4e / GSL Why did you quit playing 4e

[Evilusion]

Please do not turn this into a flame war.

I'm just trying to get some opinions.

Ok my group and I have played 4e for 6 month. We figured we would give the game a run through. After last session we all just kinda went, blah not for us.

1. Game is to bland.
2. Not enough options for characters(Yes I know more books are coming out)
3. Balance is fine. 4e went way to far though, every class looks the same to me.


Thanks all

Evilusion


Sorry change options to opinions. Sorry wrote that and forgot to check it.

[ardoughter]

So what precisely do you want in terms of options?

[Darrin Drader]

The first time I played it, I had fun. It reminded me somewhat of Descent.

The second time I played it, the powers were getting repetitive. It reminded me of an MMO, where I like the powers concept because of the ease of play. Since I'm not clicking a mouse when I'm playing tabletop, I don't need that particular mechanic to do cool stuff in combat. I also noticed that combats were really starting to drag.

The third time I played it, I was getting annoyed with powers, and my players were having a great deal less fun than we had with 3rd edition and True20. They also didn't like their limited class and race choices.

Finally, the books were not meant to be read. With 3E, part of the fun is sitting down and reading the thing while figuring out what you might want to add to your character.

I was initially looking forward to 4E, but it took very little time for that to be replaced with disappointment.

[Jasperak]

If it counts, I played in KOTS FTL.

My immediate problems where constant tracking of status effects and marking; using rainbow colored sets of poker chips and the like seem too much like those war games with chits from 20 years ago. Like others have said previously, the battles were not particularly fun once they entered grind territory. I cannot stand the Wizard nerf! I like the minion idea in theory but not in practice. I don't like the hit point kickers given both to players and monsters.

Once I read the PH (most of it except the powers after 4th-level or so) I was uninspired by what I saw. The general style did not match what I have come to expect from my gaming. It seemed to want to have its own default setting but couldn't come out and create one. The races had some history and there were generic gods but nothing to really tie everything together into a cohesive world. But 4e seems to me to want to model a very specific type of world (extreme high fantasy) and game play that after consideration I want no part of.

Whereas OD&D, BD&D, 1e and 2e could model: the European Dark Ages, the European Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance, the icelandic sagas, Beowulf, and The Songs of Roland. 4e to me seems more to model over-the-top high fantasy, steampunk, and CGI-action flicks like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or 300.

I'm not knocking it but when you would have to throw out 2/3 (# out of my backside) to have the same feeling as any of the early epics and stories I mentioned, then it may not be a good system to model the fantasy I prefer. "Just don't use what you don't like" is not a good answer to me. And just to head off the dogs I'm not a big fan of 3e either and definitely not 3.5e.

[ardoughter]

All due respect Darrin, you have posted before about your issues with 4e and why you stopped playing it. However the OP mentions that he want options.

I would like to know what he means by that. Does he was alternative rules to 4e or reccomendation regarding pathfinder or what.

Each and every one that dislikes 4e posting why (yet again) they don't like 4e followed closely by others qestioning their reasons and so forth is a pointless excersise. We have had a lot of that and it generates a lot of fire and smoke and little else of value.

[Retreater]

We played 4E for about 2 months. We had two different DMs run us through Keep on the Shadowfell, an RPGA DM run us through a Living Realms adventure, and another RPGA DM run us through a 10th level tournament adventure. I would say our experience was pretty much as all-inclusive as one could get without playing with the actual designers at WotC.

My personal turnoffs from the system are...

Potential solutions are in blue text.

1) Basically there are 4 characters: defenders, strikers, controllers, and leaders. There are two flavors of each. Other than that, you end up making the same character again and again. I was getting bored with character creation by the time I made my third character.

New books will come out to give more options for character creation. DMs can create new character classes. Players can make their characters unique through role playing.

2) The combats dragged on forever / gameplay was boring.

I heard that if you decrease each enemy's hit points by half and don't use solo monsters you can speed up combats.

3) After you use a daily or encounter power, every subsequent round feels the same.

The DM can make things more interesting tactically by changing the battlefield or changing the tactics of the monsters. Players can attempt to grapple or use other combat manuevers.

4) It is a tactical skirmish game. The game breaks down if you try to apply the rules in non-combat situations.

As long as you're okay with the limitations of the system this shouldn't be a problem for you.

5) The board game feel doesn't suit me. I cannot see scheduling 4 hour blocks weekly to play Monopoly. Yet, 4E has the same level of depth.

Again, the answer is same as #4.

6) I don't like the way the product is designed with installment plans of the Core Rulebooks. (Unless WotC plans to reprint the rules each time, things are going to get confusing for retailers, distributors, and new gamers.)

Then I realized, I don't have to buy everything.

7) We were already familiar with 3.5, already owned the books, and we seemed to like it better than 4E.

So we decided to stick with 3.5. If you don't already own 3.5 and you can't find used copies of the book (or don't want to get the information free online through the SRD), then 4E might be the game for you.

8) No one around here likes 4E, so you couldn't find gamers to join a group of 4E anyway.

Once (if) the online tabletop is ready, a 4E might be able to find a group online.

Retreater

[Agamon]

Because of the holidays. Though we're beginning again tonight.

[RFisher]

I quit because the group was more interested in starting a new Marvel Super Heroes game than in continuing to try 4e. ^_^

My first impressions were:

1. I wanted to trade most of my wizard’s attack powers for utility powers or rituals.

2. Playing a wizard felt too much like playing a fighter.

3. Playing a fighter felt too much like playing a wizard.

4. I think a lot of players with less attention to details than I will miss a lot of the fiddly bits. Actually, I don’t generally give a lot of attention to details, but when trying a new system, I tend to triple check everything. Too often I felt like I was finding I’d still missed something on the third check.

There is some sentiment among the group (including myself) for giving 4e another try and more time. I’m not sure how strong it is, though.

[Monkey Boy]

The combats felt the same with powers spammed. The Warlock's schtick of eyebite, blast got particularly tiresome. I know about page (48?) in the DMG but players tend to get tunnel vision and fall back on their powers. Personally I think too much praise is heaped on that page and it really doesn't solve anything.

Combats took to long. This was aparent in the first two sessions and put some players noses out of joint. 'Goblins with 20+ HP? Outrageous!!' I addressed this in later sessions but those games fell into the trap of player power spamming.

After 15 sessions 3/4 of the 2 groups I play/DM with lost interest. We found it hard to schedule a game due to this disinterest. Some of the players played begrudgingly and when they didn't take to it they became hard to schedule game time with. Even though they're gamers they preferred no game than 4e. We put the 2 campaigns on hold. The longer the groups didn't game the more my interest in DMing 4e ebbed til I figured I'd run games they will make time for. At the moment we are enjoying 1920's Call of Cthulhu, Dark Heresy and 1e.

[delericho]

1) Too many fiddly little status effects in combat. Too much to keep track of.

2) Too much emphasis on the tactical mini-game, at a time when my group were already trying to get away from this.

3) Grinding combats.

And the big one:

4) The feel of the game is dramatically different, and not in a way we prefer.

[Treebore]

My opinion? Just too bland.

[aboyd]

I've played 4e and I'd play it again, if necessary.

However, for me it just wasn't necessary. I have a 3.5 game that I play in, and it's still going strong, and it's fun, so why stop having fun? And I started my own 3.5 game, and I got more players asking to play than I had chairs. I turned away a few people and now have my own game going strong. So 4th edition just hasn't been needed yet.

For my personal tastes, I like most of the things that 4e was trying to solve. Having to do character optimization or generally work to make a non-broken character? Yes, I like reading the books in my off-time. Having to juggle 4,000 spells that do unusual things that cannot be replicated by fighters? Yeah, I enjoy that. Having a 9 point alignment system? Love it.

There are two things I like about 4th edition that I'd like to put into 3rd edition. I like the combined skills, and I like that critical hits don't require a confirmation roll.

One of the things that I very much dislike about 4e is the definition of types such as defender & striker. I've deliberately not learned what those titles mean. I do not play any MMORPG, and never wanted those concepts to make an incursion into D&D. So when those words started getting explained, I flipped the pages until I got past that.

Also, 4e is too miniature heavy. I like the cover of 1e, which says something like "this game has no board, the action takes place in your imagination."

[Festivus]

I am curious how many of the above posters really enjoy the high level wizard type classes in 3.5 as a player. I have played a high level wizard and found it wasn't for me, too many options, too many things I had to decide to use in the midst of combat. It was a chore for me and I did not enjoy it. I suspect however that many of the above do enjoy that level of complexity in their characters.

Second question, how many of the above posters are DMs of high level 3.5 games? Stat blocks in 3.5 can get long at higher levels, becoming very complex to run. I know, I am running a 3.5 game that is at level 17 right now, and I hate running it compared to lower levels. I have yet to run 4E at higher levels but from what I have read, it's not that much more complex.

I have tried 4E, and still do play 4E. But I also still play 3.5 and are about to make a foray into pathfinder I believe. My days as a 3.5 DM however may be limited to level 12 and lower, as the role turns from a fun one to a job for me.

[Hella_Tellah]

I found Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, which is exactly the fantasy game I wanted and everything 4e isn't. It's gritty and deadly; magic is mysterious, powerful and dangerous; and for starting characters, it feels like a bunch of peasants attempting to survive in a hostile, medieval world.

Warhammer characters either dodge, parry, or get killed in 2-3 hits, and they never have more than 16 or so wounds (hit points) at the absolute maximum, while damage is 1d10+Strength mod. Much deadlier, which makes each combat feel like an achievement. Killing a bunch of goblins should not feel routine and easy, and getting hit should cause the whole table to go "oh crap!" I don't like flashy, explosive magic--this is the WoD Mage lover in me--and the 4e wizard and cleric both just scream "Blast 'em all and let Pelor sort 'em out!" And I don't really like starting out as heroes--it would take a Warhammer character a year of play to get remotely close to the power level of a 4e character, and by that time he'd be insane and missing three fingers and an eye.

Basically, 4e is insufficiently GRIMDARK for my tastes these days.

[Mallus]

We stopped playing 4e for the holidays. We resume this Friday.

[bouncyhead]

Lack of depth/complexity. I LIKE subsystems. I like the fact that in 1/2/3 you couldn't just sit down and play a Wizard (or MU) - you had to learn.

The game has no hinterland, whimsy or wonder. No room for anything 'unnecessary'. D&D should be a baroque cathedral, riddled with passages, cul-de-sacs and surprises.


The last thing D&D needed was 'streamlining' - I want my game to perform well on the table, not in a wind tunnel.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by bouncyhead

The game has no hinterland, whimsy or wonder.

It does when the DM and players instill their campaign with those qualities.

D&D should be a baroque cathedral, riddled with passages, cul-de-sacs and surprises.

I think the campaign world should be that... the rule set used to create it, not so much...

[Giltonio_Santos]

Originally Posted by bouncyhead

last thing D&D needed was 'streamlining' - I want my game to perform well on the table, not in a wind tunnel.

Now, if I had the habit of quoting other people in my signature, I'd know exactly where these words would be going next.

Cheers,

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by bouncyhead

The game has no hinterland, whimsy or wonder. No room for anything 'unnecessary'. D&D should be a baroque cathedral, riddled with passages, cul-de-sacs and surprises.

Correct me if I'm wrong - what I'm reading is that you want different methods of resolution for different gameworld things, right?

For example: instead of rolling a d20 to make attacks with spells, you roll 2d10. If any die comes up a 10, roll another d10 and add the results. If one of the original dice comes up a 1, then the spell is flubbed. If you roll a 1 on both dice, the spell targets another character at random (or stuns the caster (save ends) if that makes more sense).

This represents to unstable nature of magic. Well, actually what it does is that it makes the player feel the way the wizard does in the gameworld - he can't trust his magic; it's unstable.

That sort of mechanic would have been an interesting design decision.

[Eldragon]

Originally Posted by RFisher

1. I wanted to trade most of my wizard’s attack powers for utility powers or rituals.

2. Playing a wizard felt too much like playing a fighter.

3. Playing a fighter felt too much like playing a wizard.

This sums up my opinion of 4e quite well. So for now I'm sitting on the sidelines waiting for more supplemental books or 4.5e

I will also add one HUGE problem with 4e: No SRD. Only 1 or 2 of us actually buy books in our group, the rest borrow books from the first two. With the 3e SRD everyone had access to the basic rules, so people could create characters and read the rules in depth in their own time. With 4e, its not an option. When we all get together, we want to PLAY the game, not sit around making characters and reading the rules.