D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[Steely Dan]

but there are certainly more options/builds within 3e's core than 4e's core.

Not for a single class character.

 

[vagabundo]

Look, this is not new to 3e or 4e. DMing IS work, no matter how you slice it, on some level. Some folks just aren't cut out to DM.

Definitely, DMing is not for everyone, I remember a game my two brothers co-DMed. Surreal does not do it justice (no plot/story and a gold nugget the size of a house). However I think there is a Work to fun ratio and 4e has a better balance.

Whether or not it's work, it's responsibility and if you aren't spending your "work time" statting up NPCs (or whatever b.s. busywork killed 3e for you) I hope you're at least spending your "saved time" in 4e working up worlds/plots/adventures.

I am finding this in my game, the focus has shifted from mechanics to story. But the difference with the mechanics is that my players are enjoying their characters more.<see below>

If your benchmark for DMing is "As close to zero investment away from the table as possible..." then it's possible I might not want to play in your game.

That may indeed be true.

I'll concede your larger point, but there are certainly more options/builds within 3e's core than 4e's core.

The chracterspace in 3e core is huge because of a very flexible multiclassing. But how many of those character are usable or fun?

I think the level of system mastery required to create a character that was fun, for a lot of people (I believe fun for most people means allowing them to contribute), was too high. It was for some members of my group anyway. I would label them casuals.

A side effect of the 4e flattened power curve means it is easier to contribute, even if your character is not min-maxed. I find it easier to Ad Hoc things as well, the maths is more predictable.

For a lot of people visiting these boards I can see why 4e will not satisfy them.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Not for a single class character.

Even if I conceded that point-- which I don't-- what's your point?

 

[Steely Dan]

Even if I conceded that point-- which I don't-- what's your point?

That your assertion is incorrect, which I'll let everyone else illustrate for you.

P.S. What do you feel the need to be so passive-aggressive with your posts?

 

[The Little Raven]

This echoes my experience perfectly.

And mine.

And to Wulf's point above: I am definitely spending less time 'thinking D&D' between sessions (and I'm in two games a week).

I am spending more time "thinking D&D" now than I have in years, but I spend less time "working on D&D" because of how easy designing for 4e is to me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That your assertion is incorrect, which I'll let everyone else illustrate for you.

P.S. What do you feel the need to be so passive-aggressive with your posts?

"What's your point?" isn't passive aggressive. It's a request for you to assert your point.

If I seem passive-aggressive, you're misreading my intended aggressive-aggressive stance.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Look, this is not new to 3e or 4e. DMing IS work, no matter how you slice it, on some level. Some folks just aren't cut out to DM.

The rules should not be so complicated, esoteric, and time-consuming that they "weed out" folks who might otherwise be perfectly fine referees and storytellers. The skills one needs to GM a game are actually quite basic; if one is playing RPGs, chances are those skills are there or can be developed. The factor that I find limits players the most is not ability, but time (and desire, but that's a different sort of factor).

If your benchmark for DMing is "As close to zero investment away from the table as possible..." then it's possible I might not want to play in your game.

I'm not sure that's been said. Anyone who understands this game knows that DMing requires an investment of time and energy. Anyone who is an adult understands that time and energy are limited, so the most worthwhile investment yields the greatest return. The "greatest return" is of course relative to each person.

You mentioned spending greater time on plots/worlds/etc. That's certainly one option. What about "putting together several challenging encounters in an hour and spending time with my wife" in one evening?

 

[AllisterH]

4e is certainly firing on all cylinders for the DMs.

My concern is how long it will hold the interest of the players. 4e does not seem to allow the same level of meta-game hobby immersion as 3e. .

But then it raises a question. What's more important? Making the DMing easier or making some players unhappy. On another forum, a group has reached an impasse. There are a couple of players adamant about staying 3.5, and the rest neutral. However, the DM after DMing 4E refuses to DM 3.5.

He'll play he says, but he definitely doesn't want to DM it. Yet, nobody else in the group feels comfortable DMing 3.5 (they had a rotating DM chair but it basically came down to one guy as the others found DMing to be too much like "work")

4e is a game where the focus in on the game AT the table, not the game AWAY from the table.

Take that as a knock on 3e's complexity, if you prefer. It's intended to be a value-neutral comparison.

Focus on the table...um, thinking back, isn't this the trait that 1e/2e fostered? I certainly don't remember my 1e/2e games being that "build-focused" but then again, you had less options pre-battle in 1e/2e. (Spellcasters didn't even get to choose their own known spells...). All I can say is, "that's good". 3.x tended to ignore those fans of more "what you do at the game table has as much influence as your build".

As for the gearheads themselves, if 3.x has JUST been the PHB, they would've been as bored as they say they are now. Supplements are really where it is at for those type of fans...

 

[Steely Dan]

"What's your point?" isn't passive aggressive. It's a request for you to assert your point.

If I seem passive-aggressive, you're misreading my intended aggressive-aggressive stance.

Okay, sorry, the old nuance, inflection and tone being lost in text.

My point was that 4th Ed single class characters have more choices/options than 3rd Ed.

For the record, I love every edition of this wacky game.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

4e is a game where the focus in on the game AT the table, not the game AWAY from the table.

Wulf, I'm intrigued by this sentence. Could you unpack that, please? Fork it over it you want.