|
I read plenty of posts that say, in effect, 4E is D&D in name only.
That got me to wax existential for a moment. What is D&D? What is the essence of D&Dness?
Why is 3.5 considered D&D and 4E not? Is it mechanics? Is it flavor? Is it some secret sauce?
Thoughts?
NOTE: In the spirit of full disclosure I believe 4E is as much D&D as the original 3 books in the little wood grain box ... and yes it was mock wood before it was white.
Whatever has the D&D logo stamped on it is D&D. It may not be your D&D or my idea of D&D, but D&D it is. The whole concept of D&D is by now so amorphous and diffuse that you'd never agree on any coherent definition, and for any particular rule you'd likely find a counter-example.
However, this is my totally inaccurate and wildly off-base definition: a tabletop, high-fantasy roleplaying game of the imagination which allows people to play class-based characters who have hit points, saving throws and levels. Probably set in one of the following campaign worlds: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Planescape, et al.
Tastes like ground burger.
Mmm, D&D Burger, yum.
However, this is my totally inaccurate and wildly off-base definition: a tabletop, high-fantasy roleplaying game of the imagination which allows people to play class-based characters who have hit points, saving throws and levels. Probably set in one of the following campaign worlds: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Planescape, et al
There are no more saving throws............NOT D&D!!! :)
|
D&D is about alter ego improving, defeating nasties, problem solving, exotic adventuring and exploring, unraveling misteries, story telling and most of all surviving dangers. You can switch the last two.
From what I've heard so far about 4e, it looks like it's gonna be more focused on carefree monster bashing, flashy powers slinging and PC coolness bragging. Easier and faster.
Yeah, I know. I could be very, very wrong.
But at the moment, I also don't really care. It does simply not look that it'll be a rules or overall flavor iteration/development/evolution that I could like.
Why is 3.5 considered D&D and 4E not? Is it mechanics? Is it flavor? Is it some secret sauce?It's pure opinion. You'd find many folks who don't consider 3.5 to be D&D.
One of my players has called 3.x Swords and Scrolls since it came out as it was not D&D in his mind.
I still think 3.x is fitting of the D&D name, but 4th Ed. might be fitting of the title Swords and Scrolls 2.0.
|
DnD to me includes those elements that were in the basic red box all those years ago...
* Fantasy characters - fighters, wizards, rogues and clerics in the main
* Fantasy races - humans rubbing shoulders with elves, dwarves and halflings
* Fantasy monsters - orcs and goblins are a must, but the game should also include gelatinous cubes, bugbears, hobgoblins, ghouls, skeletons and carrion crawlers
* Alignments - a touch subject I realize but its part of what make the game DnD and not some other fantasy game IMO
* Level progression based upon defeating monsters
* Dungeons to explore and treasure to loot
Vancian magic also seems to me core to DnD but a good rules set that includes all the previous might tempt me to call it DnD regardless
No more saving throws?.......what?There are no more saving throws............NOT D&D!!! :)
I assume you know, but just to restate: In 4e there is no more saving throws. Instead saves are static and act like armour class or spell resistance.
Example:
Where now it would be a Player Character with a +4 reflex rolling a d20 against a DC15 fireball for 1/2 damage.
In 4e it would be an enemy mage rolling 1d20 +5 against the PCs static save dc of 14 for full or 1/2 damage.
Power to the enemies! yeah! awesome! So much simplier! and lame.
(Edit: Or so we have been told this is how it would work.)
|
|
I assume you know, but just to restate: In 4e there is no more saving throws. Instead saves are static and act like armour class or spell resistance.
And not to mention, entirely without precedent in D&D. Static saves? Thats kind of like having a Mental Armor Class. Oh wait, that appeared back in 2nd Edition. Guess it is D&D. ;)
"D&D-ness," for wont of a better term, is a moving target but it's a real thing nonetheless. Consequently, it's very easy for someone, if they're being disingenuous, to find plenty of examples of things that are generally accepted as D&D but that seemingly go against more general principles of what makes something genuinely D&D.
I'll give an example from my own perspective. I would argue that D&D is not merely a ruleset. That is, you cannot define what makes D&D simply by reference to rules. But then I'd also argue that so-called "Vancian" magic is quintessentially D&D, so much so that to remove it is to remove D&D-ness.
"Aha!" the skeptic would say. "You've contradicted yourself and shown you're just some silly old grognard who's afraid of change." To that I can only say that D&D isn't just an either/or thing. It's a feeling, an abstract thing evoked by a combination of rules, metasetting, and "ambiance" that's hard to define. Again, I can already hear the skeptics groaning in pain. "You're trying to define D&D like pornography: 'I'll know it when I see it.' You're just a crazy old man." Guilty as charged on all counts, but that doesn't make it any less true.
As I said, though, D&D-ness is a moving target. Each person will have his criteria for what counts for and against this nebulous quality. It's a bit like the proverbial ship crossing the ocean whose planks are replaced one by one, so that by the time it reaches its destination, each and every plank has been replaced by a different one than those that left on the voyage. At what point did the original ship cease to be the same ship? D&D-ness is like that. For many of us, there comes a point when the game calling itself D&D is no longer D&D. The fact that there are many different answers, going all the way back to people who looked at 1E as "not D&D" doesn't make it an illegitimate perspective or something to be mocked.
For me, though, essential to D&D-ness is a "culture" of fantasy, buttressed by rules designed to evoke and encourage that culture. That culture is essentially literary in nature and takes its cues primarily from pulp fantasy, with nods to medieval history and legend, leavened by pop culture. To my perspective, that culture began to die with v.3.5 and entered terminal morbidity over the last few years. By my reckoning, 3E is the last edition to the game to claim the name D&D without qualification.
Obviously, others will disagree and that's fine. But I don't think there's anything inherently irrational in pointing to 4E (or any other edition) and saying, "This far and no farther." Everyone except a pathological neophile does this all this time and that's OK by me.
Why is 3.5 considered D&D and 4E not? Is it mechanics? Is it flavor? Is it some secret sauce?
To me, D&D is Tolkin. Its about a halfling going on an adventure and finding a magic ring. Its about a boy growing up on a farm picking up a sword to stop a bear and choosing to make money at it. Its about a gnome that discovers that their lute playing can help other people climb a wall. Its about a street urchine that can pick a lock deciding to to be something more then a petty thief. Its about average people discovering they are more then they are. Its about starting out small and ending up ruling your corner of the world. Its about a world similar to old Europe but with magical influence and fantasy races keeping the world mystical.
D&D is not about someone that picked up a sword 10 minutes ago able to do white raven strike. Its not about cinamatic action. Its not about limitless magic. It is not about a world so infested by devils that devil-kin are common. Its not anime. D&D is not what 4E is.
At it's guts I think D&D is merchant caravans through aspen woods full of orc tribes and displacer beasts. It's guys in scale mail with swords, snooty elitist elves who live for centuries and the grungy, hardcore dwarves who feel a kind of smug contempt for the softer races. There's castles in the country and thatched roof, wood and stucco cottages clustered in hamlets around them. It's a dangerous world, with numerous vile races threatening the peace and stability of things but with many adventurers who set down their safety and security for reasons unique to each of them--who keep these threats at the edges of the world. There's gods, and strong religion--which is a s much a force for evil in the world as it is for good--but for good or ill, the people of D&D are largely people of faith in a world full of miracles malevolent and benign. There's magic, a peculiar brand of magic involving spellbooks and long hours of study and the creation and use of wonderous items, wands that sizzle out blasts of energy and swords that are supernaturally light and sharp--but which occasionally burst into flaming firebrands or animate to fight enemies all on their own.
I'd say for me that's the guts of it. That's the feel. I don't think it's the mechanics, in fact I've found that the way the game is played (particularly the little maps and minis, but also ludicrous mechanics) has gotten in the way of "real" D&D for me more than it's embodied it. I find D&D as much in the novels and video games as I do at home sitting around the couch with the books splayed open everywhere.
So 4e doesn't really seem that threatening to me. If anything it feels like a return to the game's roots--dark forests and small splotches of civilization, small pantheons of gods, a few races and classes, a smattering of monsters.
|
I've been playing on and off for 20+ years so for me D&D is ...
-Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution and Charisma, determined by 3 or 4d6;
-Core races: humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves, gnomes, halflings and half-orcs;
-Core classes: cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, paladin, magic-user (wizards and sorcerers are okay), thieves/rogues, bards;
-9 Alignments (although even I will admit that alignment tongues were lame);
-To hit, armor class, saving throws, hit points;
-Spells per day and turning undead;
-Chromatic versus metallic dragons;
-Demon princes and dukes of Hell;
-Random treasure tables
My ideas about D&D have evolved somewhat. I love the innovation that is the whole d20 system, and toying with the essential is fine (good aligned red dragons are fun once in a while, and it might be fun to try spell points or something), but if you jerk with too many of the essentials all at once and wipe away too many of the traditions ... you might have a "fun" game, but it won't be D&D to me anymore.
D&D in essence is a game where you gain experience by killing monsters in a dungeon, and then hope that the DM roll something good on a randomize treasure table, to accumulate gold, becoming more rich than the current kingdom ruler before you reach level 10, buy yourself magic items at the next town magical shop so you can became more powerful, kill more powerful monsters and getting richer.. until lvl 20 when you got the equivalent power of a half-god.... or more as you can now kill demon rulers...
Ho.. and it's also a magic system were you must memorize spells and than forget everything about how to cast them a few second after casting them... simply brilliant!
There is and was absolutly nothing realistic or RPG oriented about this game... from the Gary Gigax era to the 4e editon... 4 edition will only make it all happen sooner with more options and powers (feats/talents) to the players... So please don't tell me that we will loose the DnD essence with the 4 Edition...this is just ridiculous...
All the rest and intersting aspect of the game that people seem to enjoy (the roleplaying aspect, the rich and interesting campaing) don't come from the rules but from the DM, players and great adventure designers like Paizo staff... :-)
D&D in essence is a game where you gain experience by killing monsters in a dungeon, and then hope that the DM roll something good on a randomize treasure table, to accumulate gold, becoming more rich than the current kingdom ruler before you reach level 10, buy yourself magic items at the next town magical shop so you can became more powerful, kill more powerful monsters and getting richer.. until lvl 20 when you got the equivalent power of a half-god.... or more as you can now kill demon rulers...
Ho.. and it's also a magic system were you must memorize spells and than forget everything about how to cast them a few second after casting them... simply brilliant!There is and was absolutly nothing realistic or RPG oriented about this game... from the Gary Gigax era to the 4e editon... 4 edition will only make it all happen sooner with more options and powers (feats/talents) to the players... So please don't tell me that we will loose the DnD essence with the 4 Edition...this is just ridiculous...
All the rest and intersting aspect of the game that people seem to enjoy (the roleplaying aspect, the rich and interesting campaing) don't come from the rules but from the DM, players and great adventure designers like Paizo staff... :-)
Not that I disagree much, but is then every rpg DnD? How should we seperate DnD from every other system that came out? Is Earthdawn Dnd? I agree with the last statement that the best part is from players and DM but thats every roleplaying game. The only thing that can seperate DnD from the others is the rules and tradition. Might be better without them, but then again you dont really need the name DnD just rpg.
Of course for a lot of us, DnD is to rpg like Xerox is to copy.
D&D is whatever you want it to be. Back in the 1st and 2nd ed days, I had 20+ page handouts of house rules given to me at the start of a campaign. Was I still playing D&D? Yeah, of course I was.
THACO vs D20.
Saves vs static "Fort ACs". (or whatever they are calling it.)
The list goes on.
It's all D&D. La plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose...
Greg
|
...What is D&D? What is the essence of D&Dness?
Awesome question! I've been trying to sort out my feelings about this myself. I remember how much I teased some of my friends for refusing to accept change and move on when 3.0 came out, calling them fogies and such. If 3.0 hadn't come out, I probably would have stopped playing D&D for the most part. 2e just did not do it for me. Now that 4e is looming on the horizon, though, I'm feeling unhappy about embracing the change myself.
D&D started out as a strategic combat simulation, no? So I guess D&D has always been about fighting. As the game has progressed, changed, and evolved, it's given us more ways to fight: more classes, more races, and, IMO more importantly, more weapons to wield than swords alone. We now have locks to pick, guards to bribe, important officials to persuade...still combat, but of a different sort.
This realization of a focus on combat is a bit strange for me, because my personal style of play, and that of my group, generally reflects a focus much more on a shared storytelling experience, examining various ethical and moral issues in a fantasy environment, and watching our characters grow, develop, and maybe tell us a little about ourselves.
The ways that people think change, and they change even more quickly in this day and age. I had a really hard time understanding 2e, but 3e clicked for me right away. Maybe this is what will happen with the next generation of players and 4e.
That said, I wonder what the mechanics of the game will give the players and DMs space to do. The very simple removal of allowing players to roll their saves is telling them something important about the game world and their place within it. What type of combat will occur in this new game space? I do not know.
|
D&D is whatever you want it to be. Back in the 1st and 2nd ed days, I had 20+ page handouts of house rules given to me at the start of a campaign. Was I still playing D&D? Yeah, of course I was.
THACO vs D20.
Saves vs static "Fort ACs". (or whatever they are calling it.)The list goes on.
It's all D&D. La plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose...
Greg
I'm sorry - but AC/touchAC/FlatFootedAC was too many ACs for me to keep track of... now I'll have those plus fortac relfexac and willac - making the game harder, not easier
Well.. what is the big difference between rolling 1d20+bonus VS fixed save (like a DC... as all the other rolls of the game) and rolling a Save (1d20 + save bonus) vs a DC?
Do you think your dices are more lucky than those of the DM?
So basically you are now rolling for action taken by your character instead of rolling defensively when other act against you... Hey! Is it more logical to try to be lucky with your resistance instead of your opponent trying to attacking you? Is there a big difference between someone trying to cut your head with a sword (Attack roll vs AC) or a trap-triggered razor sharp blade trying to do the same thing (in 3.5 a Reflex Save vs a DC)?
I'm sure this will break our game enjoyement... an unified rolling system (a d20 + bonus vs a DC)... that's impossible... I don't regognize my DnD!
And by the way, the devil worshipers at WoC have not invented this new concept... Mutants & Masterminds, an OGL game, has use this rules for about 3 years now...
As lame as this is going to sound, as I am not a touchy feely guy, D&D for me is hanging out with my friends and laughing, a lot. It is more of an overall social experience than a game I think.
We changed from 1st to 2nd edition only begrudgingly. We were angered by the mere thought of this bastardly creation, 3rd edition. When we were at GenCon this year and heard the official 4th edition announcement I thought we were going to start a sit-in or worse. Alas on the long drive home Sunday afternoon we realized, "Hey, have we not learned our lesson?"
Then the epiphany. D&D is whatever we make of it. We sleep better at night now.
I still love all the jokes, memories, and reminiscences of the old games. we always just played the way we wanted regardless of the "actual rules". Maybe this is just a new chance for more memories and jokes.
Goo
D&D is like art (or porn)...It's tough for me to describe, but I generally know it when I see it. Like art, it's a matter of taste as well: not everyone likes Pollack or even Picasso.
For me, 3.5 is still D&D, barely...but what I've heard about 4.0 doesn't sound like anything I know. Somehow it just feels too different to be D&D anymore.
If you can't pick up an old copy of Greyhawk or the FRCS, and play in that setting with just the core books without making major changes to those settings, it's not D&D anymore, at least not to me. Those settings, and the countless homebrews like them, are what I would call the "D&D experience".
D&D is whatever Gary Gygax tells me it is.
Its about a gnome that discovers that their lute playing can help other people climb a wall.
You had me right up until here. D&D was *never* about a lute helping a guy climb a wall.
I kid, but only a little. Lutes... /me chuckles
This subject is so deadly serious that it clearly calls for a light hearted answer. Anything else may cause a troll attack, and all-out smurf response.) Gary Gygax I understand to be the creator of D&D. Therefore in any situations where doubt as to 'what is D&D' should arise, possession of Gary Gygax is nine tenths of the game.
Lisa, Vic, Erik, and James should put their heads together to send out an adventuring party to locate Gary Gygax and bring him back home to store him in the Paizo treasure vault. That will settle once and for all what is really D&D and who is publishing it. (Obviously if the rival adventuring parties sent out by WotC, Green Ronin, White Wolf, etc, get there first, then they get the D&D 'bragging rights' instead.)
-I may post a more serious response when I am less tired.
...possession of Gary Gygax is nine tenths of the game.
Lisa, Vic, Erik, and James should put their heads together to send out an adventuring party to locate Gary Gygax and bring him back home to store him in the Paizo treasure vault. That will settle once and for all what is really D&D and who is publishing it. (Obviously if the rival adventuring parties sent out by WotC, Green Ronin, White Wolf, etc, get there first, then they get the D&D 'bragging rights' instead.)
LET THE GREAT GARY GYGAX GAME BEGIN!!!
To me D&D is....Blaaarrrppphhh.
I read plenty of posts that say, in effect, 4E is D&D in name only.
That got me to wax existential for a moment. What is D&D? What is the essence of D&Dness?
Why is 3.5 considered D&D and 4E not? Is it mechanics? Is it flavor? Is it some secret sauce?
3.X kept A LOT of the flavor of AD&D (the version of D&D that I grew up playing) and actually restored some elements that were lost in 2nd edition (such as the restoration of the monk class and the inclusion of half-orcs as a player race).
If you read spell and magic item descriptions, they are very similar to their 1st edition counterparts in many instances.
At the same time, the rules were clearly an improvement over previous rules. The 3.X aren't perfect BUT, to my mind, aren't as arbitrary or convoluted as AD&D's various rule subsystems.
Greyhawk, my favorite setting, was the default setting for the game and all of the races I grew up playing were available to me. The cosmology wasn't overhauled and D&D's roots weren't disregarded (IMHO).
4th edition is changing all of these elements and, as such, isn't for me. It may be a great game (though I find that highly unlikely) but it will never be D&D for me.
If you can't pick up an old copy of Greyhawk or the FRCS, and play in that setting with just the core books without making major changes to those settings, it's not D&D anymore, at least not to me. Those settings, and the countless homebrews like them, are what I would call the "D&D experience".
Well said!
Agreed. This is one of the most ridiculous and "anti-D&D" changes that will be in 4th edition. You know everyone loves to just sit there while the DM rolls dice to see if the dragon roasts their character, or they get turned to stone by a medusa.
I bet they're going to like it better than sitting there while the DM rolls dice for each and every monster caught in the wizard's fireball.
D&D is whatever Gary Gygax tells me it is.Or more succinctly: !4e
Ummm, actually by that logic, it also means !3e. GG has gone on record as saying he doesn't care for the d20 system at all.
Greg
|
|
Agreed. This is one of the most ridiculous and "anti-D&D" changes that will be in 4th edition. You know everyone loves to just sit there while the DM rolls dice to see if the dragon roasts their character, or they get turned to stone by a medusa.I bet they're going to like it better than sitting there while the DM rolls dice for each and every monster caught in the wizard's fireball.
Does your DM really do this? He needs a better system and/or more dice.
If I have several monsters caught in my players fireball, I tend to roll their saving throws as a group. All the goblins one die, the leader gets his own die, the familiar saves with his master, etc. If I do roll for more than one group I just roll all the dice at once, remembering which color die goes with who.
Heh. I'll have to tell my wife that the real reason I have two pounds of dice is because it speeds up game play. ...It's not an addiction at all. I can stop buying dice anytime I feel like it...
Ooh, ooh, ooh, I want to play the party wizard! I've always wanted to try out that Force Missle Mage...
When you need the very /best/ magic missile to cast at the darkness! :) (Sorry. HAD to say it)
Agreed. This is one of the most ridiculous and "anti-D&D" changes that will be in 4th edition. You know everyone loves to just sit there while the DM rolls dice to see if the dragon roasts their character, or they get turned to stone by a medusa.
Given that the DM will also sit there while players roll dice for their own spells, the amount of dice rolling by each side doesn't change (it just swaps).
These ideas were first introduced in Unearthed Arcana, where they were more extreme: Players Roll All the Dice. Monsters had static attack values and defense values. Players rolled dice and added attack modifiers or defense/save modifiers. Those who are interested in giving players maximum participation in combat may want to check it out. I tried it for about six months as a DM and enjoyed it, although it never sat quite right with my players.
|
|
and actually restored some elements that were lost in 2nd edition (such as the restoration of the monk class and the inclusion of half-orcs as a player race).
A little off topic here but...
They weren't lost in 2nd Edition, just delayed. There is a 2nd Edition monk class (although admittedly it came out extremely late) as well as half-orcs as a playable race.
Does your DM really do this? He needs a better system and/or more dice.If I have several monsters caught in my players fireball, I tend to roll their saving throws as a group. All the goblins one die, the leader gets his own die, the familiar saves with his master, etc. If I do roll for more than one group I just roll all the dice at once, remembering which color die goes with who.
Heh. I'll have to tell my wife that the real reason I have two pounds of dice is because it speeds up game play. ...It's not an addiction at all. I can stop buying dice anytime I feel like it...
My DM? Depends. If it's a group of orcs or something, then no. He'll only roll once if they're all mooks with the same stats. But if we're fighting a variety of things with different save bonuses? Then yes. He'll roll for each. And this is something that DOES happen. Frequently.
With saves being static, it means that you only ever have to roll a single d20 for /any/ given attack. There are no 'conditions' that common sense or experience dictates are 'acceptable' tp handwave for speeding up play. The speed is automatically built into the play. One attack, one d20, roll damage, subtract hit points, next guy's turn.
Does your DM really do this? He needs a better system and/or more dice.
I am the DM, and yeah, I actually do this. Why? Because if I have a balanced encounter with 4 CR 10s going up against my 14th level party, I don't want the whole batch wiped out by a single spell and single save roll. I don't use one attack roll for all of them, why should I roll the same save roll? And I guarantee my players would rather they knock out at least one or two mooks than it being an all or nothing scenario.
Greg
