FWIW, this describes me. Turned off by powers and treasures at first, but quickly grew to love the game in implementation. For me and our group, 4E is a DM's best friend, which in turn makes the game more enjoyable for the other players.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Falling off the 4ed bandwagon
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
FWIW, this describes me. Turned off by powers and treasures at first, but quickly grew to love the game in implementation. For me and our group, 4E is a DM's best friend, which in turn makes the game more enjoyable for the other players.
Verdande
First Post
I understand your pain. I, too, was excited by 4e for a good long while. Matter of fact, I picked up the Player's Guide and then, shortly thereafter, the other two books as well. I loved the little details, the smoothing over of the entire game, the way that suddenly everything made sense and fit into the game world, unlike that unholy abomination 3e, where the basic game world didn't make sense and it tried to have a flavor that didn't fit the game rules, and all of that niceness.
The thing I didn't like, though, was that I play rules-light games where I make things up and use DM Fiat like it's going out of style. I make up enemies off the top of my head and also magic items and enemies, and it actually felt like 4e was against that sort of thing.
My solution, honestly, was to get into retro-clone gaming. It takes a modern sensibility and applies it to the fast-and-loose rules of the earlier era. Most people that I play, for example, Labyrinth Lord with like the fact that there are so few rules and special abilities and all of this crazy-ass stat-tracking that we can sit down, whip up a character in fifteen minutes, and have slain a dungeon full of orcs and stirges and zombies where we spent a good two hours making characters in 3e and 4e.
In a nutshell- if you like homebrewing, sandbox play, and the old-school feel go for a retroclone. I did, and I don't regret it.
The thing I didn't like, though, was that I play rules-light games where I make things up and use DM Fiat like it's going out of style. I make up enemies off the top of my head and also magic items and enemies, and it actually felt like 4e was against that sort of thing.
My solution, honestly, was to get into retro-clone gaming. It takes a modern sensibility and applies it to the fast-and-loose rules of the earlier era. Most people that I play, for example, Labyrinth Lord with like the fact that there are so few rules and special abilities and all of this crazy-ass stat-tracking that we can sit down, whip up a character in fifteen minutes, and have slain a dungeon full of orcs and stirges and zombies where we spent a good two hours making characters in 3e and 4e.
In a nutshell- if you like homebrewing, sandbox play, and the old-school feel go for a retroclone. I did, and I don't regret it.
Mercurius
Legend
Piratecat, that is a great suggestion--I will institute that during the next session.
Jack99, you had me until you said "...as much fun as I do." My goal is not to have as much fun as you or anyone else--heck, we have no way of comparing how much fun we have--but to optimize my own experience, and that of my group. But it isn't only that, or perhaps even mainly that--it is also a matter of aesthetics.
dvorak, I have no idea what "Cihys" is.
Perram, your point about House Rules highlights one of the main issues; I too have always houseruled every edition I've played, yet for various reasons it seems harder to do so with 4ed, mainly because of the convenience of Character Builder. I'm going to look at how I can change, through House Rules, my main areas of concern, and then go from there.
Filcher, good point. And don't get me wrong: I love D&D, I just don't love 4ed or any other edition.
Dice4Hire, I hear you and agree. One thing I appreciate about pretty much every edition of D&D is that it says jsut that: "Bend and break it until it is yours." I do wish they gave that option with Character Builder.
Jack99, you had me until you said "...as much fun as I do." My goal is not to have as much fun as you or anyone else--heck, we have no way of comparing how much fun we have--but to optimize my own experience, and that of my group. But it isn't only that, or perhaps even mainly that--it is also a matter of aesthetics.
dvorak, I have no idea what "Cihys" is.
Perram, your point about House Rules highlights one of the main issues; I too have always houseruled every edition I've played, yet for various reasons it seems harder to do so with 4ed, mainly because of the convenience of Character Builder. I'm going to look at how I can change, through House Rules, my main areas of concern, and then go from there.
Filcher, good point. And don't get me wrong: I love D&D, I just don't love 4ed or any other edition.
Dice4Hire, I hear you and agree. One thing I appreciate about pretty much every edition of D&D is that it says jsut that: "Bend and break it until it is yours." I do wish they gave that option with Character Builder.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
I cannot speak at all to my experiences with 4e since I haven't had any yet (I bought the books when they came out, but haven't found a gaming group willing to give it a whirl, and so haven't even finished looking through them), but I have a question reagarding the Powers issue you have: what was your experience with earlier editions?
In earlier editions combat could be dull, repetetive actions; Fighter/Cleric: I attack with my [weapon x]. Mage: I cast [appropriately powered spell], Rogue: I work around to a flanking position to get my sneak attack damage.
It seems to me like the powers may not be a problem as such, but your hopes and expectations for the powers are not coming to pass, and so you feel disappointed. In what way do you feel Powers are a step back from earlier editions, rather than being a tool that did not work as you hoped?
In earlier editions combat could be dull, repetetive actions; Fighter/Cleric: I attack with my [weapon x]. Mage: I cast [appropriately powered spell], Rogue: I work around to a flanking position to get my sneak attack damage.
It seems to me like the powers may not be a problem as such, but your hopes and expectations for the powers are not coming to pass, and so you feel disappointed. In what way do you feel Powers are a step back from earlier editions, rather than being a tool that did not work as you hoped?
At the root of it, the differences you are talking about exist because the 4e designers' vision of D&D wasn't very expansive.
First of all, let's make this clear- people play pen and paper RPGs for a reason. It doesn't have to be a good reason, or an interesting one. But there has to be something that such games give them, that they cannot find from other areas. PnP RPGs are a niche product- they have a limited value to the minority of the population (although I think this has alot to do with how they are produced/marketed, not necessarily the content).
I believe we play pnp RPGs because they are collaberation/imagination engines- they allow each participant to add his own intentions, interests, and experiences to the pool. The appeal of pnp RPGs is that the play experience is calibrated for the individual- he gets what he wants (be it power, fame, success, or freedom).
3e's inherently inclusive nature (the OGL & core mechanic) meant that it could draw from many genres and influences to augment it's own core rules. I suppose the argument could be made that these influences watered down D&D- made it less D&Dlike- but then that begs the question "What is D&D"?
Obviously it isn't something in the mechanics- it isn't the classes, levels, or experience charts. Those change radically between editions... it isn't ac, thac0, or percentile roles- it's something disconnected from the actual rules of the RPG.
I think the thing that makes D&D unique, and is inherent to its nature is a feeling of fellowship, an adventurous spirit, and a sense of wonder.
The feeling of fellowship is usually derived from a sense of shared risk, and how differences among the individuals become a strength- the group can accomplish more than the individual.
The adventurous spirit is usually derived from how the PCs perceive themselves in respect to their world and environment. They don't know what lies around the corner or beyond the sunset- and they want to. Curiousity drives them. This aspect of D&D isn't something you can give players- you can only reward it.
The sense of wonder is derived from unreal experiences, new experiences, and the unknown. It's challenging old thinking, rewarding lateral thinking, and seeing things in a new light.
Taken in this light, D&D's emphasis on swords & sorcery, dragons & dungeons seems contrived. Fellowship doesn't have to be party-based, wonder can be found in a teacup, and an adventurous spirit is something that can be cultivated by challenging your preconceptions in any form.
Really, though, the reason 4e feels "off" is because the designers' intentions didn't account for these things. They confused D&D's subject matter with its purpose. They confused their own playstyles with some kind of universal constant. They narrowed its focus, limited its scope. You say 4e is "watered down". No, it's just very concentrated- but its a concentration of features you don't associate with your own experiences of D&D.
First of all, let's make this clear- people play pen and paper RPGs for a reason. It doesn't have to be a good reason, or an interesting one. But there has to be something that such games give them, that they cannot find from other areas. PnP RPGs are a niche product- they have a limited value to the minority of the population (although I think this has alot to do with how they are produced/marketed, not necessarily the content).
I believe we play pnp RPGs because they are collaberation/imagination engines- they allow each participant to add his own intentions, interests, and experiences to the pool. The appeal of pnp RPGs is that the play experience is calibrated for the individual- he gets what he wants (be it power, fame, success, or freedom).
3e's inherently inclusive nature (the OGL & core mechanic) meant that it could draw from many genres and influences to augment it's own core rules. I suppose the argument could be made that these influences watered down D&D- made it less D&Dlike- but then that begs the question "What is D&D"?
Obviously it isn't something in the mechanics- it isn't the classes, levels, or experience charts. Those change radically between editions... it isn't ac, thac0, or percentile roles- it's something disconnected from the actual rules of the RPG.
I think the thing that makes D&D unique, and is inherent to its nature is a feeling of fellowship, an adventurous spirit, and a sense of wonder.
The feeling of fellowship is usually derived from a sense of shared risk, and how differences among the individuals become a strength- the group can accomplish more than the individual.
The adventurous spirit is usually derived from how the PCs perceive themselves in respect to their world and environment. They don't know what lies around the corner or beyond the sunset- and they want to. Curiousity drives them. This aspect of D&D isn't something you can give players- you can only reward it.
The sense of wonder is derived from unreal experiences, new experiences, and the unknown. It's challenging old thinking, rewarding lateral thinking, and seeing things in a new light.
Taken in this light, D&D's emphasis on swords & sorcery, dragons & dungeons seems contrived. Fellowship doesn't have to be party-based, wonder can be found in a teacup, and an adventurous spirit is something that can be cultivated by challenging your preconceptions in any form.
Really, though, the reason 4e feels "off" is because the designers' intentions didn't account for these things. They confused D&D's subject matter with its purpose. They confused their own playstyles with some kind of universal constant. They narrowed its focus, limited its scope. You say 4e is "watered down". No, it's just very concentrated- but its a concentration of features you don't associate with your own experiences of D&D.
Last edited:
Hi Mercurius,
Over the past 2 weeks I have had many of the same feelings you have, though some of our points of contention with 4e may be different.
The quandry I find myself in, is, being unsatisfied with the current edition yet previous editions also feel lacking because certain aspects of 4e are a great leap forward and going back to previous editions will leave me unsatisfied. For example, I love the new racial powers, I like the increased options that players get when making character and I like that martial characters can do more than just swing a sword X times a round. Movements and tactics are also great.
On the flip side with the advent of feats that give mathematical bonuses, I have players choosing those over any sort of character design - The recent silo-ing thread talks a lot about how 4e should have gone a lot further in silo-ing combat and non combat abilities. Powers seem to act like blinders (which, btw, I like PirateCats idea and will have to try this) and the powers don't go far enough in using class build to really make them feel different - by this I mean that only some fighter powers take weapon usage into account, and lastly, there are usually 2 powers that stand above the others on each level and 2 powers that stand below leaving many classes of different builds with similar powers. This may come down to style but if my game style is always the same then the hierarchy of power selection will largely be the same.
Feeling frustrated, I've been reviewing old editions for what I like and don't like and have begun work on what I like to call "The Definitive Version of D&D" blending elements from several editions. It's still in early creation and is a ton of work.
Maybe we should start a support group!
Over the past 2 weeks I have had many of the same feelings you have, though some of our points of contention with 4e may be different.
The quandry I find myself in, is, being unsatisfied with the current edition yet previous editions also feel lacking because certain aspects of 4e are a great leap forward and going back to previous editions will leave me unsatisfied. For example, I love the new racial powers, I like the increased options that players get when making character and I like that martial characters can do more than just swing a sword X times a round. Movements and tactics are also great.
On the flip side with the advent of feats that give mathematical bonuses, I have players choosing those over any sort of character design - The recent silo-ing thread talks a lot about how 4e should have gone a lot further in silo-ing combat and non combat abilities. Powers seem to act like blinders (which, btw, I like PirateCats idea and will have to try this) and the powers don't go far enough in using class build to really make them feel different - by this I mean that only some fighter powers take weapon usage into account, and lastly, there are usually 2 powers that stand above the others on each level and 2 powers that stand below leaving many classes of different builds with similar powers. This may come down to style but if my game style is always the same then the hierarchy of power selection will largely be the same.
Feeling frustrated, I've been reviewing old editions for what I like and don't like and have begun work on what I like to call "The Definitive Version of D&D" blending elements from several editions. It's still in early creation and is a ton of work.
Maybe we should start a support group!
Perram
Explorer
Maybe you should break away from the character builder?
Keeping up with a character as it levels up using just the compendium and the books isn't that hard, the only really troubling part will be copying things over by hand the first time.
It is convenient, but it seems the be the big issue holding you back.
Keeping up with a character as it levels up using just the compendium and the books isn't that hard, the only really troubling part will be copying things over by hand the first time.
It is convenient, but it seems the be the big issue holding you back.
Storminator
First Post
You can have all kinds of house rules - just not ones that affect character creation. Don't monkey with the progressions or powers themselves, just change how they work at the table.
Frex, we have a rule that a minion gets a save vs death against any damage. No change to the minion stats, just a change to when we remove it from the grid.
PS
Mercurius
Legend
That's not quite what I meant, or rather it is part of it but I'm talking more about the capacity to go "deeply" into the imagination, to immerse oneself in what Tolkien called a Secondary World. But it is specifically about the process not just the outcome, which is where my issue with a lot of 4ed's trappings comes: the process seems kind of mechanical and simulative, like a computer game.
I mean, I enjoy some crunch to my rules, I'm a bit of a numbers nerd, but I also want the numbers to be flexible and secondary--as supportive--to the imagination, rather than formative. I'm not sure if that makes any sense.
Maybe you are right to some extent, although I do like cinematic, over-the-top play, maybe just not quite as much. I'm not into anime, wuxia, or any of that. I can get into playing demigods at high levels, but it has to seem special. If everyone's doing flying triple thunderstorm-powered jumpkicks at early levels it just doesn't seem so special.
Good idea, but the time! However, this gives me a thought: My group meets every other week and we've talked about having another session alternating the OTHER every other week, which could be more explorative in terms of other RPGs. Hmm...
Yes, agreed. Hey, you're in Boston, right? That's just an hour and a half away--maybe I'll have to come to one of your game days (is it you that has the game days?).
Yes--there is definitely something to be said about the actual implementation, that 4ed works well at what it does. And because of my recognition of this, I'm thinking that it wouldn't take a huge amount of work to tweak it just right to satisfy my needs.
I've thought of going the retro-clone route, although I do really like the post-d20 mechanics better: the streamlined core engine without a different sub-system or table for every little possible rule. Labyrinth Lord is your favorite retro-clone? I wish someone would write a "Guide to Retroclones..." (hint, hint).
I've got to agree, here. Gamer default psychology makes powers into limitations, but the 4E rules explicitly provide ways to use them in whatever creative or free-form fashion one desires - it simply is a matter of getting people into the right mindset.
Similarly, magic items aren't less exciting than they were in the last edition - the problem is mainly that they look that way when presented without much background, alongside dozens of similar items. Either add more flavor, or fiddle with the items themselves to make them more exciting. (But be careful - I did just that, and realized that lots of fiddly little benefits from an item means lots of fiddly little bonuses that never get remembered or used.)
I'm certainly not saying you have to take this approach of course, or that there is any fault for not doing so - but I think a lot of the problems you have can be solved by house rules, which the system very much allows for. Maybe not the Character Builder, but that's a bonus tool on top of the system itself, not an enforcer of the rules. (And many of these issues can be dealt with without dealing with it at all.)
Similar Threads
