[D&D] A 4th ed. Playtester gives opinion

[Forcegypsy]

When I first heard about 4E, I knew I'd have to learn the rules so I could keep working. But I was fully prepared to do so only for professional reasons, and keep playing 3.5 in my own campaigns.

That has, thankfully, turned out to be utterly unnecessary. I am absolutely in love with the 4E system, to the point where I'm not sure I would even be willing to play 3.5 again. Seriously; I like the system that much more.

The mechanics are more intuitive, the characters more mechanically interesting and--here's the big one--I haven't found D&D combat this exciting in years. I'm having a blast with this campaign.

That's just an excerpt from his blog...link

Nobody here is going to pretend that 4ed isn't going to have a huge impact this year. The more good things I hear about it, the happier I am as it's not likely that I won't at least pick up the Player's and MM.

[Maldroth]

well I told my current group that if 4th Ed is easier to run I'll gladly keep running DnD at the game store in addition to starting up Spycraft, finally have enough interested players.

[ThunderMonkey]

In a round-about way... I'm staying away from DnD 4E. For starters... Brand loyalty to Crafty Games. Secondly, what WoTC (aka Hasbro) is doing to the small publishers that wish to create 4E materials is pretty harsh.

[Psion]

Well, I hope there is something he likes that we haven't been shown, because I see a lot I don't like in stuff that we have been shown.

But then, with bits like Dragonborn and Tieflings, it could be great, but it seems like the game they are writing supports a different game than I've been playing.

[spinningdice]

Well for me it's a reinvigoration of a game I haven't played in quite a while. So at the worst it'll be more that I don't play...

[Aragathor]

Well, I hope there is something he likes that we haven't been shown, because I see a lot I don't like in stuff that we have been shown.

But then, with bits like Dragonborn and Tieflings, it could be great, but it seems like the game they are writing supports a different game than I've been playing.

I'll second that.
I won't be picking 4ed up when it comes out. It would be a waste of money better spent on SC and SR.

[Krensky]

As much as I am not impressed or even all that interested in the 4.0 changes, I am enough of a realist to know that at some point WoTC will be getting cash out of me for a set of 4.0 core books, and probably some splat stuff as well. 

I may be wrong though, none of the people I game with on a regular basis seem to excited about 4.0, so I could be wrong.

[NekoMouser]

My natural tendency toward skepticism has always been in play when it comes to WotC's releases. All of them seem billed to save the gaming world as we know it, and few even turn out to be worth the paper they're printed on. But 4th edition may well be good stuff, noting that it was already in the design phase before the release of 3.5 (which I was never terribly enamored with anyway). Of all the supposedly groundbreaking innovations I've seen touted, I think what I'm most interested in is the "all the way up" race abilities and the expansion of class roles, which I'll likely steal and use in more likable d20 variants like M&M or Spycraft.

Overall, I think 4.0 will likely be a superior product to 3.5, but will suffer from the release of 3.5 in the same way as computer games suffer when you have to download more than 1 game patch individually. The level of intellectualized dishonesty displayed by Wizards and Hasbro over the development of 4.0 concurrent with the release of the 3.5 modification are going to mean I won't be buying any of their extraneous materials even if I do pick up 4.0 Core books. Build the best you can, then release a good product and errata it if necessary. These aren't friggin' vcrs, they're books...and books shouldn't come with built in obsolescence.

[TheTSKoala]

My natural tendency toward skepticism has always been in play when it comes to WotC's releases. All of them seem billed to save the gaming world as we know it, and few even turn out to be worth the paper they're printed on. But 4th edition may well be good stuff, noting that it was already in the design phase before the release of 3.5 (which I was never terribly enamored with anyway). Of all the supposedly groundbreaking innovations I've seen touted, I think what I'm most interested in is the "all the way up" race abilities and the expansion of class roles, which I'll likely steal and use in more likable d20 variants like M&M or Spycraft.

Overall, I think 4.0 will likely be a superior product to 3.5, but will suffer from the release of 3.5 in the same way as computer games suffer when you have to download more than 1 game patch individually. The level of intellectualized dishonesty displayed by Wizards and Hasbro over the development of 4.0 concurrent with the release of the 3.5 modification are going to mean I won't be buying any of their extraneous materials even if I do pick up 4.0 Core books. Build the best you can, then release a good product and errata it if necessary. These aren't friggin' vcrs, they're books...and books shouldn't come with built in obsolescence.

You know.. I read this thread.. and I'd just like to say.. good job for those who don't drink the cool kid Kool Aid.  And yes, this one playtester MAY enjoy 4E, however, how many other countless playtesters bitched and groaned about the insistent online aspect being thrust down players throats?  How many playtesters were ignored when they questioned the need for fluff books?  One playtester who drinks the Kool Aid, but there are plenty who enjoy Gatorade instead.

[Salsa]

So WotC needs more money, and what do they see most around in terms of succesful MMO? World of Warcraft.

So let's take some of that magic formula to our game.

"aggro range"
"talent tree"
"power attack"

to name a few. I like to separate my games, Video Game is one thing, tabletop is another. They are trying to fuse both things into a gold pot.
I never liked 3rd edition, and still think that 3.5 has a lot of faults. However Spycraft managed to fix those problems, but the thing is Spycraft doesn't belong to WotC and they also noticed how everyone was profiting with their open game license and that they were creating more market adversaries. To fix this, they decide not to increase the quantity of quality material for an edition but to create another brand new edition that will need all newer versions of their previous books.

It took more than 10 years to see a 3rd edition. After 3.5 and the many versions of Star Wars d20 I started seeing where it was going, right now I'm not gonna be impressed if we see a 5th edition in 2 years...

[Mister Andersen]

WotC have had Telent trees since the debut of D20 modern, which was some time prior to WoW I believe.

[Psion]

WotC have had Telent trees since the debut of D20 modern, which was some time prior to WoW I believe.

Diablo II had talent trees before D&D 3e or WoW existed, though I have no doubt Diablo II was an influence for WoW.

[Alphastream]

I figure the writers for 4E are going to produce a great game. They did with 3.5. D20 was a much improved game compared to any previous D&D game, and a good enough system (if not the best) to attract tons of new players and tons of old ones too. There is a reason why so many companies flocked to D20. It wasn't just marketing. I think discounting 4E as a failure is way premature.

The question of whether to design safe or design bold is always a good one. It sounds like they are going for bold. It also sounds like they are being forward thinking and going for a game that takes on online gaming, or at best alleviates the losses. That's not a bad idea.

I'm with everyone that doesn't want D&D to become WoW. I despise the skill system in Star Wars Saga and I'm not a fan of the talent/feat approach of Saga. Still, I see why those appeal to many players and why they could bring in lots of new players.

To me, the question comes down to this. Is the game still the D&D I want to play? If the game is great, but it feels like something else (video game or otherwise), then I may end up looking for something that feels more like my kind of D&D.

Teos

[Aragathor]

I figure the writers for 4E are going to produce a great game.

Yes, this will be something completely new. An epic conversion of MMORPG mechanics into a tabletop RPG.
But it also will be the death of old D&D fantrasy settings like Forgotten Realms.

They did with 3.5.

Please, let's not compare 4ed and 3.5. They are two different systems and shouldn't be put side by side.

I think discounting 4E as a failure is way premature.

Why premature? The prewievs show us a  picture that isn't attractive to many players. Things like removal of the Great Wheel cosmology or the classic Half-Orcs turn people away from the 4ed.

The question of whether to design safe or design bold is always a good one. It sounds like they are going for bold.

Bold, yes. But it's a type of bold other people hawe compared to Microsoft. It's a type of bold that ignores user feedback.

It also sounds like they are being forward thinking and going for a game that takes on online gaming, or at best alleviates the losses.

MMORPG's sell well and it's understandable that they are taking over certain aspects of them, but the aspects taken over by 4ed are those that others find bad or useless.

4ed does not feel like D&D. And with D&D I mean the classic D&D with mages able to cast spells without hauling a whole lab with them, magic items that don't have a level requirement, with worlds like Al-Qadim or Planescape. For me 4ed is cheap and useless MMORPG rip-off.

[Alphastream]

I'm a critic, but I can also pull back. I need to see more of 4E to really comment on whether it fails as a system. I'll get to in a month at D&D XP (always so sad to not get LSpy there).

Until I see more, all I can say is that there is plenty I can complain about, but that the game still could really work and be fun. It really could take the classic game to the next level. Or it could fail. I lack data! *Curses and pounds at computer terminal*

I recall first looking at 2nd ed for Spycraft. I had a ton of complaints up front and could not really see why the changes had been made. But I played and tested and tried and found it worked... awesomely.

I hated Dark Sun from the outside of the box. Seemed like munchkin fodder and I thought the creativity seemed weak and thin. Then a friend bought the set for me and said "Shut up and run this". It went on to become one of my favorite campaigns.

Again, the one thing I can say is that I worry about the classic feel that has defined D&D. I don't worry about it being fun. I worry about it being iconic. I don't want to see D&D become something else, when there are already tons of something elses.

Teos