I remember posting a video up on Youtube when I was young(er) and naive(er) about why 4E D&D was a pretty good role-playing game that remained (kind of) faithful to classic D&D.
My opinion has changed and, looking back, I was completely talking out of my ass.
Don't get me wrong, It's still a pretty good role-playing game, and the books themselves look absolutely great, but the game itself isn't in my style. Of course, I'm not talking about this in terms of changes from the various classic edition's rules (there never were any) or spirit (there might have been groups that played it as a series of miniature battles above all else).
Why don't I like it? Let me count the ways.
#1. Dungeons and Dragons: The Game of Fantasy Battles4E retains the goal of accumulating power via looting ruins and stabbing orcs in the gut, which is cool. However, it takes this to the extreme. Everything is balanced around combat. I can't remember what page in the DMG this is on (someone out there help me out), but it says that a 4 hour session will likely consist of 4 fights around 20 to 30 minutes long. That's way to long to keep the attention of me or my players. All the character classes abilities are balanced around them spending half an hour using their Hadokens and Tiger Uppercut powers grinding down hit points (God help you if you try anything else). Half the excitement of classic D&D to me is exploration into the unknown, wondering what lies beyond the dungeon at the edge of town, into a vast wilderness.
In 4th edition, the time spent between a fight feels like a rush to get to the next exciting scene in a narrative linear story crafted by the game master (more on that later). Add to the fact that you are pretty much required to have a grid with miniatures since spacing and flanking is more important than ever. I know a fun activity where I spend a few hours having two teams fighting, with an emphasis on tactics and strategy, getting to watch my warriors improve from battle to battle: Skirmish wargaming. I recommend Necromunda, Gorkamorka, and Mordheim(a).
#2. Every Little Thing in its PlaceThe rules seem neurotic about balance (looking at magic-users in 3.x, I really don't blame them). It feels like a lot of the risk that was inherent in older editions is gone, as if a potential player who had his character die in a freak critical hit will tear up their character sheet and never play again, forever cursing the name of Dungeons & Dragons, warning any prospective new-comers...
To ensure no loss of a prospective customer base, every character is an unique and beautiful snowflake from day one of their career. This is fine by itself, allowing everyone a chance to shine on and off the battlefield. Too bad this also applied to everything else. Your adventure must have exactly 10 encounters (fights or skill challenges), give out these treasure parcels, and have this matrix of difficulty that we have set for it as a whole. What if a new player has his character come into the middle of the adventure? Maybe I'd like to put in this neat house rule? Uh-oh, then the balance of the whole thing is ruined, and all the little systems collapse in on themselves!
But don't worry, the characters will survive regardless, take this precise amount of damage, survive X amount of fights, and then rest on the 7th day. Of course, as long as they were maxed out at character creation and they're always doing the optimal action on their turn, or else...
The above probably is hyperbole, but it illustrates a point about 4th Edition. Everything must be done the way the book asks you to, and does it to the point where the game as a whole in incredibly un-modular in design. Balance and guidelines can be a comforting blanket for people like me because they ensure that as a DM, I can't possibly screw up. But eventually they act like a straight jacket denying creativity and neat ideas from outside the system. 4E has become self-aware, and now practically runs itself. When the risk and danger that random elements provide are taken away, so is the excitement of the players possibly failing, and the game ceases to be entertaining. And isn't entertainment the reason why we play these games?
#3. It May Be Built on a GimmickI'm sure every critic of the game has compared the class "powers" system to another game,
that one game, a computer game itself inspired by D&D. I'll be tactful and not state its name. Regardless, it's probably responsible for a number of people leaving the role-playing hobby, the rest remaining as the players who continue to play games like D&D for all the right reasons. This is probably a dumb theory, but might the power systems alongside narrative linear adventure design be a way to get people back into playing these games they abandoned? but here lies a problem: If I wanted to play
that one game, I'd just play it. Why bother with an expensive and confusing knock-off in book form?
That one game can do the math for me.
That one game was written by professional writers and storytellers.
That one game has tangible graphics and can take me on an epic quest across a fantasy world with sixty character levels of play.
Interactivity and the act of collaborative storytelling is one of the few things that traditional role-playing games have left over their digital counterparts. The more we attempt to compete with
that one game, the more outdated we look.
Traditional RPGs aren't inferior, they're just something completely different, and I can't wait for something like the holodeck to finally replace them.
This whole article probably comes off as a bit Grognard.txt, because it kinda is. I might harsh feelings for 4E, but not of the people who enjoy it. Claiming whether they must like it or not isn't my position, and
it never should be.
