A Veteran GM's First Impressions of D&D 4th Edition 330
Martin Ralya writes "I spent several hours with the three core D&D 4th Edition books on launch day, and wrote a detailed look at all of them based on my first impressions. Two big takeaways: Yes, the World of Warcraft comparisons are fair (and a good thing), and the way character powers work now will make the game more fun for everyone."
Not for nothing, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just went to a local Game Day event... (Score:5, Interesting)
We had a great time, especially when we essentially tied down an Ice Dragon and our main Fighter intimidated the Dragon into giving up (even without knowing the Dragon's language!) and we won the encounter without even killing it! It was so much more fun than raiding Onyxia, especially given all the freedom you have in D&D. I bought a book and can't wait to rope all my friends into it.
Re:Does anybody see the irony? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is the title correct? (Score:2, Interesting)
I have said this before, but the amount of time one devotes to RPGs is inversely perportional to the time one spends on real 'dates'.
*grin*
Re:Not for nothing, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Certainly not since WotC bought the rights. By now my son is just about the right age, and he's a nerd like his old man. I think, though, I'm going to wait until fall for the beginners set.
Starting playing in 89 does not make a "Veteran" (Score:2, Interesting)
THAT makes me a veteran
I think I'll avoid this incarnation from everything that is being said
Re:Propoganda much? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a collectable miniatures game in book form (Score:4, Interesting)
Alas, it feels like the collectible craze has finally struck the heart of D&D.
At the risk of sounding like I'm shaking my cane at those dratted kids (and maybe I am), this isn't a followup to the classic game, it's a repackaged version of the miniatures game. Look at the monsters ... they're essentially a card. The actual description, background and mythology of the creatures are negligible. The mechanics themselves are designed to be bound to a board, not played out in the imagination.
On some level I guess I can't blame them. As a system linking MMORPGs, miniatures games and card games, it works. They look at the income of Magic the Gathering or WOW and say "why can't we get a piece of that?!" so they design a game that will allow them to leverage the different merchandise against each other. It's not a bad system if that's what you have in mind and I can see it being very successful in that Microsoft sort of way. I know a lot of people who wouldn't touch this system with a 10-foot pole if it didn't have the D & D name on it, but since it does, they probably won't want to play anything else.
What's really sad to me is how hard it is to dig up any information on what can or cannot be created and distributed by players. They seemed to be starting to get the hang of it with opening the d20 system but this feels like a step in the opposite direction. It's becoming about leveraging their games onto players, not about empowering players to create their own games and worlds. I want tools to create stories with, to build worlds with ... as a gamer, I'm not a consumer of fantasy, I'm a creator of fantasy.
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that DnD's main appeal was spending time with your friends in person. I really liked it for a couple of years. The reason was that I had friends who were fun to play with, and the funny rituals and habits we had that went along with it.
I've continued to read a little about DnD in the 18 years since I stopped playing. I like to know what's going on with the evolution of the game, but now, my best friends are scattered across the continent, and the thought of playing with my local group of friends is lame.
I like the idea of playing DnD. I just don't have the friends for it anymore. It somehow felt more comfortable to roll a toon on WoW and meet people online to play with, than to head down to the hobby shop on a game night. If I'm going to meet new people in person, I'd like food and alcohol involved.
Re:An everyone game? (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it easier. I've got a bunch of friends who play D&D via IRC (which, for the uninitiated, is a text-only internet chat system similar to instant messaging). In text only, I find it's a lot easier to suspend disbelief and see the characters instead of the people playing them. Imagination is a good thing.
Of course, by online, you may mean in MMORPGs, in which case I'd have to agree with you.
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately the tools are Windows only. That's me out, and it's also lost sales to any groups that have Mac and Linux users amongst them. Bad move on WotC's part.
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, in 4e there is a mechanical thing that prevents you have flaws. The skill system takes account of your level and you also don't invest points in skills, you just are trained or not. If you're a Level 10 Wizard, you're a better blacksmith than any level 1 villiage blacksmith. There's no way you can't swim, or rope-climb or dance. 4e characters can do just about anything. And the difference between trained and untrained is a on / off thing. Two Level 10 characters who are both trained in "Athletics" are equally perfect in simming, climbing and running. There's no differentiation.
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It is great (Score:5, Interesting)
See, this isn't the 1990s any more. Nowadays, making a Windows-only desktop app limits your userbase even among people who run Windows on their computer at home. Because they aren't always at home. Maybe they want to play D&D on their iPhone, had you thought of that? Or on their Windows Mobile phone, if that's what they prefer. If it was a web app, they could play it on any kind of device that has an internet connection.
Is that worth how much it would cost to port it? Oh, wait, if it was a web app, porting it would cost a whopping $0.00.
That's why developing a Windows-only desktop app is stupid, unless your app actually requires the kind of things that web apps don't do well, like real-time 3D graphics. Which D&D totally doesn't.
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
As I mentioned in other posts, the skill change was done to keep skill management simpler and give the game a more pulp and epic fantasy feel. Conan, Doc Savage, Aragorn, Gandalf, and most experienced characters in, for example, Jack Vance's Dying Earth books had a huge realm of competencies.
The two 10th level characters trained in Athletics are still differentiated by their Dexterity modifier (or whichever modifier affects the Athletics skill check).
Re:It is great (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? I personally enjoy doing my paper and pen RPG thing with a group of real friends, located in a real room, drinking real beer, and eating real pizza. Its an excuse to have a social gathering. I don't see why it needs to, or should, "evolve" into another virtual thing, since that defeats the point to a large degree.
Me and a bunch of friends used to play Shadowrun campaigns via IRC YEARS ago, so the "virtual tabletop" idea isn't even new, nor an evolutionary step. You don't need big software to do things for you either, you email your character to the DM, meet up at the specified IRC channel at the specified time, and, you know, play as usual.
Why would it have to evolve? Is this one of those "we must utilize technology for its own sake" things, when it adds absolutely nothing to the experience, and subtracts a great deal.
But then again on my gaming nights we generally spend about 60% doing things that have nothing to do with gaming.
Very much initial impressions (Score:2, Interesting)
Kind of late to the game...nearly 24 hours after story posting. Was actually running my D&D campaign yesterday so no time for Slasdot.
Up front, I was quite pessimistic about this new edition...and still not sure where my judgment will ultimately fall.
However, after a bit of exposure to the three core books (they're up on bit torrent and better copies on that place that the first rule says you aren't supposed to speak of...). I'm guardedly excited. Enough so that I did allow myself to get caught up in the excitement of release day and picked my copy of the PHB up on the way home from work Friday evening.
The book is quite lovely, and I have to say I'm really happy how clean the print is (I don't own 3.5 edition books, but my third edition ones have a horrid background that obscures the text). The artwork is nice and it's nice to see women adventurers depicted sensibly (no chainmail bikinis).
I'm not versed enough on the rule set yet to say anything other than they look interesting. I could see playing them if I can twist my players arms harshly enough the next time we re-boot and start a new campaign (we are on second edition as of now).
I am not happy with what appears to be very miniature focused tactical rules. However, perhaps ranges of "squares" can be easily converted. My group is darn cheap. We have a small collection of minatures...enough that all the current players have someone to depict their characters and there are some which are fitting enough for a few of the main NPC allies they have. For opponents we actually use hexagon tiles that I pencil something descriptive on...like orc 1, 2, 3...or NPC's names. We don't use a battle mat. I draw a rough map out on a white board laid flat on the table. I also write 'NTS' on my little maps as I have one jerk who will complain that the map is not to scale...
Other than that possible concern about the role of miniatures in the game (and for my group it's more about some players being under financial constraints), the only other things I think that are worth pointing out are:
1. The index (like most RPGs) is not very expansive.
2. There is no appendix of important tables in the read of the PHB. I think that would have been handy to anyone using the book whether a player or the DM.
3. The inclusion of a section detailing a great number of magic items. This was always something left to the DMG. I don't understand why it had to be put into the PHB. I would much more rather have seen those pages utilized with something like an appendix of useful tables, more spells, or, heck, even a more extensive listing along with descriptions of odd ball equipment.
In summary, it looks promising and I'm looking forward to reading through my copy of the PHB in the next couple weeks. I don't know enough yet to recommend the game or not, but I would advise anyone to take a look online for the PDFs and take a gander first. If it looks cool to you then plop down your money and get a copy. (Same as I say to anyone who I tell about a good band...d/l some MP3's, check it out and if you dig it, buy it.
Re:It is great (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have concrete figures to support my impression, but I can say with great confidence that the proportion of Windows to non-Windoes installations amongst home users is *not* the same proportion as the total computers out there including all those work desktops. And this is important because the work machines are irrelevant to WotC's marketing. The only thing that matters is what the role-players have at home and that's going to be substantially higher. So lets round up the 8% overall figure to what is probably a conservative 10% to cover all the Macs and Linux boxes amongst this demographic. Does excluding these people mean reducing sales by 10%? No - as I've already explained, they have to market to groups. A group of five players, including DM is 50/50 going to have a non-Windows user in there. That's an instant disincentive to use WotC gaming tools (and they're not a monopoly - there are other virtual tables). If you're marketing to individuals, you can perhaps forego inter-operability. Market to groups, and it becomes hugely important.
I've addressed the fact that one member of a group who can't use your product scuppers the product for the whole group, so the only thing to comment on here is the "as you'd like it to be" line. Why you think I have a bias, I don't know. It *is* possible to simply state how things are, you know?
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you seriously saying that if Mac users comprise 7%, that it would only justify a 7% increase in development costs? As a simple illustration of why your logic is wrong consider: If you make $100 for every unit sold and the total development costs were $100,000 (note there are no significant production costs per unit with software), and you sell perhaps 1,000,000 units, then you've made $100,000,000 gross. If your market share increases by 7% so that you sell 1,070,000 units then you've gained an extra $70,000,000. Do you see how that is worth far more than spending an extra 7% ($7,000) on your development costs? It's all about return on investment.
Give them time.
Re:It is great (Score:3, Interesting)
I have issues... (Score:2, Interesting)
The game mechanics in the PHB are as clear as mud. This is a book only a rules lawyer who enjoys puzzling out the exact meaning of obscure paragraphs of rules text could love. It obviously never got run past anyone outside the design team and highly experienced players. I could never give this book to anyone who doesn't fall into that category and hope to end up with anything but a hopelessly confused player.
I appreciate the thrust of what they were attempting to do with the game mechanics. They may well BE very good game mechanics, though I have a few thoughts about that as well (but not having played they are obviously only first thoughts). Obviously there was a concerted effort to do away with certain confusing and awkward terms and provide more consistent game mechanics. Unfortunately I believe what replaced them is no better and perhaps worse overall. There are other serious flaws as well.
The 1st problem is that the game mechanics and terminology should have been explained in a much clearer and more thorough manner right from the start. Much of what you read is essentially unintelligible at first read due to that lack. A one page description of combat mechanics near the beginning of the PHB that explained turn structure, actions, and movement would have done wonders for clarity. Sadly this is lacking.
Secondly the descriptions of classes leave a LOT to be desired. They are OK from an 'atmosphere' point of view. The text gives a pretty clear idea of what each class is intended to do and what sort of characters would be based on that class. The problem is trying to figure out the abilities your character has is a nightmare. The system for determining what the combination of race/class/build gives you for abilities is terribly disorganized. This aspect would have been 1000% better if only a few charts had been provided.
The selection of powers for the various classes also leaves me feeling quite disappointed. Everything is purely combat-centric. Not only that but 90% of the powers read like infinitesimally minute variations of each other. Clerics have 18 different variations of basically the same thing 'smite the enemy and do extra damage'. Only the most extreme armchair game technicians are going to enjoy attempting to decide between them all. It feels like someone generated a lot of filler by a rather unimaginative process of slightly changing dice rolls, types of saves, etc between what are all essentially the same thing.
Wizards seem to have a slightly better time in this department, though the spell selections are still pretty anemic. It feels to me like the goal was to leave you needing to buy supplements to get some variety.
The whole endlessly detailed subdividing of powers down into various subcategories also seems quite tedious. I can anticipate what will happen if I try to run this. 50% of game time will be burned just trying to explain to the players what choices they have to make and can they use this or that power now or is it used up or etc...
This was compounded by the class descriptions where a class/build abilities choices are described in a fairly muddled fashion. A chart like those in the 1e PHB would have worked a lot better. Often it is not clear at all which powers are 'free', which ones take up slots, and exactly which type of slot they might take up. 1 chart is worth 1000 words...
Overall this feels like a 'dice optimizer' style of game. The player type which will dig it is going to be the one that likes to spend 3 hours figuring out if the power that does +5 damage and gives you an extra saving throw is better than the one that does double damage and 'marks your enemy'. Blech! That sort of gaming i
Re:Is the title correct? (Score:2, Interesting)
Let me give you a real life example, which I am NOT making up:
DM: Let me see, last time we met you guys had just successfully raided and killed the ogre hoarde that had been threatening the kingdom....hmmm... King Canute had sent you guys on that one didn't he?
ME: Yes, He had said he was going to..
DM: (feigning deafness, Louder, meanacingly to another player:) KING CANUTE SENT YOU ON THAT ONE DIDN'T HE?
Tolken Elf: (glancing awkwardly sideways at me before answering, not wanting to incur a save vs death)um, yeah Kev, he told us that after we had done that we could come back and he would not only forgive us but would pay us 10,000 gp and give us the 'Bastard Bow of..'
ME: 'Blackburn' (DM glares at me and disappears behind the screen, the sound of many dice being dropped is the only sound we hear.)
DM: Well, you get back to his castle all right and tell him the news, but it seems the news doesn't sit well on his magnificance. He informs your party that he has had time to concider his offer in your absence and has decided to alter it, instead (*roll*roll*roll*) instead, he decides to throw you all to his dungeons to rot for eternity, you at once are all overtaken by his guards, as you wouldn't think of showing up to your honarary banquet armed, and thrown into the pit. by the way, save vs. death.
As all the proceeding dialog had been happening, the DM had been glaring menacingly in my direction until he got to 'by the way' at which point, his face broke into the widest evil grin I had ever seen. Let me point out that this campaign had been going on for months and had expected to continue for at least another year before this little coup. No one else in the party knew much about our relationship. No one up to this point had suspected that we had had an arguement, at least up to this point of course.
So to sum up, dating DM *BAD* no matter how good the bonuses, you WILL have at least one disagreement.