4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[NeonKnight]

Yeah, see, I just don't buy the argument that in 4e it is harder to have unique characters. I look at 2nd edition, and 1rst editiona, and even worse (to me BASIC D&D), was there was NO difference between characters.

1st & Second D&D: A 7th level Dwarf Fighter was the same as the next 7th level dwarf fighter. not accounting for stats had the exact same abilites as the next guy. And for some bizarre reason, was incapabale of sneakng quietly down a dark hallway and climbing over the 10 loose rock wall.

Look at Basic D&D and it was worse. ALL Dwarves were fighters. Not a single cleric, rogue or anything else in the group. All Elves were Fighter/Magic users (but dad, I don't want to learn magic! Too bad son, it's the way of our people!)

Now, now there is some variance. Again, people being people, and gamers being gamers, they will look to 'tweak' their characters the best they can to eek out as much of an advantage as they can. They did it in First edition (how many fighters all had 18's for strength, how many wizards 18 Ints, and Rogues with an 18 Dex?) It is the nature of the game, and off ALL games for that matter.

[Greason Wolfe]

I've been reading this thread with a bit of interest, and it's good to see everyone discussing things civilly. For my part, I left DnD behind when 3e came out. I had a great time playing in Basic, 1e and 2e, but as 2e started pushing out more and more "Complete Handbooks," I started to get a bit disgusted with the whole thing and made the shift to Hero Systems (Champions, Fantasy Hero, Horror Hero etc.) and never really looked back.

While the "rules" of Hero Systems were a bit more complicated, they were more "generic" in the sense that they could be applied to any genre of play, and the character builds were completely open ended with archetype suggestions rather than set classes. I was fortunate enough, as well, to play with a group that really went after the story with combat taking a second place role in overall play.

Still, for those that like the latest DnD publications, I suppose it can't be an all bad thing. I don't personally know anyone playing in that system as it stands right now and I, for that matter, haven't actually played in years other than chat-based freeform which is a whole 'nother beast.

As a side comment, I never found that Wizards were terribly lame, particularly in 2e. In my game I made the shift from the Spells/Level system to a Spell Points system that allowed the wizards to contribute a bit more freely. By the same token, I always recommended to my players that they take secondary skills that could be useful on a regular basis. It didn't always work, but it did give everyone a chance to contribute in some way.

GW

[Ascension]

Rules schmules...I just make things up as I go. I don't want a dice roll determining how my story goes. If I want the trap to snag someone then I roll the dice (for the player's benefit) and no matter what the dice says, I SAY it snags them. I roll a dice to determine hits 1-3 is a miss and 4-6 is a hit, damage is my discretion. I'm not going to go over a bunch of tables and dice rolls...it makes it too boring and slows things down. I want things to move along with excitement and fun and be fast as well. So for me, rules, tables, and numbers are clunky and they get in the way of a good story...I'm an artist not an accountant.

[Gamerprinter]

Yeah, the whole chess vs. checkers comparison was only loose analogy. I know of nothing I can compare similarly to a difference between RPG rules sets, as everything is "apples and oranges" in comparison - I didn't mean to imply the 4e was not complex. Its that 4e and 3e are "apples and oranges", and I prefer oranges, nuff said.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm exploring the world of being a 3pp. In trying to create cohesive adventures and settings that are balanced and make sense, yet still someplace to have fun, I want to work with a system I am already comfortable with. I know 3e.

I even looked at Rolemaster or HARP, since I won their contest and obtained books from those rules sets. In the end, they are different games and without experience using them, I don't know the nuance required to create modules that work well.

Since my gaming group is firmly set in 3e, I have no reason to look at 4e. And since the publisher I am doing a collaborative publication with, hasn't signed the GSL, but has been approved for Pathfinder RPG compatibility. My best course is publishing OGL, then republishing Pathfinder RPG in August 2009 when that becomes official.

Its not an "end all be all" commitment, just the most logical direction for me at this time. So nothing against 4e or 4e gamers, 3e just works for me right now.

GP

[Pilias]

Yeah, see, I just don't buy the argument that in 4e it is harder to have unique characters. I look at 2nd edition, and 1rst editiona, and even worse (to me BASIC D&D), was there was NO difference between characters.

1st & Second D&D: A 7th level Dwarf Fighter was the same as the next 7th level dwarf fighter. not accounting for stats had the exact same abilites as the next guy. And for some bizarre reason, was incapabale of sneakng quietly down a dark hallway and climbing over the 10 loose rock wall.

Look at Basic D&D and it was worse. ALL Dwarves were fighters. Not a single cleric, rogue or anything else in the group. All Elves were Fighter/Magic users (but dad, I don't want to learn magic! Too bad son, it's the way of our people!)

Now, now there is some variance. Again, people being people, and gamers being gamers, they will look to 'tweak' their characters the best they can to eek out as much of an advantage as they can. They did it in First edition (how many fighters all had 18's for strength, how many wizards 18 Ints, and Rogues with an 18 Dex?) It is the nature of the game, and off ALL games for that matter.

Compared to 3rd ed there is less choice by far.

[NeonKnight]

And I agree, Gameprinter has the best argument: I Prefer 3e!

I feel the same. I can say I have played OD&D, 1e, 2e, 2e Skills & Powers, 3e, 3.5e, and 4e. Of them all I prefer 4e. That is not say 4e is the best, but that for ME 4e is the best

[Karro]

And I agree, Gameprinter has the best argument: I Prefer 3e!

I feel the same. I can say I have played OD&D, 1e, 2e, 2e Skills & Powers, 3e, 3.5e, and 4e. Of them all I prefer 4e. That is not say 4e is the best, but that for ME 4e is the best

I agree with that sentiment: "I just like it better" is probably the best argument. I've only played 2nd and 3rd (but not 3.5), and of those I like 3rd best, but I've never played 4th, so I have yet to pass my personal judgment, and I refuse to until and unless I get the chance to play it and try it out.

[Midgardsormr]

I do have one issue with 4e, and that's the lack of secondary skills. There is no room in the rules for a character who was an apprentice cooper before running off to become an adventurer, and the thousands of farmers' sons on a path to glory know nothing about farming. I'm thinking I'll tack on a portion of the secondary skills system from Rolemaster.

[NymTevlyn]

I do have one issue with 4e, and that's the lack of secondary skills. There is no room in the rules for a character who was an apprentice cooper before running off to become an adventurer, and the thousands of farmers' sons on a path to glory know nothing about farming. I'm thinking I'll tack on a portion of the secondary skills system from Rolemaster.

What purpose would that serve? It's a background skill that you can write into your characters history. Only ****ty dm's ignore simple points of a background like that.

[Midgardsormr]

What purpose would that serve? It's a background skill that you can write into your characters history. Only ****ty dm's ignore simple points of a background like that.

Because sometimes my players like to actually use the skills in their background descriptions, and it's handy to have some kind of system in place for adjudicating whether or not they can manage to keep their sloop from capsizing in the storm.

And I would thank you to keep a civil tongue with me, please.