I do agree with how Bullgrit feels. I play monthly, and I make a point of thinking of 4E as a separate game to DnD. That way I can enjoy it unhindered by my desire for a different feel. I think I'd enjoy 4E more if it was used for shorter campaigns and more frequent character changes.
I've experienced D&D4
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
- Status
It's a perfectly plausible belief if the person claiming it has only played one previous edition of D&D. However some people appear willing to claim that the major rules changes in 4e mean it isn't D&D any more. The same people are willing to say that when 1e came out divorcing class and race, when 2e developed kits and Players Options, when 3e came out and trashed the traditional saving throw development, well those major rules changes don't make a difference to whether it's still D&D or not. From from certain points of view this appears blatantly illogical.
Windjammer
Adventurer
Oh, I don't think anyone in this thread, including the blogpost referenced in the OP, propounded on the 'true nature' of anything much really.
We live in a time where a plethora of entertainment products are available. Heck, if you hate a DVD ten minutes in, chances are you kick the eject button and try another DVD or regular TV.
Or take my gaming group. Collectively we own over 200 boardgames, more than we can realistically game in any foreseeable time, and that's even before we factor in that several dozens of these games come with expansions (which we own) or scenario booklets or both (like any FFG board game today). Which means the diversity and replayability factor of these games is enormous and that's useful when you start to like one of them.
So let's be realistic here, Merric. No guy is going to try a boardgame for more than one session if he doesn't like it when there's so much joy to be had elsewhere. What the guy shouldn't do, otoh, is write a review of the game on Boardgamegeek.
I guess it's the latter which rubs you the wrong way here ('true nature of game' and all). But seriously, I think it's the former in the case of the OP, and it's also the former in 95% of the cases when someone brings up that dreaded conclusion 'the game wasn't for us'.
Finally, I've got plenty of friends for whom 4E was love at first sight. I wasn't one of them (it was more like, on third or fourth sight). But hey, for every guy who turns away from the game after one session there's another who will be hooked on this game after one combat for years to come.
Last edited:
If you examine the entirety of context, you'll find that most people are not saying that 4Ed isn't D&D, but rather, that 4Ed isn't D&D for them- they just don't use those 2 qualifier words (intentionally or not). It doesn't correlate with the expectations they had for the game, regardless of whichever system they started with or how long they'd been playing.
The rules changes between previous editions were, for them, not a problem. The previous big big big change from 2Ed to 3Ed was eased by the existence of a conversion guide. 4Ed had no such thing, and there were comments by the designers that you shouldn't even bother converting. You should start new campaigns.
That's not a revision, that's a break.
I came to D&D with Advanced D&D, and picked up the softcover books about a year after I'd been playing. The changes were significant, but I could relate to the earlier version with no problem.
When 2Ed came out, there were changes. Kits, though, were not part of the basic revision- they didn't show up until the softcover expansions came along. It is quite possible to play 2Ed without using Kits- I know because we did so for 90% of the 2Ed campaigns we ran. The basic rules were similar enough that running a 1Ed/2Ed hybrid was effortless, and really, only half-orc PCs had any significant revision issues between the base rules of the 2 games.
3Ed? Yes, quite a change, but as stated above, there was a conversion guide. Nothing fundamental to 1Ed or 2Ed character design was eliminated. Certain aspects were expanded, though, and some of the math changed (like Strength bonuses). The most radical PC change I went through with a conversion was dropping Ranger levels from a Rgr/Druid/MU (a combo sourced from Dragon mag)- everything he could do in 2Ed with those 3 classes was possible as a 2 classed PC with the use of Feats. The spirit of the PC was unchanged.
But 4Ed? Radical mechanics changes (multiclassing, marking, surges, etc.) + elimination of classes from the initial release + elimination of races from the initial release + fluff revision + no conversion guide = plenty of ticked off gamers. Fully 70% of my 2Ed or 3Ed PCs were not constructible under the base 4Ed rules. Other guys in my 2 main groups had similar issues: the PCs they wanted to convert or create simply didn't exist in the pages found in the 4Ed PHB.
Simply put, the game didn't support our preferred playstyle for D&D. Thus, in a very real sense, 4Ed isn't D&D for us.
Nifelhein
First Post
I sympathize with Bullgrit but I'm of the opposite persuasion. I avoid posting in the 3e/Pathfinder forums because really I have nothing positive to say about what I now consider the absolute worst incarnation of D&D ever. I just don't like to dog on someone else's choice of systems. I only bring it up now because its relevant to this discussion.
When 3e first came out, I thought it was brilliant. Like trading in my broken down 2e beater for a sleek sexy and sporty new car. But after playing it for 8 years, I slowly became disillusioned. Mechanical systems that I thought were great at first, like monsters following the same rules as PCs, began to lose their luster in actual play.
Over the 8 years of 3e's life, my love became like, then slowly became frustration and exasperation. House rules bandaged over some of the flaws, and by the time 4e came out I pretty much viewed 3e with utter disgust. Like a vampire, it literally sucked the joy of the game out of me. I used to live, eat and breathe D&D when I played 1st and 2nd edition. But with 3e, D&D stopped being fun and started being work. And games are supposed to be fun. For some its a funny internet meme, but 3e really did kill my inner child. And I still haven't fully recovered.
I agree with Bullgrit that 4e is a different game than all the prior editions of D&D. It is different. And thank heaven that it is. In my opinion, its a far better game because of it.
But I feel for those of you who feel that 4e is no longer the game they recognize as D&D. I feel for you, because thats how I felt until 4e came out.
But unlike before, we now have a plethora of published options to suit all D&D tastes (queue Three Amigos jokes!). 4e, True20, Fantasycraft, Pathfinder, or OSRIC, and more. I think its fantastic they we can all now freely play the supported ruleset that appeals to us instead of being forced to play one or the other because its the only game in town.
Can you please stop the mind reading thing?
I have to say that was my very experience with 3rd edition and it is exactly how I feel about 4th.
Don't get me wrong I do feel nostalgic, I started playing AD&D 2nd edition, since then I managed to play many older incarnations of the game and while I could see what people appreciated those every time I go back an edition or try a system out of nostalgic feel I get the same feeling of the times I go back and try old Atari games, NES games or even SNes games.
They were good, I had loads of fun with them, but that was then, because of those games, of what they had that was good and of because they had that was bad I have come to require more. They just can't deliver the same experience to me any more.
Sometimes I wish I could play the same old game and still like it like I used to. I can't, but luckily I don't have to.
As for Bullgrit, I have the utmost respect for your post here and that blog post, first you talk more about not wanting a war than about what you posted there, second you tried the game before voicing an opinion. I agree that reading a system can tell me if I can enjoy a game of it or not, I read enough of them, I read enough books, I played enough games to take style, rule design style, rule complexity and tone and theme from reading.
Finish that adventure, try to have fun and when the time comes, go back to the games you enjoy, gaming time is too short to spend on games you don't enjoy.
Cyronax
Explorer
I used to vacillate between my love of 3.X and 4e, as well as wish Star Wars SAGA had fantasy rules, but all that seemed to fade away last August. Probably the biggest reason is that I downloaded the WotC's Adventure Tools' Monster Builder. I finally 'got' the math behind the monster design rules.
I could kind of see what the designers were going for by reading the DMG monster design rules, but it wasn't until I de-leveled an Epic level monster down to 7th or 8th level for use in my low-level heroic tier campaign that I really saw how much easier most of the rules had become again.
It made DMing so much more entertaining than it had been in 3.X. It also gave me free reign to guiltlessly throw my players against monsters that used to be fought by only the much higher tiers.
For instance, my party of six 6th characters has been battling a lich as a recurring villain since their 2nd level in the campaign. The lich is powerful, but beatable for lucky and prepared heroic level characters.
That being said, my biggest gripe with 4e is that it still has a lot of 'fiddly bits' (to use a term I read in another thread) -- i.e. too many tiny +1 power bonuses that people have to keep track of.
I also tend to get annoyed by certain powers (most prominently certain Zone effects), but that's usually because my players won't thematically describe what their powers actually look like to the NPCs or to the rest of the group. This was a problem in all editions, but its more pronounced in 4e, because there are now too many powers (vice more easily remembered spells) for the DM to keep track of.
I could kind of see what the designers were going for by reading the DMG monster design rules, but it wasn't until I de-leveled an Epic level monster down to 7th or 8th level for use in my low-level heroic tier campaign that I really saw how much easier most of the rules had become again.
It made DMing so much more entertaining than it had been in 3.X. It also gave me free reign to guiltlessly throw my players against monsters that used to be fought by only the much higher tiers.
For instance, my party of six 6th characters has been battling a lich as a recurring villain since their 2nd level in the campaign. The lich is powerful, but beatable for lucky and prepared heroic level characters.
That being said, my biggest gripe with 4e is that it still has a lot of 'fiddly bits' (to use a term I read in another thread) -- i.e. too many tiny +1 power bonuses that people have to keep track of.
I also tend to get annoyed by certain powers (most prominently certain Zone effects), but that's usually because my players won't thematically describe what their powers actually look like to the NPCs or to the rest of the group. This was a problem in all editions, but its more pronounced in 4e, because there are now too many powers (vice more easily remembered spells) for the DM to keep track of.
catsclaw227
First Post
Clearly, Gothmog, you haven't tried really good sushi.
Hunter In Darkness
First Post
I did not mean to imply it was limited to 4e, however 4e seems to bring it out bad. Not only must you read, play at lest a year and then if you don't like it you get 'try options x, that really smooths it out" or the like
I really get the vibe from a large part of the 4e online community (in the places I post anyhow) that there is simply no reason not to like 4e. If you dislike it then your just being closed minded or have not played it enough.
I don't mean that all 4e players think like that, but it is a very common theme I am seeing online. Reinforced in this very thread by more then one poster.
catsclaw227
First Post
Holy Smokes! When I ran Age of Worms, and my group was only 13th level, Spire of Long Shadows, we couldn't do more than a couple encounters (maybe 3 MAX) in a 6 hour session. Now, we like RP, but it didn't take up THAT much time.
sheesh.... even after 30+ some years DMing, I must really suuuuuuuuck. Could anyone else get through 4-6 encounters in mid-high level AoW adventures? Now I am genuinely bummed...
JeffB
Legend
I sympathize with Bullgrit but I'm of the opposite persuasion. I avoid posting in the 3e/Pathfinder forums because really I have nothing positive to say about what I now consider the absolute worst incarnation of D&D ever. I just don't like to dog on someone else's choice of systems. I only bring it up now because its relevant to this discussion.
When 3e first came out, I thought it was brilliant. Like trading in my broken down 2e beater for a sleek sexy and sporty new car. But after playing it for 8 years, I slowly became disillusioned. Mechanical systems that I thought were great at first, like monsters following the same rules as PCs, began to lose their luster in actual play.
Over the 8 years of 3e's life, my love became like, then slowly became frustration and exasperation. House rules bandaged over some of the flaws, and by the time 4e came out I pretty much viewed 3e with utter disgust. Like a vampire, it literally sucked the joy of the game out of me. I used to live, eat and breathe D&D when I played 1st and 2nd edition. But with 3e, D&D stopped being fun and started being work. And games are supposed to be fun. For some its a funny internet meme, but 3e really did kill my inner child. And I still haven't fully recovered.
I agree with Bullgrit that 4e is a different game than all the prior editions of D&D. It is different. And thank heaven that it is. In my opinion, its a far better game because of it.
But I feel for those of you who feel that 4e is no longer the game they recognize as D&D. I feel for you, because thats how I felt until 4e came out.
But unlike before, we now have a plethora of published options to suit all D&D tastes (queue Three Amigos jokes!
My experience as well- except it only took me about 3 years to fall off the 3.X/D20 bandwagon. Its the ONLY version of the D&D game I really dislike and gets my vote for "it's not D&D to me".
Bullgrit, Kudos for giving 4E a try. Its not for you, and it's really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, despite all the posturing and arguing that goes on around here. It's a silly game of make believe- play the vesrion you like best
- Status
Similar Threads
