If they'd based 4e off the Book of 9 Swords, which I was really hoping they'd do, the system would have been a lot better than the simplified lot we got, which is essentially being able to pick one of four options to use every round in combat.

It would make a great video game, I think.

My main problem is I don't judge a RPG from game balance, but from world coherence point of view. As a system designed with game balance as central concept, which leads to :

- Prices set to manage PC power level, not creating a game-world economy that makes sense

- Classes that are not balanced by strength and weaknesses, but same overall possibilities.*

- Action film-like HP management

- Character possibilities so different that most of the previous edition background becomes difficult to use, if not obsolete (at least for DM like me who view handwaving as an attack against logic).

*Numerous threads have been made about overpowered druids, wizards, etc. Theses problem exist, but there are less extreme ways to deal with them. The first IMO is to teach players not to be jerks.

The heavy reliance on miniatures, however, does remove a lot of what my group assosiates with Pen and Paper roleplaying since we tend to fall out of character once we are pulled from the narrative and faced with a tactical combat grid. (Admittedly this is our own shortcoming.)

I know that many people have used combat grids for years and for the majority of such players the transition to 4th edition has understandably been euphoric.

Each to his own. ^^

Just my two cents, give 4th a try (more then one night!), we did, and we will never look back! (who would ever want to play a 3.5 fighter ever again?)

We played 4th edition for almost a year before deciding to go back to 3.5.

However…

…we found that 4th edition had solved many of the problems of 3.5 and we were left unsatisfied with both editions, often stating that 3.5 is better because of this and 4th edition is better because of that.

After some debate in our group we decided to work some of the fantastic mechanics that 4th edition introduced into the our 3.5 house rules, like I am sure many likeminded gamers have doneto some degree.

I was so satisfied with the results that I decided to publish some of them here…

1.) Base attack from similar progressions stack. ie: a level 1 Bard/ level 1 rogue would have a base attack of 1.

2.) Saves equal 1/2 your total character level and you get a bonus of +2 to any 'good saves' your class has. 'Good saves' do not stack when multiclassing, You can get a maximum of +2 to a save from your class.

3.) We adopted the 'Best of 2 stats for bonus to saves' rule. Enabling you to play a calculating fighter with a high INT, giving you lots of skillpoints and a resonable reflex save, but lacking the keen initiative bonus of a combat hungry DEX based fighter.

4.) Synergy bonuses were nerfed so that they do not stack. Seeing a Level 2 character with 14 in Diplomacy was somewhat scary…

5.) All characters received a bonus of 4 to INT for the purpose of calculating skillpoints. Cross class skills no longer cost double but were still limited to 1/2 the ranks of other skills.

The purpose of all these changes was to remove the double penalties 3.5 characters often suffered. Classes that had no use for WIS were usually left with a low progression on the WILL saves and classes that had no use for CON were usually left with terrible FORT saves. The same was true for INT and skillponts. Characters that did not have Spot as a class skill were not only destined to have a lower score than classes that did, they were also forced to pay double for the few ranks they did buy.

I have been playing 'D&D' since Feb of 1980. I've seen many other games come and go, some good, some not so good. I believe most players have their own 'house rules' and even have altered the game on their own, I have. I've played some of these games, the one that is worth mentioning here is BattleTech. Why, 'cuz BattleTech is a miniature game, and I like it. When it comes to miniature I'm not in agreement to some previous posts. I think any role-playing game should have them, and I just don't see how they can take you out of character or the game.

When 3rd edition D&D came out I resisted playing it for over a year. I thought that after WotC bought TSR that there were just trying to make money. Well, duh. Of coarse, they're a company – that is what they do, hey I spent tons of money on Magic the Gathering. It wasn't just that, I didn't want to it a try. I thought they'd hacked the crap outta my game and I didn't want anything to do with it. But later I discovered that the new edition had some of MY game mechanics: Max. hit points at 1st level, armor proficiencies, new skills, and they brought the barbarian back as well as the long lost monk. After two months I really started to know this 'new' edition, and I felt . . . well stupid. I was very relieved and glad at the changes made, but they were not to drastic.

Here's where I mention that I'm not a big video / computer game fan. This is important, bear with me. I enjoy watching someone play or even helping someone play a video / computer games, and most would agree that they're pretty fun. I believe one of the attractions to video / computer games increase in popularity is 'no arguing'. This makes it more appealing to gamers that have had issues with hard-headed DMs or troublesome players. It would not be unlikely if this fact alone is the cause of the up rise of video / computer games and the decline of 'book role-playing games'.

With that said, here is my take on why 4E D&D doesn't work. The rule changes ARE to drastic, it isn't really D&D any more. They have given it a video / computer feel to bring those 'lost gamers' back, and it didn't work. Look at all the new odd choices for player races / classes, what they did with alignments, and this 'healing surge'. The few times I played 4E I too did not feel that sense of 'role-playing' that should be there. After its release, they later put out a second printing /version to bring the gnome and some other things back. The way that spells / powers were handle is . . . I don't know how to explain, this mutation just doesn't do it for me. On the other hand, I'm a big Forgotten Realms fan. Most of the story line changes are good. Back to the flip side, I think it's a bad idea to showcase and introduce another game world. OK, Ebberon isn't completely new but it was brought forth to be WotC's 4th Edition game world. In my opinion, it's regurgitated video/computer game crap put on paper.

I'm just really greatly dissatisfied with 4E 'D&D'. After the 3rd and 3.5 editions, this ended up being a really good game. If you make this analogy you will better understand my take on all this. Dungeons & Dragons is like a person: in 1974 when it was born it was an infant, testing the water and not knowing a whole lot. Later in 1979 it grows up into an adolescent not really sure of most answers and at time even the questions, but hey it is 'fun time'. Afterward in 1987 it then broaden its views a little bit and rethinks life. Then in 2000 it matures into adulthood and learns from its mistakes, this is the 'meat' of life, the time when one really understands the whys and hows. Finally, in 2006 it unfortunately it goes senile and doesn't even know who or what it is. I'm sure that I do not look forward to 5th edition!

If anyone is interested in further discussion or even other game chat lemme know. For now, as Forest would say: “…that's all I got ta say about that.”

But whatever. You don't seem interested in the details of doing stats and drawing conclusions rigorously. That's okay, not everyone is.

As for whether 3.x is viable going forward? Yeah, it looks like it. I never contested that. Like I already said, I'm glad for that and I'm not a fan of 4e.
.-= d7´s last blog ..A comment on POD and shipping =-.

Maybe D7 should accept Sahuagin pointed in the right direction?

Also, you were wrong when using the "4e" search term wich wasn't really relevant, as I pointed.

Still, thanks for the proper clean graph.

Oh and.. i dont really think google cares to manipulate pen & paper rpg search statistics. Non even D&D ones

Google Insights: D&D 4e vs D&D 3.x

I'm still not willing to draw conclusions from that, since I've done enough stats and experiment procedure to know that there's missing context. However, the robustness of searches for 3.x and variants does make me smile.
.-= d7´s last blog ..A comment on POD and shipping =-.

For something to chew on, consider these searches:

4e: 5 million hits

D&D 4e: 9 million hits

"D&D 4e": 144,000 hits

So what do we conclude? I conclude that Google search results are an opaque system from which it is hard to derive conclusions. (Google would like people to think otherwise, but their business model and tech require it to be so.) Further, five slots is insufficient to compare the myriad ways of referring to one system, let alone four (4e, 3e, 3.5, pathfinder).

Hence my skepticism about any Google-derived stats for or against 4e. Being a player and GM who was sorely disappointed by 4e and wants to see D&D go in a direction I like, I feel it's important to stick to solid criticisms and solid stats. Indulging in fluffy, substance-free things like the initial Google Insights link just gives ammunition to the 4e fans who want to dismiss people who don't like 4e as "irrational haters who will make anything up."
.-= d7´s last blog ..A comment on POD and shipping =-.

"4e" can be related to any 4th iteration of anything.

Check this:if you put the "3.5" term in the stat-search, it kicks all other away
http://www.google.com/insights/search/?hl=en-US#c…

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 30, 2009 at 15:58

SAY 4TH, 4E, 4, 3, 3.5 ETC… no REAL meaning without D&D atached

http://www.google.com/insights/search/?hl=en-US#c…
.-= d7´s last blog ..A comment on POD and shipping =-.

http://www.google.com/insights/search/?hl=en-US#c…

it seems that D&D 3.5 still awakes much more interest in google searchers- compared to 4th edition.

If he needs to post a link at my blog to get more traffic, it's really sad. My site is not actually slashdot or something.

All I can figure is he's fishing for pagerank, since he's certainly not writing for a gamer audience. I can't decide whether it's insulting to have posted here, or sad that he needs the traffic?
.-= d7´s last blog ..A comment on POD and shipping =-.

Just so. When I play D&D I play it for the connection between what characters can (and try to) do, and what happens as a result. When I want a non-D&D experience where it's all about the narrative happenings and nevermind the details, I play a game purpose built for it that doesn't carry the baggage of D&D. 4e just doesn't fit into that scheme anywhere that works for me.

"What was naturally immersive and associative in 1e about wildly differing mechanics for different classes?"

Things like that provide a system with texture. It doesn't have to be about immersion (so long as it doesn't break it for you, which is highly individual). Whether texture is good or bad is hugely a matter of taste, though. Think about the difference between serif and sans-serif fonts: Sans is easier to read, like a unified mechanic is easier to handle; but serif is prettier, like varying mechanics are more brain-pleasing. Purely subjective, of course, but it means unified mechanics aren't strictly superior for everyone or every sort of game, just like sans-serif is not strictly superior for everyone or every use.

I personally like texture in my game systems and I'm picky about the "feel" of mechanics. For example, I don't like GURPS because it's percentile—yuck—and unified around the yucky percentile. So, d20 is far too bland a system for me to enjoy for its own sake. Of course, a bland system that gives really tasty play can be acceptable, but see above.

The difference between 3.x d20 and 4e d20, then (and "for me" of course), is that they're both relatively bland systems but 3.x d20 gives me that direct causal connection between character actions and outcomes (whether success or failure), while 4e d20 replaces action-reaction play with narratively determinist play (as you say: "the narrative comes together at one point, determined by when the PC uses that power, for him to do something special"). Bland system plus a play mode I'm not interested in (for fantasy games) makes 4e unappealing to me.

How does older D&D (with all its weird race/class stuff) stack up in that scheme? It's a highly textured system, which is a small plus: there are mechanics that are pleasant and mechanics that aren't, but a mixed bag has a better chance to feature enjoyable mechanics than a system unified around a mechanic I don't find very interesting, like the flat-curve d20 AD&D (and d20) uses for combat. Moving on, it features very detailed action-reaction play, where exactly how a player describes their character's action can have significant impact on the outcome. ("Ok, I feel around inside the hole in the wall," vs "Ok, I'm poking my dagger into the hole in case there's a trap, but I try not to damage anything," vs "Ok, I jam an iron spike in there to ruin any traps… oh crap, I hope that gleam was a trap and not a fragile gem!") It's also fantasy, for which I prefer that action-reaction kind of play.

That was long enough that I should turn it into a post. Thanks for the inspiration.

"But it’s a difference if you can cast a spell only once per day, because that’s “how the magic works”, but how do you explain that a rogue can only do a sneak attack once per day? You can’t."

(Rogues can sneak attack once per round, not once per day, but I know what you are getting at anyway, daily martial powers)

A poster (Ferratus) on EnWorld described an important difference in the narrative between 3e and 4e. 3e tells you what your character can do, while 4e describes what happened. It's not that a martial character forgets how to do something cool with his weapon after he did it once that day or has to memorize it the next day or whatever. It's that the narrative comes together at one point, determined by when the PC uses that power, for him to do something special. Only once in a day, maybe, is your opponent perfectly positioned for you to Brute Strike him. You may make a series of brutal overhead swings, but you have to catch your enemy with his guard down, in a position where he can get his arms or weapons up to shield him, where his armor is askew or you can catch him blind so he doesn't see it coming, to deliver that devestating damage.

Martial powers are no less arbitrary than the limits on spellcasting, we are just used to those and justify them with wonky but accepted conventions about compartmentalizing the mind and other justifications that simply make up for a strictly game-based limitation on casting power (levels, slots, etc). HPs themselves are quite dissociated. I reference the age old example of the high level fighter letting someone strike him in the head with a broadsword (hmph, 15 points of damage? I have 80 hit points, I laugh). It's just the nature of the beast, especially D&D.

I understand your position as posted (combat felt like a separate entity that pulled you out of your immersion). It's just not the case for me. I saw a marked increase in combat RP in my group because we weren't constantly referencing the book to look up subsystems or long spell descriptions. We rarely crack a book during play these days, so my immersion has seen a strong uptick. YMMV.

I read the article and don't agree at all that the difference between 4e and other editions is dissociation. That's something that has always been with D&D, and most RPGs in general. What was naturally immersive and associative in 1e about wildly differing mechanics for different classes? Rogues used percentiles and had skills, assassins rolled a die for instant kills, wizards had spells (which often had their own separate mechanics), etc… These are just assumptions that we grew with and 4e turned some of those on their heads, they are no more or less associative than powers in 4e or skills in 3e.

For me, that characters in 4e are hung on the same basic framework and that framework is tweaked to small degrees by game choices (race, class, etc) is a lot less dissociative than character elements of previous editions. Again, of course, YMMV.

In 4E its reasonably fun to create characters, but it feels very point and click with the power activations. And the only non-com elements of the game are a token handful of skills, and even then using them is an 'encounter' with overly formalised 'skill challenges' which somewhat detract from actual roleplay.

I'd disagree with the immersion thing, I always found it quite exciting when the DM would pull out the battle mat, kind of like when playing an RPG console game when you're running around on the map and it goes 'Whoosh' into battle mode. I agree that its a bugger to abstract the fights. The minis are essential when the powers are so square based.

I preferred the fluff (background) and monsters from 3.5. With 4th ed they've kind of sterilised the sex and violence out of it.
Then I've never been a D&D, or even a D20 system fan. Prefer d6 and dpercentile.

That said, I'm one of the people that 4th Ed works really well for. Part of this, I'm sure, is that I'm brand new to D&D specifically and pen-and-paper particularly. So I don't have the "baggage" (as someone earlier called it) from earlier editions of the game. Also, for me… my gaming style means that while I enjoy pretending to be my character, I never AM my character, so using minis doesn't really do that much to remove me from the feel of the game.

As for the using minis to represent something that clearly doesn't look like it, my group uses pretty much anything to represent people/monsters, including coins, jelly beans, M&M's, Skittles, and the occasional gummy worm dragon. We are a very laid-back group though, so it's quite possible that has something to do with it.

P.S. Apologize for the double post, my computer screwed up there, my bad!
.-= Anthony´s last blog ..Sword-smithing? Armor-crafting? Carve a pointy stick? =-.

Nice to have a few more analytical tools for why though. The Disassociated Mechanics article was great (thanks for the link, Alex!) and helped to organize a lot of my thoughts.
.-= Sean Holland´s last blog ..September Plans =-.