Why I Prefer 5e

Everybody wants different things out of their tabletop RPG. For myself, there are two factors that tend to impress me: Simplicity, and lots of playable races. Which is kind of funny, because those two factors - while not incompatible - often represent opposite ends of a system's design goals. I mean, Pathfinder (1st Edition) had a ton of playable races once you got into its splatbooks, but I found the system itself a little too simulationist for my tastes.

The reason I want a lot of playable races isn't because I play a wide variety of them. It's because it increases the odds of me finding a species I really love. I like fey creatures like Fairies and Dryads, plus I have a thing for cat people like Tabaxi. Rarely are these races found in an RPG's core rulebook, so a game has to be fairly prolific for it to include them.

And the reason I like simplicity... well, that's mostly because the more RPGs I try, the more difficult it gets to keep all the rules separate. When 3.5 was current, I learned it inside and out. Parts of it were more complicated than they needed to be, but that didn't bother me at the time because as far as I was concerned, D&D 3.5 was the world's only RPG. But with each new system I learned, it became harder and harder to keep them all straight.

I liked 4e at the time, because it was easier (for me) to create a character. While 3.5's classes all had their own sets of rules, 4e pretty much just had one set of rules governing all classes. Yes, a 4e fighter was slightly more complicated than a 3.5 fighter. But once you learned to play a 4e fighter, you could play any 4e class with ease. Unfortunately, 4e's drawbacks outweighed its simplicity, and that's when my groups began experimenting with other RPGs.

I glommed right onto 5e. For my money, it's the perfect balance between options and simplicity. My experience may not be as varied as some, but I have played a decent range of games. I've played games with fewer rules, but they didn't have enough character options. I've played more complicated games, and it took over an hour to build a character.

But here we get into the argument of "what even is simple, anyway"? I got into an online discussion a few weeks ago about earlier editions of D&D. I maintain that 5e is easier to learn, mostly because I've tried to learn earlier editions and found them to be about as easy as studying calculus. My opponents kept pointing out the page count of OD&D - instead of a giant PHB, its rules were confined to what was practically a pamphlet.

And you know, that would be fine, except that OD&D wasn't even a complete system. D&D's original release was more of a spin-off. It assumed you already knew the rules of two other games (Chainmail and Outdoor Survival). It didn't set out to create a brand new game, it was just a way to converting a mass combat game into a dungeon delve.

But that's just trivia, and doesn't really prove my case. The truth is, what one person finds simple, someone else finds complicated. As far as I'm concerned, truly enjoyable tabletop RPGs started with the d20 System. Any RPG that uses THAC0, to-hit tables, or any system where having low AC is better, automatically loses all of its simplicity points. 

This is how you play an RPG: You roll some dice. You add some modifiers. You try to get a result higher than a target number. Boom, period, that's it, done. This isn't golf, high numbers are always better. I'm not blaming older RPGs for being clunky, I know it took a while to streamline the rules. Older RPGs hold an important place in history, and without them we wouldn't have the games we have now. They should be respected and honored, but I'll be damned if I'm going to agree that they're "simple".

But again, that's just my opinion. Simple is in the eye of the Eye Tyrant. Personally I consider a system simple if it's easy for me to build a character. As long as you're not the DM, then you can learn most of the rules while playing. But building a character is one of the first things you have to do in a game (unless you're using pregens), and the process usually gives you a good idea of how complicated the system is going to be overall.

In D&D 5e, I can build a character in 5-15 minutes, depending on the class. Magic users take the longest, because of spell selection. And sure, you can draw it out if you want to nitpick over your equipment or whatever. But it's still one of the fastest and easiest experiences I've had with character creation. I've played some retroclones that took even less time, but it came at the cost of character options.

I frequent a lot of RPG message boards, and I see a lot of young people who want to start playing D&D, but find the size of the PHB intimidating. Most of them don't realize how little of the PHB you have to read in order to play. Sure, you'll want to glance through the races, classes, and backgrounds, until you know what you want to play. But you only have to really read the the race, class, and background you actually pick. That's probably less than 10 pages. That's enough to get your character started.

You'll want to spend a few minutes in the equipment chapter if you don't like the default gear. If you play a magic user, you'll have to read through some spells and the rules on spellcasting. Personally, I'd just make my first character a fighter and save the more complicated stuff for later. You'll probably want to read up on combat (9 pages) and maybe the chapter on adventuring (6 pages), though you can learn this stuff while playing.

Sure, it's more than you have to read to play Monopoly. But my point is, the majority of the book is stuff you can skip for now. You don't have to read all the classes, races, and backgrounds that you aren't going to play yet. There's nearly 80 pages describing spells alone. Even if you're playing a Wizard, you only need to read the spells you're thinking of taking at level 1.

There's a big push right now to get people to try RPGs other than D&D. Honestly I'd love it if people tried more RPGs, but I find the movement itself to be kind of insulting and gatekeeper-ish. It's all "Only noobs still play D&D" and "Real gamers don't play a game just because it's the most popular" or whatever. Surely there's a better way to convince people to play your favorite RPG. Maybe you could try... I don't know... mentioning the names of the systems you want them to try? And then maybe explaining what's so good about them? You know, stop putting everything down and actually stand up for something?

And every blasted one of them thinks they're putting forth this idea for the first time. "Did you know there's other RPGs besides D&D?" Well, duh, it's the 14th meme you've posted on the subject this week. If I didn't know before, I do now. But did you know that your geekier-than-thou attitude actually makes people less likely to try whatever system you're trying to push? And did you know that it's perfectly possible to try a wide variety of RPGs and still prefer D&D?

Anyway, I'm not claiming D&D 5e is the best tabletop RPG out there, or that it's even the best version of D&D. "Best" is a nonsense word when talking about personal tastes; it's not like there's a best flavor of ice cream that all people can agree on. There are things even I preferred about 3.5, and believe it or not, there's even a couple of things I miss from 4e. And if I were playing a different genre, like sci-fi, there's a few other systems I'd look at first before trying to shoehorn it into 5e (though I do want to try Star Wars 5e sometime).

But personally, for the kind of games I like to play, D&D 5e is my favorite. It's easy to learn and teach, character creation is fast, and it's flexible enough that you can make it crunchier if you choose to do so. Yes I've tried other RPGs. Yes I liked some of them. Yes some of them are better for telling certain kinds of stories. Yes I will continue to try other games.

But when I say "I prefer 5e", it's not because it has the "Dungeons & Dragons" brand name printed on it, or because I'm afraid to try something new. When I say "I prefer 5e", it's because I've tried other systems and found them lacking something I find important, even if others do not. I realized long ago that my priorities are different than most people's.

So sure, if you have any other systems you think I should try, comment below. I can't promise I'll be able to get a group together to try it, but I will at least read through the system with an open mind and give it an honest appraisal. Just don't be surprised if continue to prefer 5e.

D&D 5e Vs Pathfinder

It's been a while since I've made a non-campaign-related blog on this page.  A few years ago I wrote a blog about D&D 4e vs Pathfinder.  I didn't have a clear winner at the time, because the two systems have such different play styles.  Sometimes you're in the mood for tactical combat, sometimes you're in the mood for simulationist roleplay.  But in retrospect, it's not that much of a contest.  Pathfinder is so obviously superior to 4e that it's not even funny.  I still remember my 4e campaigns with great fondness, but it's not a system I ever care to play again.

We're about to wrap up our current campaign, in which we are using D&D 5e to play a Pathfinder adventure path.  This has been particularly taxing on the DM, with all the enemy and item conversions.  As I write this, we're still debating on whether to make the next campaign D&D or Pathfinder, but I believe the group is leaning toward Pathfinder.  I'm torn.  I like both systems, for different reasons.

Character Creation
Winner: 5e
So in preparation for our potential Pathfinder campaign, I started looking through the PHB for character ideas.  And I swear, after playing 5e for so long, for a minute I thought I was reading one of my old Calculus books from college.  Pathfinder's like, "You can use this power 3 times a day plus your Charisma modifier minus your Strength mod unless you're left-handed or it's a Thursday after 3PM in which case you roll a d4 and subtract 5 and add your number of eyes (minimum 1), unless your grandmother owns a parakeet in which case you can use the power two extra times per day (maximum 3 per fortnight) and it also adds budgie damage except to monsters who are immune to ice cream."

Okay, I'm exaggerating.  But I can build a 5e character in less than 10 minutes, and the great part is that I can do it myself without having to use some sort of character generator program.  This was one of the first things I loved about 5e; even in 4e I had to resort to WOTC's character creator.  In my last Pathfinder campaign I used PCGen, which was helpful but tedious.  It sped things up a lot, but it's not user-friendly enough for my tastes.

Character Options
Winner: Pathfinder
Unfortunately 5e's ease-of-use comes at a price.  The system feels so basic.  People who want more interesting characters just don't have a lot of choices.  Personally I'm really into races.  The more a system has, the better.  My two favorite books in 4e were "Heroes of the Feywild" and "Heroes of Shadow."  They didn't have the most powerful options, but I loved the flavor.  Unfortunately those books came out near the end of 4e's life, and I only got to try out one of those races before I stopped playing 4e.  With 5e releasing new content at such a glacial rate, once again they'll probably start putting out fey/dark races and classes right before 6e launches.

Meanwhile, Pathfinder has a ton of options.  Being based on an earlier version of D&D, they had a big head start and have had a lot more time to get content out there.  In fact, I'm a little surprised they don't have even more to choose from, but what's out there is enough to keep me busy for years.  For those who are bored with the standard fantasy core classes, Pathfinder is the way to go.

On the other hand, if you don't mind a little homebrew, there are a ton of fan sites out there with great new 5e options. They vary in quality, but if you look hard enough there's a lot of well-balanced content with lots of new flavor.

Healing
Winner: 5e
I've said it many times before:  I hate slow healing.  People have different ideas on what hit points represent, but to me they're more about stamina than anything.  Getting "hit" doesn't mean your enemy's sword broke your skin, it means you deflected a blow and it cost you some stamina.  In most fights, the only blow that actually cuts you is the one that takes you below zero, because at that point you were too tired to block it.

Pathfinder's "1 hit point per level per night" is maddeningly slow.  It's a relic from a time when people didn't heal up after every battle, and while I have nothing against those players, it's not for me. 

Difficulty
Winner: 5e
And by "winner" I mean it's easier to stay alive in 5e.  For some people that's not a bonus, but I'm more interested in the story than the challenge.  I don't have anything to prove; I already know I suck at battle strategy, and it's not something that really bothers me.  To me, it's not a very interesting story if we keep rolling up new characters every few sessions.  If a campaign has an over-arcing plot, then I like there to be some continuity regarding the characters in it.  If the final sessions of a campaign have a completely different cast than the early sessions, it makes me wonder why we were following those early characters in the first place. 

Rules Specificity
Winner: Pathfinder
One of the big complaints I keep hearing about the table, is that too many of 5e's rules boil down to "ask the DM".  It can really slow things down when someone asks a question, and everyone checks three different books, only to find the information hasn't been written yet.  To be fair, the internet is full of fan-made documents that fill in the gaps, but should we really have to resort to that many houserules just to play the game?  The DM might rule one way in this session, then forget and rule the opposite way in a later session.  The more you rely on the DM to fill in the gaps on the fly, the less fair the game becomes. 

Negative Effects
Winner: 5e
I've said it before, but stat reductions and level drains suck.  I might spend hours at home doing all the math to figure out all my skills and attack rolls.  Then I get attacked by a wight or something, and suddenly I have to redo all my math right there at the table, on the fly.  I have yet to meet anyone who thinks stat drains are fun.  Let me repeat that for emphasis: STAT REDUCTIONS ARE NOT FUN.

Pathfinder is one of the world's most popular tabletop RPGs, and the makers spent a lot of time taking the best elements of D&D 3.5 and tweaking them to perfection.  And yet they intentionally put in a mechanic that absolutely everyone fracking hates.  For a game designed to be fun, it doesn't make a bit of sense.  I mean, would you keep playing Monopoly if one of the rules was that you have to shove a pencil in your eye every time you pass Go?  Frankly, this is unforgivable.

But, you don't get a Marvel No-Prize just for pointing out a problem, you also have to figure out a solution.  Our DM is fond of handing out condition cards when you get Dazed or Stunned or whatever, so how about some Stat Reduction cards?  You get hit with stat reduction, you get handed a card that says, "You Are At -2 Dex.  Your get -1 to your ranged attacks, AC (depending on your armor), and the following skills:  Acrobatics, Disable Device, etc."  That would at least leave fewer eraser marks on my character sheet.  But more importantly, I want these negative effects to go away faster. 

Overall Winner
Honestly, I really prefer 5e, I just wish there were more books out for it.  I'll happily play Pathfinder, though.  Bottom line: The fun comes from the group, not the system.

D&D 4e vs Pathfinder... in a Steel Cage!

My week off continues, and so do my ramblings.

So, I've been playing Pathfinder lately, and while I've been jotting down a few of my thoughts after each session's blog, I thought I'd take some time to make some more in-depth comparisons between it and D&D 4e. These are just my opinions; I know darn well that a lot of people prefer a more hardcore simulationist game than what I enjoy.

Realism
Winner: Pathfinder
From what I've seen so far, I would definitely say Pathfinder is more realistic than 4e.  However, realism is not always my first goal in an RPG.  I live a fairly humdrum life, and I like my fantasy to be, well, fantastic.  Realism already goes out the window the first time somebody casts a fireball.  Most of the time I don't want to roll to see if I successfully do the laundry, but sometimes that level of compulsiveness helps me get into my character.  Pathfinder doesn't quite go as far as that, but compared to 4e's heroism (see below), Pathfinder is much more down-to-earth.

Heroism
Winner: 4e
In my opinion, D&D 4e is practically a super hero game with a medieval setting.  Sometimes I think they should have marketed it that way in the first place.  They should have kept 3.5 going, and made 4e a spin-off called "D&D Heroes" or something.  So while I don't think 4e should have been WOTC's flagship product, I am glad it exists, and I do enjoy playing a heroic character. 

Healing Surges vs Slow Healing
Winner: 4e
It's no secret that I dislike slow healing. Since I believe hit points represent stamina, not wounds, it just makes sense you could recover them by resting. D&D 4e's healing surge system is great at getting you back into the game so you aren't constantly heading back to town. The system is still a little clunky, IMO, but it's better than Pathfinder's "1 hit point per night" healing.

NADs vs Saving Throws
Winner: Tie
So the DM rolls a die against the player's Reflex, rather than the player rolling a save against the attacking spell's DC... I think 4e's method is slightly simpler, and simple is generally better. But overall I'd say it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Negative Effects
Winner: 4e
In older editions, there's several spells and effects that cause you to lose a level, or make one of your stats go down for a while. When this happens, there's a lot of re-mathing your character sheet, figuring out how that stat is going to affect your attack rolls, AC, saving throws, hit points, etc.  4e has a lot less of that nonsense.  When we reach the point where every gamer at the table is using electronic interactive character sheets on their netbooks/smartphones, automatically adjusting all their numbers instantly when they're hit by such a spell, then I'll be okay with it.  Until then, I prefer the simplicity of 4e.

Stat Advancement
Winner: 4e
I like how all the stats go up a notch, twice in your career. I've never bought into the idea that just because your character concentrates on STR and CON, you never get any smarter. 

Skills Advancement
Winner: Pathfinder
I liked assigning my skill points manually each level. It bugs me that my 30th level 4e Lawful Good Paladin, who never lies, still has more than 15 points in Bluff. It also bugs me that my high-level 4e Fighter doesn't have more points in Intimidate.

Skill Selection
Winner: Pathfinder
I've stood up for 4e on this one in the past, but I have to admit I missed options like Crafting.

Diagonal Movement
Winner: 4e
So what if a square is slightly longer diagonally than lengthwise.  When it comes to measuring distance for tactical combat, there's a lot of bad, complicated systems out there.  4e is probably the least realistic, but you know my feelings on realism.  4e wins for now, but I still haven't played a game that uses hexes.

Powers vs Basic Attacks
Winner: 4e Essentials
4e's way of giving Fighters more to do was nice. But Fighters already could do more than just attack if they really wanted to. Any time you roll a d20, you can flavor that attack as anything you want. If it's the same damage, then nothing needs to be changed.  Instead of just saying "I hit him with my sword", feel free describe it as a backhand swing or a sudden forward thrust as you roll your d20.  If it's something that actually affects the outcome (i.e. "I'm aiming for his left elbow so he'll drop the idol"), the DM can ask you to subtract a couple of points from your attack roll to simulate difficulty. The ability was always there, 4e just added more mechanical rules for it. And by doing so, they seemed to have shorted out some players' creativity, because those players don't seem to understand that the effects of Reaping Strike don't have to be described exactly like it says on the power card. I think Essentials represents a decent compromise between 4e powers and the basic attacks of previous editions.

Combat Length
Winner: Pathfinder, by a mile
This is the chief reason I've been enjoying Pathfinder lately. It is such a joy to get through an entire dungeon level in a single night. Sometimes when I was playing 4e, I would look up at the clock and just roll my eyes. "Has it really been 3 hours since we entered this room? Seriously?" There are ways to streamline 4e combat, but they take work, and some people just find it easier to switch to another game system.  I don't blame them.

Magic System
Winner: 4e
I haven't actually played a Pathfinder Wizard yet. But I've looked through the Player's Handbook, and I've played a lot of computer games based on D&D 3.5, and I honestly think preparing spells is for the birds. The whole "you can cast three 1st-level spells, two 2nd-level spells..." system is just more complicated than it needs to be.  Give me At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies any day.  Someday I'd like to play a PnP RPG that uses a mana system like you see in a lot of video games. Just another number like your hit points, which will go up as you level. Different spells would cost different amounts of mana to cast, and your mana replenishes when you rest. Simple.

Roleplay vs Rollplay
Winner: Tie
Others disagree, but I really don't think the system matters much when it comes to the quality of roleplay. One of the chief criticisms of D&D 4e is the focus on combat, and lack of roleplay rules. But frankly, I'm not even sure what a "roleplay rule" is. Heck, roleplay probably works best when there aren't a lot of rules. Still, 4e's tactical combat probably attracts more action-loving players, which could have a detrimental effect on roleplay. On the other hand, I have seen roleplay done really well in 4e.

Character Customization
Winner: Pathfinder
I have a friend who loves to play 2-weapon rogues. In 3.5, that was no problem. Pretty much any class could take the two-weapon feats, and get an extra attack per round. So when he tried to build one in 4e, he was disappointed. Oh, sure, anybody can wield two weapons in 4e, but you can't use both in a round, so what's the point? Only a couple of builds feature true two-weapon effectiveness. D&D 4e has a lot of classes to choose from, and those classes have a lot of builds. All told, there's over 100 builds now. And yet, it still feels like each build is just a predesigned character built by someone else. 

Multiclassing
Winner: Pathfinder
D&D 4e Multiclassing is a joke. The Hybrids are an even bigger joke. 'nuff said.

Balance
Winner: 4e... if you're into that.
4e was built on balance.  One could argue that it was the primary focus of the system.  If any class is discovered to have an overly desirable power, WOTC's errata police sniff it out and blandify it immediately.  This can be a good thing; spellcasters in older editions were downright frustrating at early levels.  But people who managed to keep their mages alive earned bragging rights.  Meanwhile, most 4e classes have similar difficulty, which probably contributes to the common complaint that the classes are too much alike (see below).

Class Uniqueness
Winner: Pathfinder
In older editions, your first character was a fighter.  Once you got the hang of that, you had to relearn the game a little bit the first time you tried a spellcaster.  But with 4e's powers system, all the classes pretty much play the same.  The ranges and effects might be different, but a fighter's Encounter Powers follow the same rules as a wizard's.  It's hard to say whether this is good or bad.  It does make the game easier to learn, and balances the classes.  But it also makes you wonder why we need so many classes and builds, when so many of them are similar.  Essentials throws a few wildcards into the mix, but it still doesn't beat Pathfinder.

Death and Dying
Winner: 4e
4e wins because it's harder to die.  I am not a hardcore player.  I like it when I can play the same character long enough to really know them.  I get sick of old school grognards who whine that "Death used to mean something in this game!"  I'm sorry, but I disagree.  When you die all the time, death becomes meaningless.  When your first 20th-level character is killed in an epic battle with a dragon, death means something.  When your twentieth 1st-level character is killed by an orc, death becomes cheap.  Once I've actually had a few 20th-level characters, I might change my mind on this.  But right now, the more I die, the more these characters just seem like scribbles on paper.

Money
Winner: Tie
In both editions, 100 copper pieces equals 10 silver equals one gold.  So it's pennies, dimes, dollars. Simple!  However, a 4e platinum piece equals 100 gp, while a Pathfinder platinum is only worth 10 gold pieces.  Neither is better than the other, but I do wish game designers would keep it a little more universal.  It's not like they're even the worst offenders; for example the Dragon Age RPG has a system where 1 GP = 100 SP = 10,000 CP.  People who go back and forth playing different game systems are liable to get confused. 

Overall Winner
Undecided.
To be honest, I think "Edition Wars" in general are a bit dumb.  Do apples taste better than oranges?  Is hang gliding more fun than water skiing?  Is Star Wars more entertaining than Star Trek?  It's okay to like Pepsi more than Coca-Cola, and it's even okay to wear Pepsi T-shirts and to post on your blog why Pepsi rocks.  But when you get into internet debates arguing why Coca-Cola sucks, you've probably gone too far.  People need to learn the difference between "better" and "more enjoyable to me".

That said, I prefer Pathfinder's character creation and quick combats, but 4e's fast healing and simplified rules. I really wish I could play a 4e campaign, but with shorter combats, and with Pathfinder characters. Essentials goes a long way towards granting the last part of that wish, with older-style characters that are fully compatible with the 4e system.  I really like Essentials, something I'm reluctant to admit on a public blog.  There are places on the internet where I'd rather admit to being a transsexual than to tell them I like Essentials.  Heck, just saying you like 4e at all is like telling people you enjoyed the Star Wars prequels.  Showing support for Essentials is like saying your favorite Star Wars character is Jar Jar Binks.

There are a lot of things that annoy me about Pathfinder.  But despite Pathfinder's flaws (and really, they're not flaws so much as things I don't prefer), I'm really enjoying the campaign. Bottom line is, I don't need to know that I'm playing the "best" system out there.  It don't eat my favorite food for every meal, I don't go to my favorite city every vacation, and I don't wear my favorite outfit every day.

I'm fond of saying that the system doesn't matter if the story's good. That's not entirely true; I'm sure there's some systems out there that I'd hate if I actually got around to playing them. And a good story could easily be killed by an incompetent DM or bad players; but I've been pretty lucky so far where that's concerned.  I've been blessed with a wonderful DM who makes things interesting no matter what we're playing.  (But he does read these blogs, so lest he think I'm sucking up I should probably say something negative soon.  Perhaps I'll make fun of the way he pronounces "archetypes".)

It's "ahr-ki-tahyps", not "Archie types."

In any event, 4e and Pathfinder appeal to different parts of my brain. 4e is like a board game where I can empathize with the pieces. Pathfinder is like a storytelling game with a bit of gambling thrown in. Sometimes I'm more in the mood for one than the other, but I think I'll always enjoy both.

Essentials, Edition Wars and Whiny People

Note, I'm off work this week, so I'm trying to clean out some of my half-written blogs.  I actually wrote most of this a while back, when Essentials was first released.  I didn't post it because I wanted to see how long the Essentials uproar took to die down.  It mostly has, though I do still see the occasional post complaining about it.  So if it seems like I'm getting annoyed by stuff that happened six months ago, that's why.

If there's one group of people who like to complain, it's gamers. They are the epitome of the "Unpleasable Fanbase" trope. If you release a new edition, people will complain. If you make a feat overpowered, people will complain. If you fix that feat through errata, people will complain. If you make any changes at all... or fail to make changes, or release too many books, or don't produce enough books, or even breathe the wrong way... people will complain. If WOTC announced tomorrow that they were going to start mailing out $100 bills to all their customers, people would still complain.

So it's no surprise that Essentials has such a bad rap. With all the errata and splat books that have been released for 4e, Essentials represents the most drastic change. Except, it's not really a change at all, since it's entirely optional. The Essentials line basically contains simplified versions of existing classes. But - and this is the important part - it doesn't replace anything. There is absolutely no reason your Essentials Knight can't fight right alongside a normal 4e Great Weapon Fighter.

Now, it is true that when Essentials came out, a lot of errata was released with it. WOTC wanted to get as much errata out of the way as they could, so that the rules would be as final as possible when the Rules Compendium was released. This makes a lot of people blame Essentials for the updates, even though those updates would have happened anyway. Another sticking point with some people is that the Compendium - the most up-to-date printed version of the D&D rules - is technically an Essentials product, which makes some people think Essentials is non-optional.

Whiners had been wanting to declare the game 4.5 for a long time. Long before Essentials, I'd see message board posts that said, "There's so much errata out there, it's 4.5 by now!" So Essentials finally gave them something definitive, in their minds. Personally, I'll call it 4.5 if and when WOTC calls it 4.5, and even then it's just a number. I realize there's something of a stigma there (when 3.5 was released it caused an uproar), but to me it's just a way to let you know you're buying the newest version of the book.

The complainers would only need to flip through the Compendium a little to realize that the core game hasn't really changed. Other than the corrections and balance fixes that would have happened anyway, the game itself is still the same. All that's different is the addition of some new classes which play a bit different from the original 4e classes. Essentials, in my opinion, feels like you're using a 3.5 (or earlier) character in 4e. This is how WOTC tries to please everyone - by letting the 4e-hating grognards play classic characters alongside normal 4e characters (sometimes referred to as "AEDU" characters). Of course, when you try to please everyone, all you really do make both sides mad at you.

But they did manage to please me. I've only played a couple of Essentials characters so far, but I've looked over most of the classes and I like what I see. They're not always going to be my first choice; in fact, I'm probably going to alternate between Essentials and normal characters in campaigns that allow it.

Generally speaking, Essentials characters focus less on the 4e "powers" mechanic, and replace it with other bonuses at each level. But each class handles this differently. Fighters use basic attacks combined with stances. Rogues use basic attacks but have At-Will movement powers. Spellcasters are the most similar to normal 4e characters. This variety gives it the classic flavor. In the past, some have criticized that all 4e classes are alike, but Essentials classes break that cycle.

Despite the new classes being optional, some people complain that Essentials is turning 4e into 3.5. Am I the only person in the universe who likes both 3.5 and 4e? Is one edition better than the other? Is basketball "better" than football? Why can't people enjoy both, for different reasons? Every edition has highlights and flaws, and different people enjoy different things about the game. Personally I think 3.5 is better for roleplaying and simulationism, while 4e has a more interesting combat system. But I'd be more than willing to play either edition, regardless of whether it's a roleplay campaign or a hardcore combat game. (I won't go much earlier than 3e, though, for risk of running into my dreaded arch-nemesis THACO. Or that STR 18/99 thing. If your Strength is 18, it's 18. Period. I don't know what that /99 means, but if you write it on my character sheet, I'll stab you in the eye with your pencil. But I'm getting off the subject here.)

By all rights, everyone should be happy now. If you never liked 4e, then try playing an Essentials character. You might find it fixes some of the stuff you hated (unless your complaints are about something 4e-centric like Healing Surges, in which case you're a douche and your opinion doesn't matter anyway). If you liked 4e just fine the way it was, then keep playing with the old classes; they haven't changed. The bottom line is, you can like Essentials or simply don't use it. But. Please. Stop. WHINING!

Are We Having Fun Yet?

So, playing the PnP version of the The Temple of Elemental Evil put me in the mood for other media.  I've started reading the novel, and I've reinstalled the old PC game.  It's not that I'm going nuts over the story or anything, it's just that I figure I'm going to read/play them eventually, so now it's the perfect time.  When we're playing the PnP module, it helps me see everything more vividly after playing the PC game.  It also helps me remember the names of the NPCs when I've learned more about them in the book.

I was a little concerned about the possibility of spoilers, and the temptation of metagaming.  But I've always been very good about not acting on out-of-character knowledge.  Besides, at the rate I'm going, I doubt I'll pass our PnP game in either format.  I only get to read for about an hour each week, and I'm taking my time in the computer game as well.

By the way, is it just me, or does Burne look like Nathan Fillion?

Playing the PC game, which is based on D&D 3.5, one thing that's struck me is how much I appreciate 4e.  I've played this game before (though I didn't get very far the first time), and I also put many hours into NeverWinter Nights (which is also based on 3rd edition).  I liked them a lot at the time.  Heck, I still enjoy them now.  But it amazes me how much crap gamers put up with before Fourth Edition.

I've got a wizard in my party, and I can't stand how few spells she can cast per day.  I'm sorry, if you can only cast a few magic missiles a day, you're not really a wizard.  You're just a weak crossbow enthusiast who dabbles a little in magic.  Heck, I didn't even understand it at the time, and I do remember ranting about this well before 4e came out.  If so many pre-4e wizards end up carrying a crossbow, which does 1d6 damage, why not just give them an unlimited-use "magic bolt" spell which does the same damage?  Just work it out so the math is the same (maybe even make it a full-round action to make up for the reloading), and let them have the flavor.  It's much more exciting, and the game loses nothing.

So, I'm adjacent to three enemies, I switch targets, and... I provoke an OA?  What's that about?  I'm required to attack the same enemy each round, even if others are adjacent to me?  Were the designers of 3e actively trying to discourage combat strategy? It's like that annoying rule in checkers that says you have to jump someone if you can.  I despise rules like that, because it encourages people to think less.  When you limit the number of things someone can do on their turn, it's like you're designing a game that plays itself.  If you're really so keen on not making decisions during battle, then stop playing games and watch a movie instead.  It's obviously what you were really in the mood for.

I might be wrong on some of this - I don't remember all of 3e's rules that well, and I might be misinterpreting what I'm seeing in the game.  But it seems like there's an insane number of things that provoke OAs.  Standing up from prone, reloading crossbows, drinking a healing potion, sometimes even just running straight up to an enemy to attack them.  And of course the normal stuff that still provokes in 4e - moving away from an enemy, using a ranged attack or spell next to an enemy, etc.  Even some spells that are designed for close range seem to provoke attacks - specifically Burning Hands, which is a blast attack so it ought to be safe.  Oddly, switching out weapons does not provoke (but it does use up your movement).

And movement gets used up pretty quickly.  There never seems to be enough time in a round.  I don't feel like pulling out the 3e books again to confirm it, but instead of standard/move/minor, it seems more like standard/move (with minors taking up movement time).  Personally, I think I ought to be able to move, reload my crossbow, and fire it in one turn.  I don't care if it's unrealistic; it's heroic.

I've found that some undead can't be damaged unless you have at least a +1 magic weapon, and those magic weapons are pretty rare (at least early on).  So what happens if my level 1 party gets surrounded by undead?  Well, we pretty much have to flee.  Or keep taking our lumps until the one party member who can actually damage them has had enough turns to kill them all.  Yay, that's so exciting.  *yawn*

And healing.  NeverWinter Nights did a smart thing by realizing it was a video game, and letting you heal by resting for about 10 seconds.  But the ToEE game goes a bit more by-the-book.  You can still heal by resting at the Inn, but it often takes a week or more to get you back to full hit points.  This would make sense if hit points represented actual injuries, but - and I hate to repeat myself here - hit points should represent stamina more than damage.  While movie characters often shrug off shots to the shoulder, in real life any significant injury tends to end the battle.  If that first hit doesn't kill you, it at least makes it easier to land the rest of the hits.

Instead, I usually envision you blocking the first few hits, which uses up your stamina.  When you get bloodied, that's the first hit that actually broke the skin.  When you hit 0, that's the hit you were too tired to block, the one that lays you flat.  Again, 4e has spoiled me here, but I have a hard time respecting any system where hit points are supposed to represent lacerations and broken bones.  Unless there's a plot reason to give me a broken leg, I'd like to be able to fight again after a few minutes rest.

Maybe part of that spoilage is that I always expect to start each battle with max hit points.  To me, it's common sense:  max hp means "ready for action".  I suppose in the old days being down a few points is the 4e equivalent of being down a few surges - you keep exploring until they're almost gone.

No matter what you do, some people are going to complain that it isn't realistic.  I'm not a huge fan of realism, as reality has little use in a game where people throw fireballs at bugbears.  Like most people with double standards, I only use the phrase "it's more realistic" when it helps me win the argument.  A lot of the time, people complaining about realism have no idea what realism actually means.  The fact is, everyone has a different reality threshold. Some people want to describe every meal their character eats, but skip things like bathing or using the chamber pot.  Some gamers like to count their arrows, and even roleplay collecting arrows after each battle and fixing them up.  Hey, if that's what you find fun, more power to you.  But other players consider that a waste of time that could have been spent killing things. 

In our current campaign, when the time came to start making a map of our environment, everyone around the table suddenly shouted, "Not it!"  When you have a game element that is so universally avoided, this should be a clue - to players and game designers alike - that something about this game isn't fun.

Note, I'm not saying this to complain about my role as mapper. While there have been some communication issues over the length of some hallways, overall I don't mind drawing the maps. And I definitely think I'm the logical choice, since I tend to repost our progress on the blog.  But it can be frustrating and time consuming.  My ideas for improving our mapping system:

1. Have the DM do it. I don't like giving the DM extra work, but he's got the map right there. If we used some semi-transparent graph paper for our map, the DM could just grab it and trace the next room real quick whenever we look around the corner. It might make it easier for him as well, because he wouldn't have to spend as much time telling us the boring directional details of the hallway, when he would rather be describing the aesthetics of the masonry and architecture.  He would spend less time saying "no, turn it the other way" when we're laying down tiles, too.

2. Just give us the damn map. Maybe early on, our party could find a parchment map of the Temple. The map wouldn't contain any actual info, just the layout of the hallways and rooms, with some letters or numbers here and there. Then we could just tell him, "We're going down hallway H, and peeking into room J." Then he could tell us what we see. Obviously hidden doors and secret rooms wouldn't be on the map.  As we clear out the rooms, we'd put X's or other notes in the rooms we've visited.  I understand this can be a little spoilerific, since it shows us the size of the Temple.  But most of us already have a pretty good idea of the Temple's size.

Some purists might consider mapping to be part of the challenge, but if it's a challenge nobody wants, why is it in the game?  I look at it this way:  my character would be much better at map-making than I am.  For one thing, they're actually there, seeing it with their own eyes, while I'm just having the room described to me.  Also, my character does this kind of thing for a living.  In real life, I'd get lost in downtown Nashville (a city where I've spent most of my life) with a map and a GPS.  So having a simpler, more accurate way of generating our map would actually be more in-character.

Okay, once again I may have wandered away from my point, if I ever had one to begin with. (Point? What's that? Must be something they do on other blogs.)  Oh, yeah, games should be fun.

One problem I have with serious, hardcore roleplayers is this concept of, "It's not supposed to be fun, it's a game!" Okay, nobody actually uses those exact words, but I have run into a lot of gamers who seem to follow the philosophy. For example, I used to play on a NeverWinter Nights server called "The Silver Marches". It was a fun module, with a lot of interesting areas to explore, and it had a large player base consisting of many exceptional roleplayers. The problem was that the owner was a bit anal about realism and Forgotten Realms lore, resulting in a lot of strict roleplay/gameplay rules. I won't go into detail, but these rules made the server a lot more realistic and a lot less fun. If they'd spent a bit of time studying the concept of Acceptable Breaks from Reality, they might have kept more players.

I don't spend $100 on a game and all its expansion packs if I'm not going to have fun. Nor do I give up my Saturdays to drive across town to play D&D if I'm not going having a good time. The #1 rule for all game designers (whether video game or PnP RPG) should be the Rule of Fun. For every element of gameplay, from character creation to boss fights, the designers should test it out and ask themselves, "Am I having fun?" Okay, so some people have different ideas of what's fun, but they should at least try to weed out the stuff that they know everybody hates. For example, it's been universally understood for years that everybody hates escort missions in video games, so I'm absolutely floored when I still see them in new games. I can't tell you how many time I'll get past a certain point in a video game, save my game, and think, "I'm so glad I'll never have to do that level again." Games are for fun; you should never have thoughts like that about any level.

While writing this blog, checked the "Rule of Fun" link above, I was very pleased to find that D&D 4e was listed as an example. To quote, for those who don't follow links (or those who are afraid of being sucked into the TVTropes vortex):

The goal in overhauling the rules for the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons was to strip out the tedious elements and focus on the fun simplifying character builds and fight mechanic while retaining options and even expanding tactical opportunities. The debate comes from stripping out mechanics that supported non combat/adventure situations and limiting certain character build decisions. Roleplayers argue that this either removes support for anything aside from combat or frees them from the constraints of things like mechanics based parley.

Basically, if you're a gamist, 4th edition is probably a move in the right direction, if you're a simulationist, you're less likely to be happy.

So apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Confession time:  This actually started out as two separate blogs.  One was going to be about playing the computer game, the other was going to be about mapping the Temple.  I think the "fun" thing tied them together pretty well, but it occurs to me that I don't really know how to end the thing.  So I was thinking, maybe - What the hell is that behind you!  *hides*

The Philosophy of the Healing Surge

The debate should be over by now. At this point, you either like 4e or you don't, and h4ters shouldn't waste their time ranting about it any more. Pretty much everything that's going to be said, has been said. But I still keep coming across threads where people complain about surges and compare 4e to MMOs. So I'd like to respond with a rant of my own.

When 4e was released, one of the biggest complaints from the grognards involved the healing surges. "You can heal yourself freely!" they shouted, without fully researching their claims. "You're health goes back up when you rest! That's too much like a video game!" they whined, condemning the new system without even playing it first.

I think the problem comes with the idea that Hit Points represent life. Here's a quote from the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook (page 293):
"Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

...but if you really want to simplify it, just think of it as stamina. Remember, in real life, it only takes one hit to kill you. But an experienced warrior spends the entire battle fending off that one lethal blow, relying on his skill to dodge and block oncoming hits. When he finally runs out of hit points, that means he didn't have the energy to block that last hit, or wasn't quick enough to duck that last arrow. The last hit point is the one that nicks the jugular, pierces the heart, or bashes the brain.

I'd even go as far as to say that until the first time you're bloodied (1/2 max hp), nothing's even broken the skin. Until then all your enemy's blows have glanced off your armor, sapping your endurance but not actually harming you. After that the attacks actually begin to hurt, but you're still alert enough to keep your squishy parts protected.

So, once per battle you can spend your Second Wind, regaining a bit of your stamina as you seize a little respite and catch your breath. Between battles, you get a bit of that energy back, as you rest your muscles and bandage your minor cuts and burns. But you can only do that so many times per day before you absolutely have to sleep, which is why there's a limit to healing surges per day. And remember, those of you who think 4e has "free healing", once you run out of surges, even healing potions don't work.

I think it's the best of both worlds. Some people have always wanted a system where you fight worse when injured. After all, if you get hit in the leg, you should be slowed, right? And if you get hit in the arm, shouldn't your swings be weaker? But realistically, that would make D&D too difficult. If you're already losing, you don't want the battle to get even harder. It would be too much like Monopoly (the most unbalanced board game ever created): whoever starts out winning is usually the one who wins the game, because it's so hard to come back once you're at a disadvantage. But 4e is similar philosophically if not mechanically... the more hit points (aka stamina) you lose, the easier it is to get whacked by that death blow, because you're too weak to block it.

Doesn't that make more sense than a "life" number? Why not just give your character little hearts like The Legend of Zelda? It drives me crazy that the ones who preferred previous editions, where hit points acted like Gauntlet, are the same ones complaining that 4e is too much like a video game.


Plus, the stamina/skill/luck definition of hit points also explains minions. One-hit kobolds don't seem so strange when you're at first level. But later in your career, you might start to wonder why the Ogre Bludgeoneers (Level 16 Minion) only take one hit to kill. Do they actually have less "life" than other Ogres? Of course not. It's actually due to one of my favorite tropes, the Conservation of Ninjutsu. When the hero of our story is swarmed by an army of ninjas, he manages to take one out with every swing of his sword. But when he faces that single last ninja, you know you're in for a long bloody fight.

It's not that these Ogre minions are thinner-skinned than their tougher partners. It's not that they have less blood or whatever other measure of "life" the grognards think people have. It's simply that they're not as skilled in battle. They haven't learned how to block their vital areas, and they're easily tricked into revealing their weak spots. If a PC hits a minion, they hit them in a lethal spot. These are the ninjas our hero managed to throat-slash and groin-stab as he waded through the swarm on the way to the boss.

So in short, you can debate all you want about whether or not the surge system is better, but DO NOT tell me that surges makes 4e more like a video game, then turn around and tell me you preferred the old "life meter" system. Because I will laugh at you and take your lunch money.

A Year-and-a-Half Later...

I've just moved all my D&D-related blog entries from my general blog to this one. From now on, this will be my total D&D blog.

Several years ago, I picked up a copy of "Knights of the Dinner Table Illustrated". It was so funny, I had to pick up a copy of their regular magazine. The comic strip in the magazine, for those who've not read it, basically shows these guys sitting around the table, playing Hackmaster (an RPG based on AD&D). These characters really made tabletop role-playing look fun to me. Between that and the old "Dead Alewives" sketch, I think I found my first itchings for a similar game.

I started reading up on D&D, which was on version 3.5 at the time. I bought a starter set, and read "D&D For Dummies". I started collecting miniatures and tiles. In 2007 I went to GenCon Indianapolis, and played my first (and so far only) 3.5 game. It was just a one hour "Introduction to D&D" game, but I finally knew that I really liked the game. I just didn't know how to get in one.

Playing Neverwinter Nights helped satisfy my RPG urge, but I continued to look for a PnP group. The problem is, I'm shy. It's hard for me to put myself out there and meet new people. So while I knew about the bulletin boards at my local game stores, I didn't want to call anyone up out of the blue to ask about meeting them.

When D&D went to 4th Edition, I knew I wanted to get in on the ground floor. So I googled around a bit and found out that a former co-worker of mine was the organizer for Nashville's "Living Forgotten Realms" games. I e-mailed him a lot of questions, and signed up for the next LFR session (along with my friend Bryan). We played our first D&D 4e game on 11/22/08.

At the time I wrote this blog describing my first impressions. Since then, there have been a lot of changes. The game has had so much errata that the PHB is almost obsolete. The invaluable Character Builder has been released. A lot of supplements have been published. The "missing" classes (Bard, Monk) and races (Gnome, Half-Orc) have been restored. The whiners are finally quieting down (out of boredom or out of acceptance, I really don't know).

In the past year-and-a-half, my feelings haven't changed much. I've played in LFR games and home games, I've been a player and a DM, I've played it with and without miniatures, I've played both rules-as-written and heavily-houseruled.

I still love 4th Edition. It's a fun game. I still don't think it's as good a system as 3.5, and the LFR sessions especially feel a bit too much like board games at times. I still wish they'd kept 3.5 going and billed 4e as a spin-off, calling it something like "D&D Heroes" and marketing it to the Mutants and Masterminds crowd.

But so what. I could babble all day about mistakes they made, what I would have done different, and why previous editions were better. But the bottom line is, whenever I sit down to play 4e, I have a lot of fun. And out of all my complaints, my biggest gripe is that I don't get to play it often enough. So they must be doing something right.

My Thoughts on D&D Fourth Edition

Note: I wrote half of this right after reading the PHB and playing my first LFR game, and I've adding to it ever since. See the update at the bottom for the biggest changes in my opinion. Also, some of this is stuff I've already posted in threads here.

Also Note: This post has been moved here from my other blog.

Those of you who don't like D&D have no reason to read this, and those of you who do like D&D are probably already tired of hearing other people's opinions on this controversial edition of the game. But everyone deserves a chance to throw out their opinion, so I might as well.

I'm pretty sure I've approached it with more of an open mind than most people. Since I haven't played a lot of any version, I have less stake in this - the changes just don't mean as much to me. D&D players tend to get attached to certain rulesets, and are highly resistant to change. Each time D&D gets a new overhaul, I see the same panic that I see whenever Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows. But in both cases, the new version eventually spreads until everyone gets used to it, the last few naysayers finally settling in just in time for them to announce the next version.

I do like that they attempted to simplify things. For an outsider, that's the biggest barrier to the hobby - the daunting mountain of rulebooks. Heck, I had a hard enough time learning Monopoly, and I still don't really understand Clue.

The most significant change is the new "powers" (and I hate that term being used in D&D). Overall, I don't care for the concept.

Before, playing a different class made the whole game seem like a different game. The core three - fighter, wizard, and rogue - had entirely different rules and stategies. A fighter didn't do much more than stay in front and swing his sword. A rogue took a bit more thinking, and wizards were the most strategic of all. And that was the beauty of the game! That's what made the game appealing to so many different players. If one of your guests wants to play Yahtzee, and the other wants to play Scrabble, you have to take turns. But with D&D, you get Yahtzee and Scrabble and even Hungry Hungry Hippos in a group together, working together, complementing each other's skills, and all having fun despite the fact that they didn't all want to play the same thing. No, not despite the fact... because of it.

So that's my biggest gripe (so far) with 4e. The new powers make all the classes feel too much like each other. A fighter using a daily attack power doesn't play much different than a Wizard using a daily touch attack spell. Take out the flavor text, and you're pretty much just saying "I deal 1d6+3 damage to the orc in the square next to me." Other class differences - AC, strength, etc - are just stats, but it's the strategy that's supposed to define a class. Instead of the checkers champions playing fighters, and the chess champions playing wizards, we all have to be chess champions.

I've always thought of fighter as a good class for a beginner, or someone who isn't into strategy, both of which describe me. But now, I don't know how easily I'm going to learn this game. I thought this version was supposed to be simpler. In 3.x, I already had trouble with the concepts of "full round actions" vs "move actions", but now I also have to deal with whether my new ability is once a day, once an encounter, or once a round. And don't get me started on Action Points and Healing Surges.

I like the selection of races presented in PHB1. Dragonborn are way cooler than Half-Orcs, but probably appeal to the same players. And the Eladrin are a lot more interesting than Gnomes. The class selection, however, is a bit more problematic... I like Bards, darn it! And now I have to wait until the "Player's Handbook 2", just to see if I still like them.

I don't like the skills system. It's a personal choice, but I prefer being able to put points into a skill every level, than to be able to just get a 5 point bonus one time. With the old system, I could spread skill points around and be a "jack-of-all-trades" type of character, or I could really excel at a couple of skills to go along with my character's obsessions. With 4e it's more pass/fail. Everyone adds 1/2 their level to every skill, so even characters who would never think of lying gradually get better at Bluff over time. That said, I do like the way the skills are represented. They're a bit more generic now, so instead of having to put points into listen, search and spot, now you can just train in "Perception".

I'm more on the fence about alignment. It's now more of a scale than a grid: LG/G/N/E/CE. Meh. Personally, I'd rather either have the full grid, or have the even simpler scale of just Good/Neutral/Evil. Or even eliminate alignment completely. It's not a particularly useful game mechanic, and some people think it does more harm than good. At least the classes themselves have fewer alignment restrictions this time around.

I don't like healing surges, but not for the same reasons as most people. Some people have complained that healing surges give a character too much healing ability, but those people don't really understand the system. Healing surges are basically a way of giving you a maximum number of times a day you can be healed. Some complainers are confusing healing surges with the Second Wind ability, which allows someone to spend a healing surge once per battle. However, seeing as how it's a once-per encounter ability that everyone has, and the number of HP healed is 1/4 your total HP, then all the DM needs to do is plan encounters with this in mind - just assume that all the PCs have 25% more hit points than they really do. And yes, you can freely spend surges while resting between battles, but you only have so many per day, so it's not always a good idea.

So while other people complain that the healing surges give everyone unlimited healing, my beef is that the surges are too restrictive. Almost every way you can heal, spends a surge. Once you're out of surges, you can't be healed any more that day. In 3.5, you could theoretically pack 100 healing potions in your bag of holding, and drink them all day long. In 4e, a 1st level fighter with 15 CON can only be healed 11 times a day. That may seem like a lot, but each surge only heals 25% of his hit points, so he may have to use two or three at a time. For example, our theoretical fighter would have 30 HP, and heal 7 HP per surge. He should be able to get through the day's first couple of battles pretty easily, but what if the DM puts the party through more than that in a day? Once he's out of surges, even healing potions don't work.

A lot of people are comparing 4e to World of Warcraft. I felt that too when I first started reading the Player's Handbook, but that went away when I actually played the game. On a logical level I can still see the similarities, but the feel is totally different. Actually playing the game feels NOTHING like WoW. So my potential inflammatory statment would be thus: If someone says it feels like WoW, then they're lying about having played it. They came to that conclusion after reading the PHB, but they haven't actually tried the game. And putting down the system without trying it first is absolutely shameful. So feel free to make all the WoW comparisons you want, but don't even try to tell me that it FEELS like WoW. Don't. I will immediately categorize you as either a liar or a stubborn grognard, which will immediately cheapen the value of anything further you could possibly have to say.

However, it does feel like a board game. Some people don't see it, especially people used to playing wargames. But then, I would also classify wargames as a sub-category of board game, so the comparison still works. The two sessions I've played so far felt like chess matches with a bit of roleplay here and there. Of course, these were both LFR games, which tend to be combat-heavy and RP-lite due to time constraints. But even the most roleplay-centric campaign will probably have combat in it somewhere, and the combat feels very chess-like to me.

Overall, I think the biggest problem I have with 4e is that it's 4e. If it had been introduced as a spin-off, it would be a pretty neat game. Just as the Star Wars prequels might have gotten better press if they'd been spin-off movies like the "Ewok Adventure" or the "Droids" cartoon. With 4e's simplicity, they could have marketed it for younger players, and called it "D&D Adventures." With 4e's powers system, they could have marketed it towards comic book geeks and called it "D&D Heroes". With it's board game like battles, they could have marketed it towards the wargame crowd and called it "D&D Tactics". Call me a grognard, but for me, 3.5 will always be what I consider "D&D". The editions before it were just practice, and the editions after it are just spin-offs.

-Update-

All that said, I really have enjoyed the sessions I've played so far. Since I wrote the above, I've gotten to play it a few more times, and in a few more ways. I've played it RAW in LFR games, where it's mostly combat and feels the most like a board game. I've played under a more roleplay-centric DM, using no minis, less combat, and some homebrew elements. And I've even DMed a game myself. Every game has been a blast.

Also, I've started using WOTC's official Character Builder, which makes character creation a breeze. Not only is it a time saver, but I can use content from books I don't own, and it makes figuring out the math a lot easier. It has its flaws (the price, for example), but overall it makes character creation a more enjoyable experience.

The PHB2 comes out in a week. I can't wait to play around with the new races and classes.

Bottom line: I still consider 3.5 the iconic D&D. I still think of 4e as a spin-off, or at least "D&D Lite". But that doesn't keep it from being a fun game, worthy of many campaigns.