PDA

View Full Version : seems as though the pnp newsbot missed this one



yukonhorror
08-05-2009, 03:47 PM
I LIKE this article. Fortunately, you don't have to be a member of DDI to read it. This is for all of you 4e (and any game) haters.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dred/2009August

Wulvaine
08-06-2009, 02:34 AM
Great article. I've never understood that complaint. Role-play comes from the people, not the rulebook.

4E is a good ruleset. So are the other editions. If you don't want to play 4E, that's fine. Play whichever system you like best. But what good can antagonism and faction wars between staunch defenders of each system possibly do?

I play 4E, and I'm crafting a campaign I intend to DM sometime in the future, and if I want changes, I write them in myself. Homebrew and rule alterations are encouraged, and if you play 4E and really NEED the Craft or Profession skills back, nothing is stopping you from just adding them back in as you see fit. I know the campaign I'm gearing up for in the future is going to run on a heavily modified 4E engine, not because I dislike the system as it stands, but because I like doing it my way. :)

And that's really what this is all about! By all means, DO it your way! That's the spirit of tabletop gaming. If you want to use 3.5E, go ahead! If you want to have a custom race of sentient pegasi, you can do that. You build your own experience. This is, after all, about having fun.

BladeMaster0182
08-06-2009, 02:14 PM
My complaint was never about the RPing. Mine was always how 4e is like an MMO now. I won't go into detail because I don't want to start a flame war. 4e is a very solidly made system and I've always been impressed by how solid and streamlined it is. I've never played it, but I would give it a try.

However, I still prefer v3.5 (and now Pathfinder) and will continue to play those systems. For those who like 4e, I have no issue with you. I have my opinions, you have yours. I wish happy RPing to everyone.

prinnycook
08-06-2009, 03:07 PM
I loved this article it said what so many of us who like 4th wanted to say. I love the suggestion on the profession section, not that any of my players even asked. I would like to see more articles like this to make the transition easier. If we had stuff like this during the transition for 2nd to 3rd maybe I would have found 3rd more enjoyable.

Valdar
08-06-2009, 05:02 PM
Excellent article. I've made the exact same arguments that this article made (about craft and profession skills), on this very board, and got roundly flamed for it, even by a moderator.

It's fine people have their opinions about various games, but the unfounded, knee-jerk criticisms (such as Blademaster flogging the "4e=WoW" dead horse, above) are really dragging this board down. I'm finding more and more that I've got much better things to do than talk to haters.

MortonStromgal
08-06-2009, 06:21 PM
I really don't understand the "We rock at roleplay because we lack mechanics for it" argument :confused:

:edit: maybe I should expand on that...

[where I'm coming from] so for me I when I sit down at the table I would like to explore politics, romance, building a retaining wall to keep the storm from flooding the town, etc. If there is more than oh say 1/2 hr of combat for 4 hours of play, I get bored, really bored. Yeah I use my blah blah to defeat the enemy can we get on with the story now. D&D has never been friendly to this style of play with so many combat options and so few non combat options.

[why 4e doesn't work for me] When I flip through 4e it seams that 60%+ of the book deals with combat, so you have just made 60%+ of the book for what is 20% or less of my games. What a waste of paper and rules! (for me). Now I'm not saying 3e was way better but the combat sections and feats etc related to combat took up slightly less of the book IMHO.

So saying we have awesome roleplay by lack of stuff in the book confuses me.

Grimwell
08-06-2009, 11:48 PM
[why 4e doesn't work for me] When I flip through 4e it seams that 60%+ of the book deals with combat, so you have just made 60%+ of the book for what is 20% or less of my games. What a waste of paper and rules! (for me). Now I'm not saying 3e was way better but the combat sections and feats etc related to combat took up slightly less of the book IMHO.


You imply that 3E had more rules for roleplay then; and that 4E's lack of them is a new thing.

That's the part of this argument that doesn't work for me. People say that the system offers very little in terms of roleplay guidance. I fully agree. What I don't agree with is that this is somehow a break from tradition.

MortonStromgal
08-07-2009, 11:43 AM
You imply that 3E had more rules for roleplay then; and that 4E's lack of them is a new thing.

That's the part of this argument that doesn't work for me. People say that the system offers very little in terms of roleplay guidance. I fully agree. What I don't agree with is that this is somehow a break from tradition.

Oh I agree this is tradition of D&D, especially if you look at pre AD&D. I just feel that 3e had slightly (and it was slight) more non-combat stuff in it. It was still a combat heavy game. 2e without the combat and tactics book was probably the leased combat heavy of the editions but still more combat than non combat. YMMV

emblasochist
08-08-2009, 09:43 AM
Oh I agree this is tradition of D&D, especially if you look at pre AD&D. I just feel that 3e had slightly (and it was slight) more non-combat stuff in it. It was still a combat heavy game. 2e without the combat and tactics book was probably the leased combat heavy of the editions but still more combat than non combat. YMMV

The problem that I have with what you are saying is that, I don't think that most people really need guidance coming up with a really good non-combat story. First off, 4th has skill challenges which are rewards for doing a good job roleplaying, albeit they have a lot of ties to combat when made. Secondly, if you have a good DM and group, by which I mean a group that likes roleplay and combat about the same amount as you, you will find that its not necessary to have guidelines in making a very good story game.

HowwwwL
08-08-2009, 11:04 AM
Well I am going to give 4th edition the college try!

After reading many posts to help me decide whether I wanted to fork out some money to try this edition, I was disappointed to read that many of the people hadn't even tried the game system out. They gave the rules a brief read and based their decision on that, or made the decision based on negative press. But many didn't try even one session... Hell ask to play an NPC for a few sessions in any other group just to try it out!!!

I don't like some game systems out there, but I've at least played them for a bit to have an experienced opinion. Everyone likes different things in their rules, that is why so many game companies are still in business. WOTC did not drive them out of business with their 3.0 release many years back, nor did TSR earlier than that...

There is nothing wrong with preferring one ruleset over another, but there is something wrong with criticizing a game system without even playing it yourself first, which is my biggest "beef"/criticism of many of the negative 4th edition slamming that had been going on over the last year and a half in many different forums.

That is why I decided to ignore the negative press/comments and see for myself if it is so bad. Hard to take anyone seriously if they haven't even played the system first with an open mind. If you make the decision that you are not going to like something before you try it, you will be searching for the negative things, not the positive things in the game. Since no game is perfect, no game would stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

Give me "any" game system and I can blow holes into it as to why someone wouldn't like it. That includes version 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, plus Hero System, Call of Cthulhu, etc, etc... Which I have played myself.

People need to have a more positive mind. It is okay to not want to change game systems because you have every supplement for 3.5, and can't afford or do not want to afford to change. But people should not say "I am not changing because 4e is now a miniature wargame, or is too much like an MMO" without ever actually playing it.

All game companies come out with new rules every 5-10 years. Not just WOTC. With that in mind people shouldn't be surprised when it actually happens, and you have 30 tomes. For some reason many are! THey call it a money grab all the time!

The only real obvious money grab I saw any RPG game company do over the last 30 years, was the 3.0 to 3.5. That was such a case of sodomy, I had to have a shower after I came home with my new books... WOTC was definitely not my favorite company before, during, or after that day.

Expect there to be another edition 5-10 years from now. It is going to happen, and it could be in a totally different form than it is now. With the constant advancing of the internet and programming, you might see a very web based approach next time which will turn off even more people, but may also bring more people into the fold...

Grimwell
08-08-2009, 11:06 PM
HowwwwL, would you be up to writing a review of 4E based on your experiences once you have them? I'd be curious to see what you think of the game with your perspective.

MortonStromgal
08-08-2009, 11:22 PM
The problem that I have with what you are saying is that, I don't think that most people really need guidance coming up with a really good non-combat story. First off, 4th has skill challenges which are rewards for doing a good job roleplaying, albeit they have a lot of ties to combat when made. Secondly, if you have a good DM and group, by which I mean a group that likes roleplay and combat about the same amount as you, you will find that its not necessary to have guidelines in making a very good story game.

I don't think I'm coming off correctly... I'm not saying I need more RP stuff, I'm saying I need less combat detail. Or at leased thats what I am trying to say (maybe I sucked at it). The professional skills were nice but I'm not saying 3e was the end all be all of roleplaying. Honestly I like to play the farmer, cook, bartender, etc guy whos village was destroyed by the BBEG and now searches for a way to survive in the world. 3e was nice because I could start out with a cooking skill of 7+ between feats, attribute bonus, and skill ranks (though I despise feats, but thats another story). Still I was shoehorned into Fighter, Rogue, etc however. But frankly thats D&D, its always been that way and always will be. Now I open up 4e and there all these powers and techniques. How about just Im good with a sword, if I hit it dies if not I die, no fangled power attack or holy smite or any other complication. I realise I am in the minority here but frankly I dont want that much detail in my combat. If I did I would play Chartmaster er Rolemaster. D&D has strayed farther and farther away from the game I played as a kid in some ways but still retains many of the things that made it D&D.

Skill chanlenges, now maybe I don't understand them well enough but I never saw them as roleplay. I saw them as roll for a skill if your skill roll is better than your opponents gain XP. Exalted gives you bonuses for descriptions, this encourages roleplay. I don't remember that from D&D 4e but perhaps the DM left that part out. Burning Wheel has spiritual attributes (motivations) that give you bonus dice when doing something you wrote down on you character sheet. "Convince the king to marry my sister" for example would give you some extra dice for your battle of wits to convince him to marry your sister. How much that encourages roleplay is well, vague. It encourages you to go find the king but really its not encouraging method acting. White-Wolf uses XP to entice the method actor out of you by giving you 1XP for a good scene. I find that works really well for me and my group but you have to want more XP.

I'm not saying you cant have great RP with 4e. I'm saying I don't see that it encourages it any more than any edition of D&D ever did.

:edit: If skill challenges work like the following I stand corrected and they encourage roleplay

2 characters both +10 to bluff skill
PC1 "I want to tell the king to look the other way" rolls 11, +10 for 21, success

PC2 "Dear king, look over there! A dragon!" rolls 10, +10, GM gives +2 for good acting for a 22, success

Both got XP for the success but the guy who stays in character gets a bonus, to me that encourages roleplaying.


To quote the article
"Now if you want to say your character was a blacksmith's apprentice and knows how to make his own sword, just say so. Don't worry about feeling forced to reflect that story decision mechanically. Just write it on your character sheet. Liberating, isn't it?"

So, serious question here, I am not trying to be funny. If this is the case why not just write on your character sheet "master swordsman" then when you run into a monster don't worry about the mechanics.

HowwwwL
08-09-2009, 12:53 AM
HowwwwL, would you be up to writing a review of 4E based on your experiences once you have them? I'd be curious to see what you think of the game with your perspective.

I don't know what my opinion is worth, but I definitely can. One person in my D&D group swore he wouldn't do 4th edition when they first announced it (he hates change). When I offered to DM it, he jumped on board to try it. He said he will keep an open mind. We have my wife, another husband/wife, and my other friend. I will make sure I keep on top of what they think, both from female and male perspectives (males tend to be more the metagamer from my experience).

I plan to run my first 4th edition campaign, like I run any other campaign. My campaigns are generally around 40% combat to 60% Roleplaying. I like to have a big plot with many little subplots built into it, interweaving.

I am not sure if I will like 4th edition (Though it wasn't horrible, I wasn't a big fan of 3rd, I hated the whole free 5' step thing, and a few other mechanics that showed up too often), but I am keeping an open mind and putting 4th edition to the test.

I plan to do my own thing from 1st to 2nd level, then run a WOTC adventure "Seekers of the Ashen Crown" to see how their adventures run, and then continue on with ,my own thing again with the plotline I started when the characters were 1st to 2nd level.

Grimwell
08-09-2009, 10:38 PM
So, serious question here, I am not trying to be funny. If this is the case why not just write on your character sheet "master swordsman" then when you run into a monster don't worry about the mechanics.
There are game systems that allow just that. It's a valid form of play and a valid question..

As to why D&D didn't take combat in the same direction as the non-combat stuff in this edition? I think the answer is because D&D has always been a combat system at heart. The roleplay and soft side of things has always been a sideline at best.

HowwwwL
08-10-2009, 08:30 AM
Way back in the mid '70's, wasn't OD&D, the first original rules for D&D a miniatures Wargame? I am pretty sure AD&D 1st edition was based on this miniatures game foundation and I think it has kept this through the years.

I've been playing since 1979, and I have ALWAYS used miniatures when playing. I can't imagine playing it without them. I think it would be a lot less fun for me, to the point where I would probably stop playing it.

D&D for me, was always the merging of roleplaying with light miniatures rules.

The only roleplaying game I've played where I don't use miniatures, and enjoy not using miniatures is Call of Cthulhu...

MortonStromgal
08-10-2009, 11:52 AM
We switched from OD&D to AD&D 2nd and stopped using minis

Harwel
08-10-2009, 12:19 PM
I know D&D has its roots in minis wargaming, but I've been playing since '78 and hardly ever used minis. Once in a while we would put some kind of marker down and say "you're over here, and he's over here, and he's over here", if there was some question of locations, but it was never a big part of the game for us. We'd run most combat in headspace exclusively. The current homebrew game I play, we use minis for combat, and that's fine too. I can't say I have a preference one way or the other really. Two styles of play, and both are fun to me.

Valdar
08-10-2009, 12:50 PM
Personally, I am in fact seeing lighter combat and more non-combat options in 4e.

As HowwwwL mentions, a lot of people are criticizing the game as all-combat before making it all the way through the PHB. I guess it will look like a combat-fest if you do that- rituals are in the back (that's where the non-combat spells went) and skill challenges aren't even in the PHB- they're in the DMG.

I do agree they could have done more, though. Combat has state (temporary bonuses and status ailments), resources (HPs, healing surges, and expendable powers), and positioning (range and flanking) to think about tactically- while skill challenges are still a step above a single D20 roll for all things non-combat, the tactics for skill challenges still boil down to "roll high". I'm now trying to come up with non-combat challenges that also use these concepts- the opportunity to use resources, positioning, and status tactically, so it's a little more compelling than just hoping you get lucky with the dice. A skill challenge that costs you healing surges for failures (as in a trap non-combat encounter) is a good first step.

HowwwwL
08-10-2009, 06:25 PM
There is definitely nothing wrong with not wanting so many combat rules, and more roleplaying fluff and skills. I actually play other RPGs myself when I want this.

I found Call of Cthulhu (not the D20 version, the original version) to be one of my favorite systems for this. I never use minis in that game, and I love how they handle skills, and the whole storytelling mechanic it has. There are other systems that do this as well (but I thought I would mention my favorite).

I can see how someone who preferred this type of style would be unhappy with 4th edition D&D. But I think 3rd edition would have been a disappointment as well to these people, because it had a lot of combat and not a lot of fluff either. Free 5' steps, attacks of opportunity, etc. Hard to do in your head... Hell, I personally found it annoying even on a tabletop. HAHA!

Anyways, have you guys tried their systems and compared them to D&D? There are many other systems out there, which cater to that style of playing, and do a far better job of it than D&D 3, 3.5 and 4.

Based on the discussion we are all having here, it seems like (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that people who are disliking 4th edition, dislike it because it forces you to use a tabletop and really expands/focuses on the tabletop rules, where other systems don't. And these people want an expanded skill list, more fluff (I like fluff too by the way), and more rules to guide the roleplaying side.

But that does not mean that 4th edition is crap or has bad rules. It just means that your playstyle does not mesh any more with the system, and I would argue, that you would have had similar issues with 3rd edition and had to make major adjustments when first playing that years ago. 3rd edition was WAAAAAAY different than 2nd. I know it was a big adjustment to me, and I WAS using miniatures in 2nd...

The system so far from what I've read seems sound for what it is trying to do, though I will be giving it the real test over the next few months playing. Things seem more balanced now, and they really seemed to refine and made the DM's job easier. I am already seeing this as I plan my campaign out...

MortonStromgal
08-11-2009, 12:05 PM
This is all from my point of view, I have never DMed 4e. I have played alot of rpgs out there but I still havent found the perfect midevil fantasy game for me. WFRP comes darn close... Needs planar travel/other worlds, a less strange "level up" method, and better character creation. I also wish the magic system and the rest of the game used the same mechanic but seeing how I like both mechanics I'm ok with it.

Improvements from 2e to 3e
They cleaned up THAC0 making it BAB
Gave a nice way to improve your non-weapon proficiencies and renamed them to skills.
Made multiclassing/dual classing more enjoyable by making xp requirements the same across classes

Bad Stuff from 2e to 3e
Feats, or creating a subsystem wherein rules can change
Focus on Minis
Confirming critical
obscure combat rules
The paperwork of adding levels to monsters

Improvements from 3e to 4e
dumping confirming critical
cleaning up obsure combat rules
skill reduction
Spells per day reduction
bloodied idea
no more mage with crossbow

Bad Stuff
Powers
Missing fill in the blank skills like craft ______

HowwwwL
08-11-2009, 01:11 PM
I've always wanted to try WFRP as well as the Dark Heresy.
:)
I used to play Warhammer Fantasy Miniatures and Warhammer 40k years ago. Liked the fluff...

emblasochist
08-11-2009, 03:03 PM
I don't think I'm coming off correctly... I'm not saying I need more RP stuff, I'm saying I need less combat detail. Or at leased thats what I am trying to say (maybe I sucked at it). The professional skills were nice but I'm not saying 3e was the end all be all of roleplaying. Honestly I like to play the farmer, cook, bartender, etc guy whos village was destroyed by the BBEG and now searches for a way to survive in the world. 3e was nice because I could start out with a cooking skill of 7+ between feats, attribute bonus, and skill ranks (though I despise feats, but thats another story). Still I was shoehorned into Fighter, Rogue, etc however. But frankly thats D&D, its always been that way and always will be. Now I open up 4e and there all these powers and techniques. How about just Im good with a sword, if I hit it dies if not I die, no fangled power attack or holy smite or any other complication. I realise I am in the minority here but frankly I dont want that much detail in my combat. If I did I would play Chartmaster er Rolemaster. D&D has strayed farther and farther away from the game I played as a kid in some ways but still retains many of the things that made it D&D.

Skill chanlenges, now maybe I don't understand them well enough but I never saw them as roleplay. I saw them as roll for a skill if your skill roll is better than your opponents gain XP. Exalted gives you bonuses for descriptions, this encourages roleplay. I don't remember that from D&D 4e but perhaps the DM left that part out. Burning Wheel has spiritual attributes (motivations) that give you bonus dice when doing something you wrote down on you character sheet. "Convince the king to marry my sister" for example would give you some extra dice for your battle of wits to convince him to marry your sister. How much that encourages roleplay is well, vague. It encourages you to go find the king but really its not encouraging method acting. White-Wolf uses XP to entice the method actor out of you by giving you 1XP for a good scene. I find that works really well for me and my group but you have to want more XP.

I'm not saying you cant have great RP with 4e. I'm saying I don't see that it encourages it any more than any edition of D&D ever did.

:edit: If skill challenges work like the following I stand corrected and they encourage roleplay

2 characters both +10 to bluff skill
PC1 "I want to tell the king to look the other way" rolls 11, +10 for 21, success

PC2 "Dear king, look over there! A dragon!" rolls 10, +10, GM gives +2 for good acting for a 22, success

Both got XP for the success but the guy who stays in character gets a bonus, to me that encourages roleplaying.


To quote the article
"Now if you want to say your character was a blacksmith's apprentice and knows how to make his own sword, just say so. Don't worry about feeling forced to reflect that story decision mechanically. Just write it on your character sheet. Liberating, isn't it?"

So, serious question here, I am not trying to be funny. If this is the case why not just write on your character sheet "master swordsman" then when you run into a monster don't worry about the mechanics.

One big point you seem to be ignoring is that D&D in every edition is made so that you have a character with a story. They just have taken out crafting skills and other "professional" skills, like cooking, cleaning, word processing (joke), etc because players complained that it was a fringe thing that lacked the support that combat had and hindered their gameplay. I hate 3rd edition, honestly, because I never played it and when I just simply peruse a character stat block, I have to read a whole damn book to know how combat works. 4th edition works for me because while they have removed the professional skills, they haven't stopped supporting character backstories, and I can talk with my DM to work out mechanics that we both agree on, and we know how it works without needing a Masters in Theortical Physics.

Valdar
08-11-2009, 05:41 PM
So, serious question here, I am not trying to be funny. If this is the case why not just write on your character sheet "master swordsman" then when you run into a monster don't worry about the mechanics.

From a DM's perspective, rules should back up interesting challenges. Combat is an interesting challenge. Arcane research, being sneaky, physical feats of derring-do, and being socially adept are also interesting challenges. Your character's ability to hold down a day job doesn't really make for compelling stories- in fact, it's the sort of thing that most people are looking to get away from.

Imagine if PHB3 will include profession and craft skills, just like in 3e. Now imagine you're a DM writing the skill challenges for your paragon- or epic-tier adventure. How contrived would it be to include a point in the challenge where your character had to shoe a horse or tend bar for an hour?

Even if it did come up, how much more compelling would it be if you allowed the character to decide how he's going to do a task- will he use his knowledge of horses (Nature) or his brute strength (Athletics) to get the shoes on the horse? Is he going to use his actual knowledge of bars (Streetwise) or fake it (Bluff) or be mean enough that nobody questions him (Intimidate) to make it through the hour tending bar? Or are you going to ask for Profession (Blacksmith) or (Bartender), which most adventurers won't have, and even if they did, their only tactic at that point will be to roll high- game-wise that isn't all that interesting from either a player or DM perspective, so why have those rules at all?

cplmac
08-11-2009, 09:13 PM
We switched from OD&D to AD&D 2nd and stopped using minis


Actually in our group we are currently using AD&D 2nd Ed. (2E) and we have found it helpful to include using minis. Now I will admit that we only use them during combat encounters. We like how it gives a nice picture of who is where, wether it be the party members or the creatures that they are fighting.


As for the thread and the pnp newsbot missing something, perhaps they just thought it wasn't as news worthy as the other items. I how ever have enjoyed reading this thread though. I look forward to seeing HowwwwL's write up on 4E from his groups' perspective of playing it. I am just wondering if he will make a separate thread for it or post it on this thread?

HowwwwL
08-11-2009, 09:54 PM
I should do a separate thread. It would give others an opportunity to ask questions, or post differing experiences. :)

I want to play it for a month or so at least before I give my first impressions of the rules in action, and my campaign starts in early September (I am currently prepping the campaign). So it wouldn't be until the beginning of October before I give a solid review. I want to make sure I have examples from actual gameplay, and how players react to their characters, combat and roleplaying in 4th edition.

Also I would give the impression of the classes and races being played by the players, from a DM's perspective. Which classes seem broken or too powerful (if there are any), or if the balance people talk about in 4th edition is founded. All the players in my group are experienced, and have played D&D for between 10-30 years, so it should be a good test.

I am currently trying to recruit one more player (he needs to work out his schedule to see if he can swing the night we are playing - looks promising). He has played since the '70s as well, and has DM'd and played 4th edition since release, which would help us through those basic learning mistakes, and give us a jump start.

That would make a solid 5 players + 1 DM (6 total), which is what 4th edition recommends for a group. :)

So topics I would talk about in a review are:
1) Character Classes/Races balanced? Fun? From my player's perspectives.
2) Monsters, encounters and DMing in 4th edition. Better/worse/indifferent.
3) Roleplaying and 4th edition. Do my players find it engaging? Are there enough rules to make it enjoyable? Is it lacking? Why?
4) Combat and the Power System in 4th edition. Good or bad? Why?
5) Skills and Skill challenges. Good idea? Did they fall short?
6) Fun factor, strengths and weaknesses from my perspective in comparison to other RPGs I've played.
7) Eberron campaign world (I am taking a chance and trying this world - I usually do my own thing). Does it suck? Why would people want to use it? Are the books any good? Did I find it hard to learn/prepare for? Suggestions.

Plus I would answer questions people would have on my review, or questions about areas I failed to touch upon in my review.

I hope this would cover most things. :)

1958Fury
08-19-2009, 09:56 AM
My complaint was never about the RPing. Mine was always how 4e is like an MMO now. I won't go into detail because I don't want to start a flame war. 4e is a very solidly made system and I've always been impressed by how solid and streamlined it is. I've never played it, but I would give it a try.

(Emphasis mine.) I really don't want to pick on you, as you state your opinion a lot more politely than some of the h4ters on the Gleemax forums. In fact, you even compliment the system and express a desire to give it a try, so I honestly don't think you should be lumped in with the 4e bashers.

However, you have to see why the two bolded parts, so close together, make me laugh. I grow tired of saying this... and I really ranted on it in my blog (http://1958-fury.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-thoughts-on-d-fourth-edition.html) back in March, hoping to get it out of my system... but anyway...

I, too, when I first started looking through 4e's PHB, thought "Hmmm... that reminds me of World of Warcraft." But after I played my first session, the feeling was completely gone. I have met very few people who have actually played 4e, and still think it feels like an MMO. So it's a major pet peeve of mine that people still make the comparison.

Ianos
08-21-2009, 08:27 AM
My only objection with 4e (don't get me wrong, I still consider it more solid than any other D&D version) is that it is not possible to play without minis and a combat map...I remember playing improptu games with only a pen, a piece of paper and some dice and describing combat was enough to have fun. With 4e if you try ignoring the combat map about 50% of the powers become useless (especially those with the shifting going on)...

But even though 4e has become a lot more tactical than previous editions I do not think that it loses anything as far as role-playing is concerned.

1958Fury
08-21-2009, 08:54 AM
My only objection with 4e (don't get me wrong, I still consider it more solid than any other D&D version) is that it is not possible to play without minis and a combat map...

It makes the combat encounters a little more difficult, but I wouldn't say impossible. I'm currently playing in a 4e campaign that doesn't use minis or maps, and we're having a lot of fun. Granted, it is a roleplay-heavy campaign, and we rarely have more than one combat encounter per session.

Ianos
08-21-2009, 09:51 AM
That should help :)

There does not seem to be much sense in using powers that let you shift when the positions of players and enemies are only in the DM's mind, is there? ;)

But to be honest I haven't tried playing without a combat map so maybe it works...

Grandore The Giant Killer
08-21-2009, 11:58 AM
4th Edition has been a wonderful experience for my DM and us. Then again my DM tends to mend the rules in ways most other DMs would find absurd. He uses all the books and melds everything into 1 game. but 4th Edition has introduced new races which bring new unique things to the table. The new classes like Avenger and Shaman are awesome. The new spells in general are great! And then we have the old classes like Bard, Druid, and Barbarian finally getting the special treatment that other classes in the 4th edition hand book 1. I can only hope that in the 3rd Player Handbook they will give other old classes special treatment. I already heard the Monk class is getting upgraded. I am keeping my fingers crossed for the Swashbuckler class.