Why I'm done with 4e

[Roland55]

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.

Hmm. Perhaps we should have this engraved on the ENWorld Homepage. Not forever, mind, but for at least a few more years ...

 

[Roland55]

I know you're being honest here because I remember lots of posts where you were very favorable toward 4E.

To see such a dramatic change is surprising. I'll be interested to see how Pathfinder does for you and your group(s) in the longer term.

I had a sadly similar experience.

About 7 months with 3 groups. Did not go well ... for me. 4E is clearly a great game -- my mind can tell that. It's something else about me that's the problem.

I haven't totally given up, but I can't make myself "click" yet with the new rules. Since I really don't have much time to play, those were 7 sad months.

 

[Metus]

I'm sort of in the boat as Kamikaze Midget in that I'm glad 4e has some changes that 3e needed, but I don't like other 4e changes.

For me, I was all excited about 3rd edition when it was coming out, and out of scale of enjoyment of 1-10, when 3rd edition first came out it was a 9 for me. Loved it.

With 4th edition, I was wary, but I started getting more and more stoked, more excited. When it came out, I was crushingly disappointed, as it basically seemed like an MMORPG (not necessarily WoW) in paper form.

That being said, I've found that after seeing 4e, I can't go back to 3e due to the (now) glaring flaws that exist in the system, and exist even in Pathfinder. Yet at the same time, I'm not really blown away by 4e. When 4e first came out, it was a 4/10 for me, now a 5. 3rd edition is now a 4/10.

I remember a poster from a previous edition comparison thread mentioning that 4e has improved on enough so that 3rd edition looks shabby, but 4e problems make it look shabby as well. I'm the same, and so now I have no D&D that I like. To compound the issue, I don't even like the alternative systems, as I hate-hate-hate-hate WFRP (the funky, over-the-top setting and starting as a rat-catcher and "improving" to different "jobs"? No thank you) and other fantasy RPGs I've seen.

I play 4e for that 1 point of improvement on the enjoyment scale it has over 3rd edition, and I'm getting ready to run War of the Burning Sky, which looks great, so there's that.

But yeah, I understand what you're saying, OP. 4e is okay, I play it and I prefer it over 3rd edition, but it has a lot of problems that both bother and sadden me.

It is very interesting to see how 4e is going with all the other ENWorlders out there, now that there's been some time to really play it.

 

[Imaro]

I'm sort of in the boat as Kamikaze Midget in that I'm glad 4e has some changes that 3e needed, but I don't like other 4e changes.

For me, I was all excited about 3rd edition when it was coming out, and out of scale of enjoyment of 1-10, when 3rd edition first came out it was a 9 for me. Loved it.

With 4th edition, I was wary, but I started getting more and more stoked, more excited. When it came out, I was crushingly disappointed, as it basically seemed like an MMORPG (not necessarily WoW) in paper form.

That being said, I've found that after seeing 4e, I can't go back to 3e due to the (now) glaring flaws that exist in the system, and exist even in Pathfinder. Yet at the same time, I'm not really blown away by 4e. When 4e first came out, it was a 4/10 for me, now a 5. 3rd edition is now a 4/10.

I remember a poster from a previous edition comparison thread mentioning that 4e has improved on enough so that 3rd edition looks shabby, but 4e problems make it look shabby as well. I'm the same, and so now I have no D&D that I like. To compound the issue, I don't even like the alternative systems, as I hate-hate-hate-hate WFRP (the funky, over-the-top setting and starting as a rat-catcher and "improving" to different "jobs"? No thank you) and other fantasy RPGs I've seen.

I play 4e for that 1 point of improvement on the enjoyment scale it has over 3rd edition, and I'm getting ready to run War of the Burning Sky, which looks great, so there's that.

But yeah, I understand what you're saying, OP. 4e is okay, I play it and I prefer it over 3rd edition, but it has a lot of problems that both bother and sadden me.

It is very interesting to see how 4e is going with all the other ENWorlders out there, now that there's been some time to really play it.

Psst...dude, try Earthdawn. great fantasy game that seems to get everything right that, IMO, D&D does wrong. You don't have to play a d20 game if neither edition excites you. YMMV of course.

 

[Primal]

I want to thank many of you for making my points better than I did. Seriously.

The interesting part of this is that I think I'm alone in my opinion in the game group. Many of them are D&D Miniatures players and they really love the 'gamist' bits.

I agree that learning 3.x is no easy chore, especially for a newbie. However, once we knew the system, it receded into the background as we played the game. I guess my feeling on 4e was that it's "artificialness" kept intruding on my gameplay experience. But others at the table were apparently fine with it.

I have other beefs too ... the relative lack of content in the PHB compared to 3.5 PHB ... the difficulty of actually hitting with your encounter/daily powers unless you min-maxed the character ... the list goes on. But I am glad that there are those besides my table-mates that enjoy it.

Soraios, I may not be the biggest fan of 4E, but I must say that I cannot agree with your original post; first of all (and this is already likely pointed out on this thread, but I'm going to repeat it), please remember to include 'in my opinion...', 'I feel that...', 'I think...' etcetera as part of your *opinions*. I simply HATE it when people make blanket statements like "4E is like WoW!" or "3E suxx!" or whatever. It's very impolite and may offend the fans of the edition/system you're criticizing.

Secondly, while I prefer 3E/PF, I think the system had (and still has) serious problems that become evident after 11th level (often even sooner); especially if there are both optimizers and non-optimizers in the group and the DM is not experienced enough to know how to adjust things on the fly. Of course, your mileage may vary, but having DMed and played D&D for 20+ years, I think my biggest problems with balance have been in 3E (BTW, in my opinion your example of non-optimized PCs not hitting monsters or NPCs is much, MUCH more likely to happen in 3E than 4E -- try doing it at high levels without any "buffs", and I'm betting even your "min-maxed" fighter can't hit an optimized NPC 75% of the time).

 

[gribble]

That being said, I've found that after seeing 4e, I can't go back to 3e due to the (now) glaring flaws that exist in the system, and exist even in Pathfinder. Yet at the same time, I'm not really blown away by 4e. When 4e first came out, it was a 4/10 for me, now a 5. 3rd edition is now a 4/10.

You know, I hadn't really thought about it like this before, but this comment pretty much sums up my feelings on 3e/4e too at the moment. I'm not as vehemently against both as you are (after all, I play in a weekly 4e game and I'm about to start playing in a weekly Pathfinder campaign), but neither game is really that flash in my eyes any more.
It's a sad way to be really...

 

[Metus]

Psst...dude, try Earthdawn. great fantasy game that seems to get everything right that, IMO, D&D does wrong. You don't have to play a d20 game if neither edition excites you. YMMV of course.

As a huge FASA (and Shadowrun) fan, I did check out Earthdawn before and wasn't too impressed. However, I just saw that the latest edition has come out. I'm definitely interested in checking that out! Thanks for pointing it out to me.

 

[Eridanis]

Anyone who tries to turn this so-far civil discussion into a flame war will be bounced from the thread - or from the boards, depending on how egregious your post is. Keep it polite, please.

 

[Wik]

I also have noticed that IMO, the "team" dynamics in 4e really preclude those who may for, in-character reasons or whatever, want to roleplay their character in a sub-optimal fashion in certain situations (such as a character role-playing their fear of snakes, in a combat involving snakes). Instead their actions can have a much more pronounced effect upon the success or failure of their team as a whole in 4e than in other editions and thus I think it pushes (if not outright forces) everyone to play to their tactical as opposed to narrative or simulationist best. YMMV of course

Yes. Totally found that in my own play experience.

In fact, last night, we came across Myconids. As a player, I love myconids, and I didn't want to fight the little guys - I know they're dangerous, and I happen to like them (I also hate how 4e made them bad guys, but that's another story).

I wanted to play it as fear, but I knew if I backed out, I'd be sitting on the sidelines for a good hour, and the rest of the group could get screwed. So, we ran the fight.

I did refer to them as "orcs" for most of the fight, which I'm glad to say, the rest of the group picked up on (except the GM, henh henh). Comments like "wow, these orcs fight strange.... for orcs." and so on.

 

[Perram]

I'm currently finding myself in the same internal struggle as a GM/DM. But for slightly different reasons.

I was really strong in the 'pro' 4e camp for its launch and several months afterward, but drifted over to the Pathfinder crowd when I started disliking some of the policy decisions of WotC.

But even towards the end of 3e I was getting a little bit overwhelmed by all the book keeping on my end. Balance was never really a concern for me and my groups because we mainly focused on the RP aspects of the game and player skill at the table swung so heavily that it was hard to pin down.

I also want to "Constrain" the powers of my characters towards the low end. We don't want super-hero fighting, and we don't want to level up out of our characters. We like to keep our characters for /YEARS/ as the RP is the main reason for playing, not the combat.

And then their is Paizo's campaign setting... which I absolutely love and don't want to give up.

So I find myself a man of two minds, with a love for two different games, unable to make up his mind.