For some time, I've been wondering if D&D was truly "D&D". I defined the latter as a complementarity of characters, a search for treasures and accomplishments, a management of resources... lots of things.
The more I read about 4E, the more I believe it is "D&D".
Is it the "D&D" I want to play, though?
And there, we are stepping away from any reasoned argument towards personal definitions and experiences of what "D&D" may mean to one or the other.
One definition is not better than the other, much like one gaming experience is no better than another.
We are gamers. We make different choices based not on what is mechanically "sound" or not, but on what we like, feel we are able to use and tweak, or not.
D&D 4E does not seem to be the "D&D" I want to keep playing. But others may make a different choice. And it may still be "D&D".
The bottom line here is that we may not agree on WotC's choices, modus operandi, PR, ways of belittling previous editions of the games, its fans, and so on, so forth, but this has nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the game and whether it "feels like D&D" or not.
Let's separate experiences and opinions from ethical disagreements with WotC. That's what I mean. And before anyone asks, yes, I anticipate to stay with 3.X, PRPG, whatever OGL material is out there, for a long, long time.
For some time, I've been wondering if D&D was truly "D&D". I defined the latter as a complementarity of characters, a search for treasures and accomplishments, a management of resources... lots of things.
I think 4/e will be easily the best system available for swords & sorcery adventure, and arguably the best D&D ever.
But there's more than just rules to a lot of long-time players (like myself). There's a default world that (often unbeknownst to us) defines the D&D experience. Most of that default world is shared among most or all settings.
My biggest disappointment, and I think I speak for others, is that those game-defining assumptions are being changed more dramatically than ever before, arguably without regard to what long-time customers want.
Many people that want to walk away from 4/e aren't right or wrong, they just don't want a brand new game (which is what 4/e will be for some).
Bottom line: yes, it's definitely D&D, but it's not my D&D.
My two cents :)
LETS SEE...no razor slashing criticism....no thinly veiled lineage assumptions...no vitriol...no venom...hmmmm.....
I totally and completely agree word for stinking word.
Unfortunately, civility has a tendency to be boring.
I can fix that...i think.
Everyone who posts after me is a hamster!
hmmm...a little better. but just not the same ;)
*Nibbles hay*
*Runs round wheel*
*Nibbles hay*
*Notices lady hamster*
cue slap-bass.
As a youngster, let me tell all you old fogies about how great new stuff is ... :P
I agree, people can like or dislike the direction 4E has moved in, but that does not invalidate its "DnD-ness". Obviously my tastes run differently than yours, but that's ok.
Without all the acid this place is downright ... cozy?
Cheers! :)
Without all the acid this place is downright ... cozy?
I've always loved the Paizo boards. 4/e really took us down an ugly path (that we're not off yet), but I've usually found members here to be helpful, friendly, intelligent, witty, mature, and just all-around better people than everyone else :P
Real D&D can only be reached by riding amusement rides that malfunction on a cosmic level.
I think 4/e will be easily the best system available for swords & sorcery adventure...
Wow, that is totally not 4E as I understand it.
4E as high fantasy, a definite yes. But my definition of sword and sorcery doesn't include lizard people and teleport-like effects at first level.
I think 4/e will be easily the best system available for swords & sorcery adventure...Wow, that is totally not 4E as I understand it.
4E as high fantasy, a definite yes. But my definition of sword and sorcery doesn't include lizard people and teleport-like effects at first level.
Your 4e has that? Mine Doesn't. Who/what are these lizard people and teleport like effects you speak of?
Your 4e has that? Mine Doesn't. Who/what are these lizard people and teleport like effects you speak of?
I think 4/e will be easily the best system available for swords & sorcery adventure...Wow, that is totally not 4E as I understand it.
4E as high fantasy, a definite yes. But my definition of sword and sorcery doesn't include lizard people and teleport-like effects at first level.
Wouldn't Dragonborn and Fey Step fit the bill?
Wouldn't Dragonborn and Fey Step fit the bill?Your 4e has that? Mine Doesn't. Who/what are these lizard people and teleport like effects you speak of?
I think 4/e will be easily the best system available for swords & sorcery adventure...Wow, that is totally not 4E as I understand it.
4E as high fantasy, a definite yes. But my definition of sword and sorcery doesn't include lizard people and teleport-like effects at first level.
Shhhhhhh. Don't spoil it for him....
you better get out of 3.x then
I hear they want their lizardfolk and benign transpostion back
Hmmm that sounded kind of trollish.
|
Trollish but true. Sure its a bit of an exaggeration but 3.5 does have lizards you can use as PCs and it does have a spell that lets a PC blip around the board.Hmmm that sounded kind of trollish.you better get out of 3.x then
I hear they want their lizardfolk and benign transpostion back
Actually, it's from the Miniature handbook... I never really liked this book, which looked rushed and unfinished to me, but that's another topic...
Hey, it's true, it exists, but it's limited to wizards and sorcerers, rather than by race. That makes a huge difference, unless you expect a whole race to be wizards and sorcerers.
Also, you need to have this book, so it's not that common on the game table.
And frankly, there are a lot of much better choices for spells to take than this one, even though I feel it is really overpowered for a 1st level spell.
OMG! I'm a hamster...and why is there half a cantelope on my head....where's my clothes!
name that movie?
Back on subject, I really am glad the situation has normalized. I was getting caught up in it too. LONG LIVE D&D!! in any of it's myriad flavors.
|
For some time, I've been wondering if D&D was truly "D&D". I defined the latter as a complementarity of characters, a search for treasures and accomplishments, a management of resources... lots of things.I think 4/e will be easily the best system available for swords & sorcery adventure, and arguably the best D&D ever.
But there's more than just rules to a lot of long-time players (like myself). There's a default world that (often unbeknownst to us) defines the D&D experience. Most of that default world is shared among most or all settings.
My biggest disappointment, and I think I speak for others, is that those game-defining assumptions are being changed more dramatically than ever before, arguably without regard to what long-time customers want.
Many people that want to walk away from 4/e aren't right or wrong, they just don't want a brand new game (which is what 4/e will be for some).
Bottom line: yes, it's definitely D&D, but it's not my D&D.
My two cents :)
Sorry, in my opinion, Earthdawn WAS and STILL IS the best Sword & Sorcery system. Unfortunately the license has moved down under, and it's a bit expensive to buy in the States. Earthdawn Classic is produced by RedBrick Ltd. Earthdawn 2nd Ed. is produced by Living Room games.
|
|
Let's look at what 4th edition is removing
Saving throws: gone
classic core classes: Some are gone
classic core races: Some are gone.
meaningful difference between spellcasters and non-spellcasters: gone
vancian spellcasting: gone
simulationist play: gone
cosmology: gone
accepted standard mythology and lore: gone
low level characters who aren't high hit point uber-competent superheroes: gone
The only thing left is monsters, loot, and exp. Many fantasy games have those, and they aren't D&D.
Despite the enthusiasms of the young, 'new' does not always equal 'better' or even 'improved.'
Very true...What are there?....like 12 Final Fantasy games now?
FF4 (also known as FF2 in the US for Super NES) is still the best one. :)
|
|
I can appreciate the OP's niceness. I appreciate everyone's level-headed approach to this 4e thread.
Having said that, let's see 4e for the departure it truely is. 4e is a departure from the history, tradition/continuity, and core elements that comprise 30+ years of game history. IMHO, 4e is not dnd. In makes sense that we've enjoyed all previous versions—because they actually were editions/versions of our game. Just because that was true, does not overlook 4e's gross departure. Had 4e been sold under a different name, or advertised to be an alternative - that might have been true. But its the obvious marketing lie that burns me. How dare they sell incoherent, washed out logic, and call it the newest edition, saying "Ze game remains za same." How freeking insulting!
This has nothing to do with wotc's aweful disregard for its customers. This is not a backlash. This is the plain truth that 4e is ostensibly a different game, and not the game I nor millions of us want to play. Looking for a game that's D&D enough - - Pathfinder RPG is now the dungeons and dragons game.
|
|
This is not about your homebrew campaign. It's about the shared mythology, traditions, and lore that most D&D fans think about when they think about D&D. Your homebrew is different,and that's fine. Lots of us play or have played in homebrew games. They are a departure from standard D&D settings. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to explain what's different from standard D&D in your homebrew. WotC basically trashed 30 years of shared history and lore in the hope that some younger players might get away from their consoles long enought to play a tabletop RPG game. It wasn't enough to eliminate these things, they also had to make negative comments (some subtle and some blatant) about earlier editions every chance they had to sell us on the new game. Let's be honest. It is a new game not a new edition. They are only keeping the name in the hopes that people will buy it just because it has Dungeons and Dragons on the cover.
This is not about your homebrew campaign. It's about the shared mythology, traditions, and lore that most D&D fans think about when they think about D&D.
Your homebrew is different,and that's fine. Lots of us play or have played in homebrew games. They are a departure from standard D&D settings. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to explain what's different from standard D&D in your homebrew.
No, this arguement has become about your homebrew game, which has been design to match as closely as possible the 'standard' mythology in every respect.
Every single game is a home brew. We may all know the name Bhaal or Cyric, but you don't know anythign about my PCs. They don't get added to the offical lore, and so every time you play a game you're making your own world and your own history, no matter how closely you stick to the offical books.
Every game is different, has different heroes, and different villians. Every DM is running a home brew. Some people just start out with one of the basic settings, and for once the folks in charge of desinging the game have aknowledged this fact.
You see the changes being made as a betrayal, while I and many others see it as an evolution which was badly needed. The designer did not sit down and said, "I want hurt the older gamers... how can I do that?" They sat down and said, "How do we make our favorite game better?" You obviously do not like the way they chose. That's fine. But no matter how hard you fight against it, D&D has to change over the years, has to grow, and has to evolve.
The arts of storytelling, roleplaying, and gaming have advanced greatly over the last 30 years. D&D has changed with it, caused many of those changes, and unfortunatly fallen a great deal behind.
Now the new edition will advanced the game, and in turn 4E will change they way people game and tell stories. If you do not like the new style, then please by all means continue playing the old way. Better yet, help Paizo out by making Oathfinder the game you want it to be.
You can have a whole lot of fun playing the older editions. Everyone here has enjoyed older editons of D&D. But the older editons are no longer enough for me and a lot of the people on who come to the 4E board for information and to discuss the new editon.
Just please stop making that difficult.
The more I read about 4E, the more I believe it is "D&D".
Is it the "D&D" I want to play, though?
Perhaps the question should be: "Is 4E the game system I want to play?" because its tough to get a consensus of what "D&D" is.
When Advanced Dungeons and Dragons came out Gary Gygax stated quite emphatically that AD&D was NOT D&D - it was a completely different game system. So, by strict definition, nothing that came after the original rules is D&D.
But, as has been pointed out, most people define D&D based on their own experiences and feelings, probably reflecting what version of the rules they started playing with. Personally, I've never considered 3rd Edition to be "real" D&D - I think it is a good fantasy roleplaying game, but pretty far removed in both flavour and crunch from its progenitors.
I'd break "D&D" down into probably four (or possibly more) different game systems: 1. Dungeons and Dragons (original), 2. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1E, 2E, and 3E [Castles and Crusades]*), 3. WotC Dungeons and Dragons (1E, 1.5E, and 2E[Pathfinder RPG]), and finally 4. WotC New Dungeons and Dragons.
* I include Castles and Crusades as AD&D 3E because, to paraphrase Gary Gygax: "AD&D is dead as a game system as Latin is dead as a language, so we must embrace Castles and Crusades as its logical successor.")
The version of "D&D" that I play is Castles and Crusades. What game system do you want to play?
Is 4E "D&D" enough?
No
|
|
And frankly, there are a lot of much better choices for spells to take than this one, even though I feel it is really overpowered for a 1st level spell.So it's really overpowered and there are a lot of much better choices. Right.
It is in the Spell Compendium, I think. And I have to say that a race devoted to magic the way that high elves are apparently always supposed to be if you play D&D the right way is a quite appropriate one to have a small number of abilities that almost all could learn. I might not choose Benign Transposition, but I would give any high elf character access to a feat that gave them a first level spell or a couple of cantrips they could use quite frequently.
Yes, giving a 1st level spell would be fine, and appropriate towards what elves are. Giving every elf Benign Transposition, now ...
As for the overpowered aspect, remember it is a first level spell that allows two PCs to move around by teleportation, something that in core 3ed triad (and previous editions) could only be done with dimension door at 4th level ... It's not as useful as dim door, but I still think it's too powerful for 1st level. Would be a good second or third level spell, though.
Okay, I admit maybe "badly scaled" would be better than "overpowered". Much like all the rest of the Mini handbook.
As for much better choices, yes i bet there still are.
|
|
Let me put it this way. I have been playing in a homebrew campaign for recently. In many ways this homebrew world is very different from "standard" D&D. It's my friend's homebrew, and he has changed a lot. There is only one true god. Only humans and dark elves (which are very different than drow) can cast arcane magic. It's an interesting world. However, it is definitely not what I think of when I think of D&D. Everyone who has played the game a while knows to expect certain things in D&D. We know how magic works. We know what elves, dwarves, and other demihumans are like. We know what orcs and dragons are like. We know some gods like Tiamat and some demon lords like Orcus. We know a lot of the planes and what they are like. These things have remained essentially the same since the beginning. 4th edition is a dramatic departure from these. I think that it is too big of a departure to simply be called another edition, and many others think that way as well. I know that the designers weren't trying to hurt us older gamers when designing 4th edition. I do believe that they are trying so hard to appeal to WOW players and to put their personal houserules and opinions as to how the game should be played into 4E that they have given little thought to how their loyal, longtime customers would feel about these changes. They just automatically assumed that we would blindly follow along with this new "edition" just because it has Dungeons and Dragons on the cover. You can play 4th edition all you want, and I hope you have fun with it. It just isn't for me. I want D&D, and it's not D&D enough for me.
"Is 4th Edition D&D enough?"
Yes. It is still an action-adventure role-playing game, just as it has always been. The new edition just does everything 4th Edition does, but faster and funner. Many things that I didnt like in prior editions, as well as things that I didnt notice before, are being addressed.
Some people will not like the changes, and thats fine. They can keep playing older editions of D&D if they feel that way. Some people might play both 3rd Edition and 4th Edition games. Likewise, thats also perfectly fine.
The fact is that purely by definition, 4th Edition is D&D. Pathfinder is like a 3rd Edition plugin, but its not "true" D&D.
|
Now that I have run a good chunk of H1 I can safely say that 4E is D&D. Other than the options the players have in combat it has the same feel as 3E.
Oh, and it was SOOOOO much easier to be a GM - everything I needed was right there in the stat blocks and the players had everything they needed right on their sheets.
So yes - 4E is D&D.
Now that I have run a good chunk of H1 I can safely say that 4E is D&D. Other than the options the players have in combat it has the same feel as 3E.
I still remember running a simple playtest game, just to check the mechanics, using kobolds and dungeon tiles. The guy playing the wizard proclaimed, "Sweet! I can keep casting spells and be useful!"
The guy playing the paladin seemed confused, since he had more to do aside from making the same old attack over and over again.
Oh, and it was SOOOOO much easier to be a GM - everything I needed was right there in the stat blocks and the players had everything they needed right on their sheets.
Not only do I like the self-contained stat blocks that let me run a combat without flipping around in books or constructing pages upon pages of notes, but it plays out like I'm running my own monstrous party.
I get more options that the routine attacks, get to control more things, and get to have more fun.
"Is 4th Edition D&D enough?"... Yes. It is still an action-adventure role-playing game, just as it has always been.
The question wasn't whether or not it's an action-adventure RPG, but whether it's sufficient for players. For many, the answer is "no" -- despite your claim. You sort of concede this later in your post, but one might argue that the damage is done.
The new edition just does everything 4th Edition does, but faster and funner. Many things that I didnt like in prior editions, as well as things that I didnt notice before, are being addressed.
It probably does things faster and funner, but there have been lots of convincing arguments that the system fails to offer some things previous editions gave players. Whether or not these things will impact your enjoyment (or anyone's) remains to be seen.
Respectfully, it's one thing to say "I think it's great." It's quite another to say "it's great." One sentence says "I disagree," where the other says "you're wrong."
Regards :)
|
|
Let's look at what 4th edition is removing
Saving throws: gone
Not really - changed but not gone.
classic core classes: Some are gone
... but not for long. They will be available at some point.
classic core races: Some are gone.
Not really - sure the vast plethora of elvish sub-races may be gone but that could just be handled as a cultural distinction.
meaningful difference between spellcasters and non-spellcasters: gone
Hardly. Spell casters are still spell casters. They can do things that other characters cannot.
vancian spellcasting: gone
Yep - and thank providence for that one.
simulationist play: gone
It can't be "gone" because it was never "there". D&D is not a simulationist game - never has been.
cosmology: gone
Cosmology is fluff and fluff never dies.
accepted standard mythology and lore: gone
Uh, no. They may be changing Forgotten Realms but that has never happened before - oh, it did. Nevermind.
low level characters who aren't high hit point uber-competent superheroes: gone
Tell that to the five characters I nearly killed with a small group of Kobolds this past Thursday.
The only thing left is monsters, loot, and exp. Many fantasy games have those, and they aren't D&D.
Ok. Sure - it is a new edition of D&D, but D&D has no "gold standard" by which any edition can be measured. 4e is as much a part of the D&D family as 3.5 and old school basic.
"Is 4th Edition D&D enough?"... Yes. It is still an action-adventure role-playing game, just as it has always been.The question wasn't whether or not it's an action-adventure RPG, but whether it's sufficient for players. For many, the answer is "no" -- despite your claim. You sort of concede this later in your post, but one might argue that the damage is done.
The new edition just does everything 4th Edition does, but faster and funner. Many things that I didnt like in prior editions, as well as things that I didnt notice before, are being addressed.It probably does things faster and funner, but there have been lots of convincing arguments that the system fails to offer some things previous editions gave players. Whether or not these things will impact your enjoyment (or anyone's) remains to be seen.
Respectfully, it's one thing to say "I think it's great." It's quite another to say "it's great." One sentence says "I disagree," where the other says "you're wrong."
Regards :)
Of course my statement of that its D&D enough is my opinion. Since the original poster was basically opening the floor for people to express their opinions, I thought it was pretty redundant to clarify ahead of time that it was my opinion.
I dont see how I conceded my opinion that its "D&D enough" later in my post: I still think its "D&D enough".There might be arguments by some people that it doesnt do things good enough, or whatnot, but the feedback I've personally seen seems to be almost entirely positive. It might not play like exactly like 3rd Edition, but thats what I'm hoping for: something that is both still D&D but also more fun.
Let's look at what 4th edition is removing
Saving throws: gone
classic core classes: Some are gone
classic core races: Some are gone.
meaningful difference between spellcasters and non-spellcasters: gone
vancian spellcasting: gone
simulationist play: gone
cosmology: gone
accepted standard mythology and lore: gone
low level characters who aren't high hit point uber-competent superheroes: gone
The only thing left is monsters, loot, and exp. Many fantasy games have those, and they aren't D&D.
Crosswiredmind already addressed these, so let me just add that you forgot to mention a lot of other "gonnees", like:
- The 15-minute work day: gone
- Spell duration calculus: gone
- Polymorph/Wild Shape calculus: gone
- Charisma as a dump stat: gone
- Two rolls for one and the same thing (Hide/Move and Spot/Listen): gone
- Class disbalance: gone (well...)
- Cleric as a healbot: gone
- High level NPCs with spell lists longer than your arm: gone
- Flipping through a gazillion books to check what every feat, spell and race/class ability does: gone
- Dipping into ten different classes: gone
- Levels where you gain nothing: gone
- Death at level 1 because an orc crits you: gone
- Death at level 10 because the monster's penultimate attack leaves you at 1 hit point: gone
- Death at level 15 because you rolled a 1 on your save: gone
- Casters that suck if they multiclass: gone
- Magic items that do nothing but give you a bonus: gone
I too have playtested the quick start rules and let me assure you 4E still feels very much like D&D. To me, it's a lot more streamlined and fun, especially since I'm the DM, but that's not to say 3.5 isn't fun or Paizo's baby won't be a work of genius (I'm sure it will be and I'm planning on playing both 4E and Pathfinder).
Now as far as flavor is concerned (Forgotten Realms etc.), that's a different matter entirely and I can understand that people oppose big changes in their favorite setting. But the realms with a new cosmology and dragonborn and spellcasters that can cast all day, doesn't make D&D any less D&D.
|
|
Crosswiredmind already addressed these, so let me just add that you forgot to mention a lot of other "gonnees", like:
- The 15-minute work day: gone
- Spell duration calculus: gone
- Polymorph/Wild Shape calculus: gone
- Charisma as a dump stat: gone
- Two rolls for one and the same thing (Hide/Move and Spot/Listen): gone
- Class disbalance: gone (well...)
- Cleric as a healbot: gone
- High level NPCs with spell lists longer than your arm: gone
- Flipping through a gazillion books to check what every feat, spell and race/class ability does: gone
- Dipping into ten different classes: gone
- Levels where you gain nothing: gone
- Death at level 1 because an orc crits you: gone
- Death at level 10 because the monster's penultimate attack leaves you at 1 hit point: gone
- Death at level 15 because you rolled a 1 on your save: gone
- Casters that suck if they multiclass: gone
- Magic items that do nothing but give you a bonus: goneI too have playtested the quick start rules and let me assure you 4E still feels very much like D&D. To me, it's a lot more streamlined and fun, especially since I'm the DM, but that's not to say 3.5 isn't fun or Paizo's baby won't be a work of genius (I'm sure it will be and I'm planning on playing both 4E and Pathfinder).
Now as far as flavor is concerned (Forgotten Realms etc.), that's a different matter entirely and I can understand that people oppose big changes in their favorite setting. But the realms...
Since when is BASIC math considered calculus????!?!
Flipping through a gazillion books to check what every feat, spell and race/class ability does: gone
Give them time. It's still profit-loving Hasbro :)
Actually, to say that something is "great" is always subjective - there are no objective measure for how great something is.
Your response is actually an example of the behavior I meant to caution against.
tut tut crosswired. Don't post again or it will twenty lashes and no gruel!
;)
|
|
Actually, to say that something is "great" is always subjective - there are no objective measure for how great something is.Your response is actually an example of the behavior I meant to caution against.
Why? My statement is factual. You can tell me that I am wrong and why if you would like to.
There are some things in this world that are not subjective and should not be described as such. I would not post that 2+2=4 and add IMHO.
Similarly I see no need to say 4e is a great game followed by a string of qualifying statements. There no objective criteria to measure how great a game happens to be. So it is clearly a subjective statement.
Ha! You're lucky not to be sentenced to the spice mines of Kessel!