Farewell to thee D&D

[Halivar]

If you don't get it, then there's not much that can help you. It's pretty obvious. Oh, and you can knock off the ad hominems. You get a by because you're so new, but that's pretty frowned on on these boards. Maybe that's it. If 4E is your first game then it will look a lot different than WoW. I'd suggest trying a variety of games to get some perspective.

Just because you perceive something doesn't mean it's there. I play WOW, and I play 4E. The two games, as I play them, have absolutely zero similarities. If your 4E game is a series of grinding quests and lame narration, with the exhilirating feeling of crushing another player in PvP as its only redeeming value, then I would posit that it is not 4E that sucks; it's your DM.

PS: You made a lot of weak assumptions on the person you replied to based on post count. That's not safe.

 

[guivre]

If you don't get it, then there's not much that can help you. It's pretty obvious. In mechanics it's way closer to WoW than D&D. Oh, and you can knock off the ad hominems. You get a by because you're so new, but that's pretty frowned on on these boards. Maybe that's it. If 4E is your first game then it will look a lot different than WoW. I'd suggest trying a variety of games to get some perspective.

Sorry, I've been playing D&D since '82. 4e isn't my first game by a long shot.

That wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was an honest question. It takes a great amount of willful ignorance to make claims like 4e = WoW and I find the people that make them fascinating... in a "wow, I can't believe anyone would actually believe that" kinda way.

Of course there's always the chance that I'm wrong, and you've played with some sorry assed DMs to come away with such a shallow opinion.

 

[Umbran]

Seriously, how clueless do you have to be to compare a game mastered RPG to a MMO?

Irony can be pretty ironic - you'd have to be about at clueless as someone who posts in a snarky tone after a moderator has already warned folks to be polite.

Be respectful, folks, or don't post. Those are your choices. It shouldn't be difficult.

 

[jensun]

I love playing a wizard that emulate the wizards I love from literature

I am not touching the rest of this thread but I dont get this at all.

Unless you are reading bad D&D fiction very few wizards in literature do anything that comes even close to what magic does in D&D. Hell, its not even that close to magic in Jack Vances stuff.

 

[Goumindong]

That is not D&D to me anymore than watching television is like being in a play.

What? What makes the experience different? You all get together, talk to each other, and have adventures.

The only difference between an online game and an offline game is that when I play an offline game i wish i had a VTT to automize functions that eat up time unnecessarily.

I ran a game last night. My players got through three combat encounter and three skill challenges in 3 hours. It was probably half and half combat/roleplay. And its all due to things that speed up the game.

Frankly that even if i do end up in a game with a guy with a cheeto orange neckbeard, i won't ever have to see the guy and if people don't show, i can simply go and get more instead of having a game fall apart because one guy wants to take his stuff and go home, is a big plus.

i do not think that is a fair characterization of what he is saying.

I think he wants characters that have different power distributions throughout a story. In 4E the distribution is the same with approx the same efficacy from all classes in most all situations (which is not to say they play the same).

He wants classes where he might be less effective in parts of the story and incredibly potent in specific instances.

I both understand and agree with that sentiment.

I also understand that others might want something else from the game.

No, its a fair characterization. Such "power distributions" do not exist. There is only "Wizards" and "everyone else aspiring to be a wizard" and it occurs slightly after the game starts. And every single time someone comes in complaining how the game now sucks, they end up saying "yea, i'm playing a wizard". There is a reason for this. And its because wizards were terribly overpowered and now, when players are being told that they can't be better than everyone else at the table.

Is it any wonder people don't come in and say "I like playing a fighter, and 4e is terrible. I loved taking a back seat to my friends and standing in front of them while they killed the monsters and won the day, now i am actually useful and it sucks!"?

In 4e characters are valuable in different situations doing different things. Roles explain where this is. It offers you more flexibility in your character fluff and direction, it offers all players to be valuable in different ways in different instances.

All of the objections end up boiling down to "I like playing a wizard and am disappointed that i cannot fill all roles in a party now" and the answer needs to be the same every time. "I am sorry, but other people are important too."

This of course isn't even getting into the point that Jensun bring up. That wizards in literature generally play like NPCs.

 

[Ximenes088]

Unless you are reading bad D&D fiction very few wizards in literature do anything that comes even close to what magic does in D&D. Hell, its not even that close to magic in Jack Vances stuff.

I suspect it has to do with the way that magic is a codified deus ex machina for most fantasy fiction. When things look blackest for Our Heroes, it's the magic-user who saves their bacon. They do this because the author has no earthly hope of pulling it off any other way. To paraphrase another poster, the wizard may be a slack-jawed cretin apprentice who can't light a candle without setting his hair on fire, but throw the protagonists into crisis and he turns into Merlin Jesus.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If you like third edition, play third edition--nothing more irritating than the "I will bash something everyone on this board likes, please don't argue or disagree" parting shot. I played AD&D through the entire run of 3.x, and never once did I darken the door of a 3.x forum to tell them why I didn't play their version. It's a waste of time.

If I could choose one post in the history of every post I've ever read on these forums as to why edition wars are started, this is the post I would choose. Not only did you take "I don't like 4e" to suddenly became "I will bash it," you also took the next step to denounce him JUST for disliking it, claiming that the entire board is behind you in loving everything about 4e. And if that wasn't enough, you went on to state that the General RPG Discussion is for 4e only.

Seriously, I almost want to thank you for that post - now, whenever anyone asks why there are edition wars, I have something to point to.

 

[Treebore]

Just because you perceive something doesn't mean it's there. I play WOW, and I play 4E. The two games, as I play them, have absolutely zero similarities. If your 4E game is a series of grinding quests and lame narration, with the exhilirating feeling of crushing another player in PvP as its only redeeming value, then I would posit that it is not 4E that sucks; it's your DM.

PS: You made a lot of weak assumptions on the person you replied to based on post count. That's not safe.

You see zero similarities? Interesting. I see similarities between WOW and 4E, 3E, L5R, GURPS, Paladium, etc...

As to the OP I am glad you took the time to explain why you don't like 4E in such a thorough and well worded way. I feel much the same way you do on many points, however we will be playing 4E for a few more weeks yet before we quit.

I wish others could be so well spoken and not have taken the "How dare you not like my game" stance.

Gamers create divisions, not games.

 

[Griego]

What? What makes the experience different? You all get together, talk to each other, and have adventures.

The only difference between an online game and an offline game is that when I play an offline game i wish i had a VTT to automize functions that eat up time unnecessarily.

My group plays online (one player is 200 miles away and another 5000 miles away), but the one time we were able to play together in person, we just used laptops and played LAN party style. I for one will never again bother with tracking situational modifiers, buffs, debuffs, etc. when my VTT software will do it for me.

 

[Hussar]

You seriously think this is the same as finding a face to face gaming group? I've done plenty of on-line playing and it is not at all the same. It's like drinking Bud Lite because you can't find a decent beer. It'll get an addict through, but the experience in no way compares.

If that's your experience with Virtual Tabletops, I feel sad for you.

I've been using VTT's for about 5 years now. Yes, the experience is different, but, it is in no way inferior to tabletop play.

/snip


That is not D&D to me anymore than watching television is like being in a play.

Again, if this is your experience, I would blame the person running it, not the medium. Having played regularly over OpenRPG for years, I can honestly say that there are numerous ways in which VTT play is superior to tabletop.

But, my point still stands. Anyone who complains that they cannot play D&D because they cannot find a group, while posting on an internet website, is ignoring the HUGE number of options there are out there.