4e Change of mind

[Shroomy]

I was attracted to 4e by the previews and when the system was first released, I really liked it. Now, after playing for 5 1/2 months and as each new supplement reveals more and more design space, the system has grown into my favorite edition of D&D yet.

[ppaladin123]

I was tired of 3.5 and had high hopes for 4e. I loved the previews ("all the stuff you liked from Tome of Battle!") and eagerly bought up the core books. I still play it, I still like it a lot but the "new car smell" has washed away and its "flaws" (i.e. things that don't fit my group's playstyle) are now apparent. This is ok though....we can house rule it to suit our tastes.

I suppose my love for 4e has entered a new phase. I am no longer infatuated with it....I now love it despite its flaws...I see its potential for greatness even when it stumbles...I think that is a healthy, mature love. Overall 4e is the best edition of D&D for me.

...

p.s. Don't tell 4e but sometimes I think fondly about my old flame 3.5e. I'd never go back but...well, we had some good times.

[Siberys]

Originally Posted by ppaladin123

p.s. Don't tell 4e but sometimes I think fondly about my old flame 3.5e. I'd never go back but...well, we had some good times.

please PLEASE PLEASE don't necro that thread. I'm still trying to burn some of the images out of my brain with acid...

ahem... Being that I like fiddling with the rules, I was curious, if not enthused, to begin with. At first I was rankling from the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon, but as time wore on, I liked what I was hearing more and more. It seemed they had taken my 3.x house-rule ideas, streamlined them, and presented them professionally. I've only really ever played 3.x & 4e D&D (though I've tried 1 & 2e...), so that may skew my perception, but I love this game (figuratively, of course. :P).

The only thing I miss from 3.x (other than fluff - that's editionless) is Elements of Magic. I'd like to see a point-based power creation system that has basic guidelines for designing powers similar to that; I'd also like to see a 4e ritual-system similar to the noncombat effects of EoM.

Damn it, now I've a pet project...

[Kamikaze Midget]

Man, there's nothing that truly reflects my position in the poll.

I was undecided about 4e at first, mostly trying to give it a chance to prove itself. There were a few things I was pretty critical of, but not having given it a fair shake, it was all contingent.

After having given it a fair shake, I can say that it doesn't mesh well with my style of game -- not as good as 3e did, anyway. From what I can tell, the core of this is that 4e decided that combat was the only fun part of D&D. I like combat -- I want a lot of combat -- but I also want a lot of other things, and 4e doesn't yet have enough support for those other things.

[RFisher]

Heh. A bit like me & 3e.

I was hugely excited about 3e. When I first read the books, I thought: “This is the D&D I would’ve designed.” Yet, in practice, I struggled with it. I wasn’t really happy with it. Which lead me to exploring a lot of other systems, reëxploring a lot of systems, and eventually developing a new appreciation for the older editions.

I now see 3e as a different yet worthy system that I enjoy when someone else is running, but which isn’t my preference.

4e? At first I was excited. I already saw 3e as a different game, so I was already going to approach 4e in that fashion. I like a lot of the initial buzz. Then, I saw some red flags. Then, we played Star Wars Saga edition, and a few things disappointed me. Finally playing 4e, it didn’t really grab me.

I’m still reserving judgement. (Or at least trying to. ^_^) Nobody in the group seems to be in a rush to give it another go, though.

[aurance]

Greatly disliked it at first, now 4e is my system of choice. As far as I'm concerned - I loved reading the rules of 3.x, but playing not as much. I don't enjoy reading 4e rules, but playing is much better.

[korjik]

From the start I had misgivings about 4e. What I wanted was 3e fixed, not a whole new system. As more started to come out, I realized they were tossing the baby with the bathwater. I started to feel that the design philosophy was pretty much completely opposite of what I wanted.

Role is a good example. Role should be defined by player interaction, not class. The slaving of role to class really bothers me.

When the game came out, I browbeat my group into playing. I wanted to kick the tires and take a test drive. The game is OK, but it is more Warhammer Quest 4E than D&D 4e. The game is too hooked to the map for combats to work right, there are too many effects that have to be tracked. There is not enough feeling that I am developing my characters, too much feeling that I have to pick certain paths.

My group has drifted back to Heavy Gear, but that may have been more a function of 8 years of D&D than the new edition

[Wombat]

Err ... how about "Neutral when 4e first came out, tried it, and found I don't like it"?

I had no real love or hate for 4e before it came out. It was only as I found out more about it that I grew to dislike it.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Because they're realising they don't like 4E.

You have, of course, a good point. These threads crop up because it happens.

Still I wonder, why don't we see more "I still play Game X!". The closest we had recently was the "10 reasons I love 3.5"

[Jack99]

4e disappointed me. I really thought it would cure cancer and make me able to make better adventures than WotC, Paizo and Necro. So I like it a little less than I did before it was released.

[Dimitris]

I still don't care about 4e. I continue to play 3.5e and I am in full support with the excellent 3.5e material coming from PAIZO. I prefer to enrich my library instead of abandon it and buy new versions of the old material.

Dimitris

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Jack99

4e disappointed me. I really thought it would cure cancer

I am sure it is still on their agenda, they just want to get it right. The fact that it didn't appear on the recent survey is probably a sign that this might come very soon!
[/blindly defending]

[Dragonblade]

My only complaint about 4e is that it is completely minis dependent and sometimes I just want to play without the battlemat.

But other than that, it is hands down the best designed D&D edition ever. It does everything 3e does and does it about ten times better. Classes balanced across all levels, and no more crappy game design like random hitpoints, level drain, critical confirmation rolls, save or die, etc. It kicks 3e's ass and takes its stuff.

[Snapdragyn]

Crud, I misvoted.

Remove one from 'negative then grew positive' & move it to 'negative and stayed negative'.

[chaotix42]

Nope, too late 4e lover.

[Obryn]

I was excited at the announcement, grew increasingly skeptical during the worthless previews (especially the Paladin one; that almost put me off completely), was intrigued by the books, and have grown to appreciate the actual game more and more with each session.

So, would "Negative during the previews, but positive once I got the books" be a choice? I don't know how to categorize it.

-O

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Thandren

I had then played a number of sessions in 4e and eventually concluded that I found the characters too samey and the system too simplistic (meaning lack of things like complicated wizard spells).

I don't understand this part. What's stopping you breaking out your old books and translating the spells therein into 4e spells or rituals?

[Celebrim]

I initially was quite hopefully about changing to a new edition, as I'd reached a stage where the number of little picky faults I had with 3.X was overwhelming my ability to house rule for and I was increasingly disatisfied with my attempts to kludge something. This was very similar to the stage where I'd abandoned 1st edition, only the faults in 3.X weren't nearly as glaring.

But my initially positive feelings very quickly disappeared as I figured out (largely correctly I might add) where they were taking the game based on the first couple of previews. I'd had my heart set on something more evolutionary than revolutionary.

I'm increasingly souring on Mearls as a designer. He's quite elegant in his designs, but somehow they are never quite what I wanted. Perhaps he's too elegant for my baroque sensibilities. I'm willing to endure some randomness and complexity.

Still, whatever you may think, at this point I'm fairly certain that I've won my bet on skill challenges and won't be needing to put the 'I'm so sorry song' in my signature.

[billd91]

I was cautiously optimistic at the announcement of 4e, unlike the announcement for 3e for which my reaction was quite negative. But the previews started to turn me off as the design direction became clearer and the final result, while with several good ideas, underwhelmed compared to what D&D had been for me for over 20 years.

So my experience with 4e has largely been the direct opposite of my 3e experience.

[Mallus]

I liked the previews, but more importantly, after several years of 3e I was ready for/curious about a new set of mechanics for D&D. When I read the core books I was more intrigued but slightly disappointed, mainly because the core books don't read particularly well, and they do give the impression the classes are too homogeneous.

Then my and friends started playing 4e, in full campaign mode (with a brand new homebrew, to boot). The consensus is that it plays beautifully.