Truth be told, I haven't made up my mind yet about D&D 4e. Conceptually, I can find quite a few turn-offs on the D&D 4e books, but my single play experience was not bad; and I feel actual play trumps theoretical concerns. It does feel wildly different from what I think of as "D&D", but it's a different game I can maybe enjoy running.
Essentials seems to tackle some of the things I disliked, but I'm not sure about it.
What is it that I didn't like about D&D 4e? Well...
- Powers as restrictions. I have no problems with Powers per se. I tend to think of Exploits as martial arts maneuvers, and/or refined tactics borne out of intensive training. But if you don't have Tide of Iron, you can't push a foe back with your shield? Or maybe you can, but it's just not as effective? The older editions I typically stick to grant the DM a lot of leeway in handling improvised combat maneuvers, and I for one love to reward players for imaginative tactical thinking; and I'd hate to punish characters for thinking outside of the box, because their characters don't have the exact right game-mechanical tools to do something. I had a similar problem with Feats in D&D 3e/3.5e.
- The emphasis on character building. This seems to be somewhat downplayed with the Essentials ready-made builds.
- The emphasis on strictly-defined roles. Even the best MMOs allow for considerable "hybridization" of roles (even if hardcore raiding rewards specialization). Also seems to be somewhat downplayed in Essentials.
- The proliferation of silly classes. I liked some of the new classes, like the Warlord, the Invoker and the Avenger. But the Primal and Psionic classes all felt really, really silly to me, including the Druid's rebranding as (so to speak) a WoW Druid with the serial numbers filed off. I'm not sure how Essentials handles the Druid class in particular, but judging from the fact the preview referred to it as a Leader, I suspect it's more in line with the previous editions.
- The magic item economy and the Christmas Tree Effect. Granted, this is not peculiar to D&D 4e -- 3.x was just as bad or worse in my book -- but TSR-era editions, for the most part, gave you plenty of leeway to give magic sparingly, and did not necessarily assume magic item shops. Downloading the trial version of the Character Builder, and being constantly reminded that it was going to assign "level-appropriate" magic items to the character, didn't help.
- The strict encounter-based format. I've been balancing encounters since my Basic D&D black box days, and for the most part I think not throwing 1st-level PCs against a Beholder or Lich is just a matter of common sense. But sometimes it was fun to "up the ante" and set PCs against a somewhat unbalanced, more powerful foe, forcing them to seek non-combat solutions, and/or to get really creative during combat. I'm not sure how 4e, Essentials or not, handles this.
- The complexity of creating new content. I've played 4e only once, and never ran it, but I get the impression that creating new monsters, new classes (or variations within a class, a la prestige classes, or kits, or Essentials' builds) or new items is a far more delicate operation, mechanically speaking, than whipping up similar content for, say, D&D RC. This is particularly important to me in case I want to convert a setting.
No single one of these is a deal-breaker; like I've said, I don't have a lot of experience with D&D 4e, and I tend to think that actual play experience trumps theoretical concerns. But I'd like to know which of my reservations, if any, are addressed by 4e, and how?
Nope, it isn't.
Seanchai
Mongoose Runequest II addresses all of your concerns. I've never touched Glorantha as GM or player, but MRQII is currently my go-to fantasy system for new campaigns.
Existing D&D campaigns are being moved over to Hackmaster Basic/Advanced.
If I run a campaign in Westeros or Thedas, I'll use SIFRP or DARPG respectively to test the systems.
Conan and anything else gets the MRQII treatment.
If Seanchai tells you 4e ain't for you, dude it AIN'T for you.
What came to mind for me -
Quote from: The Butcher;428091
The original 4e DMG has reasonably well developed rules for improvised combat actions. (I'm not sure of the RC's text about this.)
Quote from: The Butcher;428091- The strict encounter-based format.
I am not
at all[/I a fan of the "encounter" approach to adventuring, but it's really just a matter of setting up the creatures, etc. how you want and being flexible with what the PCs can do, just like any other edition.
Quote from: The Butcher;428091- The complexity of creating new content.
Monsters are easy to make (not as easy as classic D&D, admittedly, but still pretty easy.) The challenge with, say, classes, is just that you have to come up with so many powers for each one (even if they're all basically rebrandings of other powers, you'd have to make the list and write 'em out). The bigger problem, I think, would be that your new stuff wouldn't be in the Character Builder, without which characters are pretty slow to work up.
I should append the disclaimer that I am not a big fan of 4e; mostly because it's just too miniatures-oriented and slow for my taste.
Just speaking for me:
Powers as restrictions. Still there, but not as game-breaking to me as original 4e. The better writing of Essentials helps me a lot, here.
The emphasis on character building. I'd say this is de-emphasized indeed because you've got strong archetypes basically, the Slayer, the Thief, you know. If you start adding stuff from the original 4e, then it brings back the issue, but Essentials itself can totally be played without obsessing over builds IMO. Avoid the 4e intarwebz fanboy culture though, obviously.
The emphasis on strictly-defined roles. I'd say that's pretty much unchanged with Essentials. Roles are part of the 4e deal, Essentials or not. That is, your dude is basically destined to handle some types of situations and not others, and cooperation is what really makes a group work in tactical/grid situations. It is less obvious with Essentials maybe at low levels, again, because of the writing, because it's not so much pushed in your face, if you see what I mean. Maybe.
The proliferation of silly classes. Yeah no. That's greatly improved with Essentials. The whole "two sub-classes for each class" is actually pretty cool. It's just a different take than previous editions of D&D. It's less silly than the original 4e though.
The magic item economy and the Christmas Tree Effect. That part is part and parcel (haha pun totally intended) of the 4e experience. There are ways to handle it in not so breaking ways, and you can just tell the players to fuck off if they can take it and just do whatever you want with treasure, but then then you're back in the 3rd ed paradigm. Of course, once again, you can just throw guidelines by the window, but then, be careful about TPKs and glaringly missing abilities on the PCs part.
The strict encounter-based format. It's still there with Essentials, but you know what? Fuck them. Just run the game however you see fit, keep in mind the XPs, or just make up your own XP scale, and just think of encounters as units of time. Like a Turn in AD&D. So Encounter powers become "Turn Powers" or "Once in every 10 Rounds Powers". Then move on.
The complexity of creating new content. It's a different way of doing things when you obsess over encounter budgets and neat little stat blocks printed on your monster builder app and whatnot. But you know what? Just do things our way. Just throw that shit by the window, again, and do things on your graph paper, with a few notes about creatures, writing down HPs, reference a page of a similar monster in the rule book, or print a premade monster from the builder and write all over it, and there done. It's my opinion that it's mostly the current 4e culture that encourages players to focus their attention on the wrong thing. You can totally avoid that.
I'd say have a look at Heroes of the Fallen Lands. Read through it, and make a decision from there.
Quote from: CRKrueger;428147If Seanchai tells you 4e ain't for you, dude it AIN'T for you.
I would tell anyone who doesn't like 4e that Essentials isn't for them because they're the same game. (I'd say exactly the same game, but it's not quite. Or, more realistically, Essentials is bits of 4e cut and pasted over into some new books that feature a few new builds.)
Moreover, I'd tell anyone who doesn't like 4e or doesn't think they like it based on what they've heard and seen not to bother trying to play it. Go find a game you're excited about instead.
Seanchai
Quote from: The Butcher;428091- The strict encounter-based format. I've been balancing encounters since my Basic D&D black box days, and for the most part I think not throwing 1st-level PCs against a Beholder or Lich is just a matter of common sense. But sometimes it was fun to "up the ante" and set PCs against a somewhat unbalanced, more powerful foe, forcing them to seek non-combat solutions, and/or to get really creative during combat. I'm not sure how 4e, Essentials or not, handles this.
This is more a matter of publishing presentation than anything else, in my opinion. As with any previous edition, if you're a competent DM, you can easily eyeball adventures. However, also as with previous editions, make sure you're familiar with the game and with the PCs. If you keep all that in mind, you can run adventures just as with any edition of D&D.
Quote from: CRKrueger;428147Mongoose Runequest II addresses all of your concerns. I've never touched Glorantha as GM or player, but MRQII is currently my go-to fantasy system for new campaigns.
I've just picked up MRQII core, Monster Coliseum and Vikings. It
is a great RPG, and only fails my "Perfect Fantasy RPG" test because I don't have the systems to (a) summon demons and (b) build and rule a kingdom of your own. Both of which I intend to remedy shortly, by picking up Elric and Empires. :D
But the deal with D&D 4e is different...
Quote from: Seanchai;428173I'd tell anyone who doesn't like 4e or doesn't think they like it based on what they've heard and seen not to bother trying to play it. Go find a game you're excited about instead.
...see, by all rights, I should hate D&D 4e. I hate D&D 3.5e with its highly formal, highly regimented system, and vastly prefer the TSR-era editions.
But I've played 4e once and found it intriguing. I've never been a fan of miniatures, but I actually enjoyed the "boardgamey" parts of the game. And I like the new "implied setting" a great deal, silly names notwithstanding (I'd rename the Feywild "Arcadia", the Shadowfell "Sheol" and so forth).
I'd like to accrue some more experience with 4e before buying the books; hell, a friend's running 4e, but I can't attend because I work Sundays. And along comes Essentials, apparently tackling some (not all) of my issues, but like I've said, no single one of these is a dealbreaker.
So
of course I am excited about 4e, or I wouldn't post this thread. I just don't want to be disappointed later down the road, which is why I'm picking the board's collective brain.
Quote from: The Butcher;428240I've just picked up MRQII core, Monster Coliseum and Vikings. It is a great RPG, and only fails my "Perfect Fantasy RPG" test because I don't have the systems to (a) summon demons and (b) build and rule a kingdom of your own. Both of which I intend to remedy shortly, by picking up Elric and Empires. :D
But the deal with D&D 4e is different...
...see, by all rights, I should hate D&D 4e. I hate D&D 3.5e with its highly formal, highly regimented system, and vastly prefer the TSR-era editions.
But I've played 4e once and found it intriguing. I've never been a fan of miniatures, but I actually enjoyed the "boardgamey" parts of the game. And I like the new "implied setting" a great deal, silly names notwithstanding (I'd rename the Feywild "Arcadia", the Shadowfell "Sheol" and so forth).
I'd like to accrue some more experience with 4e before buying the books; hell, a friend's running 4e, but I can't attend because I work Sundays. And along comes Essentials, apparently tackling some (not all) of my issues, but like I've said, no single one of these is a dealbreaker.
So of course I am excited about 4e, or I wouldn't post this thread. I just don't want to be disappointed later down the road, which is why I'm picking the board's collective brain.
With 4e and WFRP3e they play better then they GM, at least for me. As a GM, my metagame tolerance is too high. So I would definitely beg, borrow or steal the rules you need to test-GM it. Don't rely on play.
Quote from: The Butcher;428240I'd like to accrue some more experience with 4e before buying the books; hell, a friend's running 4e, but I can't attend because I work Sundays. And along comes Essentials, apparently tackling some (not all) of my issues, but like I've said, no single one of these is a dealbreaker.
So of course I am excited about 4e, or I wouldn't post this thread. I just don't want to be disappointed later down the road, which is why I'm picking the board's collective brain.
The answer is still no. Here's why: Because Essentials isn't some separate, different thing. It's basically a game akin to what you'd get if the DM said, "Okay, guys, we're just going to use the PHB, DMG, and MM for this game." The biggest difference I've seen between Essentials and regular 4e is the Fighter - and even there, what's the substantive difference between the Cleave at-will Power and the Cleaving Attack Stance?
Seanchai
Seanchai, why does that mean the answer is still no? The Butcher has clarified that he does not dislike 4e, and Essentials provides, if nothing else, a cheap entry point to the full game with a few of The Butcher's points improved (mainly simplified character building and fewer "silly" classes).
4e is worth trying, and Essentials is an excellent entry point. The encounter-based format, strictly defined roles, and powers as retrictions are major flaws/features of 4e no matter which books you use, but how you experience actual play is a better indicator of whether or not you will have a good time on either side of the screen than any theoretical misgivings or popular sentiments.
In theory, I should loathe Glee. When I'm actually watching it, though, I have a good time. I would rather have a good time, even if it means losing my credibility.
Quote from: Seanchai;428338The biggest difference I've seen between Essentials and regular 4e is the Fighter - and even there, what's the substantive difference between the Cleave at-will Power and the Cleaving Attack Stance?
The thing is, the biggest difference between 4e and Essentials isn't actually substantive at all. It's the writing, the actual presentation of the substance, that is the major difference between the two. And for some people, like myself, that makes all the difference in the world indeed, because you're going from "huh? WTF does that model in the game world?" to "Hah OK. I see what that means. Cool".
I think your problem John is that you're just seeing the substance, the metagame powers and effects, for whatever reason, and just don't want to admit that the differences in presentation, feeling, "flavor" and so on Essentials presents might make a heck of a lot of difference to some people. It does, though.
The presentation isn't going to make a great deal of difference over time. For most people. I haven't seen a bunch of new folks buying into Essentials. A few, with the red box. But most of the folks I've seen pick up the books and the big white boxes are folks who want desperately to be "into" D&D, but don't like 4th ed. I don't think Essentials is going to be satisfying for them in the long run.
Now. That may or may not be useful to the original poster, since he likes 4th ed. I don't know. I would also discourage folks from getting Essentials, hoping it will bring them back to D&D.
Quote from: Esgaldil;428378The Butcher has clarified that he does not dislike 4e...
Whether or not he says he likes or dislikes 4e as a whole, he lists several things he definitely doesn't like in 4e. As 4e and Essentials are the same thing, I'm sure he'll find them to be present in Essentials as well.
Quote from: Esgaldil;428378The encounter-based format, strictly defined roles, and powers as retrictions are major flaws/features of 4e no matter which books you use, but how you experience actual play is a better indicator of whether or not you will have a good time on either side of the screen than any theoretical misgivings or popular sentiments.
Absolutely. But actual play can have very little to do with mechanics, the game, what happened, etc., and can have quite a bit to do with perception.
Seanchai
Quote from: Benoist;428379I think your problem John is that you're just seeing the substance, the metagame powers and effects, for whatever reason, and just don't want to admit that the differences in presentation, feeling, "flavor" and so on Essentials presents might make a heck of a lot of difference to some people. It does, though.
You're mistaken. There was never a problem with the writing, presentation, flavor, et al. of 4e. There's little change between the writing, presentation, flavor, et al., of 4e and Essentials.
The only thing that's changed is your perception of the game and it's attendant mechanics. WotC took the same thing they've been selling since day one, slapped a new label on it, and it changed your mind about the game. Great. I'm glad you have the opportunity to explore whether or not you like 4e.
But the new label hasn't actually changed the contents at all.
Seanchai
Maybe it is too little to late, in that people are now defining their "gamer ID" on being pro or against 4e. I have seen people pick up Essentials and enjoy them with their kids (like Jim Skach, for instance). I saw in Essentials a specific game play I could actually do something with, as opposed to the original 4e. But it seems we're not really representative of any kind of major shift in the market in regards to 4e. People have either embraced the game or went on to play other games. Essentials is not the game changer some would have wanted it to be, I fear.
Quote from: Seanchai;428382You're mistaken. There was never a problem with the writing, presentation, flavor, et al. of 4e.
For many people there was. You do not understand that, because you, personally, did not have a problem with it, and still do not.
It's not about you. It's about people who DID have a problem with the game, whom you do not understand, still, to this very day.
The cover is pretty nice. The rest, on the inside, is still 4e, or at least marred by 4e mentalities of the game. Too complicated, too many powers, too much emphasis on detailed minis-based combat, too much concern about "balance" and character build, too much WoTC crap, in other words.
You know what would have been awesome? If they'd copied both the cover AND the inside of the old D&D basic set.
RPGpundit
Quote from: Benoist;428384For many people there was. You do not understand that, because you, personally, did not have a problem with it, and still do not.
You didn't read what I wrote. I wrote, basically, "There wasn't a problem with them," not "People didn't have a problem with them."
People have all kinds of "problems" with things that aren't actually problems. In this case, I think many people's problems were the result of the idea of a new edition, not the edition itself.
Hence my advice not to bother with Essentials.
Seanchai
Shit, that is one confusing thread. :confused:
:D
Quote from: Benoist;428171I'd say have a look at Heroes of the Fallen Lands. Read through it, and make a decision from there.
Yeah, that's what I'll probably do.