Newsgroup: it.hobby.giochi.gdr.dnd
Titolo: QUARTA edizione 4th - opinioni di un playtester scettico

qui di seguito trovate le opinioni di uno dei playtester della 4'
edizione nonchè sviluppatore di giochi
che è partito dal "imparo la 4' perchè mi tocca per lavoro ma continuo
a giocare con la 3.5 nelle mie campagne" per approdare "amo la 4' non
gioco con la 3.5 neanche per sbaglio"
certo può essere che sia un corrotto figlio del sistema ma credo sia
giocatore e appassionato onesto come tutti quelli che per vivere fanno
gdr :)
vi riporto il testo significativo:
From Ari Marmell's blog. I believe he's posted it here as well, but
since I'm not sure where...
I've finally been told that it's okay to talk about my opinions in a
little more detail.
As most of you already know, I've been both playtesting and working on
4E material. I can't say what, of course. But it does mean that I've
had the rules for months now, and have been playing in an ongoing 4E
campaign with a group of NDAed playtesters.
What I am about to offer are my true feelings. Anyone who feels like
dismissing what I have to say because of any assumed bias is cordially
invited to stop reading now.
When I first heard about 4E, I knew I'd have to learn the rules so I
could keep working. But I was fully prepared to do so only for
professional reasons, and keep playing 3.5 in my own campaigns.
That has, thankfully, turned out to be utterly unnecessary. I am
absolutely in love with the 4E system, to the point where I'm not sure
I would even be willing to play 3.5 again. Seriously; I like the
system that much more.
The mechanics are more intuitive, the characters more mechanically
interesting and--here's the big one--I haven't found D&D combat this
exciting in years. I'm having a blast with this campaign.
Are there a few things I'd like to see done differently? I think that
goes without saying. There's no such thing as a perfect system for
anyone. But on a scale of 1 to 10, measuring to what extent I like and
agree with all the changes, 4E easily rates an 8.5 to 9.
I'm sold--not just as a writer, but as a fan of the game who's been
playing since 1983.
And from the comments:
You know, I've sort of--not completely, but in a way--put my finger on
what I like so much.
It feels like they've managed to create a complete game that doesn't
feel cluttered. In a way, it's a feeling I haven't had since the Red
Box basic set.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that
A) 4E is as simple as Basic, or
B) That Basic didn't have a great many flaws and mechanical problems.
But I believe that Basic D&D did a good job of separating out what did
and did not need hardwired mechanics. I don't need ranks in "tailor"
on my character sheet, if that's never going to have a mechanical
impact on gameplay.
I'm a huge believer in roleplaying. I don't want my D&D to be pure
combat simulation. But I've also, after the mechanics glut of 3.5,
come to realize that if something doesn't have a mechanical impact, it
doesn't need to appear in the mechanics--and that doesn't make it any
less real to the character. Roleplayers will roleplay because they
want to; people who don't want to RP won't no matter what the rules
say.
4E manages, IMO, to give you exactly the mechanics you need, without
giving excessive mechanics to what you don't, in a way that no prior
edition has managed.
"This is a good sign. I value Ari's opinion." (questo è il commento di
piratecat un moderatore di En-World che ha riportato il post su en-
world)
qui trovate il blog di Ari Marmell: 
http://mouseferatu.livejournal.com/519850.html
Fabio

sempre ari marmell che risponde a varie domande nel thread di enworld
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=217629&page=3&pp=30
Wow. This thread sort of exploded overnight, didn't it?
Guys, I'd love to address your mechanical questions. I really would.
I'm just not allowed to.
I'll try to answer some of the more general questions, as best I can
without delving into mechanics.
Combat Length:
So far, I've mostly experienced two types of combat in this campaign.
Type 1: The players get lucky, and/or the DM misjudged something, and
it's over in two rounds. (This doesn't happen often, especially as we
get to know the rules better, but it still occurs on occasion. We
opened one fight two weeks ago with the party rolling three or four
crits in the first round alone.)
Type 2: The combat is long-running, but also takes many rounds to
conclude.
What I have not see much of (with one exception, detailed below) is
the "combat takes forever in real time but only actually lasted 3
rounds of game time" scenario.
(That one exception is the fact that a few of my players are of the
"casual" variety, and still haven't learned their characters' powers.
So there's still some "book-flipping" slow down. But so far, that's
been the exception rather than the rule.)
I can't say that the experience will work like this for everyone, or
all the time, or in every group. But it's mostly been the case for us
so far.
Here, let's put it this way. In 3E combat, because it took so long but
often only took a few rounds, I was always bound and determined to do
something vital in every round. Yet one of the reasons I'm enjoying 4E
combat is because, when I choose to, I can afford to take a round or
two to really position myself for a solid strike to come--and it
doesn't feel like "wasted rounds" to me.
Levels:
So far, most of my actual playtesting experience is with the heroic
tier. We decided to start at 1 and just go for as long as we were
enjoying the campaign.
Mechanics and prior editions:
Here's where we get into pure matter of opinion. I believe there are
three possible ways to handle "secondary" rules in an RPG.
1) Don't provide them at all, and let the DM handwave everything.
Basic D&D did this to some extent.
2) Try to include specific rules for everything under the sun. 3E
tried to do this. Some people like the result, but others--myself
included--felt that the result was a cumbersome clutter that kept
getting heavier as time goes by.
3) Include a solid core, with a baseline system easily extrapolated to
fit situations that aren't spelled out. This is my preferred option.
So far--and I stress so far, I'm not making any promises--4E seems to
have managed option number 3. I have a hard time thinking of any
actions or skills that couldn't be pretty easily extrapolated from the
existing mechanics.
In our very first 4E combat--a bar brawl, of course --two thugs stood
atop a table and menaced another PC. I decided to run across the room,
slide under the table, and kick it over; since they were both standing
on the far end, I figured it was a viable tactic, leverage-wise. The
DM took all of 2 seconds to decide how the rules would best
accommodate that, and we went on.
Noncombat Abilities:
See above, with the extrapolating. It may not satisfy everyone, but I
haven't felt their loss one iota, and I'm one of the bigger role-
players of my group.
(In fact, I have a theory that including non-combat skills like
"craft" and "profession" in the game actually discourages role-
playing, but it's both personal opinion and not 4E-specific, so this
thread isn't the place for it.)
Previews:
I'd say that the previews you've seen are accurate as far as they go,
but even the seemingly detailed ones are incomplete and out of
context.
Interesting Combat:
It has not been my experience that having monsters with fewer
abilities has led to less interesting combats. The combats themselves
are both more fluid and easier for the DM to run, leading him to make
more interesting use of what abilities they do have. More to the point
(for those asking about the pit fiend), remember that he's not meant
to be a solo encounter. So even if he individually has fewer abilities
to throw at the party, the DM's "team" as a whole is going to have as
many, if not more, as they had in 3E.
__________________
Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark


"fabio milito pagliara" ha scritto:
|
| Yet one of the reasons I'm enjoying 4E
| combat is because, when I choose to, I can afford to take a round or
| two to really position myself for a solid strike to come--and it
| doesn't feel like "wasted rounds" to me.
|
| 3) Include a solid core, with a baseline system easily extrapolated to
| fit situations that aren't spelled out. This is my preferred option.
|
| In our very first 4E combat--a bar brawl, of course --two thugs stood
| atop a table and menaced another PC. I decided to run across the room,
| slide under the table, and kick it over; since they were both standing
| on the far end, I figured it was a viable tactic, leverage-wise. The
| DM took all of 2 seconds to decide how the rules would best
| accommodate that, and we went on.
|
| It has not been my experience that having monsters with fewer
| abilities has led to less interesting combats. The combats themselves
| are both more fluid and easier for the DM to run, leading him to make
| more interesting use of what abilities they do have.
Allora quando cavolo esce sta 4th edizione, che devo comprarmi subito il manuale???
;)))
Bye
Beppe63