David Marks |
Mark Moreland Director of Brand Strategy |
Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
Can you copy the text under a spoiler? I'm fire-walled.
Done
By The Game on Jun 30, 2008 in Interview, News, RPG
On Saturday of Origins, I peeled myself out of bed after a long night hanging out and gaming to attend the panel run by Mike Mearls. It was nearly all questions and answers, and even ran a half an hour past when it was supposed to let out.
Mike started with introducing himself, saying that he joined Wizards in September of 2005. When he first got there, he did not know fourth edition was in the works, but had his suspicions. Then on one day he was called into an office (where he thought he was going to get into trouble for something) but instead was let in on ORCUS, the codename for 4e.
After a few more discussions about working at Wizards, the floor was opened to any and all questions. (Both the questions and answers are paraphrased.)
Q: Why is there a limit of 1 action point per encounter?
A: It happened because of playtesting. If the players found out that they had to kill a dragon at the end of a dungeon, they’d save up all their action points (and even get into additional fights) to unload on the dragon. Then every player’s turn went: “daily, action point, encounter power.” If you think of a game of D&D like a movie, this would look ridiculous. Mearls cited the Luke vs. Vader fight as an example of a fight that wouldn’t work like that. Same with fighting Sauron.
Q: How did Star Wars: SAGA Edition influence, or be influenced by, 4e?
A: SAGA was the test-bed for 4e. Everyone in R&D was working on D&D4e, but the time was right to release SAGA. So they put things that were in 4e into SAGA. They would go to the SAGA team with mechanics and say, “You’re using them,” but they were OK with it. It wasn’t a one-way street either: development of Star Wars helped nail down some system. The powers system wasn’t quite as far along in development at that point, or else Star Wars probably would have had them. SAGA was a snapshot of how 4e looked at the beginning of 2006.
Q: Why change the planes?
A: Mike mentioned that this was more on the story team, and he was a mechanics guy. They decided early on that they didn’t want to use an established setting. They didn’t like how there was the claim that Greyhawk was the default setting in 3e, but changed so many things, and ended up not really supporting Greyhawk as a setting. They wanted a springboard for people’s own settings. They wanted to leverage the differences between World of Warcraft and D&D by focusing on “making stuff up.” Think of the DM as a novelist, crafting his own story. The new planar structure is supposed to be more open, and leave lots of room to add your own parts to. You’re given the basic structure and then you can zoom in and fill what you need for your story.
As an example, Mearls said he was working on an adventure that uses “Orcus’s Zombie Closet” (not the final title) as a new demiplane. Instead of worrying about which layer of the Abyss might already be established, he can add to it easily enough.
Q: Many of the magic items from previous editions were missing in the PHB, and the ones that had carried through were underpowered. Was a future supplement planned for those old items?
A: “Yes- Adventurer’s Vault.”
Q: Why weren’t those items in the corebook?
A: A big part came down to space in the book. Or in some cases, the mechanics weren’t quite ready yet (like the Figurines of Wondrous Power.) He said he’d rather wait and get it right the first time instead of having to errata it.
Q: Why no Ring of Feather Fall?
A: It was related to “everybody can fly all day long” that was a problem in previous editions. They opted to be more conservative about flight. Flight is tricky, and they also tried to be conservative about long-distance teleporting for similar reasons. They are working on new stuff for both.
Q: One of the big draws to playing a Warforged was how different they operated. Why was that removed?
A: “Anything specific?”
Q: Healing? Specifically, that they needed repair spells.
A: It’s hard to make them fit with the party, and for the Leader role to do their job. You can’t ask the rest of the party to take powers to accommodate one PC. It’s hard to make things specific, but at the same time not pigeonhole them into “take X only if you have Y in your party” or “monster is only affected if you have a Z.” Mearls wasn’t sure if the Warforged rules in Eberron will be the same as the Dragon article- but he highly recommends emailing Dragon magazine if you have suggestions.
Q: What about Artificers?
A: Artificers are definitely in. Showing up in Dragon. (Later, he said it might be as early as next month’s Dragon, so soon.)
Q: I like that PrCs and Multiclasses streamlined, but they’re too restrictive.
A: That’s possibly the biggest difference between 3e and 4e. You’re more set on a path than before. Multiclassing rules were the rules that got the most work. They wanted to get the classes right first, then go back and figure out multiclassing. They didn’t want to sacrifice a strong design to get the old style of multiclassing. That’s how the feat-based approach came about. Fighter’s can still multiclass and still follow their role. The wizard is the most bound to his role. The question was, “How many powers do we have to give until you feel multiclassed?” If 1 power is 25% of a class, and 2 powers is 50%, how much more can we give you to feel like a multiclass character, instead of just a hodgepodge character.
The big plus of the system is that instead of having to issue errata to replace what’s out there, they can just release more feats to handle different aspects of multiclassing. There will also be Paragon Path and Epic multiclassing feats.
Q: Fighters can take Ritual Casting, making them feel like “multiclassing without multiclassing.” Was that intentional?
A: “I’m glad you noticed that.” People can see other ways of multiclassing in addition to the feats. You can have pious Fighter who isn’t necessarily a Cleric. And all of these things play better than they read. For example, one of the characters in his groups is a Fighter that can throw a fireball and mark all of the monsters.
Overall, they wanted to make a game where if problems came up (for example, with multiclassing), instead of doing 4.5, they can just add new feats to the game to address concerns. He compared 4e to more like a Lego kit instead of a model kit- it’s easy to add or subtract pieces, instead of being a glued together-whole that has to be rebuilt each time there’s a change.
Q: There’s a big thread on ENWorld about the math behind skill challenges. There’s been experience that shows that they work, but the math to prove that they are broken seems solid.
A: Skill challenges are interesting, since they are not reflected in the written rules as they were intended. They started as more “combat” with intiative, etc., but eventually moved them to be more freeform. They were intended as more of a framework, not strictly mechanical. When planning a non-combat encounter, try to come up with options, different ways to play out while not stopping the game. (i.e. don’t build in a roadblock if they don’t succeed at the skill challenge.)
They want to address different ways to handle it without errata-ing. That might make it into a future DMG. Here are ways to do things differently, not “these rules are different.”
Q: Is the Dragon stuff “official”?
A: All official, RPGA legal, comes directly from the R&D team. They’re also very interested in feedback on the articles, since they’re designed as a test before they go into a book.
Q: Are there plans to write up all the races from the back of the Monster Manual like the Warforged got?
A: Maybe not all of them… Kobolds, for example, are too powerful. (When has that ever come up before in D&D?) They’d like to eventually do most of them for full write up. More of a question of “when” than “if.”
Q: There seems to be a shift towards pregenerated adventures. How does that work with the “three core setting books” idea?
A:They’re trying to give more ideas on how adventures can work together. Also, the pregenerated adventures set the tone for how a certain plays out. Paragon tier has plane-shifting, so paragon tier adventures will contain plane-shifting.
Setting themselves may only get three published books (with one being an adventure), but there will be plenty more in Dungeon magazine. Some settings are very adaptable to 4e, like pre-war Dragonlance (so Warlords can take the place of Clerics.) Dark Sun could have specific equipment tables.
Q: Some have argued that the intention of leaving out classes from the PHB was just to sell more books. How do you respond to that, and will we be seeing Psionics soon?
A: Every previous class from last edition missing has had some work done on it. They don’t want a power source for just one class. They also don’t want to have a class that makes other classes useless. The attitude going forward is they want to support every class with feats, paths, magic items, not like later classes in 3e like the Hexblade that didn’t have as much unique stuff.
Q: In the selection of feats, there are some that come into play every encounter, some every other encounter, and some even rarer. How do they balance against each other?
A: The approach was that since there are more feats, let people keep working on their own path. They want characters to take a variety of feats, some that are all the time, some that are maybe once per encounter, and some that are just a method of customization. Balancing is not just across individual feats, but how are players going to select them. There are less stackable feats, and more customization. The idea was to reward how people want to play at the table and not force them into rigid chains.
Q: Was the power system from MMOs like World of Warcraft? Were you conscious of comparisons? Were you trying to streamline 3.5 or copy MMOs?
A: A combination- streamline 3.5 while picking up on what makes MMOs so easy to get into. Mearls loves hearing that the “game runs smoothly.” The designers tried very hard to make the rules such that if they were designed for something, they just said it instead of trying to hide it. Like a Fighter’s job is to protect everyone else, so that’s now stated up front. Previous editions could feel like a “passive-aggressive friend” that obfuscated what the true purpose of a rule was.
Games are moving in that direction, especially eurogames. Something like Ticket to Ride, you have your three options on your turn, and you know what each of them means. Something like Titan was more like D&D, where there are stacks of monsters and hidden under rules are various percentages. The designers wanted to tell you what was intended, not just teasing. Once you know what’s going on in a game, you can start to make better decisions, and then start making everything more interesting.
Q: Why only one controller and three strikers?
A: They looked at the Ranger and said he was definitely Martial and not Primal. They also didn’t think it made sense to have a controller that dual-wields. The controller had a specific image of a lightly armored character that throws fireballs. Other roles were more generic templates, but the controller was defined by the Wizard. Then they looked at the Warlock as being a controller, but the curses and pacts were more interesting as a striker power. They have a better handle on controllers now, and more will be added.
Q: Artificer role?
A: “I don’t have clearance to reveal that.” As a hint, they’ll probably shy away from adding another Arcane Controller for a bit.
Q: Some feats are very specific, like Scimitar Dance. Was it just a matter of “we need a feat for Drizzt”?[/b]
A: At one point in the design, feats were emphasized as being very specific. With the many different weapons in the game that are similar, feats were added to try to make them different. More of scimitar dance style feats are coming to cover all weapon styles. Should see more in the martial book.
Q: 4e more accessible to casual gamers. How did that inform the design?
A: They worked on getting rid of that layer of guesswork. You can sit down at the table and know what you’re supposed to do. When sitting down at an MMO, you are guided to know what you are supposed to be doing right away. Now, you don’t have to push mechanics in directions they aren’t designed to go. You don’t have to go through 3-4 characters to figure out what you want to play. Like in Eurogames, the big trend was to not hide anything from you. People have little tolerance for hiding rules. At the very beginning, you just see what powers you have. Then once that makes sense, you can start doing crazy stuff like kicking over tables with gnomes on them, but initially, new players need guidance.
Q: Cleric specialization: in 3e the domains made each Cleric seem different. Why was that cut back on?
A: There are sample Gods in the PHB, but no actual setting. They wanted to let people pick gods that aren’t in there, and not be tied to rules. Channel Divinity is the hook to put unique domain/portfolio abilities. They definitely want to make clerics more flavored- this get talks about among the designer a lot. More stuff like that coming.
Q: The thievery skill now is just a single number to encompass a large number of abilities, so you aren’t better at some thief skills than others. Why is this?
A: It was Mike’s personal pet peeve: the rogue in 3e gets lots of skill points, but rest of party is depending on you to specifically take 5-6 skills. So then 2/3rds of your points were gone right there. The change was a very specific response to that problem. If they’re all being taken anyway, it’s better to combine them, so you can customize the rest of your skills and abilities the way you want to play.
Q: The game is definitely more accessible to players, but how about to DM?
A: The encounter design system is a big one. Kind of like Warhammer, it’s an intuitive system. Here’s the points you have to spend.
Monster roles: again, just say what this thing is supposed to do. Lurkers hide and pop up, artillery shoots you from a distance, etc. No one in the game world uses those terms, but it’s a game mechanic. If it’s on the monster, it’s meant to be used.
Treasure system: list of 10 treasures for your power level. The game doesn’t know what level of monsters you are fighting, so instead of giving out higher level treasures, treasure is tied to party level. It gets rid of an arcane process to focus on results. More effective.
Cut down on prep time: NPCs and monster creation are simple. CR wasn’t working for that.
Q: There’s a lot of praise for the DMG. Any more on how to be a DM?
A: A big change, again, was to say “this is what the game’s about.” James Wyatt wrote it, but focused on what has worked before in previous DMGs. DMing should be less intimidating. DM is not the entertainer: everyone is here to have fun, and everyone should contribute to that. The future of the game is DMing: the more DMs, the more players.
Q: Talk about yourself and ending up on the 4e team.
A: After college, Mearls missed playing RPGs. He checked out Over the Edge. He joined a mailing list, wrote some things for it, and the designer said he should write more. When 3e game out, Mearls had early access, so he could work for different companies before the game was actually out. When the new edition came out, he sent out emails offering to write early adventures, but only 1 company said yes. By then, he lived and worked in New York City on 9-11 for a Dot Com. After that, je decided that didn’t want to do that with his life and moved back in with parents to write full-time. It was a lot of work. It’s hard to get a full time job doing it, but freelancing is just a matter of knocking on doors. Never be afraid to ask for something you want. For example, Alliance made a castle DM screen. Mearls just sent them an email asking for one, and was able to trade for it. “That way I didn’t have to explain how much it cost to my wife.”
Q: What happened with Grapple?
A: They streamlined it by kicking it and saying “don’t come back”. Mearls read an article on ENWorld about the black box theory: throw in stuff in one end, result comes out. You don’t know what’s going on inside. For grapple, the end result is you have a guy held who can’t move. 3e was not a black box, it showed each step. Grab (as it is now called) is just to stop somebody from moving, not a full-on wrestling system. You’re just trying to stop someone moving. Get the intent, then support it. The monk will be able to take grappling powers.
The game Warmachine has poster with all the rules, but each figure has its own rules. You learn the basic rules, then learn what you need for your character. Other characters don’t have to look at how other people’s rules work. Powers are supposed to be concise and to the point. Just need to know the end result.
Q: How are the podcasts going?
A: In some ways they’re easy since you just go up to a room and talk for an hour. D&D is a community- everyone is going in the same direction. Wizards can go in a new direction, but if they’re not followed, it doesn’t matter. It’s like for Windows, updates happen automatically, and then stuff stops working. Wizards can’t do that. So much is the players and DMs making stuff up- it’s hard to force you to do something you don’t want.
The designers read the messageboards heavily, but don’t always have time to respond. (And sometimes, they just don’t want to step in and get flamed.)
Q: Any more video podcasts?
A: They’re annoying; you have to stay on marks. It was filmed at noon on Friday. Most people leave work early on Friday (some kind of West Coast thing.) But there were lots of interruptions, and it’s hard to be spontaneously funny and then recreate it for a second take. They don’t know yet if they’re doing another one- it was very much a learning experience.
Mearls said that the take that made it in where he’s making fun of coworkers was only supposed to be a practice take. They did another serious take that he thought was going to be used, but they ended up using the funnier one. Now one of the editors is referred to around the office as “Editor #3.”
Q: Opinion of Pathfinder?
A: Whenever there’s a new editon of D&D, there are some people who buy all new stuff, some people who wait to decide, and some people who like the way it is now so won’t change. Pathfinder is good for people who don’t want to move. It’s good for everyone since it keeps people playing games. Jason Buhlman is a friend of Mike’s, and now Jason is going through the same things Mike did.
Q: Any word on D&D Insider?
A: He doesn’t have a schedule (different department). He used to be a programmer, so tried very hard not to do it again. The character visualizer was up at Seattle Game Day. There are some test versions in house- hopefully nearing completion. “I honestly don’t know.”
Q: Care to respond to “only reason to change is to sell more books”?
A: If new editions was easy to get everyone to buy, it would happen more often. New editions are hard work. “Games evolve”- eurogames, computer games, console games all have changed the way people think about games. D&D must remain relevant to what people today think is a good game. Each previous edition had changes.
D&D is very much a product of its time. It’s never an easy undertaking: in fact, it’s terrifying. Hasbro did not have a list that said “either do new set of magic, new minis game, or new D&D.” It’s always a big risk. A gamer used to be a very niche thing. Now, everyone’s a gamer because of video games. When he was a kid, computer games used to be a super-nerd thing, since very few people owned computers at home. Now things like Katamari Damancy show that game are very different. He doesn’t ever want someone to say “this game is too complicated, I’m going to go back and play Final Fantasy“. He hopes that whoever does 5e does the game better, and keeps up with the times and changes what needs to be changed.
Q: I like the new multiclassing: the old system either lead to broken characters or useless characters.
A: Things will break in the new system- that’s inevitable. But people should have a better understanding of what’s going on and why.
Q: What’s something that you feel should have gotten in, but didn’t?
A: All things that would not alter the game dramatically. Ongoing damage at the end of turn instead of start, so you don’t have the weird “I’m not down yet, but I will be at the start of my turn”. Resistances and vulnerabilities could be more interesting. For example, instead of just taking extra damage, something vulnerable to cold could be automatically slowed. Red dragons could still take damage from fire, but if you don’t kill it, they get charged up. Acid things get attacks if doused. If you were making a movie of the game session, it would be clear on cause and effect. It would mean more evocative mechanics that don’t solely rely on DM narration. Of course, right after launch day, these things comes out.
Q: Do you have a powerpoint you wanted to show? (there was a large screen set up next to him)
A: “I’d just show you pictures of my dog.”
Q: Favorite class?
A: Rogue! Back in the 80’s, using his d4 hit points and crappy damage, Mearls swore that one day he would make rogues better.
Thanks to Mike Mearls for answering all those questions!
David Marks |
David Marks wrote:Pathfinder is mentioned,Did he accuse Paizo of trying to hijack the OGL movement for their own personal profit to the detriment of the customers again?
Actually he was rather nice about the whole thing. But the devs (both Paizo's and WotC's) have said many times that they are friends, so I'd expect nothing less. Perhaps some Pathfinder/4E fans beat each other in the hallway during the Q&A though. ;)
Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
Actually he was rather nice about the whole thing. But the devs (both Paizo's and WotC's) have said many times that they are friends, so I'd expect nothing less. Perhaps some Pathfinder/4E fans beat each other in the hallway during the Q&A though. ;)
Yes, they have. Heck some of them were coworkers and many of them play in each other's games. But Mearls did elsewhere say that Paizo is "hijacking" the OG community for their own personal profit.
link
All relivent parts highlighted by me.
No. Publishing products for money doesn't hijack the community. However, turning the community's outputs so that they benefit only a publisher, and indirectly its fans by giving them something to buy, would be hijacking the community.
I think that open gaming would be hijacked if people saw the process Paizo is using for Pathfinder as what open gaming is supposed to be. The Pathfinder process is an open playtest in that anyone can simply show up and take part. The goal of the process is to create a product that Paizo will sell for its own direct economic benefit, and for the indirect benefit of publishers that choose to produce Pathfinder-compatible products.
There's a reason why you can get Firefox, the various Linux distributions, and other open source programs for free. When you remove economics from the equation, you allow the community to better express its needs and dictate the direction of development. The community picks its needs and goals. The publisher's needs and goals are already set: profit by publishing the rules.
There's also an important aspect to open development undermined when you involve a publisher too closely to the process. The relationship between a publisher and participants in the process is unequal. The publisher picks what gets pursued, what gets used, and what the goal is. The publisher is in charge.
In a true open environment, the users are in charge. You have people "in charge" in the sense that they organize things, but if they go against the users they aren't in charge for long, or they're left in charge of a project without users.
So, it would be a pity if "open source development" was hijacked to mean "development that allows for free licensing" or "open playtesting", because it sells the concept short.
David Marks |
David Marks wrote:Actually he was rather nice about the whole thing. But the devs (both Paizo's and WotC's) have said many times that they are friends, so I'd expect nothing less. Perhaps some Pathfinder/4E fans beat each other in the hallway during the Q&A though. ;)Yes, they have. Heck some of them were coworkers and many of them play in each other's games. But Mearls did elsewhere say that Paizo is "hijacking" the OG community for their own personal profit.
*spoiler ommitted*
Well, I read that excerpt differently than you do (although I didn't follow the link, so maybe there's more that supports your suggested reading). I'll refrain from adding anything else though, to try and not derail my own thread any further. :P
Bear |
Man.
I read the whole thing and considered responding to it point by point, but as I was writing it just came out too snarky.
All I will say is that Mr. Mearls is dancing hard on some of those questions, and it does not take great insight to detect it.
I am not sure whether to feel disappointed in him, or feel sorry for Mr. Mearls for the gyrations he has to go through at this point in the product cycles life to justify some of the decisions of both marketing and the design team.
In any case, pardon this bit of snarkiness, one strong thing I get from the interview is: "It'll be in future books! We won't publish errata because we can't charge you for it! Besides, no one will fall for that after 3.5! JUST WAIT AND YOU CAN BUY MORE BOOKS!"
Thanks for letting me snark. :)
Okay, now back to a more measured and considered tone and outlook. :)
crosswiredmind |
In any case, pardon this bit of snarkiness, one strong thing I get from the interview is: "It'll be in future books! We won't publish errata because we can't charge you for it! Besides, no one will fall for that after 3.5! JUST WAIT AND YOU CAN BUY MORE BOOKS!"
I can understand and even appreciate the snark but, how would this would be different from every other edition of D&D
Bear |
Bear wrote:In any case, pardon this bit of snarkiness, one strong thing I get from the interview is: "It'll be in future books! We won't publish errata because we can't charge you for it! Besides, no one will fall for that after 3.5! JUST WAIT AND YOU CAN BUY MORE BOOKS!"I can understand and even appreciate the snark but, how would this would be different from every other edition of D&D
Simple.
In most of the other editions, the basics of the entire game (and not just a huge emphasis on combat) were there. They might be bare bones, and might be further fleshed out in a splat book, but they were there. There was a sense that in previous editions there was MUCH more to the game than just minis combat rules (although I DO like the 4e DM's guide for what they did with things outside of combat, but that book has a more limited audience being just for DMs)(Also, I've noted that in every new 4e podcast I've listened to, including the ones from Hasbro, the entire session consists of setting up and playing a minis battle. Nothing before the fight. Nothing after. This, in contrast to 3e many podcasts, where one could find roleplaying and set-up and history and such interspersed with the combat. Not sure if that proves anything, but it is interesting).
All in all, I guess my gripe is that in reading 4e, and having read/played/DM'd everything from the original three pamphlets to 3.5, this edition's initial release, more than any other, feels unfinished and lacking in the kind of information we've become accustomed to in an initial release. While people cite everything from space restrictions to design philosophy, the truth remains that for the same price (I don't think the books went up in price) we got more crunch and fluff in 3 and 3.5.
And I am not naive enough to think that this was not Hasbro's plan from the start.
Plus, take into account that I freely admit that I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, so I am less inclined to give Hasbro a break today. Tomorrow will be better. :)
Now, if someone could just tell me what a bullseye lantern costs in 4e??? ;)
crosswiredmind |
In most of the other editions, the basics of the entire game (and not just a huge emphasis on combat) were there.
This is the part I don't quite get. The other night I sat down with the core 3.5 and 4e books and did a flip through. They both seemed to cover the same kind of material to about the same level of detail with the exception of the massive spell list. Both editions have content about gods, roleplaying, world building, etc.
What do you perceive as being missing from core 4e?
All in all, I guess my gripe is that in reading 4e, and having read/played/DM'd everything from the original three pamphlets to 3.5, this edition's initial release, more than any other, feels unfinished and lacking in the kind of information we've become accustomed to in an initial release.
I just don't see it that way. I can't seem to identify the gap that you see. This is especially true when I go back and read OD&D or the original basic set.
I understand that there are some races and classes that have been a part of previous editions that are no longer a part of the core but I don't really notice any other big difference in the content department.
Bear |
I understand that there are some races and classes that have been a part of previous editions that are no longer a part of the core but I don't really notice any other big difference in the content department.
Cross,
I just took another look through my 4e books and without having my 3.5 books handy (okay, I can't find them at the moment. I've never been good at putting away my toys) I think you may have a point.
I need to take another long look at the 4e books (I already enjoy the DMG very much) in comparison to what came before it. It might be that the presentation, being very different, has caused me to feel as though content was lacking. It might be that the streamlining of the rules did it, or it might just be that I am reeeeeealy grumpy today and my disappointment with the manner Hasbro has treated its customers is coloring my view of the entire product.
Or, maybe I am right and you are wrong. Nyyyaaah. ;p
In any case, I am going to go through the 4e books again. I doubt that I will ever run 4e (just don't like many of the things that they have done with it) but I'll certainly keep an eye on it from a players perspective.
Thanks!
crosswiredmind |
Or, maybe I am right and you are wrong. Nyyyaaah. ;p
LOL You could very well be right. I just haven't stumbled into any gaps that mattered to me (aside from the missing druid class).
I think part of the difficulty in evaluating 4e for me was the sheer depth of material in 3.5. If I had not lost interest in playing 3.5 before 4e was even announced I would probably stick with 3.5 because it has so many options for race, class, prestige class etc.
As it stands I gave up on 3.5 so long ago that the missing material from all of the race and splat books just does not bother me.
For me 4e is a fresh start.
vance |
This, this is what I was talking about.
Yes, there is a lot missing in 4E when compared to 3.5, but it may not be immediately obvious, and a lot of it is mechanical. There's just an insane amount of things that you CANNOT DO in 4E compared to 3.5 - such as summoning, nature-based spells, entire genres of play are rendered IMPOSSIBLE because the mechanica cannot handle them.
"Nothing is really missing."
How about spells with durations, such as weather control? How about ANY of a druid's powers? You can't even do the Authurian legends now, because the mechanics won't allow for so much, much LESS the old Lord of the Rings standy.
Fluff, in particular, seriously suffers in 4E. Are you honestly going to sith there tell me that the racial writeups for 3.5 give LESS or the SAME detail than those in 4E?
How about classes? The fluff for classes was much more in depth than in 4E, where they're reduced to very little more than their power list and initial ability list.. with a smidgeon of 'how to play this class IN COMBAT' given.
Give me a break.
David Marks |
vance, in core 3E I could not play a Psion. I could not make a pact with outside creatures for power. I could not lead my comrades in arms, supporting them with only my leadership and wit.
You're not talking about things 4E can't do, just things it doesn't do yet. If you really want a Bard or a Druid, go check out ENWorld's fan creations so far. The Bard and Druid they wrote up look awesome! If you'd rather wait for the official version, I believe it's slated for 03-09. So only like, 9 months or something. (What is it today? July?)
Cheers! :)
PS: You seem rather antagonistic, and perhaps a bit emotional friend. Go take a walk outside, get some fresh air. Maybe whistle with some blue birds. It's bad for your health to be too upset. ;)
vance |
You're not talking about things 4E can't do, just things it doesn't do yet.
No, I'm comparing the 4E 'big trio' with the 3.5 'big trio' only. None of my examples and points came from any other books, as that would be dishonest of me to do so.
But saying "But it could come out later" in "Complete book of things not in 4E PHB" does not invalidate my point, and indeed points to the intellectual dishonesty I ascribed above.
PS: You seem rather antagonistic, and perhaps a bit emotional friend. Go take a walk outside, get some fresh air. Maybe whistle with some blue birds. It's bad for your health to be too upset. ;)
It's simple. I don't mind 4E fans, I don't mind those who enjoy the game. I do mind the attacks and pathetic attempts at 'counter-proof' (IE, lying and intellectual dishonesty) whenever someone discusses flaws with 4E.
I resent that some fanbois feel it's okay to lie and mislead about their franchise in an effort to 'win', while simultaneously demanding that people who express concerns be 'fair and open'.
And.. I'm not angry really, just jaded and cynical. 4E's commerical handling at this point really screwed me over. :P
David Marks |
David Marks wrote:You're not talking about things 4E can't do, just things it doesn't do yet.No, I'm comparing the 4E 'big trio' with the 3.5 'big trio' only. None of my examples and points came from any other books, as that would be dishonest of me to do so.
But saying "But it could come out later" in "Complete book of things not in 4E PHB" does not invalidate my point, and indeed points to the intellectual dishonesty I ascribed above.
Ah, but you are saying "here are all these things I could do in 3E that I CAN'T do in 4E". My response is, "sure, but here are things you can do in 4E that you CAN'T do in 3E". In both cases, the addition of splat books will cover the extra options we're talking about.
I've said in other threads that every edition changes what is involved in the inital release. Classes/races/rules get added and dropped, and invariably some are unhappy with the changes. Also invariably, what you missed will eventually be updated to the new edition, either via fans or through actual book releases. I'd much prefer a changing and evolving game than one that was tied to a set of classes and races which could never be altered.
Cheers! :)
crosswiredmind |
This, this is what I was talking about.
Yes, there is a lot missing in 4E when compared to 3.5, but it may not be immediately obvious, and a lot of it is mechanical. There's just an insane amount of things that you CANNOT DO in 4E compared to 3.5 - such as summoning, nature-based spells, entire genres of play are rendered IMPOSSIBLE because the mechanica cannot handle them.
The back and forth with bear was not about the lack of a particular class or race and the abilities they posses. Bear and I were talking about a much more fundamental concern - that 4e is all about combat when compared to 3e and that 3e covered a wider variety of topics.
Fluff, in particular, seriously suffers in 4E. Are you honestly going to sith there tell me that the racial writeups for 3.5 give LESS or the SAME detail than those in 4E?
How about classes? The fluff for classes was much more in depth than in 4E, where they're reduced to very little more than their power list and initial ability list.. with a smidgeon of 'how to play this class IN COMBAT' given.
Give me a break.
Actually I find the race and class descriptions to be very similar in 3.5 and 4e in terms of roleplaying advice and content.
Steerpike7 |
And, not for the first time, we get explicit acknowledgment from the devs regarding the MMO influence. Maybe this will mark the end of people pretending that those of us who see the MMO influence are insane.
I don't get the negative connotation with the influence though. It's clearly there. The game is good. So who cares?
vance |
Ah, but you are saying "here are all these things I could do in 3E that I CAN'T do in 4E". My response is, "sure, but here are things you can do in 4E that you CAN'T do in 3E". In both cases, the addition of splat books will cover the extra options we're talking about.
Thing is, I can't think of anything of substance that 4E has in it's trio than 3.5 had. Yeah, there are Tieflings now, etc, but they came at a loss of the Gnome (a 25 year old staple). The net result is that 4E's trio has a loss of play options, in a variety of ways, when compared to 3.5. It's less value for more money.
I've said in other threads that every edition changes what is involved in the inital release.
The only other game I can think of that was this radical of departure between versions, in so many aspects, is Boot Hill. Even V:TM didn't go quite this far with their new game, and certainly didn't do it by telling anyone who played the 'old version' that they were stupid for doing so.
Classes/races/rules get added and dropped, and invariably some are unhappy with the changes. Also invariably, what you missed will eventually be updated to the new edition, either via fans or through actual book releases.
Maybe, but since I've personally ALREADY run into the GSL roadblock, I wouldn't count on too much of that. And, waiting 9 months for material that MAY or MAY NOT reflect stuff that was once 'part of the main game' isn't going to be acceptable to a lot of players.
But, at the end of the day, it's a point of fact that there is less material in the 4E trio than there was in the 3.5 trio. How much you value the material in either, of course, is subjective.
DudeMonkey |
Thing is, I can't think of anything of substance that 4E has in it's trio than 3.5 had. Yeah, there are Tieflings now, etc, but they came at a loss of the Gnome (a 25 year old staple). The net result is that 4E's trio has a loss of play options, in a variety of ways, when compared to 3.5. It's less value for more money.
I think you mean a loss of "character creation options," not "play options." This new edition is orders of magnitude more versatile when you play than 3.5. In fact, that was the point.
The rules don't read well, and I think that's where some of the perceived problems come from. They weren't meant to be read, they were meant to be played.
In 25 years of playing D&D, I saw exactly zero gnome PCs. I don't know what the uproar is about them.
David Marks |
Thing is, I can't think of anything of substance that 4E has in it's trio than 3.5 had. Yeah, there are Tieflings now, etc, but they came at a loss of the Gnome (a 25 year old staple). The net result is that 4E's trio has a loss of play options, in a variety of ways, when compared to 3.5. It's less value for more money.
Now we're getting into subjectivity. I've been yearning for a class like the Warlord for a very, very long time. The Marshall was good, but not quite there. The Warlord however, gives me all types of nerdgasms. The Warlock was a concept not available in core 3E, and seems to be rather popular. There are Tieflings and Dragonborn as well, which, despite your handwave away, many like. Compared to Half-Orcs and Gnomes, I'd say it was a good trade (and just as Tieflings were in the 3E MM, Gnomes are now in the 4E MM ... nice symmetry there.)
But, at the end of the day, it's a point of fact that there is less material in the 4E trio than there was in the 3.5 trio.
Hmm. You keep saying this thing. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
David Marks |
I think you mean a loss of "character creation options," not "play options." This new edition is orders of magnitude more versatile when you play than 3.5. In fact, that was the point.
The rules don't read well, and I think that's where some of the perceived problems come from. They weren't meant to be read, they were meant to be played.
In 25 years of playing D&D, I saw exactly zero gnome PCs. I don't know what the uproar is about them.
I saw one, actually. Of course, he was played as a comic relief character (and while hilariously funny, could probably have been a Halfling and no one would have noticed the difference).
Cheers! :)
crosswiredmind |
And, not for the first time, we get explicit acknowledgment from the devs regarding the MMO influence. Maybe this will mark the end of people pretending that those of us who see the MMO influence are insane.
I don't get the negative connotation with the influence though. It's clearly there. The game is good. So who cares?
The MMO influence is there _big time_ just like the D&D influence is a huge part of every MMO. What I find to be problematic is the notion that 4e is an attempt to simulate WoW simply because it has been influenced by some of WoWs more successful features.
vance |
I think you mean a loss of "character creation options," not "play options." This new edition is orders of magnitude more versatile when you play than 3.5. In fact, that was the point.
This, simply, just isn't true. It's easy to say, mind you, but even the spell option differences ALONE should prove to you that this isn't true. Hell, Mike Mearls admitted that play options were cut because they didn't work yet.
If the designer of the game says it, I'm likely to believe him. I know, I'm wacky that way.
The rules don't read well, and I think that's where some of the perceived problems come from. They weren't meant to be read, they were meant to be played.
Then it was pretty flippin' stupid of them to put it in book form, wasn't it?
In 25 years of playing D&D, I saw exactly zero gnome PCs. I don't know what the uproar is about them.
I saw plenty of them, actually, but largely in campaigns not explicitly about sacking dungeons all the time. They worked a lot better in more urban, social campaigns. (One look at a Gnome's stats and write-up, and you'll see why this is so obviously true).
Besides, you're now arguing your aesthetics, which is a pointless argument anyway. You may like the changes better, of course, which is your right. But to say that your preference somehow invalidates facts (particularly ones outright confirmed by the games' designers), is part of that intellectual dishonesty which irks me.
Steerpike7 |
The MMO influence is there _big time_ just like the D&D influence is a huge part of every MMO. What I find to be problematic is the notion that 4e is an attempt to simulate WoW simply because it has been influenced by some of WoWs more successful features.
Yeah, 4E clearly isn't an attempt to simulate an MMO on paper. They just took what they considered to be good design elements from MMOs. Maybe there was some though to ease of making another D&D MMO in the future, I don't know. But I think the focus was on making a good PnP game, not trying to replicate the MMO.
Now if some 3PP makes a GSL Warcraft version of 4E, it'll be interesting to see if it has cross-appeal.
vance |
The MMO influence is there _big time_ just like the D&D influence is a huge part of every MMO. What I find to be problematic is the notion that 4e is an attempt to simulate WoW simply because it has been influenced by some of WoWs more successful features.
Despite Mike Mearls outright saying it? Despite it being outright stated as the primary reason for setting rewrites?
David Marks |
The MMO influence is there _big time_ just like the D&D influence is a huge part of every MMO. What I find to be problematic is the notion that 4e is an attempt to simulate WoW simply because it has been influenced by some of WoWs more successful features.
I disagree that the influence is as large as many make out, although it is obviously not non-existant. The idea that the influence was added to draw in the WoW fanbase, however, strikes me as obviously wrong. The games play so differently, the inclusion of a mechanic or two similiar to that found in MMORPGs is not going to be a very big draw.
Indeed, I would say drawing upon successful implementations of ideas from other sources is a pretty good design strategy. I'm not following Pathfinder, but I'd like to think Jason will take away things he likes in 4E for use with it (from other poster's comments here, I believe there is some movement towards this already). Do people complain about the 4E-ification of Pathfinder?
Cheers! :)
David Marks |
crosswiredmind wrote:The MMO influence is there _big time_ just like the D&D influence is a huge part of every MMO. What I find to be problematic is the notion that 4e is an attempt to simulate WoW simply because it has been influenced by some of WoWs more successful features.Despite Mike Mearls outright saying it? Despite it being outright stated as the primary reason for setting rewrites?
From the Q&A panel this thread was supposed to be about (:P to all of you!)
Q: Was the power system from MMOs like World of Warcraft? Were you conscious of comparisons? Were you trying to streamline 3.5 or copy MMOs?
A: A combination- streamline 3.5 while picking up on what makes MMOs so easy to get into. Mearls loves hearing that the “game runs smoothly.” The designers tried very hard to make the rules such that if they were designed for something, they just said it instead of trying to hide it. Like a Fighter’s job is to protect everyone else, so that’s now stated up front. Previous editions could feel like a “passive-aggressive friend” that obfuscated what the true purpose of a rule was.
Sure sounds like what they took, they took to produce a better PnP game, not to simulate a MMORPG. :)
vance |
I don't recall Mearls outright saying it was an attempt at simulation
Well, if he had said "We're taking WOW and putting into PNP forum", Blizzard would have a new acquisition pretty quickly, wouldn't they? But, more seriously, yes, it's been made clear all along that this move was an effort to bring D&D towards the success of MMOs, and that the setting rewrites and rule rewrites were an effort in that direction.
Now that it's been more blatantly stated by the lead designer, is this really a debate point? Shouldn't it be taken as wrote?
DudeMonkey |
vance wrote:I don't recall Mearls outright saying it was an attempt at simulation
Despite Mike Mearls outright saying it? Despite it being outright stated as the primary reason for setting rewrites?
It's clear that vance has made up his mind and it just misreading things on purpose to support his preconceived ideas.
Steerpike7 |
Now that it's been more blatantly stated by the lead designer, is this really a debate point? Shouldn't it be taken as wrote?
I don't think that particular point is debatable. What is debatable is whether it was a bad idea or whether it was just a cheap attempt to copy MMOs. I think it was an attempt to make a good game and look around for good ideas.
DM Charles Evans |
vance wrote:Thing is, I can't think of anything of substance that 4E has in it's trio than 3.5 had. Yeah, there are Tieflings now, etc, but they came at a loss of the Gnome (a 25 year old staple). The net result is that 4E's trio has a loss of play options, in a variety of ways, when compared to 3.5. It's less value for more money.
I think you mean a loss of "character creation options," not "play options." This new edition is orders of magnitude more versatile when you play than 3.5. In fact, that was the point.
The rules don't read well, and I think that's where some of the perceived problems come from. They weren't meant to be read, they were meant to be played.
In 25 years of playing D&D, I saw exactly zero gnome PCs. I don't know what the uproar is about them.
With regard to your comment on gnomes, that seems to me to be a result of the circles which you game in. I have a party of them in a PbP game on these boards.
Edit (for clarity)
In a 3.5 Forgotten Realms game. And okay, one of the PCs is a 'giant gnome' (half-orc who thinks of himself as a gnome, for in game reasons), but the other three PCs are bona fide gnomes.
vance |
I don't think that particular point is debatable. What is debatable is whether it was a bad idea or whether it was just a cheap attempt to copy MMOs. I think it was an attempt to make a good game and look around for good ideas.
THANK you. I think that a lot of people won't cede the point because, deep down, they don't like the implication. But, as I said elsehwere, WoW alone is outselling the entire PNP hobby by a couple of orders of magnitude - of COURSE you should look at what they're doing right.
Doesn't mean that you should do it directly, though, since you're crossing mediums. Personally, I think 4E did it a little too much, primarily on focusing so heavily on a class's role in a combat situation alone, and downplayed the one major strength of WoW that 4E would have - the ability to do things 'outside the combat grid'.
Steerpike7 |
THANK you. I think that a lot of people won't cede the point because, deep down, they don't like the implication. But, as I said elsehwere, WoW alone is outselling the entire PNP hobby by a couple of orders of magnitude - of COURSE you should look at what they're doing right.
Doesn't mean that you should do it directly, though, since you're crossing mediums. Personally, I think 4E did it a little too much, primarily on focusing so heavily on a class's role in a combat situation alone, and downplayed the one major strength of WoW that 4E would have - the ability to do things 'outside the combat grid'.
4E went far enough in that direction that I feel it's a quite different game from other versions of D&D. That's why I'm playing Pathfinder as well. If 4E had come out and all the older editions magically vanished so I couldn't play them anymore, I'd be quite upset about the changes I suspect.
But as it is, once I mentally decided it was really a different game and just try to enjoy it on its own terms, I started having a lot of fun.
Azigen |
vance wrote:I don't think that particular point is debatable. What is debatable is whether it was a bad idea or whether it was just a cheap attempt to copy MMOs. I think it was an attempt to make a good game and look around for good ideas.
Now that it's been more blatantly stated by the lead designer, is this really a debate point? Shouldn't it be taken as wrote?
It's more like Wotc is the Borq/Zerq and you will be assimilated and your ideas taken to improve the whole. That, or incest.
D&D begets MMO's. D&D and MMO's swap "ideas". 4th edition is born. Does that make 4th edition Half-elf or Half-orc ?
vance |
But as it is, once I mentally decided it was really a different game and just try to enjoy it on its own terms, I started having a lot of fun.
Personally, I would gladly run 4E on those days that I just want to 'kill some goblins', though I might lean a little more to Descent in that regard. But 4E doesn't work for me in a more.. social-oriented campaign.
And, of course, anything that requires new (or expanded) mechanics at this point are completely right out.
Bill Dunn |
OK, here's the way it plays out for me.
Previous editions of D&D (mainly 2e and 3e, I doubt the plans were particularly advanced back in 1e), planned to have addition supplemental material appear on some schedule - whether defined or undefined. But they were, nevertheless, intended as fairly complete core games when initially published. Everything else was gravy (with the possible exception of the Monstrous Compendia volumes from 2e since the first addition was clearly developed in tandem with the original release). They'd be important revenue streams, but entirely modular and not part of the core of the game.
4e, by comparison, is not intended to be a complete core game with the initial publication of the core books. In part, this is because they intend to expand the core on a regular basis. But it's also because they acknowledge there simply wasn't enough room in the initial publications to include everything. The follow-up core publications won't feel at all modular when they come out, particularly if you want some good bread-and-butter regular critters like sharks or lions in your Monster Manuals.
Oh, sure, 4e is a playable game, as incomplete as it is. But it's like playing short-handed football instead of playing with a full roster. Previous editions intended to field full teams even if later they came up with more specialized players to be subbed from the bench.
DudeMonkey |
THANK you. I think that a lot of people won't cede the point because, deep down, they don't like the implication.
I think a lot of people ceded the point months ago and that's why you're not getting much traction talking about it. We've had this discussion, right here on this messageboard, probably a dozen times by now.
It's a divisive issue because of the connotations attached to WoW (again, this was all months ago) and people kind of dropped it because the discussion never ended up anywhere other than in all caps with the occasional timeout issued by Paizo. Which then launched huge arguments about censorship. Which led to more timeouts. Which led to discussions about board policy and caused Paizo staffers to spend more time moderating messageboards than writing D&D adventures.
This is just a road that most of us have been down before and it doesn't lead anywhere productive.
David Marks |
I think a lot of people ceded the point months ago and that's why you're not getting much traction talking about it. We've had this discussion, right here on this messageboard, probably a dozen times by now.
It's a divisive issue because of the connotations attached to WoW (again, this was all months ago) and people kind of dropped it because the discussion never ended up anywhere other than in all caps with the occasional timeout issued by Paizo. Which then launched huge arguments about censorship. Which led to more timeouts. Which led to discussions about board policy and caused Paizo staffers to spend more time moderating messageboards than writing D&D adventures.
This is just a road that most of us have been down before and it doesn't lead anywhere productive.
:O You mean there are people trying to be productive? On the internet? They must be stopped! :P
vance |
David Marks wrote::O You mean there are people trying to be productive? On the internet? They must be stopped! :PThe internet is not a toy. It's a REALLY AWESOME toy.
I thought it was an enormous database of naked women's bottoms?
But, more seriously, the reason I wanted to settle the point is so that the discussion could move PAST it. Since it's pretty solidly confirmed, the discussion could be more productive by pointing out the merits and limitations of the choice, and what can be done from here on out.
Admittedly, the GSL makes expansion rather difficult, but.. there ya go.
Azigen |
DudeMonkey wrote:David Marks wrote::O You mean there are people trying to be productive? On the internet? They must be stopped! :PThe internet is not a toy. It's a REALLY AWESOME toy.I thought it was an enormous database of naked women's bottoms?
But, more seriously, the reason I wanted to settle the point is so that the discussion could move PAST it. Since it's pretty solidly confirmed, the discussion could be more productive by pointing out the merits and limitations of the choice, and what can be done from here on out.
Admittedly, the GSL makes expansion rather difficult, but.. there ya go.
The GSL does not allow you to refer to adult situations and D&D in the same breath. You are hereby fined 5 credits for the breach of the GSL. Thank you
Jeremy Mac Donald |
Steerpike7 wrote:I don't recall Mearls outright saying it was an attempt at simulationWell, if he had said "We're taking WOW and putting into PNP forum", Blizzard would have a new acquisition pretty quickly, wouldn't they? But, more seriously, yes, it's been made clear all along that this move was an effort to bring D&D towards the success of MMOs, and that the setting rewrites and rule rewrites were an effort in that direction.
Now that it's been more blatantly stated by the lead designer, is this really a debate point? Shouldn't it be taken as wrote?
What you seem to see as an attempt to simulate MMOs I see as stealing some of their ideas. He goes on and on about Eurogames as well but I'm unclear why we don't hear that 4E is an attempt to simulate Ticket to Ride.
There are some obvious other influences as well. You can see some of the same thinking in 4E that influenced games like Savage World. No surprise there - the whole industry is heading this way and D&D tends to follow in whatever direction the industry as a whole is heading.
Jeremy Mac Donald |
Personally, I would gladly run 4E on those days that I just want to 'kill some goblins', though I might lean a little more to Descent in that regard. But 4E doesn't work for me in a more.. social-oriented campaign.
Clarify - what is it you see as the problem for running a social game in 4E. I'm planning on dialling back on the combat encounters in my conversions since I think the skill system and the skill challenge system have great potential in this regards.
I don't see why 4E won't be an excellent tool to run a combat light adventure like Murder at Oakbridge.
vance |
I don't see why 4E won't be an excellent tool to run a combat light adventure like Murder at Oakbridge.
Largely because the skill system is a joke (it is, sorry guys), and seems to be a barely-thought-of afterthought. Most of the non-combat-themed skills are even more pared down than 3.5, which was telling in and of itself. (Craft, for instance, is removed COMPLETELY).
This is to say NOTHING of the numerous spells and effects that were not directly applicable to combat. There are many things outside of combat that even a relatively weak 'social' game like 3.5 could still handle, that 4E just simply cannot (as is).
Jeremy Mac Donald |
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:I don't see why 4E won't be an excellent tool to run a combat light adventure like Murder at Oakbridge.Largely because the skill system is a joke (it is, sorry guys), and seems to be a barely-thought-of afterthought. Most of the non-combat-themed skills are even more pared down than 3.5, which was telling in and of itself. (Craft, for instance, is removed COMPLETELY).
I'm going to disagree with you. The skill system should handle most of what adventurers are likely to want to do during an adventure. Crafting is out but I can't think of a single Dungeon adventure in the 3.x era that made crafting by players an important part of the adventure.
The rest of the skill system should actually work better then 3.5 in game play since its clear that it was designed so that each of the classes could focus on some out of combat aspects and everyone has some ability in all the skills.
Certainly if I'm doing Murder at Oakbridge I'm going to want to create skill challenges that focus on interrogations and ones that focus on finding clues but I certianly can't see why I could not create such skill challenges.
We'll eventually see how this all plays out but the mechanics are there to make using skills a larger part of the game since adventure designers know that the players have at least some ability in all the skills. That makes putting the material that uses the skills into adventures more viable. Every party will for sure be able to engage any part of the adventure that involves the skills. Something no designer in 3.5 could be sure of - which meant avoiding the skill system so that you did not waste precious word count designing something that many groups might not have any chance of dealing with.
Its pretty clear from the examples of Skill challenges in the DMG that the skills are meant to be umbrella's that cover all aspects of adventuring. They don't need to include a specific mechanic for chariot racing for me to include a chariot race in my adventure. I simply have to sit down and think about whats involved in chariot racing and then craft an encounter based around the players being involved in a chariot race. Furthermore I don't even need to know anything about my players to design this chariot race encounter - so long as I know their level I can make a chariot race encounter that the players will have some chance of winning. Sure some groups might have more chance - I bet athletics and endurance are a big part of chariot racing and a group that has characters with training in the skills I think are important will have a much better chance of winning the chariot race - but every group has a chance of winning no matter what their classes are.
Now there are less magical ways to influence social adventures, thats true but they are not completely gone by any means. Furthermore, in my experience, casting charm person or using illusions to trick NPCs was always very much a minority part of non combat adventures. Most of the time your not charming the NPC.
That particular lack won't stop the players from coming up with interesting ways to deal with non combat adventures. Players are resourceful, they'll come up with alternate ways of going forward. A lot of the utility type abilities are simply rituals - they take a lot longer to use know and that will present challenges and maybe a different mind set in utilizing them them but it certianly can be done.
It seems to me that you've decided that this game can only do hack and slash and are refusing to consider that they have actually implemented some interesting mechanics to encourage non combat adventuring like making XP part of a non combat game and designing the classes so that everyone can effectively participate outside of combat.
I'm more likely, in 4E, to make a whole adventure with almost no fights then I was to do the same in 3.5 simply because I know that in 4E everyone will get to play.