Mercurius
Legend
I tried to love it, I really did. I bought the core slipcase when it came out (I was one of those folks calling Amazon every few hours, asking "WTF?" until I got it in the mail), I have purchased about half of the main hardcovers since, and I purchased a year subscription to D&D Insider last March. I never liked the "look" much, feeling that it was a bit of a downgrade from 3ed and trying to appeal to a younger generation's sensibilities, but I ignored it and plowed ahead, started a campaign in late 2008, and generally enjoyed playing it, although perhaps mainly because it was the first "action" I've had in five years.
Our campaign--comprised of a bunch of 30-and-40-something busy parents--was very infrequent, about once a month, a couple times going for two months without playing. Aside from issues with story continuity and momentum, this gave us the sense of never learning the rules all that well. Recently, though, about a year later, we have committed to every other week and now, over a year since starting a campaign, I finally feel like I'm getting a deeper sense of the 4th edition rules set.
And I'm not sure if I like it anymore.
Up until recently I thought that D&D had gone through a relatively positive trajectory of evolution, that the current edition was better than the last, or at least that it was a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing. 2nd edition organized 1ed and opened up a wider variety of campaign worlds and styles of play, yet was inundated with endless splats of declining quality. 3rd edition was an enormous leap forward, but because of its strong core mechanic become totally bogged down by options (plus the big problem of higher levels and reliance upon magic items). 4ed seemed to streamline and balance 3ed, yet now I'm feeling at the cost of some of the soul of the game, what makes it so special.
I saw a few cracks in the 4ed game from early on, and I heard the complaints of others and of course witnessed the Great Schism that led to the splintering of the D&D community in a way that it had never been splintered. But I still carried on with 4ed; not only was I generally happy with it, but I wanted to be part of a living game that was being actively supported. I admit to having a materialistic streak that likes "the new shiny."
But the cracks keep getting larger. And they mainly have to do with my early sense (and the common, if controversial view) that 4ed has been structured in a fashion similar to computer games, in particular WoW and other games of its ilk. Now my experience with such games is very limited--not only do I not enjoy them but, for reasons I won't get into now and have gotten into here and elsewhere, I find their influence to be overall negative, especially to aspects of consciousness that I hold most dear. To put it another way, computer games are in many ways the antithesis of pen-and-paper RPGs, at least from my perspective.
But even if 4ed is heavily influenced by MMOs, it doesn't have to be like them. It is still imagination-based, right? For the most part. But there are many areas of concern, ways in which I feel that the game is losing its imaginative vitality. Some examples:
To me the core, essential, aspect of RPGs that simply cannot be done away with is what someone termed the "free play of the imagination." Anything that impedes this limits the roleplaying experience (for me). But if that is not paramount, we might as well be playing something else. We might as well play World of Warcraft or X-Box or a collectible card game or a miniature wargame--all of which are fine activities in their own right, but don't explore the depths of human consciousness and imagination to the same degree that RPGs can. The joy of playing RPGs is the immersion into an imaginary world, inspired by the game-master and inhabited by the players. The context, the "screen" if you will, is the human imagination. An RPG rule set is meant to give a toolbox for structuring that experience, to give it something to build upon, a context. But it is not meant to pre-determine or form it.
One of the views I used to hold when reading similar complaints from others about 4ed was that "You can do what you want with the game; the DM always has Fiat, can always alter things; the rules are, no matter what they say they are, merely guidelines for your own experience--and the 4ed rules even say this." But the default mode has an enormous impact. Everything produced within a given system carries the "taint" of that system.
What am I to do? I've got a few options:
I'll leave it at that for now. Please don't take this as an attack on 4th edition--I am talking about my own experience of it, which is obviously based upon my personal tastes. But I am wondering if anyone's experience resonates with my own? I've heard a lot of folks not like 4ed from the start, but not many that started liking it but gradually "fell off the bandwagon." Did you start out liking 4th edition and gradually become disenchanted? Or what about the converse--did you start out not liking it and then enjoyed it?
And please: No hating! This is not an Edition War thread; the unfortunate thing about the Edition War, imo, is that it is usually incited from areas of conversation that are extremely interesting and invigorating. If we can keep this, at most, a "cold war thread," I think we can have a very fruitful discussion.
Our campaign--comprised of a bunch of 30-and-40-something busy parents--was very infrequent, about once a month, a couple times going for two months without playing. Aside from issues with story continuity and momentum, this gave us the sense of never learning the rules all that well. Recently, though, about a year later, we have committed to every other week and now, over a year since starting a campaign, I finally feel like I'm getting a deeper sense of the 4th edition rules set.
And I'm not sure if I like it anymore.
Up until recently I thought that D&D had gone through a relatively positive trajectory of evolution, that the current edition was better than the last, or at least that it was a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing. 2nd edition organized 1ed and opened up a wider variety of campaign worlds and styles of play, yet was inundated with endless splats of declining quality. 3rd edition was an enormous leap forward, but because of its strong core mechanic become totally bogged down by options (plus the big problem of higher levels and reliance upon magic items). 4ed seemed to streamline and balance 3ed, yet now I'm feeling at the cost of some of the soul of the game, what makes it so special.
I saw a few cracks in the 4ed game from early on, and I heard the complaints of others and of course witnessed the Great Schism that led to the splintering of the D&D community in a way that it had never been splintered. But I still carried on with 4ed; not only was I generally happy with it, but I wanted to be part of a living game that was being actively supported. I admit to having a materialistic streak that likes "the new shiny."
But the cracks keep getting larger. And they mainly have to do with my early sense (and the common, if controversial view) that 4ed has been structured in a fashion similar to computer games, in particular WoW and other games of its ilk. Now my experience with such games is very limited--not only do I not enjoy them but, for reasons I won't get into now and have gotten into here and elsewhere, I find their influence to be overall negative, especially to aspects of consciousness that I hold most dear. To put it another way, computer games are in many ways the antithesis of pen-and-paper RPGs, at least from my perspective.
But even if 4ed is heavily influenced by MMOs, it doesn't have to be like them. It is still imagination-based, right? For the most part. But there are many areas of concern, ways in which I feel that the game is losing its imaginative vitality. Some examples:
- Treasure, which I discuss more thoroughly here, although I would add that the feeling of it that I don't like is the similarity to video games, how you find treasure of your level that enhances your capacities, then discard them or sell them as you outgrow them. This is not totally different from previous editions, but somehow magic items have become pale in comparison to earlier editions, both because the limitations on their powers (e.g. a high level magical helm that only has a daily power) and a general sense of flat-ness. The whole approach of PCs "leveling up" their own magic items takes away some of the mystique as well. Not to mention the way that the powers of magic items has been reconfigured; for example, I understand the practicality of the vorpal weapon simply causing more damage, but what about the flavor? I suppose an imaginative DM can describe a kill blow from a vorpal weapon as being decapitation, but more and more it seems, 4ed requires this sort of "DM fix."
- Miniatures, which I like, but don't like having to use. I have even gotten away with not using them in certain, "quick and dirty" combat situations. I am happy with DM's Discretion--or Fiat--trumping all, but again, it is another step of removal from the RAW.
- Character Builder, which I actually like quite a lot but am extremely frustrated with the way that it discourages house rules, as I discuss here. And, as I said in that thread, it is because I like Character Builder that this is so irritating.
- Powers. I actually liked the power system quite a bit when I first started playing. Now I've moved from like to mixed to on the verge of actual dislike. Why? Because, like Character Builder, they railroad options, and because they are all almost entirely combat focused. One of the fun aspects of the anachronistic Vancian system was figuring out which spells you might need the next day: Do you take Dispel Magic or Lightning Bolt? True Seeing or Ice Storm? But that isn't even my main issue; the railroading, or codification of actions, is what I find to be the most problematic, especially with martial characters. Maybe this is just my group, but players rarely come up with clever and complex maneuvers that I have to assign with a target number for (ala page 42 of the DMG); instead it is a formulaic approach of: First use encounter powers then re-assess the combat and, if it is getting out of hand, use your dailies; if it is winding down, just finish up the grind with at-wills.
To me the core, essential, aspect of RPGs that simply cannot be done away with is what someone termed the "free play of the imagination." Anything that impedes this limits the roleplaying experience (for me). But if that is not paramount, we might as well be playing something else. We might as well play World of Warcraft or X-Box or a collectible card game or a miniature wargame--all of which are fine activities in their own right, but don't explore the depths of human consciousness and imagination to the same degree that RPGs can. The joy of playing RPGs is the immersion into an imaginary world, inspired by the game-master and inhabited by the players. The context, the "screen" if you will, is the human imagination. An RPG rule set is meant to give a toolbox for structuring that experience, to give it something to build upon, a context. But it is not meant to pre-determine or form it.
One of the views I used to hold when reading similar complaints from others about 4ed was that "You can do what you want with the game; the DM always has Fiat, can always alter things; the rules are, no matter what they say they are, merely guidelines for your own experience--and the 4ed rules even say this." But the default mode has an enormous impact. Everything produced within a given system carries the "taint" of that system.
What am I to do? I've got a few options:
- Plug on and enjoy the game for what it is. I've already got a group of 8+ players who enjoy the game, and none of whom invest as much into it as I do (almost all of them are "casual players").
- Play something else. This proves more problematic with the group as they may not want to. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to either as I love Dungeons & Dragons, I'm just not crazy about any particular edition of it! All things considered I still like 4th edition the best, although the gap between it and Pathfinder is closing rather quickly (Not to mention I'm very intrigued by Trailblazer). Which leads me to...
- Create my own version, a self-proclaimed "5th edition" (aka, "fantasy heartbreaker"). I've kind of started doing this, and it almost seems like a natural progression for many serious DMs, especially as their interest in RPGs veers from "serious" to "hardcore." But I'm very curious about the proposition of combining my favorite elements of every edition of D&D, as well as Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, True20, Trailblazer, and maybe others--and still being able to use published books.
I'll leave it at that for now. Please don't take this as an attack on 4th edition--I am talking about my own experience of it, which is obviously based upon my personal tastes. But I am wondering if anyone's experience resonates with my own? I've heard a lot of folks not like 4ed from the start, but not many that started liking it but gradually "fell off the bandwagon." Did you start out liking 4th edition and gradually become disenchanted? Or what about the converse--did you start out not liking it and then enjoyed it?
And please: No hating! This is not an Edition War thread; the unfortunate thing about the Edition War, imo, is that it is usually incited from areas of conversation that are extremely interesting and invigorating. If we can keep this, at most, a "cold war thread," I think we can have a very fruitful discussion.
.
