gamegrene.com

WotC just released the sheets: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/ExperienceCharacters.zip

I want to say more but, due to lack of time, I'll summarize to: a) I've never found an role-playing rules system I like (probably because I find myself having trouble following the conventional rules of the greatest RPG ever, being Life) and b) The GM and the players are responsible for role-playing, not the rules, and c) Eh. yeah, they're pushing the combat of the system to use their damn miniatures, but the other areas they're focussing on (primarily: more things to do, more MMORPGish powers, etc.) seem to me to be the right direction. I know I, for one, will probably be quite interested in getting a Gamegrene D&D Game Table group going. Not with me as DM (I haven't DM in, Jesus, 15 years now?), but definitely as a player.

My feelings echo some of the things said here already.
While I like the move toward simplified, streamlined rules (such as combat), I dislike that this feels more and more like a MMOG (with or without RP in the middle).
The fact that 6 hours of rest heals all of your wounds.
The fact that characters have no reason to use normal attacks (they have at-will powers which are plain better).
The fact that in all the WotC articles I've read, the fact that combats are now more streamlined and quick is used to enable more complicated combats, and not to reduce the amount of combat in a session.
The fact that the game is now more class-based than ever.

Why?

Yeah, and the accentuated miniature slant.

As I posted on the official forums. The new rules might make it a much better game, but it will also feel much more like a game and much less like "heroic fantasy simulation".

What a complete load of crap

That depends on the RPG, Elliot. Games that want to heavily emphasize the "role" part do good not to include dice if they can find a way to resolve conflicts without them. I agree with you, however, if you mean a game without any conflict mechanic: that's a nightmare. But you only find that on online rping (the stuff where they post what their character does and what happens), which is ok, but not nearly as fun as table-top with a way to resolve your actions.

The big problem with most complaints about whether this is a "roll" playing game or not is that if you don't like aspects of the game, you can toss them. For instance, in my group, skills like diplomacy, etc., were an addition to the real roleplaying. I don't care if you rolled a natural 20, insulting the Duke will get him pissed at you. I'm going to buy 4th in a few hours, so I can't say much concerning it, as I haven't checked it out yet, but the nice things about bigger games like DnD and WoD is that if I don't like something, I can just remove it or change it. Whereas with indie games, the system's are more tightly bound to each other, so to change one aspect requires a complete overhall. This is why I'm willing to spend $100 on DnD books, something I'd never spend on an indie book (unless it is at the same level). I know that any dissatisfaction I have with material in the book can be changed, whereas I couldn't change aspects of Dogs or Don't Rest Your Head without major problems.

Dogs in the Vineyard is awesome, by the way. I recommend it to anyone who liked to have fun while being challenged.

Scordias, considering I have not yet read the books, how is 4E more conducive to single-role (as in combat role: defender, controller, leader and striker) parties than previous editions?

I remember some 2nd edition "Complete" books having tips on single-class campaigns.

hate to spend forever calculating xp only to realize that you forgot to divide in by four, or that you actually should have divided it by three, or that you've been looking at the wrong column...

Use this. It's much easier!

http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20encountercalculator.htm

That's been my argument all along, yep.

I agree with both zip and Absolam. Of course, no matter the system, it's the groups decision to rp. My group, while we play DnD and other systems not particularly known for their efforts at being conducive to rping, is a group very focused on role playing, because that's what makes the game rewarding to us. So of course a great deal of it depends on the group.

However, zip's right. Well-made system's encourage what the creator wants them to encourage. This is part of what I love about indie games, because, focused as they are, their mechanics are much better used to influence the kind of game you should be playing with that game. A great example is Don't Rest Your Head, where you lack anything like hit points, but keep track of your character's well-being through madness and exhaustion, both meant to influence key aspects of the game and your character. And WoD, as a mainstream game, is also a great example. They influence roleplaying even down to their experience system, which doesn't even consider the number of enemies killed as a part of character growth, but how good that particular player played his/her character. That's a radically different style than DnD, where, even if the Paladin is the one breaking laws (in the name of goodness!) and finding every way to circumvent both his/her character and his/her class, it doesn't matter, cause he/she helped kill all these enemies and so gets xp and advances anyway. You can argue that you could just change it and reward xp based on rping, but this is actually much more difficult than it sounds. Many DMs offer a little xp for roleplaying, but it's really only to give the characters the 100 xp they need to get into the next level and survive against the next big boss. When the system is set up a certain way, many DMs, I know me at least, have a hard time changing it in major fashion like that because of the work involved and because the likelihood of unfair adjudication rises a lot higher than is comfortable. The fact of the matter is, DnD simply does not promote rping like it could, and especially not like many other games. It has many strengths, but that is a major weakness.

I must ask Gilgamesh, why a duck? And don't you know that ducks are Mighty!? Many high school mascots say so (and several movies)...lol

Anyway, you carry a very strong point, but I think you're missing something here. DnD, even as 4th ed, is, ultimately, a game of potential. It's not a game that comes off the shelves with everything you want, but it's one you can mold to what you want. All 3 of these complaints are manageable, changeable aspects of the game.

1) The to hit mechanics can easily be jazzed up. For instance, instead of keeping static numbers, you can have the players remove ten from their various defences, roll d20, and add the remaining number. That way, they are actively involved. That's what I do, and it's what I'll still do. If that's not good enough, devise some way to to penalize them if they don't creatively describe what they're doing to avoid the blow. Meow!

2) 4th ed actually has a lot more in keeping with what you want here than any previous DnD edition. Here I'm speaking of the epic teir, which, though not quite what you're looking for, is very easily geared toward it. The epic teir is patently designed to be the point at which adventurers resolve their focal conflicts and retire into wealth or whatever. While, in the book, this is more for describing the players moving on to "greater things" (like Godhood, in one case), it can easily be made to fit into resolving all the conflicts of the main characters. For example, my character Asura would finally avenge his father and return to his family. My character Virago would finally cleanse his bloodline or face a downward spiral if not. You get the point. This is specifically made to address your concern here. The way it strikes me, the epic teir is the teir most geared towards having the players write up their own epic destinies, thus telling the DM how they want to resolve their major conflicts (this strikes me as obvious considering the extremely low number of epic teir "classes" compared to all the other teirs). This is an attempt to reconcile one of the worst problems in 3.5. Granted, it's not as good as, say, the experience system in Dogs in the Vineyard (one you'll probably like, Gil), but it does the job. Also, any talented DM can further implement what you want here, especially if allied with talented and willing players. I know in my games, even in 3.5, this was one of our mainstays. One of our players, who was playing a gnome Beguiler with characteristic verve, starting to multiclass into being a Ranger. Why? Because through roleplaying conversations with another character, a Druid who was in many ways the counselor or wise man character of the group, she became enamored with the natural world and his teachings. This was a decision that was not wise in most any way from a power gamer standpoint, but it worked for her character. The examples are endless. It's your job, as a GM, more than anybody else, to encourage and set the tone for this kind of roleplaying. It's true that DnD is not the best system for this kind of roleplaying, but it does well enough in the right hands. And it's gotten better, as far as I can see it. Meow!

3) Dnd 4th is here lightyears better than 3.5. It's set up it's skill system to be more like extended conflicts in WoD, which greatly encourages exactly what you're looking for. Also, you only roll when it's important, moments of stress and tension. A good GM can take this where it needs to go, describing well the events as they take place, especially if he/she receives feedback from the players, particularly, in the form of, "Ok, if this part of the cliff leads up to a wide shelf I can't reach over, I'm going to move to the left where it's rougher for more handholds." It's the give and take of a good group that makes it. A bad group can ruin the best made games with the most roleplaying just because they are a bad group. Meow!

Ultimately, Gil, your concerns are mostly 3.5 concerns. Also, the system is maleable and full of potential. IMHO, this system still remains the best, or has regained the position, for long-term fantasy rping (granted, however, that I have yet to look at the majority of fantasy games). It's well-made, well-thought out and expands the universe in so many ways. It's still got problems, but most of them are fixable with small tweaks and house rules. Really, like pets, it's what you buy. If you want a dog, you don't buy a duck or a cat, you buy a dog. With DnD, you buy it with a certain style and way of doing things in mind. You'll keep that style, most likely, no matter what they try to do. So, when you go to the pet store, you've made your decision, whether it be a hamster or a cat. Like Mr. Scruffy! You make the game, in the end. Nobody plays Monopoly by the real rules.

Meeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooow!

Well, if there's any place to put down roots, this is it. I was introduced to gaming through 3.x DnD, so I owe it a lot, despite it's many and variable flaws. And I just finished reading the PHB of 4th today, so it'll help me in this discussion.

1) Actually, that change is a variant rule suggested in the 3.5 DMG. I, like you, want the players to have the dice in their hands often (when it's called for), so I implemented it. It actually doesn't make it take any longer. You both just roll at the same time and compare final results. It really takes about as long as it did before. And it makes combat more fluid, more interesting, especially for the players. As for the slippery slope, well, sure. But that's the point I'm trying to make. Ultimately, nobody has to take the system as is. That's one of the great things about a roleplaying game compared to a computer game or an MMO. If I don't like that mechanic (not because it makes my character less cool), I can change it. If you feel the need to make an entirely new mechanic, do so. I'm already thinking about it. I like most everything about 4e, but I'm really bothered by the mechanic for saving throws. It strikes me as something they threw in because they needed a mechanic there but didn't know quite what that mechanic should be. So they choose a 50-50 mechanic, which makes zero sense. So, if I can find a satisfactory way to do so, I'll change it. Any ideas?

2) That's a fine speech, Gil, and I'll admit, you've got me pinned here. In fact, I totally agree with you. So you know what you should do? Run a game that lays bare this apparent hipocracy in the game world. That's just rich with philosophic fun! Dude, I'd love that kind of game. Explore the undercurrent here in-game. Hold the debate and see where your players go with it. If you see the game world set up so flawed, rip it open and show it for the farce it is in game. See what the players try to do about it! Just thinking about it makes me antsy to play in or DM that kind of game.

Also, I think your cars been to the mechanic and come out the better for it. In 4e, they addressed that concern by making every tense situation (whether it be combat or negotiations) an "encounter" which is what you get experience for. I have yet to read the DMG (that's next!) but I have a friend who is probably the most "role"-playing bent person I've ever meant, and she's given it her stamp of approval. Also, much of this problem can be resolved by adjudicating. I'll agree, however, that that isn't satisfactory, and I'd prefer a different set up than one so arbitrary. However, experience, by what I've seen, is the bane of all games, so much so that many games just choose to ignore and get by as short games, ones that last several sessions. One of the best games I've ever played, Dogs in the Vineyard, still has trouble with it's experience mechanic. In this game, you only get experience (xp is very different here than DnD but still representative of the same thing) by rolling a 1 at a particular time. This is something that every game struggles with, and, admitting that I'm no expert on roleplaying games, I've yet to find a system that really succintly sums up what we mean when we talk about experience.

Don't you have a website dedicated to your game, Gil? I'm pretty sure you or someone else posted the link somewhere, but I've yet to check it out. Wanna repost it? Now that I've got more time for a little while I would not mind checking it out. Good luck with your 4e game. I think it's a good system, good enough for DnD. I don't play DnD for rping mechanics - I've other games more geared towards that. I play DnD to be a hero, or to insidiously play with the hero ideal, both of which DnD is excellent at.

Jason Bulmahn of Paizo's take on the 4e GSL:

http://iuztheevil.livejournal.com/19034.html

Came across this very nice (and fairly rant-free) analysis of 4e which I thought I'd share:

http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/is-dd-4e-really-role-playing/

A very well-written article, though I do have some trouble for it. There's no doubt that 4e has many of those aspects (moving in squares is an excellent example and one aspect I'll prolly drop), but I don't see it as much of an overall charge in that direction. In 3.x, you moved in squares, too, but they were just divided by 5 feet increments. It's incredibly unrealistic to think that everyone moves in 5 feet increments. In that sense, whenever combat is done in a grid-like style (the best way, outside of video games, really), it detracts from the simulation. However, this grid style is necessary because it keeps combat fair, keeps the GM or the players from arbitrarily deciding things that seriously tip the scales. "No, you can't hit the bad guy with your gun because Jared's in the way." "I am? I haven't even moved yet." "You started that way." Things along those lines. Perhaps a game designed specifically with non-grid combat in mind would do excellently without it, but we all know D&D has never been such a game. Also, 3.x was never very kind to the simulationist player anyway. What justifies having 300 more hit points at epic levels than at lower levels? Realistically, nothing. The fact of the matter is that when you play D&D, you have to let go of your simulationist leanings, accept that it's a fantasy game (so reality's gonna get played with) and go from there. I consider myself either a simulationist of a dramatist (usually the former, but I have my moments), but I recognize that D&D isn't conducive to that. So I don't attempt to force it. The important things for me to simulate (my character's mannerisms, his conversations) are things that I know won't be screwed with and that I can do as I like. I let go of realism in D&D combat a long time ago. If I want realistic combat, I'll play World of Darkness. As I see it, D&D has moved more dramatist (3.x was very gamist) and the expectations placed on it by simulationists has only brought back the pain brought in from 3.x over again. It was unrealistic to think that it would go that direction when it's been more successful for them to go the other. The only thing to do is to accept it and move on. Realize why you play D&D as opposed to another game and, when you want whatever you play D&D for, play it. But if you want something else, play that instead.

Yes and no, with regards to encounter powers. I understand where you're coming from, but they actually nerf that concern very nicely. Basically, the idea is that the power is draining, and so can't be used until the characters take a small rest (like, 10 minutes). They only get their encounter powers back if they do the rest - you can easily make things very, very difficult for the PCs by driving them and not allowing them their rest time. I actually see this as a major improvement over 3.x because it better simulates becoming tired. If you just drive on for combat after combat, you'll start to see it mechanically. If the PCs take their time to rest a little, they'll be fine. The thing about 4e is that on the surface it does look very gamist, but as you delve into the game it actually carries many simulationist traits. They're just not particularly obvious.

However, per day powers, something introduced, I think, in 3.x, is highly unrealistic. Perhaps from a magic item or object, but not from a personal perspective. I can't think of a single thing that I can only do once per day that doesn't also wipe me out completely. The best way I can think of to resolve this is to assume that fantasy heroes have a "power source" from whence their daily powers come, which is a part of the rules. That doesn't completely satisfy me, however, but I'll let it go for the purpose of having fun.

That's really what it's all about. Having fun. If it's fun in a particular moment to be gamist, I'll do that. If it's fun to be simulationist, I'll do that instead. And if it's fun to be dramatist...you get the point. I think that 4e is an improvement as is really more simulationist than 3.x. It's just harder to see. Most of the complaints people have are really small things. Perhaps little things that make a bump on your simulation, but nothing major or worth truly worrying about. When they start trying to prevent me from playing my character the way I want to play my character, then I'll be worried.

Also, I don't mind the options. I usually only latch onto a couple of additional options in the other books and use the core for everything else. The extra options help the rules visualize the character as I visualize him.