be the better choice, course most problems i had with 3.5 were fixed with unearthed arcane
peace and love, it dosent matter what game you play, as long as you keep rolling, its all Gravy XD
November 11th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Personally I’ve thought D&D has been on a downward slope since version 2.0
Ive seen racial penalties and bonuses fluctuate all over the board. I’ve seen pc’s tear down gods. I’ve seen pc’s become gods. I’ve seen were-everydamnedanimalinthebook. So called “people smart enough to play” have run the game into the ground and made it unpalatable for most others. The game used to be about adventure, fellowship, and fun.Now all I see are number crunchers and Asperger Syndrome patients living out impotent school boy fantasies. You don’t like 4.0? Too bad you’ve been begging for it for decades.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:24 am
About my last comment…
War Lich says…
“last game i actually finished, by the end i was a Gnome Half-iron golem Ninja/Dread Pirate (lol, cyborg pirate ninja, how freaking sweet is that)”
Need I say more?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Finally, something I am qualified to comment on. I would be one of those people that some of you call “not smart enough to play” However, starting with the basic world of greyhawk minibox and going all the way to 4e, I have played in multiple settings and campaigns with many different GMs. D&D was way too complicated (I managed to survive it anyway, with the help of other more experienced gamers). AD&D still seemed to be complicated, but it explained and yes, changed enough things to make it more understandable and more playable. Then came 2nd edition D&D. Skills were added and may other minor changes made this version the best so far. It was still complicated, but having grown up with it, I was getting used to it. 3e was not so much D&D as it was a new version of a fantasy roleplaying game which had the same name 3.5 made it worse. Fourth edition or the new third edition, if you will has so many flaws that the comments here have only scratched the surface. With this latest incarnation I have one question. How much damage does a 5th level wizard – oops sorry warlock (or whatever it calls them) do with a fireball. In second edition, it was 5d6 easy to figure. In this crap called 4e, it is a power and has a plus and a minus and all kinds of other things to go with it. Oh yeah and I have a power that lets me throw it twice a day, instead of the three times I memorized it. Which version is more complicated?
December 15th, 2009 at 2:32 am
3.5 Has lots of choice 4th has little simple as that. Clearly they wanted to make a system that they could sell a lot of books with 4th ed., and making the game much more profitable seems to me to be the underlying motivation for this release. One of the ways they seem to be trying to do this is to make 4th ed simpler for new player to pick up, and more familiar to players new to D&D but familiar with World of Warcraft and similar. Say it brings in new players and is easy to learn; but what then? How many times can you play 4th until you’ve done it all character build wise? If WOTC think that they can lure new players away from their WoW by making D&D more similar to an MMO they have another thing coming. It’s the choice and flexibility of D&D which appeals to players. I started playing D&D with 3.5 not long ago and I can tell you than from my perspective, the depth and complexity of 3.5 is what makes it attractive. I am annoyed as a relatively new player that I cannot buy the books for 3.5. I had not problem picking up 3.5 and if I occasionally still have to look something up that’s fine. If you enjoy 4th then have a good time, but my group tried 4th and couldn’t stomach it for very long. I will stick to 3.5 thank you. Now if any of those 4th ed devotees out there still have some 3.5 books they will no longer be needing why not send em my way…
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:49 am
I tried to give fourth every consideration and i have gamed with it for the entire time its been out but i am going back to 3.5. 4e is the ultimate in min maxing and in power gaming. Every character we built in 4th was unstoppable and i felt it was more like a superhero game than a fantasy roleplaying game.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Very helpful post. Very clear commentary and suggested phrasing are most impressive, as are his and your generosity in sharing this explanation and example. I would also encourage everyone to bookmark this page to your favourite service to help spread the word. Thanks.
February 6th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
My biggest complaint with it is that combat feels like a grind. So long and boring. Sometimes it feel like you’re in a fight for your life and you’re using foam weapons.
Plus character creation isn’t very kind to out of the box thinking. And the choices for weapons and powers aren’t really choices at all…unless you think stuff like choosing between eating crackers and starving to death is a choice. Your powers choices are determined by your ability scores. There’s no point in picking a power that uses an ability bonus you don’t have, so most of the time you have one choice only…oh unless you go buy the minis+card booster pac-…errr I mean ‘expansion’ sets.
February 14th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Will some one for the love of god please explain a healing surge? What, you hit a button on your back and you are miraculously healed?? Hey Joe, I have rested 5 min could you come over and press my button? Cleric? Who needs a cleric? How about after a 6-hour rest everyone is perfectly fine and ready to move on. Yea I know we were all just about killed this morning but it is just amazing what a bit of sleep can do for you.
Gone are the long drawn out adventures where the wizards are elbow deep into their scrolls. The party is husbanding the last few healing potions and wondering can they make this last push for the objective. Where trying to find a place to grab some sleep for a few more hit points and to memorizes much needed spells for the final battle are an adventure in itself. Now just give the party 6 hours to hole up and broken legs, being beat into negative hp, and most everything else. . Phttt!! Gone! They wake up like they just left the inn.
March 28th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Good points. Bookmarking to check back for follow-ups later.
April 11th, 2010 at 4:06 am
4th edition blows. I prefer 3.0. With 4th they make it way more confusing and more weak.a 20 sucks in 4th in my opinion. I mean why make a critical weak?
May 15th, 2010 at 7:44 am
Damn, awesome website. I actually came across this on Bing, and I am stoked I did. I will definately be revisiting here more often. Wish I could add to the post and bring a bit more to the table, but am just absorbing as much info as I can at the moment.
Thank You
Chinese Restaurant Dublin
May 15th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Damn, awesome website. I actually came across this on Google, and I am stoked I did. I will definately be revisiting here more often. Wish I could add to the post and bring a bit more to the table, but am just taking in as much info as I can at the moment.
Thank You
Italian Restaurant Dublin
June 21st, 2010 at 12:45 am
I guess I did have a lot to say…
July 1st, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I have played D & D for over 30 years and I LOVE THE GAME. I have played Basic, AD&D, 3.0, and 3.5. For those that remember all of those versions 3.5 is by far the best as far as game-play and logistics. I agree with many on this blog that the game is made great by the DM and players and that the role playing cannot be forced no matter how many rules you write or books you print on the subject.
In this day and age of ADD (or ADHD, call it what you will) they have figured out a way to have people play D&D and not have to sit still and pay attention for a . . . squirrel. . . wait where was I . . . oh, yeah, um, sit still and pay attention for a minute to pay enough attention to a game that . . . BooM!!!! . . . Pow!!!! . . . Ka-Blam!!!! . . . well, um, yeah, to a game that should require it. It’s the attention to detail that makes it great. I mean getting immersed in the character generation process is a time consuming one but during that time you are “feeling” your character and “getting into character” just as actors do in a play or movie. If I am going to play a character, I need to take some time to create it.
By streamlining, or simplifying the character generation process and over powering the characters at low levels you make characters that are too disposable for my liking. Gary Gygax maybe didn’t want people to play one or two characters for an extended period of time but that how I was taught to play. I really got into my characters. And NO, I am not a parent’s-basement-dwelling Geek. I’m a 39 year old salesman from New Jersey with a wife, 3 kids, 1 dog, a house, 2 cars, and bills so I am not the cliche’.
The MMORPG are good for just that, ONLINE playing. Heck I’ve played a couple myself but NOTHING beats sitting with friends around a table and interacting. My concern is that 4.0 is a springboard into having people play in front of their computers and not interacting with other people. You see good ole’ fashioned interaction cannot be replaced with no matter how much technology you throw at the issue. You might think that you are getting the same benefits but you are not. I, as I said before am a saleman, and true salespeople have a mix of communication and social skills that need to be practiced. “OMG, LOL, Swing +3 sword at Gobln for 7 pts. Tht wuz a gr8 time guyz” really deteriorates your communications skills. EVEN THOUGH YOU DON’T BELEIVE IT, IT DOES. I’m on Facebook and I text and I email every day so I’m not an old fart, I’m just a realist (if a gamer can actually say that).
All in all my rant is summed up as follows, the more of the human element that you pull out of D&D the more you hurt the game. The more your focus on combat the more you pull out the roleplaying. The more you make up a rule for everything, the less practice you get with problem solving, winging it, and cause and effect analysis. Believe me, much of life is problem solving, winging it, and cause and effect analysis. The closer you get to putting the whole game on a PC and playing from different corners of the country (or world) the less REAL interaction you have and thus the worse your social skills will become. And finally the less you interact with people, problem solve, improvise, and roleplay, the more you strengthen the stereotype of the gamer and hurt the game.
July 8th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Ok so after reading alot of reviews of 4th Edition, I’ve come to the conclusion that alot of 3.5 players now are being exactly like the 2nd ed players they made rediculous comments about back when 3.0 was released (I was one of said 3.0 players sadly). I played AD&D and 2nd ed before 3.0 came out and i thought it a stupid change. 3.0 felt less like fantasy. I played 3.0 and was instantly hooked.
When 4.0 came out, I hated the idea of the new edition and their changes. I mean we spent hundreds of dollars on books…. I felt just like the 2nd edition players of old. 4th edition should be looked at as another game entirely. think of the old NES or ATARI games. now look at their newer more refined counterparts. Same name, same worlds, Completely different games. Look at 4th edition as another game and it is actually quite appealing. Dont try to live your old games in the new world. Be the gamers that we all are and imagine a new world. Hell if all else fails you can go back to your old games and still have fun.
July 13th, 2010 at 8:02 am
When I got the three core books for 4.0, I was motivated enough to start designing and found that I was spending all my time on plot and background instead of labouriously applying templates to create stat blocks. So far so good.
Then … the non-stop avalanche of additional paper product started. Before I could DM anything the game was moving on with the speed of a white knuckle ride, all the better to empty my pockets.
So, I got off the ride and got on with 3.5. Theres good ideas in 4.0, no doubt, theres also a lot of magic as technology, game show world garbage but mostly its a cash cow and thwarting the machinations of greedy salesmen is an adventure in itself.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:10 am
I played every version of D&D from my dad’s advanced rules set up to 4th edition. No question, 4th edition is my least favourite. It isn’t just a change of certain things like how armor works or revamping ability scores that bother me like with previous editions, thething that bothers me is when they overhaul the whole system starting with magic. Let’s face it, every spellcaster in the game is now a warlock from 3.5. The magic system was one of the most compelling and original aspects of D&D, and they just discard for simplicity? You can play a sorcerer, or simpler, a warlock if you want simplicity. Combat has turned into round 1, magic missle. Round 2, magic misle. Round 3, magic missle. As for adding variety to fighters, people who played the unitasker warrior either enjoyed it or didn’t look into their options. Between grapples, disarming, power attacks, leap attacks, numerous special abilities, combat expertise, etc. a warrior could do a number of things. If you wanted even more variation, play a martial charactor (swordsage, crusader, and warblade.) After all, that’s all the new warrior are: swordsages. Note, this is just combat; I have more complaints, such as the lack racial penalties or varied skills.
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:47 am
I think they are aiming to make the game more dynamic like Marvel Universe was (at least in my 3.5 games, every turn was followed by a half an hour discussion regarding all rules that would, would not, could, could not apply and all variant interpretations if anyone tried anything fancier than swinging a sword).
August 16th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
It is worth it if the reader enjoyed the content of the book. For those who do not like Dungeons and Dragons, they will not really like it.
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Lol they took the fluff out of the books. There isn’t much left that has anthing to do with DnD no explainations for monsters. They are just stat blocks now. Might as well template a bunch of stuff and tell the DM “Name this monster and make up a background”
September 8th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I’ve just read all of the posts on this page, and I feel like everyone on here has missed the point. I played the original DnD as a kid, and I just recently had a desire to reivestigate that portion of my youth. Reading through the 4e manuals, the changes they made seem great. I don’t need them to build a fantasy world with all of the trimmings for me. I have an *imagination* for that! Who cares if there’s no rules for boat-making? There weren’t in the original DnD either, and it didn’t stop us then. All a good game needs is a solid system for skill checks and combat that is clear and easy to use. And guess what? That’s what they’ve done. You want access to a spellbook you choose your spells from? Just add that option! You want to ride giant lizards across a desert to fight a mummy army? Just do that! You want to play as a gnome and they don’t have it? Just use the halfing stats and make up a backstory! You want to play as a human-sized half-giant half-dragon? Just figure out some reasonable way to work it out in the combat and go with it! If you are creative, you can do anything you like. It sounds to me like 3.5 took away your imagination and so now that 4e is asking you to use it again, you are lost.
September 20th, 2010 at 7:58 am
I was sceptic to 4.0 at first, but I have imagination and therefore I dont have any problems to DM 4.0
I just write an adventure I like with some action, some clues to follow and I describe the surroundings in a intresting way.
If you are an experienced DM you are never bound to any special rpg rules, just let go and have the rules work for you,not the other way.
All depends on the adventure, If you cant roleplay because you miss a certain skill, then create it.
A roleplaying game is all about imagination, dont blame the rules if you dont have imagination its only pathetic.
I can build my mansion where ever I want and how many I want, and I can move around the furniture and create new furniture just like that, with the 4.0 rules, why, because I am a DM worth the name.
October 10th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Awesome Post, thanks for the great Post. I will come back later _ Great information about locksmithing : surprise locksmith
October 18th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
A big difference between Gas grills and Charcoal grills is hotly debated by a person who love steaks using a grill. To improve the barbeque wars we’ve start the online learning course from a gas grill verse a charcoal grill. Both gives you barbeque flavor but some swear that charcoal grilling is superior with regards to the flavour test.
October 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 am
I’ve played 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 4th, and the new Essentials line, and I really feel that 4E is a great miniatures game with strong RP elements. At least, it can be played that way by people who aren’t in it to RP.
If your group is comprised of people that enjoy RP but want a VERY structured combat, it’s a great game. If not, might i suggest Pathfinder RPG or anything from the Savage Worlds line (especially Hellfrost)
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:55 pm
for the drill, but I’m truly uxorious the new Zune, and desire this, as fortunate as the reviews several another fill soul inscribed, leave ply you settle if it’s the paw pick for you.
January 4th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
If you like 4.0 I recommmend you stick to WoW
January 5th, 2011 at 6:33 am
4ed is an over priced, poorly developed video game, that is based around a 2 hour smash and trash encounter.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
i agree with Pendraig
In the session today the DM (A big 4e proponent)allowed one of the players to delay a part of his turn (his attack) after his save to stop being immobilized. I know this has nothing to do with the system but it just seems that even the guys that I game with are being “Dumb Down”!!!
January 19th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Well at least bed bugs are actually revitalizing the economy, the exterminators are making a killing.
February 20th, 2011 at 8:47 am
“A place for everything” That has long been my motto as a DM. After Twenty Some of years of role playing, Fifteen of that being a DM, I’ve essentially grew up with the Dungeons and Dragons Universe, and if I didn’t say my bit here, all my previous players would rise up and Drag me off to Ravenloft to become Stradh’s…well I’ll leave you visualize the rest.
I have to be honest with you up front, I’m no fan of 4.0, I will forever and always be a 2.0 fan for the ease it makes for creating vast and unique worlds. That being said, I don’t condemn those who play 4.0 due to the fact that frankly, I don’t have to. If anyone here thinks you “have” to play the newest edition, well consider this. I’m still able to buy replacement 2.0 books if I need to, and have two gaming groups for the 2.0 system. While I can easily start up three more groups using 3.5, which by the way is good when you don’t want to spend a lot of time forming a world and want to focus more on story.
As for 4.0, the greatest strength I can see in it, is if you want to make your own custom “fan fic” scenarios with popular anime or magna as a base. The 4.0 system with a little work would make a steller game base for a Naruto fantasy game.
As for me, I will use it to bring in younger players into the DnD universe and then open them up to the glories of the older system. Once they see the freedom and power they can have in those systems they will curse 4.0 along side us older gamers.
As a closing remark, I will say that 2.0 IS alive and well, 3.5 is still running wild, and at the end of the day I still leave people feeling orgasmic with either system, and I intend to find a way to do so with 4.0 as well. Not out of like or dislike of the system, but for the sake of continually drawing in new players into a world of creativity and teamwork.
God bless Gary and Dave, and all the brave who lead the charge in the magnificent worlds of life and devastation.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:09 am
Interesting take you have on this. What do you think of the comments above? Is he/she being serious?
March 14th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Great blog, I have just bookmarked it
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:56 pm
I have played D&D since the late ’70 as a kid, and AD&D in the ’80 in jr and high school. When 2ed. came out, the original creators had no input into its creation. What became of it, set a template of gaming’s future. Over complicated books, redundant manuals, rule suppliments every other week, way oversaturated, and they still bankrupted. Granted, a few rules came out of 2ed were ok if not abused, mainly secondary skills, but they were already in “1st” eddition to a lesser extent. So, to make a long story short, I feel AD&D 1st ed is the truest form of a “role playing game”, not every rule make sense, but not everything is spelled out with no immagination like 4th ed. And, YES, I agree they purposely made 4th ed to run like a computer game on purpose, so they could easily make the transition and sell the games with the rules in tact. I also am not a hippocryte, I do enjoy the newer computer rpg’s, but I still play Pool of Radiance and Champions of Krynn alot also.
April 24th, 2011 at 10:17 am
4e d&d causes cancer.
That is all.
May 15th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
I’ve found 4e has less variety in spells, skills, et al than 3.5. This is absolutely wonderful for getting a game underway as analytical personalities like mine simply have less material to analyze before you can start playing.
I find that 4e still suffers from rules for rules sake. Sometimes this adds flavor, but it’s an annoying, if necessary, price to give that suspension of disbelief. On the flip side I don’t find 4e breaking out and turning into a true free form story game any more than 3.5. Real simplification with more descriptive story like gaming books don’t sell to analytical, math loving types, but it sure does make for a game that’s fast to play and easy to introduce to more creative, artistic personality styles.
I don’t think D&D will ever be that, but 4e’s reductions in variety, for better or worse, will be short lived. They aren’t releasing a new edition to simplify things, to survive they must generate new sales and new material, and they will, as they always have in the past, continue to produce new material to make it complex, just in a different way.
May 23rd, 2011 at 8:27 pm
I finally figured it out. 4e isn’t really a RPG. It’s a wargame. So it’s really Chainmail instead of D&D.
I was trying to figure out what it was that bugged me about the rules when they seemed really solid. It was that I was playing Warhammer instead of GURPS. Both are simple and easy to learn, but one is a wargame and the other roleplay.
June 5th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I played a couple of games, with a trio of old friends when the 4th edition came out. It’s been a few years since. But the game struck me very much as being a miniature skirmish game.
The adventure was called something or othe keep. It contained lots of maps and largely consisted of one combat after another. I don’t recall there being much of role playing encouraged, by it. There was some vague story, but it didn’t really matter.
Rules wise, as my friends put it ” it isn’t a bad game, it just doesn’t feel like the D&D I remember.
About once a year I pull the books out. Think about playing a short 2 or 3 session campaign and then put it back on the shelf.
June 17th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Hardly any “roleplaying” seen in all my years. Most seem to like hack and slash “monty haul” rollplaying. Too much “Does a 12 with my +n weapon hit his AC?” vs “hobbit sticks nazgul behind the knee with dagger.”
Good DM/GM can make players have a great time with any rule set or none!
More story, fewer nunmbers and acronyms. Please.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Andrew Wheating won the first and fastest heat of the men’s 1500m prelim in 3:39.88.
July 10th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Yes, there is a lot of hack and slash in the game. The thing is is that i dont use any story material that they make. I just make my own. So if i want to have a mystery game or a more diplomatic game ill just make one.
August 7th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
I’d been busy with work and hadn’t played since living Eberron ended. Anyways I decided it was time to start back up so i went and bought the 4e rules. After reading them, I sold them at a used book store. This isn’t roleplaying anymore. I know 3.5 wasn’t perfect and there was a lot of stuff broken, but 4.0 is just horrible. Maybe there will be some other game coming out that will be worth my time and money, but this one isn’t it.
August 18th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Hi, as a big Peter Jackson fan, I can’t wait for the Hobbit movies. Especially loved the album of the trilogy, and then found this on iTunes. The Hobbit – A Cinematic Journey. It’s very like the music from the films, even has a bit of ‘The Omen’ about it. http://itunes.apple.com/ie/album/the-hobbit-a-cinematic-journey/id455831618
August 31st, 2011 at 9:47 am
Je me permets de twittez votre article , merci pour l’info|
October 27th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Valuable info. Lucky me I discovered your website by accident, and I am surprised why this twist of fate did not came about in advance! I bookmarked it.
October 30th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Hi intelligent points.. now why didn’t I consider these?
November 8th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
worthless.
December 13th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Completely understand what your stance in this matter:) Although I would disagree on some of the finer details.
January 17th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
I’m a young DM – only fourteen – but I know how it is. See, I started my first characters in 3.5 – loved it! – and wanted to DM. I couldn’t get the 3.5 books to play with my friends at the library, so I got 4. Worst mistake of my life. It was NOTHING like 3.5, and now I can’t convince my friends to play my version. See, 3.5 reflects how any great hero starts small – a single arrow could kill a rogue or a wizard – and ends big. A character in 4 starts big and ends huge. Even pitting the PCs against an encounter three times their level (as I’ve tried) doesn’t bloody them. And races only have strengths – HELLO! It’s supposed to be modified IN RELATION TO HUMANS, and humans have BONUSES! And the skills are SO LIMITED!
???
In other words, it doesn’t deserve the title of Dungeons and Dragons. 4 should be Dullness and Dice version 1.
To talk like a 4e player; Is 2;15,, Nou I is goings to klas coz I aur zmart andt I noe doo steuped staughf.