Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Mercurius]

I know it's a hard thing to do, but if Character Builder is the problem, why not just throw away Character Builder? Once you have a house rule that can't be worked around when using the Character Builder, then just disallow it's use.

I suspect one of two things would happen. Either your group would find ways to use both the house rules and CB at the same time (perhaps just by pencilling in the changes on the CB character sheet), or you will lose the dependence on CB.

If it was just me, I would, or I would include it as optional--and that is probably what I'll end up doing. But the group, comprised of mainly casual players, doesn't have the same issues I have with it afaik, and I think enjoy CB (as do I).

I'm just starting the project of not only figuring out how I want to customize 4ed, but what an "ideal version of D&D" would look like to me. I might transition my group into that eventually, but it would be a gradual process. Depending upon how different it is from the 4ed RAW, CB may or may not be usable in th end.

Sorry that I lost you. It means that I am having a lot of fun, and I hope you find a way to have that too, nothing else.

Good luck

But I am having fun, and I do enjoy 4ed. Actually, the way I am not having as much fun as I would has less to do with the rules system itself, and more to do with group dynamics--but that is another discussion entirely.

In some ways my beef is less practical and more aesthetic. I enjoy RPGs both to play, but also as an artform in their own right, and the discussion and inquiry into what could almost be described as the "Epistemology of RPGs."

But I am realizing that there are a few small to moderate things that I could tweak to increase my (and hopefully the rest of the group's) enjoyment, that would lead to deeper immersion, more magic, wonder, spontaneity and fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm just starting the project of not only figuring out how I want to customize 4ed, but what an "ideal version of D&D" would look like to me. I might transition my group into that eventually, but it would be a gradual process. Depending upon how different it is from the 4ed RAW, CB may or may not be usable in th end.

You could consider telling your players that:

* They are not getting treasure bundles ala 4e. They get what they find, and if they find more, or find less, that is up to them.

* Not all encounters will be scaled to them. They need to be willing to scout, to run, etc.

* It will be up to the players to choose balanced encounters. Little risk means little reward. Larger risks bring larger rewards. Deciding what you can handle is part of the game.

* The world abounds in minor artifacts. You can't buy them in a shop.
(Then crack open the 2e Encyclopedia Magica and go to town. 4e-ify anything you like, and let "balance" hang.)

* Characters no longer level in lock-step.

Then go to the 4e rules forum, and find some ways to shorten the combat grind.

This should cover 90% of what ails 4e (IMHO)



RC

 

[JediSoth]

4E was out for nearly a year before I finally bought the books and started to run a game of it (so I guess I was never actually on the bandwagon). I loved the ease of prep on the GMing side, but I was surprised how "swingy" combats could be, depending on the mix of characters. (e.g. a handful of regular monsters with many minions - no wizard = LONG combat, 1 wizard = MUCH shorter combat, because the wizard was the only capable of mass damage). Some of my players felt stifled by the lack of RP rules; they felt 4E was only about combats, despite my efforts to try to lead them into RP situations. The lack of non-combat options in their powers tended to make them feel that combat was the ONLY options for their characters (which is more a play-style incompatibility with 4E than a flaw in the system itself, I think).

The game was fun while we play it, but it never really felt like D&D to me. It felt more like a fantasy superhero game.

I played it for the first time at Gen Con '09. I didn't care much for my experience, which, admittedly, was probably due to the DM and the scenario (a con game tourney module). It really soured me on the game.

I haven't played or run 4E since.

I'd give it another shot as a player, but not vanilla. Maybe Eberron or Dark Sun when it's available. I'm not sure I want to run it again. I don't really care much for the system as a game for fantasy gaming.

I really wish the online tools were available for something like Pathfinder. The ease of game prep is the hardest thing to give up.

There was a time when I lamented the loss of all the third party support for D&D, but now, I think the fragmentation of the base, as it were, is a good thing. There are so many new and different games out there now, it makes me feel like I did in the 80s: so many awesome games and too little time to play them all (though it sure was fun trying).

 

[malkav666]

Mercurius,

My own position resonates with your in many ways. I was on board with 4e from the beginning (was even a regular poster on the wotc forums waiting for new info each day until the general negativity of the edition warring there soured me to the place). When the game came out I had my books day one and by the end of the first week of release my group was romping through keep on the shadowfell having a great time. We actually played through the first 4 published 4e modules, and even started the DDI track (the rivenroar module and the one immediately after it).

My own groups disenchantment started off kind of slow and did not happen at the gaming table. We started talking about some of the other games and campaigns we had been in over the years (some of use have been playing D&D together since we were 10, so our group has been together for a long time as some of us just started popping year 30 this year) and decided to try and convert one of our older campaings over to 4e and dust off some old characters that needed to get back in the game. The conversion was a nightmare and almost nothing remained of the orginal characters but their names and the names of their classes for most of them. But we plodded on and tried the campaign and started to realize slowly that we (meaning our group, not the system) just were not able to play the way we used to with the new rules.

Over the next few months their enthusiam for the system just kind of dwindled. We played it for a good solid year and had some good times, but around the time we were playing our third and 4th characters my players started complaining of all the classses feeling the same, and all of the monsters feeling the same, and eventually it led us to take a break from 4e for a little while. We finished off a high level 2e game that had another chapter in it, and then when my turn to run came back up we revisited our 3.5 evil campaign and played through another adventure I had designed for that group.

After those two adventures which took about 5 months to finish my group got together and we made the descision to leave 4e on the shelf for the long term (I still have my D&D 4e adventures and I still buy more of those types of products every now and again, with the intent of doing a blast through them one day as we all still own the books). We went back to 3.5 and played there for a bit, when Pathfinder was released we picked it up and gave it a whirl using Monte Cook's Dungeon-a-day as the testing ground for it, and eventually decided to start a campaign. We have two rotating campaigns using the system going right now. We are about to start the 5th module in Age of Worms in one of the campaigns and are on the second module in a very modified homebrewish Rise of the Runelords campaign in the the other.

3.5/Pathfinder is a heavier system for sure and sometimes we need a break and we do some boardgaming during those breaks (right now we are starting each session off with an encounter or two of the WHFRP 3e mini campaign we are playing, it takes about an hour and is very boardgamy and my group enjoys it in those increments).

All in all I don' t think 4e is a bad system it just turns out it was not for us. I suggest if you are feeling disenchanted to try something else for a bit. Maybe play some games your group alrready owns for a few sessions and then take a look at whats out there and come to a concensus as a group as to what you want to try next.

love,

malkav

 

[Mercurius]

You could consider telling your players that:

* They are not getting treasure bundles ala 4e. They get what they find, and if they find more, or find less, that is up to them.

I've already been doing this, mainly because I started running the game before I read the part about parcels.

* Not all encounters will be scaled to them. They need to be willing to scout, to run, etc.

* It will be up to the players to choose balanced encounters. Little risk means little reward. Larger risks bring larger rewards. Deciding what you can handle is part of the game.

Already done.

* The world abounds in minor artifacts. You can't buy them in a shop. (Then crack open the 2e Encyclopedia Magica and go to town. 4e-ify anything you like, and let "balance" hang.)

I'm thinking of differentiating between "enchanted" or "glamoured" items, those that have plus bonuses or minor magical effects--like most in the game--and artefacts of varying degrees of power, but are more unique, powerful and interesting (and in my world, game form the high civilization that existed before the magical apocalypse that just ended).

I might even throw something in like any enchantments are temporary; that is, the +3 sword you buy in the Ye Olde Magick Shoppe will fade over time--that the ability to make permanent magic items has been lost.

I'm still thinking on it. The point being, I don't have a problem with being able to buy magic items in shop(pes), but I want to bring magic and mystery back to them.

* Characters no longer level in lock-step.

Level in lock-step? What do you mean?

Then go to the 4e rules forum, and find some ways to shorten the combat grind.

Yes. I'm thinking of applying the, what is it, -33% monster HP, +25% PC damage, common house rule. Or just reduce monster HP by up to half.

This should cover 90% of what ails 4e (IMHO)

For me it covers about 70%, but still doesn't touch powers and a couple other minor things.

 

[Scribble]

My next campaign is going to do away with magic items. I'm going to go with inherent bonuses, and legendary/divine boons, as well as some grandmaster training... (AKA visit the ancient monk on the hill to learn the power of the whirling blade...)

I'm going to make artifacts the real "magic items" in the game, and possibly only use martial classes, with rituals being the only way to cast "spells."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Levelling in lock-step is an artifact of WotC-D&D that assumes all PCs are of the same level.

Powers I can't help you with (at least not within the confines of 4e).

Best of luck!


RC

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have the same problem with the CB. Well, not the same exact problem because I refuse to use it. I like using house rules too, and from what my players tell me the CB makes using them too bothersome. The CB might make things a bit easier, but I'm old school in this regard -- I believe in pen and paper, and that anything a computer can do I can do equally or better.

Another thing about the CB is that while it is cheaper than buying a bunch of books, I don't actually have the books. Which is an issue for me, because for whatever reason I just don't like reading books on a screen. I want to hold it in my hands. Also, I don't know if WotC has said anything about this, but what happens to all those virtual books when the next edition comes along? I suspect they'll go the way of the dodo.

 

[Infiniti2000]

...I believe in pen and paper, and that anything a computer can do I can do equally or better.

Can you compute pi to 2.7 trillion decimal digits?

 

[Scribble]

Can you compute pi to 2.7 trillion decimal digits?

Yeah I did that once, I beat the computer too, but then I died of a heart attack.

Oh wait no that wasn't me, that was John Henry, and he built a railway through a mountain. I think he hated sandbox games or something.