Why I'm done with 4e

[pawsplay]

I have had no trouble ever explaining encounter powers.

Sometimes Come and Get It can be a taunt that makes enemies charge them.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the fighter standing to block the enemies access to his friends, leading no choice but to attack him.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the fighter faking an opening causing the opponents to rush forward trying to finish him off.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the nothing more then all the enemies deciding to attack the fighter and him smashing them.

Combat is abstract.

In an RPG? Get out of town!

Sure I've run into trouble with descriptions before. Like how a bolt of acid knocks a creature unconscious without killing it. I generally see that as more of a challenge then an road block.

(Acid examples. Shock of a hit that causes surface damage. Shock from a serious wound (should you feel like inflicting one). The fumes. Sprayed with small specks of acid, which cause excruciating pain.)

Every edition of D&D has abstracted combat. What differs are the areas in which creative explanations are needed.

 

[frankthedm]

I know we just went through Halloween and all, but shouldn't threads that died for more than a month get locked to keep it from getting necro'ed.

Nope. We don't throw out perfectly good threads around here cause of a little dust. It is one of this boards' best features.

Mods can and have locked threads that got revived without any worthwhile reason, but bumps usually get the benefit of the doubt. As to this threads worth, using the

on the bumper's post can get a mod to pronounce judgment on the bump.

EDIT

Originally Posted by Soraios
But 3.x is superior to 4e in these ways:

* The rules are in the background. The rules are not constantly superimposing themselves on my in-game experience. Example: 4e marking.

Completely agree. And would add some powers like Come and Get It make no sense when dealing with things like mindless undead or oozes. But some how these creatures respond to insults and taunts. There is no sense of individualized race that lent some believability to monsters.

Then there is power repetition. That really kills your game experience by superimposing the rules. The same encounter powers every fight whether they are needed or not is like throwing ice water on me as a DM. I find it astounding that anyone can defend encounter powers as a rules that easily work into the background.

Agree on this.

 

[Mallus]

And would add some powers like Come and Get It make no sense when dealing with things like mindless undead or oozes.

Trying to rationalize how a PC pissed off a carnivorous Jello mold is one of the joys of running 4e. Really, if you're okay with fighting a Jello mold in the first place, why quibble about how someone managed to make it angry?

(BTW, Nightson has it right. CaGI doesn't neccessarily involve taunting an opponent. It can simply mean the opponent has decided to attack the PC using it. Like I said in another thread, CaGI isn't magic, it's metafiction).

 

[wolff96]

I also think that folks who post on RPG messageboards - whether it's a result of fan culture, the interwebs, or human nature - have a problem categorizing something as "A good thing that's well-made, and which others may enjoy for legitimate reasons, but which does not fit my tastes."

Bravo, sir.

I just had to post how much I agreed with your observation here.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Trying to rationalize how a PC pissed off a carnivorous Jello mold is one of the joys of running 4e. Really, if you're okay with fighting a Jello mold in the first place, why quibble about how someone managed to make it angry?

I can see your point, but can you also see why it would bother some people?

I mean, by your argument, anything goes because we're role-playing in a fantasy setting. Why have rules or powers--just say what you want to do, and it happens, right? Its fantasy?

But anything doesn't go--there are rules for almost everything, and plenty of analogues to our (real) world--gravity, sickness, death, etc.--to ground the fantasy in enough "real" to make the drama really matter.

People just have to choose how much logic they want in their fantasy--there's no deciding for anyone else, (or there shouldn't be). So in your fantasy, molds can become angry due to taunting, and attack the creature taunting them. In my fantasy, molds are unintelligent and dangerous biological organisms that have no organs with which to hear taunting.

To each his or her own, yeah?

 

[malkav666]

I played 4e in two groups (including my main one) for about a year after release. We collectively decided in both groups that it really was not the game for us for a variety of reasons, some of them expressed in this thread, some not, but certainly expressed somewhere on the internets by this point. So I don't feel a real need to rehash them here again.

When we left 4e, we became game system promiscuous and tried several different games:

M&M: which I liked but I could not really sell the group on a supers game. I plan to try them again with the sorcery supplement for the game next time an open day pops up to see what they think.

Monte Cook's Books of X: We tried spicing up D&D with Monte's books. This went over very well, and some of the rules and systems presented are still used in our games to date.

Dark Heresy: Really only got to play a couple of games of this as we only had a single rulebook, and we could not seem to drum up enough interest to get more rules at the table (as a side note I really want to try Rogue Trader)

Sw Saga: we played this some, and still do on some days (we use the system and CoC d20 to run space horror games)

Pathfinder Beta: We picked this up and participated in the beta and had a good time.


We settled on the final release of Pathfinder for our D&D game. It feels like more of an effort to update 3.x, and since my group really likes that ruleset, it resonates with them. They also really like some of the flavor of the printed campaign setting. Cheliax has probably gotten as much love as Waterdeep at my table as far as places characters "want to be from". Its not really that I feel that 3.x/Pathfinder is a hands down better game than D&D4e. Its just a better game for my group. They did not like the subscription aspects of 4E's marketing. And they liked better the freedom that 3.5/Pathfinders ruleset gave them. Which is weird to some as 3.x/pathfinder definitely uses a much more complex ruleset than 4e IMO.

And to be honest Pathfinder is definitely NOT everything I wanted in an a new version of D&D. But when compared side by side with 4e, it is more in line with my wants for "D&D" flavored play than 4e is. My group tends to play and treat 4e like a board game, and the focus is always on the pawns and the battle mat. We never broke that barrier and saw the diversity that I see spoken about by those that speak about the system in a positive light. Thats certainly not saying that this diversity and freedom does not exist. My groups just never found it with 4e.

But thats all gravy. There is a D&D flavored product in print that my group really digs from both a system and a flavor standpoint. So we went there. Is it the perfect D&D Utopian play experience? Nah, but its good enough to hold the interest of my groups, and the debate over which system to go with has been solved. One group plays a 3.x game, and my main group is playing Pathfinder. And it has been my experience that large pieces of 3.x have made it into play in our PF game, and streamlined PF mechanics are sneaking into the 3.x game. So despite 3.x and Pathfinder being two different versions of a ruleset from two different companies, they are becoming almost synonymous in the eyes of 3.x/ogl community that I lay down the dice with.

And thats cool for everybody. Its kind of strange having two different editions of D&D flavored stuff in print and being actively supported at the same time in the limelight.But I think its situation in which everyone wins.

love,

malkav

 

[fuzzlewump]

Pop quiz role playing. The mechanics tell you what happens and you invent a justification.

My preference is that you decide what you want to do and the mechanics simulate the outcome.

It has nothing to do with trouble. It is just a question of whether it is more fun for the mechanics to control the narrative, or the narrative to control the mechanics.

I would agree that 4E is mechanics first then narrative if and only if there was no choice in power selection. If you think "Come and Get It" doesn't fit your character, then you don't pick it! No need for 'justifying' anything if you don't want to. A problem arises if you can't find any power to suit your narrative thought, but more than likely that's just stubbornness more than anything.

Basically, you come up with a narrative idea, then search through the powers to find a mechanical outcome suitable for the idea. The great thing about 4E is that if you're not sure, the powers themselves, the names and flavor text, are good inspiration.

But, if you were forced to play a certain character, with all the choices already made for you, what's the problem with imagining how a power unfolds? And also, the mechanics first then narrative 'thing' can be applied to any edition of D&D. I do think it's a fair criticism of D&D in general, but it also structures the game in such a way to promote smooth gameplay to those of us who aren't impromptu actors and/or creative writers and story tellers.

 

[tyrlaan]

And also, the mechanics first then narrative 'thing' can be applied to any edition of D&D. I do think it's a fair criticism of D&D in general, but it also structures the game in such a way to promote smooth gameplay to those of us who aren't impromptu actors and/or creative writers and story tellers.

Spoken truly. You need to skip over to a system like HERO, where you decide what power you want and then build it, before you find deep support for narrative/special effect driving the mechanics.

On a different note, why do people think 4e is the end of the Vancian system? When I look at 4e, I see a whole bunch of classes, every single one using a Vancian system. Saying the mage isn't a mage seems backwards to me, when I'd argue instead that everyone is a mage. At least mechanically ;-)

 

[BryonD]

I would agree that 4E is mechanics first then narrative if and only if there was no choice in power selection. If you think "Come and Get It" doesn't fit your character, then you don't pick it! No need for 'justifying' anything if you don't want to.

No, this is not the point I'm making. My point has nothing whatsoever to do with CoGi. It is about encounter based powers in the first place.

Basically, you come up with a narrative idea, then search through the powers to find a mechanical outcome suitable for the idea. The great thing about 4E is that if you're not sure, the powers themselves, the names and flavor text, are good inspiration.

You are talking about character creation. I am talking about game play. As has been described above, the narrative in actual play MUST be adaptable to the circumstance. Which is fine. But you can't claim that the narrative idea is established when the power is selected and at the same time insist that it is only reasonable to expect to vary the justification as needed. Which is the point I was responding to.

But, if you were forced to play a certain character, with all the choices already made for you, what's the problem with imagining how a power unfolds?

Nothing is implicitly "wrong" with it. But, by the same line of thinking nothing is wrong with spending the evening playing poker or Guitar Hero instead of playing D&D. If you want to play D&D, then Guitar Hero is not going to do it for you. If you want to play a role playing game in which the mechanics follow the narrative rather than leading it, then the 4E structure isn't going to do it for you.

And also, the mechanics first then narrative 'thing' can be applied to any edition of D&D.

The difference in prevelance of this structure in 4E as comapred to other editions is quite overwhelming. I don't think a valid claim of anything remotely equitable could be made.

I do think it's a fair criticism of D&D in general, but it also structures the game in such a way to promote smooth gameplay to those of us who aren't impromptu actors and/or creative writers and story tellers.

Again, I'm fine with you prefering it, just as some people would prefer to play GH. I'm just saying it is a difference that makes it a lesser option for many people, just as it makes it better for others.

 

[Ourph]

If you want to play a role playing game in which the mechanics follow the narrative rather than leading it, then the 4E structure isn't going to do it for you.

It seems to me that if the player doesn't want the narrative to go in the direction that certain mechanical choices suggest, he can simply not choose those choices. If CaGI doesn't fit with the narrative of the moment, the player can simply choose a different power to use.

I just don't see how 4e is constraining in the sense you're talking about.