Why I'm done with 4e

[Soraios]

Maybe we could just have a meta-thread, "Edition War", and merge all these threads into it? A thousand pages of pointless arguing over whose edition sucks the most. It would probably become self-aware by this time next year.

I'm a newcomer to ENworld and have doubtless underestimated the volume of posts on this subject. I was merely expressing my opinion based on my experience. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I was curious to hear from those who tried 4e and switched back, or not, after a year of playing the new system.

 

[Crothian]

For these reasons, I'm starting a pathfinder campaign.

Good for you, Pathfinder is a good game. 4e works for some groups but not all of them. Just like Pathfinder will work for some groups but not all of them. There is nothing wrong with playing a game and realizing it is not the game for you no matter what the game is or what the reasons are.

 

[Thanlis]

I'm a newcomer to ENworld and have doubtless underestimated the volume of posts on this subject. I was merely expressing my opinion based on my experience. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I was curious to hear from those who tried 4e and switched back, or not, after a year of playing the new system.

Sure!

I've been playing 4e since a little bit after release, both as a DM and as a player. At this point, I find the rules are nicely in the background. There was a key moment for me as a DM when I realized that I should stop worrying about understanding everything any PC might do and just accept that I wasn't going to memorize the entire power list. Huge relief.

I've also very much enjoyed exploring the way classes and roles differ. My melee cleric plays very differently than my girlfriend's ranged cleric, and the pacifist cleric I play with from time to time is quite different from either. The implication of power choices turns out to be pleasingly significant in ways I didn't anticipate.

Heh, my current party is hitting that now. One player swapped from a swordmage to a fighter, since he wanted to put out more damage. The party hasn't quite adjusted yet -- they were really used to an arcane warrior who could reach out across the room and prevent a monster from hitting them. Not to mention one who could use arcane fire to pull monsters to them. So they were prone to charging in, taking different risks, and so on. This is... less wise now.

Great roleplaying fodder, all of it. The key there for us is remembering that these tactical combat decisions are being made by characters, and including the emotional responses rather than just refining our player understanding of the battlemap.

 

[delericho]

I've been a player in a 4e campaign since the release of the edition... but I can't keep playing 4e

Good for you - you should absolutely play the game that appeals to you, and not play a game you don't enjoy.

(I myself abandoned 4e pretty early on - we only played a single test session. Although we did promise ourselves we'd give it another go if and when we could recruit two more players (to bring the group to the recommended 5 PCs).)

The rules are in the background.

I must say I'm surprised by this - I find that the 3e rules are quite intrusive indeed, especially when compared to rules-lite games. I had thought the more rules-heavy a game was, the more intrusive those rules, and 3e is definately seemed more rules-heavy than 4e to me.

Vancian magic.

This would be a taste issue, rather than an inherent flaw in the system. Remember, just because 4e isn't for you doesn't make it a bad game.

4e has a very artificial feel. The labels/roles are a big part of that; striker, artillery, leader, minion ... where is the mystery and wonder?

I would have thought you should be able to ignore the roles for the most part. PC roles are intended as an aide for creating characters and parties (what sort of character do you want to play? Okay, try one of these classes. Want something that will fit in the group as a whole? Well, get one of each type first, and go from there.) Similarly, the monster roles are an aide to the DM for encounter design.

Once you're actually in-game, the roles never ever need to be mentioned, or even considered.

Also, do you seriously expect to get "mystery and wonder" from your choice of character class? Surely that's something that should be coming from the in-game experience - from fighting terrible monsters, recovering wondrous treasures, and solving eternal mysteries?

For these reasons, I'm starting a pathfinder campaign.

Good choice. Though you might also consider looking to other options. I can state with confidence that Star Wars Saga Edition is a great game, as is the 2nd Edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Or perhaps Mutants & Masterminds might suit?

Ultimately, find what works for you, and have fun with it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I haven't played any 4E beyond the heroic tier level. I do play WOW and have a level 80 toon. I see some similarities in the combat mechanics and the disenchanting of magic items into components is very WOW like. Overall play experience isn't the same though because of the DM factor. In WOW you can play on several different servers (campaigns) and the play experience will be the same. Different DM's can make playing two different games of D&D vastly different experiences.

To date, I have not run a 4E game. I plan on starting one fairly soon. This will be the test that makes or breaks the system for me. If I can run the game I want without the system getting in the way, then I will keep using it.

I was never really into the character building mini-game of 3E, so the simplicity of character options doesn't bother me (especially as a DM ).
I was (and still am) happy just rolling stats, picking a class, buying equipment and getting to the meat of the game.

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe we could just have a meta-thread, "Edition War", and merge all these threads into it? A thousand pages of pointless arguing over whose edition sucks the most. It would probably become self-aware by this time next year.

Self-aware, and self-loathing.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I don't want to get into an edition discussion, but I want to say this. Last weekend I was at our local shop and three different D&D games were going on that afternoon. One was a 4E group of high schoolers/early college kids, the other two were adult groups playing 3.5 (one appeared to be transition to PF.) All of these people were having fun, and I think that is what D&D really is. Whatever gets you and your buddies sitting at a table, killing orcs and taking their stuff is D&D, regardless of what rules you are using to do it.

 

[Soraios]

I really enjoyed reading SWSE and I hoped that 4e would follow suit, but for the most part it did not. I thought Talents were a great mechanic to allow differentiation between characters of the same class.

Your other points are valid. I was trying (and failing, apparently) to articulate why 4e's "feel" is wrong for me. I really tried to get into it.

I also recognize that the game system is really secondary to the quality of the DM and players. This responses posted here are making me reconsider which problems are with the game itself and which lie at my feet and the rest of the game group.

One of the other posters here is dead-on right -- DMs end up running campaigns they wish they could play in.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

My group actually tried a seven-session 4E run with about 3rd-level characters right when the game came out last summer. It felt like a fair assessment of the game, and we decided that it wasn't for us. Unsurprisingly, most of the reasons mentioned by the OP were central to this decision. (Though, despite regularly playing D&D since the early 80s, I find myself generally unattached to Vancian magic...)

I didn't find the game distasteful in any way. In fact, the first thing I did upon switching back to 3.5 was start work on a subsystem that allowed me to use a bevy of cool ideas inspired by 4E (and by Pathfinder, actually... and Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes and Monte's Experimental Might stuff...). My system is now very popular with my players.

The game's "artificial" feel and the intrusive nature of the rules were very central to our struggle with it, as we tend to play in a very organic style that emphasizes in-character interaction with the environment wherein I, as the DM, generally interpret the most effective manner to apply the rules to the challenge involved. It's not "transparency" were looking for, as a growing mastery of the rules can be very rewarding to the players, but we prefer a play style that encourages players to think of their characters' abilities as training and talent to be drawn upon as necessary when dealing with a challenge, rather than a codified system of powers with limited accessibility.

I don't know if I explain it very well. Back in the early days of the Edition Wars, I thought I was speaking very eloquently on the matter... but found that some gamers found it very easy to tear apart the wording of my "argument" to make it seem as if I were being judgmental or short-sighted. Suffice it to say that the 4E rules are simply too intrusive for us during play.

That being said, I'm actually playing in a 4E game now with some new friends. It's difficult to adjust to, since I don't like the way the player and the system interact, but I like these guys and they love 4E. So I'll play for a while. I like getting together with friends and playing strategy board games and such... it really isn't a whole lot different than that. (Except that, when I talk in character, the other people at the table offer me mostly blank stares in return... I'm hoping that changes after a few sessions. *grins*)

 

[Drkfathr1]

I don't want to get into an edition discussion, but I want to say this. Last weekend I was at our local shop and three different D&D games were going on that afternoon. One was a 4E group of high schoolers/early college kids, the other two were adult groups playing 3.5 (one appeared to be transition to PF.) All of these people were having fun, and I think that is what D&D really is. Whatever gets you and your buddies sitting at a table, killing orcs and taking their stuff is D&D, regardless of what rules you are using to do it.

Yes, I think its a wonderful thing that we can all play the style of game we want, with the style of rules we prefer. Everyone can be happy!

By all means, if you don't like the rule set, for whatever reason, there are plenty of other options!