4e Change of mind

[Thandren]

Initially I was positive about 4e. I saw it as a very different but still a worthy system.

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).

4e seems to have lost my interest quickly.

I've ended up going back to 3.5e for one campagin I play in and to C&C for anouther campaign. Both I think feel have better and more distinctive classes and give me more reason to play them.

I thought I would create a poll to see how many others were at the beginning positive about 4e but after many sessions got tired of it.

[DandD]

Why do such threads pop up every other week, and from the very same crowd to boot.

Oh well, perhaps that'll be normal too for 5th edition, when everybody's going to post a poll once a month how they lost interest in 5th edition and went back to D&D Vista edition from the year 2012, when everything went down (again).

[Mercule]

You don't have my situation: Unsure at release, still not sure.

We didn't wrap our 3.5 game until December, and then took a month off. I'm in the process of forming an opinion. I'm probably less positive than I was at release, but I still like it better than 3.5.

[Spinachcat]

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.

[Fallen Seraph]

Was excited for 4e prior to release and still excited/enjoying 4e now. It is for me personally the best edition of D&D yet.

[Keefe the Thief]

In regard to 4e: Option 3
In regard to threads like this: Option 1

[Badwe]

No surprises here. The likers still like it, the haters still hate, few people have changed their minds, the edition wars still burn.

Here's an idea: If you dislike one edition or another, simply talk in a nonjudgemental way about the mechanics of the system you are playing in. Example: In X.Y edition I want to do Z setting, but can't decide between trying A or B and don't know if I should change rule C. does anyone have a suggestion?

By doing this, the people from your edition post there, the people from the other edition ignore it, and everyone talks of something substantive. Furthermore, your dislike for the other edition or admiration for your addition is implied and therefore does not need to be stated, polled, or backed up with "undeniable proof". Of course, baseless attacks against WotC are permitted on either side of the fence :-P

[avin]

Dislike it af first, then started enjoying it.

[chaotix42]

Liked what I saw at first, like I what I see in play. It's not a perfect game but this is definitely my favorite edition so far!

[gtoasnt3]

I hate all versions of D&D and have been playing each edition since they were brand spankin' new!

J/K of course. I've gone along with each new rendition with excitement. I don't feel that the characters are all the same, and each of our 5 players has found a niche/class they love.

To each his/her own. It's just a game and if you love an earlier version better than a later, just have fun and don't worry about us guys and our 4th edition rules too much. No opinion or cleverly written post/poll will change anyone's mind on this 4th version, whether it's positive or negative.

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by DandD

Why do such threads pop up every other week, and from the very same crowd to boot.

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?

For myself:

I was very excited when I got the Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, and Classes & Races. The points of light idea is exactly where I wanted the game to go. Then I received the actual gift set and tried hard not to be disappointed. They had oversimplified the game and produced a number of mechanics that did not mesh with the flavour they were trying to represent. It seemed like there were 16 builds of characters which seemed limiting. I did not appreciate the adventurer first, class second approach.

As more supplements have come out (I have purchased every one so far), I have become resigned to the "new" way of doing things, disliking the things I originally disliked slightly less. While there are many good mechanics in the latest iteration, I still think there are too many disconnects with my ideal of what D&D should be - It shifted too far towards streamlining. As such, while I enjoy 4E to play and DM, it is more like playing dragging an anchor behind. However, perhaps the biggest paradox for me is that I love how it emphasizes the team/co-operative aspect of the game - but I dislike the mechanics that have created this. From what I gather from designer articles and podcasts, Rob Heinsoo is mostly to blame for the aspects I don't like.

And now as it stands, I have a DDI subscription and am truly impressed with what WotC are doing. I feel that in terms of the game, they are supporting it to a truly fantastic level - I can even forgive them for taking Dungeon and Dragon away from Paizo... almost.

So for me, it is a lot more complicated than a simple I liked it and now I don't. I have liked aspects of it throughout but I still have issues with some of the mechanics and the overly-streamlined direction the game has been taken. At the very least, I know that I will continue to support it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

- but I dislike the mechanics that have created this. From what I gather from designer articles and podcasts, Rob Heinsoo is mostly to blame for the aspects I don't like.

Could you elaborate please? I am not following these and I would like to understand your POV.

[ExploderWizard]

I was looking forward to the release after seeing the preview books. After getting a good look at the actual rules it was a bit dissappointing. I still enjoy game nights with friends playing 4E but the game itself is not the primary reason for this.

[Wormwood]

The 4e Previews made both my groups very excited about the prospect of playing D&D again.

Today they are more enthusiastic than ever.

So much so that I find myself burning out a little (not on 4e, but from gaming in general. Taking a sabbatical from my Thursday game is helping---but you'll get my Sunday Warlord when you pry him from my cold, dead fingers.)

[lutecius]

I was looking forward to it until the first previews but by the time of release, i felt it was the opposite of what i wanted.

After giving it few runs i knew it was beyond repair. You can only houserule so many gamist powers before 4e's precious balance breaks down and i don't see any way around the encounter/daily system aka "vancian fighting".

So it's not a change of mind so much as a growing dislike.

[Glyfair]

Originally Posted by Badwe

No surprises here. The likers still like it, the haters still hate, few people have changed their minds, the edition wars still burn.

What I think is funny is that there are no options for "reserving judgment." That would be me. I voted that I liked it, because I saw more I liked than I disliked. However, I was open to not liking 4E (I likely would have moved a lot of my gaming to non-D&D RPGs, as 3.5 was wearing on me).

[lejanius]

I changed my mind actually.

I was on the wagon, loved it, played it and the more I played the less I liked it. Now it is far down the list on games I want to play...

but...

I want it to do well, I hope it does and I hope those who enjoy the game keep playing and those who don't play other games and everyone gets along.

I don't think it is a bad game, actually I think it is designed well, just not what I am looking for personally, but like I said I want it to succeed and hope it does

[Gothmog]

When I first saw the previews for 4e, I was really excited. The designers at WotC were promising to take the game in new and exciting directions that were highly innovative. My group and I had given up on 3.x D&D in 2005- we were just tired of the direction the game was headed for a number of reasons, and it couldn't handle our playstyle without pages and pages of house rules.

Once I got the books, I wasn't disappointed. 4e is by far the most player and DM friendly version of the game, and it stoked by creative juices in a way 3e never had. I finally had a verison of D&D where the rules didn't try to constrain DM or player actions, or get in the way of my creativity they way 3e had, but actually encouraged it, while also allowing a lot of player customization of their characters (unlike 1e or 2e, which I still love). I'm one of those weirdos who is a simulationist roleplay-heavy DM at heart, but who found 4e to be a very good game for my tastes with a few rules tweaks that were less than a page long (mostly involving slowing down healing rates and rules for long-term injury). My players also loved 4e, and we managed to get three new gamers into gaming, two of which had tried 3e and had sworn of gaming forever!

Now, 8 months after the launch of 4e, I love the game more than ever. Its an incredibly robust and well-designed system, and when I see new material WotC is releasing, my first thoughts are usually "WOW! That is really cool- I never saw that coming!". The online compendium is an invaluable resource, the character builder is amazing, and Dungeon and Dragon are the best they have been since the early 90s- the DDI is a thing of beauty. My group and I are constantly discovering cool new little details about the system, and all of us are having the most fun gaming we have in our entire gaming careers. For me and my group, 4e is the pinnacle of D&D-ness.

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by xechnao

Could you elaborate please? I am not following these and I would like to understand your POV.

Hello Xechnao,

I'll do my best to elaborate. As far as I see it, there have been several factors that have brought about a more co-operative element to the game:

- Strictly defined roles: There is an in-built reliance that each of the roles have for each of the others. I like this mechanically speaking. However, a side effect is that it encourages optimization, which in itself is fine - I just wish that this was not strictly encouraged. If your character is not optimized, you're kind of letting the team down.

- Hit Points Up; Damage per attack down. Getting rid of the one shot kill was important in terms of versus the players (for some). However, the introduction of minions so that the reverse could still happen (one shot kills on monsters) provides for many false situations. Great if you emphasize narrative play, not so much fun for simulationists. This means that most fights are simply attrition of hit points. Everyone gets a shot at the bad guy. I mean this is OK, but not great fun for me. There is not so much a turning point in a battle as much as a simple (and sometimes slow) accumulation of damage.

- Characters all use the same action/powers system. This emphasizes Adventurer first, Role second and then Class third in order of importance of classification. While characters do not play the same (as others have claimed they do), I still don't think there is enough differentiation between them. I would have liked to have seen separate systems for martial/arcane/divine, rather than a Vancian-style system for all. While I don't like this, it is a (but not I think the only) solution to having certain characters dominate over the others. Now, everyone can contribute to all situations (which is kind of cool), but again, it seems to be centralizing this aspect of play. Everyone's good at most things. It's a little like painting with only blue-based colours. If you have a look at the Defenses of all the characters in the game I play in, they're all kind of the same (with the wizard funnily enough having both the highest AC as well as the second most number of hit points). This emphasis of the adventurer dabbling in wizardry, rather than the wizard dabbling in adventuring goes against my gaming ethos.

- Over all of this has been the dominance of exception based design. Now in a game like Magic: the Gathering, this is of course very important so as there is a control on what can happen (and what can not happen). And I can see why they would want a stricter control over the D&D rules. But for me, this takes a little bit of colour out of the game - but potentially a lot of rules headaches too. By having hit points as the dominant currency, everything can be quickly explained, effects neatly and easily resolved. This makes things very simple. Again though for my preference, a little too simple. While a clear exceptions-based design makes the game run more smoothly, it equally limits or compresses certain mechanics into those already defined - regardless of how neat the fit is (or isn't). For example the saving throw system makes little to no sense from a simulationist perspective, but from a gamist perspective, it is clear, simple and easy to resolve.

Now in terms of Rob Heinsoo, my understanding is that it is this strict exceptions-based approach (combined with a big swing away from simulationist play), that he has lead with in terms of design. I can't quote sources (aside from to say internet browsing, and podcast listening) - so maybe I should not emphasize this. But essentially, I'm trying to elaborate as requested. The bottom line is I enjoy D&D and 4E despite this. Maybe next time the pendulum will come back more towards the gaming style I enjoy - we'll see (but hopefully not too soon).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Skywalker]

Seems like I am in the minority here but I started off disliking 4e but ever since the books were released I have become more and more in favour of 4e. If we could just get some adventures that fulfil the 4e promise I would be happy.