Newsgroup: it.hobby.giochi.gdr.dnd
Titolo: QUARTA edizione 4th - a Chris Pramas finora non è piaciuta

un'esperienza negativa da nientepopodimenoche Chris Pramas
http://freeport-pirate.livejournal.com/88801.html
4E Test Drive
I had a chance to actually play D&D 4th edition today. A friend of
mine who still works at WotC got permission to run the demo adventure
from the D&D Experience at her monthly game day. Since I'm still
waiting for WotC to finalize the Game System License, this was the
first opportunity I've had to see something of the rules and try them
out.
Short Review
It's an interesting system that didn't so much feel like D&D in play;
nonetheless, the brand power of D&D all but ensures this will be a
success and it may even redefine what D&D means for the next
generation.
Long Review
Since the announcement of 4E last Gen Con, a common critique of the
emerging rules was that they looked more to MMOs than RPGs. My play
experience suggests something else. The roots of the new rules are not
in MMOs at all, but collectible card games. Building your character
seems much like building a deck in Magic: the Gathering. You have a
selection of powers and special abilities that are exceptions-based.
Some powers you can only use once per encounter, like tapping a card
in a CCG. Character turns have a very specific order, with beginning
and end of turn actions used to handle bookkeeping issues. Part of
character and party building revolves around power combos. In short,
4E seems to be what people feared was going to happen with 3E after
WotC bought TSR, though thankfully without a collectible component.
Now one of my concerns had been that 4E would simply be a revised 3.5.
I'm glad 4E is not that. I really felt that 3.5 was just more
complicated than it needed to be and I hoped that 4E would simplify
things. While it does fix many of the ongoing issues with 3.5, my
feeling after today's session is that it's just complicated in a
different way. It's not something I think experienced gamers will have
a huge amount of trouble with, but it does seem that 4E may be even
more unfriendly to new players than 3.5 was. It looks like 4E requires
newbs to make too many choices and track too many things to make it
truly accessible. Since D&D has always been the entry point for most
RPG players, this is my most serious concern.
Of the current D&D players, I suspect most of them will switch over to
the new edition, despite the unimpressive marketing campaign that
we've seen to date. There are many options for character customization
and players who like tactical combat will find a lot to work with. I
understand there are some kind of social interaction rules, but I
haven't seen them. The focus seems squarely on combat from what I
could tell. There were interesting choices to make during fights and
it wasn't just a matter of trotting out your best attack again and
again. The CCG style of the rules and the changes to the IP did make
the game feel a lot less like D&D though, at least to me. And since
the rules seem to have been tailored to provide a very particular
experience, I don't think they will make as good of a base for the
variety of campaign settings D&D used to see. It's pretty clear that
WotC realizes this, which explains why they felt the need to advance
the timeline and have an apocalyptic event in the Forgotten Realms. I
don't think many of the old campaign settings will transition over
without a lot of cutting, spindling, and mutilating.
What I think WotC is going for here is what Marvel managed to pull off
with their Ultimate line of comics: take the core of the IP and
redefine it for a new generation. There will certainly be some
longtime fans disenfranchised by this move, but I don't think there
will be enough of those folks to hurt 4E. (I do think, however, that
there will be enough of those for a third party company to carve out a
good business for itself catering to them, but that's a topic for
another day.)
All of this is, of course, based on what I've managed to glean so far
from released info and today's play experience.  I would naturally
like to see the new rules in their entirety and doing so may change my
opinion about some things. If the GSL gets sorted out this month,
maybe I'll get the chance for a more in-depth read soon. If I feel
like spending 5K to do so anyway.
risponde subito Mouseferatu
It's an interesting system that didn't so much feel like D&D in play;
nonetheless, the brand power of D&D all but ensures this will be a
success and it may even redefine what D&D means for the next
generation.
I'm a little surprised to hear this, Chris. My experience has been
that, while I agree that many of the mechanics are indeed different,
the feel of the game is closer to my conception of "true D&D" than 3E
ever was.
Obviously, it's going to depend primarily on what one thinks the feel
of D&D is, and I'm not trying to downplay your reaction to it.
Obviously, if you didn't feel like it was D&D, then to you, it's not.
But to me, it feels--and I mean this in the good thematic ways, not
the clunky mechanical ways--like a partial return to the good parts of
the Basic-through-Master boxed sets and 1E.
That said, I'll agree that I'm a bit concerned about new players. But
at worst, I don't believe 4E is any harder to learn than 3E, and may
be easier for some.
e sempre Mouseferatu risponde alla domanda "definisci feel"
2008-03-03 06:56 am UTC (link)
Heh. I wish I could do so clearly. It's the old pornography argument:
I know it when I see it. ;-)
That said, I'll do what I can.
I think it has to, at least for me, with the way the mechanics
interact with the intended purpose and the flavor (or "fluff," though
I hate using that term) of the game. To me, 3E always felt just a
little mechanically clunkier than it needed to. It felt like a nit-
picky amount of numbers had taken precedence over the fantasy feel.
That in trying to define everything, and be all things to all people,
it had lost the sense of the fantasy and the fantastic that older
editions had.
(Caveat: I played 3E consistently since it came out. I had great times
with it, and it was a great game to both play and to write for. I
don't want to come off as saying otherwise. But given what I
specifically wanted from D&D, it felt like it was getting farther
away.)
One of the reasons I liken 4E to the so-called BECMI set is because it
really feels like it provides a solid core, on which you can build
damn near anything, without going too far--or at least not as too far--
into defining every tiny little detail. It feels "freer," if that
makes any sense. Like I won't have to work past or in opposition to
the rules if what I want is a good fantasy setting and/or story. The
combats are more tactical and more interesting, yet the game itself
doesn't feel nearly as restrictive.
(Caveat the second: Lest I come across as attempting to paint 4E as
too perfect, I'll say that I do have a few problems with it here and
there, but they're all minor, or have to do with what's not been
included yet, rather than rules issues. I'll also say that I think
that, in order to do "D&D-style fantasy" better, 4E may have
sacrificed some of 3E's ability to be bent/folded/altered to fit other
genres. I, personally, don't have a problem with that--I much prefer
an RPG that does its specific thing excellently to one that does lots
of things decently--but I know that won't be everyone's reaction.)
None of which necessarily explains what I think the "feel of D&D" is,
and I apologize. I guess all I can say is that I'm feeling some of the
old excitement that I felt with BECMI and 1E that 3E never entirely
captured for me.
--
Fabio

with their Ultimate line of comics:
l'avevo detto, no?
-- 
 Domon

Quindi ogni scontro sembrerà una partita di MtG?
Un tantino allucinante...
Sincerely
Lorenzo Ivaldi

 Un tantino allucinante...
Io invece lo trovo curiosamente interessante...
salut
-- 
_______________________
l'Iran ha chiesto l'intervento dell'Onu contro gli Stati Uniti perché
loro hanno Chuck Norris 

Un tantino allucinante...
già: pieno di ribaltamenti, tattica e cose imprevedibili
-- 
 Domon

 Sincerely
guarda se avere una scelta tra x abilità significia giocare a magic
praticamente tutti i giochi sono magic
la cosa che mi lascia perplesso del commento di Pramas è che la green
ronin si trova a un bivio, ovvero potrebbe decidere di non passare
alla 4th e puntare tutto su true d20 e mutants and mastermind (e
secondo me sbagliano ma fatti loro) per cui uno potrebbe pensare che
in questa valutazione a Pramas girano le balle perchè
1) non lo hanno messo tra i playtester (e questo è stato un errore)
2) la licenza per la 4' non è ancora finalizzata (e pure questo è un
errore)
--
Fabio

secondo me sbagliano ma fatti loro)
no, farebbero bene.
T20 e M&M sono i migliori prodotti d20 usciti, degli ottimi motori di
gioco, e piuttosto amati. aggiornare loro è una ramificazione molto
interessante.
-- 
 Domon

 secondo me sbagliano ma fatti loro)
Perché, il Trono di Spade non conta? ^^
E avrà un sistema completamente NUOVO.
In ogni caso secondo me fanno benissimo a continuare con i loro sistemi, 
sono giochi con basi (anche commerciali) solide, stravolgerli proprio ora 
sarebbe un grosso sgarbo ai fan, che non sono esattamente pochi. Buttarsi a 
pesce sulla 4a edizione stravolgendo due giochi dalle meccaniche coerenti e 
ben affinate solo per sfruttare il traino commerciale IMHO sarebbe stata una 
vaccata clamorosa. Ma poi chi mi dice che la meccanica base di D&D4 si 
presta bene al supereroistico e al non-fantasy? M&M e T20 in comune con il 
d20 standard non hanno poi molto, dato che quest'ultimo al di fuori delle 
tematiche fantastiche *NON* funziona per nulla bene (e non mi metto a fare i 
soliti pedanti elenchi, perché CoCd20 e Modern sono prodotti della stessa 
WotC).
Mutants & Masterminds come vendite è secondo solo a D&D negli States, può 
fregiarsi di diversi supplementi di qualità e presto anche di un setting 
tratto dalle opere di un certo Martin (Wild Cards - di cui guarda caso, 
stanno anche per uscire i fumetti) e un paio di supplementi che lo 
renderanno multigenere (fantasy e anime-mecha).
Che poi a Pramas girino le balle... beh, è un altro discorso, ma francamente 
credo che abbia fatto una scelta *giusta e coerente*. Dopotutto nulla gli 
vieta in un futuro prossimo di pubblicare materiale per D&D4. Al limite gli 
basterà buttare fuori un D&D4 Companion per la Pirate's Guide to Freeport e 
sarà già a posto ^^


 se questo non vi disturba continuate pure a leggere ^^
che siano ottimi sistemi è ovvio
ma che non producano supplementi per la 4' è secondo me un errore
commerciale, proprio loro che hanno tenuto in sospeso la versione
wuxia per dnd :( :( :(

praticamente tutti i giochi sono magic
beh io trovo interessante quando parla di poteri da usare una volta a 
partita e li compara
al tappare le carte di magic....trovo l'esempio molto calzante
Everett

 wuxia per dnd :( :( :(
Dragonfist era previsto come gioco a se ;)


 Dragonfist era previsto come gioco a se ;)
sto ancora aspettando

 sto ancora aspettando
Ho detto *ERA* :(


 
http://freeport-pirate.livejournal.com/88801.html
C'è anche un post successivo che chiarisce alcuni punti relativi a
cosa farà Green Ronin (non "3.75e") e alla sua valutazione di 4e.
Ma più interessante è il punto 6 ;)
GP


grazie dello spunto volevo giusto postarla:
Sunday's post sure opened a can o' worms. A few things have come up in
comments, e-mails, and message board posts that I'd like to address
about my 4E Test Drive.
1. I have had a taste of the new rules, but I have by no means come to
a final verdict about them. I really do want to read the new core
books and see the whole thing in the proper context. Green Ronin may
indeed support 4E, but I need to see the GSL first and then review the
game. The new rules do look like they support a specific style of
play, but within that style I can envision some good products GR could
do.
2. D&D feel is indeed hard to nail down. All I can say is that play
reminded me more of FFG's Descent than D&D.
3. When I bring up other types of games, I'm not making comparisons in
a pejorative sense. I like Descent, I like minis games, and I like
some CCGs. When I said the new rules were interesting, I meant it. The
question is will they feel like D&D to the players out there? I can't
speak for anyone but me on that issue.
4. I do think that a third party company could stick with 3.5 or do a
"3.75" upgrade and make a good business for itself catering to fans
who feel disenfranchised. Green Ronin, however, is not that company.
Our last 3.5 books, the d20 Freeport Companion, just got back from the
printer and is releasing this month. That's going to be it for us. I
just don't think that we're well-positioned to be that company and
frankly I'd rather be more forward-looking. We have A Song of Ice and
Fire coming out this summer and we have True20 as an already existing
alternative.
5. Saying that I see TCG roots in the 4E rules does not mean that I
think the game is a CCG. Of course 4E is a RPG. The question is how
important is the "R" in the new edition and I don't have enough info
to say yet.
6. However this shakes out, I'm not worried about what I'll play
myself. I have more games already than I could play in a lifetime. If
I want a D&D experience and 4E doesn't do it for me, I have many
previous iterations to choose from. Hell, the most recent game I've
been playing has been using the D&D Rules Cyclopedia and that's been a
blast. At the moment my primary concerns about 4E are business
oriented.
7. Gary Gygax died today. There's no better way to honor him than
playing some D&D--of any edition--this week. I know I will.
--
Fabio

 wrote:

dimenticavo il link!
http://freeport-pirate.livejournal.com/88877.html
--
Fabio

d20 standard non hanno poi molto
E anche qui dissento.
True20 non e' riuscito la' dove secondo me stava la sua grossa carta
da giocare: non ha dato al d20 una buona gestione delle abilita'. Ha
solo "liberato" certi privilegi di classe equiparandoli ai talenti,
"smontando" le classi.
Pero' poi non fa altro che rimandare il tutto alle tre macro-classi.
Hai solo un sistema che va a +1 con meno +1 a tua disposizione.
Parvati V
-- 
UnaMoleDiDadi (TreEmme Torino):
http://umdd.altervista.org/
IHGGera #1069, IAFa #182 ^^^
http://parvatiquinta.altervista.org

molto calzante
Ha colpito anche me. In effetti i poteri ricordano molto le carte,
piu' dei vecchi incantesimi di D&D (che comunque erano gia' sulla
buona strada).


 "smontando" le classi.
Che comunque è già qualcosa, in effetti preferisco la gestione delle abilità 
di SW Saga.
E M&M?


E M&M?
Mai visto ne' giocato percio' non posso commentare.


 Pero' poi non fa altro che rimandare il tutto alle tre macro-classi.
concordo in toto
tra l'altro questo è il classico caso da "karate kid" il true 20 sta
in mezzo alla strada, o fai un sistema senza classi o uno con le
classi 3 macro classi???? mah
meglio tante classi core ;)
--
Fabio

 meglio tante classi core ;)
Manco morto ^^
O niente classi o classi "broad"


 O niente classi o classi "broad"
why? capisco il niente classi ma non il classi "broad"
Fabio

why? capisco il niente classi ma non il classi "broad"
Beh e' questione di gusti suppongo.
A me non piacciono perche' comunque non puoi fare quello che vuoi, se
cerchi un mix. Se non lo cerchi, tanto valeva avere la classe
specifica e fare meno lavoro.


 why? capisco il niente classi ma non il classi "broad"
Questione di gusti, mi piace la possibilità di personalizzare. Già SWSaga (e 
presumo D&D4) con i vari trees di abilità da una sufficiente possibilità di 
personalizzazione.
Le classi "rigide" non mi piacciono molto (tranne che in Feng Shui, che 
essendo un gioco basato sui film d'azione DEVE presentare dei cliché), 
soprattutto quando preludono a decine di classi base e centinaia (migliaia?) 
di CdP.
