4E: My View (Not that I expect anyone to care)

[Prophaniti]

In my perusing of the various reviews and previews of 4E, I have continually arrived at a specific conclusion.

The actual rules changes I have read I very much liked, they seemed to do exactly what was wanted; simplify and streamline the system.

Far too many of the changes*, however, have been flavor-focused, having little to no impact on actual gameplay. The changes themselves don't really bother me, just the way they go about it, saying This is the Way the Universe Works Now. There are no Half-elves/orcs, instead you get Dragon-People. This is how this culture works now, this is how all sorcerers get their power, this is why there are Tieflings. End of Story. Nearly all of these articles are, in essence, saying 'This is a much better way to work things, the old way was stupid.'

Any and all flavor changes should be entirely up to the DM and the Party. All the changes to background and flavor that they've made should be preceded by a large banner that states this, or esle the language changed to more clearly indicate that these are guidelines and ideas for how to structure your new campaign world. Instead I find them written and worded even more restricively than 3E. I have a hard enough time getting my players to think 'outside the books' when doing character background and personality. I would love to see a step away from rigid, pre-set fluff for classes, races and such, to see backgrounds and flavor released in a fashion more resembling Unearthed Arcana and the Races of ____ books, though without the broken, untested rules.

I've found that far too many players and DMs are reluctant to step outside what is explicitely stated in published supplements, and the release of 4E will likely further compound the problem.

*Please note that this entire rant is regarding flavor only, not actual rules.

Anyway, that's about it. I do like most of the actual rule changes. They just seem far too concerned with flavor, something that should be dealt with by the individual groups playing, not hard-lined by the publisher.

[Snadgeros]

It's not all about flavor, though. I've heard lots about mechanics changes, in an attempt to balance the game, and many of them are much needed. For example, the current skill system sucks, so they're swiping the one from Star Wars d20. Save-or-die effects aren't instantaneous anymore, they take time to kill you. Also, Vancian magic is getting a makeover, as casters will now apparently have at-will and per encounter spells, so they're not COMPLETELY screwed if they run out.

The flavor rules....eh. So they're replacing some of the races. What's the big deal? They're not getting rid of them, they'll just be in the Monster Manual. I'd be shocked if gnomes don't have a +0 LA to make up for the fact that they're not a core race.

[Moral Wiz]

LA's been abolished.

I havn't seen many people arguing against the rules yet. Everyone#s main concern is the fluff.

And they have made a boatload of changes. Which basically confirm to all the worst ideas of Rollplaying IMO. Seriously, it seems to be headed to D&D WOW.

I agree with Mr. P. The rules are done O.K., but the fluff... Ugh . It goes beyond just moving the gnome. They haven't left a lot unchanged

[Skyserpent]

It's true, when flavor steps on mechanics I start getting a bit miffed. I mean, it's okay in some cases... I can't think of any right now, but I'm SURE that there are some.

But the decision to change wizard schools to essentially: Evocation, Evocation, Evocation and Abjuration or something like that, with overly obtuse spell names just irks me...

[EvilElitest]

WOTC wants two things

1. make D&D more like Wow
2. Make it cool, and cool in a pop culture sort of way. Tieflings anybody?
I mean, i ask you, then took away all of the elvish subraces, except for Drow? Hmmmm, i wonder
from
EE

[Prophaniti]

Essentially, I'm going to tell my group, if and when we start playing 4E, 'Ignore all written fluff, it's not what things are like in this world.' I honestly don't know if I'll use the Dragon-people or not, I need to see more definite stats on them, but I doubt I'll use the fluff.

I would just like to see them focus more on streamlining and improving the mechanics of the game, that's what a new edition is for. Changing the flavor and fluff is what a new campaign setting is for.

[warmachine]

Isn't the purpose of D&D is the mechanics and fluff work right 'out of the box' with no adaptation needed? D&D is written for those who don't have the time to consider their own inventions? If you wanted to use a world and flavour you prefer, you'd be using a different RPG, such as GURPS or Hero?

[ZekeArgo]

Jesus christ with the WoW comparisons. The minute I see them carting out elves/trolls/naga with huge ears, dwarves with guns, gnomes who make crazy tech contraptions, and gigantic shoulderpads I'll be right there with you, but *NOTHING* has been done like this, other than streamlining the game to make it more enjoyable to play. Some people want to get into and stay with the action, rather than having to consult a crapload of rules just to figure out the check DCs to grab a rope to swing from a high ledge and tumble into an oncoming opponent, or other "dramatic" stunts such as that.

As for elves, they didn't just keep drow. There are the 3 elven races, which IMHO are a friggin stretch, but I'll take 3 over 30 billion

[Morty]

Other than streamlining the game to make it more enjoyable to play.

While I agree that WoW comparisions make no sense "streamlining the game" is something different that "treating the players like five-year-olds who need everything to be handed on a platter" which is the attitude I've seen more than once in 4ed materials. I just hope it's just adversiting and it won't have much impact on final product. There's also the whole "everything needs to be cool, badass and just like in movies" direction.

[Moral Wiz]

Jesus christ with the WoW comparisons. The minute I see them carting out elves/trolls/naga with huge ears, dwarves with guns, gnomes who make crazy tech contraptions, and gigantic shoulderpads I'll be right there with you, but *NOTHING* has been done like this, other than streamlining the game to make it more enjoyable to play. Some people want to get into and stay with the action, rather than having to consult a crapload of rules just to figure out the check DCs to grab a rope to swing from a high ledge and tumble into an oncoming opponent, or other "dramatic" stunts such as that.

Would you prefer it if we compared 4th Ed to ClicheQuest?

M0rt sums it up rather well, but I'll go into a little more depth.

WoW is used because it is shorter than MMORPG, and MMOs are generic. THe point is that 4th seems to be utterly focused around killing, and blowing stuff up, whilst being Politicly Correct, ubercoolz, and leet. Fluff seems over-simplified, mangled, or otherwise "streamlined".

Does that make the point clearer?

Another comparison. Team America, played utterly straight.

[EvilElitest]

{Scrubbed}EE

[ZekeArgo]

The thing is I just don't get why you feel this way when all of the information out there is highly changeable fluff (which isn't bad as long as you aren't some raving fanboy of every facet of a setting). The reason they might be "oh man this stuff is so cool" is because they are enormous geeks. We all are huge geeks, but *they* are geeks able to get paid for their sheer geekieness.

So yeah, when they come out and say "look at all this cool stuff you can do with the game! its so awesome!" They're just saying it. Not all of them are writers, or know how to express it in a more profound sense, but there it is.

And whomever thinks DnD is more than a crunch factory for combat... have you ever looked at the skills and how they're used? How Diplomancers have come about? If your not worried about having dramatic, crunch-heavy combat, why are you using a system specifically geared for it?

[EvilElitest]

D&D's expressed belief is to be a role playing game. Not a game where PCs go through a kill, loot, take quest, kill, loot, turn in quest, sort of ideal
from
EE

[ZekeArgo]

D&D's expressed belief is to be a role playing game. Not a game where PCs go through a kill, loot, take quest, kill, loot, turn in quest, sort of ideal
from
EE

Yes, its a roleplaying game, but if you only want social interaction then why are you playing a game where the majority of conflict resolution rules are through combat?

Edit: Or though the ability to Diplomance, thus taking away all need for any RP

[EvilElitest]

Yes, its a roleplaying game, but if you only want social interaction then why are you playing a game where the majority of conflict resolution rules are through combat?

Only if you have a piss poor DM is that the case. Crunch is fine, but D&D expressed goal, at least in 1-3.5 is it to be a roleplaying experience. Hence why the system is so flawed, ideally for it to work you need to have the crunch take a back seat. The game was made for roleplaying enjoyment mixed with fluff.
from
EE

[Moral Wiz]

No one argues with the system. It's supposed to be for the perpouse of resolving combat before all else. The point is that things have been significantly changed to bring the focus of the game squarely on to combat, MMO style, as opposed to long term plot, with combat. (And don't cite Diplomacy. Just, don't Ok? That was... irritating.)

Oh, and you are trivializing the changes made. Tieflings, for instance, are now Warlocks as a race (the old warlock that is. The whole fiendish pact thing) Now, instead of having the blood of devils, their many generations removed ancestors simply made a bargain with them. That is a notable diference; oh, and they are now "romantic". Anyone playing a Tiefling would find 4th edition very diferent. The elves.. I agree, it got gratuitous, but there were some generally interesting subraces, lost amoungst the pile of stupid ones. I always wanted to play a Fey'ri.

One setting experienced a world ending cataclysm, killing almost every major character, just to be able to half way fit with 4th edition. That should explain just how major the fluff has changed. Way more than it did going from 2nd to 3rd.

[EvilElitest]

The change from 2E to 3E was more kinda "Alright, the rules are different. Here you go. But the spirt is the same"
from
EE

[horseboy]

Would you prefer it if we compared 4th Ed to ClicheQuest?

M0rt sums it up rather well, but I'll go into a little more depth.

WoW is used because it is shorter than MMORPG, and MMOs are generic. THe point is that 4th seems to be utterly focused around killing, and blowing stuff up, whilst being Politicly Correct, ubercoolz, and leet. Fluff seems over-simplified, mangled, or otherwise "streamlined".

Does that make the point clearer?

Another comparison. Team America, played utterly straight.

I disagree. I've found ALL editions of D&D to be about killing and blowing stuff up. Anything else was an add on patch.

[ZekeArgo]

No one argues with the system. It's supposed to be for the perpouse of resolving combat before all else. The point is that things have been significantly changed to bring the focus of the game squarely on to combat, MMO style, as opposed to long term plot, with combat. (And don't cite Diplomacy. Just, don't Ok? That was... irritating.)

How in the hell are you even getting this? Because the rules support decent, fast-paced and interesting combat it means it's impossible to have long term plots and character development? The system is the crunch: combat. Everything else, as I hoped my point made, is brought through the DM and Players. The rules should just be a system to resolve conflicts, through violence or otherwise, and thats what we're being given.

Honestly, I just don't understand what you all are expecting.

Oh, and you are trivializing the changes made. Tieflings, for instance, are now Warlocks as a race (the old warlock that is. The whole fiendish pact thing) Now, instead of having the blood of devils, their many generations removed ancestors simply made a bargain with them. That is a notable diference; oh, and they are now "romantic". Anyone playing a Tiefling would find 4th edition very diferent. The elves.. I agree, it got gratuitous, but there were some generally interesting subraces, lost amoungst the pile of stupid ones. I always wanted to play a Fey'ri.

Tieflings/Aasimar/whatever are just kinda meh, though honestly I think attempting to play much of anything other than "human with weird precipts" is near-impossible, but thats a tangent and very OT.

However, that "bargain" can have numerous connotations, and that the "price" that had to be "paid" by your ancestor could easily be to create a "hot, raunchy, babezu beast with two backs." If your into that thing, great, if not, also great.

Fey'ri might have been cool, I've never noticed em anywhere, but I'll glady accept their sacrifice for the greater good.

One setting experienced a world ending cataclysm, killing almost every major character, just to be able to half way fit with 4th edition. That should explain just how major the fluff has changed. Way more than it did going from 2nd to 3rd.

The Forgotten Realms? Bleh. Setting desperately needed a reboot. Seriously, with all of the crazy epic NPCs, huge orginizations, countries and politics all in the hands of powerful mages... what exactly is there for adventurers to do? Mop up the small stuff that the big boys leave behind? It's a setting thats far too convoluted, and honestly would be interesting to see in a post-cataclysmic/apocalyptic background where things have been knocked around and drasticly changed.

[AKA_Bait]

Isn't the purpose of D&D is the mechanics and fluff work right 'out of the box' with no adaptation needed? D&D is written for those who don't have the time to consider their own inventions? If you wanted to use a world and flavour you prefer, you'd be using a different RPG, such as GURPS or Hero?

Um. No. That's just plain inaccurate. D&D is for many, including myself, a good system because it's simple enough to bring my players in without spending lots of time on rules and simple enough that I don't need to spend tons of time myself on mechanics rather than story.

Fluff = story. I want to make my own fluff but I don't have time for more complicated mechanical systems. I'm less than thrilled with the 4e fluff I've read (a PC race that is from an area PC's are not expected to see for at least 8 levels? WTF?). When the mechanics and fluff get too intertwined it makes me less interested in using the system for what I want. Even in 3x I've never used countless monsters because they don't fit the world I'm creating. In 4e, many of the monsters seem deeply tied into the core cosmology and mechanics (at least from the little we can tell).

Yes, its a roleplaying game, but if you only want social interaction then why are you playing a game where the majority of conflict resolution rules are through combat?

Edit: Or though the ability to Diplomance, thus taking away all need for any RP

That might be how your group plays, but not mine. The vast majority of time in my game is RP and most situations don't end in violence for various plot and RP reasons.

How in the hell are you even getting this? Because the rules support decent, fast-paced and interesting combat it means it's impossible to have long term plots and character development? The system is the crunch: combat.

The system, and the core cosmology, are more than just crunch combat and each reflects on the other and the gameplay at the table. If the Core book says "Elves are all rangers" and "Don't discriminate against the demon people" then even though it's 'just fluff' that can be tossed out it will color and confuse many a gaming table, especially when new players join who haven't been given the low down on the massive changes to the core cosmology that will be required.

One of the nice things about 3x was that it was pretty fluff light for the most part, at least in the core books. 4x, intentionally it seems reading Worlds and Monsters, is very fluff heavy.

[Matthew]

Isn't the purpose of D&D is the mechanics and fluff work right 'out of the box' with no adaptation needed? D&D is written for those who don't have the time to consider their own inventions? If you wanted to use a world and flavour you prefer, you'd be using a different RPG, such as GURPS or Hero?

No, I would say, or maybe seems so with 4e, but certainly wasn't the case with 2e. D&D is written to make money, that's pretty much its purpose. I suppose it rather depends on what you define as D&D.

[Prophaniti]

The whole point of my thread is simply this: The crew at WotC is focusing their developing energies in the wrong place. They are contunually pumping out new fluff and talking about how much better it is than the old while we get next to nothing about actual rules changes. The purpose of a new edition of a game is to revamp the rules, not the fluff. That's what we see with new editions of the Warhammer games, and it's what most other roleplaying games do also. That's what we should be seeing is new, exciting and changing rules.

Instead we see pages and pages of changed fluff. Honestly, the articles read a lot like The Giant's New World articles. 4E is rapidly turning into a new campaign setting, rather than new core rules for you to use in whatever setting you like. I hope that when I get the actual books they will focus more on the rules than these previews have, but fear they will continue this pattern of changing the background universe, something I want left more open to DM and Player discretion. As I said, I sometimes have a hard time getting my group to venture beyond what is stated in published sources, fluff-wise, and it seems that 4E will only make it worse.

EDIT: AKA_Bait knows exactly what I'm talking about.

[hewhosaysfish]

D&D is written to make money, that's pretty much its purpose.

Ones could equally say that a car was built to make money for the manufacturer.
It's true, but it's only half the story.

[Matthew]

Ones could equally say that a car was built to make money for the manufacturer.
It's true, but it's only half the story.

Nah, it's about 90% of the story. Cars are also built primarily to make money.

[ZekeArgo]

It might just be me, but I'd think that they aren't showing/discussing any mechanics in depth because, well, thats what they are trying to sell.

If it was all explained, outside of the d20 SRD stuff, then what would they have to sell?

[AKA_Bait]

Nah, it's about 90% of the story. Cars are also built primarily to make money.

Indeed.

They are primarily purchased as a method of transportation/sticking it to the neighbors.

D&D is written to make money. It's purchased as a means to having fun.

It might just be me, but I'd think that they aren't showing/discussing any mechanics in depth because, well, thats what they are trying to sell.

If it was all explained, outside of the d20 SRD stuff, then what would they have to sell?

The fluff? I mean, I dropped around $40 on the two preview books...

[Somebloke]

THe fluff changes to do not bother me greatly.

Firstly, since I rarely ever use 'traditional' DnD fluff anyway, preferring to create my own ideas and then alter the game world to suit them. The changes that have been made are different and more '21st century' but that can really only be expected for an edition brought out in the 21st century.

Secondly, this issue over combat; combat is more streamlined for one, which means that a one-hour fight will probably take half an hour instead- meaning more time for roleplaying. Furthermore, we have had repeated statements to the effect that the rules will support roleplaying encounters in terms of mechanics and reward.

In short, there is very little required to play a combat-light, roleplaying heavy campaign. Or Visa versa.

[AKA_Bait]

Secondly, this issue over combat; combat is more streamlined for one, which means that a one-hour fight will probably take half an hour instead- meaning more time for roleplaying. Furthermore, we have had repeated statements to the effect that the rules will support roleplaying encounters in terms of mechanics and reward..

I've yet to see evidence that combat will be markedly faster. I certianly hope it is, but some of the things that have been released (small static bonuses for example), don't speak well for that hope.

[Counterspin]

Yawn. I'm not going to be using the 4e fluff, I've already sketched out what my setting is going to be like. Why you would begrudge someone who wants help, i.e. an implied setting, is beyond me.

Why buy the same fluff over and over? Same question to the FR defenders. You've already got the FR fluff you like, in books that are still going to be around. Why complain when you've already got what you want sitting on your bookshelf?

[Talya]

gnomes who make crazy tech contraptions

What, you aren't following the new Realmslore?

They may have removed gnomes as a playable race, but they're still there, and magic move aside for the glory of tinkering!