If I could put this in a most tasteful way, I'd like to sum up my own opinions of both 3.0/3.5 and 4th edition in the most positive of ways possible.
To me, 4th edition is much like the existence of Basic D&D (the "red box" set to me growing up) alongside 1st Edition AD&D, or rather the way I see 3.0/3.5 (both together as some supplements lapped over... aka the Forgotten Realms core book for one example).
I played both back in the day... AD&D when I wanted a deeper enlightened concept to character management, basic D&D when I simply wanted to get out there and run a game with ease of action (but with wrestling rules).
I will eventually... aka, eventually... get the 4th edition rules... much as I have been re-collecting the 3rd edition, 2nd edition, and 1st edition rules as of late.... but for the most part I'll be a 3.5 (with 3.0 materials) gamer for a long, long time... possibly into the expected 5th edition.
Why? I play D&D for fantasy flavor via micro-management... aka the big picture. 4th edition looks to be more fun for good combat flavor, but I'm ultimately about building things and stretching the story for all its worth... and I feel that 3.5 is more the game system for this approach.
So, in the end, I look at it this way... 3.5 is what 1st edition offered to me while 4th edition is what Basic D&D out of a box offered to me... its as simple as that.
I get you. I agree with your analysis. BECMI D&D is an awesome game. Rules Cyclopedia rocks.
I don't know why you guys always talk about 4E like you so familiar with it. You haven't even seen the game yet. How can you say that 3.5 is like 1E and 4E is like the red box when you haven't even seen the 4E phb?
Sure the designers of 4E talk about improvements towards streamlining and simplifying combat in 4E a lot, but that is probably because combat is where most game rules get used, and where flaws in mechanics show the most when people try to play 3.5. That doesn't mean that there aren't other changes to the game, or that there won't be an equal ammount of options for character customization or story telling etc... Maybe there won't be, but don't you think you should actually sit down and go through the new books before you start talking like you are some kind of expert on the new system?
Every one is entitled to their opinion about the new game; but it gets annoying that so many people on these boards talk about it like they have already been playing it for years. Do you guys all have the new products, and I just don't know about it?
Yeah I have a lot of that stuff as well, but I still don't feel like I'm familiar enough with the new game to start making comparisons like that. I know enough to know that I want to try it out for myself and see how it plays and then decide what I think about it or how it compares to other games. Keep in mind even the guys that played it at the ddxp don't know much. They only played a single adventure, and it was geared to highlight some of the combat mechanics of the game. They used pregenerated characters, so they never had a chance to sit down and use the phb to make their own PCs. Playing in one 4E adventure seems hardly enough experience with the game to form a reliable opinion on it. Furthermore, how any rpg plays (in terms of fun) depends a lot more on the quality of the players and dm at your table than the quality of the system you are using, so if someone was at a crappy table with lousy bunch of players or dm, then their experience of 4E will be much different than someone who had a good dm.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have "play-by-plays" from those who played it at DDXP and specific comments from the designers (both regarding how it played and the "feel" that they're going for) to base my opinion on (including one person who was either a designer or an "official playtester" [I couldn't figure out how to read the names on the blog until I'd gone WAY past that specific post] who said that, in play, it feels more like Basic than anything else, including 3E or any other previous edition).
Every one is entitled to their opinion about the new game; but it gets annoying that so many people on these boards talk about it like they have already been playing it for years. Do you guys all have the new products, and I just don't know about it?
Yeah I have a lot of that stuff as well, but I still don't feel like I'm familiar enough with the new game to start making comparisons like that.
Right, I'm interested to see what creating a character in 4th edition feels like, which is something we really haven't seen yet (and probably won't, until the books are out.)
Looking objectively at what we know, it doesn't seem like 4e will have any fewer character-building mechanics than 3e, aside from not manually allocating your skill points. It will still have feats, and by default even more of them than 3e (although it looks like some of the pathfinder classes are catching up in this regard.) It will have powers for everybody to pick, probably a few at every level if Book of 9 Swords is any indication.
The other main way it could be different is not having the ability to hop between classes and prestige classes every level to grab the best abilities from every possible source. Or at least we don't know that it will have that. Nobody really knows what the multiclassing is like yet.
So possibly, the ability to sit down and plan out your "build" from level 1-20 will be gone in 4th edition. Probably in fact, since it seems like the designers saw that more as a bug than a feature. I enjoyed it, but I did occasionally see players upset when they they had accidentally built a sub-par character that looked awesome on paper.
I would agree that 4e doesn't quite feel like 3e yet, but we're comparing several feet of bookshelf space against like at most 20 pages of rules we know about for 4e. A lot of what made 3e fun was sitting down with my books and planning either adventures to DM or what stuff my character was going to take next. Since I can't do that in 4e yet, and certainly can't do it with the depth I could in 4e until a few more books are out, it's hard to make a judgment yet.
Obviously I am not speaking from experience with 4E, but it seems like they are trying to make the core classes more interesting and playable, so that a player might actually want to play a fighter from level 1-20, and not dip into a bunch of other classes and prestige classes along the way. If this were the case I would be very pleased. The multiclassing freedom of 3E might appeal to many, but since I mostly dm, I find it more of a headache than anything else. I have a couple of players that tend to plan out their characters all the way to 20th level, dipping into a multitude of splat books along the way to optimize their PCs. I put some restrictions on this, but because for them it is part of the fun of the game, I let them use quite a lot of non core options even though it adds a lot of extra work for me to keep track of. An example is my one super power gamer type player. His philosophy of character design is making his PC as powerful as possible, and then trying to come up with a background the justifies all the stuff that he's mashed together to make the character. However, to his credit, he tends to go in with a theme for the character and stick with it, and usually his backgrounds more or less seem plausible. His most recent character is a Air Gensai/Swashbuckler/Fighter/Wizard/Abjurant Champion/Eldritch Knight. His character is level 16 right now and currently has an AC of 50. He's very tweaked out (but not unstoppable- I've killed him once). My main problem with the PC is that in order for me to understand all his abilities, I have to consult a lot of different books, and certain abilities are really unbalanced, but you don't necessarily notice until you've seen the character in play. I could obviously ban the character, but he's not really detracting from the fun of the other players, and though it's taken a while, I now know all his weaknesses, and have been exploiting them as much as possible.
However, I look forward to the chance to start fresh with a system that hopefully will be better balanced in terms of PC power level. When I say this I am referring to PC power level from 1 PC to another, not PCs to monsters. Even in 3E I can always find or modify a monster so that it will challenge the party. However, the problem I see most is when PCs aren't balanced with eachother.
I'm sure min/maxing will be an issue in 4E as well, and maybe a problem more to do with the players than the system, but I'm hoping that more effort will be put into creating play balance between races and classes in 4E than has been demonstrated in the current edition.
Well time to go run through Tomb of Horrors, as a player for a change, using PCs made with only the 3E phb and dmg.
The biggest, and most annoying, fallacy I keep seeing repeated on this and other message boards is the assumption that the new 4E rules will be simplified to the extent that it will be the new "Basic D&D". When I see something like that, it just screams of bias and negativity. Now, say it with me: Streamlined does not mean simplified.
Let's use this forum for constructive and enthusiastic talk about the new and [likely] improved version of the game we love so much.
Not that the game was anything like Basic except in feel...
No worries, I understood.
I just don't buy into this whole 4E is going to feel like Basic D&D jibber-jabber. It's insulting to me. The "feeling" of a campaign is derived from the DM and players and their style of play. Period.
Our campaigns are typically a blend of dark gritty realism and heroic fantasy, with a goodly amount of intrigue tossed in. If you could blend the Conan, Call of Cthulhu, and Seventh Sea RPG back-drops together, that is how my game will "feel".
|
The biggest, and most annoying, fallacy I keep seeing repeated on this and other message boards is the assumption that the new 4E rules will be simplified to the extent that it will be the new "Basic D&D". When I see something like that, it just screams of bias and negativity.
Hmm. When I started, like the OP, I played both "BXCM" D&D and 1e AD&D. While I always liked a lot of the expanded options in 1e better, "basic" D&D was magic--it was just fun. Unmitigated fun.
So, for me, any comparison to basic D&D is a very positive thing. Anyone who uses "basic" D&D as a negative comparison, I strongly suspect never played it. And while I don't care much for a lot of what I've seen of 4e, if it captures the fun of "basic" D&D, you 4e-ers are in for a great experience. :)
Just my perspective. ;)