Two weeks ago, we wanted to find out at what age you rolled your first dice. (Hopefully by that point you stopped trying to eat them). Poll results indicate that among the 426 respondants, 49% of you started when you were at those formative years of 11-15. 27% of you (myself included) were at the tender age of 10 or younger when you started slaying dragons. 17% of you started when you were 16-20, possibly as a result of this thing called “college.” One single person said 51 or older was when starting to play RPGs, so to you sir or madam, I salute you!
As of this Saturday, 4e will have been out for one year. Possibly the most controversial of all editions and certainly the most blogged-about edition of Dungeons & Dragons to ever be released, D&D 4e has been built up, torn down, and reported on across the Internet. Armchair and professional designers have taken sides to discuss it, while players and DMs examine all the rules closely looking for suggestions and answers. Meanwhile, celebrities of the geek world helped promote the game by playing it and letting people listen in on their game.
Starting with the initial announcement at GenCon 2007, we polled reaction to the coming of a new system and found most to be cautiously optimistic. Then shortly after release, we polled about everyone’s favorite edition of D&D, which at the time showed a preference for 4e, and late voting has only increased that lead. It seems only natural to follow up with the following, after 1 year of release, the question on many minds…
[poll id=”126″]
As I write this post and poll, I worry about the potential for edition war. (Unlike previous polls, this will be the first one we’ve done on the subject since the RPG Bloggers Network brought together so many different opinions on RPGs). If you’d like to explain your vote in the comments, feel free, just please be respectful to other’s preferences and tastes and choices. I have another post brewing about the conflict between fans of different editions across the blogs (and hopefully my last post on the subject), but for now, we’re just looking for numbers.
I wanted to like it. I looked over the rules, and liked some of how it seemed to work. Not really an rpg like any i have seen before, but that’s ok. But, after playing, I realize it does not at all play in a way I enjoy. A shame, because it looked to good.
The Pretentious Fool´s last post: I Dedicate This Post to Chris Sims
I like it. I’d strongly like it but I feel that there are still improvements to be made with the adventure modules and strongly dislike the 2s and 3s being released once a year. Combat is slow as written but it has been addressed to hell and back by the community at large and there are many house rules to fix this so that’s not so much of a problem for me anymore, skill challenges are optional so you can either take it or leave it. Powers are fun though there is a bit of a learning curve at first role playing wise. Healing surges makes sense though it would be neat to have some kind of injury system though I have seen many house rules covering that as well. My biggest complaint I guess would be magic items, I don’t like them. Other than that this system seems made for house rules. It’s a great system and it’ll be interesting to see what direction it takes in the future.
kaeosdad´s last post: Kaeodad’s Top 8 blogs
I like it a lot more than I thought I would a year ago. I still think the skill system was cut down waaaay too much, but I love the new system for setting up encounters and the streamlining of styling for monsters, abilities, etc.
Awesome post. No chance for any flaming. You should make similar posts every day.
I have sold off all but my duplicate 3.5 PH and switched to 4e exclusively. Now I would play a 3.5 game if an interesting one presented itself, but I would never DM a 3.5 game again. That said most of my best experiences playing D&D had very little to do with the rules set presented.
I’m mostly in the middle about 4th edition. It has many interesting concepts that work well. Combat is a bit more dynamic now, and with the house rule that damage bonuses are scaled with level (like skill checks or what have you) then the paragon and epic tier combats don’t require as much time as they would normally.
That said, my biggest gripe is that anything not having to do with combat is clunky, implausible, and completely destroys versimilitude. I consider all aspects of a world within a ruleset, and the complete hosing of any kind of viable economy, even one with problematic rules representation, really pulls me out of the setting.
So much so that I have abandoned the generic setting they proscribe and have switched to one that has a large and interesting world pre-made, but with a crap-tastic ruleset. I’m referring to the Paladium Fantasy RPG. The world is complex and dense. And while there are minor inconsistancies within the setting, they are easily worked around. They do not pull me from the fantasy world like 4th edition’s glaring omission of anything not fighty. I simply remove the tiny fake economy and insert one that makes more sense.
While 3.5’s economy had issues, item creation and market management worked tons better than 4.0’s. Rituals for item creation will be altered, and my peace of mind shall be assured.
Put me in the “I like it and didn’t expect to” camp. Sure, it’s not perfect – what system is – but it’s great fun to play. And that’s what matters most, right?
Strongly Like, here. But you probably knew that one. 😛
.
@The_Gun_Nut –
Personally, I find it a lot more plausible that a magic-item-based economy would be pretty non-viable, so I actually see this as a bit of a plus.
Graham´s last post: Oh my, he’s at it again!
Of course, since most of the D&D content you post is 4e-centric, I would suspect that your audience might be predisposed to like it. 😉
Jeff Greiner´s last post: The Tome Ep 105: Elven Rogue and Skill Challenges
@Jeff: The same could be said of DungeonMastering, but I frequently see people expressing how much they hate 4E in the comments over there. I think many people have a love/hate relationship with it when it comes to reading content about something they claim to hate. 😀
I really like 4th Edition for the simple fact that it’s a lot easier to DM than 3rd Edition was. I’m considering jumping onto the early bandwagon for 5th Edition though….
I sincerely wanted to hate 4e when it was first announced,which I think had more to do with WotC than the actual game, but that’s another post all together. As 4e’s release date got closer I began to come around and bought the game, as I knew I would. I found that I liked 4e, a lot. Sure there are issues with the system, just like every other game, but it seems to be a solid system.
However, one year later I find myself dragging out my 3rd edition books and wanting to play that edition again. I’m looking forward to seeing the final version of Pathfinder and actually think I may leave 4e on the shelf, except for the occasional game.
For me at least, the newness wore off and I’m just not as interested in playing the game as I was when 3e was the default fantasy system. For some reason, to me, 4e got “old” quickly.
Is it a good system? Yes.
Is it fun? Yes
Is it easier to DM? Yes
Do I like it? Yes
Do I like it more than 3e? To this I find myself saying, not anymore. That’s just my opinion.
I think I’ll get on that 5th edition bandwagon as well…
geekgazette´s last post: top 10 favorite rpgs
Still dislike at this point, although my experience with it is limited. We’re going to give it another try soon, and I’ll try to approach that with an open mind.
I strongly dislike the churn in races and classes. I prefer long-running campaigns with deep character development, while tons of new classes promotes dabbling then moving on. It’s easy to deal with (just don’t allow your players to use the new books), but still a little irritating.
I went with “Like” rather than “Strongly Like” simply because one of my most enjoyable experiences with 3.5 was creating magic items, which is not so easily done in 4E.
I can’t say I love everything about 4E, but I can say that there are only two reasons why I even bother keeping my 3.5 books: (1) because I still love creating magic items, even if I have no chance of ever using them, and (2) I love Eberron.
I hated the thought of 4E when it first came out and all the talk going on before it was actually released, but once I tried it I found I really enjoy playing it across all levels.
Psynister´s last post: Grand Opening: Suggestion Box
I’ve tried to DM 2e, 3e, and now 4e; 4e is the only one that left me feeling like I knew what I was doing. It also is the only one where building a level-appropriate encounter with a variety of bad-guys was easy, and having a custom NPC wasn’t a major undertaking.
As for the skills, they may be a tad over-simplified, but I always hated designing characters with a variety of skills, only to never use half of them.
I dislike like 4e edition. Actually, I didn’t like 3.5 either. Too much concentration on the minis. I understand they help streamline combat, but with 4e, it’s too much like WoW. When I flip through the player’s guide, I feel like its all about the combat and very little about the role playing. If I want to play WoW, I’ll play WoW (which I also don’t like, btw :P)
So, instead of worrying… “Do we have a controller? Check. Tank? Check. Damage? Check… etc,” I would prefer to let the players just play whatever they want and not have to worry about specific roles. They player should determine the role of the character, not the game.
I understand that you can still do that, but it just feels like the books are trying to force roles for the group.
Strongly like.
Easy to teach. Easy to run. It is refreshing having more time to prep for story/rp stuff than spending hours prepping statblocks and rules.
Minor quibbles here and there (slow effect, combat grind), but what rule system has perfection? That was rhetorical btw, the answer is none.
DDI has improved by leaps and bounds. The character builder is beyond awesome (this from someone who loved Heroforge for 3e). The Compendium makes research a breeze.
The errata system works. Something that has always plagued TSR/WotC.
Really? The “It’s an MMO/It’s WoW” argument? Still?
Sigh.
Like the game or don’t. I don’t particularly care one way or the other, as the game is not for everybody.
But really? I thought we had put that accusation to rest. I thought we were better than this.
Graham´s last post: Oh my, he’s at it again!
Graham,
Well, when the book emphasizes having having the exact team setup as a MMORPG then yes, you would still get the comparison. Why, is it not accurate? Seems so to me. I understand some people like this. I don’t. It works if you want to run a miniature game. I don’t. So, 4e doesn’t work for me. That’s all I was saying.
The first 2 editions of D&D seemed to concentrate on the player’s choice of character development and role playing over time. The current versions seem more to concentrate on miniatures and following a set role in the party.
These are just my observations. Perhaps with a different group, I would have seen different sides of the game. Maybe not.
Beowuff,
You might not realize it, but there are many who consider the MMORPG comparison insulting, and especially find the “not a roleplaying game/it’s a miniatures game” insulting. You’re saying you don’t like the emphasis on the miniatures aspect and the role system, that’s fine, and let’s leave it at that.
Thanks for everyone keeping it civil so far.
@beowuff –
Because the 4-man “role” setup has been around since 1e AD&D (“Someone has to play the Priest!”), and was taken by MMOs to represent their own classes. The only thing 4e took from MMOs was the concept of naming those roles.
Look, all I’m saying is that this topic has been debated and refuted countless times, and I’m really surprised it’s stuck around as well as it has.
In any case, this isn’t the place for an in-depth discussion on this. A recent discussion on the topic can be found here, (roles in particular here)if you want to read my argument against this idea in full.
For now, lets get back to our regularly scheduled comments thread.
Graham´s last post: Oh my, he’s at it again!
its all a matter of preference, me and my group tried 4e and all felt, wow, this is the update to 3e we’ve been waiting for. We played all prior editions (before it was Ad&d) and realy enjoy this system.
No matter what your system is, enjoy the role play
Well, I certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone. I think what it boils down to for me, is that I don’t want to play with miniatures. At this point, I don’t see how 4e can be played without them unless you heavily modify the rules. And if your going to do that, why not just buy another system that’s closer to what you want?
Yes, it’s a matter of preference.
Also, thanks for the links Graham, I’m going to go read up on them now. I’m entirely willing to admit I may have missed something.
I started playing DnD in 1981 with the Basic set but moved quickly into ADnD. I’ve played every iteration of DnD since then (and almost every setting also, except Birthright). 4e is the closest I’ve come to recapturing those old days of playing ADnD with my friends for an entire weekend (we used to start Friday night and finish Saturday night or early Sunday as the delirium took hold).
As the sole DM for my group for the last 15 years, I have to say that 4e is the easiest for me to run. The combats flow easily (if not necessarily quickly) and I LOVE the new stat block set up. 3.5e had the worst I can remember. We’re just now getting the skill challenges down pat (my fault as the DM for not using them this last year) and they are fun.
Character creation is much simpler than it was in 3.5 (and even 2e…kits…gag…). I think paragon paths work much better than the prestige classes ever did. We had some issues over the 3e-3.5e term with players finding out that “dipping” two levels into classes like Barbarian and Rogue and four levels into Fighter made for some pretty potent characters. It’s always been important to me that players play the characters they want to play but I had to start discouraging this and that rankled some people (mostly newer players, not the core 4 or 5 that have been here for the whole 15 years).
Overall, I have to say that I like 4e the best and ADnD comes a close second. I like the 4e rules the best but I like the ADnD memories the best.
I have this friend that hates change. He’s stated over and over again over the years that he prefers 1st edition DnD to anything that has come since. He started to rant to me one day about the miniatures issue with 4e. I gently reminded him that DnD has always been a miniatures game. Whether that “mini” was made from painted lead or drawn on a piece of paper, every DnD game that I’ve ever participated in used some sort of a visual “battlefield” to enhance the purely mental “battlefield”.
I actually owned and painted DnD minis before I ever played the game in 1981. Remember the old theme sets they used to make? I really miss those old Ral Partha and Tom Meier minis sometimes.
ADnD even gave distances measured in inches for ranges and movement. We converted inches to feet in our head when we didn’t have a table available to measure on (DnD on the school bus anyone?). I have no problem converting squares to feet in my head now when a map is not available.
Aurion
@beowuff –
No worries. 4e definitely requires minis more than any previous edition, and that’s a fine reason to dislike it. But calling it a minis game is misleading at best (and can be insulting to those who like the game as an RPG at worst, though I know it was not intended that way).
(On a side note, it’s apparently pretty easy to run 4e without minis, by doing one small thing. Players don’t get the powers. Instead, they only get the flavour text of the powers. The DM adjudicates what happens based on this. Note that this requires putting a lot of trust in the DM, and so is not for inexperienced groups, but apparently it works pretty well.)
Graham´s last post: Oh my, he’s at it again!
@Graham
Given the existence of magic, of abundant low level magic item creation (alchemy and what not), and the fact that even relatively low powered items have a set monetary value (only possible if such items were ubiquitous), I’d say an economy utilizing magic item trade is not only plausible, but definate. If magic items were truly “rare” then even one of the lowest powered items (a +1 sword, for example) would be of incredible value. It would be almost impossible to find someone to part with such an item, and if they would the price would be staggering.
In truth, the uniqueness or not of magic items has more to do with the DM’s vision of the setting than with what is printed in the books. However, the direction the books points one towards could lead many to the conclusion that they are ubiquitous to the point that a thriving economy based solely on the magical trade exists. Given that, the item creation costs, and sell value of the items, it appears to me that the rules for such things were either tossed in haphazardly or placed in there so as to discourage any kind of plausible, common sense thinking regarding magic items.
By that I mean that it attempts to force players and DMs into regarding magic items as “special and unique” rather than the commonality that the default D&D setting both suggests and supports. It also encourages the players to be grateful for whatever the DM hands them, as it is both expensive and difficult to replace one item with another, contrary to what the setting suggests. It is THIS type of double speak that I take issue with when I comment on the economy of the world.
In regards to the WoW/MMO comparison: Many have made this observation, and doubtless many more will do so. Doing so is not offensive, only the bias of the reader makes it so. I understand where the comparison comes from, and feel that it is justified. Taking offense and feeling it belittles the game is understandable, but not entirely justified. The MMO comparison is a kind of shorthand that allows potential players to more easily grok how the new edition works. I think the comparison has merit, and that both good, and bad, connotations are applicable. If someone doesn’t like the new rules based on that concept, then that’s fine. If the new rules appeal to you, whether or not you like the MMO comparison, then there should be no problem.
You like the game, and that is more than enough. Say you like it, but don’t try to belittle someone else’s opinion of the game just because they don’t agree with you.
Gun Nut:
Regardless, the “4e is just WoW” argument doesn’t usually extend to the factors you’re talking about, but as a shortcut to insult the game as somehow not being a “real” roleplaying game and/or the players who enjoy it being not roleplayers. I think it’s easier to avoid that entirely and just talk about those good and bad features instead of just making a broad statement that has vastly different connotations for different people.
As you say, it’s the same on the flip side, you can say you don’t like it and give solid reasons without an unclear generalization.
I swear someone (oh wait it was me) wrote a few posts here about the topic of WoW and D&D comparisons early last year:
https://critical-hits.com//2008/02/13/the-world-is-full-of-dungeons/
https://critical-hits.com//2008/06/11/how-to-compare-birds-to-fish/
Like Graham, I thought/hoped most people had gotten passed some of things brought up here already, but I guess not. At least we’re having some reasonable discourse on it all!
And, as my final contribution to this mess that I apparently somehow started, not once did I belittle his opinion of the game, and in fact stated that it’s fine that he dislikes the game, as there are many valid reasons to dislike it. (Nor did I belittle your economy comment, if you inferred that, as I merely gave my contrasting opinion.)
All I belittled was the fact that the stupid WoW comparison/generalization/strawman is still around, clogging up what could otherwise be good debate and discussion.
I’ll stop contributing to this thread now, with apologies to the CH crew for any trouble I inadvertently caused.
Graham´s last post: Oh my, he’s at it again!
Graham,
Well, to be perfectly honest, I’m really glad you posted. You’ve given me a lot to think about in regards to 4e. I think I’ll give it another go at the next demo day. As I’m sure we all know, the people you play with greatly influence the game. Maybe I just need new people to play with 🙂
So… Mission accomplished intertubes! You’ve made me think! 😛
I’m not really sure the “putting the MMORPG” comparison to rest thing is plausible. First, plenty of people don’t really ‘follow’ the D&D blogosphere enough to have really read material on the argument. Secondly, the comparison consistently resonates with new players I introduce to the game, so superficially it probably has some merit.
That being said, I don’t think it holds water as a very deep argument. I’m glad 4E evolved as it did into a more user-friendly edition where min-maxing is no longer strictly necessary to be useful.
@beowuff –
Woot! That’s what I’m here for, after all.
Hell, I’ll argue both sides of any debate, for the goal of making people think. All sides rely on straw men, and it’s a method of reasoning that we need to rid ourselves of.
The intertubes do a variety of things, though. They help people see opposing viewpoints, in order to get past their mental blocks, this is true. But they also popularise and spread the straw men much faster. I have yet to conclude if the internet has had a net positive on this sort of thing (and doubt that there is a conclusion to be had, one way or the other).
But when it works? It works well.
…
@TME –
True, and the comparison is not 100% false by any means. Using it as a comparison and going in-depth? Hooray! That means you’re thinking critically about the topic. It’s really just the straw-man-ing that I object to.
On your other point, it could be argued that minor min-maxing (ability scores, primarily) is actually MORE necessary in 4e, though major min-maxing is both harder and less necessary than 3e.
…
“Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in.”
Amirite?
Graham´s last post: Oh my, he’s at it again!
Damn. I bet to myself this post would have 30 comments when I went in to read it. It has 32! I was so close to victory! I’ll get you someday, self…oh I will. I’ll buy some of those bad tacos. You’ll be in so much pain!
Anyway, I like 4e. This is no surprise as it’s the only thing I’m DMing and I’m writing a campaign setting for it and all. It has a lot of rough edges I’m willing to work out to my own tastes, and frankly my support for Wizard’s of the Coast as a company continues to dwindle, but that’s no fault of the game. The game is great, and where it isn’t great, I’m willing to make it great the way I want it to be. That’s the whole purpose of my blog, after all.
Wyatt´s last post: Animine This For Inspiration: Saya No Uta
Started out skeptical when it was first announced. Followed its development through 2007 and got intrigued. Bought the books, played at Origins ’08, and moved well into the “strongly like” camp.
I started as “extremely enthusiastic/couldn’t wait for it to come out” and switched to “meh” when it finally did. I think there are good and bad – most of those points have already been hit. To me, it’s an entirely different game than 3.5. I see why people like 3.5, and I see why people like 4.
Let me come out and say that the 4e campaign I play and sometimes run is a routine highlight of my week, and a large part of that is the fact that 4e makes combat simple, and leaves a lot of room for some involved role-playing, while at the same time, giving also allowing for many memorable fights. My only (soon to be resolved) gripe is the absence of Eberron material for the past year. As I say, though, this is soon to be resolved when EPG comes out this month.
Personally, I run less combat/encounter-based games and more setting-specific games. So for me, it is not the right game.
However, I am always pleased when any RPG Makes money. 4e is popular? I’m thrilled for the industry.
LordVreeg´s last post: edited Celtrician Worship
I am actually surprised at the level of love for 4e (surprised and thrilled). Bartoneus mentioned that there have been some negative reactions about 4e on Dungeon Mastering, which is certainly true. I think they have dropped off recently. I would guess since the release of the PHB2. Seems like the community is really coming around!
Nicholas´s last post: 4 Epic Campaign Premises for Badass PCs
I like 4e. A lot.
I didn’t think I would, when I first heard about some of the changes. I didn’t much care for it when I read the rules. Once I played it, I started to come around. And the first time I ran it, that pretty much settled the matter. It just works for me, as no edition since Basic D&D has. I get the same feeling playing it as I did back in the early 80s… and after prepping 3.5 and even 1/2e, 4e is a breeze.
I might play in a 3.5 game if it were offered, because the system has its points, even with its problems. (And 4e has its share of problems too. I just deal with them a lot more easily.) But I don’t think I could run a 3.5 game again. I couldn’t go back to that. 1e, maybe. Basic, sure. But not 3.5.
4e isn’t my favorite game, but it’s up there, and it’s the one I’m most likely to be able to play outside of my usual group. It seems to be getting stronger with recent releases, too. I no longer worry about any “gap” before the inevitable 5e.
I played for a year & i really tried to like it, but i’ve found that their are a whole heap of things that just break my belief in this game
1. Its a skirmish game, not a roelplaying game. You can roleplay in it, but you can’t roleplay WITH it. Every rule is geared towards dice rolling, especially skill challenges.
2. Shrodingers Damage. It may be damage it may not be, depends on who is healing you. OK, i understand that the warlord can heal by giving a pep talk & that it works in real life when you take a football to the head, but swords are a whole lot less forgiving then pig-skins.
3. Character Classess. You don’t so much play a character as you play a character class with a name (& a race). Every bit of originality is in backstory (which means almost nothing in 4E) & reskinning of powers (which still doesn’t change anything).
4. Consequences. 4E has few. you do something incredibly stupid in 4E & you get told naughty naughty, go sit in the time out corner for 5 minutes. Damage has no lasting effect, everybody can heal (a cool concept, not so much a cool follow through) & familiars who die reappear after 5 minutes. It takes away pretty much any fear of dying or loss.
5. No internal constency. The meta-fictional universe your characters exist in interact with your characters on purely a mechanical level. Its not so much you interacting with a door as it is; mechanical-artifice 1 interacting with mechanical-artifice 2. Look at the rules for alchemy. First you purchase the formula, then spend resource to make the item, but you can purchase the item from an NPC for the same price as constructing the item yourself (minus the price for purchasing the formula).
6. Cause and Effect. I like my game to make logical sense. Do this, achieve this, but 4E goes stupid with this concept and has doing A causing Z, for no particular reason.
7. Achievment. Their is no longer anything you can achieve ingame that cannot be achieved by generating a character at a particular level. You are never going to build a keep (because it opposes the system), you will never get a chance to draw from the deck of many things, you will never turn blue becuase of a mishap with a rod of wonder, you will never have your gender changed because you picked up that “belt of hill ginat strength,” nor will you ever be drained a level by a wraith. This lose of achievemtn was enough that i stopped purchasing the books. If you can’t achieve anything, whats the point.
8. Death of Fluff. Let me say this once: Stats make good encounters, but Fluff makes GREAT PLOTS.” No fluff = boring modules. Don’t believe me go look at the offical modules. To me they are as dull as bat-shit.
Over all i gave this game a year to wow me & it did the opposite. The more i saw the less i liked. This isn’t a game for people who want in depth gaming, if your understanding of the word gaming is more then; walk until you see creature not in the PHB or PHB2, then kill. Rinse and repeat.
Overall my feelings about the game can be summed up in one easy to remember statement: 4E is not a roleplaying game, but a computer game engine.
-M (wow that post got quite long)
@Matthew Lane –
All interesting points, though I disagree with you on a lot of them, especially just what constitutes an “Achievement”. But I would like to address specifically your point 1.
Yes, all the rules are geared towards rolling the dice. All the 3e rules are geared towards rolling the dice as well. That’s just because that’s where rules are necessary. When I’m not rolling dice, there shouldn’t be any rules getting in the way.
Personally, this lets me roleplay more, not less. Your mileage may vary, but this isn’t something that changed from 3e anyways.
Graham´s last post: Strength checks? We don’t need no stinkin’ strength checks!
@Mathew Lane: I agree with the schrodingers damage point. I wish they did something along the lines of separating lethal from fatigue damage though I’ve heard that it’s a difficult thing to do, but the disease system would’ve been perfect as an injury based system.
As for achievements yea, I hear that I sort of agree and disagree as well. It’s easy to build characters of any level and so their is no sense of achievement when you do so. 4e also encourages a low commitment campaign, dungeon delves and such so there isn’t much time for achieving things when you play in that style. So in that way yea, achievements are not there.
However, achievements are more of a quality of a long running campaign. Even though there are no rules supporting the kickass stuff like keeps and interesting magic items(I think magic items are pretty boring in 4e) that doesn’t mean you can’t include those type of achievements in your campaign.
The rest of your points though just makes me cringe. Seriously my brain kind of started to hurt after I read your post.
kaeosdad´s last post: Kaeodad’s Top 8 blogs
I had to go with dislike. Despite my actual enjoyment of playing the game I feel that it is just too focused on combat combat combat. It takes up so much game time there’s really little time for much else in playing for a few hours. While the combats are fun, I feel like it really take away from the role playing of the game.
@Matthew Lane: RE – Schrodingers Damage (good name!) – I have to strongly disagree with this point. It’s always damage, it always reduces your HP, and healing always raises your HP. Exactly what any of that means is up to the DM and the players, we have never EVER had a problem with specifying between them. Worst case, the warlord is such a badass leader that he can spur an ally to continue fighting even if they’re missing an arm. I do see merit in some of your other arguments though.
@Dark Young: I’d suggest finding a DM / players that run the game with less combat then, or at the very least a group that prefers to speed combat up so it doesn’t take as long. However, the fact that almost all 4e powers only have rules pertaining to combat does bother me, but I’ve fixed that simply by allowing creative use of powers based on flavor text and player input. To me this IS a problem with 4e, but it is one easily fixed by finding the right group to play with.
Bartoneus that is exactly why we called it Schrodingers Damage. Its not really any particular type of damage until its healed, depending on how its healed. Not a problem rules wise, but i personally enjoy explaining damage when i’m GMing, it gives a feeling of possible doom & impending mortality… which you can’t do if that damage is just a nebulous number with out any context.
i’m going to x-post something from our clubs message boards, that i over heard while i was playing hackmaster (Demo Game) at our FLGS.
A PC wizard is shoved off a cliff & falls into negatives numbers (hence dying). What transpires next made me laugh… only because i wanted to cry.
Warlock Player: After climbing down the rock face I use “Inspiring Word.” You get back *rolls* 4 hit points & you can use a healing surge
Wizard Player: my character stands up and dusts his self off. Thanks for the save
Me: I’m sorry to interrupt but did you just bring him back from near death with inspiring word?
Warlock Player: Yeah… Why?
Me: I’m sorry, but doesn’t that basically mean he was dying and you cured him by climbing down the cliff to say “Buck Up… it’s not all that bad”
Wizard Player: yeah… and?
But 4E is full of disassociated mechanics like this & it takes away from the feeling of immersion i get with other games including D&D 3E & without immersion its not really roleplaying. This is just my general feeling about 4E, its not imperical fact, so yeah take it with a grain of salt.
-M
p.s I honestly expected more people to be opposed to my point of view on this. I’m not trying to troll bate by any means, but you guys seem to be the most reasonable group of people on the entire internet.
@Matthew Lane: I don’t think it’s that nebulous, and I don’t think it becomes typified depending upon how it’s healed. The only problem with the scenario you posted is the lameness of how its presented, “buck up…it’s not that bad” instead of a rousing commands given in the heat of battle. Characters returning from the dead because of particularly moving speeches has happened in really awesome situations in some movies, and it can happen in D&D too.
The situation you describe has ALWAYS been a problem with D&D, and isn’t 4E specific is the root of my argument. For example:
“I sneak up behind him and slit his throat with my dagger.”
-rolls damage-
“He takes 3 damage, then turns around and stabs you with his longsword doing 15 damage.”
There were rules for Rogues doing sneak attacks, but any person slitting someone’s throat with a dagger should reasonably incapacitate them yet this has never been the case in D&D by the rules.
Also consider changes to the concept of being at 0 or negative hitpoints and dying, some groups consider it more of an ‘unconcious’ state than a dead state, which makes the inspiring word scenario even more reasonable.
W/r/t inspiring word and hp: “It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage—as indicated by constitution bonuses—and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).”—Gary Gygax, AD&D DMG, p. 82.
Just add “sheer will to live” into the mix of “immeasurables” and inspiring word makes perfect sense. Shoot, watch Rocky, and inspiring word makes perfect sense.
“He’s getting killed!”
“No, he’s getting mad!”
Arguing about HP has always seemed silly to me in D&D. It has never, ever made sense if you examine it to closely. It’s fine to complain about that in D&D in general, but the problem extends far outside 4e. Matthew, to go with your example but in 3e, I’ve seen Fighters with bundles of HP walk off a cliff, take damage, then keep going without any penalties whatsoever.
Dave, can you please help me by defining the question better, as I am seeing people actually responding to it differently.
In other words, many of the reponses included examples and rebuttals based on different versions of D&D,including Bartoneus’ to Matthew Lane.
Are you asking our opinion on 4e versus the collection of RPG’s in general, how we feel about it versus other versions of D&D, or just our enjoyment level in general?
LordVreeg´s last post: added Venolvian Empire
I think we should be alright with the discussion. Though that is always going to be a problem when discussing a hobby such as ours; people are always going to come at it from different directions.
I’ve made my points on why i prefer 3.5 as a ROLEPLAYING game. Not saying its superior just stating my particular problems with the system in a purly anilitical fashion. But my point of view on what makes a good roleplaying game (or system) can pretty much be sumed up as “does this make a good story,that players can play through, within the context of a internally consistent meta-fictional reality.”
I apply this theory to all my roleplaying though. no matter the system & i’ve played everything from Spirit of the Century (which is worth a look at) through to Traveller (which can be quite scary).
-M
I can’t get enough of it…
It’s not a bad *game*, but as a D&D edition it’s not what it should be. I started playing with 3.5 and when I think of D&D, I think of something that allows you to run more than just a dungeon full of senselessly placed monsters whose sole purpose in the game is to die. 3.5 did a better job of creating the tools that would allow a DM to populate a world. 4e tacks (the horribly tested, horribly task condensing) skill challenges on and calls it a day.
If I want a tactics game with fireballs and Final-Fantasy-esque rigid class roles, I’ll play 4e. If I want D&D, I play 3.5/3.51/3.75 or Pathfinder.