D&D 4E Should I play 4e?

MrDM69 said:

I've heard that 4e is pretty good, but I want some more opinions before I start playing.

Click to expand...

I would just try it and see if you like it. It wasn't for me but that doesn't mean it won't be for you. Asking online might give some ideas from others based on what they have experienced but it's still not a replacement for direct experience.

Arnwolf666 said:

I’m not a 4E fan at all. But I’ll play any system my friends want to play and have a good time. But I’m getting old. Lol

I care more about a good story and time with friends than mechanics or combat anymore.

Click to expand...

Same here. I'd even play Rifts with the right people.... Not that I'm comparing 4e to Rifts—that'd be insulting to 4e.

I found 4e works well as a game of heroic questing with big set-piece battles and a lot of emphasis on characters. A good way to think of it would be as an Avengers movie with a Lord of the Rings reskin. For structural reasons it does not do well at sandboxing, mercenary adventurers, or traditional dungeon crawls - ie it does not do traditional "D&D" well; whereas if you think of it as a mid-power superhero game in a fantasy setting it is a great game.

I used to get a lot of criticism/abuse back in 4e days for calling it a superhero game, this was regarded as a derogatory term. I think/hope that with the immense success of the Marvel MCU this has changed. It's a perfectly respectable genre and 4e does it very well.

S'mon said:

I found 4e works well as a game of heroic questing with big set-piece battles and a lot of emphasis on characters. A good way to think of it would be as an Avengers movie with a Lord of the Rings reskin. For structural reasons it does not do well at sandboxing, mercenary adventurers, or traditional dungeon crawls - ie it does not do traditional "D&D" well; whereas if you think of it as a mid-power superhero game in a fantasy setting it is a great game.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Yes, this is the root of all those "it isn't D&D" complaints.

Because if you find that you must choose between easy combats and long combats, then the game does fail at the core.

Choose easy, and you do have time for story. On the other hand, the game gets this "plastic" feeling, somewhat like a superhero movie, since there is little challenge and few consequences.

Choose long, and you are rewarded by very fun and exciting combats where you really must use every little ability and special condition to prevail. But this leaves precious little time for role-playing. Basically time's up when combat is over, or you need to proceed to the next combat right away. This leads to the feeling you're essentially playing a board game, not entirely unjustified.

So there you have it. I would say those complaints are too numerous, and too grounded in actual play experiences, to be dismissed as edition-warring.

4E simply is that different from 3E, 5E and the rest.

Does that mean it is worthless? No.

But does it mean it can't be used to "play D&D" for lots of groups? Definitely.

The argument you need to change what you mean by "playing D&D" to fit what 4E is offering always galled me. I believe that is the root of why 4E failed. Most people tried it, but switched to other systems that let them play the way they want to, instead of the way a corporation wanted them too.

The proprietary locked-down tools didn't help either. Companies always shuts down services and servers. Don't make ttrpgs rely on those.

CapnZapp said:

The argument you need to change what you mean by "playing D&D" to fit what 4E is offering always galled me.

Click to expand...

To be charitable, I think quite a lot of people were playing 3e in a mode somewhat similar to what the 4e designers designed for, in terms of big heroic save the world questing. If you cut the extraneous fights out of Paizo APs I think most of them would make a reasonable 4e campaign.

S'mon said:

I found 4e works well as a game of heroic questing with big set-piece battles and a lot of emphasis on characters. A good way to think of it would be as an Avengers movie with a Lord of the Rings reskin. For structural reasons it does not do well at sandboxing, mercenary adventurers, or traditional dungeon crawls - ie it does not do traditional "D&D" well; whereas if you think of it as a mid-power superhero game in a fantasy setting it is a great game.

I used to get a lot of criticism/abuse back in 4e days for calling it a superhero game, this was regarded as a derogatory term. I think/hope that with the immense success of the Marvel MCU this has changed. It's a perfectly respectable genre and 4e does it very well.

Click to expand...

While I understand what you're saying, and don't disagree that 4e had a different tone than prior editions (at least at low levels), I think what you're saying basically applies to D&D as a whole. It is and always has been in large part a superhero game reskinned as LotR., IMO. Particularly past the first few low levels.

Again, IMO, one of the big distinctions of 4e was that it did away with the grim and gritty street level heroes feel of level 1 (where in many editions you weren't all that likely to survive without a lot of luck or serious caution) and instead set level 1 at a power level where characters would feel like heroes from the start.

Now that was some people's cup of tea, while for others it wasn't. But in my opinion a 20th level character blinged out in all sorts of magical gear is essentially a superhero, regardless of edition. They are able to accomplish feats that are well beyond the ken of mere mortals. And well beyond most fantasy novels that I've ever read. Hence, as I said, in my opinion D&D is and always has been in many respects a superhero game masquerading as a fantasy game. It was simply more obvious in 4e, since the game encouraged heroic characters from the get-go.

Fanaelialae said:

While I understand what you're saying, and don't disagree that 4e had a different tone than prior editions (at least at low levels), I think what you're saying basically applies to D&D as a whole. It is and always has been in large part a superhero game reskinned as LotR., IMO. Particularly past the first few low levels.

Again, IMO, one of the big distinctions of 4e was that it did away with the grim and gritty street level heroes feel of level 1 (where in many editions you weren't all that likely to survive without a lot of luck or serious caution) and instead set level 1 at a power level where characters would feel like heroes from the start.

Now that was some people's cup of tea, while for others it wasn't. But in my opinion a 20th level character blinged out in all sorts of magical gear is essentially a superhero, regardless of edition. They are able to accomplish feats that are well beyond the ken of mere mortals. And well beyond most fantasy novels that I've ever read. Hence, as I said, in my opinion D&D is and always has been in many respects a superhero game masquerading as a fantasy game. It was simply more obvious in 4e, since the game encouraged heroic characters from the get-go.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more about motivations and gameplay than power level - 4e is good for save-the-world, it isn't good at dungeon crawling for loot & XP.

S'mon said:

I was thinking more about motivations and gameplay than power level - 4e is good for save-the-world, it isn't good at dungeon crawling for loot & XP.

Click to expand...

If that was your experience, I'm not contesting it, but it doesn't really match mine. 4e did do save-the-world style play very well. In my opinion, the biggest difference was that it excised the "grim-and-gritty" low-level gameplay of earlier editions, where 1st level characters had a significant chance to die.

Arguably, there was less motivation to adventure for loot, since more of your character's power was baked into its class, but IME the motivation to adventure for XP was unchanged (and in some cases improved, since thanks to Epic Destinies even a fairly mundane fighter could look forward to some pretty amazing abilities at high levels).

I don't really see it as not doing dungeon crawling well. I recall some fun crawls back when I played. The tactical nature of the combat basically made a dungeon a series of varied puzzles to solve, at a reductive level, which I enjoyed. Heck, they even put out a book of short dungeon crawls, Dungeon Delve, and as I recall it was well received.

Personally, some of the best 4e campaigns I played in weren't save-the-world at all. They were essentially sandboxes that focused on exploration. In fairness though, they were run by the best DM in my group, so you could argue that it had more to do with the DM than the system.

Again, not trying to discount your perspective. Just offering my own alternate viewpoint.

Fanaelialae said:

If that was your experience, I'm not contesting it, but it doesn't really match mine. 4e did do save-the-world style play very well. In my opinion, the biggest difference was that it excised the "grim-and-gritty" low-level gameplay of earlier editions, where 1st level characters had a significant chance to die.

Arguably, there was less motivation to adventure for loot, since more of your character's power was baked into its class, but IME the motivation to adventure for XP was unchanged (and in some cases improved, since thanks to Epic Destinies even a fairly mundane fighter could look forward to some pretty amazing abilities at high levels).

I don't really see it as not doing dungeon crawling well. I recall some fun crawls back when I played. The tactical nature of the combat basically made a dungeon a series of varied puzzles to solve, at a reductive level, which I enjoyed. Heck, they even put out a book of short dungeon crawls, Dungeon Delve, and as I recall it was well received.

Personally, some of the best 4e campaigns I played in weren't save-the-world at all. They were essentially sandboxes that focused on exploration. In fairness though, they were run by the best DM in my group, so you could argue that it had more to do with the DM than the system.

Again, not trying to discount your perspective. Just offering my own alternate viewpoint.

Click to expand...

I used most of Dungeon Delve IMC. By 'dungeon crawl' I meant exploration of an expansive dungeon environment, not a short set piece encounter series.

S'mon said:

I used most of Dungeon Delve IMC. By 'dungeon crawl' I meant exploration of an expansive dungeon environment, not a short set piece encounter series.

Click to expand...

I think I see what you're saying. I would agree that 4e is far more suited to something like Temple of Doom than Tomb of Horrors.