General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
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.
This sounds a bit like me. I dropped D&D in the early-mid 1990s. It was the announcement of 3e that got me to pick it up again. I loved 3.5 for a couple of years and defended it against criticism from others in my group. But, after about 4-5 years, the shine really started wearing off. As a player, I started finding the need to maximize my character for simple tasks (try running a stealth-focused party in modules) to be a chore. As a DM, I found it a pain to tweak any default assumptions without breaking things -- which has never been an issue for me in any other game.
Still, my players had come to a point where they liked the system enough to prefer it to learning something new. So I stuck it out until the end of last year, even playing in a couple of other 3e games. Maybe I'll be able to play 3.5 again, someday, but I'm very much in the "started positive, currently negative" camp on that one.
As far as 4e, I've enjoyed it so far. It's much easier to build encounters for and to scale things. There are still enough things I haven't totally warmed to that leave me uncertain. I don't like the unified system for all sources -- I don't think all classes play the same, but I'd like more differentiation of flavor in the mechanics. The magic items, even in the Vault, are painfully bland and balanced to the point of stagnation. I absolutely hate the summoning and ally rules, but I've always run summoned critters and animal companions as NPCs rather than leaving them under player control, so I never had a problem with "too many actions".
Wow. This is one of the things I don't like about 4e. I never had a problem with different classes shining at different play levels. Kept things interesting, and made players revisit their tactics and character concepts every now and then to stay effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonblade
...random hitpoints, level drain, critical confirmation rolls, save or die....
And these are some of the things I LOVE about 3.5.
Diff'rent strokes, and all.
(And before anyone pounces, let me just add that I'm currently playing in three weekly campaigns: a 3.5 game, a Pathfinder game, and a 4e game.)
Initially was very excited, now I still like it but not as much as before.
I think 4e made some major steps forward in lots of its mechanics. On the other hand I think they blew it in one major area...powers.
I think powers are fine. I think only getting one power is too limiting. I like that there's incentives to not use the same power over and over again. I hate that there is standard recharging ability to allow me the option of using powers multiple times, etc.
That problem has gotten worse with time for me, and its so core to the system that its hard to make drastic changes to it without completing changing the system. But still 4e provides so many solid wonderful updates to the old system that I go with it.
Sorry mate, but you are wrong. Cancer is a disease, and the Warlord's Inspiring Word does nothing to diseases
(You were still funny though)
Its Not A Tumor![/Schwarzenegger]
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
The Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons was something of a miniatures battle game in the beginning—so much so that the actual miniatures battle game is being merged into it—but offers more, to wit:
In the beginning, most of the published narrative of the game was limited to explaining why the adventurers were hacking their way through this particular set of ancient ruins, ghoul-haunted graveyards, aberration-infested swamps, or other features from adventure to adventure.
Recently, authors have shown increasing maturity with the system: Open Grave was a significant eye-opener in this respect, with its perspectives on skill challenges—crossing the vampire lord's dominion is an interesting narrative in its own right, and it's a skill challenge. The presentation of haunts being variously traps, terrain, or skill challenges—in addition to traditional creatures—is an insightful leveraging of the game's mechanics to present complex concepts in an intuitive way.
Different aspects of haunts, of course, can be—have been—done in other games, and other editions, but usually in a way specific to the situation: the presentation in Open Grave stands out because it takes advantage of existing, familiar, rules and patterns, rather than providing entirely new subsystems for the specific situation.
This—using the game's mechanics to tell, or at least illustrate, the ongoing story—seems to demonstrate an increasing level of familiarity on the part of the authors with the system as a whole, and is generally an encouraging sign of maturity in the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
I find it interesting the words that are used to describe feelings towards 4e D&D. I often hear the words "like" and "love" used to describe those who are in favor of the new edition. Those who are not in favor, in general, are described as "hating" the system.
For me, "hate" is too strong of a term. "Dislike" is more accurate. I am not fond of the direction the game has taken, and the style of play it seems to extol. I think it is great that other people like it. I also think it is perfectly fine for others to dislike it too.
I am a bit baffled why people think that you have to agree with their position as the only "correct" position. People should be free to choose. For me, for a fantasy game, I will choose GURPS, DragonQuest, or D&D 3e. They work fine for me, but are obviously not the choice for everyone.
For the record, I disliked 4e when I first had a chance to look at it. My view has not changed since then. I don't hate it. It is just not my cup of tea.
__________________ Stephen J. Miller
Co-author of Gaslight: Victorian Fantasy RPG, from Battlefield Press!
Available now at RPGnow.com
Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
You too can be an Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon! Ancient Gamer Store
Got excited by the previews.
Enjoyed the demos.
Enjoyed running the ENworld pre-release version
Tossing my 3e stuff on eBay was wonderful.
Enjoy running the actual 4e game.
BUT...I have a shelf full of RPGs and I don't need any one game to fulfill all my hopes and dreams 24/7 which seems to be a problem for many people.
I am pretty much in exactly the same boat, except that I never bothered with the ENWorld pre-release stuff, and I still have all of my Third Edition books (though I don't plan to run or play that game again).
Still, D&D Fourth Edition isn't the only game in Mhacdebhandia Town. From where I sit I can see books for Star Wars Saga Edition, World of Darkness, Vampire: The Requiem, Werewolf: The Forsaken, Mage: The Awakening, Promethean: The Created, Changeling: The Lost, and Hunter: The Vigil . . . elsewhere I have books or PDFs for GURPS Fourth Edition, Unknown Armies, NEMESIS, Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs In The Vineyard, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Traveller . . .
While it's well known that a majority of gamers play some version of D&D, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of gamers who visit sites like this one play games other than D&D - at least "in addition to" if not often "instead of".
__________________ Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
Religion must remain an outlet for people who say to themselves, "I am not the kind of person I want to be." It must never sink into an assemblage of the self-satisfied.
Because they're realising they don't like 4E.
And of course you'll be right here to don the armor to protect her virtue. Isn't it easier just not to threadcrap if you don't like the topic?
Except when the topic is a forum-crap.
Seriously. EVERY week we have this kind of poll. You don't need it that often. It serves no useful purpose other than to crap on the system you do not like. When is enough enough? When will people just be satisfied with the game they chose rather than insisting on telling everyone how much they dislike the system the did not choose, and seeking some sort of external affirmation from others that their choice was valid or popular?
I voted negative initially and grew to like it, but that's not quite accurate.
What happened was that I got interested in D&D as all the previews were coming out because the idea of running a heroic fantasy game appealed to me (I'm probably unique in this thread in not having come from a previous edition). However, as more details emerged I grew frustrated because there were many things about 4e that looked good, but the ever more-obvious fixation on combat got worse and worse. So my initial feelings were wanting it to be good, but feeling negative. The feeling only really started to change for the better when books like Draconomicon and Manual of the Planes began to appear. These are very good books and they did much to offset my opinion that 4e was all about combat. The fluff is rich.
However, I still have reservations. I've yet to make up my mind on skill challenges, but the way 4e limits character concepts is a real frustration to me. About half an hour ago, I created a pre-gen character - a sixteen year old tiefling warlock girl. I wanted her to have an Infernal Pact because it fit her backstory perfectly. But the trouble is, her role-playing stats are a slim, slightly fragile girl with great charm and charisma. And Infernal Pacts are fixated on Constitution. The rules keep insisting that she should be a Feylock. There are a lot of niggles like that. It's not as if I'm trying to create a physically weak fighter or some conceptually unsound. It's just an arbitrary decision for the much adored "balance" that Infernal works on health and Fey works on Charisma. You can't separate out abilities either. For example, it's impossible to have a frail but magically powerful mage because of the way level bonuses work. Any wizard who can wield great magics can, de facto, also swim raging rivers and scale cliffs like a mountain goat. 4e can handle Gandalf, but Raistlin is right out.
So my opinion has gone from greatly frustrated to kind of frustrated. I've come to consider 4e to be a great tactical game, but rather poor in terms of role-playing.
I also made the mistake of hanging out on the WotC boards during the initial release where any comment about 4e's shortcomings would instantly bring a great vengeance from hordes of people chanting: "You don't need rules to roleplay."
About half an hour ago, I created a pre-gen character - a sixteen year old tiefling warlock girl. I wanted her to have an Infernal Pact because it fit her backstory perfectly. But the trouble is, her role-playing stats are a slim, slightly fragile girl with great charm and charisma. And Infernal Pacts are fixated on Constitution. The rules keep insisting that she should be a Feylock.
So make her a Feylock, and reflavor the Fey powers to draw their energy from the Abyss, or wherever. This isn't rocket-science. It will preserve the mechanical balance the game assumes while giving you the flavor you desire.
I also made the mistake of hanging out on the WotC boards during the initial release where any comment about 4e's shortcomings would instantly bring a great vengeance from hordes of people chanting: "You don't need rules to roleplay."
Well..............you don't. You don't need such complex rules to kill a few goblins either.
I was cautiously optimistic when 4E was first announced. 3.5E was good, but I am a person who likes a bit of change now and then, so I thought 4E might provide that. I was a bit worried that the direction of that change might not be in the direction I like, but I thought the change would not be huge anyway, so I would be willing to accept it for the sake of novelty.
Well, there was change alright and it was indeed not in the direction I wanted to see. Unfortunately, it went so far in the direction that doesn't fit my style, that I could not overlook it and with each new preview I liked the game less and less. I kept on reading the previews, hoping in the back of my mind that other areas of the game, as yet unpreviewed, would reverse course, but I more or less new it was a vain hope. By the time 4E came out, it was crystal clear to me that I didn't like it. The design philosophy was more or less the opposite of what I wanted. Needless to say, given its diametrically opposed design philosophy, I still don't like it.
Still, I didn't vote, because I am not sure whether this means I was positive about it at the beginning (when it was announced) or negative about it at the beginning (when it came out).
I voted the first option, despite not having played 4Ed- it was the closest one to my experience.
While I love 3.X, I was perfectly willing to adopt 4Ed, and even pre-ordered my Core 3 as soon as I could. As I started seeing leaks of the content, I started seeing things I didn't like, so I stopped reading the leaks. I wanted to judge the system as a whole, not piecemeal.
When I got it and read it, I was quite disappointed- I felt it was an interesting system but not what I was looking for. Still, I let the others in my game group read it over as well. None of them liked it either, so I shelved it.
I'm not full of vitriol over what WotC did. I'm still open to the possibility that some future product might change my opinion of the system, and even more open to the possibility that a future edition of the game- 5th? 6th?- might again be more to my liking.
Was unsure about it at first, then I playtested it and felt even more unsure. Once I got my free PhB I really didn't care for it at all. Sold it and the other freebies I got on eBay.
Haven't bought a single book since 3.5
Not planning to buy anything else from Wotc. Not even minis.
I'm saving tons of cash and my SO loves me for it!!!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
