|
I have been reading the boards for a while now, and I've finally decided that this is worth posting. I'm tired of seeing, "4th Edition is not Dungeons & Dragons." Fortunately or unfortunately, it is. For those who think it isn't, obviously you don't like the direction it took, but there are some facts you have acknowledge, even if you don't like it.
There is a Dungeons & Dragons logo on it. Inside the books you will find iconic races, classes, and monsters. No, they're not quite the same as you remember them or want them to be, but you can't really change the fact they are in there and you can't change the fact it *is* Dungeons & Dragons. The rules are significantly different than before. But then the rules were just as significantly changed from the red box to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. They were changed in 2nd Edition. They were overhauled for 3rd. And they were overhauled again for 4th.
Yes, Pathfinder, and several other books out there using the SRD, their own rule sets, and the OGL also have iconic races, classes, and monsters. However, no matter how you look at it, there is no logo on them. WotC made 3.0 and 3.5 and no one is currently saying it is not D&D. But they have the rights to the name and the logo, and no matter how much you may dislike it, 4th Edition is Dungeons & Dragons for the foreseeable future.
The biggest complaint I've read is that 4th is a video game on paper. That's not a good assessment. It has the feel of an MMO in some regards, but let's keep something in mind here. The up and coming generation of gamers, and even some old veterans, play games like that. What's a good way to attract a new base? Have something similar. Personally, I think the change is for the better. Everyone has different powers and abilities, but I love the sense of balance I get from the game. Everyone has a fixed number of abilities they can use. So do the monsters. It all plays nice, and you don't have the huge list of abilities that over time simply won't be used.
But the biggest point I can make about it is this: It is not the rules or their presentation that make a game fun. The players and the DMs are what make the game fun. The feel of a game is only partially in the rules. The rest is what you choose to make of it. You don't need a specific set of rules to make a game fun, nor do you need a logo. Stop saying that 4th Edition is not Dungeons & Dragons. But by all means, don't let me stop you from saying, "4th Edition doesn't feel like the Dungeons & Dragons I want to play."
Arovyn
|
This is true. As long as that means you accept that the Dungeons and Dragons movie is also D&D.. It's got the logo on it, after all.
You also have to accept that New Coke is Coca-Cola.
*Sits back awaiting either flames or headsplodes*
EDIT: To be fair, the "It's not D&D" comment is usually meant as this does not sound/play/feel like what the person expects from a D&D game, rather than an actual denial of its titular reality. I'm sure many of them also feel that 4E does not deserve to be called D&D for it's numerous perceived failings, but, as you say, it is.
|
|
This is true. As long as that means you accept that the Dungeons and Dragons movie is also D&D.. It's got the logo on it, after all.
You also have to accept that New Coke is Coca-Cola.
*Sits back awaiting either flames or headsplodes*
EDIT: To be fair, the "It's not D&D" comment is usually meant as this does not sound/play/feel like what the person expects from a D&D game, rather than an actual denial of its titular reality. I'm sure many of them also feel that 4E does not deserve to be called D&D for it's numerous perceived failings, but, as you say, it is.
Very true that the movie does have the logo, and I do have to accept the fact, that despite the horrifying reviews of the thing, it is D&D. But I will admit that I have never actually seen it. I'm also afraid to fix that problem...
I'm mostly certain that people say it isn't D&D for their perceptions of it as opposed to the reality of the situation. I say mostly in a similar way to Earth being Mostly Harmless. I'm sure there are some people that truly believe that it isn't D&D in spite of the reality, and I'm pretty sure that they will rigorously and passionately defend their stance. I've already steeled myself for what I'm sure is going to be a lot heat.
Arovyn
ok to me it's not d&d in feel or play. It has the name but little else that makes it D&D. YMMV
4E is a completely new game, just like 3E was completely different from AD&D and AD&D 2E. Still, I've been playing 4E with two different groups this summer, and both groups enjoyed the changes. The only difficulty they encountered was to "forget" 3.5E, and adapt to a complete new game.
One thing they particularly noticed is that 4E is geared toward team play. Many powers work in cooperation and conjunction with other player's powers (like the ability of the fighter to allow one of its ally to shift after its attack, or the cleric's healing word that needs only a minor action.)
As a DM, the only difficulty I met was to balance encounters and be able to convert some monsters from 3E to 4E. The real challenge lies in the fact that monsters no longer use the same building rules as characters. This is both a curse and a blessing. A curse because I have to "learn" a whole new set of rules just to build monsters, and a blessing, because it takes less time to build a monster than before (3.5E dragon anyone?)
There's still dungeon crawling, still orcs, goblins and trolls to slay, still treasures to collect and still NPCs to deal with. That means it's still D&D.
- Zorg
P.S. By the way, I also run a Pathfinder game on weekends with my crew, and we really like the changes to the old 3.5E.
Yep. 4e is D&D. AD&D is D&D even though it made changes to the original. 2e, 3e, heck - even the Immortals box from way back is D&D. D&D has always changed and will always change.
Actually, AD&D wasn't D&D. It was AD&D and was intended to be a separate game. Part of the same broad family, yes. But not the same game.
Come on, the DnD Movie was SO DnD. Hammy, over the top acting? Check. Somewhat nonsensical plot? Check. Plucky band of unlikely adventurers who work through their own issues to become great heroes? Check.
Can you really say you're playing DnD if you don't loudly shout out the name of your fallen comrades during an over dramatic death scene? Please.
"Snaiiiiiiillllllllllllsssssss!!!!!!!"
Cheers! ;)
Come on, the DnD Movie was SO DnD. Hammy, over the top acting? Check. Somewhat nonsensical plot? Check. Plucky band of unlikely adventurers who work through their own issues to become great heroes? Check.
Can you really say you're playing DnD if you don't loudly shout out the name of your fallen comrades during an over dramatic death scene? Please.
"Snaiiiiiiillllllllllllsssssss!!!!!!!"
Cheers! ;)
he makes a really good point there.
Personally I was quite glad that 3.x was not "D&D". I was never really excited about the early editions, and was glad to see a dramatic shift from them.
|
There have been countless discussions on this topic. Sometimes it's a civilized and interesting back and forth, usually it's just angry rants and flaming.
This is the latter. No one is going to change their mind just because you said,
there are some facts you have acknowledge, even if you don't like it
and
that's not a good assessment
and, especially,
Stop saying that 4th Edition is not Dungeons & Dragons.
|
|
This is true. As long as that means you accept that the Dungeons and Dragons movie is also D&D.. It's got the logo on it, after all.
You also have to accept that New Coke is Coca-Cola.
*Sits back awaiting either flames or headsplodes*
EDIT: To be fair, the "It's not D&D" comment is usually meant as this does not sound/play/feel like what the person expects from a D&D game, rather than an actual denial of its titular reality. I'm sure many of them also feel that 4E does not deserve to be called D&D for it's numerous perceived failings, but, as you say, it is.
Ok, just because I don't want to have to create an entire new thread just to ask a question, and because, though this isn't the first time i've heard this, i finally have enough time to post this right after reading it: What is wrong with that movie? I watched it, enjoyed it, and it was one of the things that got me interested in DnD! Why does everyone dislike it so much? what was wrong? not enough magic? not enough sword swinging heroism? The plot was messed up? what? All i ever hear is that it was bad. no reasons why.
(as a side note, new coke is totally not the same as Coca-Cola. everyone knows that...)
There is Dungeons and Dragons the brand name and then there is "dungeons and dragons" the genre (basically standing in for something like "sword and sorcery"). Clearly any person could see that 4e is Dungeons and Dragons the brand name. Whether it is "dungeons and dragons" the genre is a much more subjective issue.
I can't BELIEVE it's not butter.
|
Ok, just because I don't want to have to create an entire new thread just to ask a question, and because, though this isn't the first time i've heard this, i finally have enough time to post this right after reading it: What is wrong with that movie? I watched it, enjoyed it, and it was one of the things that got me interested in DnD! Why does everyone dislike it so much? what was wrong? not enough magic? not enough sword swinging heroism? The plot was messed up? what? All i ever hear is that it was bad. no reasons why.
(as a side note, new coke is totally not the same as Coca-Cola. everyone knows that...)
Well, I think a lot of us had really high expectations - "A D&D movie - wow!" - and that it would reflect our in-game expectations. And instead it seemed pretty generic - dragons were dumb brutes and didn't speak, beholders were just more dumb monsters, and so on. Plus, it had a rather cheap look and was really badly acted (especially Jeremy Irons - he obviously just wanted the cash to help refurbish his Irish castle).
I retrospect, it might not be that bad. But I found that, um, it wasn't D&D, which I suspect was the problem for others too
|
|
All right. fair enough. I suppose I'll just have to go back to silently disagreeing with the negative reviews and leave it at that. I enjoyed it, apparently no one (and i mean i havn't found a single person other then my brother) else did. although i suppose i can understand the having expectations thing. I certainly had them when the dune miniseries came out a few years ago. And i suppose the acting was fairly bad (compared to some better performances i guess), but isn't it a little harsh to say that it isn't DnD? couldn't it just be DnD with a bad DM? or one with his own world and rules? maybe in that setting the monsters are all dumb and the serious threat comes from the NPCs and theives?
I really don't know what i'm trying to get at here, so i'll just stop.
Wow, is this debate really still going on? How about this - what is D&D, and what is D&D to a particular person, are two different things. How's that. If anyone wants to argue against the idea that different people can have different ideas of what, in their opinion, D&D actually is, you can knock yourself out. But, at this point, I think we can all agree, with the exception of Hasbro's IP lawyers, that D&D is more than just a game played with particular books with particular logos on them.
|
|
Wow, is this debate really still going on? How about this - what is D&D, and what is D&D to a particular person, are two different things. How's that. If anyone wants to argue against the idea that different people can have different ideas of what, in their opinion, D&D actually is, you can knock yourself out. But, at this point, I think we can all agree, with the exception of Hasbro's IP lawyers, that D&D is more than just a game played with particular books with particular logos on them.
I retrospect, it might not be that bad. But I found that, um, it wasn't D&D, which I suspect was the problem for others too
Yes, it was. Yes, the movie really was that bad. :(
(The old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon series, which while still not being right, was both closer to what D&D is, and better written & acted.)
The second movie was actually much better than the first. Not great mind you, but better.
The second movie was actually much better than the first. Not great mind you, but better.
I have a half jar of old mustard in my fridge that's better than the first movie.
LOL!!
Ultradan
|
It all plays nice...
I am glad you've found a nice game that you like to play. And, to your point of "game" play enjoyment, honestly, it might have given more respect to the traditions of d&d if 4e had been called Battlebalance, a D&D game, rather than fourth edition.
Those who are saying that 4e is not dnd, obviously differ in opinion from you, but do have a legitimate argument. The massive changes to both the fluff and crunch, and the change in the non-functional requirement of d&d "feel" have indeed created a new, and different game.
Interestingly enough, I might have actually become a player of 4e, if it hadn't destroyed the forgotten realms in a lame unartistic way, merged various realms into a vanilla POL setting, slayn sacred cows, removed the vancian magic system, removed gnomes from core class, limited the traditional age-spans of elves, and added a "butt-headed" appearance to tieflings. Theres more, but you get the idea. Its just enough nonsense to make it "UN-DND."
Now, you make some good points in your post, however, many of us feel that the "Brand Name" and legal IP does not necessarily meet the community's requirements for meeting the traditions and history of dungeons and dragons.
As I've said many times before, "WOTC does not own dungeons and dragons any more than the NFL owns football." This thing we sometimes call the world's most popular role-playing game has a history and tradition worth fighting for - that doesn't mean people can't play it any way they want, but the former stewards of the game have blemished our trust of them, by re-concepting things more for meta-game marketing purposes than for the betterment of the players.
So, I welcome you to enjoy your game. I thank you for accepting that 4e is just not the game millions of us want to play. But, someone who suggests 4e is not d&d is probably referring to these types of disparities between what 4e is, and what the look, feel, tradition, history, fluff and crunch of d&d should be. Many enjoy the feel of community and being able to discuss the same core beliefs about what the game mileau actually is. Many hold more true to its Gygaxian foundations, and prefer to support companies that continue to honor that by stating on page one: "based on the game created by Gygax and Arneson." Many are simply angry with the destruction of the realms, the pulling of publication license with PAZIO to make Dungeon and Dragon, and the sleezy replacement of OGL with the nasty GSL.
Look, if you like 4e, hey - enjoy yourself. But realize you're patronizing a company that seems like its recently tried to shut down 3PPs, and reign-in the open game movement.
Those of us who might say 4e is not d&d, now have Pathfinder RPG. And I'm sure we don't mind saying Pathfinder RPG is d&d. Its just too bad that wotc was so out of touch with the needs of our community that it could not make the next iteration of 3.5. Its too bad that they bad-mouthed it, and made players feel like they weren't kewl for not going with the newest thing.
Quite frankly, I respect your right to "beg to differ." As you can see, this is the type of important stuff, you might be differing from...
|
Yep. 4e is D&D. AD&D is D&D even though it made changes to the original. 2e, 3e, heck - even the Immortals box from way back is D&D. D&D has always changed and will always change.
Agreed, and well put. The game has always changed and always moved forward. Good. I say keep the game vibrant and competitive as the decades pass - great. I have enjoyed each edition of the game since the "red boxed set" and I have loved the evolution of the game these thirty years.
Wizards of the Coast and TSR before it have been able to define and redefine what D&D is over the years. They've owned the properties, so they get to decide what D&D is. Fourth Edition is Dungeons & Dragons just as much as AD&D is and just as much as 3.5 is.
Each of us may have our personal definitions associated with our styles of play and perspectives of play. But in a commercial sense, D&D has been an evolving, mutating game technically and mechanically defined by its owner and publisher.
Don (Greyson)
In MY opinion,
4th edition is Dungeons and Dragons, But it's not the Dungeons and Dragons that I grew up with. It's not the Dungeons and Dragons I welcomed with open arms like I did 3.0/3.5.
It just feels different,to me. Having played that computer game everyone compares it to, I can say the assessment is fair. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, BTW. But the implementation of those sorts of elements into the game makes this incarnation of Dungeons and Dragons different enough that I don't know if I could ever embrace it enough to play for more than an occasional game.
Many hold more true to its Gygaxian foundations, and prefer to support companies that continue to honor that by stating on page one: "based on the game created by Gygax and Arneson."
I might be misremembering, but didn't Gygax slam 3rd edition when it came out?
|
|
Many hold more true to its Gygaxian foundations, and prefer to support companies that continue to honor that by stating on page one: "based on the game created by Gygax and Arneson."I might be misremembering, but didn't Gygax slam 3rd edition when it came out?
I don't have any sources, but this is true as far as i know. though i don't think he "slammed" it so much as he just expressed some dislike of the rules, then continued to just do his own thing.
What is kind of funny, considering how much people like to try and compare 4e to video games is this comment:
GameSpy:[/b] So, looking back at the impact you've had on the world of games, are you aware of just how profoundly Dungeons and Dragons has impacted the video-game world?
Gygax: Indeed. Almost all the fantasy role-playing games I recognized very much. I usually say, 'Oh boy, these are very much like D&D,' and it seems to be great because everybody has such a good time playing, including my son.
Not so for 4E. In 4E it seems as though many changes were made for the sake of changes not just mechically but also in the underlying fluff and worse the game was made as incompatible as possible (or so it seems) with existing settings. Result? DnD 4E plays completely differently than any other prior edition of DnD and honestly if it didn't have the DnD label, I suspect it would be largely (almost universally) panned and definately not considered DnD...and this is where the complaint IMHO stems from.
Wasn't "lack of backward compatability" one of the design goals of D&D 4th Edition? The idea being that players would need to "re-buy" almost everything, which would help WoTC's bottom line?
|
|
The biggest problem w/ 4e is the fact that WoTC decided to make rules for an online version of D&D . Because say what you want about "flavor" and "style"...4e plays like an MMO and it sickens me. If I wanted to play an MMO...I would play WoW or Evercrack...but I want D&D.
(Sorry if it is too negative or sounds like I'm trolling...I've had a very long and bad day)
|
|
Pax Veritas wrote:
Many hold more true to its Gygaxian foundations, and prefer to support companies that continue to honor that by stating on page one: "based on the game created by Gygax and Arneson."I might be misremembering, but didn't Gygax slam 3rd edition when it came out?
I easily concede this point, as it wasn't at the time, central to the point I was making.
|
|
The biggest problem w/ 4e is the fact that WoTC decided to make rules for an online version of D&D . Because say what you want about "flavor" and "style"...4e plays like an MMO and it sickens me. If I wanted to play an MMO...I would play WoW or Evercrack...but I want D&D.
(Sorry if it is too negative or sounds like I'm trolling...I've had a very long and bad day)
While I agree that the MMO has influenced the new edition, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Just as D&D influenced those games they have influenced D&D. My biggest problem with the new system is the change in the flavor of some of the classes. I feel they've gone from having combat based abilities to being only about combat based abilities. For instance the only part of the Ranger class that has anything to do with nature is access to the Nature skill. They've removed basically all flavor from Wizards, as all of the noncombat spells have become rituals that can be cast by anyone and take 10 plus minutes to perform. Anyone can match a rogues theiving abilities, they just have to wait till 2nd level to acquire the skill using a feat etc.... The only class that was truly improved was the fighter class. I feel like they sacrificed flavor for balance. To some people this will be good thing to others, not so much. However, if you play 4th Edition, you can add all the flavor you want through roleplaying, so maybe it's not as gone as we all think it is.
Just my two cents.
|
|
The biggest problem w/ 4e is the fact that WoTC decided to make rules for an online version of D&D . Because say what you want about "flavor" and "style"...4e plays like an MMO and it sickens me. If I wanted to play an MMO...I would play WoW or Evercrack...but I want D&D.
(Sorry if it is too negative or sounds like I'm trolling...I've had a very long and bad day)
While I agree that the MMO has influenced the new edition, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Just as D&D influenced those games they have influenced D&D. My biggest problem with the new system is the change in the flavor of some of the classes. I feel they've gone from having combat based abilities to being only about combat based abilities. For instance the only part of the Ranger class that has anything to do with nature is access to the Nature skill. They've removed basically all flavor from Wizards, as all of the noncombat spells have become rituals that can be cast by anyone and take 10 plus minutes to perform. Anyone can match a rogues theiving abilities, they just have to wait till 2nd level to acquire the skill using a feat etc.... The only class that was truly improved was the fighter class. I feel like they sacrificed flavor for balance. To some people this will be good thing to others, not so much. However, if you play 4th Edition, you can add all the flavor you want through roleplaying, so maybe it's not as gone as we all think it is.
Just my two cents.
Thats what my group and I felt about it too. We did try it out and aside from some sacred cows annoying us (roll to hit w/ a magic missile?!?! Please...), we really felt like it was a homogenization of the classes, where the only difference between PC's were their gender and name. It was kind of disappointing.
I don't hate 4E. It doesn't feel like D&D to me.
Someone said something to the effect of '4E does not prevent you from roleplaying, by focusing and streamlining combat we've made it easier to leave the focus on roleplaying'.
However, for me, its the fact that 4E does almost nothing to promote or stimulate roleplaying actively.
3E was definately a more rules-centric version of D&D than 2E or 1E and in its own way somewhat diminished roleplaying inspiration in its presentation. But it did still inspire me. The book wasn't as much like an encyclopedia as the original PHB, DMG, or MM but still had its moments. 4E almost completely leaves that format behind. Can I still roleplay and use my imagination? Of course I have a long history with roleplaying games, but I still enjoy and crave inspiration.
I dislike the layout, colors, and presentation of much of 4E. And it simply does not inspire me.
I hope it inspires a new generation of gamers and/or some of the veterans.
I also hope it opens the door to a new niche of roleplaying for those left behind... Paizo is close. I am optimistic.
Thanks,
D
...where the only difference between PC's were their gender and name. It was kind of disappointing.
Hopefully people are able to roleplaying a much wider amount of character differences beyond just what the stats are. I mean I could play two identical characters (all the same exact stats including height, hair/eye color, and alignment) in 3.5 as totally different people. I am pretty sure I could do so under just about any game system, including 4e.
|
|
...where the only difference between PC's were their gender and name. It was kind of disappointing.Hopefully people are able to roleplaying a much wider amount of character differences beyond just what the stats are. I mean I could play two identical characters (all the same exact stats including height, hair/eye color, and alignment) in 3.5 as totally different people. I am pretty sure I could do so under just about any game system, including 4e.
I'm not saying the game can't do that...but in my experience...that is what happened..and where I come from, first impressions mean alot...and 4e failed theirs.
|
|
Many hold more true to its Gygaxian foundations, and prefer to support companies that continue to honor that by stating on page one: "based on the game created by Gygax and Arneson."I might be misremembering, but didn't Gygax slam 3rd edition when it came out?
Yep.
He also fought tooth and nail to close the IP when he ran TSR. Talk about hostility towards third parties. The GSL is mild compared to TSR's response to D&D compatible products.
|
|
DnD 4E plays completely differently than any other prior edition of DnD and honestly if it didn't have the DnD label, I suspect it would be largely (almost universally) panned and definately not considered DnD...and this is where the complaint IMHO stems from.
My experience is actually very different. 4e is too much like D&D. It is still class based, it still has levels, it still has PCs and critters with big bags of hit points, it still has alignments, it still has high magic/high fantasy at its very core. The games of 4e I have played have had the same themes, archetypes, and tropes that were present in every other edition of the game. I think people get too hung up on a particular mechanic or class or race - and if it changes it ruins the whole thing. In 2000 it was the end of THAC0 and today its powers.
No matter how you slice it the game remains the same - tweaked but basically the same.
How can a wizard with the enchant item ritual make an item that he's never heard of....as long as it's in the book and he has the gold?
Same way a wizard in 3.x could make an item they had never heard of with the right craft feats and spell selection/access.
Not the same at all. By virtue of having the correct spell, feat, and level, the wizard (or any other appropriate spellcaster) is assumed to have the appropriate knowledge.
Sounds to me like you are cutting the hair pretty thin there. How would having craft magic arms and armor and fireball and being 10th level make you think you could make a flaming weapon if you couldn't make it when you were 5th level (when you got the feat and the spell)? It is all metagamey!
|
|
I have been reading the boards for a while now, and I've finally decided that this is worth posting.
Argh.
We really needed to bring this up again? I thought we had gone ahead and laid this one to rest?
I think it more correct to say 4E isn't 3.5 or any of the prior versions. That's a definite, especially if you can't convert your characters, you must completely reimagine them.
4E has its strengths. It also has its weaknesses. Generally speaking, I don't particularly care for the 4E baseline premise of high fantasy. Probably why I didn't particularly care for Ebberon either. Regardless, its a matter of personal taste. 4E does, however, bring with it the opportunity to tell new stories, ones outside my normal playing mode. I enjoy this. So while I may not particularly enjoy the high fantasy approach, I must admit there are a few stories I'd like to be part of in that genre. 4E will serve this role well.
All that being said, BOTH game versions, along with Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy Role-play, and about a dozen other titles will all sit on my gaming shelf waiting their turn for when the muse strikes and I must tell a story using that particular system.
|
|
I disagree and powers are the least of it actually. IMHO and IMX what tears it is the blatent "gamism"/"balance" in how the rules work over a more 'simulationist' approach. Such as why do potions only work say 6 tiems per day for a wizard but 14 times per day for a dragonborn paladin? How can a wizard with the enchant item ritual make an item that he's never heard of....as long as it's in the book and he has the gold? Why does platemail only cost 50 gold and many, many others.
I understand the balance behind them, but even Chainmail (and I've played it years and years ago) was never this openly "gamey" and IMHO it does make 4E, "Beer and Pretzles" DnD for me at best.
-Polaris
Egad - we've been here and done this.
Is every wave of new posters going to bring up the crap that has been beaten to death here already?
Someone please wake up the horse - turns out he wasn't dead enough.