Why did you quit playing 4e

[bouncyhead]

Now, if I had the habit of quoting other people in my signature, I'd know exactly where these words would be going next.

Cheers,

Beginners luck I guess!

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Lack of depth/complexity. I LIKE subsystems. I like the fact that in 1/2/3 you couldn't just sit down and play a Wizard (or MU) - you had to learn.

Yes! Different mechanics for different stuff, I say. I love the way every class feels profoundly different in 1e.

 

[Treebore]

I am curious how many of the above posters really enjoy the high level wizard type classes in 3.5 as a player. I have played a high level wizard and found it wasn't for me, too many options, too many things I had to decide to use in the midst of combat. It was a chore for me and I did not enjoy it. I suspect however that many of the above do enjoy that level of complexity in their characters.

Second question, how many of the above posters are DMs of high level 3.5 games? Stat blocks in 3.5 can get long at higher levels, becoming very complex to run. I know, I am running a 3.5 game that is at level 17 right now, and I hate running it compared to lower levels. I have yet to run 4E at higher levels but from what I have read, it's not that much more complex.

I have tried 4E, and still do play 4E. But I also still play 3.5 and are about to make a foray into pathfinder I believe. My days as a 3.5 DM however may be limited to level 12 and lower, as the role turns from a fun one to a job for me.

I did numerous "high level" games, only a couple that I DMed went into high teens, low 20's. I played in two Epic level games, to 48th and 68th. I like playing high level mages, I like the choices, because they give me versatility. The real power in a game. Your right though, running a 17th level game can be a chore. You know what to do to make it more bearable? Quit worrying about doing everything precisely correct. Or use on line character generators. Or recycle killed NPC's and change them up a little into something new. The biggest "liberating" thing C&C reminded me of is that I am the master of the rules, and in 3E I let the rules control me. So don't worry about the rules, you are the rules, and you can do no wrong. So you don't need 5 page write ups of precisely what all their modifiers are, they are what you want them to be. They aren't wrong because you want them that way, and you are the DM, the Alpha and the Omega. You "own" those books, they don't "own" you.

As for playing a mage, I like doing all the detailed tweaking, when its my one and only character.

As a DM limiting your games to lvl 12 or lower may be the perfect answer.

 

[aboyd]

I am curious how many of the above posters really enjoy the high level wizard type classes in 3.5 as a player. I have played a high level wizard and found it wasn't for me, too many options, too many things I had to decide to use in the midst of combat. It was a chore for me and I did not enjoy it. I suspect however that many of the above do enjoy that level of complexity in their characters.

Yes, that's correct to suspect. I enjoy trying to master the rules, enjoy having too many options, and even enjoy that some options are not ideal. I like having to find my way through the twisty maze of character optimization.

Second question, how many of the above posters are DMs of high level 3.5 games?

I'm not as good as most DMs. I'll end my current game by level 15.

 

[Evilusion]

I see most of the people had the same reason my group and I did. Interesting to say the least.

Evilusion

 

[op1983]

I generally have to play the tank for the group so fourth is great for me. No more waiting for my turn and saying I swing my sword end turn.

Ive been playing 4th for about 4 months now maybe 5 and at first I was super pumped about being able to use different abilities during my turn. But those abilities tended to get repetitive so rather than saying I use X ability I would just say what my character does then roll and apply the proper mechanics. So the mechanics stayed the same but the flavor changed. There are a couple new players in my group that have never played any RPG before so once they saw me describing the actions they wanted to do it too. One guy went to attack a minion and only needed a 2 to hit so the GM just said ok its dead. But the player got angry that he didn't get to describe what his character did.

 

[Jasperak]

Lack of depth/complexity. I LIKE subsystems. I like the fact that in 1/2/3 you couldn't just sit down and play a Wizard (or MU) - you had to learn.

The game has no hinterland, whimsy or wonder. No room for anything 'unnecessary'. D&D should be a baroque cathedral, riddled with passages, cul-de-sacs and surprises.


The last thing D&D needed was 'streamlining' - I want my game to perform well on the table, not in a wind tunnel.

Quoted for teh funny and an XP for you.

 

[evildmguy]

I did numerous "high level" games, only a couple that I DMed went into high teens, low 20's. I played in two Epic level games, to 48th and 68th. I like playing high level mages, I like the choices, because they give me versatility. The real power in a game. Your right though, running a 17th level game can be a chore. You know what to do to make it more bearable? Quit worrying about doing everything precisely correct. Or use on line character generators. Or recycle killed NPC's and change them up a little into something new. The biggest "liberating" thing C&C reminded me of is that I am the master of the rules, and in 3E I let the rules control me. So don't worry about the rules, you are the rules, and you can do no wrong. So you don't need 5 page write ups of precisely what all their modifiers are, they are what you want them to be. They aren't wrong because you want them that way, and you are the DM, the Alpha and the Omega. You "own" those books, they don't "own" you.

As for playing a mage, I like doing all the detailed tweaking, when its my one and only character.

As a DM limiting your games to lvl 12 or lower may be the perfect answer.

I think this is exactly what 4E does. It reduces the "monsters" (which includes NPCs) into the abilities that they would use in a fight and leaves the role playing up to the DM. Seems to me that that is what 1E tried to do as well, but not so well.

However, as much as my group and I *do* like 4E, we aren't playing it at the moment. We switched to a secondary game when a guy was going to be out for a month (WoD Hunter) and haven't switched back. In the 4E game, one player didn't like his character as it wasn't what he wanted. I think most of the others were happy. We like roles because then we know if two player's characters are going to overlap in their place in the group and how they can be different from each other. As for myself, I, too, want more options and know what will happen with more books.

However, we might go to Exalted before going back to 4E, which I have described as Exalted Lite, if I have my way. (No wonder they did the "graduate your game" marketing.)

edg

 

[frankthedm]

Mainly it is our very gracious host. He says he is willing to play 4E if the rest of us want to, but we can easily see we’d be making him play a game he does not enjoy.

Person who really likes 4e: Did not have the drive / determination to run a 4E game.

Mr. Don't call it D&D: Had some fun playing, but felt very constrained by the powers system. Agrees it feels more board game than role playing game.

Our Host: Hates yo-yo HP. Dislikes the loss of combat options like sunder, disarm, trip etc. Dislikes the amount Gamism won out over Simulationism. Dislike grids over measurement. Dislike how crits are safer now.

Casual gamer: Had enough fun playing, but agrees it feels more board game than role playing game.

I agree with our host on a good deal of things, though I am willing to play 4E as long as there is a high body count.

 

[Toben the Many]

While I agree by and large with what many here are saying - the primary reason I quit playing 4e was because I couldn't find a group willing to play. My primary group has said, basically, no, no way, no way in hell. They all tried it. Hated it.

My sometimes group GM hasn't even looked at the 4e books and has declared that he probably won't ever look at them. Him, I'm pissed at because he didn't even try it out.

I would like to try it out some more, but the lack of interest in my area prevents me from doing so.