Why I'm done with 4e

[Holy Bovine]

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.

Oh now see that would suck, imo. Being forced to play a game I didn't like is no fun at all. Sorry to hear about that - hopefully you can convince them to try out a few new games. Variety is the spice of life after all!

 

[Cactot]

The game's "artificial" feel and the intrusive nature of the rules were very central to our struggle with it, as we tend to play in a very organic style that emphasizes in-character interaction with the environment wherein I, as the DM, generally interpret the most effective manner to apply the rules to the challenge involved. It's not "transparency" were looking for, as a growing mastery of the rules can be very rewarding to the players, but we prefer a play style that encourages players to think of their characters' abilities as training and talent to be drawn upon as necessary when dealing with a challenge, rather than a codified system of powers with limited accessibility.

Orryn, this is a FANTASTIC explanation of what doesn't "feel right" about 4e to me.

I don't usually like to get in on these debates, so let me preface this with the following statements: This is my opinion, and while I do see many great things about 4e, this has constantly grated on my nerves.

Here is my take on 4e
1. I love tactical combat, this is one thing that 4e does well.
2. I like the fact that accidental gimping of your character is difficult in 4e, especially when you have new players in your group.
3. I love the character creation mini-game, this 4e does not do well (in my opinion, though this may change a few years down the road with expansions)
4. I very much miss the ability to create characters around a single (but flexible) theme that has a huge variety of uses in and out of combat. For example shapeshifting/wildshape, summoning or illusion.

I think I understand why the decision to remove the sky-is-the-limit flexibility was made. It is extraordinarily hard to balance and requires a good DM to adjudicate. That being said, I feel it was a huge loss, as it was one of my favorite things about D&D. The amount of creativity that these features brought out in players was extraordinary, and in my opinion a tragic decision.

That all being said, I am glad for all the people who are enjoying playing 4e, and I definitely understand what people like about it. Its not like there is a shortage of good games out there (Warhammer FRPG for example). And as a disclaimer, one of my favorite RPGs is shadowrun, which is one of the LEAST balanced RPGs of all time.

-cac

 

[Piratecat]

Interesting. We aren't particularly feeling constrained by the power set, but that's partially because I have my players add a "Do something cool" card to remind them about stunts. The 4e stunting system (DMG page.. 42?) is extremely strong and flexible, and it kills me that a lot of folks forget that it's there.

 

[Imaro]

Interesting. We aren't particularly feeling constrained by the power set, but that's partially because I have my players add a "Do something cool" card to remind them about stunts. The 4e stunting system (DMG page.. 42?) is extremely strong and flexible, and it kills me that a lot of folks forget that it's there.

Honestly PC, and no snark intended, but what is so flexible about 3 different categories (low, medium & high) of damage? I mean I could get behind this argument if page 42 gave some kind of guidelines for creating an effect other than damage (as more often than not players can do damage more efficiently, and usually with a standard bonus effect, by using their powers) but it doesn't. There are no guidelines for adjudicating anything besides how much damage a "stunt" should do. So I am asking... what is so flexible about this?

 

[LostSoul]

I like it because those effects are based on the fiction. That's what makes it so flexible - that and a DM who adjudicates the effects impartially.

 

[Piratecat]

Honestly PC, and no snark intended...

No snark comprehended!

Interesting. If you'd asked, I'd have said that this section gave me all the tools I needed to adjudicate stunts: strength vs. fortitude to shove someone and push them, for instance, or dex vs. reflex to grab a tapestry and use it to entangle (slow or daze them). Have I extrapolated all that from other sources such as blog posts, message board posts and podcasts? If so, I'll be a little embarrassed.

So (since my books aren't nearby) I'm going to assume that section deals with damage only and I pulled the rest out of my butt. If so, it's high quality buttformation! I encourage my players to use the environment to their advantage, just so they won't get lazy and rely solely on the cards, and have even given everyone the equivalent of +1/tier when using stunts. My results are that I see a stunt about once a game, and no one has felt constrained by a lack of options.

Hmmph. If it's not in the DMg, I think I'll go pitch a DDI article.

 

[aurance]

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.

How would that be different in any other edition?

 

[D.M.T.]

I'm a newcomer to ENworld and have doubtless underestimated the volume of posts on this subject. I was merely expressing my opinion based on my experience. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I was curious to hear from those who tried 4e and switched back, or not, after a year of playing the new system.

My group has been playing 4E for about 13 months now. There are a lot of things I like about it, and we have been having a good time playing it. But... my frustration with the system has grown to the point that I don't mind playing 4E, but would rather play something else. Enter Pathfinder RPG and I realize that even with all of 3.X's faults, it is MUCH closer to the game system I want to play D&D with than 4E. I few quick fixes, maybe a borrowed idea or two from 4E mixed in, and I think I will be happy.

 

[aurance]

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

There's more tolerance for sub-optimal in other ways. For instance, if you want to have a party of 4 fighters for some role-playing reason, it is much more viable for survival in 4e than in 3e, for mid- to high- levels.

As an aside, I think there's a bit of an expectation that a role-playing character flaw should most of the time be accommodated as a good thing - when as a matter of fact, something like fear of snakes in a snake based combat can and should have significant drawbacks for your party and for yourself. I rather like the paradigm that adventurers that have survived countless lethal combats either do not have such drawbacks, or have learned to control such drawbacks in a way that would only minimally express itself in game terms. Otherwise they'd have died long ago.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How would that be different in any other edition?

Resolving the fight might be shorter. Or not as entertaining and you would be missing less. Heck, if you were playing a spellcaster, you might not be doing anything in a simple fight, except some token crossbow bolts. If you were not playing a spellcaster, you might not be particularly important when the big guns where needed and wouldn't be really missed.

But in 4E it is not just that everyone can contribute, everyone has to contribute. (Unless the DM throws very easy encounters at you perhaps)