Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Nikosandros]

and once the queen starts yelling "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!" it'll all go downhill fast.

I thought that happened when you roleplayed with a deck of playing cards...

 

[Jack99]

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.

When you start of by saying things like "I am not sure I like 4e anymore", I am pretty sure that you are not having as much fun as I.

With that said, I do actually have a few things I do not like either, about 4e. One of them is the economy and the other being the magic items. I have "fixed" that problem by removing all creation of items and potions (thus giving me back the control of what is in the campaign) and custom making all magical items. In general, better items with more powerful effects (as opposed to more options), but fewer of them. I wanted to use inherent bonuses, but a couple of players felt strongly about that, so I let it go (for now).

Cheers

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What I don´t like is that you usualy say: I use power ... and put my mini there...

I always freaked out when a player said: "i use the stealth skill to go there unnoticed" instead of: "i sneak there trying to remain unnoticed"

And I catch myself putting monsters here and there instead of describing the action... and this is when i stop liking 4th edtion.

 

[Beginning of the End]

These are a lot more arguable. Specifically, I think you're undervaluing what 4e can bring to the table. There are some aspects of D&D playing that, IMO, 4e does better than any previous edition. There are some aspects that 3e does better. There are plenty that 1e/2e do better, too.

Honestly, I have yet to see anything that 4E does well that you couldn't do equally well in previous editions. If you're looking for an out-of-the-box default of "this entire campaign will be played at the mid-level power range from previous editions", 4E gives that to you. But doing that in previous editions required about 10 seconds of house ruling ("roll up 6th level characters and I'll be awarding 1/10th the normal XP"), and that still gave you a wider range of supported play styles.

One of the reasons 3E continues to get played at our tables is that our circle of gamers isn't unified in its taste: Previous editions of D&D weren't a one-size-fits-all solution, and were thus capable of catering to a wider and more diverse audience.

But like I say: If the 4E designers chose your sweet spot, then you're in luck. They did a great job of addressing that one style of play. And you don't have to worry about anyone with different tastes mucking it up for you.

 

[Gort]

Honestly, I have yet to see anything that 4E does well that you couldn't do equally well in previous editions. If you're looking for an out-of-the-box default of "this entire campaign will be played at the mid-level power range from previous editions", 4E gives that to you. But doing that in previous editions required about 10 seconds of house ruling ("roll up 6th level characters and I'll be awarding 1/10th the normal XP"), and that still gave you a wider range of supported play styles.

One of the reasons 3E continues to get played at our tables is that our circle of gamers isn't unified in its taste: Previous editions of D&D weren't a one-size-fits-all solution, and were thus capable of catering to a wider and more diverse audience.

But like I say: If the 4E designers chose your sweet spot, then you're in luck. They did a great job of addressing that one style of play. And you don't have to worry about anyone with different tastes mucking it up for you.

I disagree.

 

[MrMyth]

Honestly, I have yet to see anything that 4E does well that you couldn't do equally well in previous editions. If you're looking for an out-of-the-box default of "this entire campaign will be played at the mid-level power range from previous editions", 4E gives that to you. But doing that in previous editions required about 10 seconds of house ruling ("roll up 6th level characters and I'll be awarding 1/10th the normal XP"), and that still gave you a wider range of supported play styles.

I disagree. Seriously, even taking your suggestion at face value - playing a balanced game at 6th level indefinitely clearly can't compare to playing a balanced game over 30 levels of character advancement.

I'm not sure what you think 4E fans like, but an unchanging 6th level game isn't it - it is the benefit of having an entertaining and balanced game that still lets us play average heroes who eventually become epic movers and shakers. Or a game where we can focus on our character concepts without worrying about that crippling our characters in combat. Or a game where we can try out crazy things in combat without the DM needing to stop the game for half an hour and consult rulebooks.

Now, I'm not saying earlier editions couldn't potentially offer all this, or that 4E alone is able to present these things. But these are all elements that 4E offers and many fans enjoy, and I think your view of the game seems to completely disregard them.

One of the reasons 3E continues to get played at our tables is that our circle of gamers isn't unified in its taste: Previous editions of D&D weren't a one-size-fits-all solution, and were thus capable of catering to a wider and more diverse audience.

Similarly, I've seen 4E games played purely hack-and-slash, and 4E games focused on roleplaying and intrigue. I've sat down at LFR tables where people just wanted to show off their cool powers, tables where they wanted to experience the next part of the regional story-arc, and tables where people spent half the session cracking jokes and playing word-games with faeries in the woods.

The LFR examples are particularly compelling for me, since I recall how I saw a lot of people driven away from Living Greyhawk as it grew more and more focused on just being about the challenge and the power-game. Now, that was admittedly not just due to the 3rd Edition rules, but also the design of LG itself - but the fact remains that WotC tried to learn from their previous mistakes in their presentation of LFR. And in my personal experience, they have definitely succeeded in presenting an environment that welcomes a lot of different types of gamers in a way that LG had trouble with.

In any case, I think every edition has been able to be played in a variety of ways. I don't think 4E is any different. I don't even think the goal of 4E is to be any one thing, and there are certainly plenty of elements in the rules - and plenty of advice in the DMG (and DMG2) - that seems specifically designed to allow for multiple styles of play.

 

[bytor4232]

4E is okay. I played it a bit, but I didn't like it more than 3E, and certainly don't like it more than 0E and 1E, my games of choice. I would probably play 4E if WOTC ever made good on the online game table. Thats what I was most excited about, and it seems like 4E was tailored around online play. Its a shame they never got that online game table thing off the ground. That would sell me on 4E, big time.

I was waiting to jump on the bandwagon, it just never went down my street.

 

[renau1g]

I disagree.

I agree with Gort's disagreement.

 

[Barastrondo]

I'm not sure what you think 4E fans like, but an unchanging 6th level game isn't it - it is the benefit of having an entertaining and balanced game that still lets us play average heroes who eventually become epic movers and shakers. Or a game where we can focus on our character concepts without worrying about that crippling our characters in combat. Or a game where we can try out crazy things in combat without the DM needing to stop the game for half an hour and consult rulebooks.

Now, I'm not saying earlier editions couldn't potentially offer all this, or that 4E alone is able to present these things. But these are all elements that 4E offers and many fans enjoy, and I think your view of the game seems to completely disregard them.

This is well said. Really, the appeal of any one game is never going to be one central element: it's going to be a combination of elements. 4e is good if you like game balance and you also prefer 30 potential levels of balance to 5-8. It is not good if you like a wide variety of levels to play through but prefer a more dramatic shift of empowerment across those levels.

Every opinion on a game is best thought of as a checklist. 3e will check a greater number boxes of priorities for some players, 4e for others. These boxes might be things like "this game reminds me of my favorite gaming days in my youth" or "my wife loves this edition and I don't like sleeping on the couch". Everyone's checklist is different. And it is such a colossal waste of time to try to focus on one particular box and act as though it shouldn't be on someone else's list -- or that it is the entirety of someone else's list.

 

[keterys]

"my wife loves this edition and I don't like sleeping on the couch".

One of my player's (who happens to be the wife of another player) doesn't like guns. She's all good with fireballs and arrows and catapults or whatever, but guns (and gun-like derivatives like phaser rifles) are an instant turnoff where she's no longer playing.

And oh yeah does that weed out a lot of game systems and rule supplements.

Sometimes it's hard to predict those boxes.