4e: Is it D&D to you?

[High Priest Mikhal]

Dislike the game all you want, Mikhal. Admit, if you're like Amicus, that you've never played the game but what you've heard about it doesn't appeal to you.

FYI, I have played it. I admit I just don't like it and my posting of this thread was a knee-jerk reaction. I'm sorry I ever opened my big mouth...er, typed my big...ah, you get the idea! Can't we just drop this?

[Pamela]

That's why I used the word 'if' in the part you quoted; I wasn't sure if you had or not yet. Your post in the 4e Review thread last Saturday suggested (right or wrong) that you hadn't actually read the books ("4e has not (yet) convinced me it's worth my time to learn"), let alone played it. Your original post here also seemed to be based on what you'd read on the WotC boards, and again not from the books or games.

I am glad that you are still playing one of the versions of D&D, and that there are some things from 4e that you do consider worth adopting (the skills are indeed something that made me crow with joy).

Enjoy what you do like, and good gaming!

[Rotipher of the FoS]

But what started the monsters-as-races trend? Really?
Unearthed Arcana by Gary Gygax circa 1985 for AD&D 1e.
Which introduced (among others) duergar, drow, wild elves (power creep!), and deep gnomes/ svirfneblin to players. Three of which were famed monster races.

Good call, Jester. Nor was OD&D immune to this, FWIW; between Orcs of Thar, the "Player Creature" supplements, and the Red Steel boxed set, there wasn't much left that you couldn't play by the end of that product line.

[Jester of the FoS]

Compared to past editions, 4e is almost restrained with its possible PC races.

The base power is higher than 3e, but then so was 3e compared to 2e. This also compares with the increased power of first-level PCs.
But the number of playable monsters is limited with most being former favourite PC races (githyanki, goblins, kobolds, shadar-kai, etc). And I'm fond of some addition such as minotaurs.

It does feel like the Full Frontal Nerdity strip, where elves aren't special enough. But really, this is kinda true. Elves are almost cliche (as are dwarves and orcs/half-orcs). Many games/settings set themselves apart by removed elves or dwarves or orcs or changing them into something unrecognizable.
But as I said earlier, compared to many fantasy worlds and other game systems, just being able to play elves and gnomes and dwarves was different.

[Amicus]

See, this is why I don't like discussions like this. It leads to dubious statements based on Stephen Colbert-esque gut-feeling not backed-up by any facts or research.

But that's exactly what the thread was asking for: a gut feeling. Because there is no objective answer to "Is this D&D to you?"

It's like asking, "Is this love to you?" It's a personal question, not one that can be argued with facts or research.

[Jester of the FoS]

See, this is why I don't like discussions like this. It leads to dubious statements based on Stephen Colbert-esque gut-feeling not backed-up by any facts or research.

But that's exactly what the thread was asking for: a gut feeling. Because there is no objective answer to "Is this D&D to you?"

It's like asking, "Is this love to you?" It's a personal question, not one that can be argued with facts or research.

The answer to which is a binary "yes" or "no". And that's super-keen-fine.
But when you try to explain and justify it all falls apart.

Wait... why am I still talking about this?

[Pamela]

See, this is why I don't like discussions like this. It leads to dubious statements based on Stephen Colbert-esque gut-feeling not backed-up by any facts or research.

But that's exactly what the thread was asking for: a gut feeling. Because there is no objective answer to "Is this D&D to you?"

It's like asking, "Is this love to you?" It's a personal question, not one that can be argued with facts or research.

The problem with that kind of question (vs "do you like it?") is that it implies a judgment on those who disagree with you; that they are not as experienced or wise in the ways of love (following your example), and unable to recognise infatuation versus the real thing.

[Gnarfflinger]

Yes, it is D&D. It is the next step in the evolution of the game.

It gives the Fighter something more interesting than simply swinging a sword and trying to stay awake while the DM rolls saving throws for the dozen or so enemies caught in the fire ball.

It gives the Cleric more options than just being an armoured paramedic.

It lets the low level Wizard do something more than make a pizza run after the third round of the fight.

It is another attempt to allow players to try new things.

It makes combat more interesting by having powers in place that shift the battle field.

It makes the players use their heads during the game, and not just mindlessly roll dice after spending the week between games crunching numbers to get the most potent combination.

It's more than D&D, it's the next step in the game.

[The Giamarga]

Thank you, Jester and Lord Soth, for the history lesson on monster PCs; I wasn't aware that it went that far back.

It goes back even farther. The Creature Crucibles had rules for playing faeries, werewolves, and others. I think they are considered OD&D.

[Pamela]

Then I stand corrected once more. Thank you, The Giamarga.

[The Giamarga]

In the end it comes down to the question What defines D&D ? (to you). Without having played 4E i would say it still is D&D, but significantly different from it´s precursors. (who are also all quite different)

The real problem is that the new system precludes much of those things that made and make 3E great to me. Kain Darkwind imho nailed it here:

The more I read of 4e, the more I realize it is a game I'd love to play, but it definitely lacks the same ability to use the statblock to define something.

In 3e, the monster stats had souls, of a sort. Everything your monster was and could be was right there for you.

With 4e, your monster stats are the fighting tool. A great fighting tool, for fun encounters. But not much more. 4e definitely gives the DM more freedom and more responsibility to flesh out the NPCs and monsters beyond their stat block.

If you look at say, AW Elminster (v 3.5), you can see his life's choices that led up to this point. If you look at FR Elminster, this is even more clear, his levels show the paths he took to become the Realms' greatest archmage.

If you were to look at a 4.0 Elminster (whether done as NPC or PC), you would have a statblock that reflected a powerful and dangerous mage (who'd lost most of his impressive powers due to the Spellplague ), but it would be on a DM to flesh him out as a character. To define his capabilities when you aren't rolling initiative.

This is neither a good or bad thing in play, because looking at Elminster's statblock is called metagaming. Your characters won't actually know the difference between any of the Elminsters.

This is very bad news for one group of people who love DnD though...those that don't play. Which, through no fault of my own, I ended up in after the Army. DnD is unique among games that there is a significant portion of people who love it, but never play it. They enjoy it for the story, for the worlds, for the adventures, for the ability to write flavor text and mechanics for ideas born in their minds, and to share those ideas with other people through the medium of a stat block. In many ways, statblocking for 3e was like drawing a picture. And critiquing a statblock was like critiquing someone's painting and style.

4e stats are for playing a game. And they are good stats for playing a game. When I statblock with them though...I feel more like I've been stripped of my paints and told to use charcoals. Given stone to chisel rather than clay to mold. The statblocks no longer contain all of the flavor that 3e ones did. This is good for play, and bad for paint.

I don't want to sound superior that somehow those that don't play the game are a lesser breed than those that do. Or those that prefer not to play the game are lesser than those that do. Or vice versa, incidentally. I've been in both of the groups. Ultimately, neither the players or the non-players will matter to WotC, it is the buyers and the non-buyers. If you steal your books (for whatever reason) off the internet, WotC actually shouldn't bother to count your opinion when it comes to making their game. If you buy the books to look at the pretty pictures, WotC should absolutely take your opinion into consideration when it comes to making the game.

Ultimately, I criticized the run up to 4e, because I felt that it was both disrespectful and it wouldn't serve to make the buyers of the game very happy. The game itself, I judge based not on its advertising campaign (which I still think stinks) and instead on its own merits.

4e is a very good game. It is going to be absolutely incredible to play under a good DM, who gets behind and embraces the concepts and his new responsibilities with the system. However, for you non-player fans...I don't think it is going to be as much fun. Without a DM, you aren't getting the experience that a player is. There is much less for a designer to do with 4e stats. Much less to read, because you are reading something that is actually fully intended to be used within the context of initiative. It isn't that the other parts of the game have been removed, but they have been removed from the statblock.

from this thread

[shadowbite]

I don't think there is any problem discussing this topic. It's on the minds of a lot of people. Now what people shouldn't expect is a definitive answer. It's impossible, as other people have stated, D&D means different things to different people.

Now then, to discuss my own problem with 4th edition. And this problem was also true of 3rd and 3.5 edition. The game seems focussed on combat situations with very little emphasis on story and role-playing. Now I'm well aware that a good DM can make up for this deficiency and create a great story. However there is an overall lack of encouragement to role-play or that even gives tips for new DMs. I recall in my old Domains of Dread there being tons of info about trying to impart a certain feel in your game and about how to make memorable villains.

It seems that D&D is back to being mostly about dungeon crawling. Don't get me wrong, I've played through plenty a dungeon crawl and have enjoyed them and I don't want to sound elitist but the game can be much more than that. I wish there was more encouragement for new players in this regard.

[Amicus]

But that's exactly what the thread was asking for: a gut feeling. Because there is no objective answer to "Is this D&D to you?"

It's like asking, "Is this love to you?" It's a personal question, not one that can be argued with facts or research.

The problem with that kind of question (vs "do you like it?") is that it implies a judgment on those who disagree with you; that they are not as experienced or wise in the ways of love (following your example), and unable to recognise infatuation versus the real thing.

Ah, but surely everyone experiences D&D in their own way. Even though we may recognize intellectually that others may also be deeply in D&D, still... In our hearts, aren't all of us secretly convinced that our D&D is the one, true D&D? And when we find that true D&D, we never want it to end. Because true D&D is unconditional; passionate; all-encompassing. It overwhelms the senses and tells us that we are truly alive, until at last we can no longer resist the urge to cry out to the world, "I'm in D&D! Madly, truly, deeply in D&D!" And it seems as though all the world is in D&D with you.

And if it is true D&D, you aren't troubled by any flaws or petty inconsistencies. Rather, you embrace them, because they're just another way that your D&D is special and unique. They add character. You may joke about them on occasion, but it's affectionate, never mean-spirited; you'd never truly want to hurt your D&D. Because it's true D&D, and that means accepting your D&D for better or for worse. In a way, you know your D&D better than you know yourself.

And then it happens. One grey, lonely morning you realize that your one, special D&D has passed out of your life forever. You find yourself lingering in all the old familiar places, half-expecting one more supplement; errata; an explanation. Anything. But there's nothing except an aching void. Your true D&D is gone, beyond recall, and all you have left is memories. You were planning to grow old together.

We all deal with the grief in our own way. Some eventually find the strength to D&D again. Others simply hold the memory of their D&D close to their heart, knowing that there can never be another to truly replace what has been lost. But you know, true D&D never truly dies. Not as long as we remember.

It's natural to seek comfort in commiseration; misery loves company. Yes, others have heard the story before. It's the oldest story in the world: boy meets game, boy loses game. But that doesn't make it hurt any less. It doesn't make the pain go away.

And then, while you're still burdened with fresh grief, some young, brassy stranger wanders over and tries to force herself on you. "Why so glum, daddy? There's other games in town," she whispers seductively, leaning forward to show off her ample online support, her wasp-slender flavor text. "Forget her. I can be good for you; better than she ever was. Wanna see how flexible I am?" she says, cracking her gum. "You can even call me 'D&D' if you want... I can be everything she was, and more.... there may be an additional fee for online services."

Maybe one day. But it's too soon. It's just... too soon.

[WolfKook]

Amicus, my friend, you just nailed it. I almost feel ashamed of my current infatuation with the Pathfinder RPG.

At least I can say I'll keep the memories of my old D&D, for we ended up as good friends. I know we will meet from time to time to catch up and recall all the good memories, and spend good time together, cause I know that spark won't disappear so easily, and I still enjoy my time spent with my old D&D.

...and there are still excellent TP supplements waiting to be discovered...

[DeepShadow of FoS]

I'm sticking with 3.5, but I have no problem toward 4E or anyone who likes it.