First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by Gamer_Zer0

I'm noticing soemthing here,alot of us are thinking in terms og GURPS and try to apply what GURPS does bast to D&D,whihc is meant to handel something totally different.

You have a point. From my limited exposure to 4E, I agree that it's got less character depth in some ways and less "realism." But I'm not sure if either quality plays to D&D's strengths. At its heart, it still plays best as Hunt the Monster, Save the Princess and Claim the Treasure in my humble opinion. And if you want cinematic action, the new system seems to do it pretty well.

For those who want more, or just something different, four things come to mind:

1) It doesn't look like a difficult system to "tinker" with if you have to

2) Third Edition didn't magically evaporate ... you can always vote with your dollars by not buying 4E stuff

3) As has been mentioned before, WotC's marketing guys probably won't miss the chance to sell expansions ... I mean, supplements ... that add in the background stuff if there's enough demand.

4) If you're really dissatisified, there's always GURPS and GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. (shameless grin)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Actually, I've not played GURPS, but the characters I build rely heavily on items such as craft, profession and knowledge. Helps to make a more well rounded character.

It's not like you couldn't recreate the Craft, Profession, and Knowledge skills. The problem is that the system is deliberately pretty low resolution, and spending a full skill on something that's often little more than background color is usually too much. This was a problem in 3e as well -- if you actually use the crafting or profession rules, they wind up being essentially worthless at anything above very low level, because being able to make 15 gp a week (average for a profession with a +20 bonus) is irrelevant by the time you can have a bonus anywhere close to that limit.

[KDLadage]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

2) Third Edition didn't magically evaporate ... you can always vote with your dollars by not buying 4E stuff

Shameless Plug.

[Anaraxes]

It's not like you couldn't recreate the Craft, Profession, and Knowledge skills

Sure. You'll need to throw in some more skill picks so that you're not forced to give up the "essential" character skills in favor of the new ones. And then maybe a rule to prevent you from focussing all those new skill picks on the combat skills and thus becoming overpowered. But that's all tweakable.

It's interesting that 4e contains an explicit system for "skill challenges", which is a plot point resolved by a series of skill rolls instead of combat. That should help to get people thinking in terms other than kill-them-and-take-their-stuff. That, in turn, could lead to enriching the skill system.

[Mister Negative]

Finally getting to go through the book thoroughly, I'm horrified as a GURPS and HERO system player, but I'm mightily impressed as a game-design aficianado, and (if I'm honest with myself), intrigued as a Feng Shui and Call of Cthulhu lover. Let me parse that out.

I think this game is deliberately constructed in the way that it is by a team of people who really thought about what they wanted to do (and it also looks like it was playtested and edited by dedicated people as well). The book is solidly written and is VERY consistent in terminology and format. This is going to make it easy to run and easy to learn. I also think that D&D did serious market research. It seems as if they asked two questions:

"What are most of our players doing with the game?"

and

"What can we do with D&D better than anyone else?"

I sincerely believe that most of the players are using the game as a social vehicle, and enjoy a game with lots of combat encounters, focused on leveling up and acquiring new feats, powers, and items. I also think that most players, whether they were heavy "role-players" or not, were not using the social interaction rules that D&D provided. Thus, design a game with a solid combat encounter base, and provide detailed, fun rules for leveling up, and you've satisfied most D&D players.

Second, anyone (on these boards, or on the D&D boards) will tell you that D&D doesn't run realistic fantasy well. It doesn't run low level fantasy well. It doesn't easily allow you to mechanically alter how the rules work for your own setting very well. Anyone who wants a good 'realistic' fantasy world would be better off running GURPS. Anyone who wants a bit more mechanical one, but one that emphasizes heroic action, might want to go to HERO instead (this may depend on GURPS Thaumatology). However, the old versions of D&D were NOT going to satisfy them. So, adopt the hedgehog principle: figure out what you do well and stop doing the stuff you do poorly. D&D is focusing on 'black box' heroic fantasy. Buy the books and run the game.

I love GURPS (and HERO). I love being able to tinker with the whole setting, and I love having a toolkit which is broad enough (and detailed enough) to give me the feel I want (this is where HERO falls down with a very basic skill system...which looks amazingly complex next to D&D 4). However, there is something to be said for having a world created, a setting created, and an adventure created, by plunking down the cash. It's fun, not a job.

Plus, I have to be fair. I love Feng Shui, which is a hideously specific RPG, just set up to replicate Hong Kong action movies (and even then, really set up to replicate the setting of a defunct CCG). I would never use it to run Bladerunner, but it is GREAT at replicating the feel of the setting. Same with Call of Cthulhu. I may disdain the game rules, but they are effective at creating the atmosphere and setting appropriate. D&D 4 does this. If you aren't interested in "tromping around killing ugly people and taking their stuff" then the game not for you. If you are, it's brilliant.

Couple examples:

The Enchant Item ritual can also be used (at NO material cost) to resize magic armor to fit a new wearer (specifically mentioning fire giant-->halfling). This is gooooooofy from a world-building perspective. Why should there be a ritual to resize magic armor, but not one to resize normal armor? From a "Kill Monster, Take Stuff" fun perspective, it's a brilliant, blindingly obvious solution. There's also a ritual to break down magic items you don't want into magical residue which you can then use to cast more rituals. Again, brilliant from the "I already HAVE a magic sword" perspective.

Healing surges control how many times a day you can be healed. You can spend one yourself per fight (recover quarter hit points). A healing spell cast on you uses one of YOUR surges (but heals a bit more points). You can rest 5 minutes and use one. You heal ALL your hit points (and get back all your surges) if you rest 6 hours. From a world-building perspective, this is stuuuuuuuuuupid. How can you beat someone up? They just rest 6 hours and come back. No one gets injured, just killed. From a game perspective (if you are doing a dungeon crawl/stab'em all), it's brilliant. The tougher characters (who should be taking the brunt of damage) have more surges, so they can take more hits than the wizard and thief. You no longer have to worry about unlimited healing, and you don't have to aim for that "sweet spot". The sweet spot was where the PCs had taken enough damage for the final fight to be a nail-biter, but still had enough to survive it. With surges, it's simple! Make sure they take enough damage in prior encounters that they've exhausted their surges. Thus, they are at full HP in the big battle, but now have no reserves. Yes, this is insanely "game-y", but it really does work, very well, to allow certain types of game play.

I still love GURPS first and most (well, since I started with D&D, I guess not first), but I have to admit that I think they nailed the landing on this one. It may not be for everyone, but for the people who like it, it's very, very good.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

That should help to get people thinking in terms other than kill-them-and-take-their-stuff.

Looks like D&D really is dead. ;-)

[Flyerfan1991]

Since I bought the book, I've been able to read more thoroughly some of the areas I glossed over, and the big thing that stands out to me is the "retraining" section. If you decide that a feat or skill isn't useful, on the next level up you can replace it.

Essentially, it's a "do-over". A "hit the reload button, go back, and stick a different feat or skill in place for your character."

To me, that misses the point of a PNP RPG; your characters are expected to grow and develop, and part of that is making choices that affect development down the line. If the character decided to pick a feat that they ended up not using, it's not the end of the world. The "retraining" is an enabling feature for Min/Max-ers and Powergamers.

--Mike L.

[Cybren]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Since I bought the book, I've been able to read more thoroughly some of the areas I glossed over, and the big thing that stands out to me is the "retraining" section. If you decide that a feat or skill isn't useful, on the next level up you can replace it.

Essentially, it's a "do-over". A "hit the reload button, go back, and stick a different feat or skill in place for your character."

To me, that misses the point of a PNP RPG; your characters are expected to grow and develop, and part of that is making choices that affect development down the line. If the character decided to pick a feat that they ended up not using, it's not the end of the world. The "retraining" is an enabling feature for Min/Max-ers and Powergamers.

--Mike L.

Well I understand the reasoning, if someone makes a choice and realizes that they can't 'contribute' then they'll feel dumb. But i think this is more grounds for working with your GM then just "okay now i change this thing"

[Flyerfan1991]

Originally Posted by Cybren

Well I understand the reasoning, if someone makes a choice and realizes that they can't 'contribute' then they'll feel dumb. But i think this is more grounds for working with your GM then just "okay now i change this thing"

I would think that you'd like to be able to contribute and not feel dumb, but essentially you're able to do this without any sacrifice on your end, and do this as many times as you like. You don't give up a feat or something else to do this. You'd think that the DM would provide some input as to whether your selections make sense with a campaign, so this would be unnecessary.

--Mike L.

[Pmandrekar]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Essentially, it's a "do-over". A "hit the reload button, go back, and stick a different feat or skill in place for your character."

To me, that misses the point of a PNP RPG; your characters are expected to grow and develop, and part of that is making choices that affect development down the line. If the character decided to pick a feat that they ended up not using, it's not the end of the world. The "retraining" is an enabling feature for Min/Max-ers and Powergamers.

This may be a concession to the fact that they placed upper limits on the character levels that are available. In other words, since there is an upper limit at which the DM tells players that their characters may not progress any further, this allows players who decide to go back and change directions with their character the ability to do so. While this is not realistic in how we learn from experience, so few things about D&D (of any edition) really are.

I agree with your assessment, but I think that realistic character development, as we understand it, was simply not a design goal here.

-P.