4th edition D&D is for advanced players
When I started playing Dungeons & Dragons, there were two different versions: The basic D&D, and the first edition of "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". We played the latter, because it had "advanced" rules like different weapons actually doing different amounts of damage. But that was an age where you still needed to explain to new players that they were "playing a character", and not moving a game piece like in Monopoly. Today children grow up playing characters in video games, and while that doesn't involve "in character" role-playing, everybody is at least familiar with the basic concept of controlling an avatar. Thus even a basic version of Dungeons & Dragons can be more complex than it was in the 80's. But I would say that beyond such a basic version, there is need for an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". And to me, 4th edition is just that.
The core rules of D&D Next, as far as we know them, appear to me to be suitable for beginning D&D players, as well as to the kind of veterans who prefer extremely simple combat. D&D Next rules solve at least some of the most blatant flaws of early D&D, like wizards running out of spells after the first round of combat. And if everything Wizards of the Coast are promising us comes true, there will even be optional rules modules which make combat increasingly more complex. Nevertheless, the core of D&D Next is such that no optional module can possible bring the game up to the advanced complexity of 4th edition.
Now 4th edition obviously isn't for everybody. I saw a rant on YouTube yesterday where the guy was complaining that the fight in the Keep on Shadowfell module against 5 kobolds took his group over 4 hours to complete. To me it is rather obvious that the DM and players of that group simply couldn't handle 4th edition rules. I played exactly the same combat with a group new to 4E, but experienced roleplayers, and we managed it in 1 hour. Now we all got some more practice in 4E combat in, I could probably run it in half an hour. Even with the worst of rolls on both sides that fight can't possibly take more than 10 rounds, and if you need half an hour for a single round of combat, you're playing extremely slow. That isn't a fault of the rules system, it is players unable to decide where to move, or what powers to use (out of a choice of just 4 at level 1), or having to read the rules for every move. I can fully understand how people unable to grasp more complex tactical rules, or unwilling to try, wouldn't want to play 4th edition.
Nevertheless I think it would be a mistake for Wizards of the Coast to stop supporting 4th edition and let D&D Next supersede 4E as the "one and only" version of Dungeons & Dragons. After 4 editions of steadily increasing complexity, you can't simply reset the game and demand of your more advanced players to be happy with a much more simplistic version. Just look at the outcry Blizzard caused when announcing to further simplify talent tree in Mists of Pandaria, and that is just a very minor simplification compared to the step down from 4E to D&D Next, even with optional modules.
The same outcry is already happening in the D&D Next playtest. Now D&D Next is a lot less balanced than 4th edition, so the simplification hits different classes to different degrees. In 4E there isn't much difference in complexity between a wizard and a fighter, in the D&D Next playtest rules the wizard still has lots of tactical options and the fighter is a primitive brute reduced to basic attacks (which deal a lot of damage, apparently WotC thought that would make up for the simplicity). On a recent interview Mike Mearls said the feedback from D&D Next clearly showed that the majority of testers were unhappy with that fighter.
I think going back to a two-tier system with D&D Next being "basic D&D" and 4th edition continuing to be supported as a form of "advanced D&D" would be the best solution here. It simply would be impossible to span the whole range of complexity with core rules and optional modules. 4th edition has a very different basic structure than D&D Next, which no optional module can fix. And advanced players simply won't go back to a game with much simpler rules, however much new or more simple players might enjoy those.
The core rules of D&D Next, as far as we know them, appear to me to be suitable for beginning D&D players, as well as to the kind of veterans who prefer extremely simple combat. D&D Next rules solve at least some of the most blatant flaws of early D&D, like wizards running out of spells after the first round of combat. And if everything Wizards of the Coast are promising us comes true, there will even be optional rules modules which make combat increasingly more complex. Nevertheless, the core of D&D Next is such that no optional module can possible bring the game up to the advanced complexity of 4th edition.
Now 4th edition obviously isn't for everybody. I saw a rant on YouTube yesterday where the guy was complaining that the fight in the Keep on Shadowfell module against 5 kobolds took his group over 4 hours to complete. To me it is rather obvious that the DM and players of that group simply couldn't handle 4th edition rules. I played exactly the same combat with a group new to 4E, but experienced roleplayers, and we managed it in 1 hour. Now we all got some more practice in 4E combat in, I could probably run it in half an hour. Even with the worst of rolls on both sides that fight can't possibly take more than 10 rounds, and if you need half an hour for a single round of combat, you're playing extremely slow. That isn't a fault of the rules system, it is players unable to decide where to move, or what powers to use (out of a choice of just 4 at level 1), or having to read the rules for every move. I can fully understand how people unable to grasp more complex tactical rules, or unwilling to try, wouldn't want to play 4th edition.
Nevertheless I think it would be a mistake for Wizards of the Coast to stop supporting 4th edition and let D&D Next supersede 4E as the "one and only" version of Dungeons & Dragons. After 4 editions of steadily increasing complexity, you can't simply reset the game and demand of your more advanced players to be happy with a much more simplistic version. Just look at the outcry Blizzard caused when announcing to further simplify talent tree in Mists of Pandaria, and that is just a very minor simplification compared to the step down from 4E to D&D Next, even with optional modules.
The same outcry is already happening in the D&D Next playtest. Now D&D Next is a lot less balanced than 4th edition, so the simplification hits different classes to different degrees. In 4E there isn't much difference in complexity between a wizard and a fighter, in the D&D Next playtest rules the wizard still has lots of tactical options and the fighter is a primitive brute reduced to basic attacks (which deal a lot of damage, apparently WotC thought that would make up for the simplicity). On a recent interview Mike Mearls said the feedback from D&D Next clearly showed that the majority of testers were unhappy with that fighter.
I think going back to a two-tier system with D&D Next being "basic D&D" and 4th edition continuing to be supported as a form of "advanced D&D" would be the best solution here. It simply would be impossible to span the whole range of complexity with core rules and optional modules. 4th edition has a very different basic structure than D&D Next, which no optional module can fix. And advanced players simply won't go back to a game with much simpler rules, however much new or more simple players might enjoy those.
Comments
Post a Comment