Do DMs look forward to running 4th edition?


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Unless Wizards of the Coast plan to start training and paying people to run 4.0 games, I imagine that they must be relying on DMs converting to 4.0 from earlier editions or other systems to meet the expected rise in demand from players.

Given what information Wizards of the Coast has released into the public domain about the mechanics of the character classes, races, and so forth due to be available in 4.0, how many DMs actually anticipate being able to enjoy running such games?

Does what Wizards of the Coast have said that they may or may not be planning to do to the official version of any particular DM's favourite campaign setting affect the enjoyment that that DM anticipates that he/she could get from running 4.0 games?

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Unless Wizards of the Coast plan to start training and paying people to run 4.0 games, I imagine that they must be relying on DMs converting to 4.0 from earlier editions or other systems to meet the expected rise in demand from players.

Given what information Wizards of the Coast has released into the public domain about the mechanics of the character classes, races, and so forth due to be available in 4.0, how many DMs actually anticipate being able to enjoy running such games?

Does what Wizards of the Coast have said that they may or may not be planning to do to the official version of any particular DM's favourite campaign setting affect the enjoyment that that DM anticipates that he/she could get from running 4.0 games?

Okay, I'll answer this methodically:

To question one, I can't really state anything for other DM's. I've heard the odd one online who doesn't have the time to run their own game, and sees 4.x the answer to their prayers. It allows them less time planning and more time running a game, with shorter, more movie-esque fights.

Based on the fact that I like the way fights go in 3.5, and that I personally like doing 4 hours write up to make interesting, unique encounters, I've made it known that I'll try playing 4.0, but I have no want or need to run a game.

Second question: The campaign setting. At first, I didn't really care how far Drizzt's home world was going to change, or if Eberron, would be having another war and there'd be a new country, or if somehow Mordenkainen[sic] was now more of a jerk.

Then I found out that Greyhawk was out, kinda. And Forgotten Realms was more central, and then I heard about Gnomes being non-PCs, and I got somewhat annoyed. Basically, my answer is kinda affected, I think. I'm more annoyed at the change in mechanics of the game, the change in loot people want, that kinda thing more.

Well, maybe I have more to say about that. The changes of demons and devils is more just stupid, if you ask me. All it does is make those of us who were annoyed with 4 coming out even more annoyed, since even our older chew is also disregarded. At the same time, they can't force me to use their chew, so really, I guess I'm just whining for little reason.


It has taken me some time to learn the 3.x rules sufficiently to run games sand-box style. I was just getting comfortable again with improvising (doing so felt easier in 1st-edition).

I anticipate that running 4.0 will - as the designers claim - be simpler mechanically, but then there will be a learning curve. Perhaps by the time I master the new rules, there will be enough supplements out with alternate stuff to offset the benefit any initial simplifications. Perhaps I'm being cynical.

I don't care a lot about the flavor changes. I've run Eberron and home-brew (and one of these days will have free time to run Pathfinder, which I've loved reading). Just because dragonborn and such are PC options doesn't mean they're common, or even uncommon in my world. The PCs can be misfits. I've never used published deities except for the Eberron campaign, so I don't care about that. I will keep gnomes and half-orcs in my setting as PC options, as best I can.

Perhaps the biggest headache for me will be recreating from scratch the NPC character generator I scripted; that has saved me much time. I don't foresee using the DI. I prefer my own stuff.

Several of us love playing 1st-3rd level adventures, which involve running away from wolves and such. I prefer to think that heroes are made and not born. That said, the new mechanics probably will likely smooth out the progression process. I love the idea of "bloodied." I wonder if someone will include optional rules for "scarred."

One player has expressed his desire to DM but has been daunted by the rules. Perhaps 4th edition, if it is simpler, will encourage more players to DM.

Mostly, I really hope the new system stymies the creation of god-characters-of-brokenness and places a mute-button / tazer on the rules-lawyers.

Cheers!

PS. I plan to buy far fewer books this time around. If a player wants to use a class in Players Handbook VMXIII he can get the book himself. It kills me that the stuff in Lords of Madness, Heroes of Horror, and Fiendish Codex series for example will be mechanically incompatible. Gods, just thinking about it upsets me. I have become more open to buying and using 3rd party materials and will likely continue to do so.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Unless Wizards of the Coast plan to start training and paying people to run 4.0 games, I imagine that they must be relying on DMs converting to 4.0 from earlier editions or other systems to meet the expected rise in demand from players.

Running 4e Games

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Given what information Wizards of the Coast has released into the public domain about the mechanics of the character classes, races, and so forth due to be available in 4.0, how many DMs actually anticipate being able to enjoy running such games?

The short answer? Heck, yeah I'm excited to run 4e. It's a brand new fresh take on D&D, and I really like that. I'm expecting to be the first guy standing in a very short line when the books arrive.

To tell you the truth though there's stuff that excites me more than the mechanics. I'm looking forward to faster chargen, faster game prep, more character options (if that ends up being true), and feats getting retooled into something that isn't a drag. The specifics of who rolls the DC save for a spell though, or whether effects are "save or die" are really just stuff I couldn't care less about either way.

The races look interesting. I like the idea of consolidating the fifty-billion dragony types into the Dragonborn. I've always liked Tieflings and if they can come up with a logical reason for them to be common enough to be in the main book, then great.

The classes are a little disappointing, if the current gossip is true, that we'll be going from something like 13 classes listed in 3.0 to five. Then again, who knows. On one hand it might be good to get back to basics rather than have a zillion different classes. On the other hand, the rumor could be wrong--and if it isn't that just means a year before the next PHB comes out. Can I tell you how excited I am about new classes and races each year? That will be sweet!

Effects on Campaign Settings

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Does what Wizards of the Coast have said that they may or may not be planning to do to the official version of any particular DM's favourite campaign setting affect the enjoyment that that DM anticipates that he/she could get from running 4.0 games?

Well there's one coming out a year, so we might get more settings than 3.0 gave us. Wizards has been buying back all their rights, so anything goes really.

I'm interested to see the changes that are happening with the Realms. Ed Greenwood gave his support to the changes and heck, it's his setting--if he's for it so am I. I might actually buy Eberron this time around. It looked kinda' cheesy and half-baked the first time around, like it didn't know what it wanted to be. Is it dark gothic? hopeful steampunk? Cthuhlu? noir 20's? weird monster raceville? It seemed like it was trying to be everything at once and it came across like a disorganized mess. Now that folks have played in it a few years, I think the writers have a much more solid idea of what Eberron is now. So yeah, this time around I'll probably pick it up.

I'm also pretty jazzed for the Core setting, that there actually will be one rather than some goshawful attempt to cram everything into Greyhawk, whether it belongs or not. The new setting, with what's sounding like a fun open-ended backstory, and a dark ages, fog-of-war feel is getting me really intrigued. The fact that they're finally giving a nod to continuity hounds like me by making their core world the home to all the frustratingly amorphous "generic" modules and rulebooks of yore--that's really sold me. I love the idea that classic "settingless" modules and modern generic stuff like Fantastic Locations are going to have a real place to exist without having to shoehorn them "wherever you want" (which I always found lazy and tacky in the extreme).

It actually reminds me a bit of Pathfinder--taking all the generic modules they wrote and creating a world around them. You can't go wrong with that.


I could give a whit less about the flavor changes - if I don't like it, I'll just change it back to the way I like it. I am curious if their promises of easier to prep & run will come true.


Lilith wrote:
I could give a whit less about the flavor changes - if I don't like it, I'll just change it back to the way I like it. I am curious if their promises of easier to prep & run will come true.

Singing to the choir on that note milady.


Lilith wrote:
I could give a whit less about the flavor changes - if I don't like it, I'll just change it back to the way I like it. I am curious if their promises of easier to prep & run will come true.

Totally agree, but on the complete opposite end of things. I really don't care what the new rules look like at all. If I don't like it I'll just houserule it. I think I'll keep the flavor though--since that's really what makes it different from older editions.

Dark Archive

Nope. Probably not gonna even do it.


kikai13 wrote:
Nope. Probably not gonna even do it.

Fair enough, if I understand correctly that you're a long-term Greyhawk player/DM, kikai13. The setting has a great deal of tradition and history to it.


Ain't running it unless 4e is truly the cat's pajamas. And cats don't even wear pajamas.


Grimcleaver wrote:
I'm looking forward to faster chargen, faster game prep,...

As Lilith alluded to, are we reasonably certain that chargen will be faster? Initially, I imagine chargen will be slower as players get used to the mechanics. Afterwards, I figure the same "cookie cutter" patterns will emerge as players learn what gives them the best "bang for their buck." And then 4th Edition is right back where 3rd is now. "Broken."

But we all know I am too cynical.

I figure game prep will follow the opposite trend. It'll start out easier as the players haven't yet learned how to milk the system, and get harder when players learn the best combos.

But we will need to see how things turn out.


Lilith wrote:
I could give a whit less about the flavor changes - if I don't like it, I'll just change it back to the way I like it. I am curious if their promises of easier to prep & run will come true.

I have to agree. From what Ive read so far it seems each monster has its own special rules. In a way that seems more to learn and remember than it have similar rules to characters.

Most of their comments seem to say its easier for designers to write adventures and monsters since they dont have progression rules to follow. I never followed exact rules when modifying monsters, or I took stuff from modules/campaigns and mixed it up.

Since two of my players both are adamant about not learning new rules (not in loyalty to 3.5 but not caring about rules enough), it would have to be insanely easier for me to covince them. So far wizards has said it is, but havent shown anything that convinces me it is. In fact most example seem like more work not less.

The Exchange

I GM far more than I play. My GM style has always been to wing it so less prep time holds no promise for me since I rarely prep anyway.

What I am really looking forward to is the shorter combat encounters.

If 4E does not deliver on that I will be heading away from D&D and on to Warhammer Fantasy Role Play.

As for gnomes - don't like em, never played one, my players don't like them, not gonna miss them at all.

Setting changes do not bother me at all.


Yeah. Totally. D&D has always suffered under battles that just take too darn long. Not only is it not realistic (whacking badguys is like chopping wood!) but it just gets tired after a while. I have always liked quick, fast-paced exciting battles myself. Granted, so long as hitpoints run into the double to triple digits there really won't be such a thing as fast combat--but any progress is still progress.

Dark Archive

I was almost on the verge of creating my own RPG due to the slog we were experiencing in my biweekly game, so I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing if the new rules are indeed easier to learn, use and understand.

I've always thought that D and D had too many overlapping systems, and I like 4th edition's attempts to "fix" said redundancies.

If I really like it, I'll start converting old modules into it.


One of the first plans of 4e is to update a bunch of the classic campaigns to the new rules. So yeah, that should save you some time.


I am definitely looking forward to seeing some faster play.


If they can bring the promised 'less NPC/monster prep times' to the table without sacrificing too much in the way of customization, I'll be all for it. Right now my game is heading out of the 'Sweet spot' at 14th level and the waters are getting pretty rough let me tell you. And I don't by any means try to have a complete stat block for everything they fight even now.

The Exchange

I don't think we have NEARLY enough solid information to even be asking this question yet.


Fiendish Dire Weasel wrote:

I don't think we have NEARLY enough solid information to even be asking this question yet.

Though I agree with the above statement I will also through in my two cents.

Flavour: Changeable, but annoyed that I must change it just to keep continuity.

Rules: Haven't seen any examples yet.

Observations on what has been said: Doesn't seem less complex, just different. More options means more complexity, not less. More creatures required for an encounter means more work running it, not less.

All in all I'll believe it when I see it.

(PS: I suspect the 'simplicity' of the system will disappear relatively quickly within 2-3 years as more and more admendments, splat books, and DI info is added.)

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Hmm...new bottles...old wine...

I don't think there's sufficient information to answer this question right now, just like nearly every other 4e question that could be asked. If you were to take the WotC press releases at face value, the experience of DMing will be quicker, easier, and more enjoyable. If you look at the actual substance (and I use that word in the loosest sense) of the system that WotC has presented, the descriptions of combat are cluttered and unlcear, plus there seems to be an equal or greater amount of information to track (terrain, actions triggered by other actions, etc). It's entirely possible that these new elements are more simple when fully described, but not having received such a description, there's not much definitive to be said.

It's like asking me in April if I think Spider-Man 3 will be a good movie based on the fact that I know it has 3 villians and the same actors and director as the first two. One of these elements suggests a movie that will not be good, the other suggests a movie that will rock. The truth, as is typical, came out somewhere in between those two poles. But in April, I could no more make an actual judgment about the experience of Spider-Man 3 than I can make an actual judgment about the fun of DMing 4e at this time.

So, we're back to, "based largely on speculation and very little substantive information, do you think 4e will be any good?"

Mystic 8-Ball wrote:


Spoiler:
Uncertain. Ask again later.


Drats. Why, I ask, is that 8-ball always so correct?

Liberty's Edge

I really do have a magic eightball, and it has always steered me true.

I asked "Will 4th edition be any good?"

Answer "Most likely."

I was surprised, so I asked if it will be better than 3.0/3.x?

Answer: Outlook not so good.

Scarab Sages

DeadDMWalking wrote:
I really do have a magic eightball, and it has always steered me true.

I think there are many of us living in secret throughout the world. We really should start a cult.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I did not read the entire thread so this may and probably was stated.

I will buy 4e and I will look it over and I will even buy the Moster Manual. I will take some time. What I am running for the forseeable future is 3.5 (ran half of the Skinsaw Murders last weekend - plan to play Second Darkness, Savage Tide and Crimson Throne) so it will be some time before I am ready to move into 4e. Part of my decision is based on what Paizo does. I even see the posibility of jumping back and forth between editions to run different things.

I see any edition of the game as just a tool I use at the table to contain what happens.

I was surpised at the OPs comment about WotC doing some kind of training. It is a game and the books are the game rules. You buy what you want and run it your way. Like all previous editions you bought the books and you played how you wanted to play. I was never invited to a training course for f1st, second or third editions...

Peace all...

The Exchange

Aberzombie wrote:
DeadDMWalking wrote:
I really do have a magic eightball, and it has always steered me true.
I think there are many of us living in secret throughout the world. We really should start a cult.

My "8-ball" is actually a Yoda, and when I asked him, he said "Try Not, Do!", so I guess that means we should! :)


Shem: To clarify, in case I was not sufficiently clear, I used the word 'Unless', when posting the thread. My thought is that DMs are by and large great people, who run games on the basis that they enjoy doing so- and I wished to make the point that Unless Wizards of the Coast intend to start paying people on a professional basis (much as professional sports pay officials to adjudicate games) that they are going to be relying on these people to run the games for their 4th edition product when it comes out.

I have posted this thread, in the hope of giving DMs a place to comment and discuss on whether or not, from the information currently known- or as each new piece becomes available- they think they will be able to enjoy running fourth edition D&D games. If the DM is enjoying running the game, then I would hope that it contributes to the enjoyment of the players. If the DM has little or no enthusiasm for the system then it takes much more effort, even when the players are a group of friends desperate to play with that system, to run a game. (At least in my personal experience.)

I appreciate that the lack of data from Wizards makes assessing how likely one may be in three quarters of a year's time to enjoy running a 4.0 game, but as they release each new piece opinions may shift, and new thoughts (or at least so I hope) can be placed on these and other forums.

However thanks for your thoughts Shem, and looking forward to hearing from you (or anyone) again.

Dark Archive

Despite some things I'm hearing about 4e that make me cringe, I am honestly looking forward to running the system.

If it rocks? Cool. I'll actually be into the current edition of the game. If it sucks? My 2nd edition books are still here for me. I'm going to give it an honest go though.I don't have 3.5e holding me back.

Liberty's Edge

DangerDwarf wrote:

Despite some things I'm hearing about 4e that make me cringe, I am honestly looking forward to running the system.

If it rocks? Cool. I'll actually be into the current edition of the game. If it sucks? My 2nd edition books are still here for me. I'm going to give it an honest go though.I don't have 3.5e holding me back.

(lol) I was in the same position when 3e. came out. No 2e. at all. 1e.-Palladium-Rifts-3e.

Now look at my sorry ass.


Yeah, damn that thing is hairy...

The Exchange

Heathansson wrote:


(lol) I was in the same position when 3e. came out. No 2e. at all. 1e.-Palladium-Rifts-3e.
Now look at my sorry ass.

Hehe I never played 1e, and my 2e purchases consisted only of the PHB. I was pretty strictly a MERP/RM player in my early days. But also some Palladium Fantasy and a smattering of other stuff. I didn't care for 2ed D&D for a number of reasons.

3rd Ed was a vast improvement to me, and 3.5 better still. For all the WotC bashing that goes on here, the fact is (in my case at least) without them I would never have played much D&D at all. We'll see where it goes after that.


Sebastian wrote:
It's like asking me in April if I think Spider-Man 3 will be a good movie based on the fact that I know it has 3 villians and the same actors and director as the first two. One of these elements suggests a movie that will not be good, the other suggests a movie that will rock.

Truthfully it would be like asking you in April if you're excited about Spider-Man 3. It's really more of an emotional guage I think. Does it make you go Woo-hoo! or Blargh!

Not a book report--just whether you're excited about running it as a DM or if (like pretty much of the tone around here nowadays) you're thinking of getting your torch and pitchfork and burning down the store that tries to sell it.

More feelings about it right now than 8-Ball prognostication. I think we know enough for that.

Liberty's Edge

I would have to say no, and for two reasons in particular;
Re-imagining and Resources.

It is becoming more and more obvious that 4th edition is in fact D&D 2.0. They are changing everything but the name! The Ecology of the Death Night, The Dryad miniature, Devils as fallen angels, elemental vortex, 30 levels of spells without Wish, and now we learn that many feats are now class abilities.

On one hand, I have no desire to re-learn how to play and DM this game. And add to that with every change they make, all my knowledge and experience matter less, in fact it most likely would work against me as most of what I see fluff-wise, I don't like. Most of my confidence as a DM comes from that experience with the rules. But by changing the meaning of those rules, they are creating a nightmare situation "Old Rules vs New Rules".

Yes, 3E changed things, but not to the heart of the game. They did not replace the Wizard with the Sorcerer, Feats were something new that added to the game. Imagine if they changed Football to this degree, the players on the field would be unsure what to do and the poor refs would be constantly flaging people for fouls. I do not want to be a DM/Ref who has to constantly flag players for "4E violations".

Also the more they change, the more useless all the books behind me become. I have converted 1E & 2E characters into 3E without any problems, but even the designers are saying you will not be able to do this with 4E. It is starting to look like a completely different game, and not the one I enjoy playing.

In their hurry to have a "Sacred Cow BBQ", they seen to have forgotten that those aspects of D&D are what separate it from other RPGs. That's what makes it unique among fantasy games.

From time to time I play other games, but I always have come home to D&D. Now I fear I no longer have a home to come back to.

Dark Archive

Dark Lurker of Psionics wrote:
Imagine if they changed Football to this degree, the players on the field would be unsure what to do and the poor refs would be constantly flaging people for fouls. I do not want to be a DM/Ref who has to constantly flag players for "4E violations".

*chuckles* To me, the d20 incarnation of D&D did change things to that degree. All these years late and I still get flags thrown for "3e violations" when I have played the game.

My #1 area of "penalties"? Attribute checks. =/


Given my knowledge of 4E's design right now I don't think I'd enjoy running it. I'm usually the DM but this time around I'd have to play in a good 4E group first to see if the changes bother me a lot or only a little. There are too many ideas derived from MMORPGs (which I don't like) for me to embrace it at this time.


I am not planning on moving over. I have tons of 3.x books, most of which I haven't used yet. I still haven't got everything in the current version down. 4.0 reminds me of an MMORPG. Every class gets "special abilities" each level, every character is going to be "useful" every round, and now the term "quests" seems to be replacing "adventures", along with the idea of giving out a printed "Quest Card" (presumably to go in the "Quest Log.") So far, it doesn't appeal to me. (Of course, ask me again a year from now, once it has been out, and I may have changed my mind.)


Grimcleaver wrote:
The short answer? Heck, yeah I'm excited to run 4e. It's a brand new fresh take on D&D, and I really like that. I'm expecting to be the first guy standing in a very short line when the books arrive.

I'll be standing right behind you. I may still finish out the Age of Worms campaign I'm running in 3.5, but I am connected to at least two groups of players (one at work, one a group of friends and spouses) who are just getting their feet wet with D&D, and seeing them struggle with many of the 3.5 issues that we've learned to deal with over the years has been insightful. I think both groups will benefit from the new edition, and won't have as much baggage either.

My oldest son is also six years old now, and I imagine 4E will be the edition of D&D which has the most steam when he starts roleplaying in a couple years. I certainly would like to get in at the ground floor for that.


Derek Poppink wrote:
My oldest son is also six years old now...

Mine too. :)

But we're going to wait for 5E, or just stick with 3.5.

(Although, if I were going to play 4E with him, I'd wait to buy the books until the errata has been corrected. And with a brand new version like this, the errata's probably gonna be huge.)


Fiendish Dire Weasel wrote:

Hehe I never played 1e, and my 2e purchases consisted only of the PHB. I was pretty strictly a MERP/RM player in my early days. But also some Palladium Fantasy and a smattering of other stuff. I didn't care for 2ed D&D for a number of reasons.

3rd Ed was a vast improvement to me, and 3.5 better still. For all the WotC bashing that goes on here, the fact is (in my case at least) without them I would never have played much D&D at all. We'll see where it goes after that.

Well, they may have done things right in the past and greatly improved the game, but that doesn't guarantee that it will happen in the future (especially considering the number of people who worked for them in the past who no longer work for them now). Just because they were successful in the past doesn't mean they will in the future. For me, they need to prove themselves just like everyone else. Brand/company loyalty be damned. I want the best product I can get no matter who it comes from and I will evaluate each piece/product as I come across them. Kudos to Paizo, Malhavoc Press, Necromancer games, and others for producing some really great products.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Given what information Wizards of the Coast has released into the public domain about the mechanics of the character classes, races, and so forth due to be available in 4.0, how many DMs actually anticipate being able to enjoy running such games?

Does what Wizards of the Coast have said that they may or may not be planning to do to the official version of any particular DM's favourite campaign setting affect the enjoyment that that DM anticipates that he/she could get from running 4.0 games?

Based on everything I've seen, it sounds like I'll enjoy it much less than 3e as a DM.

I don't mind the prep time/complexity of 3e, and consider its flexibility to be its greatest strength. I'm not thrilled with the idea of improving monsters by adding "skirmisher" levels, etc. I don't like the reductions of monster abilities to shoehorn them into a "role". I'm not keen on the elves becoming eladrin, humans being tied to plains and halflings tied to rivers, succubi becoming devils, demons being tied to elementals, elementals replaced with fire archons and ice griffons, and so forth. It will be way too much work for me to retcon out all the "points of light" business to get my game back to the way it has been for many, many years.

So no, I wouldn't anticipate enjoying it in the slightest.

Liberty's Edge

I am not waiting on the edge of my seat but if the game looks good I will run it.

I expect my current Ptolus campaign to end with:

Spoiler:
the return of the Vallis Moon and the imprisonment of the Galchutt on another plane

so the idea that magic systems might change can be explained in-game for future campaigns. In fact, I have prepared for a number of possibilities and 4e is just one of them. I am also waiting to see if Monte will publish his re-tinkering of the 3e magic system. I am excited to see how that would look.

So I am expecting to do something different by the time 4e is out. I think it might be the new edition but if the game doesn't suit me it will probably be an altered 3e.


With each new piece of information coming out- the most recent development (as of this posting) discussed on this thread: '4EDITION WIZARDS OR WOTC MAKES PAIZO CHOICE FOR THEM' (Link) ,
it has seemed to me as if what will be 4th edition is becoming more and more apparently different from 3.5.

With regret, I think that the question of how long it is likely to take a DM to master a completely new set of rules, to the point here he/she is able to effectively run a game for their favourite (most likely to switch to 4th Edition) players, must now be taken into the equation, with regard to the question of do DMs look forward to running 4th edition? (With reference strictly to game mechanics, though not without considerable sympathy being extended to those DMs who have lost or face a mammoth task of new history, pantheons, etc, for a completely revised 'official' campaign setting.)


I just like change so I am excited about running the new addition. With that said I am firmly in the camp of willing-to-houserule any rule that just doesn't seem to fit in my game. We (my group) have even discussed the possibilty of returning to 3.5 altogether if 4th is lame enough.

We will see....

Goo

Liberty's Edge

I'm looking forward to testing the new rules with a few encounters at certain levels so I can get a feel for how well they work.

The results of that will determine how much I'm looking forward to running it :)

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

No. Not looking forward to D&D 4e from what I've heard so far. If I want a superhero game, I'll use HERO (Champions) rules TYVM or PDQ (T&J).


Many thanks to ArchLich, for posting a link on one of his threads to a site that summarises what is known/rumoured about 4th edition thus far. I duplicate that link here: link

As far as I can tell (as of the date of posting this comment), the site seems to be free of the tracking cookies that infest certain other sites...


If the promises of faster combat, easier prep*, and more cinematic action that 4E is promising are true, then yes, I will be converting enthusiastically. If the rules allow me to create fun, fast flowing combat, allowing me to improvise without slowing the game down, then I'm all in. Several of us in our weekly game group are DM's in other games, and we're actually excited about the rules changes to D&D. As for fluff text, heck with it. We don't really care, we can always the universe to what we want anyway.

(I can't be the only DM who laboriously copies the spell descriptions from the SRD of all monster and NPC spells onto cheatsheets prior to a session so I don't have to slow things down looking up spells or spell-like powers)


I don't.

I really enjoy D&D 3/3.5, so I don't see myself switching to the new edition.

I would maybe give it a go as a player for a test-game, but so far, this new edition doesn't sound like my kind of game - and I think it will be much more difficult to apprehend than they want to admit (different rolls and different effects for weapons, etc... Are we back to THACO times or what?)

Plus my group is absolutely not interested in that 4th edition thingy...

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Do DMs look forward to running 4th edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.