4e: Is it D&D to you?

[alhoon]

I disagree with just one thing:
Wizards. They should have been glass cannons. Well... they're not.
They can take up far more beating compared to fighters than previous editions. They do little damage to many enemies. There aren't any "striker" powers for wizards. I mean a non-defender fighter deals more damage to an enemy than a wizard in the same level. I believe wizards should also have encounter and daily powers that blasted a single enemy almost as heavily as a ranger or warlock.

Oh, and they need a bit more utility spells.

[Bluebomber4evr]

I haven't played it, but then I haven't played "pencil and paper" D&D since 2nd edition. I really don't have a gripe about the rules (although the "revised" alignments seem half-assed).

What I dislike is the flavor of the new setting they're selling. And yes, there's a setting there, you can tell from DMG. I dislike how these changes could drastically alter settings I love, despite, assurances that we can still run things the way we always did. My fear is that they will gut and/or dismantle old favorites to force the new stuff to fit--i.e. they'd find a way to jam the Dragonborn square peg into Ravenloft's round hole.

What don't I like, specifically?

I don't like how 4th edition is commiting what I feel to be one of 2nd edition's grievous sins: disallowing/discouraging evil PCs. Both the PHB and DMG seem to echo the 2nd ed. sentiment of "oh no, evil is so very naughty!" Evil deities are only detailed in the DMG, because players should be discouraged from having their characters worshipping them. It's as if the designers feel that we, the public, are unable to handle playing evil characters with maturity.

Or take Tieflings, for example. Tieflings are no longer descended from demons, but instead are a race that made a raw deal with them long ago. At first glance this may not be much of a difference, but the sentiment is that having someone who is descended from demons would imply that "bad things" not only happened in the past but continue to happen in the present. Same with half-orcs. The 4e designers actually stated that there may be no half-orcs in the game because their background may suggest "unpleasantness." Oh NOES, not unpleasantness! I'm so glad we have WotC to shield our virgin minds from such naughty impure things! It's as if they think the only way such races can exist is through rape, when that isn't the case.

I also don't like the dragonborn being a core race. Yes, I'm aware that they're really not all that powerful or that there are less races to choose from than before...that's not the point. They're over the top, in my opinion, and should have been relegated to an optional race that DMs could use as they see fit, rather than be made a key race in the PHB that DMs will have to shoehorn into their campaigns. I'm aware that one can always disallow things from even the PHB, but let's be honest here, when has that ever worked out well for any DM? You'd get "But it's in the Player's Handbook! Why can't I use it?!" then get pelted with pretzels and have angry players storm out.

[LordGodefroi]

I think the zeitgeist of D&D has as much to do with two things: 1) The level of technology. and 2) the zeitgeist of fantasy fiction and art of the time.

I came to D&D, and then almost immediately to AD&D, in 1982. The big fantasy film of that period was released the previous year: Heavy Metal. Add to these: Heavy Metal magazine, its Marvel competitor Epic Illustrated, The Warren horror and sci-fi magazines (such as Creepy, Eerie etc), as well as the Marvel Conan comics. And, of course, Tolkien readership had experienced a rebirth and the Shannara series followed that trend. These influences were largely American and European (British and French, mostly).

In the early 80s, computer technology was crude and computerized fantasy gaming was a crashing bore. Your best bet then was the text-based ZORK series (on an Apple IIe computer). People chose pen-n-paper RPGs because the experience was faster paced and much more robust than what computer games offered. And the art of rulebooks and painted miniatures engaged the senses far better than VGA graphics.

Today, fantasy is influenced by Japanese anime (yek) and MMORPGs. In a post Myst world, computers offer multimedia engagement that miniatures and still-image artwork can't match. With computers offering a more visceral fast-paced experience, pen-n-paper RPGs aren't the first choice for many gamers.

And fantasy has evolved so far from its Middle Earth / Shannara / Dragonlance roots. (Wraeththu, anyone ?) So, the Tolkien-influenced 80s zeitgeist is gone.

4th edition isn't going to feel like 1st edition AD&D and I don't think that was ever a goal. I don't even think it was necessarily a goal for 3rd edition (yet it somehow pleased many Gygax grognards like me anyway).

So, the answer is both yes and no. Yes, 4th edition IS D&D. . . of the 21st century. And no, it is NOT, however, the AD&D of the 1980s RPG Golden Age.

As for me, 4th edition, while having so many good rules innovations, is so far afield from what I've known as the D&D experience that I don't think I'll ever be fully comfortable with it.

[VAN]

I think 4th edition is D&D, but I just prefer the 3rd one!

[Jester of the FoS]

And fantasy has evolved so far from its Middle Earth / Shannara / Dragonlance roots. (Wraeththu, anyone ?) So, the Tolkien-influenced 80s zeitgeist is gone.

Well, I think OD&D had more in common with the '20s pulp Swords&Sorcery tales (and the very, very bad '70s immitations) more than the high Fantasy Tolkien of the '60s.

Fantasy has changed quite a bit over the last 100 years.
Much of it for the best.

[alhoon]

Bluebomber: D&D is not just for the 25+ years old. It's for the 12 years old too. So yes, I agree that they need (in the core rules at least) portray the PCs as the good heroes.
On the other hand, I agree that Dragonborn are over the edge and on the tiefling and H-Orc arguments you made too.