D&D 4e’s Out… And It’s Awful. Here’s Why

Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition has hit open sales, but as my review bits show, you probably shouldn’t bother (see the “4e PHB Readthrough” posts on this blog for the nitty gritty). It’s a World of Warcraft-inspired tactical combat game, but very unlike (and incompatible with) previous editions of D&D.

I’m not some insane 3e-only-lover or D&D-hater. I’ve gamed since the early 1980s, starting with Star Frontiers and quickly moving to the D&D Basic set, and happily migrating to AD&D first edition, AD&D second edition, and D&D third edition. Each time, the new version with its greater simplicity yet more options easily sold me on being an improvement on the previous version, and I cruised right along! My bookcases still bear the weight of more Second Edition gear than anything else, just because they published the most product ever in that generation – but except for repurposing adventures it lay fallow after the upgrade. I view players of “1e derivative” products like Castles & Crusades and OSRIC with pity.

I’m also no D&D-only guy – I’ve played everything from Deadlands to Feng Shui to Call of Cthulhu – I have several Cthulhu Master’s tourneys under my belt and have playtest credits in things as farflung as “Wraith: The Great War.” Check out my RPG reviews – they’re pretty widespread. I also can’t be accused of being just a “collector”, I play all the time. So I think I know RPGs in general, and D&D in particular.

I don’t have a (previous) bone to pick with WotC. I helped launch 3e as one of the original Living Greyhawk Triads at Gen Con 2000.

4e is the first time I thought of D&D “Whoa – this isn’t going in the right direction.”

Not only is it the largest change ever in D&D, possibly excepting only the shift from the OD&D mostly-minis rules to 1e, but it’s a negative change – not only relative to D&D but also to the rest of RPGdom. If some other company put out this exact game under a different name, it would already be sinking into obscurity. Like Windows Vista, it’s a failure – a failure that will regrettably sell enough copies, due to its maker’s market share, that they will deceive themselves likewise into thinking it’s a success.

My chapter by chapter 4e readthroughs are revealing a lot to dislike, but what’s the mile-high view of what the problem is? It’s a couple main categories.

Back Incompatibility

The oddest thing about this new ruleset is that they didn’t just change the mechanics. You expect mechanics to change in each edition, and being incompatible there is no offense. But D&D has always been a game with a rich history of continuity. People run games in their favorite or own campaign setting for decades.

In 4e, they have decided to “rewrite history.” Previous core races, classes, and spells that have been enshrined in novels, campaigns, and tradition have been discarded. Greyhawk, the campaign setting that has thrived from OD&D until the last issue of Dungeon Magazine, is now impossible with the new D&D as written. The cosmology, which previous classic stories like the Temple of Elemental Evil revolved around, are changed. Wizards don’t use the Vancian spellcasting model, which has been an integral part of D&D always.  The same campaign/campaign world cannot transition from 3e to 4e without a complete rewrite; something that’s never been required for a D&D version upgrade before.

What makes this new game D&D, besides the branding? If another company released this under a different name, it would get reviews on RPG.net about being a “fantasy heartbreaker” with “better than average production values” and that would be it.

Retreat from Openness

With Third Edition, D&D took a brave step into empowering their community and “sharing” the core of D&D by picking up the open source concept of open licensing. Product flowed, companies sprung up. The best stories since the classic 1e modules came from companies like Paizo Publishing and Green Ronin.

Now, Wizards has decided to say a big “screw you” to that. Not only are they not using any more open licensing, but they are requiring companies who are 4e licensees to agree not to publish materials under the old open license. After a big stink, the restriction was “clarified” to only apply to products in the same product line, but that’s a difference only in the magnitude and not the nature of the hostility towards openness here.

They are just giving off “closed” vibes about everything. From their behavior toward their playtesters to their jerking around the entire D&D publisher community with their delays and equivocation regarding licensing. Heck the GSL still isn’t out, and was supposed to cover fan sites but now that’s “coming later.” Their every move is dripping with lawyeriness and disregard for their customers and partners. It’s hard to keep an open mind towards the game itself when its maker is being a grade A asshole.

Awful, Derivative Rules

So maybe I could say back incompatibility was OK – after all, the Wizards adventure products in 3e were all derivative “returns to” the original great D&D adventure locales, from the Temple of Elemental Evil to the Ruins of Greyhawk. A fresh start would be nice, perhaps. And I like openness, but I can see the business drivers that sometimes make it not a good idea. If 4e was a brilliant game, those two complaints lose their luster.

But even when you take it to the table – 4e is not brilliant. They took some steps towards improving the game – the core mechanics are cleaner- but then they just layered gratuitous awfulness on top.

“Oh, all that tracking of effects like Bless is such a bummer!” they said. Sure, we’ve all had combats that get slow because people are trying to remember all the pluses and minuses from Bless, Haste, etc. And what did they do? Put an “aura” on nearly every monster, and make every power for every class give fiddly little minor bonuses for one round in duration. So now instead of remembering “+1 to hit from Bless, and another +1 to hit and damage from the Prayer, for the entire combat” you get to remember “oh, this round Fred hit someone with some power and I have +1 to hit this turn only. And we’re in a monster’s -1 to damage aura. And Jane’s heal spell also is giving me a free healing surge if I do that instead of attacking on this turn only. And the warlord’s aura is giving me +1 to hit, until he moves away from me.”  Their goal was good, their implementation worse than 3e – one-round effects and aura effects plus more mobile combat equals pain.

And call me crazy, but when I play a RPG I like to be able to pretend my character’s a real person in a real world, albeit with differences from reality, like magic – but still internally consistent. They are kicking that in the balls with each chapter of 4e rules. From the preposterous economics to movement only being in “squares,” to marking – it’s nearly impossible to “pretend you’re there,” and not just be playing a board game.  They’re deliberately moving away from immersion as a chief goal of an RPG.

And the ripoffs from World of Warcraft are just sad. I know WoW is awesomely successful and they’d shoot their CEO to get 1/10 of its business.  But the character “builds,” and talent trees, and disenchanting magic items into magic dust, are utterly blatant ripoffs. I’ve always hated derivative crap in D&D – when someone makes an adventure with monsters obviously taken from the movie Aliens, I don’t think “yay,” I think “boo.” It’s not that I don’t like WoW, either; I’ve got a level 69 priest who’s about to go raiding myself, but it’s not the same experience as D&D or any real RPG.  Orcs and spells aren’t what makes a RPG a RPG – you can have a novel, a computer game, a picture, or a RPG sharing the same fantasy dress. It’s the ability to live in another world and look through another person’s eyes for a short time. And 4e has decided that’s no longer in scope.

Was 3e perfect? No, and it’s gotten heavy under its weight. I support initiatives like Pathfinder that look to fix what’s wrong with 3e. But 3e is the highest point in the D&D game’s evolution – it’s to be built on, not thrown away.