OD&D player tries 4th edition

[oldgamergeek]

I must have committed some horrible act in a past life , a friend of my nephew got 4th edition for Christmas and wanted to try it here is my review
character creation is waaaayyy to long and convoluted ( big word for over blown ) combat is little to long for me ( could take nap waiting for my turn ) still to many skills at low levels ( this includes feats )
call it anything but D&D and it would be alright . still it is better than 3. whatever .

[snorri]

That was my impression too: some things are better than 3x, but when with my wife we just tried to create some characters to feel the mood, we found it was impossible to create a subtle one - all spells do damages....... I was bored with 3.5, and hoped it could solve some problems. I wont say it's a bad game, but it conforted me into going back to the roots of d&d.

[chgowiz]

Dec 28, 2008 16:49:06 GMT -6 oldgamergeek said:

I must have committed some horrible act in a past life , a friend of my nephew got 4th edition for Christmas and wanted to try it here is my review
character creation is waaaayyy to long and convoluted ( big word for over blown ) combat is little to long for me ( could take nap waiting for my turn ) still to many skills at low levels ( this includes feats )
call it anything but D&D and it would be alright . still it is better than 3. whatever .

I tried 4E for two 8 hour sessions in June. This was with a DM who had done 3E for a long time, and he was very excited about 4E. He also played the D&D Miniatures game quite a bit.

Character creation took a couple of hours. This was mainly due to looking up the various feats, figuring out the various powers and trying to write it all down so I could look at it during the game.

We all seemed to fall into the 3E 'experience' - meaning that we'd ask what we needed to roll to do something, and we'd do it. The RP'ing, what there was of it, was geared towards generating the situation to make a dice roll. Now I'm not blaming the DM - I find that when people have a lot of mechanics, they gear their game to doing the mechanic. I know that I did - this was the first time in awhile I had sat down with a group of D&D'ers and it was easy to fall into that trap. It was the same thing that I had experienced for 3E games - the roll play vs. the role play.

Combat was where things got very ... wierd.

First off, the DM played the kobolds very well. Grenade throwing kobolds (jars of flaming oil and acid) who gained powers because they were close to their boss. (There were a bunch of terms thrown about that reminded me of cooperative first person shooters, like "Team Fortress" or "Counter-Strike" and I just started hearing things like "strikers", "controllers", "warlords" and I kept hearing "blahblahblah... " it just wasn't fun.)

So we had to organize into these fire teams and figure out how to do things. Now this was the fun part of the game because we sacrificed a wagon and it's team of hireling drivers to bridge where a trap had been laid. I then figured out that my tiefling Sorcerer could do some really insanely powerful things (at first level...) and we had some seriously fun combat. I will admit it, between the wagon careening out of control and my Sorceror laying waste to a bunched up group of grenade throwing kobolds, it was fun.. but it took FOREVER, almost the entire gametime to finish this. Well, we did, and that was that. Then it went back to a series of rolls to see if we saw anything, or heard anything or...

Was it D&D? Well, it was fantasy and it was dice rolling. It didn't feel like the D&D I grew up with and preferred to play. It felt a lot like Squad Leader with mages and kobolds throwing grenades. Fire teams, zones of control, assigned team roles - I felt more like a mercenary than a sorceror who wanted to overcome his racial past. All we needed were walkie-talkies and a terminal with a hacker jacked in and I would have thought this a Shadowrun game.

I try not to get into the edition wars because I just don't have the experience or the skills to really dive into mechanics and compare them on the basis of statistics or game-play. I know what "feels" right to how I play and I know the kinds of games that I have the most fun in. That's what I go with.

I like it when I can just say, like I did last night to my wife, "OK, your goblins shove the table into my fighter and knock him over... it's going to take him a full round to pick himself back up..." and it just be because it seems the right thing that would happen - rather than a bunch of dice rolls for STR and DEX checks and Acrobat skills and all the other mechanics.

I would play 4E again, and probably will, just like I would play 3E or any game - if it's with a fun set of people and we're going to have a good time. My heart, though, is with the OD&D/Holmes/1E/simulacrums.

[Finarvyn]

I think that 3E turned out to be a DM's nightmare with these huge and ugly monster stat blocks. In that sense 4E appears to be a lot better. I was disappointed by the time needed to generate a 4E character, however.

[snorri]

That's exactly that: a DM nightmare. Really, when I discovered 3.5, after my RC campaign ended, I feel there as a lot ofgood idea (3 saves, ascending ac, ...) and I played it a lot - I still finish a campaign with my current players, then will propose them od&d. The main nightmare is to create a high level NPC. With 3.5, it can take hours... with RC, a few minutes. And od&d, I could create it 'on the spot'. 4.0 has some good points, but... eeh, probably it don't fit my current imagination, and don't solve the 3.x problems. Most players says they're happy with it and I trust them, but I won't masterize it now.

[dwayanu]

My impression of how long character generation takes comes only from having a more experienced player handle the technicalities while asking me multiple-choice questions along the way.

I'm recovering now from a 20-hour marathon of playing the game. The drawn-out combats definitely don't excite me anywhere near as much as old-school ones (an exacerbation of a problem I had with 3E). My loathing of "skill challenges" at least meets some seconding from the devotees as to "poorly designed" ones.

[vladtolenkov]

My problem is with the sheer amount of information that has to be tracked between levels--which admittedly is the same as or less than 3E. I get tired as a player having to keep all that stuff in my head. I could see Paragon and Epic level play getting very fiddly.

And yes. . .character creation can take a while. Which sucks.

It also doesn't work as well with small groups of players--you can make it work but earlier editions didn't have as much of the math dependent upon party size and roles.

However--the monsters absolutely rock.

I actually learned something from 4E in regards to monsters.

I think this applies to ANY edition: have the monsters do their cool stuff right away. Don't save them for later--cause if the party is doing their job then those monsters are going to die and maybe die quickly. I mean a vampire who doesn't even get to bite someone or work his hypnosis mojo on someone isn't a very interesting vampire (at least as a foe in combat).

[chgowiz]

Dec 29, 2008 19:45:03 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

My loathing of "skill challenges" at least meets some seconding from the devotees as to "poorly designed" ones.

How did these skill challenges work in your game? I've been reading the ongoing "Art of War" blog entries on skill challenges, and I can either imagine a very long sequence of roll playing with the "skill rolls" thrown in at various points or just a boring set of rolls. I don't have the 4E books, so I don't know how they are explained there.

[Finarvyn]

Dec 30, 2008 3:28:24 GMT -6 vladtolenkov said:

My problem is with the sheer amount of information that has to be tracked between levels

You've summorized what makes OD&D superior to almost every other RPG ever written. For most games there are many details to keep track of, but OD&D has so few. Most of the information that I keep about my characters is player-created and there simply aren't that many numbers I need to run the game.

This doesn't mean that other games can't be fun, but sometimes I really feel overwhelmed when I try to juggle them.

[coffee]

I long ago swore that I would never run 3.0 (or 3.5) for that very reason: Overwhelm. I just can't keep track of it all -- but I know that a player, somewhere, will. Then he'll use it to trip me up (I just seem to find contentious players all over the place...)

I will, however, run OD&D at the drop of a hat. I wouldn't even need to have a dungeon in front of me; I'd just make it up on the spot if need be! (But it'll be better with a dungeon already made...)


That being said, I'll still play 3.5, or any other edition that rears it's head. I'm pretty flexible that way.

[dwayanu]

My fundamental problem with skill challenges is that they are fundamentally decoupled from "simulation" of the situation. The referee actually has more freedom of interpretation even in RPGA events than is in my experience usually deployed, but by design the formalism cuts out what I would call substantive role-playing.

Success requires a set number of high rolls, and failure is dictated by a set number of low rolls, regardless of actual circumstances. This easily produces utterly absurd situations, and I think there's a limit to how palatable one can make a long skill challenge in any event.

Q: How many 4E characters does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It depends on whether you're playing the "low level" or "high level" version of the scenario!

[chgowiz]

dwayanu,

That's what I was thinking when I was reading those blog articles, but since I never took part or tried to run a 4E skills challenge, I had nothing to compare it to.

Funny QA.

[dwayanu]

The RPGA scheme almost of necessity takes some things to even more ludicrous extremes, but I'm learning that a lot of 4E was designed in heavy-handed response to bad behavior by poor players and poor DMs (often simply poor sports).

In all my years of playing O/AD&D, I recall only one case of egregious misconduct by a DM. No doubt others have had worse luck, but I really don't think it was epidemic even in the early years of 2E. Then the concept of the DM's role firmly shifted from "referee" to "storyteller." The design of the game did not change to match that radical realignment, and heavily "railroading" modules actively encouraged cheating (or "fudging" as some prefer to call it). At the same time, supplements (often with negligible play-testing) were being desperately churned out and sold with the premise that ever more rules additions meant ever more improvement.

With 3E, the notion seems to have been that power had corrupted DMs. The proposed solution was to make a heavy chain of rules to bind the villains. Power to the players! Unfortunately, the new game produced a bumper crop of munchkins and rules-lawyers no longer kept in check by their natural predators (the de-fanged DMs).

From all across D&D-land arose great wailing and gnashing of teeth, and terrible cries of, "It's not fair!" With DMs an endangered species, the world was on the brink of falling into a chaos of battling Half-Drow Ogre Magi Wizard/Monk/Assassins and Stinky Cheese Men.

The final solution: One System to Rule them All. Obviously, players left to their own resources are incapable of having FUN^TM. Outcomes must be equalized by Central Planning in accordance with scientifically established FUN^TM maximization algorithms.

===

The funny thing is that some players seem to be True Believers in this story. Tonight, I heard one fellow compliment the DM on evoking a bit the old days when there was mystery in the game, and fight scenes were vividly imagined rather than consisting of number crunching, and ...

But then he caught himself, and hastened to add the mantra about why those fond memories were really of the Bad Old Days.

The young DM, on the other hand, never experienced the Old Ways ... and he's curious!

[chgowiz]

Dec 31, 2008 3:32:24 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

The young DM, on the other hand, never experienced the Old Ways ... and he's curious!

I, for one, welcome our New Sadistic Old School DM Overlords. ;D

[Random]

Dec 31, 2008 3:32:24 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

The final solution: One System to Rule them All.

I run into this problem a lot. It takes a million years to convince hard-headed players to play anything but the new official D&D (and they pull bullcrap excuses like "oh THAC0 is stupid, so the entire edition is stupid"), and it's d**ned near impossible to get them to accept any house rules, which isn't so great for me since I like a game that's a melting pot of various D&D edits.

[tavis]

In June 1979, Gygax said (Dragon #26):

Gygax said:

The ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS rules comprise a different game... It is neither an expansion nor a revision of the old game: It is a new game.

Gygax said:

Because the D&D system allowed so much freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules were incomplete, vague, and often ambiguous, the D&D game has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played... there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. The AD&D system rectifies the shortcomings of the D&D system... There are few grey areas in the AD&D rules, and there will be no question in the mind of participants as to what the game is and is all about. There is form and structure to the AD&D game, and any variation of these integral portions of the game will obviously make it something else...

Gygax said:

Conformity to a more rigid set of rules also provides a better platform from which to launch tournaments as well... ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS gaming, with its clearer and easier approach, is bound to gain more support, for most people play games, not live them.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

From my point of view, I didn't see the differences between Holmes Basic -> AD&D -> 3rd Edition as anything but clarifications and improvements until 4th Edition came along and demonstrated where the striving towards standardized rules and conformity of play in order to allow organized tournaments (currently the RPGA) was heading. Having a thriving Internet community ready to explain and explore the virtues of roots-radical D&D at that point was critical in helping me understand what had been lost in the process that turned the command spell from "say any word, and the target must obey if it fails a save" (Greyhawk) to "say a word from this list, and the target must obey if it fails a save" (3E) to "roll to hit, and if you do the target is dazed and either pushed or knocked prone" (4E).

I don't think we can fault the 4E designers for achieving an almost-30-year-old goal, and if the similarly aged belief that doing so will help bring more gamers into the fold proves to be true, so much the better. I do think that WotC would have done well to emulate Gygax's emphasis that "it is necessary for all fans of gaming to be absolutely aware that there is no more similarity (perhaps even less) between the [new edition] and the [old edition] than there is between the [old edition] and its various imitators published by competing publishers."

But it's now obvious to me that much of what I enjoy about AD&D comes from the fact that Gygax failed so beautifully to eliminate grey areas, and that 4E's having done so isn't a problem simply because it focuses on a style of play that isn't my preferred one, but because it impedes my ability to shift the focus as I see fit without conflicting with the rigid structure of the system and the expectations of the players.

Thankfully, here's Gygax again:

The [O]D&D game will always be with us, and that is a good thing. The D&D system allows the highly talented, individualistic, and imaginative hobbyist a vehicle for devising an adventure game form which is tailored to him or her and his or her group. One can take great liberties with the game and not be questioned.

Have an exalt, Gary!

[chronoplasm]

Dec 30, 2008 3:28:24 GMT -6 vladtolenkov said:

My problem is with the sheer amount of information that has to be tracked between levels--which admittedly is the same as or less than 3E. I get tired as a player having to keep all that stuff in my head. I could see Paragon and Epic level play getting very fiddly.

You aren't supposed to keep that information in your head though; you are supposed to keep it on your character sheet.

And yes. . .character creation can take a while. Which sucks.

Yeah, it usually takes me about ten minutes for each character. Level 1 characters anyway.
It's faster than 3.0 though.

It also doesn't work as well with small groups of players--you can make it work but earlier editions didn't have as much of the math dependent upon party size and roles.

Yeah, I can agree here.

However--the monsters absolutely rock.

I actually learned something from 4E in regards to monsters.

I think this applies to ANY edition: have the monsters do their cool stuff right away. Don't save them for later--cause if the party is doing their job then those monsters are going to die and maybe die quickly. I mean a vampire who doesn't even get to bite someone or work his hypnosis mojo on someone isn't a very interesting vampire (at least as a foe in combat).

They are easy to customize and reskin, too.

[Deleted]

1989 edition of the Dungeon Masters Guide for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition
says quite clearly (and this is something I have argued many times over the years as a DM and a player) if you cannot find a rule to cover something.. Make it up!

it is the grey area's that have allowed us to create such memorable gaming sessions that even now almost 20 years later (for me) I think back on as if they were only last week.

I lost interest when my old group moved to 3.0 even after they all said "no way" and "never"
which was what soon became catch cries when 2nd Ed was mentioned.. those books of mine now sit in a box in my parents garage, on the other side of the country... not touched in years.
because for the simple reason of that with 3.0 and following editions, the imagination and magic was gone from the game..

it now played like a bad version Black Isle Studio's CRPG which is exactly what the publisher wanted, a pen and paper CRPG..
like was said it now plays out like a D20 Tactical Warfare scenario ideal for tournaments, but really suited to capturing the imagination?

3rd Ed, 4th Ed whatever, it's just not the same game any more, so play on an play hard, I'll keep my 2nd ed and ODD memories as they were...

[thegreyelf]

Yeah, even Gygax said in later years (in various interviews, online postings, and whatnot) that his initial editorials regarding the nature of AD&D were intended to be aimed at convention and organized play, not home play, and he himself even offered house rules and tweaks for people to use at home.

Those editorials are often quoted to defend the "rulebook uber alles" mentality of later edition D&D players, but even Gygax retracted their tone as the years went on.

I find that 4th edition--despite a few transparently token nods to the contrary--is little more than a highly advanced tactical miniatures game. The moment an "Encounter" begins, everyone spends all their time maneuvering into the most tactically advantageous position from which to use their Encounter Powers. And every single encounter goes like this:

1. Evaluate the enemy.
2. If the enemy is powerful and/or contains more than one named bad guy, use Daily Powers immediately.
3. Maneuver into a tactically advantageous position
4. Blow all Encounter powers. These will largely be identical, or a variation on a similar theme for all characters, save the ability score they're based on.
5. Hopefully by now the enemy has been defeated.
6. If not, resort to At Will Powers and pray.

I did not find character creation took a long time, as others have said. Your choices are minimal at first level anyway. But the game is clearly setting out to completely redefine what D&D is: they have even redefined "role playing" from "having a character like in a novel or movie" to "being a controller, striker, defender, etc."

[EDIT]Please note that's only my reading and play experience. YMMV and all that jazz.

[rabindranath72]

It's nice to see this discussion did not devolved into an hate fest.

My experiences with 4e have been minimal. I only DMed one session, and I only had one player: my wife. Who is usually more concerned into telling me what she wants to do, than anything which is written on her character sheet. Character creation was quite fast, since I used the pregenerated builds (half-elf sorcerer). The minute we started, my wife started doing all sorts of crazy things (I had adapted Zanzer's Dungeon) which the game did absolutely not support by any rules. Which was fine by me; and I used the table on pag. 42 of 4e DMG as aid for the guidelines. By the end of the session, I had DMed the game as I was DMing (A)D&D anyway, and my wife was not interested in tactical encounters at all, so I felt there was no point in using the new game at all, and sold my new 4e books.

And just recently, I met a bunch of guys who only know/play 3e and 4e (they are quite young; the oldest is 25) and since they wanted me to DM, I chose AD&D 1e. So, they have rolled up their characters, and they have enjoyed the freedom in making out whatever background without minimal reference to rules. Now, they look forward to play their first Dragonlance game: DL1, Dragons of Despair. It will be a long, fun ride! ;D

[Deleted]

I'd play it if someone would run a "one-off" for me. I've played every other version D&D and AD&D several times (and two versions for many years), it would be a shame to break the streak now.

[chronoplasm]

I'd be willing to run a 4E PBP if somebody would run an OD&D PBP I could play in.

[benoist]

Though I am very critical of the game system and its design concepts and intentions, I am giving 4e a chance right now, since I am playing into a Play-by-Post 4e Eberron game at the moment. My thoughts at the moment confirm what I do not like about it.

I think this iteration of the game is still (as compared to 3e) way too nitpicky and needlessly complicated for a fantasy role-playing game. It is still a "role-playing game", however. Not a boardgame or just a minis tactical game.

What surprises me at the moment is how bad the "on to the fun" philosophy can get with a 4e game. Travel has already been skipped completely in the game multiple times, to get directly to encounters the DM feel are "worth playing".

You know the part in the 4e DMG that tells new DMs to fast-forward the discussion with the town guards because it's "not fun"*? That's exactly what I'm playing right now, and I don't like it one bit. It kills creativity at the game, kills 90% of the cool bits that come from the unexpected at the game table, uber-railroads the players, and so on.

On the plus column, I must say the game just started a few days ago. I very well might be having a knee-jerk reaction, and the rest of the game might end up being a lot more enjoyable for me. So I'm staying, not criticizing anything, and I'll see how the rest of the game turns out nonetheless.

* 4e DMG, p.105: "Fun is one element you shouldn't vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through parts of an adventure that aren't fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren't fun, so don't sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren't fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun."

[chronoplasm]

Aug 3, 2009 15:57:47 GMT -6 benoist said:

What surprises me at the moment is how bad the "on to the fun" philosophy can get with a 4e game. Travel has already been skipped completely in the game multiple times, to get directly to encounters the DM feel are worth playing.

Aw man, that sucks. Travel is a really good opportunity for skill challenges.
If you want to do more stuff with travel, then you should say something to the DM about it.

[coffee]

Aug 3, 2009 15:57:47 GMT -6 benoist said:

From 4e DMG: "Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren't fun."

Except insofar as they evoke atmosphere.

Oh, and feelings of paranoia ... "I know there are goblins around here somewhere -- why won't they show themselves?"

Clearly they're going for a different brand of "fun" than some of us.

[chronoplasm]

That's not a hard and fast rule though, it's merely a recommendation. Obviously the DM should tailor the game to suit the needs of the players.

[benoist]

I agree. The problem (potentially) is not with DMs who have the experience and just discard the whole thing in the rulebook, but what about the DMs who learn how to run the game from these books? You know, the ones 4e is supposed to bring to this hobby for the first time. The DM I play with right now is applying these recommendations as you see them appear here pretty much by the letter.

I'm not really impressed so far. Sorry to say.

[dwayanu]

I think it's mostly aimed at people who already agree with the examples. In any case, the basic principle is part of the first piece of advice in the 1st ed. DMG (in the Introduction, giving the skipping of wandering-monster checks on the way to a dungeon as an example of when and why to distort or disregard rules).

It's not to my taste, but that does not mean I've got to go out of my way with invidious readings. The only reason I care about it at all is the trademark on the cover. If I were to consider the OD&D booklets purely on their own merits, my review would be far from flattering -- even though I love actually playing the game. With 4E, it's the opposite: well designed books (including a lot of, in context, good advice for DMs) ... but for my taste a mostly dull game.

[apeloverage]

"Fun is one element you shouldn't vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through parts of an adventure that aren't fun."

This is good advice, but assuming that every group will find the same things fun

[dwayanu]

Gygax:

More "realistic" combat systems could certainly have been included here, but they have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure. (DMG, p. 9)

YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT. (DMG, p. 37)

Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that ... while it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings ... fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts ... magic-users should be deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically ... thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "job" ... [this is] conducive to non-game boredom! (DMG, p. 85)

That's just off the top of my head. I am sure one could find many other statements by the Dungeon Master as to "the right way to play". Perhaps they go down more easily when one happens to agree with them?