Thema: 4E - Kritische Stimmen

[Daeinar]

Ich kann mir die 3.5E mit der Bearbeitung nach dem Motto "alles raus, was keine Miete zahlt" durchaus sehr gut vorstellen.

Und was hat dich davon abgehalten dies in den letzten Jahren zu machen?

Alles, was ich so außer RPG mache, um mein Leben zu gestalten.

[Zechi]

Häufig bedarf es auch einer entsprechenden Anregung durch Dritte. Mich haben z.B. die niedrigen Tp auf Stufe 1 grds. schon immer gestört (ich habe auch schon AD&D Zeiten volle Tp auf Stufe 1 gegeben, wie wahrscheinlich sehr viele andere auch). Nichstdestotrotz habe ich es bisher nie radikal geändert.

Ähnlich geht es mir z.B. bei dem Diplomatie-System. Ich habe eigentlich nicht mit den fixen DCs gespielt, aber im Prinzip nur eigene DCs festgesetzt (wie viele andere wohl auch). Wenn es jetzt ein gutes Alternativ-System gibt, dann kann ich mir gut vorstellen das es viele verwenden werden, wenn sie bei der 3E bleiben sollten.

Gruß Zechi

[Archoangel]

Ja, ich denke auch, dass es in der 4e die ein oder andere Regel geben wird, die es Wert sein wird, sie in die 3.5 zu übersetzen. Leider wohl auch vieles, was nur lustig zu lesen ist...aber was solls. Allein aus Sammlungsgründen müssen die Core-Books gekauft werden (oder aber, um später mal sagen zu können "Ich war dabei, als D&D den bach runter ging." .)

[DU#1229]

Allein aus Sammlungsgründen...

Für die knapp 100 Taler würde ich lieber die Pathfinder Bücher kaufen!

[Windjammer]

Allein aus Sammlungsgründen...

Für die knapp 100 Taler würde ich lieber die Pathfinder Bücher kaufen!

Haste schon in der Schule gelernt, dass Du Äpfel mit Birnen nicht vergleichen sollst - sondern nur mit Äpfel ? Also wenn schon denn schon! 3.75 here we come!

I thought I was going to die from laughter when I saw that one of my monsters was getting "Pimp Slapped".

[DU#1229]

Ich gebs ja nur ungern zu, aber in der Schule habe ich das nicht gelernt!

[Berandor]

Das Teil klingt klasse.

[Wormys_Queue]

naja, Critical Hits ist ja die eine Sache, Patzer ne andere.

Da bin ich sehr gespannt drauf, das kann man ^ja eigentlich gar nicht richtig machen  

[Berandor]

Stimmt. Für Kritische würde ich mir das überlegen, einzubauen, um das Ganze etwas aufzulockern (und Leute dazu zu bringen, Wuchtwaffen zu nehmen).

Patzer? Nö.

[Jilocasin]

~edit~
Huch wo sind die Posts von Wormys_Queue hin?

Hier?

[Wormys_Queue]

sry wegen der Verwirrung, ich hatte auf Windjammers Hinweis hin Zechi draum gebeten, das ganze in den 4E-OGL/SRD Thread zu verschieben. Split ist auch gut, ich hab nur nicht gedacht, dass das so schnell geht, eigentlich wollte ich hier ne Warnung posten ^^.

[Windjammer]

In diesem thread hatten wir auf S. 8 (20 Tage her!) das gute alte Thema, wo die 4E die "Simulations-"Aspekte der 3E hinter sich gelassen hätte. Auslöser war ein Interview mit Sara Girard und Bob Heinsoo, in dem u.a. steht

that the most interesting shift for people is that this game does have a different paradigm, in the sense that previously simulation was king.

Die Aussage hat damals bei Berandor und Daeinar Kopfschütteln erzeugt. Ich habe gerade einem relativ frischen (20. März) Interview mit Andy Collins auf dem Tome Podcast zugehört, das diesen Aspekt noch mal genauer erklärt. Ich habe mir die Mühe gemacht, dass zu transskribieren, auch wenn ich weiß, dass Ausführungen zu diesem Thema für 90% der Forennutzer überflüssig sind (weil sie für sich schon genau wissen, wie sie die 4E diesbezüglich einzuschätzen haben). Da der Text lang ist folgt ein Hide-Text.

Spoiler (Anzeigen)

Q1. So when it comes to those rules, what has been done to capture the wonder and wow of D&D?

From the beginning of this design effort we have tried to catch ourselves back to what made the game fun for us at all stages – not only when we first started playing (whether that was 15 or 25 years ago) but also what keeps us coming back to the game. Ultimately D&D has a lot of iconic touch stones of shared experiences that people from all editions know. You got fighters, wizards, clerics, that get down into a dungeon to fight monsters in a dragged out fight. They wield flaming swords and cast fireballs and true wounds – those sort of elements transcend any rule set, any edition of D&D, they are what makes D&D what it is, are the identity of the game, of property, of the brand.

So we knew: those elements we had to remain true to. But what we wanted to really play around was the execution of those elements – how to bring these things to life within a rule set that keeps the rule set compelling and exciting - not just for people who’ve been playing it for 20-25 years but also to new players coming in. That means adjusting our approach to simulation, to realism, to highlighting what certain characters do better/worse than others. That meant increasing the reliance on teams – well, everybody is a specialist, that’s what you got, a party of characters, there is no one of you who can do this all by yourself. That’s something that harkens back to the earliest days of D&D and we wanted to keep that as true as it’s ever been and heighten it for the new edition.

Q2. So you want to bring back a lot of iconic elements – but what about team work?

[…Well, what changed is] how we approached class design. In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience. A lot of the classes designed in the last 30 years are not interesting, are not compelling either in a fight or maybe out of a fight, but just pale compared to other characters on the table top. Who really wants to play a monk when you can play a rogue or a fighter, who can do all these things - ok, the monk gets to jump and run around a lot but what does he really get to contribute at the table that other characters don’t do better than him. The wizard can fly – so why do you need someone who jumps well?

So whenever we were approaching a new class we had to home in on what makes this guy special and unique within in the game - not just in the world of D&D but, since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece.  It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming.

[Zechi]

Morrus, der EN-World Admin und bisher 4E Skeptiker hatte Gelegenheit ein 4E Demo zu spielen und beschreibt seinen Eindruck:

General - Morrus plays a 4E demo


Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to be invited by Charles Ryan (the former D&D Brand Manager who now works for Esdevium games here in the UK) up to Esdevium's offices to participate in a demo game of D&D 4th Edition. So I, and three others, duly jumped into our cars and arrived at Esdevium's office at 10am for a day of gaming!

Charles was a courteous host and an excellent DM. After everybody had been introduced, he took us on a brief tour of Esdevium's offices - including a warehouse containing more RPG products than I have ever seen in one place in my life. Cue jokes about returning late at night with a van...

Now, believe it or not, this was my very first 4E game. I was unable to make it to D&D Experience, and I've resisted the temptation to use any pre-released fan-compiled rules documents; obviously I was already fairly familiar with how things work from the many news scoops I've posted over the last 8 months or so, although two of the people with me were far less versed in the system. Neither had any trouble at all getting to grips with it in short order, however.

Charles did not yet have copies of the core rulebooks (apparently Esdevium's stock is on a boat somewhere in the Atlantic right now, and Keep on the Shadowfell, the preview adventure, is on a plane somewhere). So he was working off what I assume is the same document used by those running demos at D&DXP and elsewhere; the document, which I did glance through, seemed to be a fairly comprehensive covering of the combat section of the PHB.

The adventure being run was Scaleglooom Hall, which many of you will have played at demos, and many more of you will have read about already. It's a fairly simple dungeon crawl containing kobolds and, at the end, a young black dragon in a very bad mood. We used the official pre-generated PCs, and Charles allowed us to switch characters halfway through the adventure so that we got chance to try different things and see how each of them played out.

So, my impressions?

1) Up until now, I've had problems with some of the thematic elements of 4E; while the mechanics looked solid, I didn't like the idea of first-level characters teleporting about the place, people taking damage for no apparent reason, and all the special effects flying about. I must admit, I am more of a traditional Sword & Sorcery man - themetically, I like things a bit more "mundane" than the default D&D assumption, and I iew high level 3.5 as a superhero game system. This is something I accept I have to get used to - D&D doesn't try to model anything other than D&D itself; that said, I don't feel that modifying it would be too difficult for, say, a 3rd party publisher - merely use a different power list or come up with alternative explanations and visuals for the powers.

However, my opinion has shifted somewhat on the matter after seeing it in play. Because it works. I can't deny that the fights were fun, and I can't claim that the thematic elements bothered me one jot whilst in-play. It all fits together just right in a way you can't really tell from merely reading about it.

2) Hit points, hit points, hit points... I feel that at this point in the stage, hit points really need to be renamed and rebranded. Yes, I know they're a sacred cow and they aren't going away any time soon, and yes, I like the mechanic because it's simple, cinematic and abstract, but they really need a new name! Over the past couple of editions, we've been moving away from the "hit points are physical damage" model, although D&D never completely divorced them from the concept. At this point, though, we've reached the point where hit points represent everything - damage, fatigue, luck, divine favour, and morale.

Once you get your head around this basic truism, all the random damaging and healing effects suddenly make sense. Why does the monster take damage just because he attacked someone other than the paladin challenging him? Morale; he's backing out of a fight and that weakens his resolve. Second Wind? Watch a Rocky film. It's all cinematic, and it works. Just, whatever you do, don't think of it as physical damage.

We did expereince the oft-mentioned "Paladin challenges then runs away" bug; however reports indicate that that has been fixed in the final PHB draft. I'm not sure how, but I'd imagine it will be incumbent upon the Paladin to actually try to engage the critter he's challenging.

3) The designers have told us for months that combat is faster and more fluid. I think it is. I think it's also simpler and more intuitive. However, it should be remembered that we were playing 1st-level PCs, and my home 3.5 campaign has just reached 20th level. With that in mind - yes, it seems more fluid, more mobile, and more interesting. People do have more options in combat, and the system feels more flexible. While it doesn't allow you to do things you can't do in 3.5, it does seem to integrate those things a little more smoothly and with far less rules referencing.

We did find that once the daily/encounter powers had been blown through (in our case, during the first round of the dragon fight), we all simply repeated the one at-will power that seemed to work best against it. Our hope is that higher level PCs will have more options at that stage of the proceedings, because it did become a tad repetitive. As Tira the Warlock, I was simply using Eyebite every round given that the dragon's weakest defence was its Will score.

4) The dragon TPK'd us. Bastard. I was the last standing, though - admittedly, that's because Eyebite made me invisible to the dragon for a round whenever it hit.

5) Action Points - I had no opinion about them before this; didn't care one way or t'other. As of yesterday, I love them! It adds just a little bit of control into the players' hands, and gives them that little resource for when they need something special - in our case, when meeting the dragon, we agreed to all use our Daily powers followed immediately by an Encounter Power (earned by spending the Action Point) in an attempt to hit it with everything we had in that first round. We still died, though!

We all very much enjoyed the session, which lasted about 5 hours or so. We didn't see the social encounter system or attempt any Skill Challenges, both of which I'm impatient to try out - this really was just a first-level combat demo. But there was a general feeling of anticipation after the demo, shared even by the 4E doubter who always hates everything. We have a couple of weeks to finish our Age of Worms 3.5 campaign, at which point we should be just in time to start Keep on the Shadowfell.

Einen wichtigen Satz habe ich hervorgehoben Ansonsten deckt sich das sehr mit meinem ersten "Playtest".

Gruß Zechi

[Archoangel]

Netter Artikel Zechi, aber falsches Unterforum...oder willst du wieder neue 4e Diskussionen mit Kampfargumenten bis Tzel oder Tala den Thread dichtmacht?

[Wormys_Queue]

aber falsches Unterforum...

Wieso? Immerhin ist es doch ganz gut geeignet, den Kritikern ein bissl Wind aus den Segeln zu nehmen. Und es ist ja tatsächlich so, dass bei manchen Kritikern (davon nehm ich mich gar nicht aus, und da ändert auch Morrus' Spielbericht nichts dran) eine gewisse Sturheit nicht zu verleugnen ist.