4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[Korash]

DMG - I gotta rep you for this post (if I can) for a couple of reasons.

First off, that list brought back a HUGE flood of great moments in my RPG life. Esp. Boothill (my first) and Toon (teaching my kids RPG).

Second, this post is very well written and speaks so well of my views on Roleplaying in general.

thanks for stating it a lot better than I did.

[msa]

DMG - I gotta rep you for this post (if I can) for a couple of reasons.

I agree... great post by DMG.

D&D version discussions, from my experience, quickly degrade into flame wars. Most people's feelings on the matter end up being little more than nostalgia that is mostly devoid of reason or logic. This one was little different. Glad DMG stepped in and shed a little light on the discussion.

I, of course, am not a great poster... I'm more a half-witted opinion kind of guy. So:

I like 4e quite a bit, and I think it is a great piece of RPG work that brings some innovative stuff to RPGs. But it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It fixed some things I hated about D&D 3e (spells, complication), got rid of some things I loved (skills, complication--lol), and tried some things that are nice ideas that still need a lot more work (skill challenges!), and brought in some good ideas from other games (minions, focus on at-will powers).

Next time I try to teach some new people D&D I will use 4e, but with my long time gaming buddies I will stick with 3.5. I'd happily recommend 4e to anyone who asked about it, but I find it hard to fault people that dislike it because there are plenty of good reasons to. Unless they like Rolemaster (tablemaster) or 1e... bleach!

[DungeonMasterGaz]

Thanks for the very kind responses, guys. I really didn’t expect to get rep for my post, so I was quite taken aback when I read your replies.

I believe the whole 4E vs 3.5 debate is moot. They’re both great games. They both have pros and cons – but if your having a blast, who cares? After all, weren’t all 4E players 3.5 players before 4E was released? I certainly was. I played it for many years and have nothing bad to say about the system or the folks who prefer it to 4E. I mean, what kind of hypocrite would I be if I did?

I’ve already given my verdict on 4E, and now I hope to illustrate why D&D is such a great game.

Question: Does the following dialogue describe a scene in 3.5 or 4E D&D?

DM: You reach the base of the exposed continental shelf. A towering wall of rock soars into the sky before you. The only way left is up.
Nimble Rogue: Looks like we have a long climb ahead. Let’s get started. I’ll use my Climb skill.
DM: Ok, it is a long way up. It’ll take the best part of a day to climb and it’s a bit tricky. You’ll need 8 successes before 3 failures, and each check represents an hour of climbing.
Heavily-Armoured Fighter: I’m not so good at climbing. Can I use my Endurance to hold ropes, give people a lift or hold them steady if they’re slipping.
DM: Sure. What about you, wizard?
Wizard: I have Feather Fall.
DM: Ok, you can use that to negate one failure. Anything else?
Wizard: Yeah. I’ll use my knowledge of Nature to try and predict strong winds that could be dangerous to the climb, and to identify if any protruding vines or branches are strong enough to be used as hand or footholds.
DM: Good idea. Ranger?
Cunning Ranger: Yeah, I’ll scan the cliff for ledges and clefts that could make the climb easier, and I’ll try to determine the easiest route.
DM: Great stuff. I think a success there will give the rogue a +2 to his climb check as well as counting as a success for the climb.
Nimble Rogue: Ok. No time to waste. I start climbing…

Answer: Both, because the concept of Skill Challenges works in 3.5 too.

How many times has anyone stolen an idea they liked from a film, book, FR adventure? How many people have styled their character on Conan, Aragorn or Elminster even? If you like an idea, use it, adapt it, whatever RP system you play.

Personally, I see the chapter introducing Skill Challenges in the 4E DM’s Guide as an attempt to convey a new concept developed to promote teamwork, ideas and to encourage everyone to participate by drawing on their strengths in imaginative ways rather than being forced to engage in something they know their character is terrible at. I don’t see it as hard rules that must be adhered to. Skill Challenges seem broken because the concept is so open to individual interpretation, but every SC I’ve designed and played was enjoyed by my players, so much so that they now actively seek Skill Challenges to work together to overcome all kinds of situations.

Is my interpretation wrong? Of course not. It’s my game. It works with my players, and I wish I’d thought of the idea when I was playing 3.5. Will it work in your game? Only you can answer that.

Have fun and make the game yours.

DMG

[NeonKnight]

In my home games I have introdcued the concept of Critical Failures (Nat 1), and Critical Success (Nat 20) into Skill Challenges. In an adventure I wrote, I had certain skills where a Critical Failure in the Skill Challenge could 'END' the entire skill challnege as a failure.

In this particular Skill Challenge, the players had found an Arcane Engine on some railway tracks. Skills like Strength, Arcana or History were useful in repairing the engine/clearing the tracks etc, but 2 failed Arcana Checks or a single critical Failure on the Arcana Check would mean the players somehow destroyed the arcane seals keeping a Fire Elemental trapped in the engine as a power source.

Of course, the players did roll a Natural 1 on the Arcana check, blowing the engine up, freeing the elemental, and resulting in them needing to walk to the next location instead of riding in comfort.

As a result, the joke in the group is the character made a comment of "Hmmm, this rune is all wrong," and then rubbed it out.

[DungeonMasterGaz]

Of course, the players did roll a Natural 1 on the Arcana check, blowing the engine up, freeing the elemental, and resulting in them needing to walk to the next location instead of riding in comfort.

As a result, the joke in the group is the character made a comment of "Hmmm, this rune is all wrong," and then rubbed it out.

Classic moments never forgotten!

One of my players had just rolled up a character for d20 Star Wars. The party needed to defuse a bomb on their ship, and this guy was the technically skilled PC. The 1 he rolled when attempting to defuse the bomb wasn't so funny, but the subsequent 1 he rolled for his saving throw and the third successive 1 he rolled in a last ditch attempt to prevent the already detonating bomb from blowing up the PCs ship was hilarious!! The looks on their faces!

Great gaming!

DMG

[msa]

After all, weren’t all 4E players 3.5 players before 4E was released?

I hope not! LOL!

Actually, I think the best thing about 4e is how easy they made it for new players. For those of us who are long time, highly technical players, I think 3.5 is a better game. We are going to use our skills and feats regularly and creatively, multiclass effectively, keep apprised of target prestige classes, keep on top of spells, etc. But for new players its just too much.

So hopefully there are MORE people playing 4e that never caught on to 3.5. At least thats my hope...

Me: This is your first D&D game, newblet... what do you want to be?
Newblet: A wizard!
Me: Hmm... have you considered a fighter?

[Midgardsormr]

In my home games I have introdcued the concept of Critical Failures (Nat 1), and Critical Success (Nat 20) into Skill Challenges.

I've never liked critical failure rules in a d20-based system. A 5% chance of disastrous failure seems a little too high for my tastes. I was playing in an Alternity game recently in which my technical expert character was attempting to hack a computer system that contained important storyline information. I botched the hacking roll and corrupted the data. The very next time we came across a computer with important storyline information, I did the very same thing. Then I wrecked our spaceship.

I roll a lot of 1's.

Of course, I also roll a lot of 20's, but usually only when my character is doing something he's not supposed to be good at. I put down more bad guys with my stun pistol than one of our combat specialists did with his big plasma gun.

The other problem with a critical failure rule is that when I GM with such a rule in place, my villains have a tendency to commit suicide in creative ways during the climactic battles. Nothing is worse than building up the threat of an NPC in the players' minds to the point where they're almost afraid to engage him, only to have him fall off a balcony and break his neck during the first round of combat. I suppose that's what I get for rolling in the open.

[dormouse]

A 5% chance of disastrous failure seems a little too high for my tastes.

Yes, far too high for most things; and far too automatic. Maybe 1% for some actions, and .01% for others. And sometimes it will be much higher - eg the novice attempting a difficult climb. The actual odds should be decided by the DM and the players should make their choice about the action by thinking about it and not knowing what odds the DM will deem appropriate in advance of the choice. Ditto for successes.

[Blaidd Drwg]

We always resolve critical failures in the same way as critical hits in combat. If you roll a natural 1, roll again. If the second check is a success, you just fail, nothing disastrous happens. If the seconds check fails, it's a critical failure and whatever it is you we're trying to do goes horribly wrong. That way the odds are lower than 5% and also reflect a characters skill level.

[Sigurd]

Most DM's have developed a sense of fairness and player challenge\support that is far more important than their game system. I have walked into DMing games I've never read and relied on players to interpret the world reaction into the current rules. It worked surprisingly well.

My favourite system I think has been the Cthulu BRP system. I'm thinking of returning to it in the face of the 4e\3.5e schism.

I don't think its a rules problem but a publishing one. A lot of people I encounter with the latest D&D are unhappy and I find it rubs off.

I'm not criticizing 4e beyond saying I don't find it as much fun.

I do think that 3.5 becomes phenomenally difficult to maintain an alternate reality in as a DM. As the players become super heroes they sort of pull your world setting apart. I imagine this is the same problem in 4e.


Is anyone waiting for the Dresden Files Game from Evil Hat?