4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[Pilias]

There are more differences in style in playing D&D.

Though this doesn't describe me, you have to allow that D&D can be played as a combat simulationist game, especially if you rely on mechanics more than fluff. Nothing wrong with that, but that means if a given mechanic has been removed from the game moving from one edition to another, how does the simulationist DM deal with what they were already comfortable using. This is hypothetical, as I am sure Midgardsormr injects plenty of RP in his games.

What I am saying, is D&D doesn't have to be Roleplaying at all. So to argue just roleplay it in, might apply to a given DMs style of play but might not be the best solution for everyone.

Regarding the fact the skills have been pulled from 4e. 3.5e has many faults and broken mechanics. The question is for me, was the skill mechanic broken? What reasonable reason did WotC choose to remove skills from play. Its their product and if they just wanted to create a different game, so they removed, that's fine. However, my hope was that 4e was intended to fix a broken 3.5e.
Skills weren't broken, so removing that mechanic offers no benefit to those who were already using it.

To argue, make up a house rule or roleplay out, while a viable solution, might not be the only solution or the best one for a given DM. Besides, if you have to start "house ruling" a new game - to those concerned gamers, wouldn't that indicate that the new is game is just as broken?

Besides, unless you completely understand the new edition, having to create a house rule right off the bat, may make the overall game unbalanced. I'd rather play an entire campaign to understand the continuity of the entire ruleset. Once I understand fairly well, house rules can start to enter play in a responsible manner, not to destroy the balance in the game.

I say, don't fix it, if its not broken - of course D&D is not my IP, and I have no control on what the publisher wants to do with their game.

I know DMs that roleplay everything, with hardly a die being cast at all. It works for those DMs, but I personally don't like. I don't want a DM to dictate how a game is played with no rules to refer in understanding their game method.

That's my dimes worth.

GP

I have to strongly disagree with your statement that the skill system was not broken, it was so unbalanced in later levels that you basically had to set up seperate DCs for skill specialists and another for everyone else, and after about level 5 you either do the same thing with poisons/traps/diseases ect or you just don't use them at all because the DCs provided for all of these things just didn't work as real obsticles to a Rogue after that point. It wasn't unreasonable to expect a level 12 Rogue to be able to run up a flat wall (DC30) as just one example of how the system didn't work well.

[Greason Wolfe]

It seems to me that a point is being missed here.

In all that I've read so far, nobody has "whined" about anything. They've stated their opinions and feelings about 4e based on their experience. The whole thing about whether the DM/GM being able to handle the unexpected was never the issue.

The fact that a GM likes to have such "rules" available doesn't make them good or bad, top-notch or bottom of the barrel. It's all about personal tastes. Not just the GM's tastes, but the tastes of the players as well. What makes a good GM, IMHO, is one that does what it takes to keep his/her players involved and attentive to the game. If you have a group of players that prefer to have such "rules" in place and a clear way to determine success or failure, chances are they won't stay in a game under a GM that constantly wings such things. The opposite is true as well, players who prefer to play such "rules" off the cuff aren't likely to stay with a GM who constantly rolls dice to determine success or failure.

The simple fact of the matter is, everyone has different ideas about how such things should be handled. It should be about the story and how you get from page 1 to the final chapter is up to you and your players as long as everyone is happy in the end.

EDIT : Oh, would you look at that, GP pretty much beat me to my point.

GW

[NeonKnight]

WOW!

I'd hate to put my MODERATOR (TM) hat on and lock this thread, and have this be the FIRST thread in the history of this forum to get this treatment. but lets play nice and AGREE to DISAGREE!

Ok?

[Ascension]

I'm with Neon...you've said your piece Nym, now let it go. We're not here to determine who the superior DM is, we're here to discuss what we like and don't like about the 4e system.

[NymTevlyn]

It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. A GM that can't handle the unexpected shouldn't be GM'ing. That is the point of having a GM at the table. To handle the unexpected when the rules don't apply. If the only things you're allowed to do are what the rules say you can, you have a board game with no room for creativity, not an rpg.

Here's the only rule you'll ever need for when the actual rules don't cover something.

When in doubt, roll a die. Odd, they fail. Even, they succeed.

There. Now anyone can GM and "handle" the unexpected with a simple rule.

[Midgardsormr]

Thanks to both Greason Wolf and GamerPrinter, who both illustrated that I am, indeed, speaking English. I've said all I mean to say on this subject for the time being.

[Gandwarf]

You D&D guys should just all go play Descent. I love being the GM/evil overlord

[Talroth]

I've played 4th edition many times with a few different groups. Both in person with one group, and online with a few others.

My personal issue with it is that all characters tend to be TOO useful in all situations. When playing a character if feels far too easy to pull one character out and replace him with a completely random one. I don't have to think too hard about what classes other players have, I don't have to worry about finding ways to play to their strengths and weaknesses.

In some ways this is a good thing, but from a few years of playing D&D 3.5 I've found the most memorable events from them stemmed from someone being very ill suited to something and then being at the mercy of other player's to make up for the character's short falls. Sure this can be purely RP based, but I find it adds to the RP to force someone to have flaws and issues that another player isn't going to have.

Things are over balanced throughout the game. I think from the RP view varied power curves are a good thing. A warrior having to haul a weak wizard though the first few character levels then has some interesting issues to deal with as that wizard he laughed at and tormented for being so useless quickly builds up to be far more powerful and important than he can ever hope to be.

[Pilias]

I've played 4th edition many times with a few different groups. Both in person with one group, and online with a few others.

My personal issue with it is that all characters tend to be TOO useful in all situations. When playing a character if feels far too easy to pull one character out and replace him with a completely random one. I don't have to think too hard about what classes other players have, I don't have to worry about finding ways to play to their strengths and weaknesses.

In some ways this is a good thing, but from a few years of playing D&D 3.5 I've found the most memorable events from them stemmed from someone being very ill suited to something and then being at the mercy of other player's to make up for the character's short falls. Sure this can be purely RP based, but I find it adds to the RP to force someone to have flaws and issues that another player isn't going to have.

Things are over balanced throughout the game. I think from the RP view varied power curves are a good thing. A warrior having to haul a weak wizard though the first few character levels then has some interesting issues to deal with as that wizard he laughed at and tormented for being so useless quickly builds up to be far more powerful and important than he can ever hope to be.

I think this is true to a certain extent, you do notice when a particular role is missing from the group, especially Defenders and Controllers, but beyond that with a good party balance between the roles or switching from one class to another within the same role doesn't massively affect the game, but from a gameplay perspective I think that's actually a good thing, the focus becomes less on the stats and more on working together as a team, which is especially useful for new players to the group, who now know exactly what they are supposed to be doing in the game.

It also seems to encourage more experimentation with other classes than I've seen in previous editions, before people would tend to stick with a single archetype, IE ranger, the maybe dabble with rogues or fighter characters or maybe try out a druid or bard, but they wouldn't stray too far from what they were experienced with (again this is in general terms having watched hundreds of gamers over the years in both 2nd ed and 3rd ed).

[NymTevlyn]

The even/odd universal rule works regardless of edition, game, or anything.